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

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

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

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

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

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

Freddy aka Lol(updated)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Freddy aka Lol:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Freddy,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

46) Prove it!

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

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

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

30) Your Koran quote has PLENTY of Christian counterparts.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Now THAT is some fulminating. Right, Deb Chatterjee?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Freddy wrote (or fulminated ?):

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No, really.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Visit the webiste:

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

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

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

Visit Dr. Sina's website:

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

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

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

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

You quote from ,of all places, Wikepedia the following

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Freddy wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Believe it or not, Observer defends Christian Terrorists.

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

28) I accept your challenge:

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

Boy, that was easy.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Freddy wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here are some more of Deb Chatterjee’s errors:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Deb Chatterjee does attempt to address one point:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

10) Sounds like believers fighting unbelievers, huh?

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

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

12) Again, where is the difference?

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

Freddy,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How sad for you.

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

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

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

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

Here are some more of Deb Chatterjee’s errors:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

10) Sounds like believers fighting unbelievers, huh?

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

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

12) Again, where is the difference?

Victoria 'The lady with the Shariah' scorned:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Charge of SK making ad hominem attack: PROVED!

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

42) And that is ANOTHER ad hominem attack!

In my last post (to SK) the line

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

should correctly read

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

I regret the error(s).

Victoria:

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

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

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

SK,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is taqiyaa on stilts.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Abrogated?

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

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

May Allah protect us!

Read the Quran - www.AllahsQuran.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

18) LOL! PROVE IT!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Now let's review her quote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

follwed by-

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

no one in the family seems safe here-

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

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

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

whew! good thing that follows!

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

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

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

they are very scary.

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

so great leeway is accorded in giving symbolic meanings-

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

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

its either superficial and literal-

or its symbolic and broad-

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

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

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

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

one time?

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

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

wow- that's a pretty condemnatory passage!

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

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

don't we want to know the entire thought?

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

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

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

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

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

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

more on this later-

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

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

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

more on this later

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

12) Again, where is the difference?

SK- your question was answered before you asked it-

on march 17- 9:05-

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

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

but i will not further engage you.
peace

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Freddy Boy;
The previous post was addressed to you.

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

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

You say

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

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

Freddy or "Prove it" Muslim:

You have not answered the rhetorical question:

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

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

You also wrote, recently:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Prove it!

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

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

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

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

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

Deb Chatterjee: “Give up so easily Freddy ?”

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

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

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

Freddy the "Prove It" Muslim wrote to Observer:

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

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

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

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

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

Visit the link:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Observer: “Your…”

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

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

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

Observer: “Your cult…”

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

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

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

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

Observer: “aspiring to homosexuality.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Or did you not know that?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Freddy wrote:

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

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

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

Talking about facts here are some FYI.

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

Speaking of Logic sample the following:

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

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

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

there is, correlation.

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

regardless of our agreement or disagreement-

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

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

peace all

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

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

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

1) That’s not EVEN A QUESTION! LOL!

Do you even know what a rhetorical question is?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Victoria:

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

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

period-

omar- definition of treason-

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


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

try again-

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

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

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

"1) Prove it."

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

Now, I (rhetorically of course) assert that:

"Freddie is illegitimate by birth."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SK pouts: “adults do not use "LOL."”

10) Prove it.

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

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

1) Prove it.

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

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

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

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

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

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

4) I’m doing WHAT?

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

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

6) SK, are you anti-Islam?

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

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

Eboo you are really Genius.

arif

Your are a pathatic lier

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

9) Are you also anti-Christianity?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

what? wha? what was THAT???

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

youre a real hoot deb

RAISING A RUCKUS DEB?

you are positively too funny sometimes-

Freddy,

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

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

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

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

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

Victoria,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

and her entire article is based on HADEETH from WIKIPEDIA.

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

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

Islam & Freedom of Belief

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

Date
14/Feb/2007

Name of Counsellor
Ahmad Kutty

Topic
Apostasy



Answer


Wa `alaykum As-Salamu wa Rahmatullahi wa Barakatuh.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1) Prove it.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

4) I’m doing WHAT?

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

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

6) SK, are you anti-Islam?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

deb- btw- which century are you living in?

my husband should be "keeping me busy"?

