Another Dutch Islam critic assasinated: Filmmaker Theo van Gogh was stabbed and shot today by a Dutch-Maroccan man. Van Gogh had made a documentary about abuse of women, which made a lot Dutch Muslims angry. One of them angry enough to kill him.

This is the first I've heard of Theo van Gogh, and I have no idea what he stood for. The press has given him the meaningless label "controversial", which I'm still waiting for a good definition of. For all I know he's a raving fanatic, though I doubt it.

But it doesn't matter. A European was assasinated for criticizing Islam. As a European who has criticized Islam, I find that scary. So should anyone who believes we need to focus on the dark side of Muslim immigrant culture: Oppression of women, and apologism for terrorists.

Now we see the price some people will pay for that effort. These are the stakes. Do we as Europeans want a society where millions of women live in oppression, and where extremist groups preach violence against their own countries, or do we want the fundamental rights and ideals of our culture to include all citizens? We'll have to fight for it, with the same tools we fought to establish these rights in the first place - with open inquiry and rule of law. Many will oppose that, and this is how some of them will react.

We should acknowledge that, then continue as we were, speaking our views as the free citizens we are.

He is not the first, and will not be the last. Once again the "Religion of Peace" shows its true colors. Europe needs to open its eyes and take care of the cancer growing in its mist. No, I'm not talking about killing or repression -- all you folks have to do is be honest and speak out against Islamic ideology. The fact is that Islam is not, and never was tolerant. Not in the sense the West uses. What Muslims mean when they say their faith is "tolerant" is that they will not kill you if you submit and be quiet and accept to be a third class citizen. If you criticize their culture, their religion or the murderer/slaver/pedophile they follow (PHUASS)you could get killed. How sad! How pathetic.

I'm sure now every one will want to see the film he made.

John Edwards: Once again the "Religion of Peace" shows its true colors.

You're being ridiculous. What is the definition of "true colors"? Refers to something that is essential, right? Something a lot of Muslims have in common. Most Muslims in Europe do not kill their critics. Almost nobody does. People like this assasin are part of the problem - but to claim that they're typical of Islam is factually dead wrong, at least for the typical definition of "typical".

I don't see why the case against Islam has to be overstated. Isn't it enough to point out, factually, that a lot of Muslim women are oppressed, and that many Muslims are apologists for terrorists? Why take the extra steps to claiming that assasination of critics is the true color of Islam, when you must know that this isn't true?

I remember a right wing Dutch politician, Pimm or something like that, was also recently assassinated for speaking out against Muslim immigration. Who would have believed that intimidation and murder would be used against Europeans that question Muslim immigration policies and assimilation problems. I suppose killing people that disagree with you is one way to make sure that everyone agrees with you. Unfortunately my guess is that this story will be quickly buried and the good citizens of Holland will be able to go back to sleep secure in knowing that these were only right wing radicals that were killed. Correct thinking Europeans have nothing to fear as long as they keep thinking correctly and don’t step out of line.

One more thing. I want to make it very clear that violence is NOT acceptable. Muslims should have the same rights as all people, no more and no less. They should also be made to respect our laws. All you have to do when talking to Muslims or when in a public meeting about Islam is to make it clear that as long as Muslims discriminate and oppress people in countries where they dominate, they are a bunch of dishonest hypocrites and they deserve absolutely no respect. Period. If the people do that, and demand that their leaders speak up about this, then things will improve for all - even for Muslims. Just because Muslims live a lie doesn't mean we have to accept it. We must demand that Muslims -- particularly those in the West -- be responsible for all actions everywhere done in the name of Islam.

I am very dubious about the integrity of Muslims in the West, in the sense I don't see a real committment for equality and democracy. I have a feeling that if Muslims were a majority in any Western country, it would not be a pretty picture. One thing is for sure, Muslims want to be known as peaceful and tolerant, they just don't want to actually have to be peaceful and tolerant.

So, take your Political Correctness and shove it up Big Mo's rear end.

"People like this assasin are part of the problem - but to claim that they're typical of Islam is factually dead wrong.."

On the contrary, criticism of Islam or apostasy from Islam is a crime punishable by death in several Islamic countries.

The word "assassin" has Arabic/Islamic origins.

To say that an "essential" characteristic of Islam is revealed by this act is not too far off the mark.

Of course you are right, Born. And I wish more people were like you -- speaking out for freedom for all. It is true that most Muslims are
peaceful people. However, they are also people who are mostly silent about the issue we are talking about. Sure they condemn murder, but somehow it doesn’t make any difference. It is as if it is a game that Muslims play: kill, condemn the killers, everything is fine. That is why I make the actions of Muslims in Islamic countries the real issue, not what Muslims in the West do or say. When women, gays, Christians, Hindus, Jews and other minorities have the same rights as do Muslims, and when people are allowed to openly express their opinions and faith without fear, then we can dialogue with Muslims. When Mormons, Communists, Baptists, Buddhists and/or Lesbians can openly parade down the streets of Cairo, Amman, Tripoli or Riyadh, or preach, or hand out literature, then Muslims can take a seat at the table of the civilized world.

The fact is that I went to many meetings on Islam
after Sept 11, and it was always the same politically correct story: Islam means peace, bla, bla, bla. The West has to do more, to be more understanding, etc... and more bla, bla, bla. Here in my state they even invited a local Iman – from Saudi Arabia no less – to
lecture the public on how tolerant Islam is. These people have no shame. So picture an Islamic Wahhabist from Saudi Arabia teaching and preaching about tolerance to the American public. It was a scene that would have made Fellini proud.

Thats it... I have to go vote.

I condemn strongly his murder, this is not the way to tell people that this man was indeed a piece of shit.

He did not criticize Islam, he INSULTED Islam, for many muslims anyone who dare insult islam will be killed straight away.

You can criticize Islam, that is your right but you cant INSULT Islam, this is MY right.

PS: I see Bjorn was very quick to start a thread about the murder of this ' piece of shit' but he did not start any thread about the MURDER of 200+ Muslims in Thailand last week !!!

I have just about no interest in criticising Islam as a belief system (or any other religion) except in general non-judgmental abstract contrastive terms.

But I feel that Moslems and thier behavior are fair game (just like any other group) and you have to willfully blind or stupid to not realize that a number of Western European countries have created a dangerous underclass that's largely, though not entirely, moslem.
The fault lies in a combination of poor judgement and a refusal to realize whether or not they want to be, they are in fact immigration destinations and better act accordingly.
A generation of young Moslems have been encouraged to not integrate or educate themselves in any meaningful way (I don't consider memorizing a religious text to be education) and as a result are unemployable, dependent on welfare and resentful of the fact.
There's some indication that some countries are in fact trying to improve the situation but a lot of damage has been done already.

In this case, the young man needs to be dealt the harshest punishment available in Netherlands law (probably pathetic).

And the movie needs to be seen .... widely. The message needs to be clear and unambiguous, this kind of attempted censorship has _no_ place in a civilized country.

Ex-Christian: You can criticize Islam, that is your right but you cant INSULT Islam, this is MY right.

Actually, that depends on which country you live in. In Norway, blasphemy is illegal but the law is ignored, and would die the moment anyone tried to revive it. Which means that I, at least, have a right to insult Islam. It is my right. And I suspect Theo van Gogh was well within his rights in "insulting" Islam (or whatever he did) in Holland.

I see Bjorn was very quick to start a thread about the murder of this ' piece of shit' but he did not start any thread about the MURDER of 200+ Muslims in Thailand last week !!!

I didn't have anything to say about that. I took note of it, because it was important, but I have absolutely no background information to hold it up against. I don't do news, I do commentary. If I don't have anything to say that I feel is worth saying, I won't, even if the subject is really important.

"this man was indeed a piece of shit."

your tolerance is awe inspiring. consider me stunned.

"He did not criticize Islam, he INSULTED Islam, for many muslims anyone who dare insult islam will be killed straight away."

So you're saying that many muslims are incapable of living in a civilized society? If they're so pathetic that something trivial like an insult to their religion drives them to murderous rage then I don't want them in any country I'm living in.

"You can criticize Islam, that is your right but you cant INSULT Islam, this is MY right."

It's your right to insult Islam? Are you sure that came out right?

"Ex-Christian, now Muslim" wrote:

"I condemn strongly his murder, this is not the way to tell people that this man was indeed a piece of shit.

"He did not criticize Islam, he INSULTED Islam, for many muslims anyone who dare insult islam will be killed straight away."

Do the readers of this weblog realize, that the poster "Ex-Christian, Now Muslim" just made a covert death-threat against all of us?

Anything we say, do or write -- anything at all -- he might interpret as an "insult", and then he thinks he has divine permission to murder us.

Just because of how he feels. Because "being insulted" is a subjective emotion (often connected to "not having a sense of humor", very common among fanatics of all stripes).

I calmly await my death at the knife-wielding hands of "Ex-Christian, Now Muslim". When they find my corpse, you know who to look for.

(Just kidding. Please don't stab me to death, Mr. "Ex-Christian, now Muslim", it would be such a terrible thing to do, and my mother would be so upset to see my bloodstained dead body...)

-A.R.Yngve
http://yngve.bravehost.com

Bjørn, Consider the Satanic Verses controversy

The publication of The Satanic Verses in 1989 caused controversy in the Fundamentalist Muslim world, due to its irreverent depiction of the prophet Muhammad. On February 14, 1989, a fatwa promising his execution was placed on him by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the leader of Iran, calling his book "blasphemous against Islam". Furthermore, Khomeini condemned Rushdie for the crime of "apostasy" – i.e. attempting to abandon the Islamic faith – which according to the Hadith is punishable by death. This was due to Rushdie's communication through the novel that he no longer believes in Islam. Khomeini called on all "zealous Muslims" to execute the writer, as well as those of the publishers of the book who knew about the concepts of the book. On February 24 Khomeini then placed a three-million-US dollar bounty for the death of Rushdie

How about this tolerance:

In 1991 the Japanese translator was murdered and in 1993 Rushdie's Norwegian publisher was wounded in an attack outside his house.

One has to separate the people following this so called religion from the ideology itself. The vast majority of the people are good. However, it's not accidental that a larger percentage are evil than the normal percentage of criminals in other societies.

Any group that kills people who leave the group is in fact a cult. Where did Mohammedanism come from?

"The Great Heresies," by Hilaire Belloc (1870-1953)

Mohammedanism was a heresy: that is the essential point to grasp before going any further. It began as a heresy, not as a new religion. It was not a pagan contrast with the Church; it was not an alien enemy. It was a perversion of Christian doctrine. Its vitality and endurance soon gave it the appearance of a new religion, but those who were contemporary with its rise saw it for what it was – not a denial, but an adaptation and a misuse, of the Christian thing

ok, but how did Mohammed manage this?

Mohammed was a camel driver, who had had the good luck to make a wealthy marriage with a woman older that himself. From the security of that position he worked out his visions and enthusiasms, and undertook his propaganda. But it was all done in an ignorant and very small way. There was no organization, and the moment the first bands had succeeded in battle, the leaders began fighting among themselves: not only fighting, but murdering. The story of all the first lifetime, and a little more, after the original rush the story of the Mohammedan government (such as it was) so long as it was centred in Damascus, is a story of successive intrigue and murder

From what I can tell, it looks like Mohammed was a terrorist who used some Catholic ideas to gain power and wealth. It looks like the Quran has a bifurcation: the good and evil in one book. The good is the Catholic part, peace and brotherhood. (There are evil christians, but they can't find support for their evil in the Gospels) So, Mohammed added his own commandments, like "kill infidels". So both sides of Islam find support for their view of Islam. Cat Stevens has verses about peace, love and understanding (although he agrees with killing Rushdie), and the Osama types can point out evil verses to their young recruits.

For more info: http://www.faithfreedom.org/Quran.htm

from the "The Great Heresies":

It was remarkable among all the powers which have ruled these lands throughout history for what has wrongly been called its "tolerance." The Mohammedan temper was not tolerant. It was, on the contrary, fanatical and bloodthirsty. It felt no respect for, nor even curiosity about, those from whom it differed. It was absurdly vain of itself, regarding with contempt the high Christian culture about it. It still so regards it even today

Ex-C, your response is totally predictable, so don't even bother.

Maybe Senor Yngve could carry on enough of an exchange in Swedish to establish if EX-C really is an ethnic Swede as claimed in the past?

Many have doubted his designation since he doesn't seem to have what you'd call a western mindset and doesn't seem to know the first thing about Christian doctrine.

It wouldn't be conclusive, but if he can produce native level Swedish in a timefly fashion, it would increase his credibility ....

Do the readers of this weblog realize, that the poster "Ex-Christian, Now Muslim" just made a covert death-threat against all of us?

Anything we say, do or write -- anything at all -- he might interpret as an "insult", and then he thinks he has divine permission to murder us.

Of course he did. It should not be a surprise. The problem with a lot of people is that they compartmentalize. They can talk about big or faraway issues, and disconnect them from their personal lives. They don't integrate concepts into a conceptual whole. So, they can talk about 9/11 as some faraway abstract concept, part of history now. Just a political issue in a large country that is a great big reality show, a soap opera for your amusement. Separated by time, distance or compartmentalization, it just makes for intersting blogging, eh?

But consider that a little girl jumped over a fence and ran to a drinking fountain, because she hadn't had water for 3 days. These monsters riddled her with machine gun bullets...

Go to this link,

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_110104/content/rush_is_right.guest.html

Ignore the words (you can't vote anyways), just get real close to the picture, and imagine...

Imagine that person's family, without even remains to bury. Imagine if your child died at the hands of these people.

The lines at the polling booth close to ground zero were really long. Hopefully, they agree with Mike Moran:

Having lost his brother and 12 colleagues in the trade center, Moran said: "In the spirit of the Irish people, Osama bin Laden, you can kiss my royal Irish ass."

I also know nothing about Theo van Gogh - he is apparently the victim of an insane person acting for incoherent reasons - but the reasons given by a lunatic should not be taken as automatic condemnation of all those to whom a similar label can be attached. Drawing conclusions from the lunatic's religion is nonsense. There have been, and still are, unfortunately, plenty of lunatics of all stripes. Hitler does not make all Germans evil, Sharon does not make all Jews evil, and so on.

I think that Islam has been made to appear a greater threat than it really is, and is therefore becoming a greater threat than it need be in our European societies, for reasons which have nothing to do with religion - all of this murderous controversy has come about over the last thirty years or so as a result of the antagonism created, not by Islam on its own, but by the tension between Islamic nations and colonial expansion by Jewish and Christian entities acting in the Middle East. Whether or not the European culture may be considered a Christian culture - many would disagree - it remains true that the people of Europe are required to obey the laws of the country they live in - whether they are of that nationality or not. This is not, and should not be, negotiable. On that condition, everyone has the right to practise their religion freely. But it becomes wearying to note the current, constant, media-propagated marginalisation, not to say demonisation, of Muslims, who, as if by chance, also happen to be the proprietors of the lands and the wealth which the West presently covets. It requires no great stretch of the imagination to understand why Muslims might be angry with the West at the moment. They could easily find faults with "Christianity" in their turn, since so many Christians are acting in total contradiction to Christian principles. But the true problem has nothing to do with religion. Public opinion is being quite deliberately stirred up for political motives - Hitler did the same. Saying this does not imply defence of religious creed, however - neither one nor the other.

Allow me to include a note about religions which I posted earlier elsewhere on this site.

We know that the religious experience is common to human beings from all cultures ever since records have been kept - human beings feel or sense a truth, a plane of existence that can not be expressed in words, can only be hinted at - it may then be recognised by others who have their own approach to a similar experience. In most cases, the major religions are an attempt at expressing what seems to be basically the same truth. The cultural and historical environment may make for apparent and superficial differences in the basic form of these religions - the name used to designate the Supreme Being, for example, and the various modes of prayer - but all seem to agree that there is ONE Supreme Being, that we are ALL connected directly to that Being, and as such we ALL have equal dignity and deserve equal respect. It is the power structures invented to support these religious truths which cause problems, because a power structure first of all operates in order to preserve power. Since power seeks to take precedence over the will of others, it can be argued that this is the primary departure from the religious truth it purports to defend. According to the story, Christianity began with the teachings of Jesus, which were apparently reported and translated more or less efficiently - various interpretations have demonstrably been used ever since as a form of mass mind control as much as a set of guidelines for a productive life. I'm not qualified to speak for Islam and Judaism, but I would assume, human nature so far having been what it has been, that the same errors were made by the religious leaders of these two major religions. I've spoken with Muslims and Jews about this, however, and they assure me that violent imposition of one doctrine over another has no part in their religion as they understand it, on the contrary, they speak of respect and brotherhood. In fact, just as in Christianity, love is the word which arises most often. Until you feel love, you've no idea what it feels like - movies and songs and other people's stories may be interesting approaches to it, but until it happens to you, you don't have a clue. As soon as it happens, as I sincerely hope it will for us all, then you know what it is - and nobody can tell you that you must feel this, that, or the other. It's your experience, and it's up to you to express it as you wish - nobody would argue with that, I think, so what the fuck is all the noise about religion for? It's the same thing. It's a unique and personal experience, and no-one else has any rights over it whatsoever. The present mess in the Middle East is not truly a problem of religion, it's a question of colonialism. Islam seems to crystalise the motives of many of those who feel they have a right to defend themselves and their brothers against imperial aggression. There are without doubt some evil men who are prepared to use "Islam" as a means of forwarding their own power agenda - just as there are evil "Christians" - some gravitating around and manipulating the US power structure - and also evil "Jews" who manipulate the state of Israel, amongst others. Insofar as we get caught up in those lies and power games, we become victims of and parties to the current chaos. We may become victims of it anyway, of course, by virtue of a car bomb or a "smart" bomb, a "terrorist attack" or a "pre-emptive strike".

It seems to me that "love your enemy" is a daunting challenge, especially these days, but I feel it's still more worth while than "an eye for an eye."

Best wishes

Pete

Bjørn Stærk

''Ex-Christian: You can criticize Islam, that is your right but you cant INSULT Islam, this is MY right.

Actually, that depends on which country you live in. In Norway, blasphemy is illegal but the law is ignored, and would die the moment anyone tried to revive it. Which means that I, at least, have a right to insult Islam. It is my right. And I suspect Theo van Gogh was well within his rights in "insulting" Islam (or whatever he did) in Holland. ''

In the same token, in most muslim countries I have the right to kill anyone for insulting Islam, it is my right..it is fair, isn't ?

You see Bjorn, the thing you guys fail to understand is how Muslims view their faith, you can criticize Islam but you CANT insult it ( apart from insulting it behind a screen ! )

try and insult Islam in front of a muslim face to face, and let me know what will happen.

I mean you wont accept someone telling you SON OF BITCH, will you ? so if you consider that an insult and it is unacceptable, why is it acceptable to insult Islam ?

''I see Bjorn was very quick to start a thread about the murder of this ' piece of shit' but he did not start any thread about the MURDER of 200+ Muslims in Thailand last week !!!

I didn't have anything to say about that. I took note of it, because it was important, but I have absolutely no background information to hold it up against. I don't do news, I do commentary. If I don't have anything to say that I feel is worth saying, I won't, even if the subject is really important. ''

Come Bjorn !! I know you have an agenda, when muslims are MURDERED in their hundreds, nothing appear in your blog but when muslims kill ONE westerner, it is all over the news !

WESTERN HYPOCRISY AT WORK AGAIN.

Human Rights Groups Urge Probe of Thai Muslim Carnage

http://www.islamonline.net/English/News/2004-10/27/article04.shtml

The Netherlands used to have a reputation for tolerance, but no more.
The assassination of Pim Fortuyn was not an isolated incident.
It's a shame.

Gunnar, Maryland

''Bjørn, Consider the Satanic Verses controversy ''

Salman Rushsie affair was a great example that illustarted deep rooted western hypocrisy when it comes to Muslim affairs !! first of all, his novel was a novel, it has no academic or investigative value at all, secondly, the fatwa issued against him was indeed stupid fatwa because it is this fatwa which made him a celebrity ! the muslim world was criticized for trying to silence him, I am wondering how many WESTERN SCHOLARS were silenced for daring to question the Holocaust ! look at these examples :

Teacher sentenced for denying holocaust

By Vanessa Medley

A TEACHER who told his pupils at a secondary school in France that the Nazi gas chambers were for disinfecting Jews was found guilty today of denying the holocaust.

http://www.fpp.co.uk/online/00/05/France150500.html

Holocaust revisionist sentenced

A court in Switzerland has sentenced a Swiss publisher to a year in jail for denying that millions of Jews were exterminated in gas chambers by Nazi Germany during World War II.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/708778.stm

Swiss Holocaust Denier Sentenced

One of the world's leading Holocaust deniers, the former Swiss school teacher Juergen Graf, was sentenced in July to 15 months in prison and fined $5,500 for violating Switzerland's anti-racism law.

http://www.tau.ac.il/Anti-Semitism/updates/i98026.html

So it is ok when the west oppresses and indeed IMPRISONS people for expressing their views but it is not ok for some muslisms to do the same !!!

Back to Rushdie, here is an Islamic analysis of his novel:

The Satanic Verses unexpurgated
by Ahmad Deedat

http://www.themodernreligion.com/assault/srushdie.htm

The more I read about the western hypocrisy when it comes to islam, the more attached I become to my great new faith.

HYPOCRISY RUNS TO THE BONES IN THE WEST.

Steve in Michigan

''The Netherlands used to have a reputation for tolerance, but no more.
The assassination of Pim Fortuyn was not an isolated incident.
It's a shame.''

But the assassination of this nazi ( Fortuyn ) was done by NATIVE WHITE DUTCH ! ( kind of divine punishment )

Michael Farris

''Maybe Senor Yngve could carry on enough of an exchange in Swedish to establish if EX-C really is an ethnic Swede as claimed in the past?''

Are you still at it ?? loooooooooool

I already made an offer to write in Swedish with native swedish speaker, but no one took the challenge !! so anyone here speaks Swedish ?

As usual, a sensible debate about Islam in the future of Europe started by Bjørn is soon reduced to a black-white fight between ex-Christian, who - as if what he says is not bad enough itself - is willfully misinterpreted and the typical anti-Islamic Joes out there.

Soon, Bjørn ends up being named "politically correct" because he protests against the idea that this is "the true colours of Islam". I do not know Bjørn personally, but I do know that he's hardly politically correct.

In Norway the anti-immigration Progress Party is becoming uncomfortably politically correct these days anyway, although they of course do not admit it and continue to sob about being overlooked at the same them as they're regular guests on political talkshows like TV2s Tabloid.

I do not think we should use any murder committed by a Muslim to raise a debate about Islam. This murder, like the murder on Pim Fortuyn (committed by a crazed environmentalist, not by a Muslim), is probably committed by a lone individual. Remember that debate about environmentalists and the future of Europe? I don't.

Since I happen to speak a bit of Dutch, here's my translation from an article about Theo van Gogh in the Belgian newspaper De Standaard - (my comments).

[...]He was a columnist for many Dutch newspapers and opinion magazines, wrote books like 'Engel' (Angel) and 'Sla Ik Mijn Vrouw Wel Hard Genoeg?' (Do I hit my wife hard enough`). When some of his columns was not published Theo established his own website - De Gezonder Roker.

Van Gogh was a successful director. He made over twenty movies, amongst these the movie '0605' about the murder on Pim Fortuyn. Currently he worked on the 'Cool', a movie where politicians Gerrit Zalm and Katja Schuurman had parts. For several of his movies he was nominated to the Dutch filmfestival (prices). Both '0605' and 'Blind Date' received a Golden Calf, amongst them for best direction. 'In het belang van de Staat' got a Golden Calf for the best tv-drama.

Gijs van de Westelaken, the producer of Theo van Gogh is bitter over the death of the movie maker. - There are no words, he says in a first reaction. Writer Ronald Giphart, the scriptwriter of the roadmovie 'Bad' can also not understand the murder. [...] - If it is true that van Gogh was murdered because of his opinions I do not find the Netherlands a nice country anymore, the Utrecht-based author writes. [...]

Theo van Gogh was not afraid of controversial opinions. He spoke very negatively over islam and concervative Muslims. Muslims were, amongst other things, angered by his movie 'Submission' made together with VVD (the Peoples Party for Freedom and Democracy) parlamentarian Hirsi Ali (well known Dutch ex-Muslim Islam critic). Several mistreated (beaten) women are shown in see-through costumes with their breasts are visible. On their bodies antifeminine Quran quotes are shown written in Arabic calligraphy.

- It can not be that two people are killed within such a short time because they say what they think, Giphart says over Van Gogh and Fortuyn. - This day is a huge defeat for those fighting for the free word, the writer continues. He looked at Theo van Gogh as a "brave, lovable and humoristic human being".

Also from the politics reactions are coming. The Dutch prime minister Jan Peter Balkenende expresses deep repulsion. - Our thoughts and compassion goes out to his family, friends and coworkers, he states. Queen Beatrix is also "chocked" [...].

Because the circumstances of the murder still are unclear Balkenende is careful with his conclusions: - I want to ask everyone not to draw fast conclusions. The facts must be carefully established. We must let the investigators do their work.

In a press conference he states that there is a "hardening climate" in the Netherlands. According to Balkenende it is terribly sad that people seek to violence. - This is a sorrowful day for the free word in the Netherlands, but violence will not get the last word in the Netherlands.

Balkenende refers to Van Gogh as a "forefighter for the free word". The prime minister says that the Netherlands is a country where people can voice their opinions openly.[...]

Øyvind

Gunnar, Maryland

You can rant and insult Islam the way you want, you are just a coward hinding behind a screen, I challenge you to say what you said about prophet muhammad face to face in front of a muslim !!

ex-C:

Quite a few of us are Norwegians. Norwegians understand Swedish :), so I guess you can prove your ethnicity to us. Anyway, I don't really care, I prefer to debate what people are saying instead of where they're coming from.

Øyvind

And so a filmmaker was killed for making a movie critical of how some muslims use Islam to abuse women.

His killer will of course be tried and sentenced to a few years in prison.

The Dutch authorities will mouth the usual and expected platitudes of how this will not and indeed must not hinder our cherished freedom of speech.

But the intended lesson I fear will be learned all the same.

I do fear that today ten authors/filmakers/artists who were planning to do a work critical of aspects of practised Islam, will halt, consider that they could be doing something else, something safer (like attacking the US), and quietly drop the planned book/article/play/movie/song.

And so the climate of fear spreads a little.

Michael Farris: Maybe Senor Yngve could carry on enough of an exchange in Swedish to establish if EX-C really is an ethnic Swede as claimed in the past?

No. As I said before this is off-topic and ad hominem. Just not relevant to any of his arguments.

Ex-Christian: In the same token, in most muslim countries I have the right to kill anyone for insulting Islam, it is my right..it is fair, isn't ?

You said I did not have the right to insult Islam. I do. So you're factually wrong. You think I shouldn't have that right, perhaps, but fortunately you're in no position to pass or enforce such a law.

I mean you wont accept someone telling you SON OF BITCH, will you ? so if you consider that an insult and it is unacceptable, why is it acceptable to insult Islam ?

In this context, "accept" means "not killing someone for it". That one Muslim didn't "accept" van Gogh's criticism of Islam, and that's what I'm objecting to. If he had just said openly that he was offended, that would have been a whole different matter.

Come Bjorn !! I know you have an agenda, when muslims are MURDERED in their hundreds, nothing appear in your blog but when muslims kill ONE westerner, it is all over the news !

I'm not the news. I don't have an obligation to cover important events, and if you think I have you've completely misunderstood what it is you're reading here. I have limited time and limited knowledge. Just one guy writing on my spare time about things that interest me. If you're not satisfied with what I'm able to produce, setting up your own blog takes about 5 minutes.

Øyvind

This ' piece of shit ' described our imams as ' Allah's pimps ' and women haters ! he made his movie in which semi naked woman was dressing revealing cloth with QURANIC verses under her breasts !! you know how insulting is that for muslims ??

This is NOT free speech, this is slander and insults, in some muslim countries, people get killed for this.

in fact, when the great muslim hero, Salahu addin ( saladin ) crushed the crusaders in Hitin battle in 1187 AD, he captured the kings of Europe who were in the defeated crusade army, one of the crusaders princes insulted prophet muhammad in the presense of saladin, saladin took his sword and choped his hand, but the insult was heard by other muslim commanders, so one of them hurried to the tent and killed this ' crusader ' for daring to insult our great prophet.

This is ISLAMIC traditon, dont insult Islam, for muslims, Islam is dearer than life itself.

Free speech does not mean to slander and insult other people beliefs and what they hold dear to their hearts.

As Europe is asking Muslims to accomodate to European way of life, Europe has also to accomodate to MUSLIMS sensibilites and standards, after all, Europe needs Muslims as much as muslims need Europe.

"This ' piece of shit ' described our imams as ' Allah's pimps ' and women haters ! he made his movie in which semi naked woman was dressing revealing cloth with QURANIC verses under her breasts !! you know how insulting is that for muslims ??"

You really can't imagine how little I care how insulting it is to them. Either they can get over it or go somewhere else where they'll be happier. Western Europe doesn't need specifically Moslem immigration. I'd say some controlled Chinese/Vietnamese immigration would do them just fine (and some immigration from eastern europe too). These groups are willing and able to assimilate and their home countries' educational systems are miles ahead of those of North Africa so they have that going for them too.
They also have the advantage of not being mentally unhinged (your own description of Moslems makes them sound as bad as anything LGF can come up with).

Bjørn Stærk

''You said I did not have the right to insult Islam. I do. So you're factually wrong. You think I shouldn't have that right, perhaps, but fortunately you're in no position to pass or enforce such a law. ''

No you DONT have the right to insult Islam, show me where in the Norwiegan law it says it is OK to insult islam ???

Do I have the right to insult your queen and burn your flag and defame your national symbols under the banner of FREE SPEECH ?

Do I have the right to insult YOU ?

Do I have the right to insult the victims of the holocaust and even deny the holocaust ? ( In some 'civilized' EU countries you go to jail for denying the holocaust !!! )

''I mean you wont accept someone telling you SON OF BITCH, will you ? so if you consider that an insult and it is unacceptable, why is it acceptable to insult Islam ?

In this context, "accept" means "not killing someone for it". That one Muslim didn't "accept" van Gogh's criticism of Islam, and that's what I'm objecting to. If he had just said openly that he was offended, that would have been a whole different matter. ''

The problem as I said earlier is your totall ignorance of the way muslims view their faith, Islam for all muslims are dearer than life, you can insult them, you can insult their countries but you never insult Islam, never.

''Come Bjorn !! I know you have an agenda, when muslims are MURDERED in their hundreds, nothing appear in your blog but when muslims kill ONE westerner, it is all over the news !

I'm not the news. I don't have an obligation to cover important events, and if you think I have you've completely misunderstood what it is you're reading here. I have limited time and limited knowledge. Just one guy writing on my spare time about things that interest me. If you're not satisfied with what I'm able to produce, setting up your own blog takes about 5 minutes.
''

The problem Bjorn is that you are contributing to the typical western hypocrisy when it comes to muslim affairs, try to be FAIR.

200 + muslims who were MURDERED last week in Thailand deserve some attention, dont you think ?

Michael Farris

''You really can't imagine how little I care how insulting it is to them. Either they can get over it or go somewhere else where they'll be happier''

This is OUR land, we are EUROPEANS and we are not going anywhere and we will fight for our rights HERE, we will defend our religion HERE and if you dont like it, you can back up and go back to Lebanon or wherever you you came from.

I just want to point out that I have not insulted Islam, so please don't kill me.

Thank you for not killing me.

-A.R.Yngve

Øyvind, Bergen

''ex-C:

Quite a few of us are Norwegians. Norwegians understand Swedish :), so I guess you can prove your ethnicity to us. Anyway, I don't really care, I prefer to debate what people are saying instead of where they're coming from.

Øyvind''

Hej Øyvind

Jag förstår inte denna hysteri om islam, och om mig. Har ni inget annat att göra????? Varför ska de ifrågasätta vem jag är, debattera istället det jag kommer med!
Deras hat gör mig mer extrem i mina åsikter, de är nära att skuffa mig över tröskeln och göra mig till extrem. Jag börjar känna det som om de vill ha en andra Förintelse, en som riktar in sig på muslimer denna gång. Förra veckan dödades mer än 200 muslimer i Thailand, men INGET skrivs och debatteras om dem. Idag dör EN muslim-hatare och redan hör vi att det uppmanas till våld mot muslimer på forum och hatsidor. Varför denna DUBBELMORAL?
Det måste finnas en skiljelinje mellan rätten att säga vad du vill och förtal.

Det är alltid trevligt att tala med dig, du är den man kan resonera med.

So, where's the debate about environmentalists and the future of Europe?

Anyway, here's how Dutch Muslims react to the murder (my translation from De Volkskrant - a major Dutch newspaper):

Almost forty Muslims in the Netherlands condemned the murder on Theo van Gogh in a common declaration Tuesday. According to them the attack on the filmmaker is an "unacceptable attack on the freedom of expression, the freedom of religion, the freedom that for makes life possible for all of us in this land".

The chocked leaders of Muslim organizations, social organizations and others state that van Gogh often criticized the multicultural society and Islam. - He did not hesitate speaking out. That he was violently siolenced is an attack on everyone in the Netherlands, the statement says.

Amongst the undersingers are members of parliament Albayrak (Labour - PvdA), Azough (Green - GroenLinks) and Örgü (Liberal Party - VVD), director Haci Karacaer of Milli Görüs and foreman Mohamed Sini of Stichting Islam en Burgerschap. Some non-Muslims have also put their name under the statement and the text will be posted on the Internet so that others may sign.

- The Dutch democracy has, once more, been seriously hurt, says director H. Karacaer of the Turkish social-religious group Milli Görüs, D. el-Boujoufi of the Moroccan Mosque UMMON and director M. van Diggelen of the Amsterdam Foreigners Centre.

Of course, these statements will be overlooked by those who prefer talking about "the true colours of Islam" and we will soon hear the mantra again "Where are the Muslim reacting against this"? It's a bit sad, really, that these Muslim voices have to come out saying this. Of course they are chocked. Every sensible person would be.

But some aren't. And the Ahmadiyya group quoted in De Volkskrant is right when they say:

Sadly we see that many Muslims do not act according to the teaching of Islam, and thereby give Islam itself a bad name. [Muslims should] share the love of Islam with everyone and help protecting the harmony of the Netherlands

And, while it is impossible to know whether the guy arrested was a lone nutcase or a holy warrior of jihadist Islamists, a fight against those "someone" is a fight that needs to be taken, as Bjørn says, "with open enquiry and rule of Law". That fight is much more important for Muslims than for anyone else.

Øyvind

A.R.Yngve, Sweden

''I just want to point out that I have not insulted Islam, so please don't kill me.

Thank you for not killing me.

-A.R.Yngve''

You are very welcome , as long as you are good boy and behave well with muslims, you are ok :))))

I just want to point out that in the US, we can insult religions, deny the holocaust, and burn the flag.

Free speech does not mean to slander and insult other people beliefs and what they hold dear to their hearts.

Yes it does. Well, ok, not the slander part.

Anybody remember Piss Christ? That artist is still alive. *Allah's pimps!*

>> something safer (like attacking the US),

Haven't you heard? The US just passed a law making insulting the US a "hate crime". US soldiers will come and kill you. You can criticize, just don't insult the good ol USA. Coward, hiding behind a screen. You people just don't understand how americans feel about the US. You can say anything you want, but insult the US, and you can be killed, without penalty.

>> typical anti-Islamic Joes & "the true colours of Islam"

I hope you're not implying that I'm anti islamic. I'm just interested in the truth. I started out with no prejudices about the matter. I went to a reach out meeting at a mosque, the governor of MD was there. The first guy condemned the attacks, the 2nd guy wasn't quite that clear. Since that time, I've been gathering information, mostly from ex-muslims. There is a great iraqi dentist who has a blog. He asserts that he is now finding out that everything that he has been taught about Islam turns out to be false. So bjørn and øyvind, my fellow norwegian vulcans, I think it's fair to judge a religion by what the leaders of that religion do and say. They kill people for "insulting" Islam, and leaving it. That is no religion, that's a cult.

>> Salman Rushsie affair was a great example that illustarted deep rooted western hypocrisy when it comes to Muslim affairs !!

How? To be hypocrisy, we would have say one thing and do another. The west doesn't kill people who disagree. The west took no position on Rushdie, other than to protect him. It's Islam that is hypocritcal: You claim to be tolerant and a religion of peace, but your leader tried to have Rushdie killed, and succeeded in killing the Japanese guy.

>> first of all, his novel was a novel, it has no academic or investigative value at all,

So? This seems to support our case.

>> secondly, the fatwa issued against him was indeed stupid fatwa because it is this fatwa which made him a celebrity !

Right, which supports our case as well. Your leaders are evil and stupid.

>> the muslim world was criticized for trying to silence him,

Right, because you have no right to silence anyone. That is fascism.

>> I am wondering how many WESTERN SCHOLARS were silenced for daring to question the Holocaust ! look at these examples

I would say "None were killed". Your examples prove that. The leaders of Christians, Jews, Hindus, etc have not threatened anyone with death for insulting their religion or for leaving that religion. The US has no laws against telling lies like this. It's a marketplace of ideas. However, Europe doesn't have a bill of rights to fall back on, so apparently, they believe they can stop anti-semitism by outlawing it.

You can rant and insult Islam the way you want, you are just a coward hinding behind a screen, I challenge you to say what you said about prophet muhammad face to face in front of a muslim !!

Yes, but Good people sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf. It's just a matter of time before these rough men of ours will find the tolerant, "man of peace" who beheads people, and then we'll sleep even better.

You are very welcome , as long as you are good boy and behave well with muslims, you are ok

I was once confronted with a criminal. The amazing thing was that he wanted credit for not hurting my family "I've been nice, I haven't pulled a gun on you and your family yet". I've thought about that as a common way for criminals to think. They think that what they do is good, no matter what, and if they choose not to do evil, they are doing people a favor.

AR Yngve, you are being a typical European: appeasement.

I just want to point out that in the US, we can insult religions, deny the holocaust, and burn the flag.

Free speech does not mean to slander and insult other people beliefs and what they hold dear to their hearts.

Yes it does. Well, ok, not the slander part.

That's right. But remember that it's only slander and libel, if it's not TRUE.

Slander: Oral communication of false statements injurious to a person's reputation

And it's only applicable to a person.

Ex-C said this in Swedish, so here's my translation and my response:

I do not understand this hysteria about Islam, and about me. Do they have nothing else to do? Why do they question who I am, debate instead what I am saying!

Their hate makes me more extreme in my opinions, they are near to disappoint me over the edge and make me extreme. I start feeling like they want another Holocaust, one targeting Muslims this time. Last week more than 200 Muslims were killed in Thailand, but NOTHING is written and debated about them. Today one Muslim-hater dies and we already hear that violence towards Muslims are encouraged on forums and hatesites. Why this double morale?

I think ex-C should not worry too much about the Muslim-haters, especially if that makes him go towards extremist ranks. I do not know if I would call van Gogh a Muslim hater, seems to me that he mostly attacked reactionary interpretations of the religion, but it does not matter, as ex-C clearly stated this is not the way to tell that someone is a piece of shit.

Of course, he shouldn't have said that. It does not matter. This is not something we want to see in our society, in the Netherlands, or - for that matter - anywhere else. Every political murder is an utterly sad event.

Ex-C, however, does have a point that all these attacks on Islam have a self-prophecy effect. When Muslims feel that they are loathed by their surroundings, they are indeed more likely to seek to extremist interpretations and variants of Islam. Ex-C, I have been disappointed by many of your statements here, some of them seem to suggest that you have taken up extremist ideas already and some of them can easily be regarded as outright threats. While you might be sarcastic, sometimes I get that impression, your sarcasm is not clear.

In the future, ex-C, I hope you will find inspiration in those of the holy scriptures of Islam that praise forgiveness and love. Keep in mind, as a wise man once said, about Mankind "Ye are all leaves on one tree and the fruits of one branch".

Or to say it as the Islamist Rachid Ghannochi, who asserts that it is the divine will that differences exist among humans. Such differences do not call for indignation or exclusion but for contemplation and complementation. Differences in belief, ethics or politics – just like differences in tongues and colours – do not justify the quet to eliminate them by force since that will violate one of the purposes of divine creation.

Øyvind

Theo Van Gogh was among the first to fall but he won´t be the last.

But the more they try to keep us from speaking - the more we should speak.

The freedom of speech is worthless without the guts to use it.

A few weeks ago a university teachers was attacked on the street here in Denmark - his crime ? Reading from the quran as part of a lecture.

People are increasingly gonna suffer such as Islam gain strenght and momentum in Europe.

Talking about it, condemning it, apologizing it, avoiding it all together won´t change that fact.

All those who threaten to, and use physical violence in order to silence the dissenting views of their crtics should be sentenced and jailed according to the appropriate legislation.

Dave.

"This is OUR land, we are EUROPEANS"

Then please act like it. I'll take your word for it now that your a Swede, sorry for doubting you.

But, talking of killing people for their religious beliefs (which you are implicitly defending) has no place in 20th century Europe.
I'd like to see a strong condemnation of the little thug that killed Van Gogh with no weasling about how he had it coming, because
HE DID NOT! and it's despicable to imply that he did.

Ex-C, however, does have a point that all these attacks on Islam have a self-prophecy effect. When Muslims feel that they are loathed by their surroundings, they are indeed more likely to seek to extremist interpretations and variants of Islam

øyvind, some perspective please. Appeasement never works. Good people don't turn bad just because you insult them. Real character is indicated by how one reacts to things. If Jesus is one of their great prophets, then what happened to "turn the other cheek"? The gangster Gotti once got out of his car and smashed the car behind him with a baseball bat. Now, was the guy who honked his horn at fault? or did Gotti have a character flaw: a propensity for violence.

Islamic extremists attacked first. America would leave the Islamic world alone, and never give it a second thought. But what was the first thing the Ayatolah did? He took Americans hostage for 444 days. They killed americans: Khobar towers, USS Cole, Embassies, OK City, TWA800, 9/11, Anthrax, flight 587, Bali bombings, beheadings, and a huge number of attacks in Russia, including Beslan, and many, many more. A town in Sweden has been taken over by Islamics, police won't even go in there.

For over three decades, terrorist organizations grew wealthy, they grew more deadly. Despite increasingly brazen attacks, American deaths were brushed off. Now, finally, the US is defending itself. The US is not the aggressor. The US didn't start this war, but it will finish it.

As Rush says of Freedom:

It is something that has to be fought for on a daily basis. It's something that far too many people take for granted. It is something that far too many people think that can be purchased with appeasement of enemies. You can't purchase peace with appeasement. I heard over the weekend, "You can only rent it for a while," but eventually you're going to have to make the buy. You're going to have to purchase peace. You don't get it because you want it. You don't get it because you bury your head in the sand and ignore it. You don't get peace, you don't continue the lifestyle of freedom and liberty that we in this country too often take for granted simply by wanting it more than the other guy.

You have to back it up and you have to defend it, and to defend it you have to recognize when it's under attack, and recognizing when it's under attack takes courage. Recognizing when we are under attack takes wide open eyes, takes honesty. Because once you admit, once you come to the intellectual decision, not emotional, once you come to the intellectual decision to admit, to understand that our way of life, that our freedom that, our daily existence as we've always known it is under attack, once you come to that conclusion, then there's only one option you have, and that is to defend it. We are under attack. The truth is that ... fanatic Islamists have been attacking freedom and Americans for over 20 years.

To insult Islam - that of course is translated into putting light on it´s dark sides as it´s view on women like Van Gogh.

"Do I have the right to insult the victims of the holocaust and even deny the holocaust ? ( In some 'civilized' EU countries you go to jail for denying the holocaust !!! )"

No you don´t but apperantly you have the right to say as Omar Bakri did and get away with it - But it seems that Europe is full of appeasers feeding the crocodilles hoping it will eat them last - thus we are going full circle back to the ignorance 1930´s europe.

I used to be in the appeasers ranks myself hoping and thinking that clash of civilations was pure propaganda and Islam was just another religion.

But the different in views is just as fundamentally different between the west and Islam as was it was between communism and western democracy if not even more so.

Your sensibilties we can live with indeed but your sentiment of being ideological superpower I for one would like to see backed in facts in a real working model for society that people actually largely thrive in.

Now utopians are utopians for good reasons.

They will claim "but a true communist regime was never really coming it was state fascism" or "it´s all evil propaganda - Stalin was a comrade".

And no failure in applying this faith to the benefit of the people, no appeasement, no toughness can change the fundament of this faith.

nly it´s rise not to glory but total failure like happened to nazism and communism can probably change this mindset.

If the islamic nations should ever gain military strenght that compared to that of the free world is estimated as sufficient as to stand a chance ( in their view ) - war will in my opinion be certain.

Luckily this is unlikely to happen in our time - and Islam can be reformed - just not by us it has to come from inside.

And the Ahmadiyya group quoted in De Volkskrant is right when they say:

Sadly we see that many Muslims do not act according to the teaching of Islam, and thereby give Islam itself a bad name.

I realize you didn't say those words Øyvind, but you agree with them. Islam teaches many things. Violence is one of them. So I am puzzled by this statement. Could you explain?

Gunnar wrote: think it's fair to judge a religion by what the leaders of that religion do and say.

Leaders? What leaders? I can find plenty of leaders that say the opposite of what you say they're saying (and you should know this). Heck, I can point at classical Quran interpreters such as Zamakshari who underlines that the Qu'ranic principle "There is no compulsion in religion" means just that. For instance.

And so it goes on in every - yes, that's right - every instant I have ever seen mentioned in a debate on Islam. T. Hansen quoting from the Qu'ran is an excellent example. Most Muslims will interpret the verses he quotes completely different from what he wants us too interpret them as.

Is it not fair to judge by what they are saying, as well?

Islam is what Muslims believe. The catch is, of course, that Muslims believe different things. Extremely few believe that all infidels should be killed in sacred months or not. Some more think that jihad, in the meaning "holy war", is a good thing, and that it should be waged not only for defense but also for spreading islam. Others think that the only legal war is a war of self-defence. Not even a pre-emptive war is okay.

What I am implying, Gunnar, is that any claim saying that a violent act is the true colours of Islam is stupid. Not because there are no explanations in Islam, but simply because many, many Muslim find no accept for violence (and especially not such violence) in their religion and simply because the Islam of these Muslims is just as Islamic as any other Islam.

The world isn't white and black, and these attempts to paint it that way, is anti-Islamic paranoia. Calling a world religion "distorted Catholicism" doesn't help either. Because of your statements about "French resistance" earlier on, however, I am willing to forgive you. You seem to be in league with a certain gal called Ann.

At least - you both seem to be going into overkill mode from time to time. It's fun. I probably do it at times myself. But it doesn't make any of us wiser, does it?

Oh, since I'm mentioning overkill and Ann Coulter in the same post, I might include this quote as well: In New York City, the chancellor of the Department of Education prohibited the display of Nativity scenes in public schools, while expressly allowing the Jewish menorah and the Islamic star and crescent to be displayed. Some would say that was overkill inasmuch as New York City is already the home of the world's largest public display built in commemoration of Islam: Ground Zero.

Amazingly enough - she's partly right. Ground Zero is not built in commemoration of Islam. WTC, however, can be said to have been:

Yamasaki received the World Trade Center commission the year after the Dhahran Airport was completed. Yamasaki described its plaza as "a mecca, a great relief from the narrow streets and sidewalks of the surrounding Wall Street area." True to his word, Yamasaki replicated the plan of Mecca's courtyard by creating a vast delineated square, isolated from the city's bustle by low colonnaded structures and capped by two enormous, perfectly square towers—minarets, really. Yamasaki's courtyard mimicked Mecca's assemblage of holy sites—the Qa'ba (a cube) containing the sacred stone, what some believe is the burial site of Hagar and Ishmael, and the holy spring—by including several sculptural features, including a fountain, and he anchored the composition in a radial circular pattern, similar to Mecca's.

I guess it's things like this that makes even bleeding heart liberals, nutty Muslims and crazed communist love America.

Øyvind

The explanation is simple, Cornelius. I prefer the Ahmadiyya interpretation of Islam before the Militant Islamist interpretation of Islam.

Of course they can both be accused for being far from mainstream, as you say "Islam teaches many things". Islam is not one thing, there are different Islams out there, and they teach different things.

Øyvind

"Ex-C, however, does have a point that all these attacks on Islam have a self-prophecy effect. When Muslims feel that they are loathed by their surroundings, they are indeed more likely to seek to extremist."

Yea and it goes the other way around too. Now most of the misery of the Islam world who is to blame for that ? not that we can plead completely innocense but we get a dispoportionate share of that hate all the time - I say we and it is the western civilization - though more the US. or "Great Satan" as was Khomenei´s expression.

So Ex-C (AKA Salim) is offended by pictures of abused Muslim women. Too bad he is not offended by the fact that there are beaten. Beat them, good, show pictures of them beaten, bad. Well, excuse me, isn't that what the Quran tells Muslim husbands to do? Perhaps Ex-C can give us the chapter and verse, then explain it away, or maybe blame it on the jews, americams, or maybe the crusaders.

The fact is that Ex-C is so typical of Islamic people and their mentality. All too often dialogue based upon facts and reason will break down and then either the Muslims start telling us of all the rights they have, or should have, or, just as often, they start with the threats. Anyone who has talked to Muslims about these serious issues knows about the threats. They are as certain as the sun coming up each morning in the east.

Gosh, I wish I had the right not to be offended. That would be great. "Sorry boss, that salary offends me... You'll have to pay me more" or maybe "Teacher, that grade you gave me really offends me, I am going to have to kill you. Sorry but it is my Allah given right!".

This whole issue of "to insult or not to insult, that is the question" is highly subjective. One man's insult is another persons question. Logically it makes no sense even to try to discuss it. The fact is that there is something rotten in Islam, and Muslims are basically incapable of honest self-reflexion. No wonder so many Muslims want to come the the West. I don't blame them.

Imagine if a person were to stand up in an Islamic country and have to research historical aspects relating to Muhammad’s activities as a man who made, owned and sold salves, or wanted to discuss the morality of raiding unsuspecting caravans, or talk about the hundreds of executions he ordered, or even wanted to talk about his rather lecherous for fondness for women (wives, concubines or slaves, ages 9 to 90). Do you think people like Ex-C would consider this legitimate historial research, or would someo poor guys head be rolling on the floor after the first sentence?

Thats all folks, as Bugs said...

Thomas:

Of course it goes the other way, too. But there's no reason we should accept any of those ways.

The misery of the Islamic world is to blame on many things. As you say, we can not plead complete innocence (far from it, in fact), but if I were to point at one single problem: The corrupt leaderships of the Muslim world are to blame.

The lack of democracy they've created today gives birth to radical Islamism. The violent political culture they've created has created accept for violence as a political weapon.

Of course these corrupt leaderships have often found friends in Western leaders, but that's another story. Or isn't it?

Øyvind

Ex Christian . . .

You said, "He did not criticize Islam, he INSULTED Islam, for many muslims anyone who dare insult islam will be killed straight away."

Isn't that why many people think that Islam is not a moral religion? It does not allow dissent and disagreement.

Soren, Denmark . . .

I do fear that today ten authors/filmakers/artists who were planning to do a work critical of aspects of practised Islam, will halt, consider that they could be doing something else, something safer (like attacking the US), and quietly drop the planned book/article/play/movie/song.

This is really the point, isn't it. Slowly our freedoms are being extinguished. This extends from people being afraid to comment on Islam to standing in lines, taking off one's shoes and jackets in order to pass through security.

In the U.S., the major newspapers do not discuss Islam. Have they been warned to keep quiet?

A town in Sweden has been taken over by Islamics, police won't even go in there.

I think you need some perspective yourself, Gunho. Maybe you believe the stories of Ali Dashti and DhimmiWatch. I, however, have been in Malmø (the "town" taken over by "Islamics") several times. I saw policemen. Amazing, isn't it? But hey - even Fox News managed to be more "fair and balanced" than you. They actually took the trip and traveled into the ghetto areas where Muslim youth have attacked police. Who took them there? A policeman.

Well, that you believe in silly stories like that makes me doubt your "research" on other fields as well.

Do you know when the first Muslim suicide terrorattacks where committed? No, I'm not talking about the Hashashins. They were nutcases, but just like their Jewish "equivalents", the Sicairis, were not suicide terrorists. Maybe you can say that Muslims committed suicide attacks against Western dominance in Atjeh, Mindanao, Sulu and other places most of us haven't heard about in the 18th Century, but personally I think it's more fitting to talk about a much later year.

1983.

Yes, that's right. 21 years ago. Who were behind it? Hezbollah? Who were the targets? Well, the first one was the US Embassy. Now, let's look at something Colin Powell once wrote:

The USS New Jersey started hurling 16-inch shells into the mountains above Beirut, in World War II style, as if we were softening up the beaches on some Pacific atoll prior to an invasion. What we tend to overlook in such situations is that other people will react much as we would.

Who started it all? We? They? Does it really matter or is this just the silly childish "But he started it game" of children, Israelians and Palestinians? The question isn't who started it, but how we're going to end it.

While it is sadly true that Muslim often fall in that trap, denying their own mistakes isn't a good beginning. Not for us either.

Øyvind

"Of course these corrupt leaderships have often found friends in Western leaders, but that's another story. Or isn't it?"

Well if these leaderships were to be replaced with elected governments dedicated to their people I don´t think anyone would have a problem with that.

" Quran 8:12 Your Lord inspired the angels with the message: ‘I will terrorize the unbelievers. Therefore smite them on their necks and every joint and incapacitate them. Strike off their heads and cut off each of their fingers and toes."

This can be overlooked yes but not interpreted as pacifism.

I am by no means saying that moslems are bloodthirsty people - whether a person can express utterly disrespect for another individual and kill that individual lies in the heart of the individual.

Nor have the very clear "Thou shalt not kill" from NT kept christians from killing.

But if a moslem feel the need to find killing justified in the quran above verse is one of the options.

But to the considerance of all there are more loving verses in Islam - here is my favorite one.

"All creatures are Allah´s children, and those dearest to Allah are those who treat his children kindly" Baihaqi Hadith.

That is pretty clear if Sahih I don´t know.

The explanation is simple, Cornelius. I prefer the Ahmadiyya interpretation of Islam before the Militant Islamist interpretation of Islam.

Of course they can both be accused for being far from mainstream, as you say "Islam teaches many things". Islam is not one thing, there are different Islams out there, and they teach different things.

Øyvind

But in the context of the original quote I posted I don't feel your explanation is valid. Simply because you prefer a non-traditional Islam in no way validates your claim that Muslims are not 'acting according to Islam'. In fact, if you use Islamic history, law, or literal readings of the Quran as a guide then I think you can argue that what this man did was complete accordance with Islam.

And that's the rub. For every one person such as yourself who chooses not to interpret the Quran literally, there are 2 who do. And they have the advantage, not you. They have the Quran, the Word of God, as their proof. They can, if they choose, validate beating their wives, owning slaves, or slaying the infidel.

While there are varying interpretations of Islam, its fundamental ethos, Submission, is fairly standard in all sects.

The French Loi Gayssot of July 13 1990 prohibits the public expression of "negationist speech" concerning the importance (size) or the reality of the Jewish genocide perpetrated by the Nazis during the Second World War.

This law has been the object of criticism from all over the political spectrum - Madeleine Rebérioux, President of Honour of the Ligue des Droits de l'Homme, considers it "highly criticable" since it sets a dangerous precedent for the "baptism" of political truths, such as the system used by the USSR, and opens the door to all sorts of possible misuse, including the "martyrisation" of potential anti-semites.

"Racist" speech and "incitation to racial hatred" is also illegal in France.

"Incitation to racial hatred" is a particularly interesting idea given the context of today's media.

Best wishes

Pete

Re: Totoro, US

This is really the point, isn't it.

I think it might be. I think it works, unfortunately. I think crimes such as this will tend to reduce substantial overt criticism (which can in turn be subjected to counter criticism, if there are grounds for it; and from there allow for a debate, or at least an exchange of views). It will also increase less overt resentment against Muslims, and there goes a spiral that will end badly for everyone.

Re : Gunnar, Maryland | 2004-11-02 22:28

>> something safer (like attacking the US),

Haven't you heard? The US just passed a law making insulting the US a "hate crime". US soldiers will come and kill you. You can criticize, just don't insult the good ol USA. Coward, hiding behind a screen. You people just don't understand how americans feel about the US. You can say anything you want, but insult the US, and you can be killed, without penalty.

Color me skeptical. And just what in Sam Hill constitutes an insult? Maybe I did not get the memo, but as A.R. Yngve pointed out earlier, an insult is a laughably subjective term.

But I am sure you have a source to verify that remarkable claim.

In fact, if you use Islamic history, law, or literal readings of the Quran as a guide then I think you can argue that what this man did was complete accordance with Islam.

No, he hardly was. I have studied Islamic law, history and read the Qu'ran enough to know this. There's a reason many Jews fled together with the Muslims when Spain was reconquered by the Christians. Intolerance isn't it.

1. Yes, Islam does have a bloody history. Is it fair, though, to look at Islams bloody history without looking at the bloody histories of every other major religion? Islam wasn't spread anymore by the sword than Christianity was.

2. Islamic law prohibits killing. Many classical interpretations do permit or even recommend hudud penalty (including death penalty) for blasphemy (while I wouldn't call van Gogh a blaspheme, this is probably a claim some will make). Such a penalty is, in classical understanding, not to be implemented by invididuals, but by Islamic societies and the penalties are not valid outside of Islamic societies. Islamists might have other ideas, but in that case THEY (and oddly enough YOU) are the ones leaving tradition.

3. There's not a single verse in the Qu'ran which in its "literal" meaning supports a murder like this. There are verses that, in its literal meaning and when taken out of its textual context can be interpreted towards accept of killing infidels no matter what. However, this has never been a mainstream idea in Islam, and classical exegesis interpret it otherwise.

Let me quote Zamakshari - a classical exegete of Islam:

There is no compulsion in religion, that is God does not allow belief through compulsion, but through strenghtening, and free choice. Accordingly he has said: 'If thy Lord had willed, whoever is in the earth would have believed, all of them, all together. Wouldst thou then constrain the people until they are believers'. That is, if he had willed, he would have compelled them to believe; however, he did not do this, but placed faith on the basis of free choice [on 2:256/257]

[...]

Whoever is guided is only guided to his own gain, and whoever goes astray, it is only to his own loss. No soul laden bears the load of another. We never chastise until We send forth a messenger.

That is, each person bears a burden, but he bears only his burden and not that of another. We never chastise: There is among us no principle according to which wisdom requires that we punish people, until after we have sent a messenger to them [...] Therefore, they must be punished because they neglected contemplation of that which was given to them (through reason) and thus disbelieved. Yet [they must not be punished] because they disregarded the revealed laws, to which there is no access without Gods help and which a man can thus obey properly only if he has first obtained faith [on sura 17:15/16]

While I am not a Muslim I do believe that these words clearly say that someone cannot be punished for breaking the revealed law without first having obtained faith in the very same laws.

Ideas like these are definitely troublesome elements of mainstream Islam, making the existence of radically alternative thought more difficult - at least in theory. The ideas you suggest exist are the common ideas of classical Islam, though, simply aren't common.

Øyvind

Reading this thread, I realize that Europe is in deep deep trouble.

Soren,
I think he was being sarcastic. There is no such law.

Franko,

Well, that figures. When my sarcasm-meter goes on the fritz, it is a clear and unmistakable sign that it is high time to hit the sack.

Gunnar, sorry about that. Will call a doctor to remove the foot that seems stuck in my mouth.

There's a reason many Jews fled together with the Muslims when Spain was reconquered by the Christians. Intolerance isn't it.

Actually, intolerance is the reason. They were kicked out.

1. Yes, Islam does have a bloody history. Is it fair, though, to look at Islams bloody history without looking at the bloody histories of every other major religion? Islam wasn't spread anymore by the sword than Christianity was.

Your deviating. Christianity is not the subject here. All religions and cultures have violent aspects because they are human endeavors. But ultimately Christians who commit violence are doing so in spite of their religion, not because of it.

There's not a single verse in the Qu'ran which in its "literal" meaning supports a murder like this. There are verses that, in its literal meaning and when taken out of its textual context can be interpreted towards accept of killing infidels no matter what.

Sounds like your contradicting yourself imo. Either the idea is there or it isn't. Claiming interpretation or context isn't going to wash with the fundamentalist. The Quran is pretty specific on how to deal with unbelievers. Your Hadith and Sura quotes are nice, but they are the words of man. The Quran is the word of God and as such takes presidence. I could post loads of Quranic verses to back up my claims but I'm sure you've seen those and dismissed them.

So i'll quote Ibn Warraq instead:

"There may be moderate Muslims, but Islam itself is not moderate. There is no difference between Islam and Islamic fundamentalism. At most there is a difference of degree but not of kind."

Your deviating. Christianity is not the subject here. All religions and cultures have violent aspects because they are human endeavors. But ultimately Christians who commit violence are doing so in spite of their religion, not because of it.

No, Christianity isn't the subject. History and how to tell it is. It seems rather odd to criticize Islam for having a violent history when this is the norm for all world religions, even including peaceful Buddhism.

Of course, you can say, that violent Christians did what they did in spite of their religion, but then it's you who are deviating - not me. The crusaders hardly thought that what they where doing where in spite of Christianity. Islam has had plenty of its Torquemadas, and Christianity plenty of its Ibn Taymiyyas. But Islam has also been spread by the plough, by traders and by peaceful missionaries (just like Christianity). That is also a part of Islams history, and your history view seems merely distorted.

Since you seem to enjoy Ibn Warraq, who has made this history distortion his favourite technique, that's hardly a surprise. Cut and paste-techniques might do good for firebrand preaching against any religion, but it doesn't provide understanding.

Furthermore, I did not say merely that the idea is not in the Qu'ran. If you read verses literal AND out of context (not historical context, which is of course also relevant, but textual context) then: Yes, you can conclude that all infidels are to be killed when not in sacred months. However, as mentioned, that has never been a mainstream interpretation, and it isn't even the interpretation of extreme Islamists of today.

You can probably post heaps of Quranic verses to "proove" that your right, but the fact remains; to make the points that T. Hansen tried to make above you will have to overlook the textual context, not merely the historical one. To make points about Islam having violent aspects, something that - from a religious scientific perspective can not be denied (just like for Hinduism, for instance) - you will not need to disregard textual context, since suras 8 and 9, for instance, are militant in their approach. But then you are disregarding historical context. While that might be a fundamentalist trick with longer roots than Islamism, it wasn't the method of classical interpreters like Zamakshari and it definitely is not the method of modern interpreters.

Btw, I have not quoted hadith, merely the Quran and Zamaksharis exegesis of the Quranic verses. Unlike Ibn Warraq - a secularist defending his own belief (as he has every right to) and trying to sell as many books as possible to right-wing Americans - Zamakshari is a renowned classical exegete of Islam.

Let me quote from al Mizan, an (Shia) exegesis by Al-Allamah al-Sayyid Muhammad Husayn at-Tabataba'i (1892-1981):

“There is no compulsion in the religion” negates and disapproves compulsion and coercion in religion. Religion is a set of truths which are believed in, and some of them are then acted upon. In short, religion is belief and faith, it is a matter of conscience, and such a thing cannot, be created by coercion and compulsion. One may force someone to do a certain physical action against his will but he cannot be forced to believe against his will. Belief follows reason and understanding; and nothing but reason and understanding can create it.

“There is no compulsion in religion” may be treated as a bit of information or a piece of legislation. If it is information of a creative decree, it will give rise to a legislative order that compulsion should not be used in matters of belief and faith. And if it is an order in the form of information then the meaning is clear. Apparently, this alternative is more correct, because the next sentence (“truly the right way has become clearly distinct from error”) gives the reason for this legislation. And this prohibition of compulsion for religion is based on a factor of creation: the fact that compulsion can influence physical action but not matters connected with the heart and conscience.

“Truly the right way has become clearly distinct from error”: As mentioned above, it gives the reason for the prohibition of compulsion. A wise person resorts to compulsion only when the truth of the order cannot be explained, either because the person so coerced has no capacity to understand it or for some other reasons. But there is no need for compulsion in an important matter whose advantages and disadvantages are clearly defined and the reward and punishment of accepting and rejecting well-explained. A man, in such a clear matter, should be free to choose his course of action himself - whether he takes it or rejects it, whether he wants the rewards of obedience or is prepared to take the punishment. The realities of religion have been explained, and its path well-laid; the divine revelation and prophetic explanation have illuminated this highway to the utmost degree. It has now been made clear that the religion is truth, that the only right thing is to accept it and follow it; and that if one deviates from this road he will fall in perdition. Why should anyone, after all these clarifications, compel others to follow the religion?

It is one of the verses that show that Islam is not based on the sword and killing, and that it does not allow Muslims to compel or coerce others to accept Islam. It is contrary to the view held by many Muslims and non-Muslims alike that Islam is the religion of the sword. They bring as their evidence the legislation of jihad which is one of the pillars of Islam.

We have already clarified, while writing the commentary on the verses of fighting, that the fighting ordained by Islam is not for the purpose of material advancement nor for spreading the religion by force. It was ordained only for reviving the truth and defending the most precious treasure of nature - the faith of monotheism. Where monotheism is accepted by the people - even if they remain Jew or Christian - Islam does not fight with them. Therefore, the objection arises from clouded thinking.

The verse: “There is no compulsion in the religion”, is not abrogated by the verse of the sword, although some writers think so. The order is followed by its reason: "truly the right way has become clearly distinct from error". Such an order cannot be cancelled unless and until its reason is also abrogated. So long as the reason is valid the rule must remain valid. There is no need to emphasize that the verse of the sword cannot negate the clear distinction of the right way from error. For example, the verses: . . . and kill them wherever you find them. . . (4:89) and: And fight in the way of Allah . . . (2:190), have no effect whatsoever on the clear distinction of truth from falsehood; and therefore they cannot abrogate an order based on that distinction.

In other words, this order is based on the fact that the right way is made clearly distinct from error. And this distinction is as valid after the revelation of the verses of fighting as it was before that. And as the cause is not changed, the effect, that is, the said order, cannot be changed or cancelled.

Muhammad Abduh, a late 19th century modernist and sheikh of al Azhar (as mainstream as it gets in the Muslim world) has also written:

He has cited several verses in support of his thesis. He construes: There shall be no compulsion in religion (2:257); as both laying down a principle and as a command addressed to the Holy Prophet, peace be on him. Thus the Holy Prophet was directed that he was not to exercise compulsion in matters of religion; he was to admonish, for he was but an admonisher (88:22) and had no authority to compel people (88:23). This has been interpreted as meaning that the Holy Prophet had not been set in authority over people to compel them to carry out his will and to accept that which he believed to be the truth. He then cites: We know well what they say, and thou hast not been appointed a despot over them. So admonish, by means of the Quran, him who fears the warning (50:46). The Holy Prophet had no responsibility in respect of those who did not fear God's warning. God well knew all that they said in refutation. Then it is said: Thou art not charged with guiding them to the right path; it is Allah who guides whomsoever He pleases (2:273). He then says that vakil connotes a guardian to whom God may have committed authority to punish creatures for their sins.

These are the very same ideas that you will find on most Islam sites on the Internet, whether Shia or Sunni, Arabic, Norwegian, Danish or American, Ahmadiyya or Islamist. "There is no compulsion in religion" is a sura from the Qu'ran, it has not been abrogated by the verse of the Sword, according to mainstream Islamic analysis it is highly valid and it means exactly what it says.

While there are problems within mainstream Islam, like the tendency to trust previous authorities that people like al-Afghani, Abduh, Rashid Rida and even outright Islamists like Banna protested against, a tendency towards anti-Semitism and (these days) a tendency to excuse or overlook Muslim-committed atrocities (ref. Irshad Manji: The trouble of Islam), the ideas you claim are responsible for the murder of van Gogh are in no way mainstream.