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

keep up with the pace

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

see y'all in the funny papers

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

apostate-

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

if you want to present yourself as apostate-

why would it matter?
go for it-

but enough of personalities-

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

we can agree to disagree-

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

peace

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

Deb Chatterjee reveals a complete failure of rational thought.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

12) LOL! Prove it.

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

13) LOL! Prove it.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

17) Tested and vetted by WHO?

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

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

Deb Chatterjee: “He is not credible”

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

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

21) Prove it.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Victoria,

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

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

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

Won't you ever learn ?

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

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

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

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

this was a concept later penned by a mr mawdudi

i notice you use the term infidel also-

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

peace

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

their state of dress or undress.

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

against any gauge of quality-

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

each and every single abuse is criminal-

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

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

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

a few may be.

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

none of this behavior is acceptable, is it?

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

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

at least today, and here.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

it must come from an islamic governmental authority.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

sound familiar?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1) Prove it.

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

3) So what’s the difference between the vast majority of Christians who are not carrying out the “holy” mandate to kill those of other faiths, and THE VAST MAJORITY OF MUSLIMS WHO ARE NOT CARRYING OUT THE “HOLY” MANDATE TO KILL THOSE WHO LEAVE THE FAITH?

The Anonymous Coward blathers on: “Virtually every prominent, full-time critic or apostate of islam is under some form of death fatwa or physical threat. (In fact, I can't think of one that ISN'T).”

4) “Full-time?” Full-time critic of Islam? LOL! Who counts as a “full time” critic of Christianity? Even Christopher Hitchens spends only a relatively small amount of time dishing up contempt for Christianity.

5) But as for prominent, unrelenting haters of Islam who constantly lie about Muslims and ascribe guilt by association would include Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, Bill O’Reilly, Michael Savage, Neal Boortz... The list goes on and on ad nauseam. How many of them have suffered attacks and death? You FAIL again.

Anonymous Coward goes on:“When the texts, the scholars, the theological schools all teach THE SAME THING (i.e., death to apostates and blasphemers), the death fatwas and threats can no longer be foisted off as the work of 'isolated fanatics.'”

6) If you bothered to read anything that Mr. Patel presented, you would know that mainstream Islam does not carry out death to apostates just as mainstream Christianity does not carry out death to all people of other faiths, even though the Bible tells us to do so. You LOSE AGAIN!

Anonymous Coward: “Now, although it has absolutely no bearing or relevance to the arguments and facts that I've presented on this board”

7) Why should “bearing” or “relevance” stop you now? Your misinformation has no bearing on anything and is not relevant to much of anything.

Anonymous Coward: “I will answer your "Anti-Islam" question”

8) I didn’t ASK YOU an “Anti-Islam question” and I don’t care about your answer. I asked one other person (who has since fled in fear of facts) because it proved he was a liar. But I bet that now that you have promised to answer it that you will FAIL to say yes or no, and therefore you will FAIL TO ACTUALLY ANSWER IT! Let’s see...

Anonymous Coward: “As a personal religion, islam is not my cup of tea. As a political doctrine, however, I think it's one of the most brutal, retrograde, mysogynistic, fascistic ideologies ever devised by the mind of MAN (not God) “

9) ROTFL! You fail! You failed to say yes or no! We still don’t know the answer to the question of whether you are “Anti-Islam” or not! LOL! Why are all you guys such cowards?
10) Christianity can ALSO be taken out of context to appear equally “brutal, retrograde, mysogynistic , (SIC) fascistic ideologies ever devised by the mind of MAN (not God)” So are you anti-Christianity?

Anonymous Coward “And believe me, I've come by my opinion honestly.”

11) Only a dishonest person would feel compelled to plead with us to think they came by anything “honestly” and beg us to “believe” them. You speak the language of the con-man. It suits you.

12) I have pointed out multiple logical FAILINGS on your part. Your biggest logical failing is the one Patel pointed out in the article- you ascribe the actions of a tiny minority to the whole. Do you understand that this is a logical fallacy? Do you need more education in logic?

If you can’t explain why your “thinking” does not constitute a logical fallacy, by all means explain. Or else, slink away in utter defeat like Man Cat, “Omar”, Tantor, Spiderman2, etc...