Øyvind

By the way, while I did not quote hadith I did quote suras, yes. How you manage to think that
"Your Hadith and Sura quotes are nice, but they are the words of man. The Quran is the word of God and as such takes presidence" beats me however.

Suras are, as a matter of fact, verses of the Qu'ran - you know, that Holy Book, "the word of God that takes presidence".

Please.

Øyvind

The islam facists will have done their worse, if they can force our societies to be as monotheistic and as stricly controlling as their own.

What differences does ideology make when a state increases its control upon its people? When it enlarges its scope of power in the pretense of the pubic good?

It doesn't matter if a state removes, individual freedom due to an intrepretation of Islamic law (Islame facist), or in the interests of national security (US neo-cons), and to take action against mythical "enemies of the people" (Cuba, Russia).

It worries me that these dogmatic practices could be pulled further and further into the political norm, with christian conservatives dominating and overturning formerly liberal democracies, and europeans and middle eastern nations becoming more polarised due to American global interventions.

I don't want to see an increase in centralised state power in EU or in the US.

And I certainly don't want to see increasing power in the hands of Islamic facists in the middle east.

David Elson, Australia . . .

You said: "It doesn't matter if a state removes, individual freedom due to an intrepretation of Islamic law (Islame facist), or in the interests of national security (US neo-cons),

I guess "US neo-con" has become like the "boogie man." Any idea you don't like can be pinned to the "neo-cons."

Hey, fella--I'm a "neo-con." BOOOGA BOOOOGA BOOOOGA

;-)

Then let me be more specific concerning that neo-con remark. George Bush's statist enlargement of the US government (in terms of departments), his massive spending sprees and huge budgets, and his use of government funds to implement his neo-christian religious beliefs (ie using police resources to stop the abortions of unwanted pregnancies) terrifies me, as much as Islam clerics who weild totalitarian control over their shitty little states, and the communistic social democrats in Europe who are getting even more support from the peoples of europe (inspite of shithouse economies resulting from poor economic management), alienated by the actions and interventions of American's in the world.

Freedom and liberty have never been as threatend as they are now.

Cheers

David

David,

I'm no fan of "massive spending sprees and huge budgets"
and actually do think that such if taken far enough can
threaten human freedom, but I'm having trouble with
"using police resources to stop the abortions of unwanted
pregnancies." I'm american and have no idea what you're
referring to.

"The legislation in America for the first time in history bans a medical procedure without making any exception for the health of the woman."

Mark,

How will Bush enforce his banns (proposed or otherwise) on abortions in America?

How else can he drag dissenting doctors and mothers to face court without the (mis)use of the police manpower?

Not to mention the waste of public funds required for the courts to hold trials in relation to this. Judges salaries and other associated expenses don't come cheap!!

Links about Bush and Abortion:

http://www.cnsnews.com/InDepth/archive/199903/IND19990310b.html

http://www.issues2000.org/MyWay/George_W__Bush_Abortion.htm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3212348.stm

Cheers,

Dave ;-)

There are similarities between the Islamic and Judeo-Christian traditions with regard to their oppression of women. But while the latter culture has progressed towards equality of the sexes in the 21st century, the former seems to be stuck in the 6th century. That's just the way traditionalist Imams, who teach young Muslims and otherwise lead the Muslim society, want to keep it.

When women from Western societies immigrate to Muslim societies, it does not seem unreasonable that they should have to concede some rights to get along in their new country. When women from Muslim societies immigrate to Western societies, one would think that they should be able to take full advantage of their rights in their new countries, but the males do not permit this. The traditionalist Imams teach that Muslims should in most respects live apart from the larger society of infidels and not be tempted to change their ancient ways.

So we end up with 6th century Muslim enclaves in our 21st century Western societies. It's no wonder that there are unsuccessful and even tragic interactions between residents of these very different societies. If we had a time machine and brought hundreds of thousands of Medieval Jews and Christians to live in 21st century Europe, Scandinavia, or America, there would be similarly unsuccessful or tragic interactions between them and their contemporary Judeo-Christian countrymen.

Until the Muslim immigrants are willing and able to become integrated into the larger society--which does not mean abandoning their religion but does mean practising it in a way that is more contemporary and compatible with their new country--there is going to be friction. And enough friction can create combustion. We're seeing the smoke and flames already.

Well, as any murder its a shame.
btw dunno Theo van Gogh work as many.

@ Franko | 2004-11-02 18:54

« I remember a right wing Dutch politician, Pimm or something like that, was also recently assassinated for speaking out against Muslim immigration. »

He was an extreme-right politician and was assassinated by a non-muslim anarchist, no?

Best regards,
Sensi

Oisín, Oregon, USA | 2004-11-03 08:03

« But while the latter culture has progressed towards equality of the sexes in the 21st century, the former seems to be stuck in the 6th century »

Go to Turkey (they had female vote & parliamentarian before many Judeo-Christian tradition's countries), Tunisia... as i did, you will have a more balanced opinion.

Best regards,
Sensi

Well I am somebody who is very supportive of women's rights. Here are the years that women were given sufferage (the right to vote, stand for elections).

Australia 1902

Norway 1913
France 1944
America 1920
Turkey 1923

http://www.byegm.gov.tr/YAYINLARIMIZ/newspot/2001/jan_feb/n17.htm

http://www.wcc2002.asn.au/suffrage.htm

http://www.ipu.org/wmn-e/suffrage.htm

I should hope that Turkey's treatment of ethnic minorities continues to improve, their governments actions during the 2nd Guld War were truly disgraceful. With their attempts at intervention arguably even more unjust than that of the Americans.[http://www.buzzle.com/editorials/text3-21-2003-37785.asp]

At least America toppled a murderous dictator and had mythical weapons of MD as an excuse, Turkey just wanted to kill some Kurds.

More on turkey

2003 Jan 11, Another Turkish prisoner died on a hunger strike, raising the death toll in the protest against Turkey's maximum security prisons to 64 people.
(AP, 1/12/03)

2003 Mar 20, Turkey’s parliament approved a motion allowing over-flights for US warplanes. Turkey announced plans to send thousands of troops into Kurdish-controlled northern Iraq.
(AP, 3/20/03)
http://www.timelines.ws/countries/TURKEYB.HTML

Just to get some facts straight.

The politician Pim Fortuyn was mudered by a native Dutch, not because of his views on islam but on his views on other issues.

Van Gogh (appearantly) was mudered for his views on islam.

Don't push the discussion on this murder into an Islam - Christian battle. That's nonsense.

It is about freedom of speech and about madmen which we can find anywhere on this planet. A whole community cannot be held responsible for the act(s) of one man. Makes me think: Americans should be happy for that fact.

Alexander said,

"The politician Pim Fortuyn was mudered by a native Dutch,
not because of his views on islam but on his views on other
issues."

I don't think so. I don't believe Pim Fortuyn was assassinated
because of his views on animal rights; I don't think the
evidence bears that out. Instead it seems clear enough that
he was murdered by a native Dutchman for Fortuyn's views on islam.

Leaders? What leaders? I can find plenty of leaders that say the opposite of what you say they're saying (and you should know this). What I am implying, Gunnar, is that any claim saying that a violent act is the true colours of Islam is stupid.

As I've said, there is a bifurcation in Islamic teaching. It's a logic fallacy to point out that most islamics are good. Of course they are. That's like saying, I'm not a murderer, since for most days of my life, I did not murder. It's like poison in the well. The fact that Islamic teaching does include violence (it's totally indisputable, I gave you a link quoting verse numbers from an ex islamic source), and that it's most devout members are violent is the point. The most devout members are the "true colors".

>> Maybe you believe the stories of Ali Dashti and DhimmiWatch

Actually, I believed a swedish source, either a blog or a newspaper. Well, I'm glad I'm wrong, I stand corrected, but my point stands.

It's certainly not true that America attacked them first. Trying to save Lebanon from invasion and occupation is no crime. Of course, there are no UN resolutions or world outrage over a christian nation being destroyed. Why doesn't Norway insert itself into that proplem and negotiate between the Syrians and Lebanese people?

No, he hardly was. I have studied Islamic law, history and read the Qu'ran enough to know this. There's a reason many Jews fled together with the Muslims when Spain was reconquered by the Christians. Intolerance isn't it.

The point is that there are both good verses and verses that are encourage violence. If you claim that Islamic doesn't have a an evil component, just because there is a good component, you missed my point, and you need to study loigic more. The fact that ex muslims believe otherwise is more compelling. (http://www.faithfreedom.org/Articles/sina/why_i_left_islam.htm)

Your view that muslims are not encouraged to be violent seems unsupportable in the face of worlwide murder and mayhem. Even islamic editorials have said "all muslims are not terrorists, but all of these terrorists are muslim." The fact that even Cat Stevens would help kill Rushdie supports the point.

[** DELETED because of personal attack. -BS 6/11]

George Bush's statist enlargement of the US government (in terms of departments), his massive spending sprees and huge budgets, and his use of government funds to implement his neo-christian religious beliefs (ie using police resources to stop the abortions of unwanted pregnancies) terrifies me

So many myths and distortions. 1) no freedoms have been lost in the name of security. It's a myth.

2) While it's true that he has been more willing than I like to restrain spending, it's literally false to say that Bush is spending. In this great democratic republic of checks and balances, only Congress can allocate money for spending. However, the increases have all been small.

3) Abortion, like murder, is not strictly speaking, a religious issue. With more scientific information, the truth is now becoming clear. Pre birth baby humans are a) human and b) alive. The only logical conclusion is that to kill a human is murder, and many young americans are increasingly pro-life, while not being particularly religious. Religious folks are proponents of life, but this is similar to the fact that religious folks took the lead in attacking slavery in the early 1800s.

And I don't know what "neo-christian" could mean. It's not a new christian belief. I think the adjective neo = "extra evil".

"The legislation in America for the first time in history bans a medical procedure without making any exception for the health of the woman."

How will Bush enforce his banns (proposed or otherwise) on abortions in America?

How else can he drag dissenting doctors and mothers to face court without the (mis)use of the police manpower?

Ok, you seem seriously confused about America. First of all, the president doesn't have the power to do what you say. At this point, we need either a federal constitutional amendment, or to appoint judges that will overturn Roe v Wade. We're working on the 2nd route. The basis for overturning it will be that it's an improper interpretation of the constitution, legislating from the bench, which contradicts our system of government. In a democracy, the people should decide such issues.

If you're referring to partial birth abortion, it's literally infanticide, since the baby is killed. By what logic does having the little feet still inside the mother make it moral? All doctors have testified that in the case of partial birth abortion, the health of the mother is never a question.

This is one area where the Europeans are far more moral than Americans. They don't allow an abortion in the ninth month of pregnancy.

It's not only murder, it's racist murder, since the founder of planned parenthood stated that the purpose was to control african american population growth.

But there is hope, the republicans have gained 5 seats in the senate, which is crucial for supreme court nominations.

"These are the very same ideas that you will find on most Islam sites on the Internet, whether Shia or Sunni, Arabic, Norwegian, Danish or American, Ahmadiyya or Islamist. "There is no compulsion in religion" is a sura from the Qu'ran, it has not been abrogated by the verse of the Sword, according to mainstream Islamic analysis it is highly valid and it means exactly what it says." Øyvind.

Where as this mean exactly what it says it is likely that other verses mean exactly what they say or what ?
As for the compulsion Islam has always in theory accepted that christians and jews kept their faith - as long as they accepted the somewhat inferior dhimmi status. However this is not the same story with infidels, atheists, polygamists. Nor do we have to look further than to Sudan or indonesia to see that this is not always practised - not that they shall be responsible for the whole moslem faith but most moslem countries have recently made persecutions on basis of fighting other belief systems whether we are talking about Christians - bahai - other moslem faiths.

Mark Amerman said:

"I don't think so. I don't believe Pim Fortuyn was assassinated
because of his views on animal rights; I don't think the
evidence bears that out. Instead it seems clear enough that
he was murdered by a native Dutchman for Fortuyn's views on islam."

At the trial the murderder confessed and said that he did it because he saw Fortuyn as a "steadily increasing danger for vulnerable groups in society". He didn't elaborate so there is no evidence that supports your claim that it seems clear Fortuyn was mudered because of his views on islam.
Don't use unrelated incidents for a witchhunt on islam, we do not need th\ose ignorant and arrogant views over here.

Don't use unrelated incidents for a witchhunt on islam, we do not need th\ose ignorant and arrogant views over here.

Agreed. No reason to worry about Islam, it's islamo fascists that's the problem. I can't see any difference between islamo-fascists and enviro-fascists. I don't care what idealogy they use as a unifying theme, the fact that they advocate fascism, and are willing to murder to get it is all that matters. Rats in the cellar.

Cornelius, USA

''I realize you didn't say those words Øyvind, but you agree with them. Islam teaches many things. Violence is one of them. So I am puzzled by this statement. Could you explain?''

Let us put things in perspective here:

let us check how many times the word ''Sword'' was mentioned in the bible and let us compare it with how many times the word sword mentioned in the Quran:

The Bible: 407 times

http://www.biblegateway.com/bible?language=english

The Noble Quran: 0

Do you know how many times the word BEHEAD was mentiond in the bible ? 7 times

and do you know how many in the noble quran ? NONE

Do you know how many times the word WAR mentiond in the bible ?? STAGGERING 867 times

How many in the Noble Quran ?? only 36 times !!

let us see how many times the word fight mentioned in the quran compared with the bible:

In the bible the word fight was mentioned 187 times.
In the Noble Quran the word fight was mentioned only 52 times !!!!

The word KILL:

In the bible the word kill was mentioned STAGGERING 480 times
While in the Noble Quran the word kill was mentioned 31 times !!!

So give it a break and stop parroting this nonesense again.

John Edwards, USA

''So Ex-C (AKA Salim) is offended by pictures of abused Muslim women. Too bad he is not offended by the fact that there are beaten. Beat them, good, show pictures of them beaten, bad.''

It is so amusing seeing AN AMERICAN talking about women rights !! you Americans are really CLOWNS :)) you have TERRIBLE SAD record in regard to women rights :

CONSIDER THESE FACTS FROM THE UNITED STATES OF TERRORISM AND MURDER:

On average, more than three American women are murdered by their husbands or boyfriends in this country 'every day'.

-In 1999, 1,642 murders were attributed to intimates; 74 percent of the murder victims. (Bureau of Justice Statistics Special Report, Intimate Partner Violence and Age of Victim, 1993-99, October 2001)

http://www.nmclites.edu/stuaffairs/response/NationalStatistics.html

-Billions Lost to Abuse in the U.S. Each Year, Study Finds

The health-related costs of rape, physical assault, stalking and homicide committed by intimate partners exceed $5.8 billion each year, according to a report released last week by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

http://endabuse.org/programs/display.php3?DocID=235

Spousal abuse
What's the greatest cause of death of pregnant women in the United States? Complications caused by pregnancy? Cancer? Road crashes? No - it's not any of these. It's murder.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/breakfast_with_frost/3591548.stm

-Every 12 to 15 seconds a woman is battered in the United States.

-95% of all domestic violence is committed by males against their female partners. (NCADV)

-Domestic violence is the largest single cause of injury to women in the U.S.- more than injuries from auto accidents, muggings and rapes combined. (Surgeon General of the U.S.)

-Estimates range from 960,000 incidents of violence against a current or former spouse, boyfriend, or girlfriend per year (U.S. Department of Justice, Violence by Intimates: Analysis of Data on Crimes by Current or Former Spouses, Boyfriends, and Girlfriends, March 1998) to three million women who are physically abused by their husband or boyfriend per year. (The Commonwealth Fund, Health Concerns Across a Woman's Lifespan: 1998 Survey of Women's Health, May 1999)

WE MUSLIMS HAD WOMEN AS OUR PRESIDENTS AND PRIME MINISTERS SOME 20 YEARS AGO, WHEN IF EVER YOU WILL ELECT YOUR FIRST WOMAN PRESIDENT ???

What a clowns :))

Totoro, U.S.

Ex Christian . . .

You said, "He did not criticize Islam, he INSULTED Islam, for many muslims anyone who dare insult islam will be killed straight away."

''Isn't that why many people think that Islam is not a moral religion? It does not allow dissent and disagreement.''

We are not talking about dissent or disagreement here, we are talking about someone who INSULTED Islam, there is major big difference.

Beside, shall I use your same argument and calim the west is not moral since it also silence those who dare to question the holocaust ???

Teacher sentenced for denying holocaust

By Vanessa Medley

A TEACHER who told his pupils at a secondary school in France that the Nazi gas chambers were for disinfecting Jews was found guilty today of denying the holocaust.

http://www.fpp.co.uk/online/00/05/France150500.html

Holocaust revisionist sentenced

A court in Switzerland has sentenced a Swiss publisher to a year in jail for denying that millions of Jews were exterminated in gas chambers by Nazi Germany during World War II.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/708778.stm

Swiss Holocaust Denier Sentenced

One of the world's leading Holocaust deniers, the former Swiss school teacher Juergen Graf, was sentenced in July to 15 months in prison and fined $5,500 for violating Switzerland's anti-racism law.

http://www.tau.ac.il/Anti-Semitism/updates/i98026.html

So it is ok when the west oppresses and indeed IMPRISONS people for expressing their views but it is not ok for some muslisms to do the same !!!

David Elson, Queensland, Australia

« At least America toppled a murderous dictator and had mythical weapons of MD as an excuse, Turkey just wanted to kill some Kurds. »

lol, i hope you don't think that i support turkey government & army or Ben Ali half-dictator, i was just underlining that « But while the latter culture has progressed towards equality of the sexes in the 21st century, the former seems to be stuck in the 6th century » was wrong and that there are countries based of mainly muslim culture where they had the same evolution towards equality of the sexes.

Yes, there is a positive thing in this war of Iraq: a dictator put in place by the CIA have been removed by the USA. Now we can just hope that Irak will not be a second Iran, and if their vote is really respected, one can fear that.

Best regards,
Sensi

Islam may have seen many noble scholars and still have many noble minds in it´s ranks, as well for a period where christanity was covered in the shroud of the dark age been more moderate and more progressive.

But Speaking of today a even considerable moderate history of islam and a large number of great scholars can´t stand the test of hate, just as little as the great nation and host of many great minds and artists - thus proud - German civilization could it.

When Marshall Foch in 1919 shortly after the completed "negotiations" of the Versaillé treaty he is quoted as to have said "This is not a peace treaty, this a 20 year cease fire" this remark should prove stunningly accurate - actually it gave me the chills when I first read it.

During the 1920`s the great soon to become british primeminister - then in charge of the British Marine ministry repeatedly warned of the effect the versaillés treaty had on the German people, and called for relief in the "sanctions" because he realized the hate it resulted in and that the result was a growing wish for revenge and national revival.

Following the election in 1933 and the victory of Hitler which though his party only received about 32 % of the total vote, yet it still resulted in that Hitler got the post as Reichs kannsler a post he with a later popular election received more than 90 % support for turning into a position with virtual unlimted power.

For Churchill this spelled a new situation, he had in vain tried to calm the waters, tried to address the indeed just demand of the German people. With Hitler he knew the race was run - the German anger, frustration and hate had brought it´s fruit - A man that made war inevitable.

One of course has to take care to draw equal parallels between not entirely identical situations.
But however much we hope of a moderate islam the sad fact is that the moslem world largely hate us.
I was definitely against the iraq invasion knewing full well that it would lead to even more hate than there already was - the hate as a matter of fact being just as old as the crusades -and later colonial times and strong for a long time.

The moslem may not be as strong industrial, technically as was the German nation back then - but the hate is no less and can return dire results not equal in terms of destruction but in terms of action.

Just like it only took a minor group of fanatics headed by a charasmatic leader and a broad sense of suffering and hate and hurt pride - and moslems do take great pride in their religion there can be no doubt - to spawn the horrors of world war 2 the same could very well be the case this day.
When George Tenet for one this day speak of WOT as world war 4 - this is largely met by scepticism and disbelief and even with a view of it as being insanity in the ranks of the Europeans, the sad fact is he may be more right than most people want to believe.

Moderate Islam does naturally appeal to us and we wish for it´s strenght - but it´s strenght is waning.

When an organisation of Moslem students during the end of the century voted for the moslem of the century the majority voted for Khomenei. Khomenei can hardly be termed as moderate nor can moslem students be termed as the poor, downtrodden, illiterate arab street.

According to PEW performing international inquiries link here:

http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=185

When some of the moslem nations was asked about who they had confidence in among 8 world leaders or prominent figures including Bin Laden. It can be no surprise that Bush wasn´t the top choice anywhere Though Kuwait ranked him as 2 and Nigeria 3. But what may not be surprise but a sad sign is that Binladen actually did better in particular in Palestine were he got even higher ranking than Arafat. But also in other countries where his approval rating was among the highest in pakistan, Jordan and Morroco were he got the second highest confidence rating.

In some arab countries as many 99 % now have a negative view of USA.

Another tragic revelation is found in the the answers to the question "A way for Israeli state and palestinian right to co-exist?"

To that question 67 % of the Israelis believed yes there is as opposed to 29 % saying no.

The absolute opposite was the case with the palestinians only 17 % answered yes whereas 80 % answered no.

Another interesting part reveals the attitude towards the lack of Iraqi resistance in the war.

The times are changing and so is islam whether it´s moderate or not depends on the eyes which behold. Many moderate islamists like Ramadan are not so moderate if you start to scratch the surface. Nor is it mostly moderate islam that is being taught to millions after millions of the young in particular in Pakistan but basically all over in the world in Quran schools and mosques.

Everything is relative and so is what is a moderate ? Putin may call himself democrat but is he really ? A lot of moslems are considered moderate so was the one recently considering israelis over 18 fair prey. And not all moslems will share theirthoughts as openly as also recently Shaikh Hamza Yousuf

"DUBAI — The Muslim society has lost the ability of strategic thinking, which Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) exemplified by compromising on several points with the enemy when he signed the Treaty of Hudaibia, said leading American Muslim"

and:

"Elaborating his point, Shaikh Hamza Yousuf said, “There are times when you have to live like a sheep in order to live in the future like a lion."

Now taken out of context yes but be welcome to read here about what the context was:

http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/003774.php#comments

Now this is among the inspiration that many can receive from the texts of Islam and don´t matter how you turn it there is plenty of support for jihad etc. in those texts and in the action and example of Mohammed himself.

It may not be main stream Islam but it is growing especially in the wake of Khomenei, Bin laden. respectively shia and sunni flamed by hatred and hatred once again flamed by Israel and Iraq and as i said it goes longer back even as far as to the beginning of islam and conquest stopped for our part of Carl the Great.
It doesn´t always take a majority to determine the faith of the majority.

Totoro, U.S.

''Soren, Denmark . . .

I do fear that today ten authors/filmakers/artists who were planning to do a work critical of aspects of practised Islam, will halt, consider that they could be doing something else, something safer (like attacking the US), and quietly drop the planned book/article/play/movie/song.

This is really the point, isn't it. Slowly our freedoms are being extinguished. This extends from people being afraid to comment on Islam to standing in lines, taking off one's shoes and jackets in order to pass through security. ''

Oh please ! Islam bashing in the USA is very clear and apparent in nearly every major US media outlet, they only report the bad news, what some few extremists do and say.

You can discuss and even criticize islam but you CANT insult it.

Cornelius, USA

''There's a reason many Jews fled together with the Muslims when Spain was reconquered by the Christians. Intolerance isn't it.

Actually, intolerance is the reason. They were kicked out.''

perhaps you can tell us WHO kicked them out ???

Cornelius, USA

''Your deviating. Christianity is not the subject here. All religions and cultures have violent aspects because they are human endeavors. But ultimately Christians who commit violence are doing so in spite of their religion, not because of it.''

oh I see, how do you explain the the CRUSADERS then ? how do you explain the inquestion genocide against muslims and jews in MUSLIM SPAIN in 1492 ? how do you explain the mass murder of 5 million native Americans by the CHRISTIAN COLOMBUS ? How about these verses in the bible ?

Death for adultery (Deut 22:22-24, Lev 20:10). But Jesus forgave one adultress (John 8:1-11).

Death by stoning to a bride who is not a virgin (Deut 22:20-21).

Death by fire to a harlot whose father is a priest (Lev 21:9).

Death to a witch (Ex 22:18 ).

Death for blasphemy (Lev 24:16).

Death to a non-Levite for approaching the tabernacle (Num 1:51).

Death by stoning to a child who curses a parent or is rebellious (Lev 20:9, Ex 21:17, Deut 21:18-21; affirmed by Jesus, Matt 15:3-9).

Death by stoning for cursing (Lev 24:14, 23).

Death to the owner of a goring ox (Ex 21:29).

Death for disagreeing with a judge's sentence (Deut 17:12).

Death for not "hearkening" to a priest (Deut 17:12).

Death to a false prophet (Deut 13:5, 18:20).

Death for teaching a different religion (Deut 18:20, 13:1-10;also Gal 1:8-9).

Death by stoning for apostatizing from the true religion or practicing a different religion (Ex 22:20, Deut 17:2-5).

Death to male homosexuals (Lev 20:13).

Death for bestiality, both to the offender and the animal (Lev 20:15-16).

"Cut off" for consulting a witch (Lev 20:6, Deut 18:11).

Total destruction to any city if any of its citizens apostatize (Deut 13:12-17).

A woman who assists her husband in a fight by seizing his opponent's sex organ shall have her hand cut off (Deut 25:11-12).

Sex during a woman's period: both shall be "cut off from among [the] people" (Lev 20:18; but cf. 15:24).

Death by stoning for gathering sticks on the Sabbath, or any work on the Sabbath (Ex 35:2, 31:14-15, Num 15:32-36).

God will cause cannibalism as a punishment for sin (Jer 19:9, Lam 2:20, Ezek 5:10, Lev 26:29, Deut 28:53-57, Isa 49:26, Rev 16:6).

God will cause adultery as punishment (Deut 28:30).

God will cause drunkennes as punishment (Jer 13:12-13).

God will "spread dung upon your faces" as punishment (Mal 2:3).

Illegitimate children and their descendants are stigmatized, not allowed into the congregation (Deut 23:2).

Abortion: punishable only if accidental, caused by a fight, and only by fine; i.e, it is not the same as killing a human being (Ex 21:22-25).

Whipping, up to 40 stripes, for losing a lawsuit (Deut 25:1-3).

" Cut off " for mixing perfume for yourself according to God's special formula (Ex 30:37-38 ).

"Cut off" for eating fat or blood (Lev 3:17, 7:23-27, 17:10-12).

"Cut off" for eating leaven, or even having it in the house, during Passover (Ex 12:15, 19).

For a description of hell, see Rev 14:11, 16:9 For a long and descriptive list of God's punishments see Deut 28:15-68, Lev26.

God uses his chosen people to punish other nations (Ps 149:5-9).

God will punish "seven times" (= sevenfold? Lev 26:28 ).

God punishes many for the sins of one, the innocent are punished for the guilty, especially their guilty ancestors (which punishment is "forever," Deut 28:41; Gen 9:24-25, 20:7,18, Ex 12:29, 20:5, 34:7, Num 16, Deut 5:9, 23:2, 28:32, 41,Josh 7:8-26, 22:20, 2 Kings 5:27, Isa 14:21, Ezek 23:25, 46-47, Mal 1:2-4, Jer 31:29-30, Hos 2:4-5, Rom 5:14, also Adam's Fall generally in NT).

God will punish the men by causing their wives to be ravished and their children to be "dashed to pieces" (Isa 13:16, 18, Zech 14:2, Nah 3:10).

God's punishment of entire nations or cities by destroying every living thing naturally includes the destruction of babies and unborn embryos (e.g. Isa 34, the Flood, the plagues on Egypt, Sodom; Jesus also: Matt 11:20-24).

An eye for an eye, etc. (Ex 21:24, Lev 24:18-20, Deut 19:19, 21, Matt 7:2; contra: Matt 5:38ff, 7:12, Luke 6:31).

God will punish any animal that kills a human (Gen 9:5), although God sometimes punishes humans by having animals kill them (e.g. 2 Kings 2:23-24, where 42 children are killed by bears; 1 Kings 20:35-36, where a man is killed by a lion for disobedience to a prophet).

Slavery for stealing (Ex 22:3).

''So i'll quote Ibn Warraq instead:

"There may be moderate Muslims, but Islam itself is not moderate. There is no difference between Islam and Islamic fundamentalism. At most there is a difference of degree but not of kind."''

Ibn Warraq is well known pathetic christian missionary based in Ohio-USA:

Trends and Flaws in Some Anti-Muslim Writing as Exemplified by Ibn Warraq

http://www.jamaat.net/jforum/viewtopic.php?t=359

I forget to whom Ex-C addressed this comment but I thought it worth pointing out:

"You are very welcome , as long as you are good boy and behave well with muslims, you are ok :))))"

You realize that this is the equivalent of Bull Connor or some other Southern Racist calling a black man "boy" in 1960s Alabama, don't you?
Congratulations, dude, "Ex-C" just made you a n*gger.

"As long as you go along and don't make trouble for the white people, boy, you are okay."

Don't you see it? You Europeans are all becoming n*ggers -- third-class citizens in your own historical lands. Theo Van Gogh was killed because he was a bad n*gger, nothing more, nothing less. And now you know what happens to bad n*ggers.

"You said, "He did not criticize Islam, he INSULTED Islam, for many muslims anyone who dare insult islam will be killed straight away."

This murder is sick - It insult my intellect and my culture and if moslems don´t like it go somewhere else.

All he did was to show the connection between the verses found in islamic writings and the violence perpetrated against women in a way you did not like. That´s no excuse at all for anything like murder or assault.

NO EXCUSE AT ALL .

Now indeed there is violence against women anywhere in the world and it´s due to some mens violent temper and his physical strenght to do it.

But they will be jailed all the laws here apply to all and leaves no room for beating your wife as they do in Pakistan.

Exception is rape - in rape cases some leaves more benefit of doubt to the man than woman.

No we are not perfect nor is our law and judges.

But still 80 % of the households in Pakistan suffering domestic violence and almost total unwillingness to do anything about it in the legal system that is a major problem and a majority problem.

"Ibn Warraq is well known pathetic christian missionary based in Ohio-USA:"

Ibn Warraq is an athiest. And you would know that if you ever bothered to actually read any of his works.

>> How about these verses in the bible ?

They are old testament. Jesus changed all that. "He among you that is without sin, let him cast the first stone".

Gunnar, land of Mary

>> How about these verses in the bible ?

''They are old testament. Jesus changed all that. "He among you that is without sin, let him cast the first stone".

If so how come the word SWORD was mentioned 33 times in the NT ???

YOU CANT MISS THIS :

CAUGHT ON VIDEO: CONVERTING LIONS TO CHRISTIANITY

TAIPEI (Reuters) - A man leaped into a lion's den at the Taipei Zoo on Wednesday to try to ''convert the king of beasts to Christianity'' , but was bitten in the leg for his efforts.

"Jesus will save you!" the 46-year-old man shouted at two African lions lounging under a tree a few meters away.

"Come bite me!" he said with both hands raised, television footage showed.

One of the lions, a large male with a shaggy mane, bit the man in his right leg before zoo workers drove it off with water hoses and tranquilizer guns.

Newspapers said that the lions had been fed earlier in the day, otherwise the man might have been more seriously hurt ... or worse.

WATCH THE VIDEO HERE:

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=oddlyEnoughNews&storyID=6701172

Ex-(Ignorant)Christian:

Quoting the Old Testament isn't valid as it predates Jesus. It's called Christianity for a reason.

Case in point: Matthew 15:3-9. It helps of course to read the verse BEFORE the one you quoted:

" Then some Pharisees and teachers of the law came to Jesus from Jerusalem and asked, "Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders? They don't wash their hands before they eat!"
3Jesus replied, "And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition? 4For God said, 'Honor your father and mother'[1] and 'Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death.'[2] 5But you say that if a man says to his father or mother, 'Whatever help you might otherwise have received from me is a gift devoted to God,' 6he is not to 'honor his father[3] ' with it. Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition. 7You hypocrites! Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you:
"

So you see, Jesus is repudiating that sentiment.

As for the Crusades, Columbus and others I say again these people were not acting in accordance to Christian principles as laid out by Jesus Christ. They commit violence in spite of Jesus, not because of him.

You are obviously not an ex-Christian. I doubt you were ever one other than in title.

"You can discuss and even criticize islam but you CANT insult it."

YES WE CAN. That is our culture and our ways. We criticize, insult and make fun of EVERYTING.

Don't like it, cash in your last welfare check and go back to the wonderful Islamic paradise of Pakistan.

>> If so how come the word SWORD was mentioned 33 times in the NT ???

yes, that's logical, oh wise one.

premise: sword is mentioned in the new testament
premise: swords are used for violence
conclusion: the NT advocates violence

Especially, "Peter, he who lives by the sword, dies by the sword".

You're right Ex-C, 2 thousand years of christian thought has had it wrong all along. Jesus was actually telling Peter, "kill the romans, cut off everyone ears, the more romans you kill, the more I will bless you". You're right, I see that now. Gosh, we sure were fooled by all that talk about Love.

Just one question though, why did Jesus heal the ear?

Hey Ex-C, one thought. If you believe so strongly, why don't you go defend your faith? I mean, if the Americans succeed in establishing democracy and freedom of religion in Iraq, is there any doubt that Iran is next. Regime change, oh wise one. Your mullahs and ayatollahs will be deposed, and sharia will be discarded. Women will walk about freely, talking and laughing. They may even start thinking about education and achievement. The complete overthrow of the center of islam has got to upset you a bit. I mean, that's really INSULTING islam, isn't it? The 3rd Infantry Division (of Patton fame) aren't hiding behind computer screens, so go for it.

Cornelius

''Ex-(Ignorant)Christian:
Quoting the Old Testament isn't valid as it predates Jesus. It's called Christianity for a reason.''

It is this pathetic illogical nonesense that I heard from christians like you which made me LEAVE this cult and embrace the ONLY one true religion, Islam

now back to your point, Let us see who is really the IGNORANT here:

In Matthew 5:17–18 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have 'not' come to abolish them but to fulfil them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.”

Jesus made it VERY clear he came to FULFIL the old laws.

I advice you with sincere heart to use your brain, think and compare between a faith where its followers worship a naked humiliated tortured man on the cross and between great faith where its followers worship the one who created this naked man hanged on the cross !

http://www.jesus-or-allah.com

http://www.why-christians-convert-to-islam.com

Susan

"Ibn Warraq is well known pathetic christian missionary based in Ohio-USA:"
Ibn Warraq is an athiest. And you would know that if you ever bothered to actually read any of his works. ''

I did not know an athiest can get funding from evangelical christian missionaries !!!

Only fools will believe what you said susan.

Hey "Ex-Christian"

Have you changed your name or what? In early August you were posting under the name Salim (same words, same arguments, same links and references...), I believe. The subject then was the stupid idea of banning Islam - I am sure you remember. So you converted and unconverted in just three months. Anyway, I guess Bjorn can verify his logs on this.

You still haven't answered my question about if you like Brazilians? Would you consider going to Rio during Carnaval? Um pouco de alegria faria bem para voce e seus companheiros!

PS: Where do you find time for all these posts you do? Is it a full time job? Why don't you find something more productive to do like help the poor prople of Darfur. I mean the blacks, not the arabs!

"Only fools will believe what you said susan. "

I warrant there are more here who believe me than you.

“Regime change, oh wise one. Your mullahs and ayatollahs will be deposed, and sharia will be discarded. Women will walk about freely, talking and laughing. They may even start thinking about education and achievement.”

Gunnar,

If we are striving for separation of church and state in the middle east than this is commendable, hopefully a lifting of oppressive Islamic religious laws will not be replaced by equally oppressive Christian laws. One comes

Free society doesn’t need the oppression of the veil, or be forced into conceding the right to choose in “most” instances.

If you would claim that an unborn foetus, still medically dependant upon its mother is somehow a human being (good old creationist science), then surely that you believe that sperm & eggs, are also unborn potential human beings. Clearly we should outlaw the waste of lives that occurs every time Gunnar masturbates.

Long live the Christian right 

Cheers,
David.

Remember this little ditty from Monty Python;

Every Sperm is Sacred

Dad: There are Jews in the world, there are Buddhists.
There are Hindus and Mormons and then,
There are those that follow Mohammud, BUT
I've never been one of them.
I'm a Roman Catholic,
And have been since before I was born,
And the one thing
they say about Catholics
Is they'll take you as soon as you're warm.
You don't have to be a six footer,
You don't have to have a great brain,
You don't have to have any clothes on,
You're a Catholic the moment Dad came.
Because...

Every sperm is sacred,
Every sperm is great,
If a sperm is wasted,
God gets quite irate.
Children: Every sperm is sacred,
Every sperm is great,
If a sperm is wasted,
God gets quite irate.

Child: Let the heathen spill theirs
On the dusty ground,
God shall make them pay for
Each sperm that can't be found.
Children: Every sperm is wanted,
Every sperm is good,
Every sperm is needed,
In your neighborhood.
Mum: Hindu, Taoist, Mormon,
Spill theirs just anywhere,
But God loves those who treat their
Semen with more care.
Men: Every sperm is sacred,
Every sperm is great,

Women:
If a sperm is wasted,
Children:
God gets quite irate.
Priest: Every sperm is wanted,
Br. & Gr:
Every sperm is good,
Nannies:
Every sperm is needed,
Cardinal:
In your neighborhood.
Children: Every sperm is useful,
Every sperm is fine,
Funeral:
God needs everybody's,
Mourner1:
Mine!
Mourner2:
And mine!
Corpse:
And mine!

Nun: Let the Pagan spill theirs,
O'er m
ountain, hill, and plain,
Statues: God shall strike them down for
Each sperm that's spilt in vain.
Everyone: Every sperm is wanted,
Every sperm is good,
Every sperm is needed,
In your neighborhood.
Every sperm is sacred,
Every sperm is great,
If a sperm is wasted,
God gets quite irate.

David,

Perhaps its of interest to note that whoever directed The Life of Brian was not violently murdered by "fundamentalist" Christians. I wish I could say the same about Theo Van Gogh.

Ex-(ignorant)Christian:

It is this pathetic illogical nonesense that I heard from christians like you which made me LEAVE this cult and embrace the ONLY one true religion, Islam

Religion isn't logical. It's based on faith. Although I don't really know what was illogical about what I said. And I hate to break it to you but there is no one religion. There are many.

Jesus made it VERY clear he came to FULFIL the old laws.
Seek and ye shall find.

I advice you with sincere heart to use your brain, think and compare between a faith where its followers worship a naked humiliated tortured man on the cross and between great faith where its followers worship the one who created this naked man hanged on the cross

Heh. Muslims don't worship man in theory. In practice it's a another matter. What else are the Hadith and Sunnah but man worship?

John A. Edwards...

''PS: Where do you find time for all these posts you do? Is it a full time job? Why don't you find something more productive to do like help the poor prople of Darfur. I mean the blacks, not the arabs! ''

So you ignored all my points about WOMEN ABUSE in your ' civilized' country and instead you are trying to personalize the debate !!

get a grip !! why you dont stop parroting all the nonesense you hear on FOX JEWS about Islam and instead go and help the HUNGERY in your ' civilized ' America, there are about 40 million Americans who are HUNGRY and live below poverty line:

39.9 million American live in poverty, half of them childern

The Offical report :

http://www.census.gov/prod/2004pubs/p60-226.pdf

The story :

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/040826/photos_ts/poverty_census_graphic

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040827/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/census_poverty&cid=542&ncid=716

Hungry in America

http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20030818&s=lieberman

Cornelius

''Heh. Muslims don't worship man in theory. In practice it's a another matter. What else are the Hadith and Sunnah but man worship?''

First go and learn what is hadith and sunnah are and then come and debate me about Islam, your ignorance is beyond scandalous.

http://www.why-christians-convert-to-islam.com

Eight people have been arrested in a conspiracy to commit the murder of Theo Van Gogh. Strangely, none of them seem to be Baptists or Quakers:

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20041103/ap_en_ot/netherlands_filmmaker_slain_25

Just a small number of extremists, nothing to see here, move along now everyone.

I’m unswayed by the arguments of religious fanatics. Firstly I have no dogmatic belief in a supreme being, or in immortality and some strange absolute moral values (far too simplistic impossible to apply in the complexities of a modern world).

I certainly find it implausible to believe that certain people in the past have had some kind of supernatural relationship with the divine creator (Jesus, Mohammed), a central belief in many faiths. Condemning all those who refuse to accept the tenants of your faith to a stoning or to everlasting punishment in the confines of hell, certainly is disagreeable to my beliefs (as embodied by Voltaire); that “I may disagree with what you say but I’ll fight for you right to say it”.

What did Jesus have to say about this;

“His angels shall gather out of His kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity, and cast them into a furnace of fire” Then he goes on about the wailing and gnashing of teeth.

Supposing that in this world that we live in today an inexperienced girl is married to a syphilitic man; in that case the Catholic Church says, "This is an indissoluble sacrament. You must endure celibacy or stay together. And if you stay together, you must not use birth control to prevent the birth of syphilitic children." Nobody whose natural sympathies have not been warped by dogma, or whose moral nature was not absolutely dead to all sense of suffering, could maintain that it is right and proper that that state of things should continue.

Fundamentally any religious group/cult exists to perpetuate itself through gaining new recruits, and in a sense needs to be intolerant of other such groups, else if it were all accepting it would merely become assimilated into one of the others. Such intolerance is unacceptable in what should be today’s secular world.

Science can teach us, and I think our own hearts can teach us, no longer to look around for imaginary supports, no longer to invent allies in the sky, but rather to look to our own efforts here below to make this world a better place to live in, instead of the sort of place that the churches in all these centuries have made it.

Cheers,

David.

I eagerly await Ex-Christian/Salim's unambiguous denunciation of these evil bastards and applaud those moslem leaders in the Netherlands who have already done so.

Hey Salim -
You still have not answered my questions:
1. Do you like Brazilians? Are they good people?
2. What is the verse in the Quran than tells a man to beat his wife? (Don't tell me you don't know!)

And to show you my good faith let me answer your question... There is much wrong with America: violence, poverty, hunger, discrimination, sickness, abuse of all types, lying, cheating and so on. It makes a man want to cry. Of course, much of the world is as bad, if not worse. I would have to agree with the Apostle Paul that the human race is a pretty miserable bunch of people. Happy now, Salim? Of couse, on any day of the week, at any hour, the West is a lot better place to live than any Muslim country.

Got to work... Tchau!

The news now tells us it wasn't just one lone man that killed Van Gogh. Eight people have been arrested by Dutch authorities. They were Hindus of course. No, wait! There were jews!. No maybe Rotarians. Hum, maybe McDonald's workers. I give up!! Who could these people be?

>> hopefully a lifting of oppressive Islamic religious laws will not be replaced by equally oppressive Christian laws.

Regime change only means removing a threat, and establishing democracy. The US doesn't dictate the nature of the government. Christianity does just fine under freedom of religion.

>> right to choose

It is poverty to decide that a child must die, so you can live as you please (Mother Teresa)

>> If you would claim that an unborn foetus, still medically dependant upon its mother is somehow a human being

Dependency and humanity are not mutually exclusive. A new born infant is dependent. Is it not human?

>> (good old creationist science),

A non-sequiter. What does an odd protestant notion about the timeframe of earth's creation have to do with species identification of a lifeform within a mother's womb? Catholicism has no such contradiction between science and religion.

>> then surely that you believe that sperm & eggs, are also unborn potential human beings

No, because a zygote is fundamentally distinct from sperm or egg. It's not a religious concept, it's basic biology. The zygote is the first cell of a lifeform. It's not a cat. It's not a dog, or an insect. Species: human. If you and I are human, then the zygote is human. The only difference is age. Otherwise, at what logical point in time does it acquire it's humanity? Brain waves ar detectable at 5 weeks. How many cells does it take?

Ex-(ignorant)Christian:

First go and learn what is hadith and sunnah are and then come and debate me about Islam, your ignorance is beyond scandalous.

Oh please.

"In its original sense, therefore, Sunnah indicates the doings and Hadith the sayings of the Holy Prophet; but in effect both cover the same ground and are applicable to his actions, practices, and sayings, Hadith being the narration and the record of the Sunnah but containing, in addition, various prophetical and historical elements."

Besides, this isn't a place for a debate nor are you prepared for one.

from the BBC...

"Meanwhile, several websites for Dutch Moroccans were taken offline when people wrote in to express their approval of the killing (of Van Gogh)".

Please refer to my first posts at the very beginning of this sad story. Muslims are in denial, of course, so expect the usual "condemnation" from the usual islamic groups. Salim, you people are really pathetic!

Susan,

No but similar displays of reckless hate have occurred in the US regarding abortion (the anti-abortion murderer Salvi).

http://www.s-t.com/daily/02-97/02-02-97/a03sr014.htm
http://www.womensenews.org/article.cfm/dyn/aid/496

I am not saying that Christians are worse than Muslisms. I merely want to make it obvious that any application of fundementally faith based reasoning is seriously troubling, and that it is religious fundamentalism, and the application of religion in the affairs of the state that is our enemy here, not any specific religion.

All people should be free to practice religion as they please, just don't expect to play a role in running the state!

http://members.aol.com/chasklu/religion/private/whyiamno.htm

>> They were Hindus of course. No, wait! There were jews!. No maybe Rotarians. Hum, maybe McDonald's workers. I give up!! Who could these people be?

It was either a) Karl Rove, since the murder was obviously timed so close to the election to generate a few extra votes for Bush

or b) the zionists pigs, led by the section 31, a secretive organization within the CIA, started by Bush 41. They were the ones who arranged for airplanes to go into an autopilot and crash into the towers, so they could blame muslims. All part of the plan, folks.

"No but similar displays of reckless hate have occurred in the US regarding abortion (the anti-abortion murderer Salvi)."

Yeah, so what? This guy was put on trial and sentenced to death for his crime as I recall (in George Bush's America BTW). Who prosecutes those who kill in the name of Allah? All too often they go scott free. The worst of those who slaughtered 21 Christians at al-Koseh for their Allah got 3 years at the most. The rest went free.

All people should be free to practice religion as they please, just don't expect to play a role in running the state!

In a democratic republic, all the people, regardless of their religious ideas, have a say in what laws are made, within the context of the right to life, liberty and property.

Liberty is naturally and properly restrained by public sentiment. For example, I find it repulsive when people relieve themselves in public, or expose their private parts to small children. In my democracy, we voted to make such actions illegal. It is not Christian oppression, but democracy in action. We the people have the right to determine such things. If the majority of people decided that women should wear veils in public, then it wouldn't be "muslim oppression", it would be democracy in action.

If the US Roe V Wade were overturned, it would be back to the states for that issue. Democracy in action. Are you afraid that your view of the world is not commonly held by other people? Get on with convincing them, or shut up. It's a marketplace of ideas.

What you wrote can be interpreted to mean that you don't truly believe in democracy.

>> If the majority of people decided that women should wear veils in public, then it wouldn't be "muslim oppression", it would be democracy in action

LOL. Let's see, 280 million americans, thats 140 million women, at least 100 million voting age. I guess that won't pass any time soon. Ahh, democracy in action...

Um Susan, the Dutch Police have a arrested a man in relation to this killing.

And the Master mind of the Bali bombing is being prosecuted for his crimes...in Indonesia the largest most populous islamic country of them all.

This kind of religious violence is intolerable!
David.

>> And the Master mind of the Bali bombing is being prosecuted for his crimes...in Indonesia the largest most populous islamic country of them all.

Right, because it's a democracy. I think Indonesia also cooporates in the war on terror. Iraq, OTOH, did not prosecute terrorists. It supported them, paid them, helped them, provided intelligence, hijack training, passports, diplomatic credentials (Yasim).

So you think the holocaust was democratic? I'm sure you'll find that the majority of Germans and Europeans at the time were against the jews.

And if the majority of people within a society wanted to force a group women into concentration to wear a viels, to accept unwanted pregnancies, even it was only a small majority with the marginalised group being opposed to this, would it still be democratic?

If the majority wanted to centralise the economy and take away an individuals right to choose the products (s)he needs, would you support this also?

People should be free to choose their policies and leaders enmass, so long as they don't infringe on other's freedoms of choice and action!

Indonesia is a democracy, yet its a democracy where the majority of people have applauded islamic terrorism against the west, with many rioting and protesting against Bashir arrest and criminal prosecution.

By your logic he should be set free to continue destroying the lives of others, and restricting their rights to be free from violence, just because a majority of people in his country support him.

Dave, you need to spend a bit more time reading what I wrote, and thinking about it. I said:

In a democratic republic, all the people, regardless of their religious ideas, have a say in what laws are made, within the context of the right to life, liberty and property.

So, I'm not at all for unlimited democracy. As I've always said, I support a democratic republic, with a constitution that specifies individual rights.

So you think the holocaust was democratic? I'm sure you'll find that the majority of Germans and Europeans at the time were against the jews.

The Nazi party was elected. But the brownshirts, like the left wing of the democratic party, were intimidating people who disagreed with them. Govt schools were indoctrinating. Freedom of the press was curtailed by threats and intimidation:

Germany's government remained on the brink of collapse. The SA brownshirts, about 400,000 strong, were a part of daily street violence. The economy was still in crisis. In the election of July 1932, the Nazi Party won 37% of the Reichstag seats, thanks to a massive propaganda campaign. For the next six months, the most powerful German leaders were embroiled in a series of desperate political maneuverings. Ultimately, these major players severely underestimated Hitler's political abilities

Then, Hitler used force to discard democracy, and establish fascism. So, this is hardly an example of the failure of democracy. That said, democracy is fragile, and totally dependent on the moral fortitude of it's citizens.

I'm amazed at how easy this is. Are you trying your hardest?

Both Van Gogh and Fortuyn were killed for being outspoken critics of Islam.
Fortuyn's killer assured the election of Fortuyn's party in the Netherland election.
Van Gogh's killer helped to elect George Bush in america, and will probably generate a powerful anti-muslim backlash across much of Europe.

Islam is indeed a 7th century religion. The problem with being a 7th century person living in a 21st century culture such as the Netherlands, is that trying to live in two different ages makes one insane. Think about the things that Ex-C has said on Bjorn's threads. Think about the muslims you may know or work with.

On August 2, 1934, President Hindenburg died. Hitler combined the offices of Reich Chancellor and President, declaring himself Führer and Reich Chancellor, or Reichsführer (Leader of the Reich). Hitler announced the Nuremberg Laws in 1935. These laws stripped Jews of their civil rights as German citizens and separated them from Germans legally, socially, and politically

So, Dave, you are wrong. The people didn't vote for this. Hitler made himself dictator, THEN violated the civil rights.

The combined office for Hitler was approved the 19 aug. 1934 by 90 % of the voters in a referendum.

But they did not know what we know to day and for what was obvious even back then to some few vanished in a euforia of hate and ignorance combined.

I never said that the German people voted for what happened to the Jews. ;-) However they certainly did support Hitler in the first instance, at a time when his anti-semitism and pro-German racism was blatantly obvious, blaming jews for ww1 and all that. Mein Kampf was written long before he assumed power, and that clearly outlines his threat to the jewish people.

I am by the way not trying to imply that German facism was in anyway democratic, or commendable than Soviety style/Theocracy-christian/muslim nations.

Thankfully much has changed in Germany, and I personally have never seen a German today express the racism of the 1930's (even if some extremists are afraid of turkish migration due to a lack of integration with German multi-cultural society at large).

In a democratic republic, all the people, regardless of their religious ideas, have a say in what laws are made, within the context of the right to life, liberty and property.

How does this context get determined? Who is the arbiter and bastion of truth and justice that doles out this judgement?

Does the rights of an amorphous blob of human matter to potential lifeover override the liberty and property of a fully formed adult female?

"I'm amazed at how easy this is. Are you trying your hardest?"

No, studying for my exams and practising my German pronounciation, leaves little room for intelligent debate with dogmatists. ;-)

Somewhere on this very long thread a poster quoted the Old Testament to illustrate Jewish law. This is completely inaccurate.

It's time for educated people to inform themselves more about Judaism. Over the centuries, Jewish law evolved. Various scholars wrote their opinions in the Talmud, a work that's analogous to the thousands of tomes devoted to U.S. constitutional law.

In other words, just quoting from the Torah will not tell you what current Jewish thinking on the subject is. To summarize: when you think about Judaism, think about the Talmud as well as the Tanach (Torah, Prophets, Writings which together equal Old Testament).

I'll stop here because the subject is TOO VAST.

>> No, studying for my exams and practising my German pronounciation, leaves little room for intelligent debate with dogmatists

Good, I'll leave you to your studies. :) I also have to get some work done, and we're probably off topic.

>> Over the centuries, Jewish law evolved

I figured as much, but couldn't speak to that.

According to Ex-C we must not insult Islam publicly or to the face of a Muslim, it might result in death. As it did for van Gogh. I find that slightly disturbing. If I was of the impression that this was a wiew of Ex-C and a few confused ones like him, it wouldn`t bug me much. Insanity doesn`t know any religion.

Sadly, my impression is that these attitudes are becomming more and more common among muslims in europe. And it doesn`t look like the usual approach to it works: close our eyes, appologize for them and hope it gets better. It`s getting worse.

It seems like the arabs have an inclination towards hate, it looks to come easy for them. Coupled with justification from their religion, a collossal sense of pride, we got an explosive mix on our hands.

The real question to this thread is: how to deal with it. We have admitted a lot of people into our countries who seems to increasingly hate us and our ways. It sounds terribly blunt, but that doesn`t make it less true. How can we deal with this without compromising the liberties we base our society on?

"How can we deal with this without compromising the liberties we base our society on?"

Expel those immigrants (regardless of race or creed) that refuse to comply with Europe's mult-cultural and tolerant ways.

If immigrants behave in an anti-Semitic manner, or refuse to respect women etc... Send em home.

Cheers,
David.

Neighbors: I have loved this site since first discoverying it. I have now opened a new site that I would like readers here to sample (it is free, no popups, no ads)...I think the subject and variety will inerest you---
http://www.israelpundit.blogspot.com/

We Muslims sentence our terrorists to death while the Americans ELECT their terrorists to become their presidents and heads of states:

Bali bomber sentenced to death

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/3130929.stm

Bush re-elected

http://www.gulf-daily-news.com/Story.asp?Article=95725&Sn=WORL&IssueID=27229

make you wonder who are really the REAL terrorists ?

After section one lays the foundations to justify a religious war against the Americans, section moves in with the corollary, the religious grounds for beheading infidels and apostates on camera.

DEBKAfile’s al Qaeda experts note that the 33 pages are studded with quotes from the Koran and Islamic canon law, which al Qaeda’s theologians interpret as permitting and advocating the killing of unbelievers by “slaughter.” One cited is Koran’s Sura Muhammed, Verse 4: “When you meet in battle those who have disbelieved, smite their necks…

ahh, øyvind, this seems to support the notion that there are portions of the islamic religious scriptures that can be used to support evil.

I'm still amazed at the logic: there are good parts, therefore there are no bad parts.

you Vulcans are all the same, it's just a matter of time before you want to make peace with the Klingons... :)

"We Muslims sentence our terrorists to death while the Americans ELECT their terrorists to become their presidents and heads of states"

Ex-C, you seems to have a litle problem whith your definitions. You should invest in an encyclopedia or something.

As to Bush, we should talk about his legacy in ten or twenty years. Reagan too was highly controversial in Europe, he`s wiewed quite diferently now.

The dirtywork that is been done in the Middle East now just might be the best investment of the century. It might. And if that is how history will judge it, it wont leave much credit to UN and "the old Europe", who apposed it.

"We Muslims sentence our terrorists to death while the Americans ELECT their terrorists to become their presidents and heads of states"

Ex-C, how about Arafat?

Paff, oslo

"We Muslims sentence our terrorists to death while the Americans ELECT their terrorists to become their presidents and heads of states"

Ex-C, you seems to have a litle problem whith your definitions. You should invest in an encyclopedia or something.''

isnt a terrorist someone who kill innocent civilians for political gains ??? Bush killed up to 100,000 innocent iraqi muslims, dont you call that terrorism, or is it only 'terrorism' when the victims are not muslims ????

David Elson, Queensland, Australia

''Expel those immigrants (regardless of race or creed) that refuse to comply with Europe's mult-cultural and tolerant ways.

If immigrants behave in an anti-Semitic manner, or refuse to respect women etc... Send em home.

Cheers,
David.''

Said the one who himself is an immigrant thief who stole Australia from the aboriginals !!

Anti semitism used to mean anyone who hates the jews, now it means anyone who the jews hate.

Totoro, U.S.

''Somewhere on this very long thread a poster quoted the Old Testament to illustrate Jewish law. This is completely inaccurate.
In other words, just quoting from the Torah will not tell you what current Jewish thinking on the subject is. To summarize: when you think about Judaism, think about the Talmud as well as the Tanach (Torah, Prophets, Writings which together equal Old Testament).''

Following your advice, one cant help himself but wonder what kind of book is this the Talmud that advocates so much absurdity and hate against non-jews ???

The Talmud specifically defines all who are not Jews as non-human and animals:

Erubin 21b. Whosoever disobeys the rabbis deserves death and will be punished by being boiled in hot excrement in hell.

Moed Kattan 17a. If a Jew is tempted to do evil he should go to a city where he is not known and do the evil there.

Jews are Divine:

Sanhedrin 58b. If a heathen (Gentile) hits a Jew, the Gentile must be killed. Hitting a Jew is the same as hitting God.

It's O.K. to Cheat Non-Jews:

Sanhedrin 57a. A Jew need not pay a Gentile ("Cuthean") the wages owed him for work.

Jews Have Superior Legal Status:

Baba Kamma 37b. "If an ox of an Israelite gores an ox of a Canaanite there is no liability; but if an ox of a Canaanite gores an ox of an Israelite ... the payment is to be in full."

Jews May Steal from Non-Jews:

Baba Mezia 24a. If a Jew finds an object lost by a Gentile ("heathen") it does not have to be returned. (Affirmed also in Baba Kamma 113b).

Sanhedrin 76a. God will not spare a Jew who "marries his daughter to an old man or takes a wife for his infant son or returns a lost article to a Cuthean ... "

Jews May Rob and Kill Non-Jews:

Sanhedrin 57a. When a Jew murders a Gentile ("Cuthean"), there will be no death penalty. What a Jew steals from a Gentile he may keep.

Baba Kamma 37b. Gentiles are outside the protection of the law and God has "exposed their money to Israel."

Jews May Lie to Non-Jews:

Baba Kamma 113a. Jews may use lies ("subterfuges") to circumvent a Gentile.

Non-Jewish Children Sub-Human:

Yebamoth 98a. All Gentile children are animals.

Abodah Zarah 36b. Gentile girls are in a state of niddah (filth) from birth.

Abodah Zarah 22a-22b. Gentiles prefer sex with cows.

Gittin 69a. To heal his flesh a Jew should take dust that lies within the shadow of an outdoor toilet, mix it with honey and eat it.

Shabbath 41a. The law regulating the rule for how to urinate in a holy way is given.

Yebamoth 63a. States that Adam had sexual intercourse with all the animals in the Garden of Eden.

Yebamoth 63a. Declares that agriculture is the lowest of occupations.

Sanhedrin 55b. A Jew may marry a three year old girl (specifically, three years "and a day" old).

Sanhedrin 54b. A Jew may have sex with a child as long as the child is less than nine years old.

Kethuboth 11b. "When a grown-up man has intercourse with a little girl it is nothing."

Yebamoth 59b. A woman who had intercourse with a beast is eligible to marry a Jewish priest. A woman who has sex with a demon is also eligible to marry a Jewish priest.

Abodah Zarah 17a. States that there is not a whore in the world that Rabbi Eleazar has not had sex with.

Hagigah 27a. States that no rabbi can ever go to hell.

And here is one of the most disturbing verses in the talmud:

Baba Mezia 59b. ''A rabbi debates God and defeats Him. God admits the rabbi won the debate'' !!!

I thank Allah Almighty I found the truth in Islam.

http://www.jewstoislam.com

http://www.why-christians-convert-to-islam.com

Paff, oslo

''According to Ex-C we must not insult Islam publicly or to the face of a Muslim, it might result in death. As it did for van Gogh. I find that slightly disturbing.''

So you found that disturbing but inciting hate and genocide against muslims is ok and indeed tolerated under the banner of FREE SPEECH !

What a bunch of hypocrites.

The face of Europe is changing rapidly and as Europe is asking its growing muslim population to adopt and integrate, Europe also 'MUST' adopt to its muslim population, we will 'NOT' tolerate insults and incitment against Islam and Muslims anymore. ENOUGH IS ENOUGH.

Ex-C, the truly religious mostly don't feel the need to convince everyone that their religion is right, perhaps you're trying to convince yourself?????

If Bjorn or other people would like it, I could translate an interesting article from today's Rzeczpospolita (Republic) on tension between Poland's small indigenous Moslem population (an assimilated Turkic group who been in Poland a couple hundred years or so) and Arab immigrants/missionaries who are trying to get them to conform to their version of Islam. I don't know if that's completely on topic, but if Bjorn is interested, he can contact me here or off list (there are no double letters in my real e-mail address)

Does anybody here want to live in the Europe that Ex-C envisions? A Europe where the indigenous non-Muslim population must bow down to Islam "or else"?

I'm just curious.

Muslims Spit on memorial portrait of Theo Van Gogh

I guess they don't really care about the feelings of their "host" population, do they?

Michael Farris

''Ex-C, the truly religious mostly don't feel the need to convince everyone that their religion is right, perhaps you're trying to convince yourself?????''

I dont give a shit if you or anyone else think my religion is right or not, but I will fight you to the end if you dare to insult or mock my religion.

Ex-C: That's why Islam hasn't advanced in 500 years. Can't accept criticism, can't grow, can't take responsibility for your own actions.

Susan

''Muslims Spit on memorial portrait of Theo Van Gogh

I guess they don't really care about the feelings of their "host" population, do they?''

JEWS IN JERUSALEM SPIT ON CHRISTIAN CROSS AND PRIESTS:

Christians in Jerusalem want Jews to stop spitting on them

A few weeks ago, a senior Greek Orthodox clergyman in Israel attended a meeting at a government office in Jerusalem's Givat Shaul quarter. When he returned to his car, an elderly man wearing a skullcap came and knocked on the window. When the clergyman let the window down, the passerby spat in his face.

The clergyman prefered not to lodge a complaint with the police and told an acquaintance that he was used to being spat at by Jews. Many Jerusalem clergy have been subjected to abuse of this kind. For the most part, they ignore it but sometimes they cannot.

On Sunday, a fracas developed when a yeshiva student spat at the cross being carried by the Armenian Archbishop during a procession near the Holy Sepulchre in the Old City. The archbishop's 17th-century cross was broken during the brawl and he slapped the yeshiva student.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/487412.html

I guess they don't really care about the feelings of their "host" population, do they?

Ex-C:

What a primitive-brained fellow you are. Your "arguments" consist of pointing at others and screaming, "Look how bad they are too!" How do you think this actions make the native-born Dutch people feel? All rosy and happy about Muslims in their midst?

You have won no friends or converts here, only repulsed a few people who formerly might have been more sympathetic to you.

Susan

''Ex-C: That's why Islam hasn't advanced in 500 years. Can't accept criticism, can't grow, can't take responsibility for your own actions.''

No-one except a dumb thief plays with the security of others and then makes himself believe he will be secure. Whereas thinking people, when disaster strikes, make it their priority to look for its causes, in order to prevent it happening again.

Osama Bin Laden in his latest speech on Al jazeera Monday 01 November 2004

Here is the full transcript of Bin laden speech, it is the duty of every AMERICAN TERRORIST to read it and try to understand why Americans are targeted all over the world:

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/79C6AF22-98FB-4A1C-B21F-2BC36E87F61F.htm

Susan

''Ex-C:

What a primitive-brained fellow you are. Your "arguments" consist of pointing at others and screaming, "Look how bad they are too!" ''

That is EXACTLY what you are doing Ms hate, posting articles about how bad muslims are !

are you sure you dont have ' multiple personality disoreder' ?

Ex-C: I post articles showing how Islam is stealing our Western freedoms (which our ancestors fought and died for for hundreds of years.) I would do the same about Communists or Nazis stealing our freedoms.

What it is like to be a n*gger -- whoops, I mean a dhimmi -- in Holland today:

Public Artwork Destroyed Because it had a Bible Quote and therefore "Offended" Muslims.

For some reason that link didn't work. Here it is:

http://www.faithfreedom.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=5255

Ex.C wrote:

The face of Europe is changing rapidly and as Europe is asking its growing muslim population to adopt and integrate, Europe also 'MUST' adopt to its muslim population, we will 'NOT' tolerate insults and incitment against Islam and Muslims anymore. ENOUGH IS ENOUGH.

Depends on how. Europe should accept that they've got some new people moving in, by letting them adapt to them.

However, anyone moving into another area of the world should adapt to that area. If I move to Iran, I should follow iranian law - and adapt to their customs - or I should expect resistance and consequences.

If muslims move to european countries, they should adapt to european customs and law - or should expect resistance and consequences.

It's the same as moving into a new neighbourhood. You try to adapt to your neighbours, you don't expect them to adapt to you if you start playing loud music and trashing their way of life.

The ONLY way europe should adapt, is by letting the muslims be assimilated into european laws and customs.

Ex.C:

That is EXACTLY what you are doing Ms hate, posting articles about how bad muslims are !

I find it kind of ironic that you think she is "Ms hate" when you on your hand post about how bad jews are.

You post insults and disinformation about the jewish religion. You post about how bad they behave, and so forth. You use jews as scapegoats for why your fellow muslims behave like jerks.

And you call _her_ "ms hate" ? What about yourself?

Ex-C

"Paff, oslo

"We Muslims sentence our terrorists to death while the Americans ELECT their terrorists to become their presidents and heads of states"

Ex-C, you seems to have a litle problem whith your definitions. You should invest in an encyclopedia or something.''

isnt a terrorist someone who kill innocent civilians for political gains ??? Bush killed up to 100,000 innocent iraqi muslims, dont you call that terrorism, or is it only 'terrorism' when the victims are not muslims ????"

US went to war against a regime, not civilians. And where do you get your numbers? Some hate-site? Not credible.

"The face of Europe is changing rapidly and as Europe is asking its growing muslim population to adopt and integrate, Europe also 'MUST' adopt to its muslim population, we will 'NOT' tolerate insults and incitment against Islam and Muslims anymore. ENOUGH IS ENOUGH."

So, Muslims come here claiming the need for protection from tyrant regimes. Then they, like tyrants, start telling us how to behave!!! Hatefully! Well, you don`t seem fit to be living in a free, demokratic country. I sugest you adjust your thinking. The western democracies will never adjust to you in the maner you describes. You can stretch us far, and you are, but there are limits. The day the public oppinion realy turns against you, it might get ugly.

Rune Kristian Viken, Oslo

''However, anyone moving into another area of the world should adapt to that area. If I move to Iran, I should follow iranian law - and adapt to their customs - or I should expect resistance and consequences.
If muslims move to european countries, they should adapt to european customs and law - or should expect resistance and consequences.''

I agree with you on one part, Muslims should adapt to European laws but NOT customs, I wont fornicate or binge drinking or dump my eldery mother to die alone in eldery home ! this is the European customs and no thank you we are not interested:

FROM THE SCOTSMAN NEWSPAPER:

No wonder Islam flinches from crusade of Blair values

Observers in the outside world, not having enjoyed the benefit of being morally anaesthetised by our own progressive consensus, assess the ‘values’ of western society in stark, even judgmental, terms.

They see the United Kingdom, where 20% of babies conceived are aborted and 41% of live births are illegitimate, as an undesirable role model for family life. We have vowed to bring security to Iraq, but we are unable to police our own country. Figures just out for the second quarter of this year record 303,500 violent crimes in England and Wales - an increase of 11% since last year. Nobody over the age of 30 dares to venture into the centres of our towns and cities between 8pm and 4am. The adult members of society are under curfew and the elderly under house arrest: feral youth has taken over. Come on in, Iraq - the water’s lovely!

http://scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com/opinion.cfm?id=1233932004

Do you want muslims to have their babies outside wedlock ??? NO WAYYYYYYYY.