Unlike debs odd cut and pastes, these are not a motley assortment of unrelated events in far flung spots on the globe with a large difference in their time-

these are concentrated and specific events, that are focused on a certain group in a pinpointed area and small time frame.

when there are so very many- the mind and heart glaze over-

and individual suffering is subsumed and easily ignored in the magnamity of information-

so we become desensitized to the events and gloss over them -

the many killings, brutal attacks, smashed in faces and spat upon, terrorized women are not some faceless other that are undeserving of recognition or justice-

these are all personal attacks fueled by hatred and vicious people-

their suffering is no less because they are muslims-
their terror no less real-

the subject of this blog is islamophobia-

while some would attempt to betray their humanity by painting an entire group as culpable for the actions of individuals, and therefore attmepting to justify or belittle violence done to them as unimportant, or worsely, somehow just-

is as reprehensible as the acts of the terrorists who put the population in a panic to give in to their fears and paranoias and hurt other human beings.

we are all individually responsible for our actions-

the purpose of these many posts was to give some small idea as to the validity of the claim that islamophobia is raging-

indeed, it is, and it is equally as outrageous and ugly as any other form of persecution and racism.
peace

Victoria wrote:

"Two-thirds of Muslims consider leaving UK."

Well, USA/Canada should refuse visa to them. Now wonder therte is a sudden surge of illegal immigrants to USA. Many Afghans have been apprehended crossing the border from Mexico with fake identities.

Victoria,

Here is something that would make you so ecstatic, that you would probably throw off your burkha and dance !

The author (Mr. Noah Feldman - hardly a Muslim name) argues in favor of Shariah and compares it with the "humane" (secular) European/British laws.

The full link (5-pages of text material) is:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/16/magazine/16Shariah-t.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

(The obvious difficulty is that the author is right if one goes by anecdotal evidences.)

In India Hindus were systematically butchered when the Arabs/Mughals ruled India. And, the outrage against Shariah is ideological. Why would one have to demonstrate outward respect a "religion" and not be able to openly condemn it ? Also, against a secular European law, you can argue. That is, one can argue against Caesar and hope to make a compelling case. But, very few mortals have seen God. [Even Prophet Muhamamd (PBUH) did not see Allah physically.] Thus, arguing on Allah's behalf, on practical mundane matters, is really like walking a slippery slope. It ultimately depends on what the mullah interprets that Allah likes or dislikes. And there is no way that can be refuted, because Shariah accords exalted status to the mufti or the qazi in legal matters.

BTW, Victoria, don't you not feel like give me a warm long-lasting hug, and entice me to convert to Islam, even if it takes you to be here in Swansea, England ? (Myself, Kafir-i-Azzam, is arguing on the behalf of Shariah !!?? Huh ? Isn't that great by itself ???)

Two-thirds of Muslims consider leaving UK
Hundreds of thousands of Muslims have thought about leaving Britain after the London bombings, according to a new Guardian/ICM poll. The figure illustrates how widespread fears are of an anti-Muslim backlash following the July 7 bombings which were carried out by British born suicide bombers.

The poll also shows that tens of thousands of Muslims have suffered from increased Islamophobia, with one in five saying they or a family member have faced abuse or hostility since the attacks.

Police have recorded more than 1,200 suspected Islamophobic incidents across the country ranging from verbal abuse to one murder in the past three weeks. The poll suggests the headline figure is a large underestimate.
Guardian, 26 July 2005

Take off hijab to avoid harm: UK Muslim scholar
A leading British Muslim scholar has said that Muslim women living in the European country, where Muslims have been suffering mounting abuse and harassment since the July 7 London attacks, can take off their hijab. "I have issued a fatwa that Muslim women in Britain have an Islamic right to take off their hijab at this point of time if attacked or fearing to be attacked," Dr. Zaki Badawi, the Dean of the Muslim College in London, told IslamOnline.net over the phone from the British capital.

Badawi said they have REGISTERED MORE THAN 1500 ASSAULTS against hijab-clad WOMEN during the past THRESS DAYS ONLY, in addition to a flood of threat letters.
28 July 2005

IRR > 2005 > August

The racist backlash to the London bombings continues
By IRR News Team
11 August 2005, 11:00am
Across the UK, serious violent racial attacks are still on the increase, as are incidents of persistent 'low-level' harrassment - of people, their homes, and businesses.