''The ONLY way europe should adapt, is by letting the muslims be assimilated into european laws and customs. ''

I disagree, Muslims can ' integrate' but not assimilate, we will never give up our religion or our customs, Muslims prefered to die in Al Andalus (Muslim Spain ) rather than converting to christianity.

Beside why this hypocrisy when it comes to Muslims ? when I was in Syria for example, I was stunned to notice that this MUSLIM country has beside the muslim public holidays, CHRISTIAN public holidays despite the fact that SYRIA has only 10% christians !! and guess what ? they have public holiday on christmas day in December and another one in January for their ORTHODOX christians !! Jordan which is also a MUSLIM state has christian holidays PUBLIC holidays, Egypt has the same. SHOW ME ONE WESTERN COUNTRY THAT DECLARES MUSLIM HOLIDAYS AS PUBLIC HOLIDAYS ? france for example has 10% of its population Mulims ( the same as Syria has 10% of its population christians ) and yet we dont see the same TOLERANCE I myself witnessed in many muslim states !!!!

You refere to Syria and their Christian minority. There is a difference, the Muslim minorities i Europe has imigrated.

As a contrast, we treat our Sami minorities pretty well here in Scandinavia, don`t we?

Paff, oslo

''US went to war against a regime, not civilians. And where do you get your numbers? Some hate-site? Not credible.''

100,000 innocent Iraqi MUSLIMS have been killed by the American terrorists in Iraq, where I got my figure from? from the MOST CREDIBLE organization you can ever find:

THE LANCET:

http://www.thelancet.com/journal

The first scientific study of the human cost of the Iraq war suggests that at least 100,000 civilians have lost their lives since their country was invaded in March 2003.

More than half of those who died were women and children killed in air strikes, researchers say.

Previous estimates have put the Iraqi death toll at around 10,000 - ten times the 1,000 members of the British, American and multi-national forces who have died so far.

But the study, published in The Lancet, suggested that Iraqi casualties could be as much as 100 times the coalition losses. It was also savagely critical of the failure by coalition forces to count Iraqi casualties

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/storydisplay.cfm?storyID=3605297&thesection=news&thesubsection=world

Study puts Iraqi toll at 100,000

http://edition.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/29/iraq.deaths/

100,000 Iraqis died since U.S. invasion, analysis says

http://www.startribune.com/stories/1762/5057999.html

100,000 Iraqis died in 18 months of war: Survey

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1099003691781_94412891?hub=World

Scientists estimate 100,000 Iraqis died since war began

http://www.billingsgazette.com/index.php?id=1&display=rednews/2004/10/29/build/world/65-iraq-deaths.inc

DO YOU UNDERSTAND NOW WHY MORE AND MORE AMERICANS WILL BE BEHEADED AND WHY AMERICA WILL NEVER EVER BE SAFE ???

Paff, oslo

''You refere to Syria and their Christian minority. There is a difference, the Muslim minorities i Europe has imigrated. ''

So because muslims are immigrants they should not have any rights !! you are making a lot of sense here !

No, just suggesting you wait a decade or seven...

Well, yes there is a difference. The Christians of the Middle East are the remnants of the original, indigenous peoples of those regions. They were there long before they became members of "Arab" countries.

No one is asking you to have illegitimate babies or put your mother in a nursing home. This is all more hysterical, illogical "arguments."

The issue is our Western values of free speech, free association etc. These are not negotiable.

For immigrants (many of them supported by welfare payments from the indigenous peoples, BTW) to tell the indigenous people of Holland they can't put up artwork with a quotation from the Bible -- or they can't put on a satirical
film about Muslim culture -- is
simply disgusting and fascist. We had those freedoms before you came to our countries -- do you really think we will be happy about you taking them away from us with your violence and threats?

Ex-C, you are smart to hate democracy. In a democracy with protections for individual rights, it's likely that Sharia will be discarded.

As you correctly stated in your press meeting, the two factions in Iran are: on the one side the people of the land and on the opposing side the theocratic regime with its entire corrupt gang of the Mullahs and their cohorts. The biggest insult and humiliation to the Iranian people is that they are continuously being identified with this theocracy.

Sir, we are all inspired and encouraged and, above all, feel vindicated by your action and comments. We feel, at long last, powerful forces are affirming what we have been asserting for many years. Sir, we have known this "evil" regime, up close and personal, and we have been in its grip for over two decades! We are its immediate victims!

At least one Iranian is being executed each week under false charges and as of today, hundreds of Iran's best and brightest are being tortured in secret prisons by this brutal "reformist" government and the terrorist theocracy.

Euro anti-americans, it seems like the people who live or have lived under tyranny don't agree with your irrational and evil anti-american prejudices:

We hold the United States as the shining beacon of hope for freedom and as the guardian and advocate of democratic ideals. Those are the very principles we aspire to and revere. All we ask is the moral support of the United States. All we expect is that the United States will remain true to its principles of liberty and justice and its ideals of democracy

http://www.daneshjoo.org/article/publish/article_3207.shtml

Now, with Bush reelected, they will get moral support, and a WHOLE lot more.

A MUST READ FOR EVERY INTELLECUTAL:

No wonder Islam flinches from crusade of Blair values

...Blair, addressing the US Congress last year, told that audience: "Our ultimate weapon is not our guns but our beliefs. Don’t ever apologise for your values." In the United States, 25% of conceptions end in abortion and a further 25% in illegitimate births. America’s annual divorce rate has more than tripled since 1950. The black community, so stable in 1950, has disintegrated: 60% of black teenagers in the US today are the offspring of single mothers. The Jerry Springer, trailer-trash culture has overtaken much of America. In that breeding-ground were spawned the women ‘soldiers’ whose sadism and sexual grossness appalled the Middle East. Apologise for our values? Hell, no! What’s to apologise for?

How does the secular west look to Islamic and other societies? Are people who pray three times a day, marry for life, have a punctilious sense of sexual decency and a strong attachment to the family expected to welcome as liberators the amoral, dysfunctional primates slouching out of the débris of Christendom?

read the whole informative article here:

http://scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com/opinion.cfm?id=1233932004

More hysterical nonsense. No worthwhile response to the points I raised.

This is like "agruing" with a three-year-old.

I hope the people here have been instructed just a little bit. Bye.

Susan

''More hysterical nonsense. No worthwhile response to the points I raised. ''

Go back to the anti muslim hate sites you frequent all the time, you will feel more secure there with like minded mindless Islamophobes :)

"If the majority of people decided that women should wear veils in public, then it wouldn't be "muslim oppression", it would be democracy in action."

what the ?????? no it wouldn't, it would majority oppression of the minority that doesn't want to wear a veil. The only sensible course of action is to allow women who wish to wear the veil to do so and make sure those that don't wish to, don't have to.

>> Don’t ever apologise for your values

Ex-C, you need some more info. This is referring to traditional family values. Although technically values, no one refers to the values of the left (sex, drugs, and violence) as "values". You're right that it was the porn obsessed influence of hollywood that produced the woman of the abu graib scandal. She doesn't represent american "values". If you were logically consistent, you would support family man Bush, and not the creature of the 60s sexual revolution, Kerry.

Are people who pray three times a day, marry for life, have a punctilious sense of sexual decency and a strong attachment to the family

America just demonstrated that it agrees with you about Conservative values. It's the part where people decide on killing infidels that's the problem. It's the part where people decide on the use of force that's the problem. God's greatest gift to humanity is free-will. It's important that man does not take away, what God has freely given. Freedom of religion, try it, you'll like it.

Iranians welcome massively Bush's re-election

http://www.daneshjoo.org/smccdinews/article/publish/article_4319.shtml

Hey Ex-C:

How many people have you threatened with death today for "insulting" your precious Islam today?

How many dhimmies did you call "good boy" today for bowing down to your fascist cult?

PS I consider the term "Islamophobe" to be a compliment, thanks ever so much! As in:

Black people who are "KKKphobic."

Jewish people who are "Naziphobic."

Non-Muslim people who are "Islamophobic."

what the ?????? no it wouldn't, it would majority oppression of the minority that doesn't want to wear a veil. The only sensible course of action is to allow women who wish to wear the veil to do so and make sure those that don't wish to, don't have to.

So, by your logic, if people want to relieve themselves in public, or walk around naked, that's ok? And if people want to show pornographic violent movies about pedophilia to children in school, that's ok?

Susan

Hey Ex-C:

''How many people have you threatened with death today for "insulting" your precious Islam today? ''

Iranian Nobel winner sues the US:

Iranian Nobel Prize winner Shirin Ebadi is suing the US government for blocking publication of her memoirs.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3974099.stm

FREE SPEECH !! OH YEAH, THE AMERICAN WAY !

PS: dont forget to contact your rotten robert spencer to forward him the above article :)))

Ex-C

When are the Americans going to shoot Ms. Ebadi n the back like your friends did to Mr. Van Gogh? Funny she has a legal avenue for her grievances in the US -- in her home country people get killed for criticizing Islam on a website.

Don't forget to pat a few submissive non-Muslims on the head and say "good dhimmi, good boy" today!

Don't forget to issue a few death threats to the bad dhimmies (like me) today! "Bad dhimmi, boom boom!"

"So, by your logic, if people want to relieve themselves in public, or walk around naked, that's ok? And if people want to show pornographic violent movies about pedophilia to children in school, that's ok?"

Since you don't understand the difference between shitting on the sidewalk and protecting womens' right to self-determination, let me explain (after reminding myself to not walk in your neighborhood).

Expelling human waste in public is a health hazard and therefore impinges on other peoples' rights.

If people want to walk around naked, then yes, I think that should be their right (the number of people who want to be naked in a clothed environment is vanishingly small and people who are offended can for the most part not stare (assuming they have some self control). The only 'rights' that are impinged is peoples' right not to see ugly bodies (not in the bill of rights I believe).

Children do not have the right to consent to sexual encounters so pedophilic pornography is already violating people's rights and showing such a film to other children is also engaging them in activity which they have no legal right to consent to.

Women not wearing the veil violate no one's rights (except the right not to look at womens' hair/faces, again not a founding pillar of anything like civilization) women wearing the veil violate no one's rights (except the right to look at womens' hair/faces, again not in the constitution).

All clear now????? What is it with you domino people? Are other people's rights really that scary to you???????

>> FREE SPEECH !! OH YEAH, THE AMERICAN WAY

Sanctions are a totally valid foreign policy tool, and are certainly not a violation of US civil rights. For one thing, she isn't an american citizen. Certainly, this is an import issue only. Just like we can't buy things from Cuba. A totally valid restriction on our liberty, voted for in a democracy, the will of the people.

Besides, as the article make clear, all she has to do is complete with american involvement, or have it published in Europe, what's the big deal?

Susan

Ex-C

''When are the Americans going to shoot Ms. Ebadi n the back like your friends did to Mr. Van Gogh? ''

You are right Ms hate, the americans dont shoot in the back, they only MUTILATE Muslims from the safety of the sky ( typical cowards )

SEE THE PICTURES:

http://khayma.com/alhkikh/america/tslot/7orriah/grimh/moot.htm

Ex-C:

You jump around and you can't argue at all logically. When someone corners you, you change tactics and bring up another issue, unrelated.

The plain fact of the matter is that no one in the US is threatening to murder Ms. Ebadi because of something she wrote in a book.

The death threats toward Mr. Van Gogh are well-known, and more than a few Muslims unfortunately acted upon them in a conspiracy to murder the innocent man. Death threats have also been made against Hirsi Ali and Geert Wilders, two other Dutch political figures, for criticizing Islam. Why can't Islamics accept criticism like members of other religions?

Arguing with your moral equivalence doesn't get you anywhere. The plain fact of the matter is that Dutch people -- like all other European people who have accepted Muslims into their midst -- are losing their civil rights, that their ancestors fought died for, simply for being kind enough to take in "asylum" seekers and economic migrants. Is this fair or right?

>> Expelling human waste in public is a health hazard and therefore impinges on other peoples' rights.

Ok, say they bring their own portable toilets. No health hazard. Is that ok with you?

>> If people want to walk around naked, then yes, I think that should be their right

so, you don't mind that your children are exposed to naked people walking around? What if they are having consensual sex?

>> Children do not have the right to consent to sexual encounters so pedophilic pornography is already violating people's rights and showing such a film to other children is also engaging them in activity which they have no legal right to consent to.

They use very realistic computer generated characters, so no children were molested and no animals were injured, but the film is displayed on huge outdoor movie screens on private property in front of a school. Any objections?

Do you have any standard of decency, whatsoever that you would like to uphold for your children's sake, or for your nieces and nephews?

Hey Salim, or as you call yourself now, "Ex-C".
You still have not answered my questions I asked yesterday:
1. Do you like Brazilians? Are they good people?
2. What is the verse in the Quran than tells a man to beat his wife? (Don't tell me you don't know!)
and there were two other questions:
3. Would you consider a discussion about the life of Big Mo (you know, your prophet) as a slaver (a person who deals in human pain, suffering and death) using Muslim's own writings an insult, or could it be classified as historical research?
4. And also, once again, why did you change your name? Why are you lying about being an ex-christian? Any person looking at your posts at this site in early August can tell its you. Duhhh.

You attack other people here that tell the truth, but you ignore these simple questions I have politely asked. I even answered the question you asked, truthfully. I am being discriminated against. I protest! I am insulted. Porra! que sacanagem!

Bye now....

"Do you have any standard of decency, whatsoever that you would like to uphold for your children's sake, or for your nieces and nephews?"

That would satisfy you? Probably not.

But as long as we're being all hypothetical (and so very, very realistic), what if the majority passes a law that women have to stay indoors unless they're accompanied by an older male relative? What if the majority passes a law saying that blacks have to sit in the back of the bus? What if the majority passes a law that says _only_ people of the same sex may marry. I assume you'd support all of these as 'democracy in action'.

Ok, say they bring their own portable toilets. No health hazard. Is that ok with you?

Yep, People who go camping in the Australian bush do essentially that. They are on public land, camping or whatever, and taking a dump in "public". Should we bann such behaviour as offending the sensitivities of poor Gunnar?

so, you don't mind that your children are exposed to naked people walking around?

Restricting knowledge from people only makes them stupid and ignorant. Ever been to an Australian beach in Summer? Little is left to the imagination....

Should we return to the 1930s and bann the use of skimpy swim wear? Or the common place Topless bathing?

What if they are having consensual sex?

I think that this was answered already by someone else, with the showing of pornographic films tantamount to viewing the same said act in real life. "Children do not have the right to consent to sexual encounters[sic] so such a film (pornographic to other children) is also engaging them in activity which they have no legal right to consent to."

They use very realistic computer generated characters, but the film is displayed on huge outdoor movie screens on private property in front of a school.

Pre-sexual children are still unable to consent to or view sexual acts as it infringes upon their rights.

I see nothing wrong with holding conservative values, but attempting to force these or any other values upon and over the rights of others is the biggest problem that the muslim world has right now. A problem (if your views are anything to go by) that is now apparently gaining a foot hold in the US.

Conceptually there is little difference between forcing a women to wear the veil, to banning skimpy swimm wear, or denying a women her naturally given reproductive rights either through islamic law or pro-"life" beliefs.

Cheers,
David.

PS: ex-christian; I hope that you advocating that the Australian government gives me free money in payment for having stolen my land (I'm part aboriginal). Or perhaps the British government could compensate me for mistreatment of my scottish and irish ancestors? Or the Germans treatment of my gypsy relatives.

These kinds of arguments could go on forever and are persistently inane.

Susan actually he has already patted a good Dhimmi on the shoulder this day - that dhimmi is "The Scotsman".

How dare we to come and teach Iraqis about our way of life when they had such noble leadership ?

How dare we to try solve other people´s problems when we are drowing at home - violent crime up 11 % and we try make it safer in Iraq - Nice one scotsman you would never even consider to look into who is mostly doing that crime I can tell you in our capitol city it´s 75 % of the cases with serious crime which has immigrants a offender - a group that is though getting close to 20 % of the population in the city.

When it comes to rape immigrants which is less than 5 % of country´s population are getting close to do 40 % of the rapes. We are so deprived huh.

Our elder people live alone - I don´t mind that and my grandfather being the last alive of the grandparents + don´t mind it either. But if there is a time he should be alone it´s when walking the street in the neighbourhood. 3 times in the last years he has been assaulted and his money stolen - and guess what ? these were arab or somalian kids all three times - when i was a kid when stupid danes did such it used to be front page stuff if just some drugaddict on a bicycle raced by and snatched the bag - to day it´s only of interest if they kill or beat severely the old man or woman - people are being assaulted all the time and you don´t really to doanything more have to do anything to get it on you. Nor does the old style where is starts with a brawl end with a few punches and if guy sits down then it´s over count anymore. Nono if someone falls you kick him still, if he runs you run after and stab him in the back. This may not sound of much if you come from Harlem but this is not Harlem - it certainly never was anything near and nor should it ever become the least like it. Few newspapers are willing to print the fact immigrants are overpresent in crime statistics. Fair to say that violence in general has become more intense - the respect of law is waning.

Abu gharib well that´s a sad story indeed some people from Pentagon officials replied when asked about the case just as it came out "You mean to talk about the morons which cost us the war" This scandal covered page after page the setup could not have been better - the very same place where Saddam´s regime perpetrated it´s most bestial crimes stupid white men and women now did the same.
There can be no doubt that our own youth need to be raised better and taught some fundamental values like respect of other people´s dignity. chain command does not liberate you from using your own mind and heart. Nor does hate or disrespect serve a cause that was ultimately about making a people free. But these people are being sentenced not cherished or celebrated.

As in stark contrast the dutch police men shot the murderer in the leg even though he tried to kill one of them. Now that´s not something we should be ashamed of as these policefolks probably even get called rascists about everytime they try to arrest criminal immigrants.

But we are in general nice dhimmis in Europe - not to every citizens liking, but largely sadly.

Btw I think Omar Bakri should go to jail to later be shipped away with a one way ticket no return to Europe possible.

Oh yea people are getting divorced here and it means paying for children sharing the fortune and guess what some immigrants from moslem countries go on holiday back home in eg. Pakistan - then take passport from there wife - say three times they want to divorce which is all it takes no obligations after that and leave her - bye.
In the end divorce is not always negative if the marriage will be nothing but continually coldness - no reason to continue. In the end it´s about individual choice and the choice of the individual should be left in peace. The ones that condemn the choices of others are those to be condemned.

And first of all FREEDOM!

They killed the Van Gogh because he was free and because they are not.

He insulted them !!! Well don´t forget you have insulted your host by doing this, don´t forget that the truth shall never ever forever be hidden and people want to be free not to be told by anyone what to do, think and believe.

David Elston, Australia . . .

You said: "These kinds of arguments could go on forever and are persistently inane."

FWIW, I notice that internet conversations usually get destroyed when people use "reductio ad absurdum" arguments. One can always find outrageous examples to throw at another person. It's better to discuss controversial issues while keeping within the realm of the reasonable.

Just in case you misunderstand me, I want you to know that I am AGREEING with your statement regarding inane arguments.

Another example of inane arguments--Ex-C's list of things supposedly from the Talmud. Who knows where those silly quotations were taken from?

The point is: they DO NOT represent Judaism.

The essence of Judaism is the following-- from the Prophet Micah:

Do justice, love mercy, and walk humbly with thy God.

>> That would satisfy you? Probably not.

Ok, that was all I was trying to get you to admit. Your standard doesn't have to satisfy me. The only reasonable way to decide what the standard should be is by democracy.

You seem to want to impose your view of the standard by fiat, by IMPOSING it on other people. That's what I'm arguing against.

Yep, People who go camping in the Australian bush do essentially that. They are on public land, camping or whatever, and taking a dump in "public". Should we bann such behaviour as offending the sensitivities of poor Gunnar?

I'm not offended by it in that case. I'm arguing that there is a standard of decency and that this standard should be set by the community. I'm arguing for the powers of persuasion and the use of democracy to settle such matters that are not civil rights issues.

So, do you allow this to happen in downtown Sidney?

Restricting knowledge from people only makes them stupid and ignorant.

That's your opinion, and you should have a say by way of voting on this. You don't have a right to impose this view on other people by fiat, without using democracy.

Ever been to an Australian beach in Summer? Little is left to the imagination....

Which is fine, because that's the community standard.

Should we return to the 1930s and bann the use of skimpy swim wear? Or the common place Topless bathing?

Each community has the right to set their own standard. You want to set it by fiat.

What if they are having consensual sex?

Ok, how about adults. The film is displayed on huge outdoor movie screens on private property in front of a school.

Pre-sexual children are still unable to consent to or view sexual acts as it infringes upon their rights.

Unable to consent to sexual acts doesn't mean unable to view sexual acts. Where did you get that? There is no such right. This is a decency standard held by the community.

I see nothing wrong with holding conservative values, but attempting to force these or any other values upon and over the rights of others is the biggest problem that the muslim world has right now.

I'm not trying to force anything. The majority of people voting on a standard of decency is not the use of force. You're trying to force your view by claiming that the use of democracy to set a community standard is wrong.

A problem (if your views are anything to go by) that is now apparently gaining a foot hold in the US.

Muslim Sharia is totally different, to the extent that it's set by the use of force, and to the extent that it violates civil rights. If you can't distinguish between rules set by force and fiat and those set by people setting a community standard using democracy, then I feel sorry for you.

Conceptually there is little difference between forcing a women to wear the veil, to banning skimpy swimm wear, or denying a women her naturally given reproductive rights either through islamic law or pro-"life" beliefs.

Your conceptual faculties are seriously hampered if you can't distinguish between a community standard about exposing private parts to children and murdering children.

>> naturally given reproductive rights

This is such a non-sequiter. There is a right to life, liberty and property, liberty limited to not violating other people's right to life and property, and community decency standards.

A women does have the right to reproduce, just not the right to kill the child after choosing to reproduce!

Pro-life is supported from all sides.

Tradition: abortion has been wrong for centuries, and only illegal since 1973. A tiny sliver of time.

Intellectual civil rights: By what logic is it moral to end a life right before birth, but not right after? Are c-section babies human, since they aren't born? If so, then is it the act of separating the baby from the mother that creates a human life? If being attached makes the baby a non-human piece of property, what about people joined at the hip, could one kill the other, since it's attached? What about a test tube baby, when do they become human?

Scientific: new information has come to light that clearly shows a baby human in the womb. We now know that brain waves start after a few weeks, and that the baby has feelings and emotions. There is no rational definition of human life that the baby doesn't meet. There is no point (between 1 cell to billions) at which the growing human changes it's nature, like a butterfly.

Emotional Common sense: If the fetus is not a human person, why do expecting parents feel that there is a person there? Why do parents mourn a miscarriage? Why are people more horrified by a murder of a pregnant woman?

Hey Farris!

I have to tell ya that my stepfather is from Poznan. Went there for a week a couple of years ago and hope to go back. Lovely place and absolutely beautiful women. Poles rule!

And guys, really, why try to engage in a logical conversation with an idiot? Don't waste your time.

An interesting side note, the google news cache has been growing steadily about this story. From about 100 entries when it happened to almost a thousand today.

The pace quickens! Wake up Holland!

>> And guys, really, why try to engage in a logical conversation with an idiot? Don't waste your time.

Good point. Without someone who actually thinks, like Bjørn, it's really a waste of time.

Sorry, I got it wrong. "Ex-Christians" real name (?) is Salahudin, not Salim. Wrong name, right person.

Remember that in the posts above he spent a lot of time saying he was what is isn't. Obviously a case of lies, damn lies and muslim lies.

Here is the link at this site:
/warblog/000764.html#comments

If you go about halfway down the thread you will se that Old Saladhudin has about 20 posts, all pretty much the same stauff as he posts here. Its really kind of cute, having one set of arguments for all occasions. Be sure to keep all your references on file, Saladin, because you will need them the next time some muslim kills another infidel. Next time you can call yourself Ex-Evangelical-Jew, that will be really impressive.

Hey, are you going to answer my 4 questions or not?

I'll check back manana. Tchau.

And if the majority desire the oppression of the few?

And another question for you Gunnar, do you honestly believe that a foetus has the right to exist within the body of woman, against the will of the woman?

Last thing I heard, there were no god given rights in the American constitution for another being (even if we are to regard fetal mattter as an entity) to live within an another. There is no such thing as the right to live by the efforts of someone else, i.e., there is no such thing as the right to enslave. Whether by the mass decree of democracy or not.

a fetus, like an embryo, is not a human being, as it has no means of independent physiological existence (as does a baby, child, or adult). As such, it is a potential human being, just like an acorn is a potential oak tree. It contains all of the DNA of an oak tree, but it is not an oak tree.

Personhood at conception is a religious belief, not a provable biological fact. Mormon and some Fundamentalist churches believe in personhood at conception; Judaism holds that it begins at birth and abortion is not murder; ensoulment theories vary widely within Protestantism

I don't think the women of the world should be restricted to being the breeding pigs of the state or church.

This is relevant as if you can not maintain the separation of state in your own nation, than how can you hope to do this overseas (say in Iraq)?

I am surprised that anyone even bothers to converse with Ex-C. He is a classic example of a neurotic, bordering on the sociopath.

Remember Jim Jones of Jonestown? The religious zealot that convinced 900 of his followers to drink poison? Ex-C exhibits the same kinds of monomania, logocentrism, and misplaced messianic zeal. He needs therapy, and meds. He does not need the help of anyone here on this blogsite.

He is also a menace to society. But, ironically, he is also a menace to Islam. I seriously doubt that he has the wisdom, or the native cultural knowledge of Islam to act in the name of Islam. Unfortunately, Muslims all over the world are not organized enough to understand how their religion can be utilized against them by... colonizers, like Ex-C.

>> Ex-Evangelical-Jew

good. I'll be Ex-Lutheran, Ex-Athiest, Catholic

And another question for you Gunnar, do you honestly believe that a foetus has the right to exist within the body of woman, against the will of the woman?

I think it would be clear by now, but for those of you in Rio Linda, the answer is unequivocally YES! It's simple, it's undeniably human, undeniably alive, therefore the baby has an inalienable right to life. By definition, the mother is the parent, and a parent has no right to kill her child.

Last thing I heard, there were no god given rights in the American constitution for another being (even if we are to regard fetal mattter as an entity) to live within an another.

Circular reasoning, since it is the supreme court that legislated from the bench to declare that an alleged and certainly non enumerated right to privacy consituted due process of law. What the court did in 1973 was specifically unconstitutuonal, since it violated the tenth amendment:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people

In fact, the right to life is inalienable. There has been no due process of law, since the baby has not been accused of a crime, nor been given the right to be heard in one's own defense.

a fetus, like an embryo, is not a human being, as it has no means of independent physiological existence (as does a baby, child, or adult).

Yes, it is. Independent physiological existence is certainly NOT a pre-requisite to being human. A baby only needs what every human needs, nutrition, water, oxygen, and waste removal. The function of the womb is exactly the same as a medical life support system. Are you so ghastly to assert that once an adult is put on life support, they cease to be human? Even the name "Life Support" implies that it is a life that needs supporting. The womb is just a more perfect life support system. A newborn infant is similarly helpless. If left alone, it will die shortly. Truly a ghastly argument.

And this lack of argument is exactly the reason why the pro-life movement steadily gains in strength. Young people are increasingly pro-life, which is why the youth vote is not pro-democrat.

maintain the separation of church and state

There is no separation of church and state in the way you mean. You seem to be implying that the people in political office need to be secularists, and that people can't use democracy to set rules that might correspond to a person's faith or to set standards of decency. This is impossible, since a prohibition of murder can be construed as a religious belief and almost all the founding fathers were religious people. This is not a constitutional concept. Here are the first words of the bill of rights:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

So, all it means is that there can be no official state religion, like Norway still has.

acorn is a potential oak

But when the acorn starts to grow, digs in little roots, and grows a few small leaves, is it not a cute little oak tree?

It is poverty to decide that a child must die, so you can live as you choose. (Mother Teresa)

So the fetus is a person. If what you say is true than clearly you believe that even in cases of rape, incest, or an unborn child with severe defects that there is no right to abort it? After all, in all of these instances to do such a thing (under your christian beliefs) would be tantamount to murder.

Are you so ghastly to assert that once an adult is put on life support, they cease to be human?

If an adult is on life support, and has reached a mental state commonly similar to that of a vegatable than I personally would experience no moral quandry in switching her/his support off.

You seem to be implying that the people in political office need to be secularists, and that people can't set rules that might correspond to a person's faith.

I'm sure that the leaders of Islamic states would agree with you, in saying that their personal faith should have a strong role in determining public policy.

Decisions based on faith rather than reason are always bad decisions.

"Faith is powerful enough to immunize people against all appeals to pity, to forgiveness, to decent human feelings. It even immunizes them against fear, if they honestly believe that a martyr's death will send them straight to heaven. What a weapon! Religious faith deserves a chapter to itself in the annals of war technology, on an even footing with the longbow, the warhorse, the tank and the hydrogen bomb." - Richard Dawkins, 'The Blind Watchmaker', endnotes to chapter 11

"Religion is the impotence of the human mind to deal with occurences it cannot understand."
[Karl Marx]

I'm not sure Mother Teresa would encourage sentencing women and families to lives of poverty, because they were unable to abort an unwanted/deformed (through inscest or birth defect) child.

Always good discussions on this site.

Man, Ex-C. You should try a more wise way of defending you religion. What you're currently doing is opposite of what you intend to. You're just creating more scare of Islam by your behaviour. Just makes me wonder again, are you really a muslim, or are you just one that pretends to be, in order to convert more people into islam hate?

Gunnar:
You never answered a question I had about capitalism in the earlier thread: If education is not a right, but a service (because we dont have free teacher slaves) then how about the people defending everyones rights? (that is: the police) Would that not make them our slaves, since we have a right to something they provide?

T.Hansen wrote: "They killed the Van Gogh because he was free and because they are not".

Sadly, once more this debate has ended up in extremism fighting against extremism, lack of insight battling with lack of insight, etc. I'll try to start all over.

Who, T.Hansen, do you refer to when you say "they"? Who are "these" people who lack freedom?

Well, maybe it's not that difficult to find out. A letter was left on the body. It wasn't merely Quran verses, as someone has suggested. It was a letter threathening other people, foremost Hirsi Ali, and it was a letter - as the Dutch newspaper De Telegraaf points out - reflecting the ideology of Takfir wa'l Jihra (who? what? hmmm).

Here's the text of the letter (in Dutch):

It's quite long, so I haven't made a translation into English. Maybe I'll find the time later on. The letter, however, attacks the Netherlands, the US, etc, and - it also attacks - Judaism, which is suggested to have the control in both Amsterdam and Nederland. Want to know what the attack is all about? Well, the killer basically repeats many of the attacks against Islam seen here, with one difference:

What do you think of an ideology where Jews can lie to non-Jews? What do you think of an ideology allowing genocide? What do you think of an ideology regarding non-Jews as non-People

He even quotes verses from Jewish scripture.

I start to think: What do I think of an ideology where followers of a world religion are automatically considered to be allowing genocide, lies etc? Well, I don't like it much. It's interesting to see this, though, just after I have read the attacks on Judaism (by ex-C) and Islam (by so many others) in here.

But okay, let's go back to Takfir wa'l Jihad. Who are these people? Well, it's apparently an organization linked both to Ayman al-Zawahiri (often referred to as number two in al Qa'ida, might be just as central as OBL) and to Wahhabism.

Wahhabism? Well, that's an extreme brand of Islam that actually has made it to become the state religion in Saudi Arabia, and in its classical interpretation (realpolitically impossible for S-A, of course) it regards not only non-Muslims as enemies, but perhaps both Shia-Muslims, Sufi Muslims and basically everyone who isn't Wahabbi as an enemy. This is an ideology that, especially in its extreme variants, is much more dangerous to Muslims than to anyone else, this is also shown by their attacks on fellow Muslims in mosques - for instance in Sudan and Egypt. Rumours say that they have even tried assasinating Osama bin Laden himself back in 1996.

The name has been used by different groups, however, so it's important to keep ones tongue in the cheek.

(see this article on another Wahhabi group - "Murderous Monotheists")

Takfir wa'l Hijra was originally an offspring of the Muslim Brotherhood - the Islamist organization of Hassan Banna and Sayyid Qutb - that was seen as not militant enough.

What does all of this mean? Well, if the murderer of van Gogh indeed has links to Takfir wa'l Hijra, or even if he worked on his own, his ideology belongs to the most extreme of Islamists. It is a fascist ideology, filled with anti-Semitism and anti-democratic sentiments. It is, however, also as far from mainstream Islam as its possible to get. Some people will of course claim that "this is the true face of Islam". Go ahead, but you can be sure about one thing: Most Muslims will not agree with you. Takfir wa'l Jihad are extremists and murderers to them too.

Øyvind

"so it's important to keep ones tongue in the cheek."

It's important to not be serious? I think maybe you meant something like "this should be taken with a grain of salt."

Yep, Michael, I should have looked up that one - stuff got mixed up in my head. Was up half the night, but that's my only excuse, I'm afraid.

You never answered a question I had about capitalism in the earlier thread: If education is not a right, but a service (because we dont have free teacher slaves) then how about the people defending everyones rights? (that is: the police) Would that not make them our slaves, since we have a right to something they provide?

Sorry, I missed this question. I have to work too you know :)

Well, that's easy. We have the right to life, but not the right to have it defended for us. "To secure these rights, governments are instituted among men". So, we created government to secure the rights. It's a service. Don't confuse morality, ie rights with the actual results. I have a right to life, but not a guarantee that I will stay alive. A brick could fall on my head, but it wouldn't have moral significance. If I'm stranded on a deserted island, I still have all my rights. By definition, I would have to, since there is no one there to violate them.

I could be wrong, but it seems like when people have no arguments, and they are getting out-debated, they call it extremism, or "lack of insight".

It is, however, also as far from mainstream Islam as its possible to get. Some people will of course claim that "this is the true face of Islam".

Ok, granted, it's not reflective of the majority of islam. But there is no doubt that the radical element is large and is strengthened by support they find in their scriptures. For example,

DEBKAfile’s al Qaeda experts note that the 33 pages are studded with quotes from the Koran and Islamic canon law, which al Qaeda’s theologians interpret as permitting and advocating the killing of unbelievers by “slaughter.” One cited is Koran’s Sura Muhammed, Verse 4: “When you meet in battle those who have disbelieved, smite their necks…

http://www.debka.com/article.php?aid=919

The real point is that other than for a few days after Beslan, these moderates of yours never condemn the radical elements. Why? It could be cowardice, which would indicate how strong and dangerous these elements are. Or more likely, they don't have a strong moral argument to make. They are intellectually powerless.

For example, when republicans were in the minority in the US, most operated in a me-too style. The democrats would proclaim some socialist goal, and a plan to implement it. The republicans would then state that they agreed with the goal / socialist premise, but disagreed on the details on how to implement. The result was that the electorate was given two choices, left winger, or left-wing wannabe. So naturally, they chose the real thing.

Similarly, since the underlying source of islamic authority provides support for the radical elements, what can the moderate elements do, but quietly disagree?

So, you can argue against your straw man (that there are no good muslims) all you want, but it's an irrelevant logic fallacy that's not in dispute. You never answered the point: so what, there are radical elements, and they find support in scriptures, and they must be stopped.

After "EvC's" rants, perhaps he should investigate the following links. Christianity is growing quite rapidly in the Muslim world....and unlike "EX-C" they're pleasant and rational.

By the way, EX-C they're all from one of you're favorite websites

http://www.islamonline.net/English/News/2004-06/26/article04.shtml

http://www.islamonline.net/English/News/2004-06/23/article04.shtml

http://www.islamonline.net/English/News/2003-11/13/article04.shtml

For some reason I'm reminded of that scene in "Soldier of Orange" where the Dutch soldiers are trying to fight German panzer divisions on bicycles. Such kind, tolerant, pacifistic people, but very naive.

The Dutch have once again allowed an alien occupation to take root on their soil. A Dutch website posted a survey saying that 1/3 of all native born Dutch people want to leave their own country. May God help them.

Anyone who wants to read translations of the note in English, you can find them on faithfreedom or littlegreenfootballs. Lots of threats against Hirsi Ali and various Dutch politicians, including the weak dhimmi mayor of Job Cohen (note to some who post here: playing the dhimmi is not a guarantee of Islamofascist tolerance.)

There are some Dutch people on Dhimmiwatch who are also providing regular updates in English.

Gunnar:

Lying doesn't help.

But okay, maybe you didn't lie. If that is so then you showed the very lack of insight I talked about.

I have repeatedly - over and over again - posted here and other places Muslim condemnations of murders, terrorism, etc. They are hardly difficult to find - even at MEMRI you will discover them.

If you look early in this thread - I posted it, as well, because I knew that the good old "the moderates never say anything"-story would come. It always does. But frankly, it's not the moderates fault that you are not willing to listen to them and that the media often seem uncapable of bringing their voices out.

It is also simply not true that ideas like this have a big following. Islamism does.

But Islamism comes in different fashions, most of them militant, but few of them as militant as the ideas of Takfir wal Hijra. I do not know whether Takfir wal Hijra is behind this murder, what was written in the death letter suggests their ideology has been influential. While many kinds of Islamism are dangerous, and while these - altogether - have a significant following, ideas like the ones of Takfir wal Jihad, have little following.

That doesn't really make them less dangerous. These extremists does not a huge following to be capable of committing murders or terrorism.

Yes, it is fully possible for Islamists to use scripture. Ku Klux Klan uses scripture as well, and so does this nutty Norwegian (holywar.org is, interestingly enough, a "Christian" site). That doesn't mean that Islam needs thousands of selfmade experts on Islam to tell them that the mainstream interpretations are wrong, that the modernist and humanist interpretations are even more wrong and that the Islamists interpretation in reality is the right one. Alas, this is what's being done these days. And yes - that creates a battle between extremisms.

When it comes to being outdebated, it seems like noone ever responded to my quoting of both Quranic verses and classical interpretation of these. Maybe because it doesn't fit the picture some people want to create. What picture? The picture of Mark Gabriel perhaps? Or of the grand guru himself, Ibn Warraq? Oriana Fallaci? Write an anti-Islamic book these days and you're sure to get both a fat wallet and an enthusiastic following. Not all of them know that a "sura" is a verse in the Qu'ran, of course, and if you write "ijtihad" some might think that you just spelled "jihad" wrongly.

There are problems in and with mainstream Islam. These are not insignificant problems. But instead of having a sober critique of Islam it's always the same thing over and over and over again: "Terrorism is the true face of Islam". I can almost hear the squeakish little voices they always use on annoying characters in cartoons.

Ex-Christian isn't any better, of course. He's massing too, and sometimes I really do suspect him for being a troll - for us Norwegians that word has more than one meaning anyway :).

But then it doesn't really matter, regardless of what ex-C is, where he comes from (he does speak Swedish, btw), etc. the ideas he writes about here does really exist out there, they should be confronted and discussed, but they need to be confronted and discussed soberly and based on facts. Repeating mantras about the moderate Muslims who never protest and about how Islam is a religion of hate and Muhammed was a pedophile isn't sober discussion.

It drives moderate Muslims away from us, and you can be sure there are extremists like Takfir wal Hijra out there waiting for just that to happen. And if this happens in a large scale, that "dhimmi" in the Scottish newspaper will be right - in a Clash of Civilizations we're the one that's gonna get screwed. But instead we need to ally with moderate and liberal Muslims, fight off the extremists and join hands with them in the battle for democracy and human rights worldover.

Øyvind

"The picture of Mark Gabriel perhaps? Or of the grand guru himself, Ibn Warraq? Oriana Fallaci? Write an anti-Islamic book these days and you're sure to get both a fat wallet and an enthusiastic following."

Oyvind, you are certainly in high dhimmi mode these days aren't you? Ibn Warraq hardly made any money off of his books and neither has Mme. Bat Yeor. The others I don't know anything about. And Ibn Warraq does indeed know what "itjihad" means as he devoted quite a lare segment of his book to just that subject.

You are shameless in your fabrications. And it can scarcely escape anyone's notice that while you tokenly condemn Islamo-Nazi Ex-C for his death threats and fascist leanings, you save your real venom for those you call Islamophobe.

And that is the problem with the whole West: the real venom is directed at those who fight Islam, not those who kill film-makers in the streets for having the audacity to criticize the "religion of peace." (Sneer quotes fully intended.)

Do you Europeans really believe that following dhimmies is the answer? How far has following dhimmies gotten you in the past?

3 out of 10 native-born Dutch people want to leave their own country. That is what dhimmitude gets you.

Gunnar:

And just to make it clear.

1. The post you responded to was not targeting you, but a general statement about the direction of this thread (I lost your answer to me, I'm sorry, it got buried in heap of references to Jewish scripture that I basically scrolled through).

How you can accuse me of making a strawman against you in a post not attacking you beats me.

2. I do not believe or accuse you of having all the ideas mentioned in my last post. They are, however, real ideas - ideas also possessed by people writing on this very blog.

I think your wrong about the popularity of people like Takfir wal Hijra and also that you have been closing your ears and eyes when it comes to moderate Muslims. The rest of my attack in the post above is a general attack on anti-Islamist ideas. If you consider this a strawman, I'm sorry.

I completely agree with you that there are radical elements and that these need to be stopped. That they find support in scripture doesn't matter. The peacenik Ahmadiyyas also find support in scripture, you know.

The question is, I guess, how to stop these radical elements. Shoving away the majority of Muslism that aren't amongst them is hardly a good way.

Øyvind

Susan:

there's plenty of people that have plenty of venom against ex-C, here. Sometimes I have tried reasoning with him, sometimes I just don't give a darn. I don't see a reason to attack all of his ideas, I'll leave that job to you.

Islamophobe is a word you don't see me use often, so I guess you have some constructions us as well. Your worst problem, however, is that you don't do that job of attacking all of ex-C's ideas very well. Instead you choose to scream "dhimmi-dhimmi-dhimmitude" and "poor Dutch", "poor French", "they're so naive", and things that sound an awful lot like "They're going to eat us all those great green monsters".

Ex-C hardly deserves being called a Nazi. He has often showed anti-Semitic ideas, but anti-Semitism have sadly never been limited to the followers of Hitler. I have repeatedly criticized this anti-Semitism, I will gladly do it again, but I do not think that anti-Judaism is that much of a problem in Europe today. Racism towards Muslims, on the other side, well - let's say; it's not all that uncommon in any of those countries that are so "naive".

Øyvind

And Susan:

I never said that Ibn Warraq doesn't know "ijtihad". I have read his book.

I have however discussed with one of the leading anti-Islamists in Norway (one of the people behind Forum Against Islamization) over at the discussion forum of Verdens Gang (www.vg.no), and he thought I was trying to hide the word "jihad" by writing it another way. He's a huge Ibn Warraq fan too, but still - this is a real example, believe it or not.

And the "sura" example - well, you'll find it in this thread.

Øyvind

Susan:

And - since you apparently do not read what I write. Here's my venom against Takfir wal Jihad found above:

It is a fascist ideology, filled with anti-Semitism and anti-democratic sentiments.

How does that differ from your view on Takfir wal Jihad, Susan? Hmm? Please indulge me.

Øyvind

Oh, and btw:

A link to that Dutch website would be appreciated. I have been desperately googling for it.

I simply don`t belive that a tolerant line is the way to cope with the Muslim extremism-challenge we are facing in Europe today. The main reason for that is that our peaceloving tolerance is conceived by Muslims as weakness.
If we are week, we are not their equals, so we must subordinate them. Dhimmi. Blunt? Yes. False? No.

Thats the cultural difference. People like Øyvind can intelectualize as much as they like, it doesn`t change a single Muslim mind. They wiew themselves and their culture and religion as superior. Following our cultural values is under their dignity. Bowing for the "potatoes"? Dream on. We should listen to what they say, not what leftist intellectuals tels us they are realy saying.

The only language they understand is the one of strong leaders drawing a clear line. Good old W speaks that language. He just might be the right man for these times.

[** DELETED because of death threats and personal attacks -BS 6/11]

Ex- Muslim

''After "EvC's" rants, perhaps he should investigate the following links. Christianity is growing quite rapidly in the Muslim world....and unlike "EX-C" they're pleasant and rational.
By the way, EX-C they're all from one of you're favorite websites''

According to one famous christian missionary, Islam is WINNING at a rate 1 to 10:

Why British Women are turning to Islam

http://www.muslimaccess.com/articles/Women/british_women.asp

Islamic Britain lures top people

Sunday Times 22 February 2004
MORE than 14,000 white Britons have converted to Islam after becoming disillusioned with western values, according to the first authoritative study of the phenomenon.

Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world

[url]http://www.msnbc.com/news/649424.asp[/url]

-'' Indeed, Islam is the world's fastest growing religion in the world'' The Economist, London Sept 2003

BBC: Thousands of Asutralia's Aboriginals are converting to Islam:
http://newswww.bbc.net.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/2902315.stm

Islam is spreading so fast in Mexico:

http://www.finalcall.com/international/mexico07-02-2002.htm

http://www.racematters.org/islamtakesrootinmexico.htm

EVEN IN HAWAII, MORE AND MORE ARE CONVERTING TO ISLAM

[url]http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2001/Nov/11/ln/ln06a.html[/url]

In South Africa, so many blacks are converting to Islam

[url]http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0110/p13s1-woaf.html[/url]

Thousands in Rawanda-Africa are converting to Islam every year

[url]http://www.xamarcadde.com/rawanda.html[/url]

Hindus in india are converting to Islam in their masses:

[url]http://www.milligazette.com/Archive.../0111200275.htm[/url]

Islam is back to Spain after 500 years

http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/1002/p07s01-woeu.html

More and more americans are converting to Islam specially after 9/11:

[url]http://www.yorknewstimes.com/stories/042702/neb_0427020012.shtml[/url]

NEW YORK TIMES: ISLAM ATTRACT THOUSANDS DRAWN BEFORE AND AFTER 9/11

[url]http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F30D13FA345A0C718EDDA90994D9404482[/url]

NEW YORK TIMES: Ten Years After Horror, Rwandans Turn to Islam

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/07/international/africa/07RWAN.html?ex=1082779200&en=283e1bff09a49902&ei=5070

The Canadian Globe and Mail: Islam is now the fastest growing religion in Canada

http://www.globeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20030514/UCENSN/TPFront/TopStories

Islam: The Next American Religion?

[url]http://www.beliefnet.com/story/69/story_6982.html[/url]

Catholic World News: Exhilarating Time To Be Christian," But Islam Grows Faster

[url]http://www.cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=16311[/url]

U.S. Department of State for International Information programes: Islam is one of the fastest growing religions in America

[url]http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/muslimlife/[/url]

Muslims outpace Anglicans in UK

[url]http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/444572.cms[/url]

A Spanish bridge to Islam:

[url]http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/1002/p07s01-woeu.html[/url]

Britain Elites are converting to Islam

http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2004/03/286384.html

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1096872/posts

[url]http://www.lightuponlight.com/islam...ws&new_topic=14[/url]

http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/artic...erahIslam.shtml

Islam is also spreading in Ukraine

http://www.crimeatau.org.ua/project/islam/itriu.html

AND NOW THE MUSLIM SOURCES:

From the poorest villages on Earth to the richest palaces the world has seen, people from all walks of life have and continue to embrace Islam. From the time Prophet Muhammad up to today, literally countless numbers of people have embraced this way of life. The effort of this section is to capture the essence of what has brought so many people to Islam. "

http://www.islamonline.net/english/journey/journey.shtml

Italy's Ambassador to Saudi Arabia Converts To Islam

http://www.welcome-back.org/news/cardilli.shtml

Former Christian Priests and Missionaries who have Embraced Islam

Abdullah al-Faruq - Formerly Kenneth L. Jenkins, minister and elder of the Pentecostal Church
Dr. Jerald F. Dirks - Former minister (deacon) of the United Methodist Church. He holds a Master's degree in Divinity from Harvard University and a Doctorate in Psychology from the University of Denver. Author of The Cross and the Crescent: An Interfaith Dialogue between Christianity and Islam (ISBN 1-59008-002-5 - Amana Publications, 2001). He has published over 60 articles in the field of clinical psychology, and over 150 articles on Arabian horses
Viacheslav Polosin - Former Archpriest of the Russian Orthodox Church
Anselm Tormeeda - 14th century CE scholar and priest
Khadijah 'Sue' Watson - Former pastor, missionary, professor. Master's degree in Divinity
Ibrahim Khalil - Former Egyptian Coptic priest
Anonymous Female Missionary - Former Catholic missionary
Martin John Mwaipopo - Former Lutheran Archbishop
Raphael - Former Jehovah's Witness minister
George Anthony - Former Catholic priest
Dr. Gary Miller (Abdul-Ahad Omar) - Former missionary

http://www.thetruereligion.org/priests.htm

JEWS TO ISLAM:

http://www.jewstoislam.com

JEWS FOR ALLAH: Jewish testimonies

http://www.jews-for-allah.org

Stories of New Muslims:

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

CONVERTS TO ISLAM:

http://www.convertstoislam.com

WELCOME BACK TO ISLAM:

http://www.welcome-back.org/

http://www.welcome-back.org/profile/cosens.shtml

Anecdotal evidence suggests that there has been a surge in conversions to Islam since September 11, especially among affluent young white Britons

http://www.sharif.org.uk/maqsood.htm

Prominent Converts to Islam

http://www.salaam.co.uk/themeofthemonth/june02_index.php?l=6

CHRISTIANS CONVERTING TO ISLAM

http://www.sharif.org.uk/converts.htm

Ex Christian-
since ALL of your islamic recruiting is done from prison as far as religious converstions go, you have only limited numbers left.
Why do you fool only yourself so often little one?

Pato

''Ex Christian-
since ALL of your islamic recruiting is done from prison as far as religious converstions go, you have only limited numbers left.
Why do you fool only yourself so often little one?''

I am sure you heard this ' myth ' in one of the anti muslim hate sites, let me destroy this myth with some FACTS:

BELIEVE IT OR NOT :

George W Bush may be backed by Christian fundamentalists but in his home state of Texas, Islam is the latest big draw. The Bible belt is transferring its allegiance to the Qur’an:

http://www.channel4.com/culture/microsites/B/believeitornot/texas1.html

20.000 Spaniards converted to Islam

http://www.arabicnews.com/ansub/Daily/Day/021113/2002111322.html ( did they also convert in prison ? )

In the current climate, converting to Islam is not an obvious choice or an easy one, either for converts or their families. So, why have 14,000 Brits (and counting) now taken that leap of faith? In A Muslim in the Family, Rageh Omaar tries to find out.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/3663771.stm

Converts find a home in Islam ( Thousands convert to Islam in South Africa every year )

http://www.capeargus.co.za/index.php?fArticleId=180836

From the NEW YORK TIMES:

Ten Years After Horror, Rwandans Turn to Islam

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/07/international/africa/07RWAN.html?ex=1082779200&en=283e1bff09a49902&ei=5070

YOUNG GERMANS EMBRACING ISLAM:
REICHSFÜHRER HIMMLER DELIGHTED

http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/News/Trifkovic/NewsST102903.html

THE COPENHAGEN POST REPORT ABOUT 3000-5000 ETHNIC DANES CONVERTING TO ISLAM IN RECENT YEARS:

http://www.cphpost.dk/get/79365.html

I guess all the above converted in prison, right ? what a moron ! looooooooool.

Ex- Muslim

''After "EvC's" rants, perhaps he should investigate the following links. Christianity is growing quite rapidly in the Muslim world....and unlike "EX-C" they're pleasant and rational.
By the way, EX-C they're all from one of you're favorite websites''

Also, the last 2 links you provided does NOT talk about muslims converting, they talk about raising missionary activities, there is a big difference between the two:

from one of your links:

''The semi-official religious councils in the northern states of Tizi Ouzou and Bidjaia also played down the reports.

They said in a joint statement that some parties are stirring unrest in the tribes area, which is regarded as a fortress defending the Islamic identity.

But they agreed that a few cases of youths were mislead into converting to Christianity. ''

http://www.islamonline.net/English/News/2004-06/23/article04.shtml

TRY AGAIN but this time HARDER :)))

[** DELETED because of personal attack -BS 6/11]

Pato:

So no comment about my detaild rebuttal to your ' moronic' statement about conversion to islam in prison !!

you American christians are all the same, typical losers, once you are faced with facts, you turn to personal attacks and insults :)

Here is another ' BLOW ':

From the NEW YORK TIMES:

Islam Attracts Converts by the Thousands, Drawn Before and After Attacks

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/10/22/national/22CONV.html?ex=1062388800&en=a7f95512b2d05e96&ei=5070

ENJOY :)

Turn's out that a mural that an artist painted in Rotterdamn which said 'Thou shalt not kill' with a dove interwoven was sandblasted by workers after the imam at a local mosque compained that it was racist( what race are muslims again? ).

Is this what Theo Van Gogh died for?

Oyvind, my purpose is not to argue with you. I know quite a bit about Islam and if you really wanted to go mano-a-mano with me on it you would find yourself quite a strong challenger. (I do recall once that in an argument with you, it degenerated, at your prompting, into a bizarre and childish thread about comparative fruits.)

But I don't have the time nor the inclination to go around and around and around with you in your endless circles of intellectual abstractions and equivalences. My purpose here is to warn the realistic people what is coming there way.

Bjorn Staerk is a smart and well-informed man but he had never heard of Theo Van Gogh or Hirsi Ali. I have known about both and have tracked their death struggle with Islam for more than a year, possibly two years.

That even Bjorn did not know about it shows that people are still very ignorant and naive. My purpose here is to be a warner.

Regarding Ex-C and the term "Nazi". He threatened people here with death for saying that they had a right under the law to insult Mohammad and his "religion of peace." He repeatedly stated that his goal in Europe is to establish sharia law when Muslim demographices become powerful enough.

Now, that may not be Nazi behavior to you. But to me, such beliefs are at least fascist, and an enemy of my civilization.

Ex-C and millions of other Muslims have chosen their "side." No one criticizes them or calls them "racist" for choosing their side.

BUt those of us who choose our own civilization, who chose to fight for our "side" -- we are being shouted down and ridiculed and intimidated by such as yourself, Oyvind.

Sorry, but I choose my side. I choose the West. Those of you here who think the West is worth fighting for can follow me.

Those of you who think the West is not worth fighting for can follow Oyvind and his determination to shut up anybody who wants to criticize his precious "religion of peace."

Ex-C

"you American christians are all the same, typical losers, once you are faced with facts, you turn to personal attacks and insults :)"

Yeah, right, laughing out very loud. Your numbers of a few thousand converts is not impressing. The reason Islam is the fastest growing religion is that Muslims treat their women as birt-machines. The reason not many Muslims convert to Christianity is that they might get killed and they certainly will get excluded by their families. I can`t see how this is something to brag about.

Do you see how I treat your religion with respect, using a capital M in Muslim, while you don`t return the respect? Onestly, having read your posts, I don`t think you deserve that respect.

Regarding European "racism" against Muslims, Oyvind -- after 9-11 we Americans were told, again and again and again, loudly and insistently, by people on your side of the aisel, "to ask ourselves why we are hated."

Does this admonition not apply to Muslims as well, or only to war-mongering fascist Yankees?

Do you think that the Dutch people posting on Dhimmiwatch and FFI of their anger about what happened to Mr. Van Gogh started out as "racists"? None of them are racists. They became anti-Islam after tasting its bitter fruits. The same could be said of myself.

Ex-(Ignorant) Christian reminds me of the poorly endowed man who walks around telling everyone how large his cock is.

If it's the Truth, why the need to shout and threaten? Surely it's self evident..... :|

Cornelius,

''Ex-(Ignorant) Christian reminds me of the poorly endowed man who walks around telling everyone how large his cock is.

If it's the Truth, why the need to shout and threaten? Surely it's self evident..... :|''

In the meantime, I am still waiting your response to my response about jesus and the OT !! I am sure you dont have anything to say apart from the usual ' personal insults ' :)))

http://www.why-christians-convert-to-islam.com

Paff

Ex-C

''Yeah, right, laughing out very loud. Your numbers of a few thousand converts is not impressing. The reason Islam is the fastest growing religion is that Muslims treat their women as birt-machines. The reason not many Muslims convert to Christianity is that they might get killed and they certainly will get excluded by their families. I can`t see how this is something to brag about.''

Here is the QUESTION that neither you nor any mindless Islamophobe will DARE to answer:

If Muslims who want really to convert to christianity are put off by the ' alleged ' prospect of getting killed, why then the MILLIONS of Muslims who are living FREELY in the west are NOT converting ?????

I CHALLENGE YOU TO ANSWER THIS QUESTION !!

What we are seeing in Europe and in the USA is EXACTLY the opposite, we are seeing Muslims affecting non muslims to great deal that thousands upon thousands of Americans and westerners are converting to Islam.

[** DELETED because of personal attack -BS 6/11]

[** DELETED because of personal attack. -BS6/11]

>> If muslims move to european countries, they should adapt to european customs and law - or should expect resistance and consequences.

Rune, but this would be using common sense. Europeans are ever so polite, but sometimes, a rude guest outstays their welcome. You mustn't let fear of xenophobia scare you. How's that for a phrase, eh? Used fear in the same sentence 3 times.

Great name btw.

Van Gogh update...

The police released the note pinned to Mr van Gogh's chest, which was written in Arab and Dutch with phrases from the Koran ... It complained that the Netherlands was controlled by Jews, and called for jihad (Holy War) against infidels, America, Europe, the Netherlands and Ms Hirsi Ali. It said: "Islam will be victorious through the blood of martyrs. Only the death will separate the truth from the lies."

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Hey Salahudim, AKA Ex-Christian

You are still ignoring me. I have been polite, well, fairly polite. At least I try.

I have asked you some questions, at least 3 or 4 times. Would you please reply.

Back to the salt mines.... (that's an expression, Sal, I really don't work in a salt mine!)

We can go mano-on-mano anytime you want, Susan. You can start with telling me why you don't take into consideration that Islamism does not follow classical interpretation of Islam. And don't give me Ibn Tayymiyya - he was hardly a nice fellow, but they don't follow him either. Islamism is something new. And if you want to warn people about what's coming their way, well, Susan, "to kill the bug, you must understand the bug".

From what I've seen of your writings - you simply do not understand. Although I do not always agree with him, Bjørn Stærk in my opinion does. The first three posts in this thread is an excellent example of that.

Susan, I have also known of both Hirsi Ali, a woman I don't always agree with, but highly respect, and Theo van Gogh (he wrote in Metro, the free newspaper you get on Dutch railway stations, I've visited the country many times and read Dutch), before. I too I am chocked over happenings like the recent murder. I only explain them differently. You see Islam. I see extremism. Mainstream Islam isn't entirely without blame for that extremism, but neither is it the main reason.

You say you've chosen the West. Nice to know. I have chosen the West too. Part of what I love about the West is its tolerance. That's why I fight against militant Islamism (and especially anything that smells like wahhabism), that's why I write articles like "Kill Pavlov", warning against pavlovian answers on Israel, etc.

That's also why I defend mainstream Islam from the more senseless attacks, I have Muslim friends, and it is they who are being attacked. I've seen all kinds of suggestion on what to do with the "Muslim problem", and frankly - it often starts up with misunderstandings of Islam and Islamism like those promoted by Ibn Warraq.

Maybe Irshad Manji is relevant for your question about whether Muslims should ask themselves why they are hated, as well. I think they should. As said, I do not think that mainstream Islam is entirely without blame. I think everyone should stop for a moment and think, but sadly - as I have pointed out before - the debate is becoming more and more polarized. It scares me, Susan, because the prophecy of a Clash of Civilizations can easily be a self-fulfilling one.

And the Western world will lose in such a clash.

Øyvind

Oyvind-
You are truly WRONG on the prediction of a western defeat in THIS clash. very wrong to the point of being un-factual.
Perhaps for a moment in Bergen, or Malmo, or a Copenhagen park, but in the end it is the fascist cowards among the muslims who will be choked, not the entire religion. Unless of course these recent events have proven to be the very nature of Islam. History will tell, as muslims may speak at times.

Pato:

I hope that the fascist elements will be choked, indeed. But the current development has just given those elements more support, eventhough they were - before 911 - losing much of their foothold (see for instance G. Kepel: Jihad)

Øyvind

The sanest muslims are those who no longer observe. The more devout the muslim, the less sane.

It seems like wherever muslims live in close proximity to non-muslims, muslims are killing non-muslims. Thailand, Africa, Russia, Kosovo, Phillipines, Indonesia, Pakistan, India, Egypt, Spain, Holland, everywhere.
The main struggle is within islam itself, but a lot of non-muslims are dying from the backwash.

How many brands of islamism are there? How many brands of Shia islamism are there vs. Sunni islamism? Are there types of Sufi islamism?

Øyvind

''And the Western world will lose in such a clash. ''

very true, GERALD WARNER from the famous Scottish newspaper, The Scotsman, also agrees with you:

No wonder Islam flinches from crusade of Blair values

http://scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com/opinion.cfm?id=1233932004

But I like to hear 'your' reasons for your predicted end to such clash ( if happen at all ) !

John Edwards, USA

''I have asked you some questions, at least 3 or 4 times. Would you please reply.''

until you first address my responses to you ( specially about muslim women rights ) I wont go into other subjects.

But instead we need to ally with moderate and liberal Muslims, fight off the extremists and join hands with them in the battle for democracy and human rights worldover,

Agreed. And this is the first time that I've seen you make this point, which is basically the bush strategy. There is a big difference between a strategy for victory and a realistic assessment of ideology.

I presumed we were trying to get at the real nature of this ideology, and it certainly appeared like you were minimizing the dangerous and violent elements, while naively claiming that it's a religion of peace, love and understanding.

However, in the context of a strategy to defeat the enemy, your viewpoint takes on a completely new light, like using Musharraf to help in the war on terror.

I'm not saying that I necessarily agree with this strategy, but it's certainly a valid position.

Heimo

''It seems like wherever muslims live in close proximity to non-muslims, muslims are killing non-muslims. Thailand, Africa, Russia, Kosovo, Phillipines, Indonesia, Pakistan, India, Egypt, Spain, Holland, everywhere.''

Are you for real ?? in Thailand it is the MUSLIMS who are being killed:

Human Rights Groups Urge Probe of Thai Muslim Carnage

http://www.islamonline.net/English/News/2004-10/27/article04.shtml

Your statement is another FALLACY promoted by the mindless Islamophobes:

Why you dont talk about the ''FARC'' terrorists in Coloumbia who are killing thousands of people ??? is it because they are not Muslims ??

Why you dont talk about the ''Sendero Luminoso (Shining Path)''terrorist organization in PERU ??? is it because they are not Muslims ?

Why you dont talk about the Terrorist Tupac Amaru Revolutionary Movement (MRTA) in Peru ???

Why you dont talk about the American domestic terrorist organizations ?? is it because they are not muslims ?

http://www.bluecorncomics.com/enemy.htm

Why you dont talk about The MAFIA in latin America and Mexcio ??? is it because they are not Muslims ?

Why you dont talk about the Christian abortion clinic bombers ??? is it because they are not Muslims ???

Why you dont talk about the suicide bombing in Bolivia which killed innocent civilians inside the Bolivian congress few months ago ?? is it because the suicide bomber was not Muslim ????

Why you dont talk about ETA, the Spanish terrorist organization which killed more than 800 innocent Spainsh ? why you dont describe them as CATHOLIC TERRORISTS since the catholic church formally adopted them under Franco??

Why you dont talk about the Revolutionary Nuclei (RN) a.k.a. Revolutionary terrorist Cells in Greece ?? or the Greek Revolutionary Organization 17 November (17 November)?? is it because they are not Muslims ???

Why you dont talk about the IRA ?? why you dont describe them as CATHOLIC TERRORISTS ?? why you only associate Islamic with the word terrorism ??????

Why you dont talk about the Loyalist Volunteer Force (LVF)in N.Ireland ?? why you dont describe them as CHRISTIAN TERRORISTS ?????

Why you dont talk about The Orange Volunteers (OV)terrorist organization in N.Ireland ???

Why you dont talk about the Real IRA (RIRA) a.k.a. True IRA????

Why you dont talk about the Terrorist Israli organizations such as Kach and Kahane Chai ???????

Why you dont talk about the Aum Supreme Truth (Aum) a.k.a. Aum Shinrikyo, Aleph, terrorist organization in Japan? those terrorists realsed chemical gas which killed tens of innocent japanese ?? is it because they are not Muslims ?

Why you dont talk about the 'Alex Boncayao Brigade (ABB)' terrorist communist organization in the Phillippnes !!

Why you dont talk about the Lord Resistance Army (LRA) a christian terrorist brutal organization responsible for the death of thousands of innocent Africans ( Muslims and non muslims ) in Uganda ?

Why you dont talk about the MAOIST rebels in Nepol ?? they have been conducting barbaric campaign of terror against the central government for many years killing and kidnapping so many innocent civilians ???

Why you dont talk about the HOUTO terrorists in Burndi who massacred 1 MILLION tutsi in Rawanda and recently, just last week, massacred 160 tutsi refugee in Burndi-Africa ??? are they muslims as well ?

Why you dont talk about the Tamil Tigers in Seri Lanka who commited more suicide bombings than any one else on earth ??? why you dont describe them as HINDU terrorists ????

And many more terrorist organizations which are Not Muslims ?

You might be surprised to know that Hitler was NOT muslim after all !

The holocaust was not muslim invention.

The nuclear bomb was not Muslim invention.

The WW1 and WW2 did not start by muslims !!

The killing of hundred of thousands of innocent Vietnamese was not done by Muslims ??

The spots in our world where non islamic terrorism and killing is raging are more than the spots where Muslims are involved:

The Genocide in Rawanda in 1994 which killed nearly 1 million innocent people was done by NON MUSLIMS under the patronage of the church !

The Genocide in BOSNIA against Muslims was done by CHRISTIAN serbs against Muslims, here are some pictures:

http://www.alkhilafah.info/massacres/bosnia/index.html

Killing Muslims in Indonesia ( in the christian islands ), here are some graphic pictures:

http://forum.fwaed.net/showthread.php?s=&threadid=47763

Burning Muslims ALIVE in India by some hindu fanatics:

http://www.alkhilafah.info/massacres/india/index.htm

The Brutal massacres against Muslims by the christian Russians in Chechnya:

http://www.alkhilafah.info/massacres/chechnya/index.html

Indian forces terrorizing MUSLIMS in Kashmir:

http://www.alkhilafah.info/massacres/kashmir/index.htm

The American barbaric terrorism against Muslims in Iraq:

http://www.alkhilafah.info/massacres/iraq/index.htm

The sadistic Israeli SAVAGERY THAT SURPASSES NAZIS...terrorism against innocent Muslims in Palestine:

http://www.alkhilafah.info/massacres/palestine/index.htm

"From what I've seen of your writings - you simply do not understand."

I do not accept your analysis, that does not mean "I don't understand." What a condescending boobish statement. It is the same analysis put forth as John Esposito for instance. Yet when I compared you with Esposito before you bristled with offense. Giles Kepel -- oh please! And then you throw in the Qadiani/Ahmedayyai Red Herring as if you think I don't know that the "peaceful" interpretations of the Quran and jihad came out of Mirza Golam Ahmed's head and extra-Quranic writings, not out of the Quran itself. You try to pass Ahamdiyyahs off as exemplars of Islam while at the same time "forgetting" to mention that they are considered a heretical sect by Orthodox Muslims. Just as you "forgot" to mention that the "democratic Isamists" of Iran have slaughtered in excess of 100,000 people since coming to power, most of them political prisoners.

We either live as dhimmies and watch our 3,000 year old civilization crushed under Islam's boot -- like so many other civilizations before ours -- or we take the chance of dieing in the jihad. Doesn't seem to be much of a choice to me, but you seem to prefer choice #1. And I am saying that this is not really preferable to choice #2 for those of us who care about freedom.

"But I like to hear 'your' reasons for your predicted end to such clash ( if happen at all ) !"

Yes, I am sure that you Ex-C would love to hear Oyvind go on and on about the death of the West should we be so unwise to choose to defend our civilization from your barbaric hordes.

What a primitive brain you have. All you think about is win, win, win against the infidels. You care nothing about contributing to the world, to people other than your particular religious tribe, you just want to "win" something for your
fascist death god Allah.

Go and pat Oyvind on the head. He is being a good boy today. Good dhimmi, good dhimmi!

Why you dont talk about the ''FARC'' terrorists in Coloumbia who are killing thousands of people ??? is it because they are not Muslims ??

Why you dont talk about the ''Sendero Luminoso (Shining Path)''terrorist organization in PERU ??? is it because they are not Muslims ?

The answer is so obvious, it isn't funny. They aren't threatening the civilized world. If the FARC terrorists started attacking the US, they would get on the list of maniacs to exterminate. It's not about Islam. We couldn't care less about your religion. But these wahabbi terrorists have attacked us, and we're going to defend ourselves.

Susan

''Go and pat Oyvind on the head. He is being a good boy today. Good dhimmi, good dhimmi!''

By the way Susan, it is ZIMMI in Arabic not dhimmi, so can I call you ZIMMIA ?? loooooooool

care to respond to GERALD WARNER from the famous Scottish newspaper, The Scotsman:

No wonder Islam flinches from crusade of Blair values

http://scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com/opinion.cfm?id=1233932004

Maybe if you can't answer, you can forward it to your rotten Robert Spencer for an answer :)))

Gunnar, Maryland

''But these wahabbi terrorists have attacked us, and we're going to defend ourselves.''

I hate these wahhabis more than you do but let me remind you of something: HISTORY DOES NOT START ON 9/11.

HISTORY DOES NOT START ON 9/11.

That's the first sensible and true statement you've made so far Ex-C. The jihad against the West and all non-Muslim people started 1400 years ago, not on 9-11-01. Thanks for pointing that out.

Susan

''HISTORY DOES NOT START ON 9/11.

That's the first sensible and true statement you've made so far Ex-C. The jihad against the West and all non-Muslim people started 1400 years ago, not on 9-11-01. Thanks for pointing that out. ''

How about the Crusades ? how about the inquestion courts in Muslim Spain ? how about the religious wars in Europe between christians ? how about the WW1 and WW2 ? how about the holocaust ?

Were they also a muslim jihad against the west ??

BE REAL ZIMMIA .

From Douglas J. Hagmann:

Van Gogh was shot several times, and his Islamic assailant stabbed the victim repeatedly, slit his throat with a butcher knife, and left a note containing verses from the Qur’an on the body with the knife.

Unfortunately, there is a history of violence against those individuals criticizing Islam.

According to Sharia Law: “The penalty for contempt of the Holy Prophet …is death and nothing else.”

1947: Iranian lawyer Ahmad Kasravi, present in court to defend himself against charges that he “attacked Islam,” was murdered by Islamic terrorists from the group Fadayan-e Islam;

1951: Members of Fadayan-e Islam assassinated Iranian Prime Minister Haji-Ali Razmara after a group of Muslim clerics issued a fatwa calling for his death;

1992: Egyptian author Faraj Foda was murdered by Muslims enraged at his “apostasy” from Islam.

1994: Nobel Prizewinning novelist Naguib Mahfouz was stabbed after being accused of blasphemy in Pakistan.

reasonable folks, don't you think?

Well, the Crusades were a counter-jihad, to take back what the Muslims stole from Christendom by violent conquest. In that case Muslims drew the first blood so can hardly complain about getting it back at them.

Regarding the other stuff, those were Western screw-ups, just like the Battle(s) of the Apostates and the Battle of the Camel were screw-ups on the Muslim side. Every civilization has those, no need to pretend that yours is somehow exempt.

Regarding your name-calling, I guess I shall take to calling you a Muhammadan.

Gunnar,

The list of people who have been killed or maimed for protesting the Religion of Peace is a lot longer than that.

Interviewer:

“OK, how do you respond to the Muslim clerics and governments around the world who say that you are a small fringe group of extremists, unrepresentative of Islam and the majority of peace-loving Muslims?”

Mujahid 'Azzam, the American:

“Well, they would say that, wouldn't they? These Crusader pawns are the ones who don't represent Islam and Muslims, despite their claims to the contrary. And they know very well that the Mujahidin stature has increased substantially among the Muslims after September 11, and the events that followed, which poses a direct threat to their continuing hold on power. This argument of theirs is especially well liked by their masters in the White House and 10 Downing Street, who apply it not just to us, but to all Muslims who reject Crusader domination. Uh, but the truth in evidence is on our side. Open the Qur'an, open the books of Sirah, the prophetic biography, and Ahadith, the prophetic teachings. Open the books of Fiqh, jurisprudence, both modern and ancient and you will find our position well supported. Jihad isn't something that al-Qa’ida made up. Ruling by Islam law wasn't started by the Taliban. Hamas didn't invent the concept of martyrdom. Uh, where we differ from these defeatists and hypocrites is that we don't believe that these divine orders and principles are open to negotiation and compromise.

“I'd like to tell these people, this is our religion. If you don't like it, that's your problem. But don't tell me that you're the true Muslim and I'm the extremist. You know, the same clerics and people who call us violent extremists and outcasts and endlessly repeat that Islam is a peaceful faith, permit or even encourage their followers to join the American and European militaries and intelligence agencies and the armies of the idle kings in the Muslim world and take part in the killing of thousands of Muslims in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere

“Look at this logic. These are evil, uneducated, ignorant, backwards people who should not be speaking on behalf of Muslims, much less talking about what is true Islam and what is not and accusing others. We are defending those who have no defender. We are holding fast to genuine Islam at a time when it's under siege from all sides. And we're standing up to confront an enemy that has intimidated governments and international organizations with fear. It's only natural that the governments and individuals who stand the most to lose from the defeat of the crusaders and Zionists will seek to hide our true nature and goals from the Muslim majority that is desperately looking for a way out of the nightmare that these traitors have imposed upon them for decades.

“We have strong support from within all sectors of Muslim society and from within all Islamic groups. This is what terrifies the enemies of truth and causes them to resort to this sort of accusation. It's wishful thinking on their part. It's like they're telling themselves, ‘Maybe if we repeat the lie often enough, it will come true.’"

So, øyvind, this guy says you are "evil, uneducated, ignorant, backwards people who should not be speaking on behalf of Muslims"

Susan

''Well, the Crusades were a counter-jihad, to take back what the Muslims stole from Christendom by violent conquest.''

I am amazed by your lack of historical knowledge ! firs of all, the middle east was NOT governed by christendom, it was governed by the ROMANS who were raiding and plundering northern arabia and killing a lot of muslims so muslims decided to teach them a lesson and they did.

Secondly, can I use your same logic and claim that 9/11 was a counter attack against the USA for its half century of killing and oppression against muslims ?

The Byzantines were Christian and had been for 300 years when the Muslims attacked Jerusalem, Ex-C. Being an "Ex-Christian", I figured you would know that, but I guess your "Ex-Christianity" education didn't extend to Constantine the Great.

What half-century of killing and oppressing Muslims?

US took the Muslim world's side so many times in the past 50 years I am ashamed to even write them:

1. Took the Muslims side in the Suez Crisis against our allies Britain and France.

2. Bombed & killed Christian Serbs to save the life of Balkan Muslims.

3. Took the Muslims side against India in all three wars that Pakistan had against India.

4. Took the Muslims' side against the Russians after they invaded Afghanistan in 1979.

I wish we had taken the non-Muslims' side in all those conflicts.

>> a lot longer than that

I realize that. Good job by the way. This thread has so many interesting characters. Ex-C is like a wild animal, but my fellow norwegians are like vulcans. Whenever I read them, I'm picturing Spock with one eyebrow raised:

"really doctor, these emotional outbursts are most unseemly"

Just like vulcan, Norway had an extremely violent past. The viking rule was leave one child alive in the town, and throw the rest into a pit. Then St Olav was killed, and everything changed. Miracles happened, and the whole society was transformed by a Christian conversion. Christianity resulted in 1000 years of peaceful, creative, and independent thinking. They have now discarded Christianity, and wonder why violent crime has arisen.

I'm proud of the fact that Norwegians are rated the most honest. They are so well mannered, they think everyone else is too. They naively treat the terrorist who masterminded the munich olympic attack like a statesman, and will probably mourn his death in Paris shortly. They welcome mullah Krekar into their midst. If the US were to tell them that he's a terrorist, they would probably respond "Are you sure, because he seems like a really nice fellow to us".

Enough rambling, keep up the good work, but discussion with Ex-C is quite useless.

Susan:

A former Norwegian prime minister keeps a note in his jacket saying "Do not get irritated". I should have had one of those. Ahmaddiyyas and Qadianis (which can be seen as two different groups, by the way) are correctly mostly seen as heretic groups. But then - the wahhabis, for instance, ain't that popular either. If you make a search on wahhabi on the Internet you'll find many sites that are against them. Curiously, they're mostly Muslim.

Ahmadiyyas base their ideas on scripture. Visit one of their many sites on the internet - like muslim.org - or talk to one of their many, many missionaries, and you'll discover that too. Scripture, scripture, all the way. The defend every single view they have with scripture. You might not like it. The Pakistani goverment might not like it. But that's still what they do. Welcome to the real world.

Furthermore I have never - not once - referred to Iran and the Islamists ruling there as democratic. I have pointed out, however, that there have been elections in that country that did bring about a real change of politics. The maddest of the mullahs has stopped that process long since, but the process still happened, and that's part of understanding Iran too.

While the nutcases in the real leadership in Iran absolutely are not democratic there are indeed democratic Islamists there. They're not in government, none of them have been anywhere close for a long while, and some of them are in deep shit for their ideas, sometimes branded as victims of "westernitis" or servants of "Zionism". Still, they do exist. And then there are other Muslims, believers them too, that still fight for democracy and human rights in Iran. Frankly, I thought you liked the democratically minded Iranians regardless of their religion. Was I wrong? Are they too scheming to make us dhimmies and crush our 3000-year old civilization?

I should have had one of those notes. But I don't. So I'm actually quite pissed off. Why? Because you are outright LYING about what I think and making up stupid stories about what I forget. So, you want to compare me with John L. Esposito, huh? Maybe I should take it as an honour, but since I actually have been reading up on my Esposito lately and often seem to disagree with him I find it a bit strange that you know my ideas better than I do myself, even claiming that I think of despots as democrats.

Must be nicer to have such enemies, huh. Enemies that are just stupid and cowardly and naive, and ready for dhimmitude? Oh, those poor French. Oh, those naive Dutch on their bikes. Oh, those poor Europeans.

Man, I should have had one of those notes.

But let's forget about that for a sec. Let's jump back to Takfir wal Hijra and the question you didn't want to answer because suddenly I wasn't the dhimmi you dreamt about tonight anyway. The question is, Susan:

In what way does my analysis of Takfir wal Hijra, quoted once more right here: "It is a fascist ideology, filled with anti-Semitism and anti-democratic sentiments" differ from your analysis?

My analysis of Islamism, by the way, differs from John L. Esposito, but if you want to make the comparison: Okay. Can you now argue against my analysis? This far I've seen you mention the word "dhimmi" a dozen times (reminds me of the song gimme-gimme-gimme, just dhimmi-dhimmi-dhimmi, instead) and then quote Ibn Warraq once in response to my article "The many faces...". Whhohoh. Ibn Warraq says that there are no democratic Islamists. Then that must be true.

Maybe you can argue why I am wrong about the verses above where I point out that the classical interpretation is different from the interpretation that some people here say are "the real face of Islam"?

I quoted Zamakshari, remember, the classical exegete, not some Ahmadi, but a guy who's highly reverred in Islam to this day. I also quoted the modernist Abduh, a former sheihk of al Azhar, the most mainstream institution in Sunni Islam and a leading Shia exegete.

Gunnar isn't a fellow I agree with very often, not even on this thread, but just now he said something very true:

It's not about Islam. We couldn't care less about your religion. But these wahabbi terrorists have attacked us, and we're going to defend ourselves.

Of course - there's not only wahhabis. But the enemy isn't Islam. And people like Takfir wal Jihad are first and foremost enemies of their fellow Muslims, not of the Western world. We will see more terrorist attacks in Western countries, not unlikely even against Norway. We will see more against other Muslims in Muslim countries. Shias are especially in trouble, and still people think of Shia-Islamism and Sunni-Islamism as the same thing, as a joint force, planning to take over Europe and... yeah... kill off our 3000-year old civilization, was it?

But maybe your right, Susan. The only problem with your enormous insight and understanding is that you never ever argue for it, you just think out nice little lines like:

Go and pat Oyvind on the head. He is being a good boy today. Good dhimmi, good dhimmi!

All of a sudden Ann Coulter starts looking reasonable, Susan. And that's scary!

Ex-C:

The reason I think the Western world would lose in a real Clash of Civilizations? Well, it's not a matter of values, like that confused guy in the Scotsman seem to think. It's a matter of numbers. And of motivation.

But then, I don't really think the Clash is going to come. The future works against those who long for it, no matter what side they're on.

Heimo:

There are many different brands of Islamism, from the fascistoid Shia Islamism ruling in Iran to the extreme anti-Shia, but still fascistoid, Islamism of Islamic Jihad.

From totally undemocratic ideas found in the early Muslim Brotherhood to emerging ideas of democracy and Islam together in Islamist groups like Nakhba and AKP, from the socialist Islamism of Ali Shariati to the Nazi Islamist of Ahmed Huber, etc, etc, etc.

Øyvind

Oh,

to add to that list above, the really shameful one:

5. the US took Islamic Indonesia's side against the peaceful, poverty-0stricken Christian East Timorese in their quest for their own country. Pretty bad, that last one.

Gunnar: I know it is useless to try to talk to Ex-C. I've "debated" many of his kind many, many times. They all say the same things, post the same links to the same dawah sites, everything. Yes, I am a fool for responding, but perhaps some of the lurkers here have seen a few things of interest.

Well, Gunnar, to put it this way; I am aware of what Islamists think, including the extreme ones. I read the British Islamist magazine Khilafah frequently, have read Khomeini, Osama bin Laden, etc. I don't feel that they are owners of Neverending Wisdom (TM), however.

Basically this guy defends his Islamic faith, just like the clerics he criticizes defend their Islamic faith. I hope you do realize, Gunnar, that I do not deny the existence of extremist Muslims?

I heartily recommend the article Murderous Monotheists linked to above.

Øyvind

Oh great, now Susan and ex-Christian is involved in the good old debate:

- You started it!
- No, you did!
- No, you!
- No, you!
- You started!
- No, you!
- I say you started one more time than you always!
- I say you started a hundred times more.

Maybe one of the things Christians and Muslims have in common has surfaced after all: They both started it!

Ø.

Oyvind, don't you have some fruits to compare? What was it, apples against watermelons? Apples against bananas? As I recall you had some wonderful explanations of why apples and watermelons were really the same things after all.

I am not a Christian, btw, but I will fiercely defend it as one of the great pillars -- perhaps THE most important pillar -- of Western Civilization.

Maybe you can argue why I am wrong about the verses above where I point out that the classical interpretation is different from the interpretation that some people here say are "the real face of Islam"?

I quoted Zamakshari, remember, the classical exegete, not some Ahmadi, but a guy who's highly reverred in Islam to this day. I also quoted the modernist Abduh, a former sheihk of al Azhar, the most mainstream institution in Sunni Islam and a leading Shia exegete."

But Oyvind you didn't quote them on the subject at hand. You quoted them on the "compulsion" of Islam, not on blasphemy or criticism of Islam. That's why I skipped over them.

Once again, you produce an apple when the argument calls for a watermelon. You do this intellectual sleight of hand again and again, yet deny it again and again.

I too lose my patience, especially with this kind of "arguing."

Show me some "classical exegis", accepted by mainstream Muslims everywhere, that argues against murdering people for blaspheming against Mo or ridiculing the Koran, and then you'd be
talking. Otherwise you are just making up nonsense with the garden fruits again.

I've never argued that there was one monolithic Islam out there. But I have argued that most mainstream applications of Islam are incompatible with the mores and values and customs of Western Civilization, and I stand my
ground on that. It is true.

As for calling you a dhimmi, you argued above that we must not criticize Islam too harshly for fear of pushing "moderate" Muslims into the camps of the exremists. (Funny, I bet you wouldn't argue that you musn't criticize American "right-wingers" too harshly for fear of pushing THEM into the camps of "extremists. That you wouldn't argue such a thing tells a lot about where you are coming from. )

What you argued in that statement is a classic dhimmi position. That is why I called you a dhimmi.

And it's a valid term no matter how many times you ridicule me and jeer at me for using it.

"I am not a Christian, btw, but I will fiercely defend it as one of the great pillars -- perhaps THE most important pillar -- of Western Civilization."

This explains a lot about your opinions of muslims.
I'm so glad that you think that an organised religion that has constantly throughout history tried to maintain control of humanity by stemming human technological progress and knowledge about the world, is a pillar of civilisation.

Do you like the church (not so long again) demand that the earth be regarded as flat? That the sun revolves around the earth? That specification occurs through evolution is absurd?

And no in modern times that stem cell research and abortion are immoral?

Islamic states are a warning to us all, a warning of what can go wrong if you let those with dogmatic religious beliefs impose them upon us all.

Cheers,

David.

Okay, let's get legalistic, Susan, and take a look at Islamic Law. First, I suggest you read the quote from Zamakshari more closely.

Then - maybe - you will discover that sharia and its implementation is mentioned in connection with the commandment of no compulsion in religion, and that this is why I gave the quotes.

Let me sum up:

1. There's no compulsion in religion is a mainstream Islamic rule. In mainstream Islam, classical and modern, it is not abrogated, nor weakened by other rules.

2. Blasphemy in Islam is compared to apostasy and can be punishable by death - this rule is found in classical sharia. However, shafii law gives the "criminal" unlimited opportunities to repent, Hanafi law does not consider blasphemy as punishable by the state.

3. The sharia is, in mainstream Islam, not to be implemented by inviduals, but by the Islamic society, i.e. judges.

3. In modern Islam the interpretation of blasphemy punishment - like the one for apostasy - is disputed. Those who claim a liberal point of view also use authentic historic sources, including Hanafi and other lawschools.

4. Sharia, in classical interpretation, is not the law for non-Muslims, who as dhimmi were not only put under apartheidlike rules (which indeed they where), but also were allowed to follow their own religious laws, including permissions to activities illegal under Islamic law. The practice has varied and blasphemy has been illegal many places.

5. Quranic verses and hadiths suggest that blasphemy and apostasy is not punishable, and these views are common in Modern Islam, as any search on the net will show. A typical Muslim view, whether correct or not, is that "Much to the amazement of the Meccans he forgave them their cruel enormities and this was his general attitude throughout his life towards his enemies and blasphemous opponents"

So, here's the difference, Susan:

Some claim that the killing of van Gogh is in thread with classical and mainstream islam.

But classical Islam, while it surely would have regarded van Gogh as a blaspheme, would not support killing him. He didn't live in a Muslim society governed by Islamic law, he was not a Muslim himself and therefore not subject to Islamic law, even if he was to be considered subject to Islamic law blasphemy is not punishable by death for non-Muslims (dhimmis), and even if it was it would have to be the decision of the Muslim society, not of an individual or of a small group.

As you can see, Susan, there are definitely bad things in classical Islam, for instance the view that blasphemy is punishable, and also by death.

I welcome any critique of this, as long as opposing views in both classical and modern times are not forgotten. These bad things, however, are not relevant in connection with the murder of Theo van Gogh. That murderer where not in thread with classical nor mainstream Islamic law. Rather, he was in clear conflict with it.

Øyvind

I would like to add two more things:

1. The Hanafi view on blasphemy is mentioned, amongst other places, at GlobalSecurity.org. This lawschool is dominant in the Arab Middle East, India, Pakistan, Afghanistan and parts of West Africa. It's the largest of the four lawschools.

2. Some Islamic countries, regardless of Hanafi law, has blasphemy laws that have been used for suppressing religious minorities, Pakistan is one example, there are also examples from Afghanistan, even after the US invasion.

Ø.

Susan wrote: "you argued above that we must not criticize Islam too harshly"

Once again, you manage to read something other than what I wrote. I didn't say that we must not criticize Islam too harshly, I said that I would defend mainstream Islam against the most senseless attacks, including misinterpretations of the role of Islam in Islamism. This means, Susan, that I say that we must not criticize mainstrean Islam for things it is not to blame for.

To do such a thing isn't to be "harsh" - it is to be "stupid". Why? Because - such false attacks push away the moderates without even a reason.

Ø.

Geez, a westerner is killed in his own country while riding a bike on HIS way to work. He is stabbed, shot killed while begging for his life, the coward had tried to cut Theo's head off but could only slice it, then this coward leaves a note attached to a knife that is driven into Theo's chest.
And here I read a eurocentric and islamo-centric discussion on the merits or non-merits of blasphemy and what is really is, or when it actually may happen.. and if it is realy real.... blah blah blah.
No wonder this scourge has encroached so fully upon europe, it is filling a void left by exiting masses to the US and those with holes in their leaky skulls such as yourselves. How pitiful this nonsense sounds. Though islam will not in the next 1000 years take over europe, in the meantime european minds and leftists are on their knees inhaling their own flatulance, and the above is what we get.

>> And here I read a eurocentric and islamo-centric discussion on the merits or non-merits of blasphemy

Now Now Pato. If you go around calling a spade a spade, they will call you an extremist. This is super duper political correctness land. We aren't allowed to make moral judgements, it's so passe. Don't be a brute. Everyone knows that war never solved anything.

Next, we'll explore the possibility that WW2 could have been avoided, if only we hadn't alienated the moderate Nazis and the reasonable samurai war lords.

What we need now is for the French to go negotiate with Bin Laden & Zarqawi as the big peacemakers. And don't assume that Bin Laden isn't laughing out loud at the appeasers like Spain, just because Arafat laughed at Norway and Hitler laughed at Chamberlin.

Oyvind, I read your link on Hanafi law, but wasn't impressed. Have you got a handbook of Hanafi fiqh, and if you do, could you please post the relevant statute?

Regarding your statement that sharia punishments do not apply in classical mainstream Islam to non-Muslims, how do you explain that Christians were put to death in Islamic Spain (that most classical of classical Islamic societies) for publicly preaching that Mo was not a prophet?

Regarding the quotes from the Motazalite you
posted, I see nothing in them to state that this man represents "mainstream" Islam any more than
Ibn Taymiyyah. His opinions are simply one of thousands. That's one of the big problems with Islam, as I'm sure you are aware.

David Elson, your opinions of Christians are bigotted and childish. Because I said I would be willing to defend my culture I'm against abortion or stem cell research. Please. I guess it is okay to generalize about Christians or inded people of Christian background, but not about Muslims.

You say nothing good came from Christianity ever? Even the Western liberal guilt you may probably suffer from came from Christianity. The welfare state so beloved by the left came from Christianity.

I have no interest in defending Christian theology etc., but I am not interested in living in a world where harmless Bible quotations are sandblasted off of buildings because they "offend" Muslims and their politically correct leftist allies, or where towns named after "Saint Somebody of Somebody" for 700 years are suddenly told to change their name for the same reason. Yes, I will fiercely defend the
right of those of us spawned by Christianendom to express our traditional culture against Muslim extremists and leftists. So sue me if you don't like it.

PS I bet you would be the first to freak out if someone tried to destroy an aborignal Australian religious artificat, but we people of Christendom aren't allowed the same right, is that it? Sorry, no can do. I see no reason why Western people are the only people on earth who are not allowed to defend their own culture while everyone else's culture must be treated as sacred untouchable objects. Sorry, no can do.

>> Islamic states are a warning to us all, a warning of what can go wrong if you let those with dogmatic religious beliefs impose them upon us all.

Hey, you haven't answered any of my points demonstrating that using democracy to set rules is not the use of force. Are laws against murder and stealing examples of people forcing their religious beliefs on the minority?

Unless you bring in some reasoning as to why I'm wrong, you lose the debate.

Unless you provide some arguments, you admit that you don't believe in democracy, and that it is you who want to impose your beliefs on society by fiat.

Oyvind, Bergen . . .

You said: "All of a sudden Ann Coulter starts looking reasonable, Susan. And that's scary!"

After many people said that Ann Coulter was outrageous, I decided to read her book "How to Talk to a Liberal."

I was surprised. It's a polemic, but not so outrageous after all. I also read something by Thomas Sowell--The True Believer--or some such title. That too, was a well thought out criticism of liberal ideas (using "liberal" in the U.S. sense, meaning "semi-socialist" or "semi-statist." (Trying here to find common word usage across the Atlantic Ocean)

Anyway, I always read your posts, Oyvind, and I think you work overtime to avoid the fact that today, in 2004, Jihadism is a serious problem among many Muslims.

Van Gogh was a boring and insignificant film-maker who made pointless controversial films to gain attention. Freedom of speech is a right but it shouldn't be used maliciously to stir hatred between cultures. What did he contribute with that lame film of his? Naked women with Quranic verses on their bodies? Fictional stories of women being raped and then attributing it to Islam like rape was prescribed by Islam? What a desperate and tacky way to get attention. There's enough Islamophobia going around without this cheap trash masquerading as critical filmmaking. And all those who go on about..."oh but he was visionary and his films were so controversial...". There has to be limits, okay. Why was he allowed to broadcast a film which is so absurd and unfounded on mainstream television? What next? Someone taking a dump in a mosque? It's people like him and that other amateur attention-seeking moron Salman Rushdie who create barriers between the west and Muslims. There's nothing wrong with constructive critiscim but unfounded and fabricated lies just for the sake of being controversial should not be allowed, particularly when it's directed at someones belief system. Oh, and go learn about Islam. Islam liberated women from slavery and oppression while you were still scratching around in caves. I mean instead of repeating what you hear from racists or the media about Islam why don't you speak to Muslims, Imams, read some objective books...go and ask Muslim if they feel oppressed. We don't treat our women like sex objects and exploit them in videos..we revere them. Incidentally, Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world and it's growth increased after the twin towers attack. That's an indisputable fact. Why? Because people were curious to learn about Islam and did so with an open and unbiased mind. Van Gogh was a cheap hack, he won't be missed. One less wanker in the world.

T Hansen-Denmark at 11-05, 00:20

Your post about your grandfather was the saddest and most telling comment on this thread.

You said: "3 times in the last years he has been assaulted and his money stolen - and guess what ? these were arab or somalian kids all three times - when i was a kid when stupid danes did such it used to be front page stuff if just some drugaddict on a bicycle raced by and snatched the bag - to day it´s only of interest if they kill or beat severely the old man or woman - people are being assaulted all the time and you don´t really to doanything more have to do anything to get it on you. Nor does the old style where is starts with a brawl end with a few punches and if guy sits down then it´s over count anymore. Nono if someone falls you kick him still, if he runs you run after and stab him in the back."

It's time for Europeans like you to insist that Muslims be treated like other members of society. They've managed to intimidate too many people, and now it is time to take a stand and to make the powers-that-be enforce the laws.

If you all don't take a stand now, you will find that the homes you love will be overrun with violence. I have personal experience of watching my neighborhood become unliveable, so I know what decline and decay looks like, if the laws aren't enforced.

The book I vaguely referred to above by Thomas Sowell (The True Believer?) discusses some of these issues.

Ahmed . . .

I agree that freedom of speech should be tempered with good judgment. One reason people were outraged with Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9-11 was that it was crude propaganda meant to obscure the facts and hamper the War on Terror.

But Moore wasn't killed, was he? If he'd been murdered (and I believe the man is--in effect--a traitor, but I wouldn't kill him), I'd want to see the murderer prosecuted to the full extent of the law. And that means lots of jail time, not 10 years like Pym Fortyn's killer got in the Netherlands.

All right, all right, enough already. Let's have some humor:

This was passed along the internet, and it was so rich I had to save it in a Word file. This is the schtick from a Muslim stand-up comic who works in Europe:

What do you say to a Muslim woman with two black eyes? Nothing! You told her twice already!

How many Muslims does it take to change a light bulb. None! They sit in the dark forever and blame the Jews for it!

Did you hear about the Broadway play, The Palestinians ? It bombed!

What do you call a first-time offender in Saudi Arabia? Lefty!

Did you hear about the Muslim strip club? It features full facial nudity!

How come it's so hard to circumcise a Muslim? Because there's no end to those pricks!

Why do Palestinians find it convenient to live on the West Bank? Because it's just a stone's throw from Israel!

Why are Palestinian boys luckier than American boys? Because every Palestinian boy will get to join a rock group!

What has 24 legs and 48 teeth? Twelve Muslim women!

A small plane carrying Yassir Arafat and all his top lieutenants crashes and all aboard are killed. Who is saved? The Palestinian people!

Who won the Muslim beauty contest? No one!

What does the sign say above the nursery in a Palestinian maternity ward? "Live ammunition."

Thank you very much, gentlemen. BEFORE WE PAY TO REBUILD IRAQ, LET'S SEE THE MUSLIM COUNTRIES PAY TO REBUILD THE WORLD TRADE CENTER

Ahmed:
"Van Gogh was a cheap hack, he won't be missed. One less wanker in the world"

Does not matter, there is no right to kill people anyways. Just because you disagree with what he said (or think his movies are crappy) does not give you right to kill him. I hope you realise that if thats the case the other way as well, you would have been dead by now. If not until now, then atleast after this comment.

Susan:

''I am a fool for responding, but perhaps some of the lurkers here have seen a few things of interest. ''

Indeed, and that is why I keep debunking your lies and distortions against Islam :))) I am sure a lot of people here are reading what I write in response to your mindless Islamophobic thuggry :)))

Ahmed | 2004-11-06 06:20 | Link

''Oh, and go learn about Islam. Islam liberated women from slavery and oppression while you were still scratching around in caves.''

As salamo Alikum brother:

Very well said, when Christians in Europe were still arguing wether women has souls or not, OUR Muslim women in Al Andalus ( Muslim Spain ) were writing poetry and ruling the state.

When Christians in the medieval times used to argue wether to allow women to touch the bible or not, our MUSLIM women were working as high officials and religious scholars.

'' I mean instead of repeating what you hear from racists or the media about Islam why don't you speak to Muslims, Imams, read some objective books...go and ask Muslim if they feel oppressed.''

Brother, the problem is not with Europe, Europeans do understand us far more than the American morons.
We lived together for centuries, we fought each others and we allied with each others, historical and cultural connections with Europe make is easy for us muslims and the Europeans to live together in Peace and harmony.

Europe has mind while America has no mind, America is ruled by christian fascists and murderous zionists.

The problem is with the fanatic evangelical zionist christians and jews who RULE America, the Americans seem to be totally brain washed by continous anti muslim propaganda from their jewish controled media outlets like FOX JEWS, These jewish run media outlets always defame Islam and muslims with a lot of fabricated exaggerated stories and lies.

there is no way to reason with such thugs who are so absorbed by hate ( like susan for example ) those people are far right evangelical zionists with no ability to reason, once you face them with facts and proofs, they turn to insults and then claim that muslims cant be reaonsable !!! I have been debating such scums for some time now and I know very well that it is useless to debate them so leave them BARK the way they want while we muslims should concentrate more on our families and our future here in Europe, after all, we will be the WINNERS insha allah.

''We don't treat our women like sex objects and exploit them in videos..we revere them.''

Indeed brother, those thugs treat their women like a dirt, you cant have any western newspaper or magazine without seeing some naked women being exploited for commercial gains !

Have a look at these statistics from the UNITED STATES OF PORNOGRAPHY:

More than 1/4 of households in America that own computers visit pornography web sites each month. (Bruce Ryon, vice president and chief "technical analyst" of PC Meter, "X-rated sites pace online industry Techno porn," Chicago Sun Times, 24 June 1997)

In 1998, the United States was the world's largest consumer of child pornography. (End Child Prostitution, Child Pornography and Trafficking of Children for Sexual Purposes, Poona Antaseeda, "Expert urges global law to end child pornography on the Internet," Bangkok Post, 3 June 1998)

The pornography industry in the United States grosses $8 billion annually. (Jennifer Bowles, "Porn Conference Gets Under Way," Associated Press, 7 August 1998)

-A federal judge in Newark, New Jersey decided that imprisoned sex offenders could continue to have pornography. (Jeffrey Gold, "Sex offenders can’t be denied porn, judge rules," Associated Press, 30 June 1998)

Porn video rentals

Porn video rentals soared to 665 million in 1996, accounting for 13.3% of video rentals in America. Profits of sales and rentals of porn videos was $4.2 billion in 1996.

-USA Today, 9-5-97 & UPI News, November 19, 1997

Pornographic entertainment on the Internet constituted the third largest sector of sales in cyberspace, with estimated annual revenues of $100 million. Such marketing success has fueled an increase in the size of the pornography industry -- $10 billion annually, according to conservative estimates.

-Anthony Flint, Skin Trade Spreading Across U.S., Boston Sunday Globe, Dec. 1, 1996, at A1.

Pornography and sex addiction

The average age of first time contact of pornography among sex addicts is 11.

-American Family Association OutReach, 1997

Who consumes pornography

A primary pornography consumer group is boys between ages 12 - 17.

-Attorney General's Final Report on Pornography, 1986, pg. 258

Amature home videos now account for between 20-33% of all adult videos made in the United States. ("Giving the customer what he wants...," Economist, 14 February 1998)

Source: http://www.catwinternational.org/fb/usa3_porn.html

And yet those Islamophobe thugs specially the American Islamophobes have the gut to talk about the rights of women in Islam !!!

Believe me brother, they call themselves the ' civilized world' when in fact they are the BARBARIC HEDONESTIC ANIMALISTIC world.

''Incidentally, Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world and it's growth increased after the twin towers attack. That's an indisputable fact. Why? Because people were curious to learn about Islam and did so with an open and unbiased mind. Van Gogh was a cheap hack, he won't be missed. One less wanker in the world.''

Very well said brother, despite all the hate campagiens against Islam by christian missionaries and jewish zionists, Islam continues to be the FASTEST GROWING RELIGION ON EARTH and they cant do anything about it, they are desperate, they are trying their best to stop Islam but they will fail and they will be crushed under our feet INSHA ALLAH:

''They (the disbelievers, the Jews and the Christians) want to extinguish Allâh's Light ( Islâm) with their mouths, but Allâh will not allow except that His Light should be perfected even though the Kâfirûn (disbelievers) hate it.'' The Noble Quran 9:32

Jesus.

I haven't followed this debate the last few days. This is the single most active thread I've ever had in this blog. Must be like 70 new comments since last evening.

I've tried to skim through most of them, and, people, this is not a debate. This is close to becoming a flame war. Had to delete five or six comments by Pato because of open personal attacks against Ex-C, and disturbing references to his death. Even Øyvind lost his temper at one point.

So here's what I want you all to do. Take a deep breath. Ask yourself: Do I have anything new to add, or have I said it all already? Doesn't matter if your opponent won't listen. If you've said it once and twice, you don't need to say it again.

And if any of you do have new arguments to make, make them as politely as possible. This debate went badly, but it's still possible to end it well.

The Thomas Sowell book I referred to above is called The Vision of the Anointed. There are a lot of interesting ideas in it regarding social experiments, crime, statistics, and why being too soft on criminals doesn't work, even though it sounds good in theory.

Since I easily risk losing my temper again here, and I like that as little as Bjørn does, this will be my last post in this debate.

Susan asks for my explanation of death penalty in Islamic Spain, which she for some reason regards as especially classic. I have already given this explanation:

The practice has varied and blasphemy has been illegal many places.

It's possible that this is difficult to understand, but not all acts throughout Islamic history represents mainstream or classical Islamic law. The Hashashins were quite crazy, for instance, but they weren't mainstream. By the way, Susan, the link you gave doesn't get me anywhere...

Susan also points out - correctly - that Zamakshari was a Mutazalite. The thing is that this Mutazalite happens to be one of the most famous Quran exegetes throughout Islamic history.

Ibn Taymmiyya - who said that blasphemy should be punished by death (as far as I know he thought that such a punishment should be implemented by society, though) is far from unimportant. I have problems seeing that any of his works are as important as Zamaksharis Tafsir al-Thalabi though. Other important exegetes, like Baidawi, has drawn heavily from Zamakshari.

But then, Susan is for once right, she points out that his opinions are simply one of thousands. That's the way it always is with Islam. The religion is highly diverse. Strangely enough, Susan seems to have a hard time believing Islam is diverse enough to have different ideas on blasphemy and its punishment than the ideas she believes it has, but hey...

Totoro tells me he reads all my post, but still somehow thinks that I do not regard what he calls "jihadism" (and I call "militant islamism") as a problem. To make it clear - it is a problem, it seems to be a growing problem, and it is something we will see the consequences of in the form of terrorism amongst other things.

Ahmad, it's irrelevant what Theo van Gogh did or said. He was killed for his opinions. That can't be defended, excused or explained away. Even if he was the "raving fanatic" Bjørn mentioned (and doubted) there would be no excuse.

For those interested in Islamic views on blasphemy I suggest looking into different opinions around the current blasphemy laws of for instance Pakistan. You will discover that amongst those opposing these laws the most Muslims (and not only Ahmadis, no) are prominent. It is often pointed to Hanafi Law (prominent in Pakistan) and to Imam Abu Hanifa himself.

Øyvind

P.S: Sometimes reading the Qu'ran is worthwhile. Here's what it says about blasphemy.

"When ye hear the signs of Allah held in defiance and ridicule, ye are not to sit with them unless they turn to a different theme." [Qur'an 4:140]

Ø.

http://libro.uca.edu/martyrs/martyrs.htm

Oyvind, here's the URL to the history of the Christian Martyrs of Spain being executed for preaching that Mo was not a prophet.

Methinks my HTML coding skills are not up to snuff; I'm sure it made you feel good to point that out.

Regarding the Motazalites, they were just one school, one school that came to a bad end, among hundreds and possibly thousands.

The thing is, Oyvind, your "argument" against me works the other way too. You tried to present this Motazalite as a defnitive representative of "mainstream" Islam -- yet he is not. Yet you would use the counter argument against someone who held up Ibn Taymiyyah as representative of "mainstream" Islam.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

Ahmed: Theo Van Gogh also wrote insulting things about Christianity and Judaism. And he's not the only one. The BBC recently broadcast a "comedy" show featuring a crucifix covered with excrement. "Piss Christ" is a famous artwork featuring a portrait of Jesus sunk in urine. Then there's the "Dung Mary" portrait of the Virgin Mary painted in excrement. None of the creators of these "artworks" have been killed by Christians, nor have any Christian priests or pastors called for their deaths. Maybe you should reflect on why it is that it is only Muslims who have to "protect" their religion by killing people.

Actually, Susan, I wanted to check the link out, tried to open it, and couldn't. Now I can. Thanks.

Ø.

[** DELETED Pato: I have pretty low tolerance for you right now. I've deleted earlier comments for blatant personal attacks and even a veiled death threat. This one wasn't so bad, by comparison - "leach" is positively friendly by your standards - but something tells me you didn't take notice to me. So here's how it's going to be: You read the posting rules at the bottom of the page, then let me know if you intend to follow them. Until you do that, you're banned. -BS 6/11]

Here's another good link, via a radical Islamist website, once again outlining the growth of Christianity among traditional Muslims.

How are you going to deal with these growing numbers of converts "EX-C"? Scream at them? Tell them Islam is perfect? I'm sorry if this news causes "EX-C" anxiety, but Christianity IS the FASTEST growing religion on earth!

I won't even get started on what's happening in Iran......... read on.......
http://www.islamonline.net/iol-english/dowalia/news-6-12/topnews1.asp

Hey Salahudin, or Ex-Christian as you now call yourself (just another little Muslim lie)

I did answer your question, if you had looked. Just because I didn't write 50 lines and use 13 links to stupid muslmim web sites, doesn't mean I didn't answer it. I was very critical of many aspects of Western society, just like you, and then I said even so, the West was better any day than any Islamic country.

Anyway, here are the questions again for the 5th time:
1. Do you like Brazilians? Are they good people?
2. What is the verse in the Quran than tells a man to beat his wife? (Don't tell me you don't know!)
and there were two other questions:
3. Would you consider a discussion about the life of Big Mo (you know, your prophet) as a slaver (a person who deals in human pain, suffering and death) using Muslim's own writings an insult, or could it be classified as historical research?
4. And also, once again, why did you change your name? Why are you lying about being an ex-christian? Any person looking at your posts at this site in early August can tell its you. Here is the link to you posts (about half way down) as Salahudin at this site: /warblog/000764.html#comments
Notice the words and references of this Salahudin are exactly the same as our buddy here.

And for the rest of you, don't waste time with the "there's no compulsion in religion" phrase, because it is a bad joke. Compulsion, no, but discrimination, oppression and hate is fine. No honest Muslim, however moderate, will argue that non-muslims are equal and have exactly the same rights as Muslims. Well, maybe in the West, but that is only for show. Anyway, equal rights would be against the Quran.

John Edwards: Ex-Christian is the same person who called himself Salahudin. I also believe he may well be a former Christian. I've discussed this with him in private. You may not agree, but keep your speculation to yourself. It's a distraction from the issues, and also ad hominem.

Bjorn,

You criticize John Edwards for being ad hominem
and distracting from the issues, yet when Ex-C
writes:
"Europe has mind while America has no mind, America is ruled by christian fascists and murderous zionists.

The problem is with the fanatic evangelical zionist christians and jews who RULE America, the Americans seem to be totally brain washed by continous anti muslim propaganda from their jewish controled media outlets like FOX JEWS, These jewish run media outlets always defame Islam and muslims with a lot of fabricated exaggerated stories and lies. ..."

you have no comment?

WTF, over?

qekymi: 1) I haven't read all the comments. If people believe the rules are being violated, let me know about it (by mail), don't just sit there and feel that you're victim of my hypocrisy. God I'm getting tired of this. You're the third person today to assume that I've actually read all the 300 comments here, and express outrage about something or other I'm supposedly approving of.

2) What you quoted was not an ad hominem. I've banned personal attacks to make it possible for everyone to discuss their views. Even when those views happen to be conspiracy theories - or worse. I'm interested in the debate, not the debaters.

Bjorn,

What I quoted was not an ad hominem? The next
lines are
"...
there is no way to reason with such thugs who are so absorbed by hate ( like susan for example ) those people are far right evangelical zionists with no ability to reason, ..."

sure seems a little ad hominish to me. But maybe
I'm wrong.

So you hadn't read the comments, but now
you have, and you think it's just fine to let it stand.

hmmm...

I spent some time in Morocco in the 1980s, I liked it there, and had
friendly acquaintanceships with a variety of Muslim men. (I never came to
"know" any women, even if they were the wives of those men I came to know.)

Moroccan men asked me, time and again, sooner or later, after we had
discussed issues of the day: "How can you let your women appear naked in
pornography?" Some of them seemed well-nigh obsessed by this.

What was a matter of virtual indifference to me remained a matter of
intense interest to them. And I found that I could not give them an
entirely satisfactory answer.

I could feel how weak they saw Western men because we have allowed, as they
see it, all these sexual things to become out of control. Simultaneously
they are excited by what they see, all the sexy women with boobjobs and
blond hair and no shame.

It's interesting that when the civil war in Beirut was raging, dead bodies
were very often found beheaded and castrated, with the dead man's genital
then stuffed into his own mouth. This is what it means when we hear of
bodies being mutilated in Iraq.

Perhaps this makes literal and emphasizes in ugly fashion the idea that
power is phallic. If this belief underlies the Arab worldview, then how
must they see feminism and what they must view as feminized Western men?

American adolescents often experience intense, melodramatic, hot emotions
during those years (16-25) when young males are most likely to either
commit suicide or violent crimes. Neither Europe or America has exactly
"solved" this problem (if it can or should be solved).

So imagine being in a Muslim country, presented with a readymade dominating
culture (America) which is a maddening enigma, the source of all manner of
sexy, violent fantasies (they see most of our movies, to the point where
Hollywood depends on these foreign revenues -- action movies with little
dialogue mean that subtitles do not really have to be read), an American
culture simultaneously all-powerful and strangely weak. (All-powerful also
in that the wonders of our military are no secret by now.)

How does a young male there process "Charlie's Angels," for example? Or
"Pretty Woman," or the video of "Kill Bill"?

All the sadomasochistic subtexts hit them (as they do us) on a pre-rational
level, contributing to an inner theater that I'm not sure we can penetrate
(so to speak) at this point.

We hear some scant feedback from an educated Arab minority, who may only
tell us what they think we want to hear or what they imagine makes them
look "civilized" to us. But most (by some accounts, well over 50%) of all
Muslims are illiterate and operating within the bounds of a very different
mental vocabulary.

But keep in mind that it has been Muslims educated in the West who have
formed the backbone of al Quaeda, which seems counterintuitive until you
realize that it is they who have seen us most closely, and familiarity does
breed contempt. But also, as Hannibal Lector once said in a somewhat
different context: "We most covet what we see every day."

Can the Muslim compete with us sexually? A young man there may see this as
a potent question, even if he doesn't "think" it out loud in his head, a
question that cannot be answered in any reasonable way.

If someone is going to be castrated, then who is it going to be? It may
appear to an Osama bin Laden that some Western men recline waiting for the
knife.

I think that Susan has presented the best arguments. That's why no one seems to be able to answer her questions, very pointed direct questions, at that.

Ex Christian's rants tell me ALL I need to know about Islam's "true nature". Unable to muster reasoned responses, and unwilling to look Islam's numerous faults in the face Ex-Christian has basically abdicated all critical thought.

One can argue day and night and not get anywhere, but the following statement can't be refuted: Islam has taken what were for thousands of years the most advanced, the wealthiest and most enlightened areas of this planet and in only a few short centuries turned them into backwaters.

If Europeans doubt this, because of politically correct thinking, then let them just take a stroll though Muslim neighbourhoods and observe.

Islam mouth will utter any insanity to avoid important issues to skirt well-presented arguments. One should stop listening to Islam's mouth and just watch what its feet and arms are up to. That's the lesson of this thread.

While I don't think this action is typical of Islam, we do need to raise questions about why so many who are accused of "blasphemy" against Islam end up either dead or under death threats.

I've been doing a bit of searching to find out more about both Van Gogh & Hirsi Ali. Apparently Van Gogh was an equal opportunity offender, angering Jews & Christians to the point where complaints were filed. What made this so different that he ended up dead? If people were offended, why didn't they pursue the legal channels which are apparently available in the Netherlands and file a complaint?

John

''Islam has taken what were for thousands of years the most advanced, the wealthiest and most enlightened areas of this planet and in only a few short centuries turned them into backwaters.''

What a load of nonesense and deliberate distortions of history:

when Muslims entered SPAIN, it was WASTELAND, in 200 years, AL ANDALUS (Muslim Spain ) became one of the most advanced states in the old world:

Way back during the eighth century, Europe was still knee-deep in the Medieval period. That's not the only thing they were knee-deep in. In his book, "The Day The Universe Changed," the historian James Burke describes how the typical European townspeople lived:

"The inhabitants threw all their refuse into the drains in the center of the narrow streets. The stench must have been overwhelming, though it appears to have gone virtually unnoticed. Mixed with excrement and urine would be the soiled reeds and straw used to cover the dirt floors. (p. 32)

At first, Spain resembled the rest of Europe in all its squalor. But within two-hundred years the Muslims had turned Al-Andalus into a bastion of culture, commerce and beauty. "Irrigation systems imported from Syria and Arabia turned the dry plains... into an agricultural cornucopia. Olives and wheat had always grown there. The Arabs added pomegranates, oranges, lemons, aubergines, artichokes, cumin, coriander, bananas, almonds, pams, henna, woad, madder, saffron, sugar-cane, cotton, rice, figs, grapes, peaches, apricots and rice." (Burke, 1985, p. 37)

http://www.xmission.com:8000/~dderhak/index/moors.htm

you might also be interested in this OFFICIAL Spanish website about how MUSLIMS made SPAIN an earthy paradise:

http://www.legadoandalusi.es/legado_gb.html

Go get some historical education before you come to such respectful blogs as this one.

Theo Van Gogh made lots of scurrilous and insulting remarks about Jews and Christians. They might not have liked it but no one Killed Theo because of his remarks. Except he made the mistake of INSULTING ISLAM!! Then it was death and near decapitation for him... I ,myself, mail Bin Laden toilet paper to Jihardi Websites
so suppose I am also marked for an unpleasant death - if they can catch me!! But I say that we should FIGHT this DEATH CULT and am very pleased Howard got back into government, also Bush. As for Ex -Christian ranting on, this pathetic drivel
sounds like a spiel from Hook Hamza and his mates.
Leave your E Mail address, sweetie, and I'll mail
some Muslim loo paper to you...Of course you may prefer to use a stone?

"Submission" can be watched here:

http://www.genoeg.nu/submission.asf

Ex-Chistian:

You are right about one thing: The Muslim society in Spain was much more advanced than Christian Europe in the middle ages. Indeed the whole Islam world had technology far superior to Europe. It is correct that Muslims introduced advanced agruculture, as well. Or rather, they re-introduced it. The ruins of the Roman Empire was visible everywhere: town plans, paved roads, bridges, tunnels, advanced canals, aqueducts, sewers, etc. Established 1000 years earlier. Some of it still visible today.

However, when you say Al-Andalus was "an earthly paradise", I have to dissapoint you. You perputate the quite naive view that Al-Andalus was a haven for everyone, muslims, jews, chirstians, etc. In fact it was just like everywhere else (high tech excepted). It was in a state of almost perpetual war, pogroms, discriminations. Just like Europe. here are a few facts:

....
By the end of the eighth century, the rulers of North Africa and of Andalusia had introduced Malikism, one of the most rigorous schools of Islamic jurisprudence, and subsequently repressed the other Muslim schools of law. Three quarters of a century ago, at a time when political correctness was not dominating historical publication and discourse, Evariste Lévi-Provençal, the pre-eminent scholar of Andalusia, wrote: "The Muslim Andalusian state thus appears from its earliest origins as the defender and champion of a jealous orthodoxy, more and more ossified in a blind respect for a rigid doctrine, suspecting and condemning in advance the least effort of rational speculation."

The humiliating status imposed on the dhimmis and the confiscation of their land provoked many revolts, punished by massacres, as in Toledo (761, 784-86, 797). After another Toledan revolt in 806, seven hundred inhabitants were executed. Insurrections erupted in Saragossa from 781 to 881, Cordova (805), Merida (805-813, 828 and the following year, and later in 868), and yet again in Toledo (811-819); the insurgents were crucified, as prescribed in Qur’an 5:33*.

The revolt in Cordova of 818 was crushed by three days of massacres and pillage, with 300 notables crucified and 20 000 families expelled. Feuding was endemic in the Andalusian cities between the different sectors of the population: Arab and Berber colonizers, Iberian Muslim converts (Muwalladun) and Christian dhimmis (Mozarabs). There were rarely periods of peace in the Amirate of Cordova (756-912), nor later.
...
Ibn Abdun also forbade the selling of scientific books to dhimmis, under the pretext that they translated them and attributed them to their co-religionists and bishops. In fact, plagiarism is difficult to prove since whole Jewish and Christian libraries were looted and destroyed. Another prominent Andalusian jurist, Ibn Hazm of Cordoba (d. 1064), wrote that Allah has established the infidels’ ownership of their property merely to provide booty for Muslims.

In Granada, the Jewish viziers Samuel Ibn Naghrela and his son Joseph, who protected the Jewish community, were both assassinated between 1056 to 1066, followed by the annihilation of the Jewish population by the local Muslims. It is estimated that up to five thousand Jews perished in the pogrom by Muslims that accompanied the 1066 assassination. This figure equals or exceeds the number of Jews reportedly killed by the Crusaders during their pillage of the Rhineland, some thirty years later, at the outset of the First Crusade.

The Granada pogrom was likely to have been incited, in part, by the bitter anti-Jewish ode of Abu Ishaq, a well known Muslim jurist and poet of the times, who wrote: "Put them back where they belong and reduce them to the lowest of the low..turn your eyes to other [Muslim] countries and you will find the Jews there are outcast dogs...Do not consider it a breach of faith to kill them...They have violated our covenant with them so how can you be held guilty against the violators?"

(http://www.jihadwatch.org/)

The main "problem" however, is not that muslims were as bad as their European counterparts. The problem is that it was a thousand years ago! A very long time. Europe has long since surpassed the muslim world in any respect, agriculture, science, technology, education, health, living standards, human rights, etc, etc. Indeed there are more Dutch Ph.Ds educated every year than all Arab countries combined. Something not likely to change in the foreseeable future.

Ivar

>> Indeed there are more Dutch Ph.Ds educated every year than all Arab countries combined. Something not likely to change in the foreseeable future

To be fair, american universities have many mid-east people going for PhDs. America is a big brain drain for the rest of the world. Sorry world, freedom is good.

I know my father, who had a phD in Electrical Engineering decided to come to America when he realized that his salary at the power plant would be the same as the janitor's.

Ivar wrote: Indeed there are more Dutch Ph.Ds educated every year than all Arab countries combined.

Source, please?

And as a general warning; one shouldn't confuse the Arab countries and the Muslim world with each other.

For instance, Turkey has a very high proportion of female professors. See: The Guardian.

Ø.

Ivar, Oslo

I happen to study the Andalusian history in details, it is my passion and indeed my hobby, I have been there in Al Andalus and I have more than 400 books and references in my library about Al Andalus.

To be honest with you, most of what you ' copied and pasted' is exaggerated and fabricated, let me give you some examples:

You copied and pasted:

''By the end of the eighth century, the rulers of North Africa and of Andalusia had introduced Malikism, one of the most rigorous schools of Islamic jurisprudence, and subsequently repressed the other Muslim schools of law.''

Here is one contradiction in the above copied statement, the rulers of Al Andalus were NOT the same as the rulers of North Africa, in fact, the Muslims in North Africa did not control Al Andalus until 1085 AD when Al Murabitun ( Almoravd ) took control of Al Andalus under the leadership of YOUSEF BIN TASHFIN !!

Another fabricated historical lie you copied and pasted:

''The humiliating status imposed on the dhimmis and the confiscation of their land provoked many revolts, punished by massacres''

This is another LIE promoted by the likes of jihadwatch ( notorious hate site ), let me refer you to famous SPANISH Historian called RAFAEL VALENCIA, under a chapter in the famous encyclopedic book ' the legacy of muslim spain ' he wrote:

''As was so often the case in the medieval arab world, the conquest of Seville was brought NOT by force of arms but through pacts and this made it possible for an immediate close relationship to be formed between the conquering arab minority and the visigoth Hispalis'' The Legacy of Muslim Spain, Salam Khadra Al Joyssi, P 136

Another contradiction, you copied and pasted:

''In Granada, the Jewish viziers Samuel Ibn Naghrela and his son Joseph, who protected the Jewish community, were both assassinated between 1056 to 1066, followed by the annihilation of the Jewish population by the local Muslims.''

My question is this, if non muslims were oppressed and indeed treated like third class citizens under Muslim rule, how come the JEW Samuel Ibn Naghrela made it to VIZIER ? ( do you know what VIZIER means in Muslim state ? )

here are some quotes about AL ANDALUS:

Stanley Lane-Poole in ‘The Moors in Spain’: Introduction.

"For nearly eight centuries, under the Mohamedan rule, Spain set all Europe a shining example of a civilized and enlightened state. Her fertile provinces rendered doubly prolific, by the industrious engineering skill of the conquerors bore fruit a hundredfold, cities innumerable sprang up in the rich valleys in the Guadalquivir and the Guadiana whose names, and names only commemorate the vanished glories of their past.
"...To Cordoba belong all the beauty and ornaments that delight the eye or dazzle the sight. Her long line of Sultans form her crown of glory; her necklace is strung with the pearls which her poets have gathered from the ocean of language; her dress is of the banners of learning, well-knit together by her men of science; and the masters of every art and industry are the hem of her garments.

"Art, literature and science prospered as they then prospered nowhere else in Europe...

"Mathematics, astronomy, botany, history, philosophy and jurisprudence were to be mastered in Spain, and Spain alone. Whatever makes a kingdom great and prosperous, whatever tends to refinement and civilization, was found in Muslim Spain...

"With Granada fell all Spain's greatness. For a brief while, indeed, the reflection of the Moorish splendour cast a borrowed light upon the history of the land which it had once warmed with its sunny radiance. The great epoch of Isabella, Charles V and Philip II, of Columbus, Cortes and Pizarro, shed a last halo about the dying monuments of a mighty state. When followed the abomination of dissolution, the rule of inquisition and the blackness of darkness in which Spain has been plunged ever since.

"In the land where science was once supreme, the Spanish doctors became noted for nothing but their ignorance and incapacity. The arts of Toledo and Almeria faded into insignificance.

"The land deprived of skillful irrigation of the Moors, grew improvished and neglected, the richest and most fertile valleys languished and were deserted, and most of the populous cities which had filled every district in Andalusia, fell into ruinous decay; and beggars, friars, and bandits took the place of scholars, merchants and knights. So low fell Spain when she had driven away the Moors. Such is the melancholy contrast offered by her history."

Conde as Quoted in Prescott, ‘Philip II of Spain,’ Vol. III .

"And so vanquished for ever from the Spanish territory this brave, intelligent and enlightened people, who with their resolution and labour inspired life into the land, which the vain pride of the Goths condemned to sterility, and endowed it with prosperity and abundance and with innumerable canals, this people whose admirable courage was likewise, in happiness and adversity, a strong rampart to the throne of the Caliphs, whose genius, progress and study raised in its cities an internal edifice of light which sent its rays into Europe and inspired it with the passion of study, and whose magnanimous spirit tinted all its acts with an unrivalled colour of grandeur and nobility, and endowed it in the eyes of posterity with a sort of extraordinary greatness and charming colour of heroism which invokes the magical ages of Homer and which presents them to us in the garb of Greek half-gods.

"The Arabs suddenly appeared in Spain like a star which crosses through the air with its light, spreads its flames on the Horizon and then vanishes rapidly into naught.
They appeared in Spain to fill her suddenly with their activity and the fruit of their genius, and endowed her with a glorious glamour which enveloped her from the Pyrenees to Gibraltar and from the oceans to the Barcelona. But a burning love for liberty and independance, a fickle character disposed to frivolty and merriness, neglect of old virtues, an unfortunate disposition of revolution, provoked always by an inflamed imagination, violent passions and ambitions, a spirit to dominate, and other factors of decay, worked in the course of time, to demolish this grand edifice raised by men like Tariq, 'Abdul Rahman al-Nasir, Muhammad ibn al-Ahmer, and led the Arabs to internal dissention, which sapped their power and pushed them to the abyss of naught.

"Millions of Moors quitted Spain carrying their property and arts - the patrimony of a state. What have the Spaniards created in their place? We could say nothing, but an eternal sorrow fills this land in which the gayest natures breathed before. Indeed there are some ruined monuments which still look upon these gloomy districts, but a real cry resounds from the depths of these monuments and ruins: honour and glory to the conquered Moor and decay and misery to the victorious Spaniard!"

Martin Hume in 'Spainish People'

"The Sultan Abd-er-Rahman was one of the Heaven-sent rulers of men. Prompt yet cautious in council and in war, unscrupulous, overbearing and proud, he was as ready to wreak terrible vengeance, as he was politic to forgive when it suited him. Berber and Yamanite alike acknowledged that at last they had found their master....He ruled until his death, in 788, with the tempered severity, wisdom, and justice which made his domain the best organized in Europe, and his capital the most splendid in the world."

S.P. Scott in 'The History of the Moorish Empire in Europe.'

"Yet there were knowledge and learning everywhere except in Catholic Europe. At a time when even kings could not read or write, a Moorish king had a private library of six hundred thousand books. At a time when ninety-nine percent of the Christian people were wholly illiterate, the Moorish city of Cordova had eight hundred public schools, and there was not a village within the limits of the empire where the blessings of education could not be enjoyed by the children of the most indigent peasant, ...and it was difficult to encounter even a Moorish peasant who could not read and write."

Dozy in 'The Moslems in Spain.'

“Cruel and fanatical, the Leonese rarely gave quarter; when they captured a town they usually put all the inhabitants to the sword. Tolerance such as that accorded by the Muslims to the Christians could not be expected of them.”

H. Kamen, 'The Spanish Inquisition.'

"As a result of his (Cardinal Ximenes' coercive) endeavours, it is reported that on l8th December 1499 about three thousand Moors were baptized by him and a leading mosque in Granada was converted into a church. 'Converts' were encouraged to surrender their Islamic books, several thousands of which were destroyed by Ximenes in a public bonfire. A few rare books on medicine were kept aside for the University of Alcala...(Ximenes) claimed...the Moors had forfeited all their rights under the terms of capitulation (of Granada). They should therefore be given the choice between baptism and expulsion...At Andarax the principal mosque, in which the women and children had taken refuge, was blown up with gun-powder...all books in Arabic, especially the Qur'an, were collected to be burnt...Cardinal Ximenes:...was reported during his conversion campaign among the Granada Moors in 1500 to have burnt in the public square of Vivarrambla over 1,005,000 volumes including unique works of Moorish culture."

H.C. Lea, 'The Moriscos of Spain.'

"...that cemeteries could be established near the churches changed from mosques, but old Christians were not to be debarred from burial there if they wished....it continued until 1591 when it was ordered that they should be buried inside of the churches, which was so abhorrent to them that they vainly offered more than thirty thousand ducats if king or pope would allow them to be interred elsewhere, even though in dunghills.
"... tailors were not to make garments nor silver-smiths jewels after their (Moorish) fashion; their baths were prohibited; all births were to be watched by Christian midwives to see that no Moorish rites were performed; disarmament was to be enforced by a rigid inspection of licences; their doors were to be kept open on feast-days, Fridays, Saturdays, and during weddings, to see that Moorish rites were abandoned and Christian ones observed...no Moorish names were to be used and they were not to keep 'gacis' or unbaptised Moors either free or as slaves."

Source: http://www.cyberistan.org/islamic/quote3.html

you then wrote:

''Europe has long since surpassed the muslim world in any respect, agriculture, science, technology, education, health, living standards, human rights, etc, etc.''

You forgot to mention that Europe also surpassed the muslim world in 2 BRUTAL SADISTIC world wars that killed more than 100 million people !

You forgot to mention that Europe also surpassed the muslim world in creating the nuclear bomb and the WMD and indeed helping using them !!

'' Indeed there are more Dutch Ph.Ds educated every year than all Arab countries combined. Something not likely to change in the foreseeable future.''

This is LIE and I challenge you to prove it from ' credible ' sources not from anti muslim hate sites.

I started this thread (first post) so maybe I can end it. I will accept Bjorn's good advice. This will be my last comment here for a while...

I love history as much as the next guy, but to use what happened 500 years ago or 2000 years ago as a case for or against a position is not very convincing. Yes the crusaders slaughtered thousands, with "blood running up to their knees"; yes the Turks murdered and raped Armenians by the thousands; Yes, the Muslims were nore tolerant that Christiandom in the middle ages, in general; Yes the the Muslims massacred Hindus by the thousands in India, and etc...

So what? Can we change anything? What is important is here and today, not there and then. The historical argument is a waste of time, in my opinion. Another big waste of time is to recite passages from the Holy Bible or the Quran. Religion is what people do, not what they say or was a book says. Period.

And statistics... As we all know there are lies, damn lies and statistics. All you have to do is pick and choose and you can prove anything.

We must be honest, brutally honest! It would also be nice to be polite to each other, and better yet, not be threatened with a very unpleasant death. Speak up. Tell the truth. If some people cannot accept the concept of equality and the freedom to believe and criticize, then you must tell them they are wrong, again and again. There can be no compromise when it comes to human rights, and people must be held accountable for what other people of their group do and say. If you don't like what Rotarians do, go join the Lions club, or the Boy Scouts. Don't say "Oh, they are not real Rotarians" or "You can't blame all Rotarians for what Johny Rotary does".

Well, thats it. Thanks to Bjorn for hosting this debate. Stay safe, Stay free.

Putz grilo, Saluhadin, vai ou nao vai responder se gosta do Brasil?

Ex-Christian:

As I wrote in my post, Muslim Spain was much more advanced than its Christian neighbours. Most likely in most areas of life. You have provided numerous qoutes from books which clearly documents this superiority. I never disputed this. On the contrary, I have great respect for the achievements of Muslim Spain and other parts of the muslim world during its golden period.

However, I pointed out that "earthly paradise" (or similar wordings) are naive and ahistorical. These were incredibly violent times, and Muslim Spain was at war most of the time, and certainly no stranger to atrocities, such as the pogrom on Jews in Granada in 1066. My quote may have come from a "hate site" for all I know, but that doesn't change the fact that atrocities actually occurred. Another fact is that Muslim Spain was (part of/aligned with) an expanding Arab empire which through warfare extended its borders, and was not stopped until reaching the middle of France. However "primitive" the nations of Europe were, they had a legitimate right to protect themselves against this onslaught.

I addition, I nowhere wrote that the Christian nations were "better" in any way. On the contrary. Who in his/her right mind would support the Spanish Inquisition? Or the many other atricites of the Spanish Empire? The Spanish Reconquista had certain similarites to the overrun of the Roman Empire by "barbarians". But, as we know, The Roman Empire was no tea party either, although vastly more civilised than Medieval Europe.

To return to the current "problem" of the Muslim World. The fact remains that all of this was 600-1000 years ago. In the centuries that followed the West got up to speed and left the Muslims in the dust. I don't necessarily say the West is any "better", but it is a fact that modern technology, science and social organisation of the west has dominated. I know that if I list the achievements of the West, I'll invite the "what about WW I&II, Nuclear weapons, Hitler, Stalin, etc arguments". Yeah, I know, I know. We're as bad as the rest, but with better and bigger guns.

Yet - I, and I am sure most of the people reading these discussions, are very happy to live in the modern western world. Anyone who disagrees I'll recommend spending one week in the middle ages. When all our direct ancestors slaved on the fields for some cruel overlord, falling asleep hungry on flea-infested beds every single night, hoping to live past thirty. How about the tenth Century, when an estimated 400 000 died of smallpox every year, and could leave up to one third of survivors blind. When Abdullah ibn Sina (Avicenna) was among the muslim doctors who first sytematically battled Smallpox. However, he got no further. It was left to us infidels of the West to finally eradicate Smallpox, arguably the biggest killer of all time.

At last. I promise not to throw around figures like the number of Ph.Ds in the west vs arab countries. I Googled and Googled, but could find no source for this. Not even on hate sites, Ex-C. Shame on me.

But during my search, I came across this: (OIC is the Organization of Islamic Conference, 57 Muslim States)

"... scientists in Muslim countries contrbute just 1 percent of the articles published in refereed international science journals.This paltry figure is due to two interrelated factors: the poor quality of science in OIC member states and the small number of scientists who live and work there. A recent survey of 22 Islamic countries determined that there are only about 226 scientists per million of population. In South Korea, the figure is 2235 per million; in the United Kingdom, 2448; in the United States 3676; and in Japan, 5368. Similarly, OIC countries are home to some 550 universities.Japan, in comparison, has more than 1000 universities; Tokyo alone 120. The annual budget of the University of Singapore’s science and technology departments stands at US $750 million.That is equal to one-half of the combined annual budgets for science and technology departments in all 550 universities in OIC member states. Shortfalls in numbers and funding are matched by shortfalls in quality. Indeed the quality of education at universities in OICcountries falls well below the quality of education in universities, not only in the western world, but in many developing countries." (Atta Ur-Rahman: Bringing Science Back to The Muslim World)
http://www.ictp.trieste.it/~twas/pdf/NL15_2_PDF/04-Rahman_11-17_low.pdf

Ivar

I have to admit that I've screwed up. It's amazing
that I managed to be this unprecise without anyone pointing it out.

Suras are indeed verses of the Qu'ran, and when I quote from a sura, I do quote from the Qu'ran, no matter what Cornelius and others think. Thanks to a couple of spelling mistakes and a moment of confusion, though, I may have left the impression that a sura is a verse. It isn't.

A sura is a chapter, something that should be fairly obvious from my references to militant suras 8 and 9.

If talking about a specific verse, like 4:20, we're speaking about an ayat.