10 August 2005: A Muslim woman tells BBC Wales how a man abused her and her family and threw stones at her home; breaking a window. (BBC News 10.8.05)

10 August 2005: A worshipper at Al-Huda mosque in Mile End is nearly run over by a White man, outside the mosque, who drives his car straight at him. (Black Britain 11.8.05)

9 August 2005: Milton Keynes Race Equality Council reports that incidents of verbal abuse since the London bombings have nearly doubled compared to July last year. (Milton Keynes Citizen 9.8.05)

9 August 2005: Islington Gazette reports that racist graffiti, swastikas and BNP symbols have been daubed over parts of the Barbican estate in Finsbury. (Islington Gazette 10.8.05)

9 August 2005: An Iraqi man living in Cardiff is assaulted by four White men in Bridgend in the early hours. He is punched, kicked and hit over the head. The man suffers a broken shoulder and cuts to his head that require stitches in an attack the police are treating as racially motivated. (BBC News 10.8.05)

9 August 2005: Daily Mirror reports that a website for Anthony Walker, who was murdered in a racist attack in Huyton , Liverpool, has been targeted by racists who have posted messages mocking the death of 'another n****r'. (Daily Mirror 9.8.05)

8 August 2005: A young Kurdish asylum seeker is singled out as he walks along the street. He is abused - called a 'bomber' - and when a bystander intervenes and puts themselves between the two young men the White man throws a punch at the Kurdish man cutting his lip and causing bruising. (Report to IRR News)

8 August 2005: Positive Action in Housing (PAIH) reports that a Pakistani woman in Glasgow says she was kicked and thrown on the ground by two women who screamed racial slurs and spat on her; one of her attackers was an African American and the other a White woman. The same woman reports that she and her family have been abused in the street on a daily basis since the London bombing and her children have been attacked by other children. (Positive Action in Housing email 8.8.05)

8 August 2005: PAIH reports that a Muslim family living in Royston, Glasgow is moved from the area after a man waving a weapon launches a verbal attack on the family. (Positive Action in Housing email 8.8.05)

8 August 2005: BBC News reports that Dr Yashen Maharaj, 28, is racially abused and has stones thrown at him by two White youths as he walks to Medway Maritime hospital's doctors' residence in Gillingham. (BBC News 8.8.05)

7 August 2005: Four Asian men are injured after a 'disturbance' outside a pub in Glasgow's east end. Shezad Mohammed, 30, is in hospital in a serious condition; his brothers Ramzan Mohammed, 35 and Nasir Mohammed, 33, and their cousin Tariq Mahmood are treated in hospital and later released. Police have refused to say if the attack was racially motivated. On 8 August three men appeared before Glasgow sheriff court in relation to the attack. A report has been sent to the Procurator Fiscal about four other men in connection to the incident. (Glasgow Daily Record 9.8.05)

7 August 2005: Muslim women hold a 'peace walk' to encourage unity through Crawley after they are racially abused in the town. (BBC News 7.8.05)
6 August 2005: Hull City football fans taunt QPR fans with chants about the London bombings, police have to step in to keep fans apart and other leave the ground in disgust. A Hull City fan is arrested for racial chanting. The chairman of Hull City FC 'unreservedly' apologises for his fans' behaviour and promises a lifetime ban on those involved. (Daily Telegraph 9.8.05)

6 August 2005: A suspicious object outside a home in Armagh city sparks a security alert. Police say it was an 'elaborate hoax' and that that it is being treated as 'racial'. (Belfast Telegraph 8.8.05)

5 August 2005: Cab driver, Mafoud Nana, 52, is racially abused and attacked by two drunk men who leave his cab without paying in Sheffield; the men also attack the car. Nana is left bleeding and drives himself to hospital where he is treated. (Sheffield Star 8.8.05)

5 August 2005: A 37-year-old Asian man is racially abused by a gang of four men, two of whom then cross the street to punch him in Portsmouth. He suffers a cracked cheekbone and bruising to his face. (BBC News 8.8.05)
5 August 2005: King's Cross Racial Diversity Project reports that racist attacks, including widespread racist abuse and incidents where women have had their headscarves pulled off, have risen across the Kings Cross, Somers Town and Euston area. (Hamstead & Highgate Express 5.8.05)