Øyvind

"So what? Can we change anything? What is important is here and today, not there and then. The historical argument is a waste of time, in my opinion"
I totally agree! The same goes with the Americans going on and on and on about second world war. What was then was then, and what is now.. well, its now.

Dear people,

Two years ago a lost a man who expressed my opinion in dutch political life named Pim Fortuyn. This openly homosexual would have been our prime minister and he had some strong opinion about my fellow muslim citizens. Than came a leftwing pro immigration lunatic and he killed this fine gentleman.

Then came Theo van Gogh. He defended the legacy of mr.Fortuyn and he to was concerned about the way muslims relate to the world. He was killed by a muslim which was living in my country, form my tax money and this was made possible by his left wing friends.

I have one question for you. How do you think I think about the political left and their friends the muslim immigrant? The Netherlands wil be in a lot of turmoil the coming years!

David Elson,

"This explains a lot about your opinions of muslims.
I'm so glad that you think that an organised religion that has constantly throughout history tried to maintain control of humanity by stemming human technological progress and knowledge about the world, is a pillar of civilisation."

You don't know much about Christianity. You just know the bad. You don't know the good. And there is more good than you can fathom. You think you are educated about the history of Christianity, but you are deeply ignorant. You should read more. Here's a hint: there would be no modern science without the influence of Christian theology. In fact, there are several books that detail why science developed in the West and beat China despite China's techonological dominance for centuries. Hint: the answer is Christianity.

And yes, Christianity is a pillar of civilization, and I thank god that fire has not gone out in the US. Europe's biggest problem is that they look down upon the very thing that made them great.

"T.Hansen wrote: "They killed the Van Gogh because he was free and because they are not".

Sadly, once more this debate has ended up in extremism fighting against extremism, lack of insight battling with lack of insight, etc. I'll try to start all over." Øyvind.

I can´t be flattered by that - Sadly once more this debate has ended in apologetic soothing the waters. The true sad thing is that freedom - the strong and firm belief in our freedom of expression - of way of life - seems to fade away in multitudes which rather will look the other way - maybe uttering a quiet displeasancy when being bullied to much.

Above speaks my antithesis to your thesis maybe there is a synthesis ? - True is that this debate is swallowed in extreme views but uh how adjustable is our valuesystem to that of Islam and vice versa ? You probably know my answer to that since I am a ( you fill this blank space Øyvind ). But it´s not about me having anything against people beleiving in God, worshiping God, living modestly or purely - to be honest I have more than once considered becoming a monk myself. But I am against any religious ideology which beholds unbelievers in terms of their faith as being of less value than others - this goes for all religions to some extent but you have to be exceptionally blind not to see that it has implications and extent within Islam which raise it to criticism target NO. 1.

"Who, T.Hansen, do you refer to when you say "they"? Who are "these" people who lack freedom?" Øyvind.

Basically I refer to all people which let their individual humanity and soul-life get minimized by any totalitarian ideology or just plain hate and fear - religious or political - no exception but a practical one - do they have proselytes in numbers etc. More specifically I refer to those who killed Van Gogh - those of more or less equal sentiment and perhaps willingness.

""Terrorism is the true face of Islam". I can almost hear the squeakish little voices they always use on annoying characters in cartoons."

I agree terrorism is not the true face of Islam but nor was nazism the true face of German culture applying same logic. But still it´s islamists performing the bulk of terror attacks that doesn´t make Islam a religion of nothing but terrorism - but where there is smoke there is probably a fire right ? I am sorry about my puckish voice - Maybe I am a mental gnome with equal share of intolerance and low IQ - but I don´t buy into the it´s only "a small group of people in moderate ocean of Islam" they may be far from a majority but they are gaining momentum like never before.

Sorry for not commenting on your presentation of moderate Islam but what is your comment on the growing wahhabism in the world, especially in Pakistan - our faithful ally in WOT, sponsored by SA ?
What is your comment on moslem students choosing Khomenei as moslem of the last century ? it´s sign of their moderation that they atleast choose him according to our calendar ?
What is your answer to the growing hate in "arab streets" especially directed towards the US - but take a deep breath likely towards western civilization in general ( my personal opinion )
I find you have agreed with me that though we are certainly not innocent but the blame they put on our shoulders should find more way to their own right ? But let´s view this in the prospect of a future development - how much does this have to do with moderate Islam and what future prospect does it hold for it ?

Finally a lot of moslem countries now having large percentages placing trust in Osama Bin Laden - how much does that spell moderation ?
I know this way of poll making is flawed since among the 8 leaders/world figures weren´t Ghandi or Martin Luther King - I am sure they would all have polled those two to the topscoring section - end of sarcasm for now.

"Repeating mantras about the moderate Muslims who never protest and about how Islam is a religion of hate and Muhammed was a pedophile isn't sober discussion." ... "It drives moderate Muslims away from us, and you can be sure there are extremists like Takfir wal Hijra out there waiting for just that to happen." Øyvind.

I agree this does little good to the discussion ( don´t fall of your seat Øyvind ) There should be dialogue with truely moderate followers of Islam and there is and sometimes even with the not so moderate Moslems. However in the major media and public debate you will find a scare to critizise Islam much greater than a willingness to take a stand against the elements within it which are not so moderate - you will hardly ever see as much as something near calling MO for a pedophile etc. and it doesn´t belong there either. But a huge crowd of leftleaning intellectuals, multiculturalistic humanistic academics repeating endlessly the mantra "Islam is a religion of peace". And all other kinds of politically correct statements. 9/11 changed this a bit but not much. It goes the other way around to Øyvind if moderate politicians - intellectuals etc. don´t take this serious then people would have to vote for parties which do and believe me even in general very tolerant people likes Scandinavians and the Dutch people will do so more and more. I have for years played an apologizing role in terms of Islam - and all those years I hoped that a more sober debate could address the issues of immigration and cultural conflict on a genuine rational level. But still the debate field is taking place from two opposite trenches - sad it is - But we have troubles and prospects of even worse that makes a lot of taboo´s more of an obstacle than a fiery debate does.
Moderate islamists are welcome and most are greeted with a warm welcome - success stories are ever looked after - I am talking about main steam media and debate - there is a lot dialogue with whoever willing - and a lot of nice well meaning people to take those dialogues.

"Racism towards Muslims, on the other side, well - let's say; it's not all that uncommon in any of those countries that are so "naive"." Øyvind.

Thx for telling us Øyvind like sooooo many other wellmeaning individuals. But maybe the biggest problem in getting a sober debate is that anything slightly critical of Islam is labelled instantly as "rascism". That´s way off the mark and a contradiction in terms. Islam is obvious not a race it´s a religion for one - secondly it negates the fact that those being called rascists are actually in general very tolerant people relatively speaking - not to mention in general quite intelligent and well educated. And that what is called rascism/xenophobia here no way is in equal response to the hate and intolerance found directed from the Islamic world toward us.
Nor is the criticism mostly founded in anything but a healthy scepticism directed toward any dogmatic mindset - actually the very same reason why so many Europeans are sceptical of Bush - In truth this scepticism doesn´t mean but for the part of some few any true anti-americanism.
In the end we need surgical operation seperating the cancer infected tissue from the healthy. Not an emotional hate vs affection debate or utopian idealism vs intolerant pessimism. But hand on the heart this is not what we is having so far I stick with those willing to fight for what I believe in which is first of all the freedom of the individual and defending our culture and democracy though essentially I would love a "love, peace and harmony" approach being a realistic one - it is not in this case, while standing firm on values like freedom and democracy is.

"Regarding European "racism" against Muslims, Oyvind -- after 9-11 we Americans were told, again and again and again, loudly and insistently, by people on your side of the aisel, "to ask ourselves why we are hated." ...
"Does this admonition not apply to Muslims as well, or only to war-mongering fascist Yankees?" -Susan.

When people in Europe have stopped being disappointed over the reelection of Bush maybe they should pay more attention to this issue and try to understand what´s going on in a more nuanced way even perhaps seeing it from the side of the US. The sad truth is that more people than will openly admit it thought at some point they had it coming themselves - including myself.

"the debate is becoming more and more polarized. It scares me, Susan, because the prophecy of a Clash of Civilizations can easily be a self-fulfilling one.

And the Western world will lose in such a clash"
- Øyvind.

There has just started to be a debate at all - for years it was nothing but two trenches shooting at each other and it still is - but we need a broader debate.
The reason we don´t have a clash right now I think is that they would lose bitterly - let´s keep it that way.
I doubt anyone with but a minor sense of the realities on the ground level would disarm the west and give our weapons to the moslem world as a token of good will. If we are going to keep our civilization and have a peace in the future it´s a heavily armed one and involves very limited immigration and a more tough approach to fundamentalist Islam + support to moderate islam + integrating moslems as best we can.

Every man and woman wants to be free - this is freedom to do/be what they want in a world that provides them with the chance to be and do it with some effort and obediance to certain fundamental laws a well functioning society must adher to in order to remain so.

"Very well said, when Christians in Europe were still arguing wether women has souls or not, OUR Muslim women in Al Andalus ( Muslim Spain ) were writing poetry and ruling the state.

When Christians in the medieval times used to argue wether to allow women to touch the bible or not, our MUSLIM women were working as high officials and religious scholars." - EX -

Very good very good indeed. But now in the present we have a different situation why don´t you devote your energy fighting wahhabism and other kinds of fundamentalism which doesn´t allow women to hold such offices instead of trying to convince us we got a problem because Hillary Clinton won´t be president before 2008 (9) ?

"Europe has mind while America has no mind, America is ruled by christian fascists and murderous zionists." Ex -

Well the US did put pressure and sanctions on Israel after 1967 - and was quite sceptical about the forming of Israel after WW2. Now twist of fate it´s looked ill upon by so many moslems just because it values an ally in the middle-east and maybe even realized that this ally will be overrun if it becomes to weak.

"Indeed brother, those thugs treat their women like a dirt, you cant have any western newspaper or magazine without seeing some naked women being exploited for commercial gains !" EX -

Yea look at our heritage derived from the dark Christianity above and connect the dots please.

T.Hansen:

If you read my posts above, and other places, and my articles Many faces of Islamism and "Kritikk utan hat"(Norwegian), I think you might discover that we agree on more than you believe.

My views in short:

1. Militant islamism is a problem. It's also likely a rising problem.

2. Militant Islamism is not representative of Islam as a whole.

3. However, militant Islamism does have roots in the history of Islam, just as it has roots outside the history of Islam.

Furthermore, T. Hansen, the post you responded to used a quote from you in the beginning, but wasn't merely an attack on your views. I took that quote because I regard your ideas on why "they" did this as false. "They" didn't do it because they lack freedom and because we have it. The lack of democracy in large parts of the Muslim world is one of the explanations (as I wrote in "In many faces"). The fact that we have democracy in the Western world isn't.

You also mentioned Susan question: Does this admonition not apply to Muslims as well, or only to war-mongering fascist Yankees?. I've already answered this, and my response was:

Maybe Irshad Manji is relevant for your question about whether Muslims should ask themselves why they are hated, as well. I think they should. As said, I do not think that mainstream Islam is entirely without blame.

To make it perfectly clear. My response to that question was: Yes.

Now, this is really my last post in this debate. Not that I'm getting irritated again. I'm actually quite happy tonight.

Øyvind

Grrr. It was my second last. Messed up the HTML (See, Susan, you're free to point that out!). Here's the link:

http://www.dilettant.no/index.php?page=vis_artikkel&ArtID=335

Ø.

I hate to admit this, but the whole Van Gogh thing has me thinking. Imho, those of us that are to the left of center should be opposing Bush's fascism AND Islamo-fascism jointly. (in fact, I just blogged this whole point over on my site this afternoon.)

If you sit back and think about it, Bush's idea of order is not nearly as bad as the idea of Islamic fascism, it's actually much more tolerant. Remember, an "order" is the fundamental component of fascism...and any leaning to the right is on the road to fascism, while any leaning to the left is on the road to socialism/communism.

My case: most people in the US are politically equal (=voting, etc.) and have some semblance of equality of opportunity. I see nothing in Bush policy that is attempting to change those fundamentals.

However, if you actually watch the Van Gogh movie, it strikes a chord, as it demonstrates some of the horrors that women (and I'm sure others) face on a daily basis in Islamic nations.

Do we want that here? Do want to allow Wahabis to control the oil supply and drive up the cost of oil and end our culture as we know it?

We on the left can deride the US all we want, but I don't see any women here getting their genitalia mutlilated systematically. I don't see any women wearing birqas or being raped by uncles.

Opposition to this war has been politicized for all of the wrong reasons, in my opinion. In Britain, it was the right that opposed the war in Iraq, in the US, it was the left. Why? Because they were both the parties OUT OF POWER.

Ideologically, the left should be in complete support of this war, but for some reason we choose not to out of political expediency. That's a problem, folks...and it's ideologically inconsistent.

Hi Ex-christian et al.,
Islam is not monolithic, currently there is a debate between Quranists and the ahl-usSunnah wa Shia'(sunnis & shiites)& ahmadiyyahs etc. Interestingly the Sunni & shiites are really practising old testamental judeo-christianity. All the noxious practises,ex. stoning, fasting, denigrating women, cult like behaviour, death to apostate,are old tesstamental practise not necessarily found in the Quran. Ex. the islamist obsession with Hijab is really an old jewish custom to cover their womenfolk. The Quran merely states for women(and MEN!) to dress modestly - nothing about wearing a burqa or hijab etc.So fasting or siyam/sawm also is a pharisianic tradition not found in the Quran, the word "sawm"/"siyam" actually refers to obligations. Modern muslims are really practising the olden religions of the pharasees . The very pharasees that Jesus of Nazareth warned against. Ostentation public prayers by the thousands , bowing and scraping and facing mecca ( originally Jerusalem) is also a mixture of paganistic and pharisianic practise. Jesus said: when you pray go into your closet and pray in secret,for your Father that hears in secret will reward you. Do not be like the pharasees, for they love to make a show of their prayers standing in street corners for men to see. For them shall men be their recompense. Also ex-christian and others, all your arguments are all great, but you are educated people danes, norwegians, americans, swedes.... for the majority of the 1.5billion muslims they are poor and illiterate ( kind of ironic since the Quran commands muslims to use their intelligence "aqel" and to learn to read and write and to study- Quran means the READING). the problem with the muslim world is that they hardly read the quran, they allow the evil mullahs to do the interpretation for them and to select all those mean spirited verses which of course are popular with human nature and easier to follow then the ayaats/verses that command, generosity, kindness, compassion to other, yes even unto infidels.......and yes the Quran also says if you kill another human being, it is like you kill the whole world, and yes the Quran also says that mankind is as one, different fruits on different brances , but from the same tree! A lot of the fire and brimstone verses should be read as allegory, classical arabic which is language of poets and story-tellers and of allegory as a moral-instructive narration. If Christians were to read the old testament in a literal sense, we will have much gore and bloodshed, and that has happened in the past during the darker periods of the evolution of christianity. Thankfully modern christians now read the old testament in its historical and cultural context. Islam is in need of a major major protestantic revision/revolution of its tenets and tafseer/exegesis should be reopened. The islamist scholars closed it 500 yrs ago and so the islamist are frozen in time, their mind-set is equivalent to the christians 500 yrs ago when they burnt tycho brahe at the stake for daring to say the earth goes around the sun, and also they put galileo to house arrest for his scientific views....Islam needs to grow up!!! and ex-christian , as a previleged and educated Swede, i am shocked that you will promote bedouinization and arabization of your own culture instead of distilling the wisdom of the Quranic texts to augment peace, love, and compassion for all of God's creatures!

Oi! Edward nos estados unidos ,concordo com Voce que os musulmaos nao sabem dar uma boa festa! Seja melhor dancar e beber que asesinar aos outros pelas diferencas das opiniaos :) Gosta-me muito o Carnaval de Rio !

Ex christian : schaem Dich, Schaeme Dich!...die Menschheit gebraucht Heilung auf dem geistigem Wege - Gewahlt nicht !

Kim Sook-Im
korean ethnologist specializing in irrational and dangerous adamic Cults

Kim,
I`m stunned. I can`t wait to see Ex-C and Øyvind debate this.

Kim: Tycho Brahe, who was Danish, was not burned at the stake, and also was a geocentrist. Giordano Bruno was burned, though. Galileo, who himself was a christian, was put to house arrest, not so much for his scientific views, as for mocking the sitting pope.
Actually, with it's many faults, since at least Thomas Aquinas, the church was a sponsor of science, contrary to modern prejudices.

But this is a digression. This debate should be about the despicable murder of Theo van Gogh, and how to counter such phenomena in the future. Let's keep theology and science on another forum.

Ex-C,
Have you read Kim`s comment above here?

Thanks to mr.Hansen for expressing my opinion. It was the same opinion Theo had. If you can read dutch go to www.degezonderoker.nl which means the healthy smoker (yes he did not die of smoking heavely but for the freedom of speech) or www.theovangogh.nl. Theo was firm against government in general sence. He did not believe in the government in a socialistic way. He was a libertarian! He preferred president Bush instead of Kerry because Kerry is a lyer. Only stupid people trust a guy who voted for the Iraq war and later called it a wrong war (the war is already ended!)etc.etc.etc...Mr.Kerry wanted help of the allies? What allies? We, the Netherlands, are already helping and so is GB, Japan, Korea,Oekraine,Italia (Spain but they chickened out)and others... President Bush spoke true words wen he said: either you are with us or you are against us!

The left wingers are in favor of (mostly muslim) immigrants so they are against me and Theo and Pim Fortuyn...Muslims and all religious people have books which teach hatered...They are my enemies and we (i do have big support) in the Netherland will fight against immigration, religion and everybody who will support these people! This will end in a civil war!

A firen Theos:
"President Bush spoke true words wen he said: either you are with us or you are against us!"
Why do you think this? Sp if I support the war on terror, but not the war in Iraq, does that make me your enemy?

Hi Kjell,
thanks for correcting me...indeed it was Giordano Bruno...it was a lapsus calamus /slip of the pen...blame it on my kitty cat :) fifty lashes with the wet noodles for me :). Regarding Gallileo, i think his rather avant-garde scientific world views were somewhat resented by the church ...niet waar? after-all they did make the poor old man recant, although he did say something to the effect ' i'll stick it to you' under his breath ha ha !!!? I recall reading that Gallileo once invited a cardinal to look at the moon through his telescope and the prince of the church replied that all that he need to know has already been revealed in the bible...sounds like what the islamists are saying to us. In general i feel that revealed religions ( islam in particular ) has been an impediment to science . Oh i am sure that a goodly no.of islamists would vehemently disagree with me and try to inform me of the golden age of early Islam and how islam had fostered science, mathematics, medicine, geography , etc. etc.... yes and no. If you study the evolution of early Islam, you would eventually realize that a lot of the spectacular achievement of science and arts during the zenith of muslim civilization were achieved not because of, but rather inspite of the strictures that islam place on independent thinking and harsh punishment for deviation from irrational rites and rituals.Also oftentimes the achievements were credited to the vanquished race and culture. The chaldeans in iraq, the spaniards , the ubiquitous jews of the olden world, the armenians, the persians, the greeks, and myriad other cultures contributed vigorously to the flowering of islamic culture , arts and science allowing us the peculiar dynamics that created the wonderful civilization of 'al andaloos' / andalusia/southern spain ....of al hambra, cordoba , toledo and malaga. Perhaps Islam can be credited for giving them a common religious identity ...as to whether this is equivalent to giving them impetus to excell in science and art probably requires generous extrapolation! Ibn Rushid or Averroes for example was persecuted having displeased the caliph ( disagreement over matters of islamic theology?) . I believe he was imprisoned, also exiled. Many famous muslim philosophers, scientists, writers, physicians also suffered various degrees of persecution because invariably these geniuses are mavericks and maintain an open-mind - which of course is an anathema to Islam, which requires slavish submission to the supposed will of Allah ( of course the will corresponds usually to the strongest male in the hierarchy, in this case the vicarous Caliph , regent magistarium of God Almighty = ie. he is God's head Honcho on earth, and since he talks to Daddy-o in heaven, his word is law !) ( see it's this male thing that bothers me in all this religion, and islam is kind of heavy on this male thing--really , if all things derive from a Godhead, then the Deity encompasses both male and female quality....you can't have th YING without the YANG you know LOL

I am sure ex-christian will choke on this one ha ha

ma3a salaamah wa ila liqaa ya sadiqi 'ex-christian'

Kim Sook-Im, Ph.D.
korean ethnologist specializing in dangerous and irrational adamic Cults

P.S., ex-c, oyvind,nislr et al, since Islam can be categorized as a superCult influenced in part by the religion of the olden Pharasees with admixture of bedouin/arab folklore, tribal customs, laws and practises, one should not be surprised that a perfectly rational , sane, articulate and highly intelligent ( and that is the scary part!) Swede like Herr Ex-Christian can become so thoroughly indoctrinated that when he spouts verbiage like " ....if you insult (insult is a subjective ,non-absolutist term)Islam, it is my right to Kill YOU!" it is a sign that he has experienced a paradigm shift in his mentative processes which transforms him into a dangerous and malignant creature incapable of peaceful cohabitation with his neighbours - presumably other innocent, friendly, open-minded, swedes of sweet and forgiving disposition !. o.k. go to this site, there is some mention of Buddhism , but there is no intent to proselytize ( Buddhists are not interested in converting others ):

http://home.btclick.com/scimah/memes.htm

Tack sa mycket,
manga takk
tedanhi kamseh hamneeda

Kim Sook-Im:
I'm surprised you would get a Ph.D. with a style of writing like this. Actually I very much doubt your 'specialist' knowledge. You were corrected once, how many other errors did you make?
How many dangerous and irrational cults have you 'studied', and how come you only comment on Islam to be male-dominated? Man, I'm a Christian, and believe me, we have male domination as well. Not to the same degree these days, but we still have.. Why do you think the west was male dominated for so long?
And Ex-Christian did not threaten to kill if he was insulted. He said he had the right not to be insulted. There is a difference there you know. Of course, his problem was that he defended the killing of Van Gogh. Thats not good, but hey, who has not wanted someone dead? That does not mean that they will actually do it right?

Oh, and you should know, that when writing, even academic papers, to use as simple and short but correct words as possible, this is hardly what you do: (Actually you use the word 'verbiage' and it best describes your own style.. honestly, I recognise your choice of words with what a souped-up undegrad writing his own academic paper for the first time would use)

"Christian can become so thoroughly indoctrinated that when he spouts verbiage like " ....if you insult (insult is a subjective ,non-absolutist term)Islam, it is my right to Kill YOU!" it is a sign that he has experienced a paradigm shift in his mentative processes which transforms him into a dangerous and malignant creature incapable of peaceful cohabitation with his neighbours - presumably other innocent, friendly, open-minded, swedes of sweet and forgiving disposition"

Bjorn, this cant be an attack on Kim, I'm just doubting what he says, because he flaunts 'his' Ph.D. like giving credibility to what he's writing.

Alan writes:

"You were corrected once, how many other errors did you make?"

So, if we correct you once, all your argument are discredited? If you think his facts false, you actually got to prove it

"Man, I'm a Christian, and believe me, we have male domination as well. Not to the same degree these days, but we still have.. Why do you think the west was male dominated for so long?"

The whole world has in all ages, exept from a couple of rare cases, been male dominated. The western cultures is trying to mend this. Islam is not.

"Bjorn, this cant be an attack on Kim, I'm just doubting what he says, because he flaunts 'his' Ph.D. like giving credibility to what he's writing."

Actually, I don`t think you are a Christian, just claiming to be one to give credibility to your support of Islamic values.

hi Allan,
thanks for your critique ( don't worry i wont behead you :) ). This is not an academic paper, this is an international blog, and english is not my primary language. I happen to be polyglot so cut me some slack o.k. Also my Ph.D. is not in english but in some other mathematical and technical area. However you are digressing. I guess i can just be as picky and critical with you were you to write your thesis in korean or spanish . Incidentally i appended my academic credentials not to flaunt it but simply as a force of habit whenever i type my name, if you care to look at the first post, you will notice that i am just plain Jane. By the way did you read ex-christians posting closely? He did declare that insulting Islam warrants death to the blasphemer...which part of death to the blasphemer do you not understand ? :)

plain Jane Kim Sook-Im
(happy now?)

Hi nislr/oslo,

It just dawned on me that Allan could be characterized as an islamic apologist. Typically they are unaware of or naive about the dark side of this religion/superCult. Contrary to all the politically correct declarations including the famous one by President George Bush that islam is a religion of peace and tolerance, all the historical and contemporary evidence point to the fact the Islam is NOT A RELIGION OF PEACE MUCH LESS TOLERANCE. Currently 99% of all world conflicts involve islam/muslims in one way or another. Historically islam has been engaged in war and conquest with the vanquished suffering 2nd class citizenship unless they embrace islam ( and then there is still no guarantee of equal treatment). I refer you to the following site concerning Dhimmitude: " www.dhimmiwatch.org ".
Islam has always been discussed vis a vis christianity. Admittedly christians have commited acts of atrocity, but usually this is in contradiction to scriptures which teaches kindness and compassion even unto your enemies. Muslims on the other hand commit heinous crimes in fulfillment of Quranic injunctions( ".....beleaguer the unbelievers wherever you find them and strike them at the neck ...etc..and cut off their finger-tips.....make a wide slaughter etc...). Since islam like all major religions is not monolithic, i should stress that the Quaranists and ahmadiyyah adherents would state that many of the ' ayaat-ul-saif' / the verse of the sword/violent verses should be read only in the historical context of fighting between the prophet's forces and those of the pagans and unbelievers of that particular era ie. the injunctions should not be taken out of context and understood only historically.Wahabo-salafists and other militant islamists would disagree and argue that the fighting words and quranic injunctions to violence against unbelievers is valid for all time and can be extrapolated to the present world circumstance. Therein lies the danger, for if only 5% of the 1.5 billion adherents of this religion believes as an article of faith the "divine commandment" to kill infidels wherever you find them...then we are talking of millions who would have no qualms to liquidate you simply because you happen to have a different belief-system.

Once again for the other 5 billion inhabitants of planet earth we need to ask ourselves this question. How come we do not have hindus, taoists, animists, shintoists, new agers, wiccans, buddhists, bahais, zoroastrians, catholics, protestants, anabaptists, baptists, jehovah witness, mormons, seven day adventists, orthodox christians, and the panoplia of christiandom running amok shooting, murdering, creating havoc and mayhem? Invariably 99% of the unrest in the world today involve islamists. Let us compare islam to buddhism : currently we do not see tibetans hijacking planes, shooting critics for blaspheming buddhism, kidnapping and killing school children in the name of the Buddha!!! Tibetans have just a cogent, if not more reason to resort to violence and blame the world for their sorry plight. I do not recall reading of thousands of tibetans rampaging and murdering Han chinese world wide in retaliation for the population and cultural genocide that communist China had perpetrated against the tibetan people. On the contrary we have the Dalai Lama preaching love, compassion and forgiveness. In fact i was stunned to learn that he was even willing to concede Tibet as part of greater China..mainly for pragmatic reasons also, since he did say that Tibet is technologically behind and can benefit from staying within the fold of China...he only asks for more autonomy and a halt to the cultural genocide of Tibet. Perhaps some one else on this blog can make a comparison of the magnitude and plight of the tibetan people in contrast to the situation in palestine . My arguement is that the way these two distinct groups of humanity react to their respective situation has to do a lot with their religion. One is for violence and vengence whereas the other is for peace, forgiveness and reconciliation.Islam has historically been engaged in war ( yes Allan, so has christianity, but we are not discussing christianity at this point )and this precedes the founding of israel and the united states ( which many islamists refer to as little shaytaan and big shaytaan/Satan). Currently china is experiencing unrest from among the millions of ethnic and Hui chinese muslims in the western provinces- not from any tibetan insurgency ! On the contrary in muslim bangladesh the muslim arm forces of bangladesh are oppressing and tormenting the peace loving buddhists in the chittagong-delta area. Then there is the question of the abuse of the peaceable buddhists and pandits of the kashmir. In south thailand we currently face the danger of destruction of the lucrative thai tourist trade courtesy of the thai muslim insurgency in south thailand. Or have we forgotten the destruction of Bali and the egyptian tourist industry ( when islamic fanatic killed foreign tourists !indiscriminately in the name of Allah). Burma, cambodia and even Korea have potential seeds of violence given that the virulent violent prone strain of wahabo-salafist islam has dominated the traditionally more peaceful strains of islam in the heartlands of buddhism. I sincerely think that all major religions have their plus and minuses and Islam is no exception. Perhaps muslims should themselves do serious and major instrospection and embark on an effort comparable to the christian protestantic revolution...Ijtihad/exegesis should be reopened as it was closed by the islamic scholars centuries ago, allowing for islam to remain static and frozen in time and incapable of grappling with issues of science and modernity. I refer you to these sites offering contrarian view-points. Perhaps other muslims of different schools can offer us more insight in this blog as to the evolution of contemporary islam towards becoming a vibrant faith capable of peacefully meeting the demands of an ever more complex and interrelated global village where tolerance and understanding is a commodity oftentimes in short supply !

www.progressivemuslim.org

www.faithfreedom.org

www.muslimwakeup.com

www.secularislam.org

Thanks,

very plain and simple Jane

Kim Sook-Im
( may i be smoothered by a thousand rotten lotus petals for my prior indiscretion :) )

Once more I break my promise of having posted the last post on this thread. I am not going to get into a discussion with Kim, as far as I can see he has contributed little new to the debate. However I am going to paraphrase Gunnar from Maryland:

How do you write "paragraph" in Korean?

Ø.

Perhaps other muslims of different schools can offer us more insight in this blog as to the evolution of contemporary islam towards becoming a vibrant faith capable of peacefully meeting the demands of an ever more complex and interrelated global village where tolerance and understanding is a commodity oftentimes in short supply

I wouldn't hold my breath, given that as you correctly point out, the islamic scriptures can be easily interpreted as an incitement to violence. Great post! And contrary to øyvind's opinion, you clearly did contribute a lot to the discussion with a perspective from other parts of the world, with other religions. I am also flabbergasted that China's murderous aggression is countered with [small whiny voice] "would you like to sell us some cheap plastic stuff".

HI OEYVIND,

절은 긴 절 이다

kim sook-im

I agree to kim has contributed with some points.

Myself I have been brought up with PC views like in the dark age oh we got old greek back from moslem culture which is true but maybe spite Islam more than through as well as spite christianity.

The contrast between Dalai Lama and Tibet´s struggle and Arafat palestine is alarming and I feel sick when my government refuse to meet official in fear of losing contracts.

I have studied countless religious texts broadly but it was never with the intention of criticising anyone but as part of my personal search so to speak. NT, Bhagavad Gita, Isá upanishad, Gospel of Thomas being the only texts I read several times - maybe some buddhist texts more than once as well.

The involvement in aggresive behaviour of moslems speaks it´s own language 99 % maybe is inflated but it´s not totally of the mark.

It´s not a rosy picture indeed to many fingerprints around the world.

5 % of the moslems armed with ak-47 and etc just for the image. would not be a majority but from 1.8 bio it would still be 90 mio.

Øyvind you think we would lose a clash of civilizations or atleast hinted it - I think we should get as independent from oil as possible disengage from the moslem world all together and build a wall maybe not physically but via absolute military superiority and decisive defensive action.

>> Øyvind you think we would lose a clash of civilizations or atleast hinted it - I think we should get as independent from oil as possible disengage from the moslem world all together and build a wall maybe not physically but via absolute military superiority and decisive defensive action

Hey, finally off the environmentalist leash (thanks to Bush), the US is actually implementing this plan. We now have several gas stations fitted for dispensing hydrogen. It's only for demonstration, and it will take awhile to get this moving, but the day is coming.

In addition, rocks on the moon hold helium-3, an energy source approximately 1 million times more powerful than coal.

One cargo supply would provide the United States with all the electricity it needs for a year, according to the scientists.

They predict the moon has enough energy to last the U.S. over 1,000 years

[chuckling maniacally, since I know that several people in this blog react negatively to anything that is good for the US, and since enviro-fascists dread technological innovation]

Oil producers better have a long range plan for how to deal with American energy independence. Arab Sheiks: retire to Geneva. Norway: a smaller govt less focused on the welfare state.

Hi again,

a muslim friend of mine who is scholar of islam in his own right told me that there is a growing consensus that the current form of Islam, or for that matter the islam practised for the last 1000 yrs have degenerated into a sort of arab-religion ..at least that is the contentions of the Quranists who accuse the sunni and shiites of practising a form of old testamental judeochristianity, a kind of religion of the olden pharasees with its obsessions over rites and rituals. This sound reasonable since a lot of the early converts to islam were jewish tribes and early christians of arabia and there were admixtures of ideas from mandaens, sabaeans, zoroastrians etc. The constant friction with the early jewish tribes in arabia may also accouont for the venomous hatred that majority of muslims profess for the jews. Here is the site:

http://www.free-minds.org/Arab_Conspiracy.html

Please comment on the article.
Thanks,

Kim Sook-Im

"Hey, finally off the environmentalist leash (thanks to Bush), the US is actually implementing this plan. We now have several gas stations fitted for dispensing hydrogen. It's only for demonstration, and it will take awhile to get this moving, but the day is coming"

Yes and Ford should have launched their first hydro car meant for mass production this summer, this is great.

I am looking forward to the day where Saudi Arabia is begging us to buy some oil so they can keep funneling money into the world wide wahhabi system, not to mention all that crap talk about war for oil can stop for good :)

America just realize following:

The golf war 1991 was all about oil ofc!

Oh well then you instituted the sanctions actually keeping the Iraqi oil from flowing so for a period it wasn´t about oil - but LOOK genocide!

Finally you decided after 9/11 you decided to invade Iraq and the good ol` oil ghost could rise from it grave once again.

Now no doubt it´s all about oil right - oil and nothing else everyone clap their quran and communist manifest together plz.

Now look - let´s talk about hate.

Us had 3 options with Iraq:

To not do anything but keep the sanctions and get hated for it.

To lift the sanctions and let Saddam sit fat and cruel on his throne and get hated for it.

To invade Iraq and create a democracy and get hated for it.

Now talk about some options right ? Well you probably gonna be hated most for attacking Iraq but this can be countered a bit with a successfull and actual democracy however. Nevertheless all the rightous people in the world will probably still find something to hate you for regardless.

God bless America and I mean it!

And another question for you Gunnar, do you honestly believe that a foetus has the right to exist within the body of woman

Peterson was just convicted in the blue state of California of one count of first-degree murder for killing his wife, Laci, and one count of second-degree murder in the death of the son she was carrying.

Hi T. Hansen,
Your last statement about "...absolute military superiority as a defensive posture" should be taken seriously by everyone who is concern about Islam or at least the mullahIslam version from becoming a dominant world power. Virtually the whole of islamdom is impelled by this sinister and demonic desire to subjugate the whole world to Allah,islam and Shariah(the barbaric bedouinized code of jurisprudence involving stoning, misogyny,cutting of hands and feet etc, etc). What a lot of people do not understand is that the western world ( or for that matter the whole world) is engaged in a conflict between new testament christianity and old testament judeo-christianity ( religion of the olden pharasees is alive and well and being practised and perpetuated by the sunni and shiites of Islam). To understand how this can be i refer you to the following site that was supplied me by a muslim friend who is himself a scholar of the evolution of Islam since its inception 1400 yrs ago:

please read: http://www.malaysia.net/lists/sangkancil/2000-05/frm00994.html

the article above was written by a malaysian author. Bumi refers to indigenous malays, PAS refers to the islamic political party which is trying to introduce the draconian and hated Shariah laws( islamic jurisprudence that favor stoning , denigration of women, etc). The author is Quranist and argues forcibly that the current form of Islam practised is a corrupt hodgpodge of old testamental judeochristianity, mixed in with barbaric bedouin/arab folklore, traditions, customs and tribal laws -- a sort of arab-religion rather than the pristine wisdom of the quranic texts. Muslims in general rever the Quran as the verbatim instruction from god almighty. Science seems to indicate otherwise, currently linguists and orientalists are engaged in the study of the Sana'a texts which seem to indicate variance and evidence of evolution of the quranic texts rather than static verbatim revelation all in one night or one month for that matter...but rather the quran had multiple authors and span a period of hundreds of years in its compilations :

http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/The%20Bible%20in%20Islam

also is the Quran miraculous???:

http://answering-islam.org.uk/Quran/Miracle/index.html

also here is an interesting site that gives a concise comparison between islam and christianity to help westerners grasp how muslims rever islam and whether islam is a religion of peace? ...the author is christian and does have proselytization as ulterior motives, nevertheless it is an interesting article:

http://www.ccel.org/contrib/exec_outlines/islam/islam_02.htm

and further here are sites refuting the divine origin of the Quran:

http://www.ccel.org/contrib/exec_outlines/islam/islam_02.htm

from a hindu perspective: http://www.flex.com/~jai/satyamevajayate/koran.html

and here is the skeptics annotated Quran for further refutation from 'internet infidels' site LOL:
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/index.html

happy reading,

Kim Sook-Im

Hi plane Jane!

Thank you for taking time to enlighten us upon "the religion of peace". It more and more resembles a plague of society.

Maybe the Quran just needs a Service Pack? In Christianity, we got SP1 with the New Testament, Islam is still waiting for their ;)

Hi nilsr,oslo,

here is another interesting site reporting the persecution of buddhists and other religious minorities(sikhs,hindus, christians, animists) in the chittagong delta area of bangladesh by fanatical bangladeshi muslims (by the way click on the site describing the persecution of buddhists in korea by fanatical korean "christians"...it seems that there are sects of christians that just can't shake off the obnoxious old testamental religion and habits of the olden pharasees and their cult like mentality of "i am better than thou" attitude which Jesus pointedly condemned and warned us against !

here's the site: http://buddhistfaith.tripod.com/pureland_sangha/id22.html

Manga Takk

Kim Sook-Im

Well we do not only need complete military superiority to counter terrorists or Islamic aggression. We need just as much to make sure that we can defeat China with 1/10 of NATO capacity roughly. The most ghastly scenario I can think off starts with China attacking Taiwan, which again makes North Korea seize the moment to attack South Korea. Then for certain islamic terrorists will see their moment as well and maybe even the moslem states will try some like annihilating Israel, Pakistan vs India etc.

We have to be able to easily defeat all these nations From Asia to Afrika even if they work together, and to leave them no doubt we will respond forcefully if they start something I don´t think the peace in this century will be possible without a strong defense, a very superior military. We just don´t live in paradise nor in a world guided by compassion would be great if we did but we don´t. The western civilization don´t lack enemies or semi hostile nations and people outside it´s own circle.

It´s always amazed me how much Jesus could rage against Scribes and pharisees with so little avail, they abounded even in Christianity.
But of course loving your neighbour is not something you do just as easy as to take a step.

Yes stoning, veiled women, cutting of hands, was all part of the nomadic arabs culture long before Mohammed.

How mediocre and narrowminded people can think god is just as mediocre and narrowminded as them and hold special favor in exactly them is a mystery to me. But they probably can´t imagine anything being greater than them at all.

I have answered Kim Sook-Im here: /cgi-bin/mt/mt-comments.cgi?entry_id=1499

Ø.

There is no war in Iraq..It already ended. The terrorists in Iraq are bombing and killing the forces of good and harming the goodwilling Iraqi's. It took the brave soldiers, and a very brave commander in chief, of the US army and armies of other brave and good countries to liberate the Iraqi people from a brutal dictator! If you oppose this, then you are my enemy because you must be a "left winger" and moraly wrong. Left wingers who help to shelter refugees from Iraq in my country (to much a coward to fight the oppressor?) so they can spend, preferably my, tax money on these "helpless people".These helpers of the weak immigrants are only doing this for their own jobs, ego and income. These left wingers never think of the possabillity to shelter these people in their own region (much cheaper) or to pay for this illusions themselves. No these cowards MUST come to my country and end up killing my Theo for their stupid religion. Follow the situation in my country closely. One more attack on my people will end up in a pogrom against the left wingers and their immigrant friends. We are not going to sit back and let ourselfs be killed in our OWN country.

Hi a Friend of theo's,

I totally agree with your point of view. In a manner of speaking the dutch people having been vey kind hosts to this people and allowing them to practise their barbaric religion freely are now finding that the guests are taking over the house and attacking the host!!! But this problem arose in part because of the naivete and good naturedness and open and liberal society of holland all of which is highly commendable but which unfortunately leave them as easy prey to this predatory type of cult which is mullahIslam. Make no mistakes - mullahIslam is a predatory belief-system, when mullahMuslims are weak and in the minority the preach a religion of love, tolerance of 'no compulsion', but like the Borgs in star trek, once they reach a critical mass( in the case of holland and denmark about 5%of the population) they begin to agitate violently oftentimes for special rights,and previleges...mullahMuslims tend to ghetto-ize, they cannot assimilate or cohabit peacefully with their neighbour, because their Cult teaches rudeness, vanity, aloofness, superiority and the extreme need to vanquish unbelievers( ie. non-members), at the same time they will not hesitate to exploit the goodwill and the achilles heel of the democratic and secular system in which they live and which guarantees them freedom of religion and speech. Show me which islamic country in the world guarantees free speech and practise of any religion. Saudi arabia the headquarters and showcase country of mullah Islam can hardly be called a paragon of religious liberty or speech or much less anything....it is a police state, a draconian theo-fascist state rulled by god's bullies in the form of the olden pharasees incarnated in the islamo-nazi mullahs. Friend of theo's, i hope the generous and open-minded dutch people do not paint a broad brush on all immigrant groups based on the action of some members of one particular religion/Cult. The dutch should ask themselves why is it that other religious groups or a-religious groups that characterize the vibrant dutch demography ie. jewish,christians, hindus, bahais, mormons, jehovah witnesses, scientologists, secularists, new agers, wiccans, pagans, heathens, bahais, buddhists, shintoists, taoists, animists,zoroastrians, and adherents of other belief-systems do not go rampaging int the streets of holland shooting at infidels and stabbing and beheading people??? what is it that is inherently dangerous in this superCult masquerading as a religion( rather usurping the legitimate title of religion thro fear ,intimidation and violence historically). The dutch need to wake up to the fact that militant Islam( as opposed to secular Islam as is practised in Turkey...but then here it is a bit tricky for we are talking of a continuum)is a monster that cannot be negotiated with. The prime directive of militant Islam is to '...cause a wide slaughter', to vanquish all unbelievers by whatever means possible ( including nuclear if need be) and then to establish the Caliphate and subjugate the world to Allah, Islam and the revolting primitive and barbaric Shariah jurisprudence. Please visit the following eye-opening site:

WWW.DHIMMIWATCH.ORG

WWW.FAITHFREEDOM.ORG

Holland is a bastion of secularism, of free speech and thoughts, all dutch citizens should read this site:

http://www.faithfreedom.org/oped/AzarMajedi41106p2.htm

and even more urgently all men and women of goodwill who love freedom from tyranny especially of the religious kind do read this site also:

http://www.faithfreedom.org/Articles/sinaprologue.htm

hartelijke groeten,

Kim Sook-Im

>> Virtually the whole of islamdom is impelled by this sinister and demonic desire to subjugate the whole world to Allah

Now, Kim, get your story straight. Either God and Satan exist, or they don't exist, make up your mind.

The unexamined life is not worth living.

The unexamined religion is not worth following.

In 732 AD, Charles 'The Hammer' Martel crushed the Saracens
at Tours, France. He's had enough of the Saracens.

'The Religion of Peace' has a lot of explaining to do.

Check out www.deism.com

Hi Gunnar of land of mary,

glad you agree with me that there is something sinister about the religion of islam, a sinister force that impells its adherents to commit murder and mayhem. Regarding the 2nd question about God and Satan...i'm not sure where you are coming from ?....I'm not sure how to answer that question...in a way it would depend on your definition of God...Ron in the post following yours is a Deist and has a concept of Godhead which may not meet with the approval of the grand mufti of alexandria. I'm assuming you are a caholic(probably wrongly LOL) and if so your concept of Godhead is colored by a heavy dose of catechism to which you were subjected . For buddhists the question of god is a bit more like a smoergasbord or a continuum, i can be a buddhist catholic and even a buddhist muslim, well at least there are elements of buddhist thoughts in sufiism.

Ave maria plena gratia, Dominus tecum!

kim sook-Im

I used to consider myself a Christian Buddhist now I don´t really give a damn about isms.

I would Say there is a God and can pray to this God. Ultimatetely I see this God as everything there is: Thus in the sense of what some people would call pantheism, and even in the sense of the buddha nature, the sunyata, the bhakti and advaitah way and as well in a broader metaphysic sense the sum total of space and time, the infinite and eternal the seen and the unseen, the manifest and the yet to come - but not only that, more than that even. Not only the root of everything but also the tree. And not only the root and the tree but the seed as well and not even only that but all that was before that, all there is and all there will be and not only that also what is actually beyond that.

The problem of religions is that rather than leave God to be the what God is beyond our limited understanding, rather than realizing than the wisdom and love, nature of God falls beyond what we can normally grasp, they put God into boxes which what deserves to be called God in truth is very much beyond.

As for all religions I studied and taken part in -I been a Christian and converted to Buddhism not really to leave christianity - actually the drop that made me leave Buddhism was western convert reproaching the fact I was wearing a cross at the Buddist center - He was rebuked by others for it and it has little to do with buddhism and everything to do with mindset though.
But the fact remained that no religion has been able to in any satisfactory manner explain but in part what I found myself thinking and have experienced in deep meditation myself. Nor have anything wiccan, new age, Theosophy, Rosicrucianism etc.

The most satisfactory answers though still not complete I have found in the works of this danish philosopher and mystic:

http://www.martinus.dk/

Hi T Hansen,
i'm still amazed that the buddhist friends you had that rebuked you were engaging in converting you to buddhism...but how do you convert someone to buddhism? theoretically there are no rites or rituals in buddhism, and as for your friends disapproving of the cross, that is so silly...i think they are still suffering from a hang over of the olden religions.

MANO PUBANGGAMA DHARMA, MANO SETTA MANO MAYA

the mind is supreme, mind produces, mind deludes, mind is an illusion.

Kim Sook-Im

Well Buddhism in the mind of some few yet existing westernes turn into some fanatic kind lifestyle and world view and again a few! have a hard time hiding some level of disrespect for christianity or really as you put it nicely "hang over from old religons".

Buddhism is dharma/the 8 fold path. And you follow that path or not by your actions don´t matter where you live, who you are, what you ascribe yourself to. That´s how I understand Buddhism and as far I remember Buddha said something like "I shown you one path or way, but there 1000 others".

However Buddhism is still not free from dogmas and certainly could not answer all my questions and no religion/philosophy has been able to do that though the thoughts of Martinus comes as close as probably possible yet still not complete and I would never have understood his words as I do unless I had my own experiences, thoughts, + read into many traditions.

Words are just words ( symbols to which we attach some kind of meaning with a personal flavour ) and to express the divinity God in words is like trying the sculpture something like the earth from a little ball of halfdried clay.

Hansen,

I've personally never experienced such spirituality, and certainly all of my friends who have and who have expressed a belief in God or/and christianity seem to have only done so as the result of drugs, or hysteria.

Neither of which I am a big fan of. I believe in a mother nature; a collection of human indifferent natural processes, occuring indefinitely and prepetually.

In the words of Nietzsche (1885); According to nature you want to live? O you noble stoics, what deceptive words these are! Imagine a being like nature, wasteful beyond measure, indifferent beyond measure, without purposes and consideration, without mercy and justice, fertile and desolate and uncertain at the same time; imagine indifference itself as a power - how could you live acording to this indifference!?

In my opinion purpose and morality is something that has been created by and is required by human beings.

cheers
David Elson.

"I've personally never experienced such spirituality, and certainly all of my friends who have and who have expressed a belief in God or/and christianity seem to have only done so as the result of drugs, or hysteria."

Well I have and it was not due to drugs. Drugs open doors to perceptions you are mostly not ready to digest - the result of that often being at "best" somekind of insanity or mental unstability directly in clinical terms or at "worst" some utopian mentality or radical and fanatical world negating spiritualism.

If you wanna live nice and comfortable go get a wife some kids, a job, catch some fish and take it all as it comes.

Don´t do as Nietche, William Blake or St Francis, or Milarepa etc. unless it´s coming your way inevitable.

"In my opinion purpose and morality is something that has been created by and is required by human beings."

That´s not wrong but what created the human being in the first place and what is the source of the sometimes mysterious forces and drives inside an individual human being ?

At this point in time, muslims have a lot to fear. They have allowed ignorance and hate to be at the forefront of their religion, while the tolerant do not speak out against it. The culture has been corrupted. Those who commit and support this hate will be terminated in time. When you kill someone, chances are that they will want revenge. I watched September 11th from my porch in New Jersey where i was living at the time, and the American people woke up to the spread and true threat of terrorism. When you smell the burning flesh of 3000 of your fellow countrymen, you tend understand what an enemy is. Some of my good friends' parents didn't come home that evening. Muslims are not unwelcome in America or Europe, even in the wake of such violence towards the west. Can you imagine if Westerners came to Islamic countries and did what the Islamists get away with in the west? There would be no westerners there for very long. Muslims are only asked to tolerate other points of view. That is all. People who cannot do that will always be on the losing end of history. Americans will fight to the end of this hate. Proud to be American, and I don't give a rats ass if that sounds like a corny thing to be.

sorry, i misread the site as to the dates on the comments... I meant to add mine near the top of the page, where it would have made much more sense. my apologies.

I refer the comment by Madam Kim. It is a joke to say that the arabs are upholding the Quran. Not one thing they do can be traced back to the Quran. Not one.

Instead their belief in hijab for women is a copy cat Old Testament belief ( 1st Corinthians and Mother Theresa). It is not found in the Quran.

Their belief in killing apostates is from Deuteronomy (?). This cannot be found in the Quran.

Their belief in stoning adulterers to death is Leviticus. This too cannot be found in the Quran.

Todays arabs are actually good old testament christians.

Madam Kim said the follwong too : ' they allow the evil mullahs to do the interpretation for them and to select all those mean spirited verses which of course are popular with human nature'.

I dont think there are any 'mean spirited verses' in the Quran. I dont think human nature seeks after mean spiritedness also.

The Quran is a completely peaceful and temperate book. It does not teach aggression in any way.

Unfortunately it is the intrepretations of the Quran by the mullahs that had confused the masses.

I am a Muslim and from now onwards I will always be a Muslim. The so called arabised world from Morocco to Saudi Arabia, Malaysia, Indonesia and elsewhere is NOT part of the Islam brought to us by the Prophet of Islam.

My honest opinion is that there is no way we can save the present crop of over 1.5 billion arabised humans especially in places like Saudi Arabia. They will seek extermination thru violent means because they do not uphold simple reason and logic. They are followers of falsehoods. This falsehood will keep them in poverty, foolishness and violence. Theirs is a sorry end. Iraq and Afghanistan, Lebanon and Somalia, Pakistan and South Thailand, South Phillipines and Chechnya etc are just some latter day manifestations of this foolishness, poverty and violence.

I believe that Saudi Arabia will be convulsed in violence within the next five years. This is the neo cons plan for the Middle East too. The arabs can do nothing about it.

The aras and the arabists will bring violence upon themsleves. They will wipe themselves out. God's replacement theory will kick in.

A new generation of real Muslims must arise from the ashes. If this new generation upholds Quranic principles they will be succesful. If they uphold the old testament influenced mullahism, they will be wiped out again, say another 200 years down the road.

Salam. Saim.

selamat pagi saudara saim bakar,

so nice of you to visit this blog. I read somewhere that Imam haji awang something in the state of trengganu voted for Shariah law...will it really pass. I hear the women of malaysia and civil rights groups are greatly alarmed at the introduction of the barbaric bedouinized form of jurisprudence the Shariah!... can you comment on same for the blog-members to understand how the mullahs have twisted and abused the quranic texts into barbaric and inhumane forms of torture for innocents.

Folks , friend saim bakar is quite an expert on islamic tradition and a contrarian or variant interpretation of the Quranic texts. Saim i wish you would debate that swedish guy ex-christian who thinks he can fool us all with his blatant lies about how great a religion mullahIslam is. They have been known to fabricate and inflate figures to convince gullible newcomers as to how fast islam is growing. Actually the fastest growing creed right now is Fa Lun Qong the eclectic mixture of taoism and buddhism and martial arts, that started in china and is growing world wide. Ex-christian have you thought of changing to fah lun Qong --at least you don't have to be constantly lying in order to sell mullahIslam for Allah....unless you like being a mullah-SALESMAN lol.

Kim Sook-Im
free thinking korean country girl ready to take on mullah-salesman ha ha :))

Everybody has the right to criticize whatever he wants but criticizing is a skill and an adventure of foolish mad poeple is of non sens of course. One should make a very big difference between "criticizing and playing the provocater/manipulator" and this is what van gogh was engaged in. He has no experinece in the understanding of what is CULTURAL and what is UNTOUCHABLE in the religion of Islam. He played the same game as that of H./L. Flight (play boy) when he puts the crusified Jesus on the vagina of a prostitute. I do not know how can I call that Art neither the right to criticize !!!??? However killing van gogh is not acceptable but it was the job of ambassadors and consulates from the Islamic countries to object and face that mesirable film in Netherlands courts but ...

>> but it was the job of ambassadors and consulates from the Islamic countries to object and face that mesirable film in Netherlands courts but ...

I didn't see the film, but I don't think that a specific person was slandered or libelled. As such, it's free speech.

hi el bay ali,
yes , i agree with you, van Gogh may have been provocative, but still the islamists should sue him instead . Killing someone for their views no matter how maddening is unacceptable norm for the rest of 5 billion of us other earthlings that do not subscribe to mullahIslam, and especially if a muslim is living in another persons house and in the country of the dutch people, they should uphold and respect the law of the land. But that is the core problem with Islam - it is in need of modernization of its domination theory if it is to be respected as a world religion and to allow its adherents to cohabit peaceably with the rest of earths inhabitants. I fear if this is not done and by muslims themselves we may face a catastrophe that may well end civilization both muslims and non muslims alike...this is very real as the ante has been upped . Only recently there is reason to believe that Osama bin Ladin has sought permission from a sheikh in saudi arabia to use nuclear weapons on the infidels. This is unacceptable...the west and other democratic countries could have used their nuclear arsenal easily in the past if they had wanted, but the moral restrain and high ground prevents them from doing so. I fear the blind and blood thirsty following of some ancient quranic scripture may impell the likes of bin ladin and company to do really foolish thing that will unleash armageddon on earth. Thus it is even more urgent for muslims of goodwill and goodfaith to quickly engage in ijtihad and commence a house cleaning and protestantic revolution of their faith.

please visit this site regarding the stand of islam on world domination:

http://www.christianpost.com/dbase/editorial/31/full/1.htm

shukran laka,

Kim Sook-Im

Their belief in stoning adulterers to death is Leviticus. This too cannot be found in the Quran.

Todays arabs are actually good old testament christians.

While it may be that Islam is basically a Catholic heresy, Christianity has never supported stoning adulters. "He among you that is without sin, throw the first stone".

hello Gunnar et al.

actually islam is way beyond catholic heresy, it predates catholicism, it carries more a heavy baggage of the old testamental judeo-christianity, all the 679 rules of the pharisaic cult etc. the funny thing is a lot of muslims don't know that. The habit of affixing honorifics after the name of prophets ex. prophet mohammad pbuh ( peace be upon him) is a talmudic custom. All the harsh penal code /hudud laws derive from the harsh mosaic codes.

Here is a very interesting site that exposes the different sources that contribute to the creation of Islam. Maybe ex-christian can intelligently refute this rather than accusing us all of being mindless islamophobes:

http://answering-islam.org.uk/Nehls/Ask/sources.html

Gracias,

Kim Sook-Im

>> actually islam is way beyond catholic heresy, it predates catholicism, it carries more a heavy baggage of the old testamental judeo-christianity, all the 679 rules of the pharisaic cult etc

Yea, perhaps it's mohammadism that I was referring to. I admit that analyzing religious beliefs is way beyond me. I don't understand why you say "old testamental judeo-christianity", when by definition, Christianity started with the NT. We kept the OT around just for reference :)

EL BAY ALI:

Everybody has the right to criticize whatever he wants but criticizing is a skill and an adventure of foolish mad poeple is of non sens of course. One should make a very big difference between "criticizing and playing the provocater/manipulator" and this is what van gogh was engaged in. He has no experinece in the understanding of what is CULTURAL and what is UNTOUCHABLE in the religion of Islam. He played the same game as that of H./L. Flight (play boy) when he puts the crusified Jesus on the vagina of a prostitute. I do not know how can I call that Art neither the right to criticize !!!??? However killing van gogh is not acceptable but it was the job of ambassadors and consulates from the Islamic countries to object and face that mesirable film in Netherlands courts but ...

It does not matter whether Van Gogh was criticizing or insulting, so long as he was not inciting some one to violence. We are told time and again that Islam is truly compatible with Western democracy; some even claim that Western democracy is based on Islam. However, in a society based on true freedeom of speech and true freedom of religion there is not and can be no "untouchable." Participation in this kind of society takes a very thick skin, and those who cannot manage that have no place in it.

Hi Jeff and el bay ali,

Killing another human being in the name of religion is what cults do, therefore it is plain and simple logic that islam is not a religion --it is a Cult masquerading as a religion. A truly great religion is open to all, there is no need for membership. A cult maintains a membership. Islam is a draconian cult ,not only does it maintain membership it demands blood if you leave the membership = apostasy=punishable by death !
A truly great faith teaches love , compassion and forgiveness to frail humanity . The divine does not need the ceaseless and slavish worship of humans , the divine does not need human bullies to do his hit job. The divine does not need a hit squad. Islam requires the ceaseless and drivling worship of a blood-thirsty deity that will punish you terribly for eternity if you do not subscribe to a myriad rites and rituals. Its cult memebers ceaselessly declare that their deity is all merciful and compassionate,but their actions belie their words....stoning, beheading, amputation of limbs, constant warfare, treachery, religious dissimulation, dhimmitude ,slavery, denigration of women, hypocrisy appears to be the fruit of their 'divine' instruction...wherein then is the beauty of their religion. This thing is getting to be more and more macabre !!! Islamists should just come right out and tell the world that ' my religion is one of fear, hate , violence and intimidation, my God is a vengeful and bloodthirsty Deity - or we will put you to the sword....stop declaring empty and meaningless epithets like Islam is the most beautiful religion, islam is the greatest religion....at least Attila the Hun had the honesty to tell his vanquished subject that he will split their skull and drink blood from their skull as goblets if they do not submit to him= he did not say , i am the most kind and munificent head Honcho around, I am the most beautiful head Honcho come to guide you blah blah blah...he just said, i am the head Honcho, and i am here for your head period LOL LOL LOL...... :))))

Kim Sook-Im

frightened little country girl
see what you big bad islamist wolves have done to me
happy now ? :)))

Goede morgen 'vriend van theo'. Wij begrijpt iedereen het verschrikkelijke dilemma dat de Nederlandse mensen hadden geduldig voor vele jaren.ontmoeten. U hebt nu zeker het recht om uw land te verdedigen. Uw land wordt door gasten overgenomen die niet zich gedragen en niet wenst de wetten en tradities van de Nederlandse mensen te achten. Ik raad aan dat u de volgende internet websites leest: www.faithfreedom.org www.dhimmiwatch.org www.secularislam.org

Met vriendelijke groeten

Kim Sook-im..... Een bezorgde burger van planeet aarde

...continuation

hello 'friend of theo'..it is understandable the horrible dilemma that the dutch people must be facing at this time. You certainly have the right to defend your country. You have guests that wont behave and who refuse to respect the laws and culture of their host country. Do read the web sites /links given above. Thanks

Kim Sook-Im
concern citizen of planet earth

中國語言讀者喜歡記住讀關於回教的重要資訊和穆斯林宗教在這頁裡

foreign language readers please also visit the web sites especially www.secularislam.org

Meanwhile, if you want to hear the 'other' side of the story and detailed refutations to the all the garbage the above 'mindless Islamophobes' are spitting, here are the SOURCES:

Read about the perverted philosophy of buddhism in this site:

http://www.islamandbuddhism.com

http://www.islam-guide.com ( in 9 languages including chinese and Japanese )

http://www.answering-christianity.com ( great )

http://www.islamic-awareness.org
( This site is really magnificent, it refutes all the lies the anti muslim hate sites spread about Islam )

http://www.why-christians-convert-to-islam.com

http://www.jesus-or-allah.com

http://www.beconvinced.com

http://www.jews-for-allah.org

And here is the Noble Quran in 21 language:

http://www.theholyquran.org

Read about the great religion of Islam and make your OWN judgment.

Queridos cidadãos do mundo. Nós devemos tentar ajudar aos muçulmanos progressivos reformar sua religião. Necessitam definitivamente um tipo da reformacao teologica comparável à revolucao protestante dos cristãos .Os muculmanos devem fazer mudanças e reformar os seus antiquissimos e perigosos pensamentos da dominacao e da supremacia mundial. Aquela é a única maneira que os muçulmanos podem viver na harmonia com os outros 5 bilhão habitantes deste planeta. Se não, nós podemos apressar-se no sentido de um disastre nuclear!

e favor de visitar os seguintes paginas electronicas:

www.progressivemuslims.org
www.muslimwakeup.org
www.secularislam.org

Muito Obrigada
Kim Sook-Im

איסלם = רצח = אלימות = שנאה

militant islam = hate= violence= murder

يعلّم الإسلام العنف, يكره و قتل . اسلام أيديولوجيّة خطيرة

el Islam militante enseña odio, violencia y asesinato. Es una ideología peligrosa

好戰的回教教怨恨、暴力和謀殺。這是一個危險思想體系

militant Islam undervisar hata , våldsamhet och mord. militant Islam är en farlig ideologien

o islam militante ensina o ódio,a violência e o assassinato.O islam militante é uma ideologia muito perigosa

호전적인 이슬람교는 혐오, 폭력 및 살인을가르친다. 이슬람교는 위험한 관념론 이다

militanter Islam unterrichtet Haß, Gewalttätigkeit und Mord. Islam ist eine gefährliche Ideologie

交戦中のイスラム教は憎悪、暴力および殺害を教える。イスラム教は危ないイデオロギーである

l'Islam militant enseigne la haine, la violence et le meurtre. l'Islam militant est une idéologie dangereuse

το στρατευμένο Ισλάμ διδάσκει το μίσος, τη βία και τη δολοφονία.το Ισλάμ είναι μια επικίνδυνη ιδεολογία

hello 'friend of Theo' this one is for you in dutch:
" militante islam onderwijst haat, geweld en moord. islam is een gevaarlijke ideologie"

militant мусульманство учит ненависти, расправе и убийству.мусульманством будет опасное мировоззрение( sorry don't know how to say militant in russian :) )

" militær Islam lærer hat , voldsomhet og mord. Islam er en farlig ideologi "--->

----> ----> Gunnar, i think that's how you say it in norwegian? i know they used to decide between landsmal and boksmal and then the government linguists decided on nynorsk, so you got the language of famous author ibsen included ha ha!

ugama islam militan mengajar para penganutnya benchi, kekerasan dan pembunohan. Pikiran militan ini sungguh mengerikan dan mengancamkan kedamaian dunia---->
----> Saudara Saim Bakar, maafkan adinda tetapi sudah lama adinda tidak berpeluang melatih bahasa melayu jadi sudah menjadi kaku tatabahasa adinda ini.

Kim Sook-Im
ex - Kristen : din vänlig litten flicka från Korea !!!
ex-christian : your friendly little girl from
Korea!!!
전 기독교인: 한국에서 너의 친절한 어린 소녀!!!

Dear co-citizens of the world,
we must help progressive muslims reform their religion. muslims definitely need a theological revolution comparable to the protestantic reformation of the christians.They must try to modernize their antiquated if not outdated theology of world domination. Violence and terror are the symptoms ...the root cause is the interpretation of the Quranic texts by small but ever increasing group of religious fundamentalists and purists. For your sanity please visit the web sites below.

Ex-christian please wake up from your stupor. 99% of world conflict involves militant islam in one form or another.Think about it wherever muslims have settled, once they reach a critical mass, they agitate violently and attempt to usurp or cannibalize the host. Your fanatical co-religionist slit the throat of the korean aid worker in Iraq for no apparent reason other than to use him as a sacrificial goat. They did the same to the japanese hitchhiker, to the chinese, to the bulgarians, to Mrs. Hassan who had helped the iraqui people for years,they even kill their own muslim coreligionist without any moral compunction or remorse...but what did the koreans or japanese do to the islamists..and so wherever you go you create enemies...why does god need all that praise and laudation, is his ego so big that he cannot handle it. Why does god have to use men as his bullies on earth..if he is divine and all powerful he can do what ever he wants without the help of a human agent. Why does god
's name have to be defended by human assassins..this cosmic Force that imbues all creation is so thin skinned he cannot take a jab or two of good human and even outright insult? God is the origin of all conditioned phenomena , he is the author of good and bad...why do the mullahs presume to know God's mind? No one is interested in preventing muslims from praying and performing whatever rituals they wish to engage in. I for one would wish for you to pray 20x per day , every half hour, prostrating , scraping , bowing, doing all kinds of aerobics to placate your god Baal, uh i mean Allah if you wish to...go for it man, be cool, go for it. Ain't nobody gonna stop you man. Dude be cool man, do that koran stuff one more time , man. What the rest of the world find unacceptable is this ardent and almost demonic force that impells members of this cult to arabize and bedouinize the rest of us 5 billion other inhabitants of mother earth. It would just be fine with us folks if you stay where you are and do your islamic stuff....we are just not interested in your irrational rites and rituals which you obviously find beautiful such as stoning, beheading, killing, amputation of limbs, honor killing of female relatives, shrouding your womenfolks in burqa and chador, maintaining a harem ,obsessive and compulsive preoccupation with female virginity , the length of your beard,which rival sect to plot against or murder ...and in general acting like wild ases stallions and horses ? If you find all this practises wonderful and beautiful and befitting a great and grandiose religion and wish to engage in illusions or delusions of grandeur...go for it, we wish you more luck, and more power...all we are asking is don't spread that poison around the planet earth...we the rest of citizen earth already have much problems to coop with like hunger,poverty, illiteracy, new diseases, dwindling resources, how to increase trade, how to increase scientific discoveries for the betterment of the human species without subjecting each other to the sword because of some inane ancient primitive folklore or supposed holy writ. The christian religion especially the catholics and the protestants used to burn witches at the stake accusing these poor women ( it's always the women that bear the brunt of the misogynist violence n'est-ce-pas? :( .....) of immorality of being a danger to society etc..but it was the holy men with their holy writ that commited unspeakable crimes of mayhem and slaughter of millions of innocent human beings. In like manner mullah islam and its mullahcracy reflect the horrifying dark ages of humanity in the era of the inquisition and superstitions...this is where your religion is at this time, it is static and frozen in time, unable to grapple with modernity and changing times! In the olden days the profoundly pious and fanatical will slice and dice each other with swords and primitive metal tools...not any more, the ante has been upped. If there is any semblance of rationality and humanity left in you, O members of the Ummah/community of believers you will seek to introspect and quickly engage in ijtihad and update your theological concepts in order that your adherents can finally be accepted into the fold of humanity and become capable of peaceful coexistence with your neighbours.

visit these sites:

http://www.free-minds.org/Arab_Conspiracy.html

http://www.muslim-refusenik.com/

http://home.btclick.com/scimah/memes.htm

Kim Sook-Im

전 기독교인: 한국에서 너의 친절한 어린 소녀 :)
ex-christian's friendly little korean girl :)

For all of you sympathizing with or defending Islam, please do a small favour to humanity. Read and learn your own basic books about the history of the religion. I mean the original books that were written before and around 1000 years ago (they are available everywhere) You will sure find the unspoken and cleverly hidden deep roots of hatered, violence, betrayal and political assasinations. Even cold blooded slaughtering of the helpless prisoners of war approved and supervised by Mohamed personally. Please save your souls and stop following your respected leaders blind folded. Start knowing, understanding and comprehending what it is all about.