4 August 2005: Angie Ncube, 28, a Zimbabwean woman is stabbed in the eye and leg after disturbing a burglar in her home in Dingle, Liverpool. Her assailant racially abuses her and she jumps from a first floor window to escape him. Police arrest Gary Connolly on suspicion of assault, aggravated burglary and racially aggravated offences. (BBC News 6.8.05 and BBC News 7.8.05)

4 August 2005: Police arrest an 18-year-old man on suspicion of violent disorder in connection with a racist attack on an 18-year-old Iraq man in Portsmouth; he is bailed until 4 October. A 23-year-old man arrested soon after the attack is also bailed until 4 October. (BBC News 4.8.05)

4 August 2005: Malcolm Turner, 65, appears before South Devon magistrates at Totnes charged with racially or religiously aggravated harassment and threatening behaviour towards Arwa Jaber in Newton Abbot on 23 July. (Torquay Herald Express 4.8.05)

3 August 2005: Thames Valley police report a 40 per cent increase in racially aggravated crime in July compared to the same period last year. (Reading Evening Post 4.8.05)

1 August 2005: An Asian mother, 30, with her two young daughters, is racially abused, kicked and spat at by a White couple in Clacton, Essex. The man in his late 30s makes specific reference to the London bombings. (East Anglian Daily Times 4.8.05)

1 August 2005: Imran Bhatti, 25, is abused as he walks along the street in Norwich; he is accused of being a 'bomber'. (His brother, Fiaz had lost his fiancée Benedetta Ciaccia in the London bombings.) (Norwich Evening News 5.8.05 and Eastern Daily Press 6.8.05)

30 July 2005: The take-away owned by Liakoth Ali Khondoker in Carlisle (see below 29.7.05) has all its windows smashed, their delivery man's van windows are smashed. Cumbria News & Star also reports that NF stickers have appeared in the area in recent weeks. (Cumbria News & Star 3.8.05)

30 July 2005: A Black parking attendant is racially abused and threatened with a machete by a man in a van in Redhill, Surrey. A 24-year-old man from Smallfield is arrested on suspicion of racially aggravated harassment and later released on bail. (BBC News 9.8.05)

29 July 2005: Four Asian teenagers aged 16-19, are cornered in Sutton Common recreation ground by White youth who blamed for them for the London bombings and then attack them. One victim is left with a broken jaw, another needs six stitches to his lip and the others are bruised and cut after being punched and kicked. (Sutton Guardian 9.8.05)

29 July 2005: A Bangladeshi man, Liakoth Ali Khondoker, is racially abused by a gang of men in a car as he walks to a mosque in Carlisle. (Cumbria News & Star 3.8.05)

29 July 2005: Staff at the Mehraaj takeaway in South Elmsall are preparing to close when a White man enters the shop and demands food. He racially abuses and punches the owner. The man then drives his van at the shop front; no one is injured. (Wakefield Today 5.8.05)

22 July 2005: A car owned by a Pakistani man parked outside his home in Tadworth, Surrey, has every panel on it dented by two White men who also smash lights on the car. The wing mirrors are ripped off the next night and on 27 July the wing mirrors are smashed and attempts are made to rip them off again. Police are treating the attack as racially motivated. (BBC News 9.8.05)
22 July 2005: Mustafa, 35, reports that he was surrounded by a gang of six men in Regents Park who racially abused him and spat at him. (Hamstead & Highgate Express - Wood & Vale edition 5.8.05)

18 July 2005: A fire breaks out at Hertford Road Community centre in Stevenage; Andrew Spicer, 18, is later charged with racially aggravated criminal damage. (Stevenage Herald 11.8.05)

16 July 2005: Two men at a hotel insist on searching the luggage of an Asian man waiting for a taxi in the early morning at his hotel in Llandudno, in case he is carrying explosives. Gareth Lukey, 31, has been charged with racially aggravated threatening behaviour. (Wales Daily Post 11.8.05)

8 July 2005: Worshippers outside Carlisle's Brook Street mosque are racially abused. (Cumbria News & Star 4.8.05)

8 July 2005: The staff at Dial A Curry in Penrith are abused by 34-year-old Wayne Robley who also smashes a window. He tells staff that Al Qaida should have bombed the takeaway. On 3 August Robley appears at Eden magistrates court and pleads guilty to using threatening behaviour and language and criminal damage. Sentencing is adjourned for reports. (Cumberland News 5.8.05)

deb isn't satisfied with the violence in his own country towards muslims-
he wants to spread his own hatred to america too-
sorry deb- we like it here the way it is-

IRR > 2005 > July

The anti-Muslim backlash begins
By IRR News Team
14 July 2005, 2:00pm

In the hours after the bombings in London, the backlash began. Innocent people, as in the bombings, were targeted in what appear to be racially motivated attacks
.
13 July 2005: Guardian reports that a schoolboy has been attacked in the West Country. (Guardian 13.7.05)

12 July 2005: A 16-year-old Asian boy suffers head and facial injuries after an unprovoked attack by a White man. The young boy was walking with an 11-year-old friend on Leith Walk in Edinburgh when they were racially abused and then attacked by the White man. (BBC News 13.7.05)

12 July 2005: Independent reports that there have been acts of arson and criminal damage in mosques in Leeds and Telford.

12 July 2005: Guardian reports that the BNP has produced a leaflet for a by-election in Barking, east London, with images from the London bombings and the words 'maybe now it's time to start listening to the BNP'. (Guardian 12.7.05)

12 July 2005: Glasgow Herald reports that the door of the Pakistan consulate in Bradford was damaged after an arson attack; a 27-year-old man was later arrested. (Glasgow Herald 12.7.05)

12 July 2005: BBC News reports that Bournemouth Islamic centre has received three death threats since the London bombings. (BBC News 12.7.05)

11 July 2005: The home of a Muslim family is torched in a suspected arson attack in Torquay. The family are not at home when the fire is started.

10 July 2005: 48-year-old Kamal Raza Butt, a Pakistani man who is visiting friends and family in Nottingham, is set upon by a gang of White youths. He is allegedly called 'Taliban' and then punched to the ground and dies later in hospital. Two 16-year-old youths are charged with his manslaughter, seven others are baailed pending further inquiries. (BBC News 13.7.05)

10 July 2005: The Islamic Centre in Rose Lane, Norwich, is vandalised in a racist attack; four windows are damaged. Police arrest two women at the scene, aged 23 and 26, who are later released on bail. (Eastern Daily Press 13.7.05)

10 July 2005: A 20-year-old Muslim student from the United Arab Emirates is racially abused, chased and threatened with a knife by three men in the Charminster area of Bournemouth. (BBC News 13.7.05)

9 July 2005: Independent reports that a fire at a Sikh temple in Armley, Leeds, is being treated as suspicious; Kent police are investigating two assaults on Muslim men in Dartford.

9 July 2005: Six windows are broken at a mosque in Easton, Bristol. (Muslim News 10.7.05)
9 July 2005: Abdul Munim is rescued by fire-fighters from the Shajala mosque in Birkenhead, Liverpool, after two White men pour petrol through its letter box and set it alight at 12.35am. The mosque is badly damaged. A 27-year-old man is arrested. (Independent 12.7.05)

9 July 2005: The windows at Mazhirul Uloom Educational and Cultural Institution, east London, are smashed. (Muslim News 10.7.05)

8 July 2005: Al Madina Jamia mosque in Leeds is petrol bombed at 2am; it causes minor damage and no one is hurt. (Muslim News 10.7.05)

8 July 2005: Stones are thrown at a mosque in Totterdown, Bristol. No damage is caused and no one is hurt. (Muslim News 10.7.05)

7 July 2005: Two bottles containing an accelerant are thrown through the windows of a Sikh temple in Belvedere, Kent. The bottles do not ignite. Police arrest five men in the Bexleyheath area two days after the attack. (Greenwich Mercury 13.7.05 )

7 July 2005: An Asian woman from Hayes, Middlesex, reports an attempted arson attack after she finds petrol has been poured through her door. (Independent 11.7.05)

7 July 2005: An Asian family from Southall report an attempted arson attack. (Independent 11.7.05)

7 July 2005: Sha Jalal mosque and the Pakistan Community and Cultural Centre in Edinburgh are daubed in racist graffiti. (Edinburgh Evening News 13.7.05)

DEB- you want to import your brand of hatred and paranoia to america?
worry about your own adopted country-britian-

LONDON, August 10, 2005 (IslamOnline.net & News Agencies) – Racist attacks against British Muslims after the July 7 terrorist bombings are going on non-stop across the UK with a growing number of families feeling they are increasingly vulnerable to racists who actually know nothing about Islam.