Was van Gogh so tolerant after all?

Among the most common terms and concepts in this debate are: multi-culturalism, inclusiveness, discrimination and tolerance.

Diversity
.
Diversity is a code word for the political doctrine of multi-culturalism. By itself it means only "the variety of things," but as used by politicians, "diversity" is a moral statement about the way society ought to be: a harmonious social pluralism in which every culture is honoured for its contribution to the whole. Thus feel-good emotionalism is harnessed to obscure deeply flawed reasoning.
.
Multi-culturalism, meaning the equality of cultures in a pluralistic society, is a valid concept if culture is defined by morally neutral criteria. Society should pursue civic equality based upon things like race, ethnic heritage and religion. But cultural practices are not morally neutral.
.
The very inclusion of behavioural criteria in the definition of culture invalidates the premise of equality in multi-culturalism.
.
This introduces the companion word to diversity: inclusiveness. Churches and other institutions that have fallen victim to "political correctness" sophistry openly congratulate themselves for being inclusive. This is the same error in a different form. In both cases there is a failure to define the standard of acceptance by which people are welcomed into the circle of inclusion. With no standard, there can be no objectivity in the process and decisions represent merely the arbitrary will of the person or persons in charge.
.
In summary, the doctrine of multi-culturalism promotes the equality of all diverse cultures in our society under the code-word "diversity." The doctrine's validity depends upon limiting the definition of culture to morally neutral criteria. The inclusion of morally significant sexual behaviour in the definition robs multi-culturalism of validity by granting legitimacy to immoral practices. Attempting to fix the problem by excluding some cultures because of their practices (for example cannibalism or slavery) contradicts the premise of equality of cultures. Failure to articulate a standard by which to determine which cultures should be included compounds the problem by vesting arbitrary authority in whomever holds power.
.
Discrimination
.
Discrimination is a word whose political redefinition originated in the civil rights movement. In normal usage, discrimination is synonymous with discernment, but as used in a civil rights context it means irrational bias against a person. "Irrational" is the hidden qualifier in the term that distinguishes appropriate discernment from prejudice. In an enlightened society there can be no rational basis for discrimination on criteria such as race, skin colour or ethnicity. However, as with multi-culturalism, the introduction of morally significant criteria changes the analysis of discrimination. Discrimination against harmful conduct is entirely rational, and in many cases necessary.
.
Discrimination is now synonymous with racial prejudice in the public mind. The "politically correct politicians" have exploited this association.
.
Tolerance
.
Tolerance means putting up with someone or something you don't like in order to serve the greater good of preserving civility. Tolerance is therefore an essential virtue in a diverse society. If it means, however, unconditional acceptance of Western values such as: same-sex marriage, abortion, euthanasia and anticleral laws an values. One can express doubts about van Gogh’s and Western’s «tolerance» in this particular case. Anyone who disapproves of the previous is labelled intolerant, even those who disagree with the utmost courtesy and respect.
.
Abuse of language is a dangerous thing. The misuse of the term tolerance is a good example. For every person that gives in to political correctness to avoid being considered intolerant, there is another whose strong disapproval of “Western values» makes him or her willing to be considered intolerant. The latter may even begin to see intolerance as a virtue, since it appears necessary to be intolerant to stop the legitimization of the new values. This fosters a climate in which intolerance against legitimate minorities can be more easily justified. Many people just don't think clearly enough to understand why intolerance of religious beliefs and intolerance of perversion are different. This confusion serves the racists as easily as it serves the "anticlerical."

>> contradicts the premise of equality of cultures

Carol, you just pitched Kevin an easy soft ball. Expect to never find the ball again.

I'll just point out that your premise is completely wrong. Cultures are not equal.

hi Carol and Gunnar,

Carol,
it is all nice and neat to be academic and whatchamacalla o.k....but point is you are wasting your breath...i don't think europe has awaken ( or for that matter america or canada or the rest of the free world ) has awaken to the danger that mullahislam pose to the well being of your society...let's put it succinctly i can spin out a gajjillion pages of high fallutin academese ...but the end result is we will still have our throat slit, our freedoms taken away, the sinister nature of this beast is that it has the veneer of a religion but it is not....so please wake up and smell the coffee.....for starters read this article for your breakfast .

Kim Sook-Im
ancient korean sorceress( good sorceress that is :) just kidding ...just doing a reality check on europe )

وإرشاد إذ تطيع الله تُهزم المُلالي في لعبتهم ذاتها. فمن اصعب متطلبات الاجتهاد ، ذلك التقليد الاسلامي في التعليل المستقل ، أن يكون المرء عارفا بأحدث المفكرين في الاسلام جميعا. وإرشاد ، من هذه الناحية ، متقدمة ......JUST DOUBLE KIDDING, JUST DOING DOUBLE REALITY CHECK ON THE REST OF HUMANITY !!!!

O.K. HERE IS THE ARTICLE IN ENGLISH - IT IS TITLED PROPHET OF DOOM - A MOST APPROPRIATE EPITHET:

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

PROMISE ME YOU FOLKS WILL READ IT, PROMISE ME.:)))

p.s. disclaimer,

i should indicate that i do not necessarily agree !00% with the author's evangelical views, but my point is a lot of stuff that he talks about is worthy of note and should be taken seriously.

Kim Sook-Im

>> PROMISE ME YOU FOLKS WILL READ IT, PROMISE ME.:)))

Ok, I read some of it. Didn't want to deal with religious analysis, but if this is true, this is amazing. If true, it would really confirm your analysis Kim.

Ishaq:327 “Allah said, ‘A prophet must slaughter before collecting captives. A slaughtered enemy is driven from the land. Muhammad, you craved the desires of this world, its goods and the ransom captives would bring. But Allah desires killing them to manifest the religion.’”

Qur’an 7:3 “Little do you remember My warning. How many towns have We destroyed as a raid by night? Our punishment took them suddenly while they slept for their afternoon rest. Our terror came to them; Our punishment overtook them.”

Ishaq:510 “When the Apostle looked down on Khaybar he told his Companions, ‘O Allah, Lord of the Devils and what into error they throw, and Lord of the winds and what they winnow, we ask Thee for the booty of this town and its people. Forward in the name of Allah.’ He used to say this of every town he raided.”

People have theorized that Allah was really Satan, but I didn't expect that the verses would explicitly state this. Can anyone post the satanic verses?

Hi Gunnar,

Here is a post on the satanic verses and commentaries. Interestingly the earliest muslim bibliographers reporte on the validity of the quaranic verses.Their very prsence in the quran invalidates that book as divine revelation according to the opinion of the author.

http://answering-islam.org.uk/Index/S/satanic_verses.html

happy reading
Kim Sook-Im

ex christian in your earlier post you listed a link by harun yahya disparaging buddhism, i visited the site and was amused at his childish attempts to disparage buddhism. Funny that we don't have millions of irrate buddhists world wide wanting to behead and stone mr. Yahya or monks issuing fatwas to have him assasinated LOL :). Action speaks louder than words.

anyway to help you along in your da'wah ( campaign to proselytize infidels :) ....here is an interesting site on arguments against buddhism which buddhism easily explains away and diffuse without resorting to the sword ...isn't a popular islamic name Saifuddin = Sword of the Religion = too many swords spoil the kooks LOL LOL LOL

o.k here's the article

http://home.btclick.com/scimah/argumentsagainstbuddhism.htm

here's another article on modern buddhism: eye opener

http://home.btclick.com/scimah/

and here is the major portal to all buddhist works in case you decided to become a sufi-buddhist student ( yes i really think you can be a muslim buddhist or buddhist muslim -- buddhism is not fussy about names , labels, rites and rituals, i think they are rather easy going folks ou know ..at least i have not heard of a buddhist running amok on the street of amsterdam plunging a big knife into a dutchman's chest and then slicing his throat nearly beheading him over matters of religion -- have you ??? :)) Ohh when is the world islamist community going to condemn the wanton destruction of the priceless Bimayan Statues of the Buddha - a priceless heritage of the Afghan people ???. I hear some other fanatical coreligionist of yours is attempting to destroy some priceless art fresco in southern italy because of some paintings that were found offensive to islamists? is that true???

Kim Sook-Im
sweet little buddhist girl from afghanistan
好阿富汗佛教女孩
الفتاة البوذيّة اللّطيفة من أفغانستان

hi again ex christian et alias,

sorry, i forgot to include the link on the major portal to buddhist publications and info. Here it is:

http://www.buddhanet.net/

ex christian there is a section on meditation practises on LOVING KINDNESS....You think if more islamists were to practise this technics we might have less murder and mayhem? just wondering ??? :)

Thanks شكرًا 謝謝

Gunnar et alias,

Glad you got to browse through the info. Here is the cover or introduction to the prophet of doom.
It is short info but very revealing and will shock you:

http://www.prophetofdoom.net/

thanks

Let me know of one Muslim nation which will give refugee to one non-Muslim or allow a resident Muslim to convert to Christainity or any other religion. They are the most intolerant sone of Abraham -born to his slave. So, naturally wherever they are- they create problems. Let me know oa any one nation where Muslims live without creating problems to the minority non-muslims. They hate everyone except Muslims....sick, but a fact. They will land up in Western or Christain nations but wont hesistate to kill their own countrymen....bcos their GOD asks them to kill all Non-Muslims.

So they should be given refugee status in Christain or any country bcos they have enough Gulf- money and oil money to go the gulf nations and work there. Better give refugee status to the minorities of Indonesia or Kashmir or Sudan or Nigeria or Pakistan or Thailand South or Malaysia. GOD guide us all to know this truth that most Muslims follow their Quran blindly and only Devil can tell Muslims to kill Non-Muslims...sick. They are even promised seven virgins after killing Non-Musilims.
Muslima also believe that Jesus was taken away from Crucifixion at the last minute while GOD had promised that Jesus will be crucified in Old Testament. So, if JESUS had not fied for our sins, All Christains will ot go to HEaven unless they offer holy animal sacrifices like the Muslims and Jews do-even today.Muslims believe that Jesus will come again?...to make all Non-Muslims as Muslims?. Christains believe JESUS will come again to destroy the Devil -once and for all. ANyway, only GOD-s children will know the Truth....like JESUS said. If you know my FATHER, you will know ME. Amen

Check http://answer-islam.org and
http://www.light-of-life.com/eng/answer/ and
www.crosswalk.com for Bible search.

If time allows please read New Tetament of Bible and be Blessed. GOD is GOOD and positive and construcitve all the time. But, HE will send his destroyers(US?) to destroy Devil and his followers. GOD bless US and other countries to destroy Evil from the face of this Earth.

Syria has just received quite a few of Iraqi Christians.

hi john and Oeyvind et alias,

regarding " syria has just received quite a few iraqui christians..." well kind of sort of...to be more exact the syrian orthodox church has arranged for the assistance to iraqui christians or more broadly the syrian christian community is assisting the iraqui christians. I suspect Oeyvind having been leaning somewhat leftwards the past 1000 yrs is wishfully ( hopefully due to ignorance rather than malevolence ;) wink wink...)ascribing the beautiful and gacious acceptance of the persecuted iraqui christians by the 'gracious 'and 'most tolerant ' syrian authorities = syrian islamist government ha ha ha ha ha ha ROFL ROFL ROFL ROFL teee heeeeeee. You see as we try to 'liberate' iraq in our most magnanimous and typically ignorant western secular mindset hoping that if we could just remove the draconian yoke of oppression that the most gentle and benevolent Mr. Saddam Hussein had been applying on the poor innocent frreedom yearning, modernity yearning, religious liberty yearning , western secular -judeochristian values -oriented iraqui masses.........then suddenly they will rush to embrace us and our wonderful envisionment of a teeming mass of long downtrodden humanity yearning to breath freedom in all forms religionwise inclusive....BOOM THAT'S WHERE WE MODERNISTIC FOLKS ARE TOTALLY WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG. NOT ALL POPULATION GROUPS ARE THE SAME...O.K. LET ME PHRASE IT IN ANOTHER WAY ' ALL COWS ARE ANIMALS....NOT ALL ANIMALS ARE COWS ...COMPRENDO ??? :).

The poor suffering iraquis have never experienced democracy , freedom blah blah blah for the last gajillion years, their universe is one of one oppressive regime after another, kings, emperors, despots, dictators, sometimes secular sometimes religious...in the last 30plus yrs they were oppressed by a secularist tyrant who applied draconian measures to keep the religious despots ( mullahcracies= despots of a different stripe LOL ) in line . Saddam was a nominal muslim, ie. he was a bad muslim, he was more into wine women and song and material things . O.K. here is the shocker he is actually also a very good muslim . Now how can he be both a good and bad muslim at the same time? yes he can...because to be a good muslim you follow the dictates and precepts of the 'good' , 'holy' book of islam ie. the al Quran which interestingly is an exquisite manual of terrorism and oppression and dictatorship...so you see he can have his cake/falafel and eat it toooooooo...ain't that neat ha ha. O.K. he's also a good muslim, because he was oppressing and fighting the other muslim factions of the mullahcracies and keeping them in check lest they decided to get funny and join up with their mullah cousins of shiite iran and gang up on him. Also he killed other muslims ..remember the shiite marsh iraquis and the sunni kurds in the north ( funny we don't hear a lot of outburst and world wide condemnation from other muslim nations protesting the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of their muslim brothers.???) You see Islam since it's inception by the sword had always known only the sword , the sword against infidels and the sword in all kinds of infighting ( in polite terms we call it internecine dispute heh heh )and killing of different dissident groups of muslims who do not agree with each other. The sunni and shiite have been cutting off each others heads since the inception of islam. Funny the muslim world does not deplore the persecution of the shiite minorities in saudi arabia ..there is no honor among thieves :)). Anyway when the coalition removed the yoke of saddam hussein all the longsuffering mullahs are now back in power and we in our wishful thinking are hoping that they will fashion a modernistic western secular style iraq...hmmm welcome to alice in wonderland....democracy is a double edged sword...democracy in the hands of bigots and despots and totalitarians will simply lead to the birth of another totalitarian state this time under the oppression of the islamist mullahcracies.....perhaps the powers that be should consider a compromise version of democracy = is there such an animal? maybe "guided democracy " until the physical, mental, religious, educational and economical state of the country has reached a certain level of maturity to allow the true flowering of a truly democratic society...as of now, my concern is iraq will most likely degenerate eventually into another theocratic /mullahcratic joomhooriyah =republic of the middle east. Power corrupts....power in the hands of people who claim to be agents and salesmen of god double corrupts .

Thanks / شكرا
Kim Sook-Im -- still not wearing "hijab"
ex-Christian's favorite ayato-lass
( ex-christian yooohoooooo where are you? :))) )

Kim:

The only one that has called the Syrian government 'gracious' and 'most tolerant' here is you. Syria is a totalitarian dictatorship. The fact remains, though, that Syria - a Muslim country - has given refugee to non-Muslims. That is the real story. Maybe it doesn't fit with the nightmarish wishdreams of John Edwards, but it's still true.

The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) head in Damascus, Abdelhamed El Ouali, states:

“The Syrian government has been extremely generous to the Iraqis. It has kept the borders open without political considerations. And it believes it has a sacred duty to allow Iraqis who need safety to stay as long as necessary. But I am afraid if the numbers continue to rise dramatically without any international assistance, the situation here could change,”

The reason the Christians flee, is, according to this AP report pressure from Islamic extremists. Amongst other things churches have been bombed.

Ali al-Sistani, the Grand Ayatollah of Iraq and the most important Shiite cleric of that country, and more "concervative" than "moderate", has condemned those attacks as "hideous crimes". Like any sensible person would.

It is worthy noticing that the current interim government has, and Saddam Husseins government had, a Christian minister. Under Saddam, Tariq Aziz, a Christian, was a rather prominent figure.

Some Christians have also been fleeing to Jordan.

Of course, facts and realities does not seem to matter that much for everyone. Those pieces that does not fit with the 'grand picture' of 'evil Islam' can always be left out in the gigantic jigzaw puzzle of anti-Islamism. It's a fun game to play, I'm sure.

Øyvind

Hei Oeyvind. ..excuse mitt norsk. ......maybe jeg brukte ordene i en sarcastic måte LOL. Er Herr. Krekar enda Norges gjest? Oh of course there Mr. Tariq Aziz was a christian,,, but that's just a label...he wasn't a spiritual christian..otherwise he would not be standing next to that monster mr. Saddam Hussein ( who was a GOOD MUSLIM- well he did a lot of stuff that his holy book told him to LOL ). Yes many 'christians ' have done pretty mean things too..so i guess christian folks better not get too smugged about themselves . GO READ THIS ARTICLE ABOUT CHRISTIAN ATROCITIES . BUT THE POINT IS WHEN CHRISTIANS DO NASTY THINGS THEY DO SO AGAINST THE SPIRIT OF THE SCRIPTURE, ON THE OTHER HAND WHEN MUSLIMS DO HEINOUS CRIMES THEY DO IT TO FULFILL THE QURANIC COMMANDMENTS !!! THAT IS THE SCARY DISTINCTION....!!!! TERRORISM, MAYHEM AND MURDER ARE THE SYMPTOMS,...THE IMPELLING DEMONIC FORCE AND SOURCE OF THIS SYMPTOMS ARE THE UNHOLY INSTRUCTIONS FROM THEIR BOOK !!!

Here's the link:http://humphrys.humanists.net/christianity.html#killings

The problem at hand NOW -- is not christianity or judaism, or hinduism, or bahai or buddhism...the problem at hand is that Islam is incubating all these different strains of islam that is hell bent on killing off the whole world if necessary and muslims are not being forthright and monitoring their own kind and attempting to modernize their antiquated theology of world subjugation ( by less than peaceful mean if need be......christians harbor that hegemonistic tendency too, but with peaceful means BIG DIFFERENCE)

Kim Sook-Im:

You say that the Muslims who are behind atrocities merely fulfill quranic commandments. Oddly enough, all (yes, every single one) Muslims I know seem to disagree. Even some of the rather extreme people I have met in discussions on the Internet seem to disagree.

1. Why Omar Bakri?

They think that those atrocities, terrorism, murders, human rights violations are in breach with Quranic principles.

I regularily visit Muslim forums on the Internet, for instance on islam.no, too, and the idea seems to be the same there. What might the reason be? Oh, let me guess... maybe they interpret the Qu'ran in another manner than you? But these people are perhaps not 'good Muslims', like you repeatedly and rediciously claim Saddam Hussein is.

Let me quote on of the posters in a debate on Iran:

That is, the best Islamic country I know is Norway, a country with a miniscule percentage of Muslims. 'Right' and 'wrong' is not something Islam has a monopoly on. Here we have justice and protection. Norwegians don't even now how good they have it. Norwegians complain too much

Now that's something isn't it? Instead of wanting Norway to become an Islamic state, this poster - chahida - says that Norway already is the best Islamic country. And it's not something chahida is alone to think.

Pretty much the same thing was said by the female principal of a Muslim school in Oslo a couple of years ago. VG chose to write about Omar Bakri Muhammed, a British Muslim too extreme to fit into Hizb ut-Tahrir, and his wishes to make Norway an Islamic state instead. Why? Beats me.

2. Islam is not the problem. That's right. Not the problem.

Let me write this clearly now, since clear words and telling the truth is so popular these days:

Islam is not the problem.

You read that right. Islam is not the problem. I can do it in different languages, too: Islam er ikkje problemet, Islam är inte problemet, El Islam no es el Problema, Το Ισλάμ δεν είναι το πρόβλημα, Islam ist nicht das Problem, L'Islam n'est pas le problème, Islam is niet het probleem, Мусульманством не будет проблема.

What is he saying? Isn't Islam full of problems?

Oh, yes, most definitely. There are heaps of problems in Islam, I don't have to mention them all. After all you anti-Islamists are so much better at pointing them out than anyone with 'leftist inclinations' can even fantasize being. Some of you are so good at it that you actually use your valuable time thinking up stuff that aren't even real problems.

But okay, I'll mention a few myself. You've got the problem of the closed gates of ijtihad, of course. Or the problem of views on Jews or on other non-Muslims or on women. Or the problem of violent traditions.

And, yeah, I've read that faithfreedom-site, I've read Ibn Warraq, Mark Gabriel, Oriana Fallaci. I have discussed Islam with Jarle Synnevåg, a wellknown Norwegian anti-Islamist that claims that Islam can not be reformed and that just being Muslim is one of the worst crimes a human being can commit.

3. Lucifer and I

I've even read parts of that "Prophet of Doom"-book, too, but the references to Lucifer travelling in the fourth dimension sort of took my reading interest away.

Muhammed was a pedophile? Well, how many Muslims believe he was?

The Muslims I know find pedophilia just as abhorable as any other decent human being. They hardly believe that Muhammed was guilty of it. But the hadiths, you cry, it is their own hadiths that say it.

Really? And there's no doubt about what these hadiths say? No other hadiths that can be seen as contradicting them? No other hadiths that suggest Ai'sha was considerably older? There's no dispute about what those Arabic words really mean? Nothing suggesting that the marriage with Aisha was a marriage for political and dynastical reasons? No nothing?

Well, it isn't in "Prophet of Doom", anyway. But in the real world, there's plenty.

It's sometimes interesting to see the religious battle between Muslims attacking Christians for pedophilia Christians attacking Muslims for the same thing. But it's hardly worthwhile. It's crap.

And frankly, Kim Sook-Im, linking to such crap is hardly a way to, as you put it, "help progressive Muslims reform their religion". You see, even progressive Muslims would find it somewhat offending that someone regard their prophet as a child molester. I think quite a few Christians would too.

The problem with sexual morale in Islam isn't that it is too loose. It is that it is too strict.

4. Problems

But there are problems in Islam, as I said. Many problems. And when it comes to terrorism and assasinations like the one on Theo van Gogh militant Islamism is a problem. It is a problem that is a major challenge, and has the potential to become even more so. Blood and hatred will continue to be the result of the militant Islamist ideology.

And of course, this ideology does indeed have roots in history, obviously also in Islamic history. But it isn't Islam. Or to put it more precisely: All cows are animals, but not all animals are cows. All militant Islamists are Muslims, but not all Muslims are militant Islamists.

Øyvind

hello Oeyvind, congratulations you are well on your way to become a mullahmuslim. Very soon i may have to address you as Mullah Oeyvind LOL....

All cows are animals , all animals are not cows and all animals do not have the potential to become cows. All terrorists are muslims, not all muslims are terrorists HOWEVER ALL MUSLIMS HAVE THE POTENTIAL TO BECOME TERRORISTS ONCE THEY IMMERSE THEMSELVES IN THE QURANIC TEXT AND ACCEPT THE WORDS AS THE LITERAL UNFORMED WORDS OF ALLAH.

HAVE YOU READ THE QURAN...OH OF COURSE YOU HAVE... TELL ME WHAT YOU HAVE LEARNED FROM YOUR READING THE QURAN , WHAT MESSAGE DOES THE BOOK CONVEY TO YOU.

I WOULD LIKE for others to comment on Oeyvinds rather interesting leftist leaning opinions. Oeyvind be careful, don't lean too hard you might fall over....and by the way since you are somewhat enamored with this lovely and kind and compassionate and wonderful Belief System, have you considered going on vacation to Saudi Arabia, headquarters of Mullahism Incorporated...ooops sorry they do not have tour trips there , no infidels allowed into mafialand, only cult members LOL.

Kim Sook-Im

You read that right. Islam is not the problem. I can do it in different languages, too: Islam er ikkje problemet, Islam är inte problemet, El Islam no es el Problema, Το Ισλάμ δεν είναι το πρόβλημα, Islam ist nicht das Problem, L'Islam n'est pas le problème, Islam is niet het probleem, Мусульманством не будет проблема.

LOL. (I'm laughing with you, it's funny)

You say that the Muslims who are behind atrocities merely fulfill quranic commandments. Oddly enough, all (yes, every single one) Muslims I know seem to disagree. Even some of the rather extreme people I have met in discussions on the Internet seem to disagree.

There is a severe logic fallacy in your post. I just wanted to point it out, while you still have time to adjust your argument.

You are using muslims and Islam as synonomous. Even if someone claims that Islam is a religion of violence, it doesn't mean that muslims are the same.

Providing anecdotal evidence of muslims who disagree with the proposition doesn't even pass logic 101.

What some people are asserting:

premise: Islamic scriptures, in addition to some positive verses, also includes some negative verses that can be easily construed as incitement to violence

premise: Islamic scriptures include some encouragement for a totalitarian state

premise: Some muslims interpret their scriptures to be incitement to violence

Conclusion: To the extent that people exhibit these violent tendencies and if these ideas originate with these scriptures, Islamic scripture is not compatible with civilized life.

I can't see anything in your posting which even begins to poke holes in these premises.

In fact, you appear to be an apologist for Islam despite these facts, which is consistent with the theory that even now, there is an unholy alliance between the far left and extremist muslims.

http://www.frontpagemagazine.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=16103

Just like there was an alliance between Hitler/Eichmann and Al Huseini.

I am sure a lot here even moslems like the way the society works and don´t long for any taleban rule or ayatollah rule or salafi.
But the line that seperates the moderate moslem from the not moderate or the cherry picking moslem from fundamentalist-take-everything-literally-one may be quite thin.

Some say it because they mean it and will always mean it don´t matter what.
Some again are just practising taqqiya or simply trying to divert and say what people hope to hear.
But the thing is when it comes to a less covert conflict - full fledged war - which it probably will due the development outside Europe I think most moslems will not choose our side. It´s still a command for them to fight us until we convert, subordinate or die. And it´s a collective obligation they do it offensive - Individual obligation to do it defensive which can be interpretated pretty extensively.
So as much they believe in that martyrs go to heaven, and that hypocrates ( those who fail their obligations for prayer, zakat, jihad etc. )don´t - they go to hell, they will fight us unless it´s completely against their nature and there are not many cases where it is so that it is against a humans nature to fight.

The problem lies in Islam and there is no way around that fact - So though I feel much more comfortable with moslems that call themselves part of Euroislam than I do with those that don´t, I would feel most comfortable if they were not moslems at all but turned towards maybe mithraism or qadiani, sufi, bahai - anything that do not consider Mohammed the as the example of allah will and action with all it entails.
Now if people really disagree with jihad I would consider it natural that they stopped calling themselves Islamic - I have stopped calling myself Christian for less - the original sin, and predestination - to be exact.

Now if people really disagree with jihad I would consider it natural that they stopped calling themselves Islamic - I have stopped calling myself Christian for less - the original sin, and predestination - to be exact

And Christians have been persecuted for far less. Consider if a significant percentage of Christians decided that Thomas must be executed for his decision? Would there be any doubt that people, especially those on the left, would immediately organize a violent purge of Christians?

Consider all the violent persecutions of Christians over the last 2000 years, including recently in Sudan and China. Were they persecuted for advocating Jihad? No, it was at most preaching peace, love and understanding.

There is an inherent double standard. No one is even coming close to advocating persecution of muslims. However, is there any doubt that if Christian scripture advocated Jihad, it would be the subject of intense criticism from the left?

But when someone points out that some islamic scripture appears to advocate violence, and this might be leading to violent islamo-fascists, folks like øyvind loudly claiming that "Islam is not the problem".

Counter evidence? He doesn't point out that the scriptures that people post are fabrications. No, he points out that he knows nice muslims. Well, irrelevant. He points out that there are some scriptures which are nice. Well, beside the point.

Islam is imperialism. Even many "moderate" Muslims say that the Middle East is "Muslim land" and that infidels should be driven from it. So the Middle East is Muslim land, but Western countries are "nations of immigrants." Muslims and leftists are both in full agreement that immigration into Western countries should not be curbed. And, inevitably, as Muslims grow in number, so too do their demands that we cater to their bullshit religious beliefs grow. Taking a nuanced or "sensitive" approach doesn't cut it; they have to be told under no uncertain terms that if they intend to live here, they must accept that our infidelic freedoms trump their stupid phony god.

Bismi'llah l'rahman l'raheem

(I guess I should start off like that since I'm now a mullah)

My point is that Islam is what Muslims believe it is and make it be. This means, Gunnar, that Islam is violent. It also means, Gunnar, that Islam is not violent. This means that Islam is a religion of peace, a religion of war, both and none of them.

Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan, an associate of Gandhi and the guy who amassed the worlds first major nonviolent army was a Muslim, just like Ayman al-Zawahiri is. They both point to the prophet Muhammad. They both point to Islamic scripture.

Gunnar, a lot of things can be interpreted out of Islamic literature. The problem is that the interpretation of anti-Islamists often fits badly, not only with the interpretation of most Muslims, but also with the interpretation of the worst nutcases of that religion.

Thomas T. Hansen, whom I regard as one of the more sensible Islam-critics in here, illustrates my point.

He mentions taqiyya, and what he probably he suggests is that Muslims are allowed to lie. Well, they are not. Taqiyya is a mostly Shiite concept (although not unheard of in Sunni Islam). It makes it permissible to lie if you can save your (or another persons) life by doing it. It is, however, not exactly undisputed within Islam. The wahhabites find the idea of taqiyya to be abhorable. Furthermore, the concept of taqiyya does not give Muslims a carte blanche for lying, it is very specific and limited.

This is a typical problem for anti-Islamism.

In an attempt to make Islam look bad they choose to use their own interpretations to create a gigantic jigzaw puzzle of 'Evil Islam' that does not fit with real Islam. To criticize Islam that's not needed, Islam has plenty of bad sides that are more than real enough. Yes, Thomas, there are problems within Islam.

One of them is named Osama bin Laden.

Kim Sook-Im, my interpretation of the Qu'ran is hardly relevant - since I am not a Muslim. However, it is close to the interpretations of many Sufi Muslims.

I also like their poetry:

A church, a temple or a Kaa`ba stone,
Qur`an or Bible or a martyr's bone,
All these and more my heart can tolerate,
Since my religion now is Love alone

(If I am not mistaken, the original also points to Veda, Avesta and Pagodes, but that's lost in translation)

-

So many castes and so many creeds,
So many faiths, and so many beliefs,
All have arisen from ignorance of man,
Wise is he who only truth conceives.'

Øyvind abd al-Halim

Gunnar wrote: No one is even coming close to advocating persecution of muslims.

Now, that's an understatement, wouldn't you say?

People have suggested such things like that even on this very blog. And while I pack my bags to go to Saudi Arabia, maybe Gunnar should take a trip to the Netherlands and visit the Hague tribunal.

Abd al-Halim.

Oh, by the way, Gunnar, I am too attack the use of scripture, am I? Oh well, you for instance mention that the Qu'ran says the following (sura 7: ayat 3-4) [1]:

“Little do you remember My warning. How many towns have We destroyed as a raid by night? Our punishment took them suddenly while they slept for their afternoon rest. Our terror came to them; Our punishment overtook them.”

Hmm...

Let's read the thing in its Quranic context, shall we? I'll use Yusuf Alis translation and also include Pooya/M.Alis exegesis [2]:

كِتَابٌ أُنزِلَ إِلَيْكَ فَلاَ يَكُن فِي صَدْرِكَ حَرَجٌ مِّنْهُ لِتُنذِرَ بِهِ وَذِكْرَى لِلْمُؤْمِنِينَ

[Yusufali 7:2] A Book revealed unto thee,- So let thy heart be oppressed no more by any difficulty on that account,- that with it thou mightest warn (the erring) and teach the Believers).

[Pooya/Ali Commentary 7:2] See Aqa Mahdi Puya's essay "The Genuineness of the Holy Quran" on page (i) and the commentary of al Baqarah: 2. The theory of changing or amending the divine commandments or making new laws contrary to what has been revealed in the Quran through ijtihad has been rendered null and void by verse 3, therefore whosoever, be he a relative or a companion of the Holy Prophet, had resorted to this type of ijtihad, in fact, had done injustice to himself and his followers.

اتَّبِعُواْ مَا أُنزِلَ إِلَيْكُم مِّن رَّبِّكُمْ وَلاَ تَتَّبِعُواْ مِن دُونِهِ أَوْلِيَاء قَلِيلاً مَّا تَذَكَّرُونَ

[Yusufali 7:3] Follow (O men!) the revelation given unto you from your Lord, and follow not, as friends or protectors, other than Him. Little it is ye remember of admonition.

[Pooya/Ali Commentary 7:3] (see commentary for verse 2)

وَكَم مِّن قَرْيَةٍ أَهْلَكْنَاهَا فَجَاءهَا بَأْسُنَا بَيَاتًا أَوْ هُمْ قَآئِلُونَ

[Yusufali 7:4] How many towns have We destroyed (for their sins)? Our punishment took them on a sudden by night or while they slept for their afternoon rest.

[Pooya/Ali Commentary 7:4] Ruined civilisations, found buried under lands and seas, prove the divine declaration made in verse 4. Expert archaeologists, by the help of science and technology, not only determine the exact time of existence of each civilisation but also almost write its history as if they witnessed what actually took place in the destroyed cities.

Verse 5 says that they were destroyed because they were unjust, evil and wicked.

فَمَا كَانَ دَعْوَاهُمْ إِذْ جَاءهُمْ بَأْسُنَا إِلاَّ أَن قَالُواْ إِنَّا كُنَّا ظَالِمِينَ

[Yusufali 7:5] When (thus) Our punishment took them, no cry did they utter but this: "Indeed we did wrong."

[Pooya/Ali Commentary 7:5] (see commentary for verse 4)

Okay, now that's the Qu'ranic context. Now, what are we talking about here? Does not these verses in fact refer to (amongst other things) a story also found in the Bible and other places in the Qu'ran? I am talking, of course, about the story of Sodom and Gomorra found in Genesis 19.

Oh, a lot can be said about the stories about Sodom and Gomorra. But in this case, Islam and Christianity, both show why they are grouped together with Judaism as Abrahamic faiths.

When it comes to Allah as the Lord of the Devils the explanation is fairly simple.

In Islam one often speaks of two kinds of Devils, human devils and Jinn devils, like Iblis (possibly derived from the word 'Diabolis'). Both humans and jinns are considered to be created by God (Allah). God is also considered to be omnipotent, much like in Christianity, and will pass judgment not only upon humans, but also upon jinns.

Ishaq is, by the way, not a religious text like the Qu'ran or hadith, but a biographical text about Muhammad.

Abd al-Halim

[1] The verse numbers differ in different versions of the Qu'ran. Therefore this verse can be referred to as both ayat 3 and ayat 4 of the seventh sura. Your reference, nonetheless, seems a bit strange, since it includes a bit from both 3 and 4.

The first verse, with the numbers I use above, contains merely the bismillah and four letters (alif, lam, mim, sad) which meaning is disputed.

[2] Source: http://www.al-islam.org/quran/

"The word "al-Taqiyya" literally means: "Concealing or disguising one's
beliefs, convictions, ideas, feelings, opinions, and/or strategies at a
time of eminent danger, whether now or later in time, to save oneself from
physical and/or mental injury." A one-word translation would be
"Dissimulation.""

"With the above in mind, it becomes evident that a better, and more accurate
definition of "al-Taqiyya" is "diplomacy." The true spirit of "al-
Taqiyya" is better embodied in the single word "diplomacy" because it
encompasses a comprehensive spectrum of behaviors that serve to further the
vested interests of all parties involved"

"==================================
al-Taqiyya According to the Sunnis
==================================
Some Sunnis assert that al-Taqiyya is an act of pure hypocrisy that serves
to conceal the truth and reveal that which is the exact opposite (of the
truth). Furthermore, according to those Sunnis, al-Taqiyya constitutes a
lack of faith and trust in Allah (SWT) because the person who conceals his
beliefs to spare himself from eminent danger is fearful of humans, when, in
fact, he should be fearful of Allah (SWT) only. As such, this person is a
coward."

""al-Taqiyya is the uttering of the tongue, while the heart is
comfortable with faith."

NOTE: The meaning is that the tongue is permitted to utter anything in a
time of need, as long as the heart is not affected; and one is still
comfortable with faith."

http://www.al-islam.org/encyclopedia/chapter6b/1.html

But let´s just call it lying then - some lie and conceal their real meaning and intent - there are many examples of this - imans and other saying one thing at the mosque and another to the media - but politicians do it too, most people lie or have lied of course.

The question remains how do they feel in their hearts or lack of same - will they follow all mohammed´s calls for killing and strinking terror in our hearts - see the quran as the unconditional command of allah and do exactly as it says or not ?

I don´t question a significient part of the moslem world won´t do it, but the trouble for us is that we don´t know when we talk to a moslem if he/she belongs to the wage jihad and kill and terrorize infidels kind or the one that sees allah as the god of all loving all.

I guess being a real moderate moslem involves a lot of tip toeing it´s probably not that easy. Those for one that do take a stand and critizise their own are usually also quite fast those targeted with violence - not to mention getting the cold shoulder from most of their friends and family.

So let´s hope there will never be any succesfull megaterror attack with WMD because it´s gonna get real complicated then, and moslems in general are probably gonna be jailed en masse just they have a long beard, a speech of khomenei, etc. And if the shit really hits the fan just for being moslems.

I think only a very successfull intelligence - contra terror effort, or a pure miracle reform ( or fall of the faith alltogether ) of islam stands between this or not.

Thomas:

Of course, those who are contemplating terrorist attacks lie about it. They do that regardless of their religion or political ideology. It's referred to as "operational safety".

That does not change the fact that Islam does not condone lying, and that the more extremist variants of Islam (like wahhabism) does not even condone taqiyya (denying or hiding once faith to save ones life). If your only point is that there are terrorist moles out there, well, it isn't a point I've seen anyone dispute for a while.

Øyvind

Hi Gunnar

I just jumped into this fascinating thread, which I haven't really been following too closely, and came upon your wonderful post concerning the three premises - made my Sunday. It's not really clear whether you align yourself with "some people" who advance these premises and arrive at the conclusion you mention, but I can't believe that you do. I don't believe it because people that dumb can't actually type.

Anyone could easily make the same claims about Judaism and Christianity, of course. There are Muslim fanatics - OK, no-one needs convincing of that. There are Jewish fanatics too, quite a few of whom inhabit settlements in the occupied territories, for example, and believe what is written here and there in the Babylonian Talmud, that the life of a goy is no more than that of an ass. For example. There are also Christian fanatics, like the ones who murdered doctors working in abortion clinics, or who base their political strategies on their extremist interpretation of the Scriptures.

As I've said elsewhere, people who use their religion (I'm talking about the three major Western religions), as an excuse for violent submission of others have clearly understood nothing of their religion. To defend that statement effectively, I should obviously study the Talmud and the Quran, which I haven't yet done - but the parts I have already read seem to me to back me up OK.

"Some people" might decide the best course of action would be to abolish all religious beliefs, thus avoiding friction between the hypnotised followers of one prophet and another - but wait ... wasn't that already tried? Communism I think it was called. Hmmm. Better abolish all political beliefs as well, then, thus avoiding Cold Wars and shit. But then what on earth would we all do all day? As a Utopian, what do I suggest, instead of just criticising?

Community singing.

Best wishes

Pete

hi pete,
how about secular humanists or taoists or buddhists? they have'nt been much into wars lately or ever?...and they're flexible enuf to accomodate everybody ?...o.k. i'm being shamelessly evangelical :))

Sister Kim Sook-Im
Church of the later day Janes
tithing is strictly in-voluntary :)

The real world hasn't left Buddhism out either, Kim.

Clearly, Buddhism has strong and admirable traditions for non-violence. But there is a Zen at War, too.

Then of course, we've got Jainism.

Øyvind

السلام أليكم وا راهماتالاه وا باراكاته Salaam alaykum wa rahmatullah wa barakatuh

Ya Sheikh Oeyvind von Lefty,

Interesting that all those muslim friends of yours even the 'hard core ones' say that all that violence is inconsistent with the Quranic injunctions...i wonder which version of Quran they were reading? LOL... well then obviously they are either dissimulating or else they are nominal muslims ( thank god for that )or they are quite ignorant of their quran and have not read much of it other than going through the motions of rites and rituals at the mosque ( remember it is a mafioso cult - in saudi arabia they have religious police that will beat you with a big stick if you do not attend friday prayers- oooh Oeyvind enjoy your trip to saudi disney theme park LOL..welcome to Headquarters of Mullah Incorporated ...first stop friday obligatory prayers at the main mosque al Riyadh,, infidels will have to pray outside ...dogs, women, infidels not allowed ..they will be consigned to special section ...also polish up on your arabic, God speaks and hears only arabic -- oooh and only classical arabic with all the complexities of the classical language with the nunations, tanwin, kasra, madha, shadda, fatha ha ha ha ha, NO NO NORWEGIAN PRAYERS ALLOWED...MAY ODIN FORGIVE YOU...MAY BRUNHILDR AND FREJYA NAG YOU IN FOLKVANG....

O.K. SHEIKH OEYVIND IF you are ready to come back to reality i have assigned you the following reading assignment:

http://fai.showsit.info/

also read this 'islam is not violent 'fairy tale :

http://fai.showsit.info/

ALL OF YOU FOLKS PLEASE READ THESE TWO LINKS ALSO AND LETS SEE IF THIS INFORMATION MIGHT STRAIGHTEN UP SHEIKH OEYVIND'S LEFT LEANING SPINE ( ITS A DISEASE CALLED ANKYLOSIS SPONDYLITIS SENESTRIS )

:) :) :)))

HER HOLINESS AYATOH-LASS KIM SOOK-IM :))

그녀의 신성 아야톨라 김SOOK-IM :))

Meanwhile, the BBC reported about the thousands of native Britons converting to Islam:

''In the current climate, converting to Islam is not an obvious choice or an easy one, either for converts or their families. So, why have 14,000 Brits (and counting) now taken that leap of faith? ''

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/3663771.stm

Amazing this Islam, the more it is attacked and bashed, the more people it attracts and the more universal it becomes, this strange amazing phenomena is mentioned in the Noble Quran:

''They (the disbelievers) want to extinguish Allâh's Light (Islâm) with their mouths, but Allâh will not allow except that His Light should be perfected even though the Kâfirûn (disbelievers) hate it'' The Noble Quran 9:32

Sister Kim Sook-Im, Seeker of Truth, Blessings be upon you, may the Seraphim fill your panty-hose with honey.

Thanks for your funny and friendly note - I've always had a soft spot for Buddhism too, which is dodgy since I know almost nothing about it - little more than John Cleese in "A Fish Named Wanda", when he said "The basic precept of Buddhism is definitely not 'every man for himself'".

To return to the subject of this thread, though, I want to say that only seventy years ago in Europe, it was practically common knowledge that the root of all evil was the Jews. It was not only nasty Nazis who thought this, most European Catholics also considered the Jews to be the problem, since they were held responsible for the death of Jesus. The Catholic Church, while it may not have actually encouraged their persecution, certainly did nothing to prevent it. Anti-Semitism was rampant, supported and developed by intellectuals and artists all over the developed world, and it was the mainstay of Hitler's drive for the glorious thousand-year Third Reich. The Jewish people were the scapegoat Hitler used - no doubt he really believed they were evil - to focus the German people on his insane goals. It's a tried and true political gambit - when the nation is in trouble, declare war. Works every time. That's why Galtieri invaded the Falklands, that's why Reagan invaded Grenada, for example.

I have no doubt whatsoever that the same system is in operation today - but today, the hated and reviled scapegoat is the Islamic people. They also happen to be the rightful owners of certain property which is highly coveted by their accusers, which makes the whole thing even more suspicious. Plenty of intellectuals and artists today are busy jumping on the bandwagon, explaining why Islamists are THE problem facing the world, why Islam is evil, why it can only lead to terror, why it and they must be "terminated". Just like in the movies.

No doubt there are passages in the Quran which are easily translated as aggressive or racist or misogynist. There are many in the Talmud, too, and isn't Jesus reported to have said "I come not to bring peace, but the sword?" He goes on to explain that he will set brother against brother, the son against the father. St Paul was pretty bloody unenlightened concerning women, also. Such stuff I think needs to be seen in the context of the time it was written. All of it can - and should - always be improved upon.

The point is, as Jesus suggested, it's the SPIRIT of the law that counts, not the letter. In my opinion, railing against Islam because of such and such a line is falling into the same trap as those who let themselves be won over by anti-Semitism in the 1930's. It's easily done, as Himmler pointed out - if you hammer the same old lie home often enough, everyone ends up thinking it's the truth.

The problem of terrorism today is infinitely more complicated than an "evil religion" and a "barbaric people". This is the easy solution of scapegoatism, which fallaciously shifts the blame for all our difficulties to one easily-identifiable source which is then easily targeted, incidentally making millions for the scoundrels who sell us the weapons with which we gladly rush off to kill each other.

Bad choice, in my opinion.

Best wishes

Pete

Ex-C:

Meanwhile, the BBC reported about the thousands of native Britons converting to Islam:

Lots of people smoke, too. And a lot of kids die every year because they accidentally strangle themselves while jacking off. Doesn't make it right or good or smart, does it?

Muslims are really a sad lot if they have to say, "Hey, look! Other people are doing it!"

Amazing this Islam, the more it is attacked and bashed, the more people it attracts and the more universal it becomes, this strange amazing phenomena is mentioned in the Noble Quran:

All it shows is that Western countries have plenty of morons who are stupid enough to believe in the Cheap and Tawdry Qur'an. ;-)

Some observations from the above-mentioned BBC article:

Shahnaaz Malik feels liberated from the beauty contest, which she says dominates western culture.

She joined Islam because she's ugly.

Aqeel Burton rejected Christianity because it seemed to him a white person's religion

He joined Islam because he's racist!

John Standing's parents can't understand why John feels the need to change his name to Jamal Udeen

He joined Islam because he's so goddamn stupid, his parents are even like, "wtf d00d????"

Yvonne Ridley says the Koran is a magna carta for women

And this sad sack joined Islam because she is so retarded that as a child, she never learned the concept of opposites. For example when she says, "The Koran is a Protocols of the Elder of Zion for women," she says, "The Koran is a magne carta for women."

LLLLOOOLLLLLLLL

"The purpose of jihad in Islam is not to kill non-Muslims, rather the purpose is to establish the religion of Allaah on earth, to establish the rule of His sharee’ah, and to bring people forth from the worship of other people to the worship of the Lord of all people, from the injustice of other religions to the justice of Islam. Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):

“And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and polytheism, i.e. worshipping others besides Allaah), and the religion (worship) will all be for Allaah Alone”

[al-Anfaal 8:39]"

No they are not bloodthirsty bastards, and the killing - cutting over throats while chanting "allahu akbar" - is done not because they want to do it to us all but to intimidate those that do not become "slaves of allah".

"The kuffaar whom we fight will themselves benefit from jihad. We strive against them and fight them so that they will enter the religion of Allaah which is acceptable to Him, which will lead to their salvation in this world and in the Hereafter. Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):"

As you can see they mean it well!

"al-Bukhaari (4557) narrated that Abu Hurayrah (may Allaah be pleased with him) said: “ ‘You are the best of peoples ever raised up for mankind’ means: the best of people for people, you bring them with chains around their necks until they enter Islam.”"

http://63.175.194.25/index.php?ln=eng&ds=qa&lv=browse&QR=21961&dgn=4

"Jihad against the leaders of oppression and innovation is of three kinds:

1 – Jihad with one's hand (i.e., physical jihad, fighting) if one is able. If that is not possible then it should be with one's tongue (i.e., by speaking out). If that is not possible then it should be with one's heart (i.e., by hating the evil and feeling that it is wrong).

These are the thirteen types of jihad, and “Whoever dies without having fought or having resolved to fight has died following one of the branches of hypocrisy.” (Narrated by Muslim, 1910). "

A lot of moslems tell you that jihad with the tongue comes before jihad with the sword - not that it really matters, most people won´t get persuaded to convert anyway so that leaves only conquest and intimidation until there is a global khalifat where all either converted to islam, or become second rate citizens under the supremacy of islam or got killed so that the master religion can make sure we know it means business and shirk won´t be tolerated. Those failing in to wage jihad in one way or other are hypocrates and they goes to hell.

"The greatest form of jihad is jihad with one’s self (i.e., going oneself and fighting"

Yea they are heroes/martyrs go blow yourself up and lot of infidels and get celebrated - a recent interview of a suicide bomber´s mother revealed she celebrated the day like a wedding.

"After jihad was enjoined upon him, the kaafirs then fell into three categories: those with whom there was a truce or peace treaty; those with whom he was at war; and those who lived under the rule and protection of the Islamic state.”"

Yea remember a OBL offering a peace treaty with Europe ? Not for the sake of our blue eyes.

"Jihaad is an obligation upon the community; if some people undertake it, the rest are relieved of the obligation.” "

That´s offensive jihad. But every able should do it, just like conscription here, look below.

"What fard kafaayah means is that if it is not undertaken by enough people, then all the people are guilty of sin, but if enough people undertakes it, the rest will be relieved of blame."

http://63.175.194.25/index.php?ln=eng&QR=20214

"1 – The main goal of jihad is to make the people worship Allaah alone and to bring them forth from servitude to people to servitude to the Lord of people. Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):

“And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and worshipping of others along with Allaah) and (all and every kind of) worship is for Allaah (Alone). But if they cease, let there be no transgression except against Az‑Zaalimoon (the polytheists, and wrong-doers)”

[al-Baqarah 2:193]"

If you wonder what that means just look at what is going on where Sharia is established and that´s about what they want worldwide.
Weave and ramble all you want over this - sharia is debated and means different things from state to state - anywhere it means anything but something good, and nothing like the universal declaration of human rights.

"So fight them until there is no more shirk, and none is worshipped except Allaah alone with no partner or associate, and trials and calamities, which are disbelief and polytheism, are lifted from the slaves of Allaah on earth, and religion is all for Allaah alone, and so that obedience and worship will be devoted to Him alone and none else. "

Some moslems are so benign as to accept the god of abrahamic faiths as Allah - not all though - for the rest of the world, atheists, Buddhists, Hindus etc. they fall in other categories.

"The fitnah of the kuffaar themselves and their preventing others from hearing and accepting the truth. That is because the kaafir systems corrupt the innate nature and reason of people, and make them get used to worshipping and submitting to things other than Allaah, getting addicted to alcohol, wallowing in the mire of sexual licence, and losing all characteristics of virtue. Whoever is like that can rarely tell truth from falsehood, good from evil, right from wrong. So jihad is prescribed in order to remove those obstacles that prevent people from hearing and accepting the truth and getting to know it"

You see how they love us - just listen to ex-c he claims to even to have been one of us.
And you hopefully understand how much they love freedom too.

"5 – Frightening the kuffaar, humiliating them and putting them to shame...
“And make ready against them all you can of power, including steeds of war (tanks, planes, missiles, artillery) to threaten the enemy of Allaah and your enemy”
[al-Anfaal 8:60]

Hence it is prescribed to fight in a manner that will strike terror into the heart of the enemy."

Again nothing about making sermons on the mountain - intimidation and warfare will do when all else fail.

"Al-Sa’di said: The world would be corrupted if the kuffaar and evildoers were to prevail."

Now that count for all not just the really corrupt, we are talking about a mullah tyranny - not making the world better.

http://63.175.194.25/index.php?ln=eng&ds=qa&lv=browse&QR=34647&dgn=4

"If Islam was only spread by peaceful means, what would the kuffaar have to be afraid of? Of mere words spoken on the tongue?"

Intimidation not argumentation. This is not a small mafia gang somewhere this is a world religion.

If Islam was spread by peaceful means we would be peaceful in dealing with it, but they and so many more don´t get that.

"Yes, it is the religion of peace but in the sense of saving all of mankind from worshipping anything other than Allaah and submitting all of mankind to the rule of Allaah."

This is not a religion this is a fascist super cult.

http://63.175.194.25/index.php?ln=eng&ds=qa&lv=browse&QR=43087&dgn=4

"One of the strangest things to note is that we are living in a time when some of the Muslims are embarrassed to quote the verses and ahaadeeth on jihad in front of their kaafir friends."

That indeed strange isn´t it ?

"There are so many verses that enjoin jihad against the mushrikeen and fighting them until all submission is for Allaah alone; they clearly state that it is obligatory and is prescribed and is compulsory. Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):"

Yea how can people fail to notice ?

"1 – Taking the initiative in fighting

This means pursuing the kaafirs in their lands and calling them to Islam and fighting them if they do not agree to submit to the rule of Islam."

No it won´t stop once we don´t need oil anymore or once Israel has been annihilated - it will only stop once islam had been thorougly reformed, secularized, or most people left it.

"The scholars are unanimously agreed that jihad against the kuffar, and seeking them in their own lands, and calling them to Islam, and waging jihad against them if they do not accept Islam or accept paying the jizyah, is obligatory and has not been abrogated."

This is islam, it´s what Mohammed did, it´s what he told them to do - terrorism is the result and the cause is islam.

"When jihad becomes inevitable because the enemy has overrun one of the (Muslim) regions, then it becomes obligatory for all the people of that region to mobilize and to go out to fight, whether they are light (being healthy, young and wealthy) or heavy (being ill, old and poor), each according to his abilities, with or without the permission of his parents."

Well luckily these guys don´t have might as they have intent and let´s keep it that way.

http://63.175.194.25/index.php?ln=eng&ds=qa&lv=browse&QR=34830&dgn=4

It´s not without reason that some are highly sceptical about islam. it´s not comparable to scapegoat finding, it´s not a minor problem since they with a few men backed by a great number of moderates - economically - morally - can and will do great harm to this world.

The problem lies at the root not at the outshots.

And this root thrives in the hate directed towards the US and Israel. Hate in this case is more their problem than it is ours. and like people as for this day dislike Germans though they are innocent as to what happened a long time ago many moslems will be just as victims as anyone else.

>> I don't believe it because people that dumb can't actually type.

Pete, I note that unable to poke any holes in those premises, you resort to ad-hominem. I'll update the scoreboard.

Hi Gunnar

Please note that I enjoy using what to me is humour in my posts - I feel that ad hominem is a rather low-grade strategy myself, and don't believe I resort to it, so please don't take a comment like that too seriously. I respect you, and took the sort of friendly aggressive tone I might use if I said you use too many paragraphs or you drink too much coffee because you post a lot. OK?

As for poking holes in your premises:

P1 - "Islamic scriptures, in addition to some positive verses, also includes some negative verses that can be easily construed as incitement to violence" - as far as I can tell, P1 can not be faulted.

P2 - "Islamic scriptures include some encouragement for a totalitarian state" -
not being any kind of expert on Islam, having little knowledge of the texts, I can't say whether you're right or wrong, therefore I don't try. I'll trust you on that one.

P3 - "Some muslims interpret their scriptures to be incitement to violence" - as far as I can tell, P3 can not be faulted.

"Conclusion: To the extent that people exhibit these violent tendencies and if these ideas originate with these scriptures, Islamic scripture is not compatible with civilized life."

This conclusion may perhaps be logical, but it's not only highly debatable - are the precepts of the CIA, MI6, Mossad, etc, compatible with civilized life? - is government-funded development of bacteriological, chemical, and nuclear weapons compatible with civilized life? - are the actions of the IMF and the World Bank compatible with civilized life? - you can stretch it just about as far as you like - is cigarette-smoking compatible with civilized life? - is lying compatible with civilized life? - was invading Iraq compatible with civilized life? - but it's also only one of any number of logical possibilities. You could also have logically concluded as follows:

"Conclusion: To the extent ... scriptures, all male Muslims should immediately be supplied with 72 virgins each, that way they'd have nothing left to moan about."

Or:

"Conclusion: To the extent ... scriptures, all Muslims should be required to walk around naked since that is the only way we can be sure they're not carrying weapons."

Or:

"Conclusion: To the extent ... scriptures, it would be wise to institute a multi-cultural UN initiative for the study, clarification and efficient vulgarisation of all the major sacred texts, in order to avoid the pitfalls of extremism."

As I pointed out in my post, you could advance the same premises and reach the same conclusion if you replaced the word "Islamic" with "Jewish" or "Christian". In fact, since the Western nations (excuse my repetitive use of that phrase, but I need to avoid giving the impression I'm moaning only about the USA - Europe is at it too, in fact, we could even go with G8) have acted for centuries in ways that have been demonstrably destructive and avaricious, you could also, with minimal adaptation, replace "Islamic" with "Western-style democratic" and still remain within the confines of this form of logic.

And who is to decide what "civilized life" entails? Might religious precepts be considered as part of the criteria? If so, which ones?

And to finish here, another question - if you actually adhere to the conclusion you cite, with its extremely inflexible form, what is it that you're actually suggesting should be done about Muslims? Are you advocating - gulp - a Final Solution?

Best wishes

Pete

Ahhh, I love your deconstructionist method, Pete. "Everything is nothing," right?

And to finish here, another question - if you actually adhere to the conclusion you cite, with its extremely inflexible form, what is it that you're actually suggesting should be done about Muslims? Are you advocating - gulp - a Final Solution?

Certainly Not! In fact, this smear doesn't even follow from:

"Conclusion: To the extent that people exhibit these violent tendencies and if these ideas originate with these scriptures, Islamic scripture is not compatible with civilized life."

All I'm saying is that we shouldn't be afraid (out of some kind multi-cultural political correctness) to attack the source of the problem.

That's why the conclusion precisely specifies "To the extent that people exhibit these violent tendencies and if these ideas originate with these scriptures". Non-violent folks are not a problem. The fact that you deliberately include them in your characterization of my position would seem to indicate that you're covering for the violent folks.

I'm suggesting a course of action like:

Indict all muslims that have issued violent fatwas or confirmed them. Indict all individuals that have issues religious opinions that incite violence. Demand that countries harboring them extradict these individuals to the country most appropriate. If a country harbors terrorists, violence inciters, jihadists and refuses to either punish or extradict them, civilized people will have to remove the regime. We simply cannot allow crazy jihadists to murder or get hold of WMD. Period.

If you feel otherwise, then perhaps you can explain to the mother why the eyes of their little child had to melt before she died a horrible death: we didn't feel it was politically correct to challenge their view of their religious scriptures, since that would offend the non-violent muslims.

For those leftists out there still trying to argue that Islam is not the problem, I'm amazed that you are so arrogant to think that you should be believed, rather than the horse's mouth. It's kinda like when you folks claim that the afghanis and iraqis who are grateful for being liberated are lying, while you claim from your ivory towers that they are being "occupied".

Well, here is another reality hurdle for you, pointed out by Jan Haugland. 30,000 jihadists signed up, claiming:

As devoted Muslims, members of his group were simply fulfilling their religious obligations as laid out by Khomeini, he said.

It appears more and more likely that the Mullahs in Iran have united its cause with the death cults of the Wahhabis and al-Qaeda, doesn't it?

http://blogs.salon.com/0001561/2004/11/29.html#a6404

Jeff, USA | 2004-11-29 19:09 | Link
Ahhh, I love your deconstructionist method, Pete. "Everything is nothing," right?

Jeff, I'm afraid I don't understand that at all.

Best wishes

Pete

Gunnar:

I checked out your little reference and found this news story.

I've got three questions:

1. Why do you regard this Mohammad Ali Samadi-fellow so trustworthy?

2. Were you not the one talking about anecdotal evidence above?

3. What makes you conclude that the Iranian government is a truer representative for Islam than, say, their Muslim (and even some times Islamist) opponents?

Exegesis of 2:190-194
Sayyid Qutb

I'll do something I do not do very often. I will quote what Sayyid Qutb, hardly the most moderate figure in the Muslim world, wrote about jihad, in the meaning holy war in his Qu'ran exegesis "In the shadow of the Qu'ran" (Leiceister, 2003) - here he talks about the verses Thomas T. Hansen mentions above, al-Baqarah, the Holy Qu'ran 2:190-194:

The present passage addresses the situation of the Muslim community in Madinah as it was in confrontation with the pagan Arabs of the Quraysh. Those unbelievers had persecuted the Muslims for their religious beliefs, drove them out of their homes and were trying hard to turn them away from their faith. It also lays down the fundamental rules of jihad in Islam.

It begins with the precise instruction that Muslims should fight those who had been fighting them and to meet with force any attacks against them by anyone, without committing aggression. "Fight for the cause of God those who wage war against you, but do no commit aggression. Indeed, God does not love aggressors" (Verse 190).

The aims of war in Islam are clearly defined right at the outset: "Fight for the cause of God those who wage war against you..." Fighting should, therefore, be undertaken for the sake of God, and for no other purpose that may be defined by human desires or motivations. War should not be pursued for glory or dominance, nor for material aggrandisement, nor to gain new markets or control of raw materials. It should not be pursued to give one class, race or nation of people domination over another. Fighting in Islam must be undertaken only to promote the aims defined by Islam: to make God's word supreme in the world, to establish His order, and to protect the believers against persecution, coercion, corruption and all efforts to force them to betray their faith or abandon it. According to Islam, all other types of war are unjust, and those who take part in them should expect no rewards or blessings from God.

Having defined the objective, the verses also define the limits of war: "... but do not commit aggression. Indeed, God does not love aggressors" (Verse 190). 'Aggression implies attacks on non-combatants and peaceful, unarmed civilians who pose no threat to Muslims or to their community as a whole. This includes women, children, the elderly, and those devoted to religious activity, such as priests and monks, of all religious and ideological persuasions. Aggression also entails exceeding the moral and ethical limits set by Islam for fighting a just war. These limits outlaw the atrocities perpetrated in wars outside Islam, past and present. Such atrocities are totally repugnant to Muslims and can never be sanctioned or committed by people who honour and fear God.

Many interesting things can of course be pointed out about this text, for instance its clear references to modern ideologies like panarabism, socialism, nationalism and to capitalism and imperialism. But I will not go into that here. Instead I will point out that this was one of the central thinkers of the Muslim Brotherhood speaking. His works has later inspired people like Takfir wal Hijra and their prominent member Ayman al-Zawahiri, quite probably the real leader of al Qa'ida. Qutb was an extremist, representive of violent tradition with reactionary views on almost any subject you can think of.

Still, there's quite a way from what he says to Beslan, wouldn't you say?

Poyya/Ali

I'll include an excerpt from another exegesis on 2:190-194 as well. Here's Poyya/Ali (Shia):

The message of Islam is universal. From early times the Muslims were only permitted to fight in self defence. When there is no option, and in the face of persecution, however, the Muslims must fight. The strength of Islam lies in its certainty of ultimate victory over aggression, transgression, and ascribing falsehood to Allah and His last prophet. Fitna can mean oppression, persecution, seduction - all implying the "discord" that attachment with ghayrallah (other-than-Allah) brings about. It is used as in verse 217 of this surah - war is detestable but fitna is worse than slaughter. Islam promotes peace, order and harmony in the human society and keeps man on the right path. When the enemies of Islam found that the light of this message was sweeping darkness from every corner, the disbelievers vowed to annihilate it. It was only then that, no recourse being left for the believers, they had to resolutely take up the sword in defence. Verses 39 and 40 of al Hajj also give permission to fight when any people is wronged, oppressed and persecuted.

A nice wahhabist site

Thomas T. Hansen. You choose your sources wisely. Islamqa.com is a site run by Sheikh Saalih al-Munajid, a Sheikh from no other country than the very "Land of Monotheism", the dear ally of the United States, Saudi-Arabia...

Sheikh Saalih al-Munajid is a representative of wahhabism, a branch of Islam that - in its purest form - regard both shia Muslims, sufi Muslims and basically all non-wahhabist Muslims to be guilty of shirk, or polyteism.

Even Ex-Christian - who doesn't leave a very moderate impression - has expressed utter dislike of the wahhabists. If I am not mistaken, he wrote this:

As to the wahhabis, I hate them more than the Christian evangelical fascists and the zionist jews, they are more dangerous on Islam than anyone else because they are the enemy within.

Anyway, Thomas T. Hansen, if your point is to prove that wahhabism is a problem - hey, I'll sign that petition any day. However, not all animals are cows and wahhabism definitely says mooh.

Hi Gunnar

You really are a sensitive character. I have no intention of insulting or smearing. We agree that non-violent people are not a problem, and I'm certainly not covering for the others (and I don't accuse you of "smearing" because you suggested I was).

Your next paragraph is potentially problematic in my view - "Indict all muslims that have issued violent fatwas or confirmed them ... get hold of WMD. Period."

Please note carefully that I do not in any way advocate violence or a laissez-faire attitude to violence - that should be apparent from my posts, I think. However, we must be clear that I do not define violence only as "what they do to us", but also as "what we do to them".

I agree with you that no organisation should be allowed to visit violence, for the purpose of imposing its own way of life or belief system, on innocent people who have not chosen it for themselves - such behaviour is wrong and is to be condemned, and should be punished just like any other crime. But - and here's the difficulty we run into - the above statement also covers any number of initiatives by our beloved Western world which can justifiably be perceived as aggressions by those on the receiving end. It is in this that I insist that the Western world, and in particular at the moment, the USA and its "coalition" allies, is making a serious mistake by acting as if the sole problem were "Islamism".

Unless we accept that we share responsibility for "terrorism" - which in my view did not spring fully-grown and slavering out of an insanely faulty interpretation of religious texts by a bunch of intellectually-challenged Huns, but out of many decades of growing frustration in the ME to Western hypocrisy and inflexibility - then there is little hope for any kind of satisfactory solution. Do we really need any more proof in the 21st century that massive military violence visited upon a target nation brings any result other than misery and hatred? I don't think so.

I quote myself in my last post to you - "And who is to decide what "civilized life" entails? Might religious precepts be considered as part of the criteria? If so, which ones?"

Finally - I don't know where you get the line about the little girl's melting eyeballs from - it's certainly an abominable image - but you can't possibly be suggesting that this sort of thing only occurs as a result of Islamist violence. I can quote similar horrors back at you from Afghani mothers, Iraqi mothers, Palestinian mothers. I would like us to find a way to prevent this sort of insane evil from happening any more to anyone. As a father, I have no doubt whatsoever that you agree with that.

Best wishes

Pete

Pete,

I'm referring to your postmodernist attitude toward debating. Instead of addressing Gunnar's conclusion or explaining your own conclusions, you give several ridiculous conclusions that "somebody" might possibly draw. Then you fall back on all the cliches: "Christians and Jews have hundreds of years of bloody history," "imperialism and oppression," and "who's to decide what's 'civilized,' anyway?" You seem to like taking issue with Gunnar's posts simply for the sake of being contrarian, I suppose, but you're not actually offering a different view. I know it's such a terribly closed-minded thing to do, but it'd be nice to see you answer questions, not with more questions, but with answers. No offense, but this "how can one know anything?" approach makes me want to vomit.

Pete:

Well, looks like we're finally getting somewhere.

Please note carefully that I do not in any way advocate violence or a laissez-faire attitude to violence - that should be apparent from my posts, I think. However, we must be clear that I do not define violence only as "what they do to us", but also as "what we do to them".

That is true. However, who is "them"? What we've done, we haven't done to Muslims, but to people who happen to be Muslims. For example, when Saddam invaded Kuwait, we kicked him out. In this, we defended Muslims from other Muslims. However, this is held up as a grievance by many Muslims. Including Muslims who live in the West. A large part of the problem is that Muslims who live in and enjoy the freedoms of the West don't see themselves as part of the West; any Western military action against people who happen to be Muslims is taken as an attack against all Muslims. The US didn't draw the battle lines of "the West versus Islam." Islamic extremists did, and way too many Muslims and leftists buy that horseshit.

Oyvind

Delighted to see your post containing the quote from Sayyid Qutb. There has always been a tragic difference between the true spirit of religious texts and their faulty or scheming interpretation by men - and it's almost always men, not women, who don't usually make this kind of error. The problem I believe lies not with the text, but with the translator.

Thomas

Just to let you know that I'm still working on your excellent text - I'll be back to you on it.

My respects to both

Best wishes

Pete

Hi Jeff

Thanks for getting back.

"I'm referring to your postmodernist attitude ... makes me want to vomit."

Jeff, I'm no kind of intellectual, so I'm not even sure what you mean by "post-modernist". My reply to Gunnar was simply my way of saying that I feel his "logical" reasoning - which arrives at the conclusion that Islam is a danger to civilization - is fuller of holes than the Titanic. Perhaps I was long-winded about it, but as I admitted to KM the other day, I do love to ramble.

I feel I'm justified in saying that Judaism and Christianity have bloody histories, cliché or not, since I'm for avoiding even more unnecessary bloodshed. We can learn from past mistakes. And I am suggesting a different view by saying that there are other ways of looking at the problems we're discussing - I very clearly state that the Western powers would be better advised to take a more responsible view of the situation.

As for "what we do to them" - we'd need to go back well before Kuwait. As Thomas pointed out a couple of days ago, as I have already done myself, Britain was already interfering with Iraq at the beginning of the 20th century. Western interests have been busy in this region since.

Good talking to you - it's late, so I'm signing off for now, see you tomorrow.

Best wishes

Pete

Pete:

Jeff, I'm no kind of intellectual so I'm not even sure what you mean by "post-modernist". My reply to Gunnar was simply my way of saying that I feel his "logical" reasoning - which arrives at the conclusion that Islam is a danger to civilization - is fuller of holes than the Titanic. Perhaps I was long-winded about it, but as I admitted to KM the other day, I do love to ramble.

I won't attempt to speak for Gunnar, but I don't think that's what he said. He said "to the extent that...", so I assume he meant just that. It's all in the nuance. ;-)

I feel I'm justified in saying that Judaism and Christianity have bloody histories, cliché or not, since I'm for avoiding even more unnecessary bloodshed. We can learn from past mistakes. And I am suggesting a different view by saying that there are other ways of looking at the problems we're discussing - I very clearly state that the Western powers would be better advised to take a more responsible view of the situation.

It's relevant if we're actually going to try to learn from past mistakes. However, whenever this observation comes up, it is all too often a stopping point in the discussion. "Jews and Christians have so much blood on their hands, how can they say anything about Islam?" I think it's pretty obvious that Judaism and Christianity has been reconciled to modern society to an extent Islam can only dream of. So, no, Islam isn't hopeless - religion is what its followers make of it - but it's going have to be reformed. If they won't do it themselves, then we'll have to force them.

As for "taking a more responsible view of the situation," can you be more specific? Nobody really presents a clear course of action anymore. It's all, "Let's consider this further." "Let's discuss it." "We should examine the situation." It hasn't been without its potholes, that's for sure, but for better or worse, the US has a very clear plan. I've yet to hear critics offer something better. And I don't consider begging Muslims to please try and consider thinking about maybe possibly integrating better, and if they don't mind, refrain from killing people who don't like Islam, thanks, to be better.

As for "what we do to them" - we'd need to go back well before Kuwait. As Thomas pointed out a couple of days ago, as I have already done myself, Britain was already interfering with Iraq at the beginning of the 20th century. Western interests have been busy in this region since

Yes, I'm well aware. Don't lose my point in these details, though: the US, a non-Muslim country, interjected itself into a dispute between two Muslim countries. We saved one from the other, but because of our "aggression" against the aggressor country, we still received a lot of condemnation from Muslims. For example, this was a turning point for Zacarias "Is He a Terrorist, or Isn't He"? Moussaoui. No matter the circumstances, all he and others saw was "infidels killing Muslims." Way too many Muslims, not just "extremists," are intent on drawing these kinds of battle lines around everything, and frankly, they are so dogmatic and hate-filled that trying to reason with them is like trying to have a sensible conversation with a mentally retarded Nazi. You just can't do it.

So I think Gunnar basically has the right idea. Freedom of speech only stretches so far. If people are using mosques to preach hatred and war against the countries that have taken them in, that crosses the line. Arrest them and prosecute them as the terrorists that they are.

1. Why do you regard this Mohammad Ali Samadi-fellow so trustworthy?

2. Were you not the one talking about anecdotal evidence above?

3. What makes you conclude that the Iranian government is a truer representative for Islam than, say, their Muslim (and even some times Islamist) opponents?

øyvind, you refuse to acknowledge my position. You want me to be arguing about the 'true' nature of Islam, when I couldn't care less. All I've said is that there are elements within the Islamic culture which are incompatible with civilized life. This is a far easier claim to make and defend. All I need to do is point out some of these elements, and I'm done. It is YOU who are trying to make a point about the 'true' nature of Islam, and almost claiming that it's not violent.

The fact that there are numerous islamic clerics who advocate violence, and use their scriptures to back it up indicates that this religion is fundamentally different from almost any other. Is there a Catholic or Lutheran priest anywhere that is using Christian scripture to incite violence?

However, we must be clear that I do not define violence only as "what they do to us", but also as "what we do to them".

That's the problem. You seem unable to make proper moral judgements. For example, do you make a moral distinction between a criminal kidnapping a child and the police taking a criminal into custody? Your inability or unwillingness to make a moral distinction between evil aggressors and those protecting and defending themselves and other innocents is a gift to the dark side. Evil is enabled and empowered by folks unable or unwilling to call them evil.

I agree with you that no organisation should be allowed to visit violence, for the purpose of imposing its own way of life or belief system, on innocent people who have not chosen it for themselves - such behaviour is wrong and is to be condemned, and should be punished just like any other crime.

A pathetic attempt to shift the argument onto your ground by putting your premise into my mouth. Well, I disagree with this premise. Freedom is not a "way of life". Human rights are not a "belief system". It's a contradiction in terms to speak of "imposing freedom" on people.

I guess other people have the same idea.

Holding Islamic Preachers Accountable
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=16142

"but do no commit aggression"

This one is usually translated as "do not transgress limits" I don´t know arabic but I noticed there can be quite different translations on the same verses, I often checked a quote in several different versions.

"From early times the Muslims were only permitted to fight in self defence"

This is 100 % not true, it apllies to the Medina period where Mohammed was changing from turning the cheek to acting in selfdefense. Once he conquered Mecca, he went on to take all of the Arabian peninsula, that was hardly selfdefence and his message wasn´t to stop attacking us. But to convert, subordinate and pay taxes, or fight and die. No he did not slaughter kids and women, they were taken as slaves but in some cases he killed all men also those that surrendered. After Mohammed the kalifs started to attack Persia, etc. etc.

My problem is not with people that translate it all as spiritual struggle, a way to live with god and do god´s apparent and peaceful will.

My problem is with the salafi yes and they do get their ammunition ideologically from the quran, hadith, sira and the life of mohammed, the problem still lies at the root which makes it so ever complicated.

And also Salafi islam has more support than anyone want to know I think.

Add to this Khomeneis widespread and cherished influence and god knows why ? He is considered a great leader and ideologist by not only shias but also most sunnis.

"Fighting in Islam must be undertaken only to promote the aims defined by Islam: to make God's word supreme in the world, to establish His order, and to protect the believers against persecution, coercion, corruption and all efforts to force them to betray their faith or abandon it. According to Islam, all other types of war are unjust, and those who take part in them should expect no rewards or blessings from God."

And the goal remains to subdue the rest of the world to the will of Allah and the prophet as perceived in islam.
And anything from the failure of our religions to the soaring of materialism currently seen to the fact that we are not so willing to adopt their means and to fight on without questions, to the split in the western world between let´s say Europe and America, all do nothing but embolding them. Rather than taking a clear stand and to fight them as we must we are turning the other cheek in PC ism. Rather than focusing on building democracy in Iraq, we are still caught in the we did the crime scheme. Rather than asking if this guy was saying the truth in 2002 or in 2004 close to election time we keep on going about the unjustified war though Saddam was more than reason enough.'

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=16122

Yes the sanctions was failure, and failing to admit that failure is grave enough, but the big problem was that Saddam wasn´t ousted in 1991.
But the sanctions alone did not kill Iraqi citizens Saddam let them die so they could serve as propaganda so food for oil was implemented and smart sanctions was being tried, yet there was never anything but a ceasefire in 1991 and resolution 1441 was in place.

The very fact that a war in this case is deemed illegal by so many, that evidence of WMD and involvement in, not to mention intent,are so widely ignored, that simple ideas like "war for oil" holds so much sway bodes ill on the future of mankind. Because rather than taking the problem of islamic fundamentalism and terrorism in it´s rising we are tieing our own hands on the back and won´t fight it appropiately before it´s literally invading our lands. ( And once we are under imminent threat, appropiate is substibuted with quite lethal and excessive force - that will make out so-called superior firepower use of this day appear like offering flowers ) Nor will we as much as take a united stand against it,

We are refusing to counter a crime against humanity by fears of commiting crimes against humanity, where as I think we should develop other strategies for fighting this war both in terms of special forces and undercover agents. and fight it more outside the media - still this is a war that need to be fought and at some points we will for atleast a period have to reliquish our high ideals in order to simple survive, and the more we hesitate the more we each have to offer in the end.

We gotta make a united stand towards this and we have to have the force to act militantly if need be. We have make sure that states like NK and Iran, and Saudi-Arabia and even Pakistan know that if they sell or assist terrorists in attaining WMD we will attack them instantly. They do it once and we let em do it they will do it again. We have to bomb every facility where muhajedins are trained in terrorist acts as well where there can be the least suspicion that they develop WMD if the country where in the camp lies fails to do anything about. And we have to work for worldly and sane democracy around the globe, Whether it will make the Jihadists rise to fight or not, we have to do it before they get to strong, before we become to weak and find ourselves deeper in the mess than we can cope with and thus have to and will respond in way that´s purely genocidal for us all on earth in order to survive.

The divide in the western civilization don´t work for any good nor will high ideals alone win this war it takes force and decisive action however much we dislike it, and it takes a stand against a ideology which consider this world just a step on the way to heaven or hell infinite, and promote that becoming a martyr is the the guaranteed way to heaven.

We can rant about imperialism and stealing oil infinite, about our suppression of people around the world, this may not be entirely fiction, but it´s raised to the level of fiction by so many islamists and left wingers, conspiracy theorists etc. While they remain blind to the biggest danger on earth currently. The problem lies so much more in their hands than in our own, and a country like Saudi Arabia with the economy to make a well functioning democracy is never even close. This is not due to our support of a corrupt regime, we asked for demcratic reforms in SA so many times - what else should we do but invade it and make regime change, put sanctions on it etc ? How are we suppossed to do that when people can´t even recognize the evil Saddam Hussein represented ? Or support making democracy there without whining 24/7 about weapons that weren´t found, neglecting ties between Al-queda and iraq. Yea US soldiers make do make mistakes they shoot their own in instinctive action now and then, how about viewing it a bit on the basis that they are mostly young, and what they are facing ? like people blowing themselves up etc.
How about praising soldiers that keep the chill in their stomach and try to do the right thing all the time rather than those who for some reason sometimes fail ? Often they are tempted beyond what you can imagine and most of them act disciplined. But you get the impression that they are nothing but war criminals sometime, that they are low on moral and we are losing. Well a lot is being done to sack our force to promote democracy in Iraq indeed. And it could appear sometimes that Europe with some few exceptions is quite satisfied with the USA economy being strethed to the limits and hoping a failure will occur in both Aghanistan and Iraq.

Take this attitude - wellmeaning however it will be and the failure to stand together it will work for partly destruction of the world rather than making it more peaceful I believe.

War on terror may anger the Arab streets, but they are all ready angry, and there justifications and rationale is all ready in place most of it pure lie and propaganda like stealing oil, like being the cause of the corrupt regimes etc. And as for Israel the goal of annihilating the the very state is one we can never bow into. Thus we have already a great war in the becoming and the best we can do is to stand together the western civilization and build much greater military force and start fighting it down now and make them realize that god is on the side on those with superior firepower, not on those claiming islam, and that you don´t have believe in getting 72 virgins to be willing to fight for what you believe in.
Not only did OBL and Al-queda consider the intervention in Somalia and an aggression against moslem and Sudan as well if we did it now. They got emboldened by the swift retreat. Turning your back on this refusing to fight, acting all civilized aint gonna mean a thing to them. their definition of civilization is islam, only moslems can be peaceful and live in peace together in a world wide khalifat. And the goal justifies the means - their current goal is to probably to bankrupt the USA and they will do anything to accomplish that - as well as directing devastating attacks with WMD as much as they are capable and find support majorly in their own circles and the islamic world.

To summarize:

The root is islam. Salafi and khomenei islam may
not represent all of islam but it´s still a major growing ideology and it doesn´t need to become a majority to have devastating effect, nor does it listen to majorities.

Terror must be stopped Before it becomes widely megaterror with WMD.

Western civilaztion must stand together in this fight and be willing to apply force more widely as well as expanding their military, counterterrorism forces.

Failure to do this will only embolden jihadists, not as much Israel/palestine a no win case - we can´t eradicate Israel all together, and so will any lack of response to terror supporting states, fundamentalism around the globe.

We shall naturally try to act fair and refrain from failures of the past, but it´s not the real issue, the hate will persist nevertheless and changing the fundamentals of it is mostly not in our hands nor can we do it or afford it.

If we don´t deal with it now, it will literally deal with us later - thus forcing us to throw all high ideals away and simply fight for our survival.

Excellent post Thomas!

I think that about covers it. The good news is that the US is actually doing this:

"where as I think we should develop other strategies for fighting this war both in terms of special forces and undercover agents. and fight it more outside the media"

There is documented in a book called "how bush is winning the war on terror", written by a guy who started with the opposite premise, and wound up changing his title. I have seen excerpts which were quite amazing.

Making fun of people like Pete, who can't distinguish between good and evil:

The source emphasized that "both sides in the war on terror have transgressed."

"Whether it's the apparent videotaped beheading of an innocent civilian contractor, or psychological manipulation of an enemy combatant who may have knowledge of planned attacks on the U.S. citizens--it's all reprehensible," she said.

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said, "Sure, we play head games with terrorists to get them to divulge information that will save lives. We can do that at Guantanamo because our detainees have heads. A recent internal study shows that the ratio of detainees to detainee-heads at Gitmo is one-to-one."

www.scrappleface.com

"There is documented in a book called "how bush is winning the war on terror", written by a guy who started with the opposite premise, and wound up changing his title. I have seen excerpts which were quite amazing."

Well I did the same thing, when I read about the war in Iraq it was about critizing it, I went full scale: no WMD, war for oil, hegemonical plans of the PNAC, PA/IS etc. But as I studied it I found that Bush and his administration is holding the upper end and what they are trying to do is actually not only the right thing to do, but if it fails it´s gonna mean literally "imagine a day of horror like we never seen before" a sentence that once filled me with disgust, but now makes me realize that they know the threat and will deal with it.
Osama and his likes will do so whenever they can and it fit their agenda and noone is gonna be safe from this. It´s the sad old attitude of one papal emissary leading a crusade against Heretics in france when ordering the killing of 10000 people - The soldiers asked: "how are we to know the catholics from the heretics?" the answer was "kill em all, god will take care of our own".
Osama need very little justfication for killing numbers, just that Americans voted for Bush will be enough.
Now if a Carter type was rellected let´s say would that change anything ?
Nope only in the terms of what action was needed to provoke America it would change anything, He declared war in 98 and bombings of USS Cole and embassies weren´t enough, nor did USA take action in years thought they knew al - queda was producing WMD in Aghanistan, and it was hardly with just to defend aghanistan they did that.
The sooner we stop jihadist from aquiring WMD en masse, the better because they gonna use it till we break all together, till they either conquered us or destroyed us. The issue is not what sane moderates in Islam think, the issue is how people that consider this world a nest of sin, worthless in itself think and only consider it a bridge to heaven with 72 virgins or to hell with your flesh being burned off permanently.
It´s nothing short of fascism they want to impose on the world. What happens in our culture in terms of sexuality and materialism happens due to people wanting that, due to the freedom to do so, individual freedom from every collective superimposed ideology. We have laws to deal with transgressions in respect of that and a different concept of transgressions than them. Taleban mindset may be considered as unislamic by many even islamists, but did the salafist consider it so ? And something like that is what they want to impose on the world. It´s less founded in modernity than was Marxism, and it´s just as catastrophic as such.
That the thing is a religion makes it even worse, we have been taught to respect religions, and only be sceptical when it comes to politics, and even taught to be only critical about ourselves to the extent of even hating our own culture for various purposes stated generally as KGB propaganda/History of nazism and our own astonishing cruelty - historically/Anti nationalist Europropaganda.
But it´s more than just a ordinary religion, where as people trying to combine socialism with Christinity largely spoke to a people unable to hear that chord, Politically islam in it´s hate to this world, to worldliness, to western culture and all it entails, strike a chord in hate sphere of the moslem world like Hitler stroke in the German people. One of disdained glory and destiny. One of perpetrated injustice perceived mostly - a few times real. One of a evil that if the world get rid of it and the vision is lived through "1000 years reich".
Now People are now busy blaiming churchill for the danger, busy looking the other way in the face of evil. Not that churchill is perfect, nor that democracy is perfect, but it´s as he said the "worst form of government except those tried before".
And if you find comfort in that Osama and the likes and coming likes of him, does not have the industrial power or manpower of Germany, then stop it because he is eating his way into the majority of 1.2 billion moslems which tend to consider him as potential great leader, and tend to hate the US and thus also the western civilization. Consider the number of states in the world likely to help him and have helped some already to aquire WMD from Russia to NK to Pakistan and Syria and Iran and even SA. And that states like Pakistan and Saudi Arabia where salafi Islam is widely spread and successfully so are most likely to become states with OBL as a ghost leader.

Why you think that the richests and the most military powerful nation among the islamic are the two major fronts of brainwashing people to salafi Islam ? For SA it has Mecca and is thus the womb of islam, but for Pakistan it has only sunni majority like so many other states but 200 + nukes and have helped SA aquire nukes according to Iran actually recently.

In the coming years of increased demands on oil and to a level where production can´t cope with the demand we will see barrels going up in price more than we have seen it recently. This not only lays bonds on our own economies it provides countries like Iran and SA with even more income, not only due to higher prices alone but higher and probably increased output, to spend on military ( and terrorists ) and spreading salafi and khomenei Islam around the world and that will just as much bring about an inevitable conflict as much as anything else. As well as on the sideline China is using it´s increased growth very much on military in 10 years time ahead probably having a military largely capable of out classing Europe´s and compete with the US military in it´s own area and certainly to take Taiwan with ease.
Let´s do what we can in time and not when it´s to late as we did in 1930´s this time.

"till they either conquered us or destroyed us."

Oops this way of putting things can be exploited heavily by anyone looking for a subject out of centext to go bananas on.

What I mean with this is they continue with attacks with WMD one after another, until we surrender or become bankrupt whichever comes first. And they will try establishing a global caliphate all along.

Well, shit, Gunnar

"That's the problem. You seem unable to make proper moral judgements. For example, do you make a moral distinction between a criminal kidnapping a child and the police taking a criminal into custody?" ...

Of course I do - the criminal is wrong, and it is the duty of the police to apprehend him. Is that OK with you?

..."Your inability or unwillingness to make a moral distinction between evil aggressors and those protecting and defending themselves and other innocents is a gift to the dark side. Evil is enabled and empowered by folks unable or unwilling to call them evil."

I fear that we're not going to be able to understand one another. If I read you correctly, you're saying that everything that "we do to them" is just and purely defensive, and everything "they do to us" is evil - and anyone who tries to point out there's another way of looking at this is making "gifts to the dark side". This is making the point that "we" have always been, and are, only right, and "they" are forever wrong. We're the good guys and they're the bad guys. Nice and simple. I don't think it's as easy as that.

"A pathetic attempt to shift the argument onto your ground by putting your premise into my mouth. Well, I disagree with this premise. Freedom is not a "way of life". Human rights are not a "belief system". It's a contradiction in terms to speak of "imposing freedom" on people."

Actually, although I never said it, freedom is a way of life - even GWB agrees with that, as he's on record as saying that's exactly what "terrists" hate about us. Human rights are not a belief system, I agree with you on that - in fact, I never suggested the contrary. They are equal for all.

Best wishes

Pete

First of all, Gunnar, I have not said a single thing about the true nature of Islam. From a religious science point of view, there simply is no true nature of Islam that exists on its own, Islam is shaped by what Muslims do and believe.

That means Islam is violent, Gunnar. It also means that Islam is not.

If you actually read what I wrote before, Gunnar, you would discover that I've already said this.

T. Hansen:

You try to make a point about differing translations, namely "do not commit aggression" or "do not transgress borders". Both are commonly used. In their Quran translations Yusuf Ali and Shakir uses "transgression". Pickthall and Zohurul Hoque uses "aggression". If you check various translations of the Qu'ran to different languages you will see that both frequently pop up.

Since you are asking, the Arabic words in question is Lā Ta`tadū. First part is easy, Lā means 'no' or 'do not'. The root of the verb Ta'tadu can be translated with both 'pass beyond something', 'transgress' and 'being guilty of aggression'. In exegesis of the Qu'ran the last interpretation is fairly common, read Qutb in context and there's not really much doubt.

Then you go on to tell us that Pooya/Alis exegesis is "not true". Well, the thing is, T. Hansen, that it is a Muslim exegesis regardless of what you believe is the truth or not. And, to be frank, it is a much more common exegesis than the wahhabist, though they've got both oil money and some Danish non-Muslim Qu'ran exegetes working for them.

Ah, so the problem is Islam, since the wahhabists, the salafis, etc. use the Qu'ran and hadith, etc, now is it?

Do you realize, T. Hansen, that this is equally true for terrorists belonging to other beliefs and faiths than Islam? Religious nuts point to religion, yes. Woah, that's a surprise!

Let me quote from Mark Juergensmeyer: Terror in the Mind of God' (University of California Press, 2000/2003, 23):

Until this new moral order is established, Bray said, he and others like him who are aware of what is going on and have the moral courage to resist it are compelled to take action. According to Bray, Christianity gave him the right to defend innocent "unborn children", even by use of force, whether it involves "destroying the facilities that they are regularly killed in, or taking the life of one who is murdering them". By the latter, Bray meant killing doctors and other clinical staff involved in performing abortions.

Bray defended the 1994 actions of his friend, Reverend Paul Hill, in killing Dr. John Britton and his escort. "You may wonder what it is like to have killed an abortionist and his escort", Hill wrote to Bray and his other supporters after the killing. "My eyes were opened to the enormous impact" such an even would have, he wrote, adding that "the effect would be incalculable".

[...]Reinhold Niebuhr [at the Union Theological Seminary, cited as theological support by Bray] was drawing on a strain of religious activism that went back to Christianity's origins. The tradition emerged in the context of revolutionary struggles against the Roman occupation of Israel. The New Testament indicates that at least two of Jesus' disciples were members of the rebellious Jewish party, the Zealots.

[...]Niebuhr showed the relevance of just-war theory to social struggles in the twentieth century by relating the idea to what he regarded as the Christian requirement to fulfill social justice. Viewing the world through the lens of what he called "realism", Niebuhr concluded that moral suasion is not sufficient to combat social injustices, especially when they are buttressed by corporate and state power. For that reason he explained in a seminal essay, "Why the Christian Church is Not Pacifist".

In his book Juergensmeyers goes on to point out how Christian extremists support murdering abortion doctors on what they claim is a Biblical basis. Would you then claim, Thomas, that the problem here is Christianity?

Juergenmeyers chapter on Christian extremists is very interesting reading, and the Christian extremism has many things in common with Islamic, Jewish and Sikh extremism, as examples later on in the book clearly demonstrate.

Now, T. Hansen, you and I and Gunnar, too, will probably say that people who explain their terrorist acts with Christianity have made theologically unsound conclusions. We will do that, even considering the violent past of that religion.

We will point to Jesus and his words about loving your enemies and praying for those who persecute you (Mt 5:44) and disregard statements like the one in Mt 10:34: "Do not think that I have come to bring peace on earth; I have come not to bring peace, but a sword".

I know I would.

But then, here's the catch, this is the very same thing many Muslims and many prominent Muslim leaders do when Islamist terrorism is concerned. I'm not saying that's the real nature of Islam. I'm saying that is a nature of Islam.

And while you are absolutely right that the extremists of Islam are in no way few, they are hardly a majority.

Here I think the Georgetown University professor Halim Barakat has a point. In an interview I heard with him he said:

- Why are there so many religious political movements now, that were not in the thirties, and why are they more effective now than in the thirties? We must look into social, economical and political reasons for that, because it is not because of Islam itself, as such. We can not explain it as if religion [alone] shapes all aspects of society

This is where you have to look to find the reasons behind the rise of Islamism.

This is the place that few anti-Islamists dare to look. It is much easier to claim that Islam is the problem, that the Qu'ran or hadith are the roots. It is much more comfortable to tell stories about Ibn Tayymiya, Ibn Wahhab or the Assassins (like I saw people do after the murder on Theo van Gogh).

Talking about the "true colours" of Islam, like John Edwards does in the beginning of this long discussion, is much easier than looking into Middle Eastern history, a history so full of unpleasant surprises, or into economic and social factors. Doing so is also quite ridiculous as Bjørn Stærk pointed out in his response.

It is simply not enough to ask how Islam influences society. You also have to ask how society influences Islam.

Øyvind

I will send my terror before you and will throw into confusion all the people against whom you shall come, and I will make all your enemies turn their backs to you. Exodus 23:27

T. Hansen:

Let me add what I do agree with you in. Something must indeed be done with militant Islamism.

If you go look for roots for militant Islamism in Islam you will find them. As I've said before, Islam has had plenty of its Torquemadas. It's not an impossible focus to choose. It's hardly fruitful.

The big problem is, however, that it rarely stops there. I could go into the phenomenom of understanding any problem in the Muslim world or amongst Muslims in Western countries with Islam, a spreading political disease, but I won't. I could discuss the tendency to oversimplify Pakistani politics to a laughable degree, but I won't. Instead I'll just give my opinion on militant Islamism and modernity.

It is quite simple. If you treat Islamism, in any variant - militant or not, as something that has little to do with modernity you are flat-out wrong. If you do this because you've read to much Ibn Warraq or visited faithfreedom too many times... you are still flatout wrong.

Islamism has everything to do with modernity. The history of the ideology, the texts of the ideology, the politics, it's all closely connected to modernity. Islamism is often reactionary. It is always reactive.

Something must be done, you say. Of course. Don't pretend like those who have opposing views disregard the threat of militant Islamism or don't really fear WMD getting into the hands of terrorists. The question is not whether something must be done, but what must be done.

The goverment of the United States apparently found a war in Iraq to be an excellent idea. Well, the future will show.

Øyvind

Øyvind,

I am in complete agreement with you, on the face of what you said. Now, before even discussing the problems with Islamism as a reaction to so called modernity (something that we will probably have to nail down actually, since the term itself is fraught with philosophical and ideological peril), I would like to pose a few questions to you:

Was not Nazi fascism in many ways a reaction to modernity? Are there insights into the nature of Islamism to be drawn from that?

And to kick off the idea of nailing down modernity (versus say... so called post modernism):

Was not Nazism even more specifically, a reaction to the Classical Liberalism that shaped the Free West?

Furthermore, is so the so called Social Democracy of Europe presently "progressing", or evolving in that context... or is it possible that it too finds itself in the position of being reactionary towards Liberal Democracy? (albeit... not openly.)

If there is any chance that you can entertain the enswers to these questions as plausibly positive, then one last question:

Might it be that so called "progressivism"(iconic though the term may be), which sets the agenda for both the framing of the public discourse and the direction of public policy in Europe (as well as the American left), is the real reason that Europe finds itself contorted, both rhetoricaly and politically, in order to "accommodate" Islamism? In other words, in order to both quell opposition internally, and to impede the actions of the United States?

I just want to inspire you to descend beneath the PR level of the discourse, and consider what might be at play "beneath the veil". Its always from there that history is moved.

My gut tells me you should want to consider this.

Cheers,

KM

Kevin:

You ask interesting questions. First of all, eventhough I do not consider myself a social democrat, I hardly think Social Democracy is reactionary to classical Liberalism. It can, however, also be considered to be reactive.

Communism, and its various offsprings, were a reaction to the development of and after the Industrial Revolution. Classical liberalism provided us with free enterprise. Communist and socialist labour unions fought for our rights to vote, for less exploitation, etc. Thank God for the communists.

Was not Nazi fascism in many ways a reaction to modernity? Are there insights into the nature of Islamism to be drawn from that?

Yes, Nazi fascism was a reaction to modernity. And, yes, there are, at least some, insights to be drawn from this. Nazism was a result of the context it was created in, Germany in the 1930s was not a merry place.

Was not Nazism even more specifically, a reaction to the Classical Liberalism that shaped the Free West?

Only to a certain degree. The context was partly shaped by classical liberalism. However, the "Free West" was free only to a certain degree, and Nazism must also be understood on other backgrounds.

However, Kevin, the important lesson here, is not what mine or your opinion on Nazism or classical liberalism is. The important lesson is that, as we would not dream of trying to understand Nazism without looking at the context it surfaced in, in all its social, economical and political aspects - we should also not try to understand Islamism without this. Many try to understand Islamism merely by reading the Quran and adding - sometimes very creative - interpretations. They will fail in understanding Islamism.

Øyvind

Øyvind, Bergen | 2004-12-01 02:24 | Link

Oyvind this is a really excellent post. I've been worrying over a response to Totoro and Thomas, based on the premise that the root causes of terrorism is not to be found in the Quran, but in the frustration and anger felt by many Muslims in the ME countries as a result of (at least) decades of colonialist behaviour on the part of the West, and the West's incapacity to consider its own part of responsibility. Any real solution to this terrible problem will have to be more reasonable - and thus more difficult - than another century of war.

Best wishes

Pete

Jeff

"So I think Gunnar basically has the right idea. Freedom of speech only stretches so far. If people are using mosques to preach hatred and war against the countries that have taken them in, that crosses the line. Arrest them and prosecute them as the terrorists that they are."

I agree with this idea to the extent that it is a reaction to a symptom - such men should not be allowed to foment hatred. But if action is taken against these war-mongering preachers without making any effort to consider why they are preaching that the West is evil, then such action will only be seen as further repression and add fuel to the fire.

Best wishes

Pete

hello,

a word of caution about attempting to understand islamism western perspective. Islamism is not a reaction to what the west did or did not do , it is an independent beast of its own engaging in warfare and enslavement long even before this century...before the inception of israel and the formation of the US. Generating apologia is a futile endeavour and you will lend credence to the victimization claims of the militant islamists.

please read this links on biblical sunnism:

http://www.malaysia.net/lists/sangkancil/2000-05/thrd20.html

also go to : http://www.malaysia.net/lists/sangkancil/2000-05/thrd20.html

shukran lakum
thank you

Kim Sook-im

Pete:

I agree with this idea to the extent that it is a reaction to a symptom - such men should not be allowed to foment hatred. But if action is taken against these war-mongering preachers without making any effort to consider why they are preaching that the West is evil, then such action will only be seen as further repression and add fuel to the fire.

I think you're falling into the trap that their anger stems from economic woes which are somehow the West's fault. No doubt the West isn't completely and totally faultless, but these people aren't fighting for freedom. They are religious zealots who kill for God, and they say so, very plainly.

Don't forget that Nazis, too, had real and understandable grievances. France saw to it that the Germans were punished as harshly as possible, and that partially (and only partially) sowed the seeds for the rise of Nazism. But that didn't mean that, at the end of the day, we didn't have to destroy them in war. You know as well as I that appeasement failed to placate Hitler. Nothing other than complete and utter defeat would put down those fanatics, and we are facing the same kind of enemy today. Worse, really, since life on this Earth means nothing to them. As long as they insist on indoctrinating kids from their birth with hatred of Jews and the West, there is nothing we can do to get through to them.

You might want to look into what Ion Pacepa has to say about their fanatical hatred of us and what hand the USSR had in it.

Nazism was a result of the context it was created in, Germany in the 1930s was not a merry place.

Then, how do you explain fascism's appeal in Italy, France, Sweden, Norway, Austria, Japan, USA, Syria, Iraq etc?

Was Quisling affected by the WW1 armistice?

You still refuse to deal with fascism in an ideological manner, continuing the deception that Nazism only existed in 1930s germany. Although it would be nice to blame everything on the Germans, it's more complicated than that.

But if action is taken against these war-mongering preachers without making any effort to consider why they are preaching that the West is evil, then such action will only be seen as further repression and add fuel to the fire.

This is the classic leftist mistake. They see criminals, and insist that we need to understand what makes them criminals. Prosecuting criminals does not make more criminals. It's the opposite, and ALL empirical evidence bears this out.

Jeff

Just a note to say thanks for responding to my opinions without condescension or insults - I didn't log on and post here in the first place for the pleasure of trading abuse, but to exchange ideas, and I appreciate that you recognise that. It seems I have an idea of humour which may lead to the impression that I enjoy insulting those who disagree with me - this is not the case. Since I first started confronting opinions here, I've learned from points of view that I don't naturally form for myself. I disagree with a lot of what I read, since, it seems, most of the posters agree with the current strategy in Iraq, to say the least. Others take their ideas to a whole other level, exploring areas which I feel come dangerously close to outright racism. However, in my opinion, we can always learn from a healthy exchange of ideas - this is one of the building blocks of democracy. Thanks.

I take your point, the comment about Nazism growing from the German reaction to the extreme humiliation by France after WW1 is one I have thought about myself, and I find clear parallels with the situation today. Hitler had to be stopped, no doubt about it - however, it cannot be denied that, as history clearly demonstrates, the Allies shared responsibility for his rise, if not his creation. Do we have time to avoid WW3? Is it already too late? In any event, the true answer to this problem, or any other, is clearly not to be found in violently stamping out anything that bothers us. We have to learn to question our own motives and accept the responsibility for change ourselves.

In my own lifetime, I was a witness to the turmoil caused by the Vietnam war. The same sort of arguments raged then as now, and although the details are different, the basic dynamic is the same. Forty years on, what conclusion could we draw? Was anything positive for humanity really gained by that war? I don't think so - I think there's a far better, though more difficult, way. I don't believe that the roots of the present mess are to be found in Islam. As you (under)state - maybe the West isn't totally faultless.

I shall look up Ion Pacepa.

Later

Best wishes

Pete

Gunnar

Once again, with respect.

"This is the classic leftist mistake. They see criminals, and insist that we need to understand what makes them criminals. Prosecuting criminals does not make more criminals. It's the opposite, and ALL empirical evidence bears this out."

First, there's an obvious difference between prosecuting some criminals and laying waste to a country, a nation.

Let's accept, though, your idea of criminals breaking the law. The question I'm trying to ask is this - is the law just? If it is, then there is no question that criminals are a danger to society, and should be treated as the dysfunctional creatures they are - with humanity if possible, but nonetheless. However, there is no harm at all in considering that the law may perhaps be improved, thereby avoiding further criminality, or at least diminishing it. Was the law written for everyone? Or only for the powerful, to the detriment of the rest?

If we take the point of view that "the law" is eternal, we overlook the fact that it was written by men for the purposes of defending their interests. Human interests and understanding constantly evolve, perhaps the law should too.

Finally, I have to disagree with this statement -

"Prosecuting criminals does not make more criminals. It's the opposite, and ALL empirical evidence bears this out."

The prison industry is a booming business all over the Western world - particularly in the USA. And the prison population is increasingly and depressingly drawn from the same social class - mostly the poor, the "have-nots". Not the powerful, but the rest.

Either we maintain the system as is, and keep throwing increasing numbers of people in jail, or we look at the social structure and ask ourselves
can we avoid all this human misery and wastage by an intelligent readjustment of the system.

Attempting to wipe out terrorism by all-out war is clearly resulting in the opposite effect. I say it's the wrong strategy.

Best wishes

Pete

Pete: "But if action is taken against these war-mongering preachers without making any effort to consider why they are preaching that the West is evil..."

Why do you assume that some of us haven't made that effort? This is the same tack as the "Why do they hate us?" questions from immediatley after Sep. 11. Some of us know why they hate us. We have looked into the reasons. You don't want to know the answer if it is anything different than the "decades of colonialist behavior" trope or some other neo Marxist paradigm.

By the way, do you ever ask Klan members "why they preach" what they preach?

Pete,

Regardless of any other points that might be addressable, I had to interject here regarding "The prison industry is a booming business all over the Western world - particularly in the USA. And the prison population is increasingly and depressingly drawn from the same social class - mostly the poor, the "have-nots". Not the powerful, but the rest."

Sorry Pete, but this is the kind of neo-Marxist posturing and class (or more odiously "race") based criticism that bases itself on image projection, even as it claims to be grounded in real world statistics... which are few and far between and when presented...usually have the kinds of metrics that might have come from a literary criticism class at Berkeley. It is essentially proposing that basic premises of equal justice before the law, can and should be abrogated in favor of the ever odious illusion of "social justice".

This is a fallcy on two fronts. First, the fact is that as those that choose criminality are captured and imprisoned in greater numbers, it reduces crime both in itself, and as a dissuader to, shall we say... criminal fence sitters wherein the question of whether crime really does, or doesn't pay is quite a bit more than Academic.

This is an empirical fact borne out by endless mountains of statistics over the last decades. It continuously amazes me how huge the intellectual blind spot on those immersed in Leftism's various dictums is in this area, as evidenced by the frequent NYT, WaPo etc articles that cite rises in prison population "even though" crime is down in the same period, as though they are unrelated and thus evidence of some "injustice".

Um... Duh.

Secondly, when the dispensation of justice is meeted out equally, there is little doubt that disproportionally larger amounts of people will be culled from among the "have not" parts of any society. There are myriad reasons for this, not least of which is that the otherwise law abiding members of such places make easier prey to the vipers that inhabit them. Most violent crime happens in the act of predation in poorer areas, not middle class or wealthy ones. Thus, aggressively pursuing such people is an act not only of equal justice but, by any meaningful definition it is also, dare I say, an act of social justice (though I would certainly not use the term except with a clear caveat). It is this because by making such areas safer from the phenomenon of criminal predation, you improve quality of life therein and imrove the likelihood that these same places, and the people therein, will prosper. There is growing evidence for this as well, particularly in urban areas. (Cops in New york called it "Cleaning the streets".)

It is not EVER possible through the unequal dispensation of justice (ESPECIALLY in the criminal justice system) to in any way "improve" justice. That fact iss as immutable as Laws governing Thermodynamics.

If that fails to make those who are both priveleged, and in a position to alter that dispensation of justice... less able to "feel good about themselves"... well... thats actually Justice too. Since by their self indulgent policies they have continuously hurt the good people they claim to defend, and in their intellectual arrogance refused to consider the growing evidence that this was so.

In any case, this does actually have implications in the emotive imagery of the Left with regard to the War on Terror... but thats another thread.

One final point. You said: "Either we maintain the system as is, and keep throwing increasing numbers of people in jail, or we look at the social structure and ask ourselves can we avoid all this human misery and wastage by an intelligent readjustment of the system."

Ah yes, can we do something "intelligent" to make things better... for the "people"?

Sorry... Not really. Certainly not if you mean something that re-defines "Justice" in postmodern terms the way that the tyrannical ambitions of Islamofascism being enacted through ruthless terrorism, has been deconstructively redefined in terms of a "reaction to colonialism of the past" and other convoluted rationales.

There are however, myriad policies that can be instituted to make it easier for people to build a life for themselves economically. AND there are ways to ease the dislocation that can occur in sectors that get hit by the vagaries of economic trends. But these are economic policies associated with addressing issues in society.

Criminality... is criminality. And punishment is the obligation of a society to protect its decent and law abiding members.

You want to "re-define" criminal justice so it addresses economic inequality in some emotive mold ala Marxist sentimentality?...the first ones to chuckle and make plans... will be the ruthless vipers who prey first on the weak and disadvantaged.

This also... has relevance in the disagreements over the approach in the War on Terror. But I will leave it there.

Cheers,

KM

PS Regarding the idea that in the present situtation we will continue to "keep throwing more and more people in jail".., sorry, but that's a fallacy too.

It will reach its apogee on the curve when the legal system on paper, and its resolve to actually enforce it, have balanced against the level of inherent criminality in society.

Then... as Hayek would rightly predict... it will stabilize. It may have already.

That... will then be a rationally grounded, and reaonably defined (by as you might say, "common sense") state... of social justice.

You're like the poster child of unwarranted and highly fallacious leftist assumptions and views.

First, there's an obvious difference between prosecuting some criminals and laying waste to a country, a nation.

straw man.

Let's accept, though, your idea of criminals breaking the law. The question I'm trying to ask is this - is the law just?

It was a moral comparison, you're trying to switch to a focus on "law". The law against murder is just.

However, there is no harm at all in considering that the law may perhaps be improved, thereby avoiding further criminality, or at least diminishing it.

I assert it to be self-evident that all human beings have an inalienable right to life. This cannot be improved upon, and weakening the defense of this right cannot help to diminish the violation of it. Only a hopelessly wacko leftist would think that weakening the defense of the right to life helps to diminish the will to violate the right to life.

Was the law written for everyone? Or only for the powerful, to the detriment of the rest?

ALL human beings have an inalienable right to life. It is you leftists that claim that "freedom" and "human rights" are just one alternate "way of life", that shouldn't be imposed on people.

If we take the point of view that "the law" is eternal, we overlook the fact that it was written by men for the purposes of defending their interests. Human interests and understanding constantly evolve, perhaps the law should too.

Is this some kind of high-school debating game to you? Shall we have tea all day and discuss issues without regard to reality? I'm not interested in debate for the sake of debate. If you believe that morality is not real, then let's start by imagining that you and the bad guys are in your house, and they are raping your daughter and wife. They then behead your wife, and blow your daughter away with a machine gun. Now, have your moral discussion with them, and let them go on their way, satisfied that morality is relative, and who are you to tell other people what is right and wrong. Offer them some tea.

Finally, I have to disagree with this statement -

"Prosecuting criminals does not make more criminals. It's the opposite, and ALL empirical evidence bears this out."

The prison industry is a booming business all over the Western world - particularly in the USA. And the prison population is increasingly and depressingly drawn from the same social class - mostly the poor, the "have-nots". Not the powerful, but the rest.

Actually, crime rates are down, because of more active enforcement. Besides, your premise that poverty is cause of crime is wrong, since according to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, embezzlement rose thirty eight percent from 1984 to 1993 (U.S. Dept. of Justice 239). Similarly, the idea that global terrorism is the result of poverty has been totally debunked.

Either we maintain the system as is, and keep throwing increasing numbers of people in jail, or we look at the social structure and ask ourselves can we avoid all this human misery and wastage by an intelligent readjustment of the system.

Since there is no empirical evidence to back up your complete fallacious argument, it's safe to sum it up by saying: You are pro-crime.

Attempting to wipe out terrorism by all-out war is clearly resulting in the opposite effect. I say it's the wrong strategy.

You say it, but you can't back it up. All empirical evidence backs up the proposition that a strong defence of human rights will lesson the will to violate it.

"Sure, we want to go home. We want this war over with. The quickest way to get it over with is to go get the b*stards who started it. The quicker they are whipped, the quicker we can go home. The shortest way home is through Berlin and Tokyo. And when we get to Berlin, I am personally going to shoot that paper hanging son-of-a-b*tch Hitler just like I'd shoot a snake". -- George S. Patton

"Then you go on to tell us that Pooya/Alis exegesis is "not true". Well, the thing is, T. Hansen, that it is a Muslim exegesis regardless of what you believe is the truth or not."

What I said is not that the exegesis is not the way the exegesis is.
What I said was that mohammed himself was just not a preacher he led warfare.
Not only did he lead warfare against those who persecuted him, he led warfare against those that that failed to convert or submit to moslem rule as well.
and he called for moslems to do so until all swear to Allah and prophet or pay taxes in submission, it´s not some thing salafists invented out of nothing.
And after his death they conquered not by means of the tongue, persia, assyria, North Africa, ME, Andalusia etc.

This is the root problem, and unless about all historians are wrong then it will remain so.

"Fighting in Islam must be undertaken only to promote the aims defined by Islam: to make God's word supreme in the world, to establish His order"

Yea that´s what the wahhabists I quoted above say too. It´s to spread islam all over the world making it supreme through khalifat - world wide.

"It is quite simple. If you treat Islamism, in any variant - militant or not, as something that has little to do with modernity you are flat-out wrong"

I don´t, Like I said before wahhabism was clearly a part of the 19th century as other kinds of pannationalist movements.
The age of imperialism - that is our imperialism - not their own, has hurt their pride and they got plenty of that pride.
Khomenei was supported and probably quite inspired by USSR influence and his revolutionary islam so was the funneling of natural jew hate to hate of Israel and USA and Bin Laden and the muhajedins was used in Aghanistan to fight USSR the other way around.
Like I said this situation we have this day is basically backfire from the cold war, from the worldwars in general and from the industrial and enlightenment age with it´s anti - thesis as communism and pan nationalism and the imperial age all over lapping each other neatly, one thing leading to another.

Now what you would like me to say is that support for corrupt regimes in the middle east, the foundation of Israel, bullying of SA when they decided to cut our oil etc. and using the world as pawns in the great game of the cold war is the reason for the hate they feel to us or what ?
The root cause to the hate of the US cannot be found 1400 years ago since it did not exist then, not can it be found to be 750-60 years ago because the US did not engage much in the world over on the side of the atlantic back then, it did not even support the foundation of Israel as far as I remember.
Nor did it refuse to put on sanctions on Israel after 1967, it refused to sell them weapons - np the isralis just made them, themselves.
So the incredible hate is something new unless of course you see it as sideeffect of the hate for jews.
And the course is probably gonna to be found from the working of KGB and other intelligence services, working through not only Arafat and the palestinian cause but also through Ayatollah Khomenei, the often occuring figure on the TV screen during my teens, barking his hate speech with his twisted face, and accompanied by good Iranians or Palestinians burning the american flag if not themselves live on air.
Another cause of course is of course the very existance of the Israeli state, and how it gives an eye for an eye if not more, and how this is supported by the USA.

But to ask some questions:

Do you think that that solving the issue of P/I conflict and making a two state is gonna solve the problem ? end the hate ?

You think they would stop hating us if we stopped buying their oil developing as fast as possible other fuels like Hydrogene or gas or corn fuel ? And after that disengaged ?

Would they love US if they called for democracy in the middleeast stopped talking to corrupt regimes, stopped selling weapons to them and let Russia and France do it instead, ?

Let me put it this way: Is Israel, Jordan, Egypt, Iraq the only reason they hate us ? Do they not hate our sexual license, our decadent society, our worldly laws and democracy, our wealth, our military strenght, our favoritism as opposed to their favoritism, Our way of life and thought. Do they not hate capitalism, materialism, enterprise, Eunuk Christianity basically every pillar our society rest upon ? Do they not consider Sharia and Islam - as largely superior to human rights, our laws ?
I am not saying that ordinary moslems don´t want all of this, they want individual freedom mostly everyone does. But it´s what salafis and jihadists want, nor are they alone in hating the western world.

But who is really most to blame, them or us ?

Are we sitting fat on Saudi Arabia, a rich country, milking their every dollar, and saying to king Fahd, hey if you make democracy we invade you and put in another tyrant in your place ? Are we to blame for how their wealth is used ? Are we interfering in any other cases than when it used to support terror ? Have the US not again and again called for democratic reform in that country.
Has the US imposed international laws against other countries getting wealthy and demcratic ? has not many countries around the world become exactly that or started to become that because they gave the people the liberty and focussed on helping it.
Are the decision to do it made inside the country or outside ?
Is it mostly on their shoulders to do so or mostly on ours ?
Are we to be moral on their behalf all the time or would it not work better if they were moral on their own behalf.
Do we make corrupt regimes or do they not fall into place on their local premises ?
USA is now doing nation building in two countries - this and the wars have stretched the economy of the USA.
Germany is still struggling to get it´s economy on the feet again after re-uniting with just one small and relatively developed part of the world - East Germany.
A sad truth is that a lot of people are worse of than Arabs, Africans, Indians mostly rich countries where the general population see little or nothing of that wealth.
Back in the beginning of the 90´s we let about 14-15 million kids die each year of deceases and hunger, lives that could have been saved with just a few dollars investment in each child, for about 20 dollars you coould make sure that such a child got not only medical help and food but education as well.
We are all to blame in this, it´s not like one state can do everything for everyone.
Nor that it´s in the power of any state or any regime, or any UN assembly to change this all together.
We can´t even interfere in genocide like Somalia or Sudan without being rejected. Certainly not the US it´s better off hiding in a corner than doing anything.
Things are bad in many places yes, but how are we supposed to change it given the reluctance, partisanship, ideologically blindness, corruption, and hate around ?

Let´s say we give the middle east it´s own say in everything, let a new big khalifat arise under the banner of islamic Jihad, Stop supporting Israel and let it be between them and their nukes and Arabs. How much would that solve ?
How do we get true democracy in that region, anyone got the magic answers ?
Why is SA the nest of this salafi Islam, not being poor, nor being occupied and why is the most intense salafi brainwash going on in Pakistan - the most military powerful state in the moslem world ?

And Pete I am not talking about making ww 4, I am talking about avoiding it becoming a genuine great war with all that can imply.
A boost in militarily power is needed not to attack the rest of the world but to keep us from being attacked and be able to fight several conflicts at the same time without weakening any front, whether it´s war on terror or humanitarian intervention, we should be able to do that while also being able to repulse a Chinese attack on taiwan before it becomes occupied, NK vs SK the same. The best way to keep nations from attacking other nations is that they know they have very bad odds at getting away with it successfully.
This issue trancends the issue of Europe wanting to be the global cop instead of the USA.
This is where we should stand together and work for a clearer defintion of when to do humanitarian intervention, and when to attack preemptive to ward of efforts in mega terror.
And how to spread democracy and how to provide finacial aid that will not only to fill corrupt pockets but be instrumental in development of the world.
UN is restricted to much however does in many areas a good job, there are certain things we should agree about beyond the individual national interests and goals all nations have, not only the USA.
I am talking about doing what we can now good and perceived bad, war and diplomacy, to make sure that we stop these salafist before they get in position to really threaten our security and even to the point where they can actually invade us be it 10 or 50 years ahead ? - and that´s Europe not the USA, they can target the US with WMD strikes they can never invade it.

Gunnar

"I assert it to be self-evident that all human beings have an inalienable right to life."

So do I - I never suggested the contrary. You don't need my input, Gunnar, you just keep making it up as you go along. You're doing fine so far.

Best wishes

Pete

Gunnar

"ALL human beings have an inalienable right to life."

I said this myself in one of my last posts to you.

"It is you leftists that claim that "freedom" and "human rights" are just one alternate "way of life", that shouldn't be imposed on people."

1. I'm not a leftist.

2. Freedom is a way of life.

3. I already agreed that human rights are not, as you say, a "way of life".

4. I thought you said that freedom couldn't be "imposed" on people.

Best wishes

Pete

Gunnar

"If you believe that morality is not real,..."

You said that, not me.

"... then let's start by imagining that you and the bad guys are in your house, and they are raping your daughter and wife. They then behead your wife, and blow your daughter away with a machine gun. Now, have your moral discussion with them, and let them go on their way, satisfied that morality is relative, and who are you to tell other people what is right and wrong. Offer them some tea."

You're crazy.

Drink less coffee. Stop with the Prozac.

Best wishes

Pete

"Scott in Pennsylvania | 2004-12-01 18:54 | Link

"Why do you assume that some of us haven't made that effort?"

I'm glad to hear that you have. What conclusion did you reach?

"This is the same tack as the "Why do they hate us?" questions from immediatley after Sep. 11. Some of us know why they hate us. We have looked into the reasons. You don't want to know the answer if it is anything different than the "decades of colonialist behavior" trope or some other neo Marxist paradigm."

I disagree - I don't have a set idea of the answer I want to hear - however I disagree with what doesn't sound right.

"By the way, do you ever ask Klan members "why they preach" what they preach?"

That's a damn good point - I never have. I always assumed they made the mistake of "scapegoating", like a lot of other people. It's not the best idea, in my opinion. I take the point.

Best wishes

Pete

"You're crazy."

And you are dodging Pete.

No you don´t exclude use of force, just all the times force is being used it´s wrong or any examples on where we should have used force, would Rwanda have qualified as a clear cut case for militarily intervention ?

How about Srebeniza, one of UN´s ten secure zones, not really secure after all ? A genocide and we watched cause noooo, we could not do anything and they were underpowered our troops there - but hey why were they underpowered ? we had ten leopard tanks in Iraq and there could have been more - 1 night some serb unit could not resist the temptation of shooting at one of them - after being targeted with 100 + explosive rounds what was left of them regretted that. But hey that´s a detail, Srebiniza isn´t don´t matter if it was 6000 or 10000 dying. We did not do anything that day, nor months or years after - secure zone my ass - sorry.
How many million people shall a dictator kill and violently repress before you think intervention would be a good idea ?

How many nukes shall North Korea or Pakistan sell to terrorists and how many of them shall they use before you would consider to end their project ?

Well of course military cost a lot of money and they could be spend on aid to keep millions alive, I agree this should be done, But we won´t keep the good we have in this world by now, by becoming weak, by not using military force.

The most important thing is that we have liberty and that our basis of liberty is safe. from that basis you can do untold wonders, take visions to reality. And essentially spreading democracy and liberty with armed forces if it´s possible at all and there I could have my doubts yes, is not an option we should preexclude just because it means war and casualties.

But in case of dictators performing genocide and brutal repression it can´t really get much worse.

You may be unwilling to compare police functioning in civil areas and states armed with handcuffs, a stick, and a small handarms with international policing involving conventional armies to take out conventional armies in criminal countries.
But the fact is that dictators currently can get away with genocide on a larger scale or disorder like Rwanda can be allowed to kill maybe as much 800000 people without anyone doing a damn thing because there is no International "police force" having the job or means to stop such.

Where as there could be forces developed specialized in fighting among civilians and to do it with as few casualties as possible both in terms of own and civilians, adopting their strategy some more on the situation rather than using a fixed strategy aimed on minimizing own casualties first of all, and heavy use of airforce and cluster bombs.
That´s one thing.
However the need to do use force is not one that can be avoided all-together.

As for Fallujah I am educated a medic myself in the army - and to be honest I am not sure I would go and treat someone which even reasonable slight odds of blowing himself and me up in the process.
Now if I knew he would -very unlikely atleast - not do such a thing, that´s a different story, I would treat him.

Thomas

I've been working on a response to one of your earlier posts, but I don't know if I'm going to make it. There are so many points I'd like to take up with you I find myself over-run as the thread continues to evolve. You are clearly a man who works hard at developing your ideas and you do not let yourself get bogged down in ad-hominem time-wasting. I respect that, and appreciate being addressed in this manner. I try to do the same, though my idea of humour doesn't seem to be shared by everyone.

Many of the points in the post you addressed to me are correct - I do believe that the vast majority of people are basically good, and if allowed to live respectably, will not act as predators on others. That's why I think violent Islam would have no hold on people today if it did not tap into a great well of bitterness and anger. I feel it important to know where this anger comes from, because I refuse to believe that Muslim people, or any other people, are endemic barbarians.

I have no problem admitting that I know little about the deep nature of the Quran - the little I have seen always seemed to me to be a statement of the human religious experience, translated through its particular time and culture. There's some I disagree with - the place allotted to women, in particular - but I do not believe that it is wise to generalize from horror stories and draw conclusions about the nature of the religion and its believers. This steers us inevitably to racist conclusions. I'm not saying that certain Islamists do not hold racist ideas, they clearly do. But it's the strategy of the blind - too often, the wilfully blind.

The War on Terror, as I said, is one of the stupidest catch-phrases I've ever heard - to me it's a contradiction in terms. I place it alongside the 1914 slogan "the War to end all War" - which, clearly, failed - but not before slaughtering 10 million people. And the most notable result of it was, inevitably, WW2, which ploughed the next generation under. Probably a number of Coalition strategists really believe that they have a chance of stopping terror this way, but they'll just spread it. Unfortunately, I also believe that there are those in positions of power who couldn't care less, since they are busy with other agendas, like profit and geo-political power.

9-11 - although I wouldn't name CIA and Mossad, since I do not have the information on their activities, from my own research on the subject, I definitely feel it no longer needs to be proved that there are gaping and suspicious holes in the official line which are simply not addressed. Since that terrible event also served to sell the WOT to the American people, it seems to me doubly suspicious. What is interesting to me about the phrase "conspiracy theories" is that it's a trash-can sort of concept into which it is handy to throw anything that might question the official story. So when most people hear "conspiracy theories", they think X-files, like "GWB is an alien" or "micro-wave mind-control" - so anything labelled this way is discredited automatically. However, a lot of what gets labelled this way is definitely deserving of an honest look, and contains pertinent and important information.

You mention SA's fear of developing new energy sources - that's a point I intended to make - if the money spent on this invasion were spent on research and development for new energy sources, the USA (the Western world) would be freed from its need to impose violent control over oil sources - which, unlike farmers' produce, are mostly to be found in foreign lands. Western appropriation, or militarily-imposed claims for, foreign oil, is undoubtedly a source of bitterness in the Arab world.

Very interesting point about a form of "demonic possession" - like Hitler and Khomenei. I'm not closed to that idea either, since I believe that evil is a real force, like good. However, such forces do not always gain from being visible, some work better out of sight. As Jesus said "By their fruits ye shall know them". Let's keep our eye on it.

GWB - "I believe god wants us to be free - that is what I believe" I actually believe he is not only right also that actually believes that and the American people very much believe it too as a matter of fact deep inside most people in the world yearn for this."

No question with any of that - I don't particularly like GWB, but I too think he really believes what he says - though he often doesn't seem to know what he's talking about - and American aspirations are the same as all human aspirations. I just fail to understand how he imagines that he's building a better world like that.

"...basically an endless parade of how bad and dirty everything is." That is exactly the problem I have with a lot of polemical information, almost all of which I access via the Internet. It's easy to get cornered into a very hopeless and negative view of the world, where attention is placed almost exclusively on manipulation, profiteering and dark power games. That sort of diet gets unhealthy very quickly. Rather like the daily news, incidentally.

No solution will be found by investing in negative energy - only in positive energy. Like yourself, I feel that democracy is a good system running at very low efficiency - it can be improved, and if it were improved, there would be less of the sort of trouble we're trying to deal with now. It's close to terminal, too.

There's more I'd like to comment on, but will leave it until later. Meanwhile, thanks for your posts.

Best wishes

Pete

Thomas

Your new post came in while I was writing mine.
I'll get back to you tomorrow.

Best wishes

Pete

"As we can see, USA has adopted the Islamic position of building a strong military system that is well kept to provide peace and deter the aggressors."

Eat this one Osama!

http://www.submission.org/terrorism.html

Hi Gunnar

I don't think this is going to matter to you, but I want you to know that I regret the tone of my last post to you - without intending to, I got into what looks like a dumb shouting match.

Clearly, I don't communicate with you, you're so sure of your point of view, and so sure that mine is worthless, that I feel it's locked up. I don't have the time or energy to keep batting stuff back and forth either, it's going nowhere. I've been looking around some of the other posts here, and have to admit that there's a lot I don't know about "Islamism". So I'm going to look at it, and see what I think afterwards.

Although I respect you, I regret that your position is so rigid - it seems to me to be mirrored only by people like ex-C when he gets into his rants. That's how the position seems to stand at the moment - two unrelenting adversaries both sure that they are right and the other is wrong. If this were just a head-butting contest, it wouldn't be so frightening, but here we're talking about playing with nuclear weapons.

I can't see any improvement for human evolution that has been gained by the wars of the last century - as far as I can see, there are valid points on both sides - this should allow for a discussion, but there doesn't seem to be one. We're all headed for another carnage, and I believe it could be avoided - but that is dependent on use of higher human qualities than brute confrontation.

Later

Best wishes

Pete

Thomas

This is all a case of comparing what is to what should be, or what could be. I obviously also feel that the incredible sums of money squandered on arms could and should be better spent on improving the lot of the people to whom it belongs, instead of spent on destroying the lives of others who are just like them in other lands. The economy of all the major Western powers depends to a large extent on the development and sale of weapons, whose sole purpose is death and destruction - how then can we possibly imagine we are working for peace? In this I feel that our version of democracy desperately needs an update - because I'm certain that my point of view is no different from the vast majority of other human beings. We all have the same basic vital needs, and increasingly, these needs are being postponed until after the next plan for mass destruction has succeeded in eliminating all our problems. This plan will never work. Never. Addiction to destruction is the problem.

This is perceived by many as a totally naive position at best, if not cowardly leftist toadying. However valid the positions taken to defend human interests are, they are sneeringly dismissed as "whining", "moral arrogance" and so on. To me, this is stubborn insanity.

The case of Israel is the best example of what I'm saying - and it's no coincidence that it's at the heart of this present conflict. Both sides have perfectly valid points of view, both positions can be defended by human reason, human law, human morals. Nothing has ever been resolved by the violence employed by either side except further suffering, and inflexible refusal to genuine change guarantees that the situation can only deteriorate. The imbalance is that for the moment, one side has the position of overwhelming power, and the other not. This may change. I feel that in a situation like this, it is up to the stronger party to make the first opening.

That's how it stands. In 1918, France's arrogant desire to humiliate "evil" Germany guaranteed that there would be a new conflict. Hitler scapegoated the "evil" Jews as part of his mad plan. This led to the creation of Israel, perceived as having been "stolen" from the Palestinians, who were not asked their opinion by the colonial powers at the time. Israel became "evil". In turn, they consider the Arab nations as potentially and actually an "evil" threat. Now GWB wants to eradicate "evil" which he locates mainly in the Arab world. Underpinning all this, of course, are economic reasons. And so on.

I do not believe that the problem lies in the texts of Islam, just as the Bible was not reponsible for the Crusades. Muslims have valid reasons to believe that they are under attack - they, the "victims", attack in turn, and are depicted by their victims as the "aggressors" - this is a never-ending cycle of insanity, and rigid adhesion to whichever "our" side will only make it worse.

That's my position so far, as you have no doubt already perceived. Basically, human ressources are being squandered, against the will of the majority, for works of destruction which will benefit no-one. It's our money, our energy, and we are still being manipulated into wasting it all on destroying each other. The individual should have more say in the matter. "Not in my name" should mean more than just a slogan to be sneered at by "realists" who refuse to consider any other but the Utopian position that war will make it all better.

That's it. Thanks for your posts, they really are good.

Best wishes

Pete

Gunnar:

How do I explain fascism other places than in Germany, you ask, Gunnar? Oh, well - hmmm... Germany was hardly the only place that wasn't that merry in the 1930s.

You can't disconnect political massmovements from the context they existed or exist in.

Thomas T. Hansen:

What I tried to say was not that you claimed the exegesis I quoted was false. What I was saying is that it does not matter how true or untrue you think the point-of-view of the exegesis is.

It is still a Muslim exegesis, and these Muslims have hardly forgotten about Andalucia or all those other places you mentioned. They just disagree with your analysis.

Since they are Shias they are hardly unlikely to disagree with the masters of the expanding Islamic empire after Muhammads death either, but their analysis on non-violence except in self-defense is definitely more common than the analysises of Qutb, or of the wahhabi sheikhs of Saudi-Arabia. Their religion is Islam. That's not a problem.

I was not planning to launch into a discussion about imperialism, but if I remember correctly it was not exactly an Islamic invention, and I can't think of that many religions that has not been used in one way or another to justify imperialism.

Here you demand some kind of pacifism from Islam, yet you seem to forget not only what kind of a world the religion of Islam was born into, but also conveniently leave out how Christianity ever came as far north as to the pagan lands of Harald Blåtand.

So, Thomas T. Hansen, you can draw whatever conclusions you want about Arab imperialism. It hardly changes the facts, namely that militant Islamism is a modern ideology, born out of a modern context, with modern political, social and economical roots. History obviously plays a role, and Islamic history also does. But it's a minor role as the old grandfather living in house next door to the confused father and his alienated and angry children.

There are several much more important role figures. Like the guy living in the palace on the hill, brandishing his oil money. Or the foreign guys with dollar signs in their eyes constantly visiting him. Or the judge that convicted the eldest of the children to prison because he wrote an article critical to the palace dude. Or the various neighbours that have been fighting violently to overthrow the guy in the palace for years.

Who are to blame, you ask? Well, being best friends with the Saudis and cozying up with those jihadis that were smart enough to fight against the Soviet Union hardly helped the United States. The Western world is in no way exempt of blame. And those French... don't even get me started!

But of course, people living in the Middle East are also to blame. They have failed creating viable democracies. They have failed overthrowing many maniacal leaders.

The Arabians of Saudi-Arabia have not succeeded in overthrowing the Saud family (and the wahhabism there, Thomas, is a result of an old alliance a couple of centuries back, an alliance born out of an Arab peninsula of constant strife and warfare).
Of course, that task hasn't been made easy for them either.

Some of the democratic governments that were proven not to be viable in the Middle East, were proven so by coups supported by Western imperialists not bothering to look for theological justifications. Some of the maniacal leaders of that part of the world have done more than shaking hands with Donald Rumsfeld. For some Norwegian companies access to more oil seems to be a carte blanche to cooperate with any despotic government.

How do promote democracy in the Middle East?

Tough question. But here's a way to begin:

Stop pretending that Islam is the problem. It isn't.

Democracy and Islam can coexist and does coexist. Mali (90%+ Muslims) gets 2 (1 best, 7 worst) and 2 on the last Freedom House statistics on political rights and civil liberties - that's better than Brazil, better than El Salvador, better than Georgia. Senegal (90+% Muslims) has a 2 and 3. Israel, by comparison has a 1 and 3.

After seizing to play that "Islam is to blame"-game, start looking for allies. It will be easier now, since most of the people you are looking for are Muslims themselves and therefore weren't too happy about your "Islam is the problem"-speeches.

Be surprised when you realize some of your allies in the fight for democracy are actually... Islamists.

Then start working. The sky is the limit.

Ø.

Probably a number of Coalition strategists really believe that they have a chance of stopping terror this way, but they'll just spread it.

You are stating this leftist premise once again, without backing it up with any evidence or logic. Provide one example of a case where weakness in the face of a determined aggressor helped, ie provide one example of where appeasement worked.

1. I'm not a leftist.

really? You accept many leftists premises.

2. Freedom is a way of life. I already agreed that human rights are not, as you say, a "way of life"

Freedom is a human right, so you are contradicting your next statement. LOL. To be precise, human rights/freedom are a way of life, but not just one valid choice out of many. It's the only valid choice, and sovereignty is not a right to violate rights.

4. I thought you said that freedom couldn't be "imposed" on people.

That's right, it's a contradiction in terms.

"If you believe that morality is not real,..." You said that, not me.

Actually, by comparing "what we do to them" to "what they do to us", you made a moral equivalence between a violation of human rights and a defense of human rights. It was you who stated that perhaps the laws against murder and preaching violence are "unjust".

This is an attack on morality itself. If you can't take having your ivory tower concepts being applied to your wife and children, it only means that your concepts are wrong and that you are being intellectually dishonest.

If you truly believed that in the face of evil, we need to have a discussion about "why people hate", then you should have no problem having that discussion with the people who just beheaded your wife and children. Otherwise, it would mean that you have one standard of justice for you and your family, and another standard for the very real victims of these maniac islamo-fascists.

You're crazy. Drink less coffee. Stop with the Prozac.

You're the one who believes that someone perpetrated the 9/11 attacks in order to steal oil and get more contracts for Halliburton. I'm caffeine free, and never had prozac, but my brain is functioning.

I think violent Islam would have no hold on people today if it did not tap into a great well of bitterness and anger. I feel it important to know where this anger comes from, because I refuse to believe that Muslim people, or any other people, are endemic barbarians

You don't seem to understand human nature, and the role of philosophy. People will act according to the philosophy that they have accepted. If people accept a moral code, they will act according to that moral code. In this case, the moral code seems to hold that infidels are inferior and evil. Everyone has bitterness and anger, there is no shortage of it, and there never has been. If one spills his drink, one gets angry. If one loses a job, one gets angry. If one had held a philosophy that claims that jews and americans are responsible for this, one would be angry at them.

The overwhelming evidence is that 1) people are taught from birth that Islam is good, and the people totally accept this philosophy, without a lot of direct knowledge of the Quran or Mohammad 2) they can then be made radical by simply teaching them what the Quran actually says, and what Mohammad actually did. This combined with the threat of violence for leaving Islam is a very dangerous combination.

This kind of mania has happened before. The Japanese people are good and decent folks. However, at one point, they accepted an evil philosophy, and became a very dangerous force for evil. Then, they simply accepted a different philosophy, and they have become a huge force for good. Your premise about a deep well of bitterness is leftist clap trap.