The case of a Muslim woman in Cardiff, capital of Wales, was the latest in a string of such attacks that soared 600 percent in the weeks after the London bombings. Many others often go unreported.

“We were sitting in our living room when we heard this man shouting outside our door,” the woman, who requested anonymity, told the BBC Wednesday, August 10.

She went on: “He was throwing things, picking up stones from our front garden and throwing them at our door and our window. And then he smashed a section of our double-glazed window.

“He was shouting [a series of abusive names]. It was quite scary, because we didn't know what he had. My niece was sleeping in the front room. We don't feel secure at all. When you are in the house you are always fearing whether someone will come in or try and force their way in.

“They can do anything, they can put things in our letter boxes. And when you go out, you are always paranoid, always looking around and people do give you funny looks anyway, especially since the London bombings,” she added.

Muslims in Wales face rising levels of violence and intimidation after the London bombings, the BBC said.

The North Wales Police area had seen the largest rise in racial incidents with 64 reported cases from 7-28 July compared to 20 in the same period in 2004.

In July, animal parts and a racist letter were left at a Cardiff mosque.

Fears of reprisals have been running high among British Muslims in the UK generally after the attacks.

Nearly half a million Muslims contemplated leaving Britain after the terrorist attacks, with one in five saying they or a family member have faced abuse or hostility since the attacks, according to a Guardian/ICM poll published on July 26.

Needs of Victims

Paul Fawcett, from Victim Support NGO, said it was necessary to look at how best to respond to the needs of victims of hate crimes.

“I think we need to look at in more detail because the danger is giving people a one size fits all policy,” he told the BBC.

“No two people are affected the same by an incident.”

Metropolitan Police Assistant Commissioner Tarique Ghaffur has said the rise in attacks against Muslims “can lead to these communities completely retreating and not engaging at a time when we want their engagement and support.”

There are some 1.8 million Muslims in Britain, many with roots in South Asia. The overwhelming majority of them are moderate in their views and have condemned the attacks.

Politicians, scholars and intellectuals across Europe, however, stressed that terror had no religion.

Austrian President Heinz Fischer said in July that Islam was not an enemy of the West, warning of offensive reactions to Muslim minorities across Europe over the London blasts.

The Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, has further warned against making Muslims “scapegoats” for the bombings.

UN Secretary General Kofi Annan had also lashed out at the “gulf of ignorance” which stereotyped Islam and fanned Islamophobia.

Racial violence erupts in Sydney

There were angry confrontations between police and youths
Thousands of young white men have converged on Cronulla Beach in Sydney, Australia, and attacked people of Arabic and Mediterranean background.
Police and ambulance officers were pelted with beer cans and bottles, and an ambulance was attacked.

Several people were injured in the alcohol-fuelled violence, and at least 12 were arrested.

The authorities have condemned the outbreak of racial violence as "not the Australian way".

By Sunday night, the violence appeared to have spread to a second beach suburb, Maroubra, where men armed with baseball bats reportedly attacked cars.

And police said a man was stabbed in the back in south Sydney in what media reports said appeared to be further racial violence.

The clashes follow assaults a week ago on two volunteer lifeguards at the southern Sydney beach, reportedly by youths of Arabic and Mediterranean backgrounds.

Mobile phone text messages began circulating after the beatings, encouraging people to retaliate on Sunday and employing racial slurs.

'Not Australian'

Police Assistant Commissioner Mark Goodwin said innocent people had been targeted.

"The behaviour that's been seen down here at Cronulla today is nothing short of disgusting and disgraceful," he said. "It's certainly not the Australian way."

Sections of the media took this issue far too far, and one can only surmise that the way these issues was dealt with on talk-back radio amounts to incitement

Keysar Trad, Islamic Friendship Association of Australia

The area's Mayor, Kevin Schreiber, accused the mob of looking for a fight.

"As mayor and as a resident of Cronulla, I'm devastated by what has occurred on our beachfront," he said.

"It is the actions of a few, but let's not kid ourselves that people didn't come from far and wide to participate."