I definitely feel it no longer needs to be proved that there are gaping and suspicious holes in the official line which are simply not addressed. Since that terrible event also served to sell the WOT to the American people, it seems to me doubly suspicious

Oh really, can you please share with us this info that is so obvious, it no longer needs to be proved? I agree that the official line isn't quite accurate, but I doubt we're talking about the same thing.

What is interesting to me about the phrase "conspiracy theories" is that it's a trash-can sort of concept

I agree with you there. Conspiracies do indeed happen. In fact, almost no bad thing happens without a conspiracy, since it's difficult to do something big alone. But common sense dictates that all things considered, the simplest answer is the most likely.

if the money spent on this invasion were spent on research and development for new energy sources, the USA (the Western world) would be freed from its need to impose violent control over oil sources - which, unlike farmers' produce, are mostly to be found in foreign lands. Western appropriation, or militarily-imposed claims for, foreign oil, is undoubtedly a source of bitterness in the Arab world

The US is spending money on developing alternate sources. I doubt the saudi sheiks will go quietly into the night (hydrogen fuel cell engineering might be a hazardous profession).

There is no evidence that the US is doing anything to gain control over oil sources, or appropriation. The US is quite willing to purchase oil at the market price. Bitterness against the customer that is the main source of revenue is an awfully specious claim. Are norwegians bitter that the US is buying their oil? Are brits bitter that Americans are buying jaguars? Are Indians bitter at Americans for buying their spices and help desk services? Are the chinese bitter at Americans for buying their cheap plastic crap? Are the Japanese bitter at Americans for buying their excellent cars and electronic equipment? Are you mentally engaged, or are you just spewing unchallenged premises and propoganda?

Besides, if the US wanted oil that bad, wouldn't it be easier to drill in Alaska? What's easier, assasinating a few senators who stand in the way, or killing 3000 americans in a complex plot involving a huge hoax to make it look like terrorists did this. Did they hire an actor to play Osama? Or maybe he's a computer graphic character? And you called me crazy?

I just fail to understand how he imagines that he's building a better world like that

You must be failing to understand a lot. It's clear that the overwhelming majority of Germans, French, Dutch, Danes, Norwegians, British, Italians, Japanese, Phillipenies, free Chinese, South Koreans, Poles, Russians, Ukrainians, Afghanis and Iraqis prefer to be free, and are grateful for American efforts to help that come about.

Clearly, I don't communicate with you, you're so sure of your point of view, and so sure that mine is worthless, that I feel it's locked up. I don't have the time or energy to keep batting stuff back and forth either, it's going nowhere

You're right, I am sure of some things. Careful construction of my philosophy and constant comparison to reality results in certainty. What I know is still dwarfed by all there is to know. I know that there are far more questions to ask than answers to know.

I believe that you don't have the time and energy to defend the unsupported ideas that you banter around. Instead of stating your ideas succinctly, you hide the kernal of what you're saying in long streams of words.

Although I respect you, I regret that your position is so rigid

It's reality that is rigid.

If this were just a head-butting contest, it wouldn't be so frightening, but here we're talking about playing with nuclear weapons

Exactly, but in reverse. You are the one who seems interested in an endless wordy debate.

the wars of the last century - as far as I can see, there are valid points on both sides - this should allow for a discussion

If you can't see that Chamberlin was wrong and stupid, and that negotiation with Hitler was useless, then you need to see further. If you can't see that there are no valid points to Nazism, and that discussion is irrelevant, than you need to see further. This is the most amazing and revealing statement you have made. The fact that you can look at Nazi Germany and imperialist Japan and claim there are valid points on both sides! I scoff in your general direction.

And here are the responses:

Do you think that that solving the issue of P/I conflict and making a two state is gonna solve the problem? end the hate ?

Hardly. That issue is given to much weight. It would help with a two-state solution (the only alternatives is either war for indefinite time or ethnic cleansing). You would start having problems recruiting suicide bombers in Palestine.

But end the hate? Hardly. Some of the worst nutcases in Palestine and Israel would definitely sit still and watch their dreams for no Israel or for a greater Israel silently fade away. Sharon is risking both his political career and his life even by a pullout from Gaza.

And the problems inside for instance the Syrian, Jordanian, Egyptian, etc, society would not disappear.

You think they would stop hating us if we stopped buying their oil developing as fast as possible other fuels like Hydrogene or gas or corn fuel? And after that disengaged?

Hardly. But I think us being less dependant on their oil would make it easier to support the right people in the Middle East (and Central Asia) instead of just choosing amongst supporting different wrong people.

Yesterday Saddam Hussein and the Iranian shah. Today people like Saparmurad Niyazov and the dictators of various Gulf countries.

Promoting democracy is what you need to do to fight terrorism. Terrorism is not a result of Islam, but it is a result of lack of democracy. The 1.000.000$-question is, of course; how to promote democracy?

Would they love US if they called for democracy in the middleeast stopped talking to corrupt regimes, stopped selling weapons to them and let Russia and France do it instead?

It would help, yes.

Do they not hate our sexual license

Some do. Others don't really care about who you sleep with.

our decadent society

Some do. Others don't really care about who you sleep with.

our worldly laws

Some do. But there are also Islamists, also people belonging to the salafi tradition, that support similar 'worldly laws' themselves.

and democracy

Some do think that theocracy is a better alternative. Some want a combination. But there are also Islamists, belong to the salafi tradition that wants democracy, and founds this with... you guessed it... Islamic theology. Is their Islam any less Islamic? What about Shirin Ebadi, the Iranian Nobel Prize winner, who says this in a recent interview:

- I fight for the right interpretation of sharia. A dynamic interpretation that accepts womens rights, democracy and human rights. We fight to show that Islam isn't hostile to women. We live in a patriarchal culture where another interpretation is dominant.

Poor woman. Not only does she have to fight against the mad mullahs of Iran. She also has to fight against Westerners claiming that her religion, the religion she justifies her fight with, is a problem.

our wealth, our military strenght

Not that much really. They might have some objections to how we use our wealth and military strength, though.

Do they not hate capitalism

Some of them do. Some of them don't. Many Islamists support another economical system. I don't really blame them.

materialism, enterprise

Same thing here.

Eunuk Christianity

Some do. Islam holds Christianity as a religion of the same, one God as they believe in, though. And Islamists don't necessarily care too much about our religion(s). They're too busy with their own.

Do they not consider Sharia and Islam - as largely superior to human rights, our laws?

Some do. Some don't. Islamists generally think that the sharia, in various interpretations, creates a society that are more just, and in their eyes the sharia is a support of human rights.

(And before you go into a monologue on what sharia means to some issue or another; sharia is Islamic law, it's open to interpretation, it's interpreted differently by different Muslims, it means different things).

And then, Thomas T. Hansen, the big question comes. The question you do not dare to ask. Let's look at your bad-ass-Islamist that hates everything. Let's call him Abu Badass. Where does Abu Badass get his following from? And why? Islam?

Hmmm. How come then, that Abu Badass has been gaining a following just the latest years, and that his ideology, let's call it Badassism, is something from, well, the 1960s really? Let's say that Abu Badass supports suicide attacks. Where does he get his recruits from? And why? Islam?

Well, Islam has been the religion of Palestine for quite a while, don't you agree? When was the first suicide attack committed there?

Correct me, if I am wrong, but wasn't it in the 1990s? Or should I say the 1410s?

When I talk about modernity it's not about giving the West the blame, Thomas. It's about putting militant Islamism into the context where it surfaced. Historically, French, English, and later American, imperialism is. So is the Ottoman Empire.

Øyvind

Dear supraApologist Herr Oeyvind,
Do you really think the islamists care for your ivory tower analysis...as far as you and the rest of the world is concern thro a lens darkly a la islam you are nothing but a wretched kaffir deserving of nothing but death now and torment in eternity ( per their demonic scripture ). Do you really think they care about your high fallutin academisch western perspective of their Deen ... My dear darling child , kindly wake up and smell the coffee while you still have your nose err your friendly mujahid cuts it off LOL .

Now that i have thoroughly chastised you as a mother would a wayward child, get to work and disseminate the Gospel of Odin that the world may prepare for Ragnarok against the unholy host of mohammad the Loki of this epoch.

haz clic aqui ---->

http://www.prophetofdoom.net/support

(foreward this link to all your list-serve)

o.k. folks browse thro this book !!!--->

http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0743233247/ref=sib_dp_pt/002-6870730-0848045#reader-link

hi again oeyvind and others,

here is some more bed time stories to read:

http://fai.showsit.info/

thanks
korean angel of light

ملاك الضّوء الكوريّ

hi again oeyvind and others,

here is some more bed time stories to read:

http://fai.showsit.info/

also read this please: http://aididsafar.com/

thanks
korean angel of light

韓國天使

ملاك الضّوء الكوريّ

Øyvind

"but their analysis on non-violence except in self-defense is definitely more common than the analysises of Qutb, or of the wahhabi sheikhs of Saudi-Arabia. Their religion is Islam.".

Well even Osama terms his fight as selfdefense - thus individual obligation - it´s obvious enough that fairly few moslems agree with him so far so much as follow that obligation - but speaking of Pakistan, Syria, SA, Iran, Iraq, Egypt, palestine, Jordan, Yemen, etc. Majorities there still put more trust in he is doing the right thing than others.

"Here you demand some kind of pacifism from Islam, yet you seem to forget not only what kind of a world the religion of Islam was born into"

I do not demand pacifism from islam they have the right to defend themselves, their definition is however pretty broad when it comes to that.
Eg. Osama´s we would be attacking when we try to help Somalia or stop genocide in Sudan.
Christianity came to us through Ansgar putting his hand in a glowing iron glove not through war.

The originating of jihad movement in Aghanistan yea there the US is much to blame, bet they regret it quite a lot now except the most hardcore anything to fight communism kinds.

However when it comes to the rest England and france are even more to blame, they used the commie scare of the US many to manipulate the USA to change regimes that were not necesary, in Iran eg. Bugger, again the USA did not rush in to support the shah when he got in trouble hoping a more moderate regime would evolve, bugger, they come in all kinds and all sizes.
Iraq can be a bugger, democracy there, and it can be a success god willing and sistani.
The cold war lies most at the root at this, Both in terms of new militant islam, neo salafis, and revolutionary islam, But people blame the US mostly where so much else is to blame including in particular the ex USSR that used the middleeast and North Africa. And this old painting the USA as the bad guy, the rest as the downtrodden, proletariats, arriving from from the cold war and effectively propagated by leftwingers tendence marxists, still plays and incredible an unbalanced role.
Give them copies of the protocols of the elder of zion and talk about Zionist and Imperialist USA, great satan USA and the rest will follow.

The USA can in this definition do nothing good but hiding in the corner and hardly raise a voice.

As for Israel surrounded by largely, to largely, people that want the very annihilation of the state, it being attacked 3 times in just 25 years, after experiencing holocaust, how are they supposed to feel ?

"Stop pretending that Islam is the problem. It isn't"

Point taken.

Pete:

"This is all a case of comparing what is to what should be, or what could be. I obviously also feel that the incredible sums of money squandered on arms could and should be better spent on improving the lot of the people to whom it belongs, instead of spent on destroying the lives of others who are just like them in other lands."

Yes these money could be put to use much better otherwise, however in my opinion it would be suicide to lessen our military strenght right now and beg disaster if we did, I believe the US strategy in this is the right one and should be followed by Europe. Some fundamentals need to come in place, funneling money into basic health care and food programs, education are not so expensive and it´s sad it aint done on larger scale though much happened in this respect in the 90´s till now. However funneling money into corrupt regimes where they do little work is something we can do infinite. So I beleive PAX Americana/europe would be a great thing making sure that everyone behaves nicely not through diplomacy, this will work in some cases not in all, but backed by force and willingness to use it. This may not be peacenik style but it will work more than a thousand resolutions in the UN.
In the long run all offensive war by nation states should be outlawed and to fight an aggressor should be obligation of all the world community, no attackers = no defenders.
The UN should have it´s own army being the only with the right to invade countries where eg. dictators in strong neglect of their own people roam, or where genocide occur on a large scale.
No nation should have any veto in this, this should be an international police force with 3 units, conventional army to fight conventional armies, specialized troops to fight in populated areas, peacekeeping troops to patrol and maintain order as long as necesarily.
This however is unlikely to take place soon, America would be easier to convince than China, and these UN forces should not possess WMD, but always fight conventionally. So this will have to come in phasesm, and require quite a lot remodelling of the way we think and the way the world works.

"As we can see, USA has adopted the Islamic position of building a strong military system that is well kept to provide peace and deter the aggressors."

Eat this one Osama!

http://www.submission.org/terrorism.html

"It's reality that is rigid."

Gotcha.

Goodnight Gunnar

Here you demand some kind of pacifism from Islam, yet you seem to forget not only what kind of a world the religion of Islam was born into, but also conveniently leave out how Christianity ever came as far north as to the pagan lands of Harald Blåtand.

Yes, we demand non-aggression from everyone. You are mixing time periods with distorted logic: someone was violent once in the name of religion, therefore, we can't condemn violence in the name of religion today. Besides, you distort history as well. Olav Trygveson tried to convert Norway somewhat by force and failed. Norway was converted to Christianity by the miracles that occurred after St Olav Haraldsson death. So it was not by the use of force. Don't know much about Blåtand, but it doesn't seem like he was converted by force either:

Poppo, the stranger, who was a clerk in the church is said to have made himself noticed when he agitated the new faith. Harald Blåtand asked him a very tough question: "Will you carry hot iron for your faith..!?" Poppo answered him "yes" and carried the hot iron with his bare hands and passed the test. His hands were not hurt and Harald Blåtand was convinced of Poppo´s faith and immediately wanted to be christened.

>> the only alternatives is either war for indefinite time or ethnic cleansing

You have said this before, and I pointed out a third glaring possibility, but still you don't include it. Why is that?

THE OTHER POSSIBILITY IS MILITARY DEFEAT OF ONE SIDE OR THE OTHER.

In fact, the third option is the only way that conflicts have ever been resolved. Why do you ignore reality?

Which side should we support? In this case, the choice is clear. Good people have to support a liberal democracy whose people have endured nazi persecution before, rather than a group of evil nazi fascist entities.

I suspect you ignore this obvious possibility because you don't want the nazi aggressors to be defeated. You claim to support the good "palestinian" people, but since the defeat of the aggressors is the only way to provide for their welfare, you actually (de-facto) support the aggressors. The aggressors are the only ones that benefit from your advocacy. In a similar way, the only way to support the good german people was to defeat hitler.

Øyvind

"And then, Thomas T. Hansen, the big question comes. The question you do not dare to ask. Let's look at your bad-ass-Islamist that hates everything. Let's call him Abu Badass. Where does Abu Badass get his following from? And why? Islam?

Hmmm. How come then, that Abu Badass has been gaining a following just the latest years, and that his ideology, let's call it Badassism, is something from, well, the 1960s really? Let's say that Abu Badass supports suicide attacks. Where does he get his recruits from? And why? Islam?"

Hates everything is kinda of a keyword.

You don´t have to be moslem to be either terrorist or to die fighting.
But who is behind most of the terrorism and is 72 virgins and eternal place in paradise not an incentive that´s hard to beat ?

Suicide bombs is new as bombs, the concept of the martyr as one dying fighting for Islam is as old as Mohammed. Not that islam is not so much else and that most put "killing another human is like killing humanity" above all the "fight the unbeliever and smite their necks" tirades.

As for letting moderates close their eyes and say contrary to jihadists that peace verses abrogate war verses, and support them in their moderate effort, and shutting up a bit, fine.

But if you hate this world, it´s materialism, it´s greed and vice, and is looking for a context to do it in after the angry proletariat working 70 hours at the week only being able to afford meat wednesday and sunday and a small appartment or house suddenly turned into a mostly well to do middle-class, then islamic Jihad is an option.

If you so deep down in your hate that you think God justifies killing civilians and reward you with 72 virgins for it in eternal paradise. But maybe you are just in it for living out your hate ?

This hate comes from a lot of sources and it´s not the sources that are the problem it´s the hate. Most of these sources are history by now, and blowing someone up for what someone did 100, 50 years ago is like hating jews for turning in christ, though that was only few jews, people of low character rising to power, something to be found everywhere.

And hate to this world is born from ideals unfulfilled, dreams out of something perceived better, dreams of apparently good where evil holds sway. So you start blaming jews, capitalists, infidels, etc. etc.

"Know thyself, presume not God to scan,
The proper study of mankind , is man."

The Pope.

Thomas:

Ansgar did loads of stuff. But there was a reason he was there, Christianity grew from a little Jewish-based sect to a world religion, they did it - like Islam - using different means. In India, Islam was more of a religion of the phlough than a religion of the sword.

In Norway, Christianity was spread to a large degree by the use of force. (St.) Olav Haraldsson died in battle trying to . Same thing happened in heaps of European countries, before Christianity even got closed to the heathen lands of Bluetooth.

Osama talks about self-defence too, that's right. And what does that mean? Does that mean that Islam is the problem? Or does it mean that Osama is?

Yes, there's a martyr tradition in Islam. To quote the above mentioned saint Olav: - [Those who fall in the kings army] shall all have salvation.

Again, I would hardly say that Christianity is the problem eventhough there are still Christian groups with a martyr view much like the militant Islamist. Well, except the 72 virgins, a disputed point anyway. But let's skip that and skip the historical parallels, as well. You started looking at the present, by pointing out the responsibilites of several world powers. I'll continue with an example.

In Iraq a group previously called Jama'at Tawhid wal jihad, led by Abu Zarqawi, has been behind several beheadings and numerous bombings. They are believed to have attacked the embassy of Jordan, the UN headquarters, the Red Cross headquarters, etc. etc. Thus, they are a genuine threat not only to American forces, but to civilians and to a future democracy in Iraq.

The group is now called al Qa'eda in the Land between the Two Rivers (Euphrate and Tigris), a nifty way of saying Iraq without talking about the national state, which these guys oppose anyway. They have ties to the other al Qa'eda, but are also in some ways competitors.

But let's look at their old name. It speaks volumes. The monotheism they talk about is the monotheism of wahhabism.

Shias are guilty of shirk, polytheism, because of Ali and the tombs of saints. Sufis are guilty of shirk because of their saints as well. Shias are the majority in Iraq. Kurds are often Sufi. Christians are of course also guilty of shirk, they've got three Gods! And Jews have their rabbis that are too highly reverred.

Yep, this movement isn't exactly a group of hippie treehuggers. They despise and hate not only capitalism and our decadent ways, but also, well - most Muslims in Iraq. Who are logical allies? Well, most Muslims in Iraq, including Ali Sistani.

Yes, Thomas, you're right that it's stupid to attack someone for what happened 60 years ago. But I think you are confusing secondary motives with the primary motives of as good as every Islamist movement; it's their despise for rulers in the Muslim world that drives them and feeds them.

That's even true in Palestine. Everytime pro-Israelis in the Western world cheer because of the corruption of PA being proven, Hamas is cheering too.

Gunnar:

I did not talk of non-aggression. I talked about pacifism. If you expect non-aggression from Muslims, great, so does the Qu'ran. If you expect pacifism, well, then your idea about military victories to solve the problem in Palestine is odd in comparison.

And Gunnar, I do not consider, your "alternative" to be an alternative. Remember Chechnya, Gunnar? Do you know how many years has passed since the Russians first invaded there, and first crushed - yes, crushed - the opposition militarily?

But there was trouble in Caucasus in 1824, 1864, 1865, 1877, 1879 and the 1890s. Russia won. Every time. Leo Tolstoj fought in Chechnya, and wrote about the country too. The Russians won. During the Russian revolution Russians fought amongst themselves, but in 1921 Soviet took control. They won again. During WWII there was a new insurgence, some Chechnyans fought with Nazis. The Russians won (partly through ethnic cleansing).

The national sentiment of Palestinians today is, in my opinion, comparable to that of the Chechnyans. Of course, there's the fourth alternative, giving Palestinians living in Israel (because that's what you say the Western Bank is) democratic rights. I do not think that's a realistic alternative.

The conclusion is that the only way to achieve a lasting peace, ie. to stop Palestinians from fighting against the occupation is driving them away. That's called ethnic cleansing. It's not a solution I would support. The only alternative is ending the occupation.

Øyvind

>> Suicide bombs is new as bombs

Maybe new to some, but not to americans. Remember the kamikaze. There is nothing new about terrorism.

In Norway, Christianity was spread to a large degree by the use of force. (St.) Olav Haraldsson died in battle trying to

I just corrected you on this, but perhaps you didn't read it yet. Norway was not converted by force. Olav Trygveson tried to convert Norway somewhat by force and failed. Norway was converted to Christianity by the miracles that occurred AFTER St Olav Haraldsson death. So it was not by the use of force.

Again, I would hardly say that Christianity is the problem eventhough there are still Christian groups with a martyr view much like the militant Islamist. Well, except the 72 virgins

I can't believe you wrote this! Christian martyrdom is about maintaining one's faith when someone demands that one deny the Christian faith or face death. It's the EXACT OPPOSITE of muslim martyrdom. To claim that the only difference is the 72 virgins is so ignorant and deceptive, it staggers the mind.

I did not talk of non-aggression. I talked about pacifism. If you expect non-aggression from Muslims, great, so does the Qu'ran.

Yes, but that's a straw man, since only you brought up pacifism. We demand non-aggression. Your second statement is doubtful, since they are able to radicalize muslims by showing them what scriptures really say, and telling them what mohammad actually did. The fact that you think that millions of people are wrong about that is really quite irrelevant.

The fact that by some technical reading and analysis of their sacred scriptures, they shouldn't be coming to the conclusions that they are coming to is a straw man. It's also a purist point of view that is highly debatable and succesfully contradicted by the article "A moderate muslim is hard to find". The point is, who cares?

And Gunnar, I do not consider, your "alternative" to be an alternative. Remember Chechnya, Gunnar? Do you know how many years has passed since the Russians first invaded there, and first crushed - yes, crushed - the opposition militarily?

I wish you would lay out your logic before writing.

My logic:

premise: no conflict with a determined aggressor has ever been resolved without the defeat of that aggressor

premise: appeasement of a determined aggresive foe has never worked

premise: people don't support losing causes; weakness/retreat encourages and emboldens the enemy. Strength and victory discourages and demoralizes the enemy.

premise: the forces aligned against Israel constitute an evil and aggressive force

conclusion: to resolve this conflict, these forces must be defeated.

your logic:

premise: there was once a determined foe that the russians did not defeat

conclusion: there is no point in trying to defeat other determined foes

Quite a logic error, which I must say is quite typical of your postings. Note, I did not say that "all attempts to defeat a foe would result in victory". If I had, then you could just point out one case where this was not true, and you would disprove my point. Since I didn't say that, your statement proves nothing.

Besides, the russians also failed in it's war against Japan and Afghanistan, while the US succeeded against these foes.

Of course, there's the fourth alternative, giving Palestinians living in Israel (because that's what you say the Western Bank is) democratic rights. I do not think that's a realistic alternative.

How about: complete military defeat/regime change in Iran, Syria, Lebanon and the PA. Thorough police investigation and interrogation of "palestinians". Arrest, prosecution and detention for anyone who participated in violence or incitement to violence. Nation building in all these countries. Lebanon has a government in exile, so that shouldn't be a problem.

Once there are 4 democracies to choose from, "palestinians" can choose their destiny by referendum, with the understanding that none of these countries (especially Israel) owes these people any territory. After all this arab aggression, original deals that might have been are just ancient history.

Gunnar:

Christianity was spread partly by force both before and after Olav Haraldsson (Olafr Digre, Olav the Giant). No one who knows even a tad of Norwegian history will dispute this. Norway didn't go Christian in a flash just because someone reported of Olavs growing hair and healing power after his death.

Anyway, after dismissing historical facts with your own somewhat peculiar interpretation - that force was not used at all - you go on replacing other facts with distortions. This time, at least, you've been fooled by Richard Spencer.

Well, the thing is, Gunnar, that mr. Spencer is wrong. Not just a tad wrong. But utterly wrong.

1. Taqiyya and kitman. These are Islamic doctrines of religious deception.

The deception belongs to Richard Spencer. And it's like reading the Protocols of Zion all over again: The Je... sorry, the Muslims are allowed to lie. Thus any moderate Muslims is suddenly not moderate, he's lying! It's brilliant. And false.

The thing is that taqiyya is not a carte blanche for lying, it's an acceptance of lies in life-threathening situations. It is limited and specific in any interpretation. It's also regarded to be, well, heretic by many Sunnites, including most of the worst nutcases. Wahhabis loath taqiyya.

And they loath kitman too. Not so strange really, since it's an Ibadi concept. Ibadi, you say? Yeah, that's a strange variant of Islam mostly found in Oman, and they're the last living descendants of the Kharijites (another favorite hate-object for both anti-Islamists and Islamists alike). Kitman was for when the Ibadis were forced to live in secrecy under anti-Ibadi rulers. They lived in secrecy.

I do remember something about Christians playing that trick too.

These distortitions in reality disqualifies Richard Spencer completely. But lets' move on, shall we?

He continues by more or less suggesting that there are only three kinds of Muslims. Those who are extremists, but lie about it, those who are openly extremist and those who have interpreted Islam falsely or simply do not know better.

And then he ends up with formulating this nice little question:

How can moderate Muslims refute the radical exegesis of the Qur’an and Sunnah?

Hmmm... well, perhaps they can point out moderate exegeses instead? That sounds logical, doesn't it? And that's of course also what people do. But, I forgot! There are no moderates! They are just lying! Just look at this or that imam, he lied... Oooooh.

It's the "Prophet of Doom" all over again. Full of interpretations that you'll have to walk long to find a real Muslim that adheres too. Including the real fanatics.

You want regime change in Syria, Iran, Lebanon and the PA. I would like that too. I'm not looking forward to the day any country will try making such regime changes happen through intervention wars, though.

While we're waiting for all those wars, I can think of several places where ending an occupation has made peace possible. Is France still at war in Algeria? Are the Russians still battling the Afghans?

Conclusion: Ending the occupation of Palestine is not guaranteed a success. It is, however, worth a shot.

"Yes, Thomas, you're right that it's stupid to attack someone for what happened 60 years ago. But I think you are confusing secondary motives with the primary motives of as good as every Islamist movement"

Well don´t matter how we turn it Islam in general about being a moslem is better and leads to heaven if you do your prayers, charity, fast etc.
But that goes for Christians and all Ambrahamic faith that tend to think if people share their faith is a question of heaven or hell. Unlike the Eastern faiths that just think some ways are slower than others.
I know moslems are mostly composited
by lot of different views, Where sufism and modern reformists played quite a role.

But I think Salafis are eating their way into islam at an alarming rate, especially alarming in Pakistan, and from a force few really took serious 10 years ago till this day a lot has happened and with all that brainwashing of kids and young people in terms of salafi islam it´s getting much worse. It did not take long for HItler to nazify Germany, intimidation, hate characterization, ideas of ARYAN Race or faith - not the old Aryan heretics ofcourse, tend to hold their sway.

So that the US did something to stop training and WMD development in Aghanistan and to stop the flow of money to them was a good thing - as well as stopping Saddam from helping them more than he already did.
These salafis are the enemies of all people including moslems that do not think like them - I said that many time in my posts.
And they will not accept any election in Iraq of a democratic government, on the contrary they will fight that government even after USA left, and I am afraid they stand good chance of taking power again, since they dominated most powerseats and have infiltrated about anything from the newly formed police and army, to seats in administrations.
The real test of democracy in Iraq comes when USA leaves, and it´s a test for the whole breathless world. Hope that Iranians can do it on their own as well as other countries, American interference doesn´t seem to be welcome :).
I think we should consider the move from taking matters into our own hands to incite people to rebel then support them some militarily rather than doing invasions.
However 70000 died rebelling against Saddam after the gulf war in 1991 the same could happen in Iraq if we do not engage more directly, but it´s not a burden US can or should carry alone, But the Saddam´s and Mobotu´s, Pol Pots of the world are largely ignored and left to do as they plz. Without much more than condemning, their action.

Thomas wrote: But I think Salafis are eating their way into islam at an alarming rate.

I'd probably use another name on them, but I agree. Militant Islamism is gaining a momentum these days. I do not think Pakistan is the place it's happening the fastest, but there are several countries where it does happen.

But why do they grow? What are their motivations? These two questions must be answered correctly to be able to answer the third: What can we do about it?

Øyvind

Friends,

No degree of intellectual analysis or leftist apologia will obfuscate the fact that the root of terrorism is Islam. The Quran is an exquisite manifesto of terrorism and tyranny ....IT IS INCUMBENT ON YOU CITIZENS OF THE FREE WORLD, INTELLECTUALS AND INDIVIDUALS ENAMOURED WITH LEFTIST IDEOLOGIES TO RECOGNIZE EVIL FOR WHAT EVIL IS...TO CALL A SPADE A SPADE...BEFORE THE CLOCK STRIKES TWELVE...!

PLEASE READ---->http://www.prophetofdoom.net/twt

Thank You
Kim Sook-Im
한국 천사

hello again,

A good muslim who follows the sunnah and hadith can never integrate into a pluralistic society, his/her creed has a built in mechanism to prevent that..that is why islamists in other countries tend to ghetto-ize. Terrorism, mayhem, murder are only the symptoms...you have to understand the root cause the force that impells the adherents to engage in these atrocities...it is their demonic scripture of their cult which seeks to divide and sow the seeds of chaos and distrust. Islam is totally incompatible with freedom and democracy. If you are wondering what they preach in the thousands of mosques and islamists school in the US of A right under your very noses...now you know. The Quran even enjoins that a son or daughter should consider his/her parents as an enemy if the parent is not in compliance with the cultic rules and regulations...talk about mother of all Cults --- cults teach you to kill your own parents if need be-- remember David Koresh, Jim Jones etc.... same ilk.

Gracias !

Cyber Jihadist ......Kim Sook Im

مجاهد الكمبيوتر .....كيم سوك إيم

http://muttaqun.com/index.html

understand what kind of sunnah and
hadith a typical moderate muslim follows.

Click again ,if you have been hesitant the first time------>

**** http://muttaqun.com/index.html ****

Takk

Pete:

Sorry for the delay. I haven't had much time the last few days.

Just a note to say thanks for responding to my opinions without condescension or insults - I didn't log on and post here in the first place for the pleasure of trading abuse, but to exchange ideas, and I appreciate that you recognise that. It seems I have an idea of humour which may lead to the impression that I enjoy insulting those who disagree with me - this is not the case. Since I first started confronting opinions here, I've learned from points of view that I don't naturally form for myself. I disagree with a lot of what I read, since, it seems, most of the posters agree with the current strategy in Iraq, to say the least. Others take their ideas to a whole other level, exploring areas which I feel come dangerously close to outright racism. However, in my opinion, we can always learn from a healthy exchange of ideas - this is one of the building blocks of democracy. Thanks.

I absolutely agree. Debate is important and ad hominems don't do anything productive. There's no need for it to become personal or ugly. So you're most welcome, and thank you for doing the same. :)

I take your point, the comment about Nazism growing from the German reaction to the extreme humiliation by France after WW1 is one I have thought about myself, and I find clear parallels with the situation today. Hitler had to be stopped, no doubt about it - however, it cannot be denied that, as history clearly demonstrates, the Allies shared responsibility for his rise, if not his creation.

They definitely did. I think blame goes all around. But while France contributed actively to his rise, we must also learn from the error of those who tried appeasement tactics, as well as from the error of the US in staying in isolation until war was declared on it. I think that meant a lot more people died in the end than would have otherwise.

Do we have time to avoid WW3? Is it already too late? In any event, the true answer to this problem, or any other, is clearly not to be found in violently stamping out anything that bothers us. We have to learn to question our own motives and accept the responsibility for change ourselves.

I think it's safe to say that it's pretty much on us already. 9/11, Madrid, a constant stream of foiled plots and intelligence of possible future plots. Sticking our heads in the sand or putting blame on ourselves isn't going to solve anything. There are people who are actively seeking our destruction and they are going to have to be defeated.

Also, I don't think that we are simply stomping anything that bothers us by any stretch. If we were, American casualties would be somewhere in the 0 range. We had the power to bomb Iraq into submission if we so chose. Sending in ground troops is an attempt to minimize loss of civilian life and wage a more precise war. If we simply wanted to destroy, we wouldn't have earmarked billions of dollars to rebuild. But I think we've learned from the mistakes and successes WWI/WWII that the best way to deal with a hostile country after defeating it is to help them get back on their feet.

There's a lot more going into this than simple bombing, although a lot of news outlets would have you believe otherwise.

In my own lifetime, I was a witness to the turmoil caused by the Vietnam war. The same sort of arguments raged then as now, and although the details are different, the basic dynamic is the same. Forty years on, what conclusion could we draw? Was anything positive for humanity really gained by that war? I don't think so - I think there's a far better, though more difficult, way. I don't believe that the roots of the present mess are to be found in Islam. As you (under)state - maybe the West isn't totally faultless.

The West isn't faultless, no. Neither are our enemies. But they're not going to sit around and blame themselves and tie their own hands as we do. They're out for blood. I'd say we ought to stand united and realize what's truly at stake here if we cherish our way of life. Vietnam, this is not. Just as there was going to be no "living with" Hitler, we cannot live with terrorists any longer. They have to be confronted, and it has to be now.

Confrontation is successful against them, too. A few days ago, Hamas started talking about offering a ceasefire to Israel, albeit with a lot of ridiculous conditions on it. Today they're backing down off of even that and talking about accepting the 1967 borders. If Israel hadn't kept kicking their asses despite the outcry of world opinion against it, there is absolute zero chance that that would have happened.

Jeff

Øyvind the neo-Socrates

"I do not think Pakistan is the place it's happening the fastest, but there are several countries where it does happen."

It´s happening all over the world, Pakistan is bad, Sudan, Marocco, Algeria, Indonesia and bangladesh.

Where you think it´s growing fastest ?

"But why do they grow? What are their motivations? These two questions must be answered correctly to be able to answer the third: What can we do about it"

They grow through propaganda and brainwash, founding madrasses, mosque´s, Quran school´s everywhere and the soil this works well in is their ignorance and hate.
They brainwash children and young, in true Hitler jugend style, Not superior race this time, but a superior faith, the real islam, not the one of hypocrates and infidels
.
I said before and I say it again, this is about hate.

Hate to this world, hate to everything worldly from Millionaire gourmet and glamour, to the shit coming out of your asshole. Hate of lust, vice, sexuality, greed, cowardice. Hate of meakness, hate of music, wordly joy, hate of art, hate of impurity, hate of intellectualism, hate of dirt, hate of temptation, hate of freedom.

You couple this with a belief in heaven and hell, a belief in a Jahve that condemn you either to eternal heaven or hell, with a view of this world as nothing but the bridge to heaven or hell, with a view of jihad, that it´s ok to force other to your belief because it´s about people going to hell or not, rather destroy those that tempt, those that mislead than let them misguide people to hell. Then you got the fanatic, considering the infidel as worthless, hating everyone that is against or not following his faith, the only pure salafi that takes you to heaven. You read Mohammed and he says that there will be many sects in islam but only one that leads to heaven, you are sure you belong to that one, you read his call to fight unbelievers until there is no more Fitnah, until all obey Allah and follow the guidance of the prophet, and the infidels are suppressed and not allowed to lead the true beleivers into temptation anymore: You hate the injustice in this world, you hate this very world and all it´s temptation from the devil, you strive towards your pure ideal, and everything that do not fit into that ideal you must fight and kill, fight the snares of the devil.
You study the words of Allah, and in your own mind you do not trangress limits, the only limit you have is to kill a true believer, a devote moslem. You strive to get all moslems back to the pure and superior faith, with every mean in your hand this is about heaven or hell, and Allah will reward you for all your effort.

Well unlike when Augustin was born we this day have psychologists, however you still have to recognize yourself you got a problem and go to one.

This is twisted minds, and they work hard to twist other minds, they think God is twisted too because that is what they are, they think God is dictator because that is what they are.

All in their mind is hate and a scream due to the wicked world, they see evil everywhere and yet fail to see it in themselves, cause they are blinded by hate, and there is not enough love in them to light anything up.
They long for God and heaven, and have nothing but hate for this world.
This could and have happened to Christians so nothing strange it´s happening to moslems.
However the Osamas of this world are not following the path of Saints, they are following the path of the misguided angel once ejected from paradise.

Osama´s own ideas posted somewhere speaks volumes. Some of the reasons he mentions are genuine, most are exaggerated, some are nothing but twisted.
His spiritual longing may be genuine, but his genius is as twisted as Karl Haushofer´s, and he have chosen the path of hate not of God.

We can talk about poverty, illiteracy, repression, oil theft, Imperialism not Ottoman ofc. Cia and KGB, bad childhoods all kinds of reasons.

But these are no requirements, sick, wretched, sad, and hateful minds are.

Communism, Nazism, Salafi militant Islam.

1-3 antichrists.

What to do about it ?

It´s coming one way or another.

1. Fight them as soon they become terrorists, fight them hard, hunt them whereever they are, whereever they build bases, where they settle, avoid civilian casualties, do not make acts of revenge!

2. Stand together and build vast military forces so that they lose hope of winning, try to make them suffer as many defeats and set backs as possible. Make offensive war illegal, make a world military police with jurisdiction to act against terrorists, aggresors, dictators violently oppressing their people, and in cases of genocide.

3. work for democracy, freedom, human rights, justice around the globe, build prayerhouses where all religions come to pray, where no sermons are held in favor of any religion, build schools that teach people to think for themselves. Interfaith centres that teaches God is for all and love all and we should love all.

4. Stop the money behind, jail and isolate all inciters, propagandists, recruiters of terrorists.

5. Help the poor, feed the hungry, provide hope for the future and love to the world. Give people freedom wherever and however possible.

6. Create charities and fonds for these purposes, let those who can, give, and those that need, receive.

7. Do not fill money in bottomless black holes but seeks way to bolster economic growth around the globe.

Does any of you have some good pictures or video clips related to the sad incident? that I can use during my repeated presentation of the film to various groups of intelectuals here. Thank you for your help.
We have all suffered a lot from religious radicalism/fanatism/or what ever description is used. It is about time for free thinkers/liberals to unite and confront the spreading cancer.

Dr. Mahmoud

you mean from the movie itself, or related to it?

http://fomi.ytring.dk/Video/vanGogh-DTV2.wmv

I know of this one atleast, features some interviews, scenes from the location. etc.

"It is about time for free thinkers/liberals to unite and confront the spreading cancer."

Very much agreed, these people are the enemies of all that do not think or act like them, moslems or not moslems.

God loves all.

Lots of interesting thoughts, there, Thomas, and I agree with much of it. I will not go into what I don't agree with either, I'll just answer my own questions.

First of all, I speak of militant Islamism, and not of Salafism, for a reason. Definitions are difficult when it comes to this, there's so many words: fundamentalist, islamist, extremist, jihadist. They all tell us something, but all leave out something else.

I stick for the name "militant Islamism" because it implies an ideology where Islamic religion is seen as the driving force, as the Islamists do see it themselves. I also choose to call it that one because it includes militant Islamism of the brands that has little to do with Salafism, for instance in Shia-Muslim areas.

I do not do this because the ideologies are so similar, they often are not, but because I think the reasons are often the same.

I call it "militant", because there are many Islamists who are not. And when it comes to where militant Islamism is most on the rise, I think the answer is Iraq. But there it's both Shiite Islamism and Sunni Islamism. In Chechnya, the extremists also seem to have hijacked much of the nationalist movement. Is Islamism growing worldwide? In my opinion, no.

In Tunisia, for instance, the Islamist movement - and especially militant Islamism (never that big in Tunisia) - is far from as significant as it was just a decade ago.

We could go into a long discussion on what hate is. In my opinion, hate comes from somewhere. It's not driven by irrationality alone. Islamism is shaped by the societies it exists in. This explains the differences between Islamism in Turkey, Tunisia, Algeria, Libya and for that matter the United Kingdom or Denmark. Where you find a violent political culture you are more likely to find violent Islamists.

So ending the violent political culture would definitely help. Democracy and political rights is the best antidote against militant Islamism.

You write: Fight them as soon they become terrorists, fight them hard

And naturally we should. But you also point out that we should work for democracy, freedom, human rights and justice. And that's important. Because if we lose in that battle, we will lose the war on terror.

Interfaith centres that teaches God is for all and love all and we should love all.

Sounds like a task for the Sufis. 'A church, a temple or a Kaa`ba stone, Qur`an or Bible or a martyr's bone, All these and more my heart can tolerate, Since my religion now is Love alone'. Or maybe for the Bahais. Or... really, for us all.

Ø.

Dear T Hansen, Thank you for your interest to help. I have the film itself but I need some additional visual material to use during my introductory part (about 20-25 minutes).

Hello, Oyvind . . .

We haven't corresponded for a few days. I just thought of a site you might enjoy reading and perhaps haven't found--check out national review.com and click on Victor Davis Hanson's column for December 3. He usually writes on Fridays.

I recommend Hanson because the reason I tend to disagree with many of your posts is not because you are wrong in the details, but because you often ignore the big picture. Victor Davis Hanson is the opposite; he's a big picture guy. You may hate him for that reason, but you may also find his writings interesting and provocative.

Regards,

Totoro

Dear Dr. Mahmoud Khayall,
here are some graphic videos

http://www.prophetofdoom.net/

(scroll down to resources and additional links,shows video of beheading of nicholas berg, paul johnson and kim sun-il. very graphic. for mature audience only if you have the stomach)

angel of truth
真相天使

Dear Dr. Mahmoud Khayall,
here are some graphic videos

http://www.prophetofdoom.net/

(scroll down to resources and additional links,shows video of beheading of nicholas berg, paul johnson and kim sun-il. very graphic. for mature audience only if you have the stomach)

angel of truth
真相天使

p.s. dr. khayall, here is another site with lots of graphics slides :http://fai.showsit.info/

also for 200 plus sites on alternative views of islam many with graphics and fotos and videos :

---->http://www.8ung.at/antijihad/

shukran
ملاك الحقيقة

Totoro:

I do read the National Review occasionally. I had not read the column you mention, though. It's well written, and interesting, but the big picture you find so enjoyable isn't big.

It's tiny. It's the picture you'll get from the top of the American variant of an ivory tower.

Naming Allawi a democrat is one thing. It's amazing who gets to be called a democrat these days. Saudis and Jordanians cheering on the insurgents? Oh, well, according to BBC, Allawi himself has close relations with Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, so I guess cheering goes many ways. Al Jazeera cheering, too? Has the guy ever watched al Jazeera?

The Saudis are allies of the US, too. Arab politics is just a tad more complex than the "big picture" of Hanson.

What's worse is that he more or less suggests that the insurgency in Iraq consists of Saddamites, al Qaedites and oh... Muslim clerics, is it? If it really was that simple. If it only were true. But it's not. Seems like Hanson chooses to be forgetful about insurgency in Shiite areas?

And, totoro, just to make this clear; I have been proven wrong on two accords when it comes to the Iraq war.

Before the war I believed that the actual invasion would take less time than it did. I also believed that they would find chemical and bacteriological weapons [*]. I'd love to be proven wrong again, since I'm no optimist when it comes to the future of Iraq. I sincerely do hope that Victor Davis Hanson will be proven right.

Øyvind

[*] Actually, I wasn't completely wrong there.

A bottle of botulinum, a poison you find in the Norwegian dish rakfisk gone wrong, has surfaced. Shouldn't be a surprise for the Americans really, since the Centre for Disease Control handed the Iraqis the necessary bacteria back in the 1980s. Of course this poison, like other chemical and bacteriological weapons Iraq has had, doesn't really deserve the name Weapons of Mass Destruction, but that's another story.

Oyvind . . .

I guess I don't really understand your post. Are you saying (1) that the U.S. should invade Saudi Arabia now and (2) elections should not be held in Iraq if Allawi is running? (and if not Allawi, then who would you support?)

Please advise.

Dear Kim Sook-Im, Thank you vey much for your extremely valuable help. That is for sure a positive step towards helping each other in our confrontation with the devils of backwardness.

Re. this thread

Just a note - when the news about Theo van Gogh's murder broke, like many other people, I downloaded and watched the film in question.

I didn't find it particularly impressive, to be honest. I thought the script was overblown, the Hollywood-style reading pretty wooden, and the choice of images uninteresting - showing the suggestively half-naked body of a woman in this context looked more like exploitation than intelligent underscoring of his point about the hypocritical treatment of women by devout Muslims.

Theo van Gogh had the right to express himself in any way he saw fit, of course, and everyone has the same right, which is not negotiable. Unfortunately, his film was seen as a provocation (which I think it was) by fanatics, and he paid, unjustly and terribly, with his life. This should be sanctioned most firmly.

But I think his death made more note of the film than would otherwise have been made. In fact, the film made me think of Catherine Breillat's recent offering "Anatomie de l'Enfer", a cumbersome, boring screed that tries painfully to be shocking about (I think) the terrible imposition that is life for women - rendered commercially viable only by the exploitative presence of porn star Rocco Siffredi.

I remember seeing an item on Arte TV which covered the fashion show by students in one of London's fashion colleges - I think it was in 2002, I'd love to find it again. Amongst the presentations in this show was an item by one of the students (name?) which was absolutely brilliant - a line of about a dozen women walked down the catwalk dressed in burkhas which covered them from the head down to the waist. Below the waist, they were all entirely naked. This made a statement about the illogical nature of religious repression of women that was far superior, in my view - a statement made without explanations, without words, without fanfare, leaving everyone free to draw their own conclusions.

Best wishes

Pete

Totoro:

I'm saying, and you know it, none of the things that you suggest. My point is, since you need it spelled out clearly:

The big picture of Hanson leaves out so many details that it doesn't tell the truth. Sometimes his "big picture" seems to be taken in some strange paralell world.

Then for your points:

1. America should change its politics regarding S-A, just like many other countries should. There are more political possibilities than being allies or being in war, though.

2. I do not mind Allawi running, but he hardly deserves being called a democrat without any further discussion. I know too little about the other candidates that will be running, and since I'm not going to vote in Iraq I haven't really looked hard and long into it. I do know, however, that there are other possible candidates I'd rather support than Allawi.

I do find the upcoming Iraqi elections to be exciting. Unlike the result of the U.S. elections, the result of the Iraqi ones may surprise us all.

Øyvind

The first election in Iraq is an election for the national assembly, not for presidency, anyway.

Ø.

Why don't you guys go and read about Islam.
Read guys read. Don't listen to CNN and FOx news.
If 1+1 equal 3 in my opinion would you blame math for that ? i won't go and blame math for it.
Wake up idiots.

Hi all, I really appreciate participating in your forum and as part of this long discussion I will start my posting with new information from the United States, I also would like to have your comments on the declared phenomenon:

Islam becomes the fastest-growing religion in America and in the world although religion is no longer dominates everyday life in Western society.
Millions of people read Koran (Quran) in the Internet and visited Islamic sites.

Islam Attracts Converts by the Thousand, Drawn Before and After Attacks
By JODI WILGOREN
Source: The New York Times: October 22, 2001, Monday
Section: National Desk
http://www.alhewar.com/nyt_islam_attracts.htm
http://www.islamcall.com/wave.htm

"Islam is the fastest-growing religion in America, a guide and pillar of stability for many of our people..." Hillary Rodman Clinton, Los Angeles Times, May 31, 1996, p.3

Famous people are affected too:

Singer "Cat Stevens" Oh, baby, baby it's a wild world
Hear his story as told him
http://www.sing365.com/music/lyric.nsf/singerUnid/E94AFB9F1279780B482569BA0007D998
http://www.islamtomorrow.net/converts/yusuf_islam.htm

Is it also true that Americans are converting by thousands to Islam (a rate of 100,000 a year)?
I don't know if most of it is in the prisons like Mohammad Ali for example, but there is a great amount of conversion to Islam in American prisons and outside.

Reading Gunar( Real biased corrupt intellectual ), Jeff, T-Hansen ( Another bush-doctrine ( neo-cons) lover for the wrong reasons), Kim-sook ( I think that you have got some real issues with islam or lack of purpose in life) makes even moderate athesiest want to be a religion defender just because you hate islam so much, it makes the devil ( Satan)to convert to islam or sound islamists, Notice that most of the fantaic views comes from a people in a country that is fighting the new enemy (?), well it is an exagetared enemy, they were handful of fanatics which the us used to achieve strategic goals as you all already know and refuse to see and persist to hide, how is it easy for you to go and bragg about islam and the true deomocracy that you enjoy and that they are fighting you because you are in so much better materialistic and socio-econeomic welfares sytem, at least for now !
No, that is not true, they are fanatics because you go there occuppy, kill, take the land, the resourses and they have to thank you for your noble manipulation and lack of honor, what is left to you is only bunch of already made doctrines that justify everything what you do underf the slogan ( defending our freedom, is it your freedom to go there and intervene in other countries affairs just becaues that serve a decades of colonial and interest driven ideology), intimidating any ideolgy on that large scale will only create more fanatics like your-self, self-absorbed in hatred, well-hiden hatred, very hypocritical to the bone ( you may not even consider yourself so but read your comments again and really try to see why you are so filled with fear ( it is your own institutions that support this, even Gunar who seem to be clever but reading believing all the wrong values like we and them, I met some americans and as some you mentioned about large group of muslims are brain-washed when you talk about islam, americans are also very fantic about the flag, loving thier country and going to war for the erong or unknown reason, simply it will only benefit the big players ( How a mother of a soldier would feel the her son died for a strategic war; guarating the 2nd world old resvior is in a good hands ( the american hands, not chinese or Iranians or europeans, still one can say any other superpower would have done worse ?!!), the sun did not die for defending his country but to defend the corporate (s), so guys, do not mix up heroisim, americam patriotism with a strategic war ( large part of the propaganda about the american dream is manufactured and manipulated to serve the powerful, you middle calss intellectuals only serve the corporte that hire you, I would expect so; at least you have be loyal to hand that gives your monthy check, until you are truly free from these monsters you can not claim freedom of thinking and a non-biased arguments will drive this viscous cycle, stop balming others and start reforming more than 30 years of unjust foriegn policies under the name of spreading democracy. The united sates is doing a good job focusing the attention of the world on handful of thugs ( claim to represent the islamic world and you guys who are islamic-haters are just another victim of your own institution or experiences, I also balme the media and the newly-shaped american intellectualism which is largely institutionized) and diverting the attention from decades of large scale state-sponsered terrorism themselves. But when the STATE does it,it is legitimised and it is for the good of the people ( pretty laughable arguments that are taken for granted, just like the "terrorists" gods of islam, cristainity, judism,... etc...).
BRAIN-washed fatantics on both side of the planned divison of the world are the danger and those has not to be our representative of a peacful solution, why the terrosrism just became as an international-media driven threat after the collapse of the soviet union ?! Islam was there, othert incidents have happened which were more genocidal tham 9/11, millions died in rowananda, why there was not so big condemnation for that by those right-wing peaceful macho-defenders? The US media hides very well what it does not want to show the public, after all the rich elements determine the truth and what is woth puplishing, unpopular ethic views are not a main stream culture in the US. The guidelines to what is really the main-stream undersatnding of international US foriegn policies is very poor, why is that? People in the states are easily fearful, why is that, it is just a simple old propaganda doctrine to control the majority whom don't/don't wanna think, that is the real problem, having easy-targeted masses and contolling them to the purpose of the "evil-religion, evil-state".

Stop hatred-ideolgy please.

PS: convying emotions sometime is good, maybe you guys are not that hating after-all, maybe you just express it in words which is a valve, hopefully you do go in the street and hurt somebody and hopfully you do not become the neo-islamizazi!

Reading Gunar( Real biased corrupt intellectual ), Jeff, T-Hansen ( Another bush-doctrine ( neo-cons) lover for the wrong reasons), Kim-sook ( I think that you have got some real issues with islam or lack of purpose in life) makes even moderate athesiest want to be a religion defender just because you hate islam so much, it makes the devil ( Satan)to convert to islam or sound islamists, Notice that most of the fantaic views comes from a people in a country that is fighting the new enemy (?), well it is an exagetared enemy, they were handful of fanatics which the us used to achieve strategic goals as you all already know and refuse to see and persist to hide, how is it easy for you to go and bragg about islam and the true deomocracy that you enjoy and that they are fighting you because you are in so much better materialistic and socio-econeomic welfares sytem, at least for now !
No, that is not true, they are fanatics because you go there occuppy, kill, take the land, the resourses and they have to thank you for your noble manipulation and lack of honor, what is left to you is only bunch of already made doctrines that justify everything what you do underf the slogan ( defending our freedom, is it your freedom to go there and intervene in other countries affairs just becaues that serve a decades of colonial and interest driven ideology), intimidating any ideolgy on that large scale will only create more fanatics like your-self, self-absorbed in hatred, well-hiden hatred, very hypocritical to the bone ( you may not even consider yourself so but read your comments again and really try to see why you are so filled with fear ( it is your own institutions that support this, even Gunar who seem to be clever but reading believing all the wrong values like we and them, I met some americans and as some you mentioned about large group of muslims are brain-washed when you talk about islam, americans are also very fantic about the flag, loving thier country and going to war for the erong or unknown reason, simply it will only benefit the big players ( How a mother of a soldier would feel the her son died for a strategic war; guarating the 2nd world old resvior is in a good hands ( the american hands, not chinese or Iranians or europeans, still one can say any other superpower would have done worse ?!!), the sun did not die for defending his country but to defend the corporate (s), so guys, do not mix up heroisim, americam patriotism with a strategic war ( large part of the propaganda about the american dream is manufactured and manipulated to serve the powerful, you middle calss intellectuals only serve the corporte that hire you, I would expect so; at least you have be loyal to hand that gives your monthy check, until you are truly free from these monsters you can not claim freedom of thinking and a non-biased arguments will drive this viscous cycle, stop balming others and start reforming more than 30 years of unjust foriegn policies under the name of spreading democracy. The united sates is doing a good job focusing the attention of the world on handful of thugs ( claim to represent the islamic world and you guys who are islamic-haters are just another victim of your own institution or experiences, I also balme the media and the newly-shaped american intellectualism which is largely institutionized) and diverting the attention from decades of large scale state-sponsered terrorism themselves. But when the STATE does it,it is legitimised and it is for the good of the people ( pretty laughable arguments that are taken for granted, just like the "terrorists" gods of islam, cristainity, judism,... etc...).
BRAIN-washed fatantics on both side of the planned divison of the world are the danger and those has not to be our representative of a peacful solution, why the terrosrism just became as an international-media driven threat after the collapse of the soviet union ?! Islam was there, othert incidents have happened which were more genocidal tham 9/11, millions died in rowananda, why there was not so big condemnation for that by those right-wing peaceful macho-defenders? The US media hides very well what it does not want to show the public, after all the rich elements determine the truth and what is woth puplishing, unpopular ethnic views are not a main stream culture in the US. The guidelines to what is really the main-stream undersatnding of international US foriegn policies is very poor, why is that? People in the states are easily fearful, why is that, it is just a simple old propaganda doctrine to control the majority whom don't/don't wanna think, that is the real problem, having easy-targeted masses and contolling them to the purpose of the "evil-religion, evil-state".

Stop hatred-ideolgy please.

PS: convying emotions sometime is good, maybe you guys are not that hating after-all, maybe you just express it in words which is a valve, hopefully you do go in the street and hurt somebody and hopfully you do not become the neo-islamizazi!

Islam is a fascist, sexist and racist cult, not a religion.
See Sourat 9, verse 5 : "when the sacred months have expired , kill all the infidels whreever you find them"
and Sourat 4 verse 34 : "Men have authority upon women"
I quitted Islam because I don't want to be considered as an inferior being just because I am a woman...
and also, do you know that it is forbidden for a muslim woman to marry with a non-muslim man ? what is the difference with racist South Africa where it was forbidden for a white woman to marry with a black man ?

Hello Ex-muslimah now christian --

Congratulations on your most brave and wise move. If only more women would educate themselves and not fall into the trap of charming and deadly Mr. Abdul Romeo !!!( of course there are nice , and gallant men from middle eastern countries, but once they are infected with the supermeme virus of Eeeklam, beware!)

I personally know of a girl friend from the Phillipines who was conned into marrying a Saudi Troll ...and when she moved to Saudi Arabia , her nightmare began. Her 'loving' and 'charming' husband suddenly turned into Count Drakkkula and the beatings and humiliation began ...and the shocking thing was that her in-laws were complicit in it.

Her husband beat her unconscious while she was pregnant with their first child. She was locked in the house for 6 months. when she escaped and reported to the police , the saudi police told her that she was a bad woman and that is why her husband had to chastise her. They locked her up and handed her back to her in-laws and when her husband returned she was badly beaten again, resulting in a broken arm.

She eventually escaped with the help of some ex-patriats from other countries with her husband chasing her all the way to the airport, and shouting in arabic for the guards to detained her....male saudi airport personnel tried to detain her, but she managed to get on board the plane. Her husband came to the US to harass her, and she had to get a court injunction to bar him from entering this country. She managed to get one child out of the country. Her daughter was left behind and she is still going through this psychological nightmare and trauma.

So muslims world wide pray facing Mecca,...Saudi Arabia is the headquarters of Eeeklam incorporated, if the denizen of this supposed holy shrine exhibits such monstrous behaviours towards their womenfolks ...does it not tell you something about the depth and depravation of this nefarous androgenous superCult?

All the western apologists and revisionists and leftists ( who are predominantly male) cannot care a hoot about the state of sufferings of females in islamdom....but we free women of the world tell you this - Misogyny is one of the central pillars of this foul Cult....destroy Misogyny and you will weaken and bring the collapse of this evil Cult !

Sister Supapohrn Duangprapha Kimsookboon
specialist in wicked and irrational adamikkk
kkkults

มาเถิด

ให้พวกเราลงไปและทำให้ภาษาของเขาวุ่นวายที่นั่น

เพื่อไม่ให้พวกเขาพูดเข้าใจกันได้"

http://www.homa.org/Details.asp?ContentID=2137352779&TOCID=2083225347 ( Dr. Homa Darabi foundation, exposing the oppression of women in Islam )

http://www.secularislam.org/women/ground.htm ( for secularism and universal women's rights in the middle east and islamic countries)

Big Ben,

"...But I maintain that it can only have an effect if the Muslim population actually believes that the peace effort is genuine. I suspect that as long as US (or UK) policy - incorporating medieval seige tactics which decimated an innocent population, daily murderous bombing for a decade, followed by an overwhelmingly violent invasion, on false pretences, of a sovereign Muslim homeland - remains unchanged, theres almost no chance of that. So now what?.."

o.k. your assumption is that the current issue of american involvement in the middle east and the question of israel is what fuels the islamite rage... on the contrary Islam has been at war with all civilizations since its inception 15000 yrs ago.

It has destroyed various cultures and civilizations in the middle east,notably the assyrians, the persians , the hindus etc.

Mika...also note that we don't have to send any jihadee snakes to china . China has its ethnic Hui minorities who are muslims and who are currently receiving support from the rich gulf states etc. to train to become jihadist rebels. The chinese have their own islamic monkey on their backs and plenty of jihadist snakes in their own backyard to stir fry LOL.

Big Ben, how do you account for the conflicts world wide, the indonesian muslims persecuting the chinese and indigenous christian populations, how about bangladesh and the persekkkution of the peaceful buddhists and hindus????

Truth is it is their intolerant world view arising from their false and intolerant doctrines that fuel so much crisis and mayhem .

To blame the violence on Israel and US involvement in Iraq holds no water !

Sister Prasad Meenachi Bhagavatam

Namaste

Big Ben,

"...But I maintain that it can only have an effect if the Muslim population actually believes that the peace effort is genuine. I suspect that as long as US (or UK) policy - incorporating medieval seige tactics which decimated an innocent population, daily murderous bombing for a decade, followed by an overwhelmingly violent invasion, on false pretences, of a sovereign Muslim homeland - remains unchanged, theres almost no chance of that. So now what?.."

o.k. your assumption is that the current issue of american involvement in the middle east and the question of israel is what fuels the islamite rage... on the contrary Islam has been at war with all civilizations since its inception 15000 yrs ago.

It has destroyed various cultures and civilizations in the middle east,notably the assyrians, the persians , the hindus etc.

Mika...also note that we don't have to send any jihadee snakes to china . China has its ethnic Hui minorities who are muslims and who are currently receiving support from the rich gulf states etc. to train to become jihadist rebels. The chinese have their own islamic monkey on their backs and plenty of jihadist snakes in their own backyard to stir fry LOL.

Big Ben, how do you account for the conflicts world wide, the indonesian muslims persecuting the chinese and indigenous christian populations, how about bangladesh and the persekkkution of the peaceful buddhists and hindus????

Truth is it is their intolerant world view arising from their false and intolerant doctrines that fuel so much crisis and mayhem .

To blame the violence on Israel and US involvement in Iraq holds no water !

Sister Prasad Meenachi Bhagavatam

Namaste
oops i think i accidentally double posted...sorry .....May Allah have mercy on moi.

http://credit-card-debt.finances-inco.com billscostumedrunk

Guy's! I ask of you no reward for this (Message). My reward is from none : will ye not then understand?

Quran

Surah 3 ( Chapter No 003 ) Titel The Family of Imran

003/055 Behold! Allah said: "O Jesus! I will take thee and raise thee to Myself and clear thee (of the falsehoods) of those who blaspheme; I will make those who follow thee superior to those who reject faith, to the Day of Resurrection: Then shall ye all return unto me, and I will judge between you of the matters wherein ye dispute.

003/059 The similitude of Jesus before Allah is as that of Adam; He created him from dust, then said to him: "Be". And he was.

Surah 7 ( chapter no 007 ) Titel The Heights:

007/175. Relate to them the story of the man to whom We sent Our signs, but he passed them by: so Satan followed him up, and he went astray.

007/176. If it had been Our will, We should have elevated him with Our signs; but he inclined to the earth, and followed his own vain desires. His similitude is that of a dog: if you attack him, he lolls out his tongue, or if you leave him alone, he (still) lolls out his tongue. That is the similitude of those who reject Our signs; So relate the story; perchance they may reflect.

007/177. Evil as an example are people who reject Our signs and wrong their own souls.

007/178. Whom Allah doth guide,- he is on the right path: whom He rejects from His guidance,- such are the persons who perish.

007/179. Many are the Jinns and men we have made for Hell: They have hearts wherewith they understand not, eyes wherewith they see not, and ears wherewith they hear not. They are like cattle,- nay more misguided: for they are heedless (of warning).

007/180. The most beautiful names belong to Allah. so call on him by them; but shun such men as use profanity in his names: for what they do, they will soon be requited.

Surah 5 ( Chapter No 005 ) Titel The Table Spread

005/116. And when Allah saith: O Jesus, son of Mary! Didst thou say unto mankind: Take me and my mother for two gods beside Allah? he saith: Be glorified It was not mine to utter that to which I had no right. If I used to say it, then Thou knewest it. Thou knowest what is in my mind, and I know not what is in Thy mind. Lo! Thou, only Thou art the Knower of Things Hidden.

005/117. I spake unto them only that which Thou commandedst me, (saying) : Worship Allah, my Lord and your Lord. I was a witness of them while I dwelt among them, and when Thou tookest me Thou wast the Watcher over them. Thou art Witness over all things.

005/118. If Thou punish them, lo! they are Thy slaves, and if Thou forgive them (lo! they are Thy slaves). Lo! Thou, only Thou art the Mighty, the Wise.

005/119. Allah saith: This is a day in which their truthfulness profiteth the truthful, for theirs are Gardens underneath which rivers flow, wherein they are secure for ever, Allah taking pleasure in them and they in Him. That is the great triumph.

Surah 4 ( Chapter No 004 ) Titel The Women

004/157. And because of their saying: We slew the Messiah Jesus son of Mary, Allah's messenger They slew him not nor crucified, but it appeared so unto them; and lo! those who disagree concerning it are in doubt thereof; they have no knowledge thereof save pursuit of a conjecture ; they slew him not for certain.

004/158. But Allah took him up unto Himself. Allah was ever Mighty, wise.

004/159. There is not one of the People of the Scripture but will believe in him before his death, and on the Day of Resurrection he will be a witness against them

004/170. O mankind! The messenger hath come unto you with the truth from your Lord. Therefor believe; ( it is) better for you. But if ye disbelieve, still, lo! unto Allah belongeth whatsoever is in the heavens and the earth. Allah is ever Knower, Wise.

004/171. O People of the Scripture! Do not exaggerate in your religion nor utter aught concerning Allah save the truth. The Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, was only a messenger of Allah, and His word which He conveyed unto Mary, and a spirit from Him. So believe in Allah and His messengers, and say not "Three". Cease! (it is) better for you! Allah is only One God. Far is it removed from His transcendent majesty that he should have a son. His is all that is in the heavens and all that is in the earth. And Allah is sufficient as Defender

The natural inclination for religious faith is an integral part of the human essence. This is an indisputable fact of history. All scholars of comparative religion, regardless of their own religious backgrounds, agree that religious belief is a natural human condition. They differ, however about its origins.

"It is unreasonable to think that so many American converted to Islam without careful consideration and deep contemplation. before concluding that Islam is true. These Americans came from different classes, races and walks of life. , and every other sort of person imaginable"

No comments!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Asalaam. Peace be to you.

In response to Mr Edwards's comments. I will be as rational and impersonal as possible and avoid americanisms like "So, take your Political Correctness and shove it up Big Mo's rear end."(to quote the gentleman)
LOL.

//Once again the "Religion of Peace" shows its true colors. Europe needs to open its eyes and take care of the cancer growing in its mist.//
My comment: Not supported by evidence so cannot honur with much comment. If my eloquent friend is refering to the tragic assasination of Theo van Gogh then it is irrational to think the act of a crazy man who happened to be muslim should mean muslims or islam is a "cancer". Chillingly nazi-ish. Indira Gandhi(indian PM,first woman to be) politically oppressed Sikhs and when she was was assasinated,guess who her assasins were? Sikhs.There's always a lunatic or fanatic created by political or identity clashes in all races and religions. Just because Prostestant Irish killed many Catholic Irish in recetn years in no way leads me to believe that ALL catholic irish are evil muderers.
//One thing is for sure, Muslims want to be known as peaceful and tolerant, they just don't want to actually have to be peaceful and tolerant.//
I would be extremely interested to see the survey of all muslims in the world you conducted to come up with such a statement.indeed a well-recieved and praised academic piece fo work that would be!thank you.
// I have a feeling that if Muslims were a majority in any Western country, it would not be a pretty picture//
Feelings don't count in healthy and fruitful debate.
//We must demand that Muslims -- particularly those in the West -- be responsible for all actions everywhere done in the name of Islam.//
Applying Mr Edward's analogy: I must hold ALL catholics responsible for catholic priests abusing little boys.And if my jewish/hindu/buddhist neighbour farts too much,i must hold all jews/hindus/buddhist responsible for over-farting. I must also assume that farting excessively automatically becomes a part of that religion(judaism/hindusim/buddhism)*
*Disclaimer: This is only a hypothetical analogy.I do not know any jewish/hindu/buddhist individual who over-farts.
"It is true that most Muslims are
peaceful people". Excuse my ignorance but i thought you JUST said they didnt want to be peaceful or tolerant.So you mean they ARE peaceful but dont WANT to be? poor fellas! If my american friend doesnt mind,may i ask how many muslims he knows? or any converts in america? immigrant muslims? Islam is living reality for over a billion people (reader's digest factbook)from China to East Europe.
//Well, excuse me, isn't that what the Quran tells Muslim husbands to do?// That is misinformation of misunderstanding unless ypu profess to know arabic well or have not heard of various hadiths about Muhammad forbidding beating women?For a clarification on the issue, go to: http://answering-christianity.com/beating_no.htm.
Peace.

Trackback URL: /cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/1485

Sebastian Holsclaw: Theo Van Gogh Assasination, November 8, 2004 09:29 AM

I'm not sure if you have heard of the Theo Van Gogh assasination in Holland. But if you haven't, Wretchard, Bjørn Stærk, and Andrew Sullivan all have interesting things to say about it. The most eerie thing I found was...