The president of the Islamic Friendship Association of Australia, Keysar Trad, accused the media of whipping up racial tension.

"Sections of the media took this issue far too far, and one can only surmise that the way these issues was dealt with on talk-back radio amounts to incitement," he said.

Sydney has many beaches, but Cronulla is one of a few that is easily accessible by train and is often visited by young people from the poorer suburbs of western and southern Sydney.

Area residents accuse the visitors of being disrespectful and of sometimes intimidating other beach-goers.

Freddy,

John McCain should support (not that he certainly will) a ban on Muslim immigration to USA. It would be a sure way to prevent home-grown radical Islamists from attempting to wreck havoc inside USA. McCain is the only candidate who has specifically stated the fear of radical Islam on the Sean Hannity show, meaning he understands the threat. Increased Muslim population in USA means an eventual recognition of the Shariah laws, and a total demise of the First Amendment.

Other candidatdes (Obama and Clinton) subscribe to left-wing ideologies, and may not be that forceful with the problem. While trying to focus on the economy and other socialist measures, they would most likely ignore the perils of radical Islam, and hence help precipitate a crisis. Obama is surely not tested/vetted. He is not credible.

Victoria's secret (and Victoria is a converted Muslim) is to milk sympathy. Even if we admit that Islamophobia is on the rise, there are legitimate reasons in USA for such phenomenon; Islam has led by defining bloody borders. Victoria and persons like you (Freddy) like to negate such shameful and threatening history of Islam and present a sanitized version to the gullible Americans. Its compulsive obfuscation.

Nice try, but no cigar !

P.S.: Having a ban on Muslim immigration to USA would certainly reduce the number of hate crimes against Muslims, which Victoria reports here. Victoria, what's the name of the 66 year old CAIR [Council of American Islamic Relations] worker ?

Islamophobia Watch
— Home
About Us
Islamophobia: A Definition
Search

Categories
Anti Muslim Violence (187)
Australia (124)
Austria (17)
Belgium (23)
Canada (118)
Culture (2)
Daniel Pipes (94)
Danish Cartoons (23)
Denmark (59)
Far Right Racists (451)
France (137)
Germany (51)
Hijab (484)
Historical (1)
Institutional (85)
Ireland (8)
Italy (45)
Left Wing (213)
Liberal (265)
London Bombings (209)
March for Free Expression (23)
Multiculturalism (243)
Netherlands (104)
New Zealand (8)
Norway (5)
Oriana Fallaci (16)
Resisting Islamophobia (1861)
Right Wing (1642)
Scotland (149)
Secular (248)
Spain (19)
State Oppression (568)
Sweden (9)
Switzerland (9)
Tariq Ramadan (136)
UK (3011)
USA (1222)
Wales (10)
Women (319)
Yusuf al-Qaradawi (217)
Archives
Weekly Archive
Monthly Archive
Resources
Links
Images
Files Section
Donate
If you want to contribute to the running costs of Islamophobia Watch you can do so via Paypal

News Feeds

Visitor Locations

Login
squarespace login
ISLAMOPHOBIA: Anti Muslim Racism
Entries in Anti Muslim Violence (187)
US Muslims say anti-Islam bias on rise
An American Muslim rights group says the number of civil rights complaints made by Muslims in the US has increased by 30 per cent. The Council on American-Islamic Relations' (CAIR) said in the report published on Monday that there were 1,972 cases of anti-Muslim violence, discrimination and harassment in 2005, the highest number of civil rights cases ever recorded in the Washington-based group's annual report.

The Struggle for Equality study said that was a 29.6 per cent increase from 2004's 1,522 cases. Nine states accounted for almost 79 per cent of all civil rights complaints made to the civil rights group. California and Illinois recorded the highest number of all complaints with 19 and 13 per cent respectively, and New Jersey had the lowest with 4 per cent.

Arsalan Iftikhar, CAIR’s legal director, blamed the media. "We believe the biggest factor contributing to anti-Muslim feeling and the resulting acts of bias is the growth in Islamophobic rhetoric that has flooded the internet and talk radio in the post-9/11 era," he said. "By all accounts, racial profiling, harassment, and discrimination of Muslim and Arab Americans have increased since 9/11."

Sheila Jackson Lee, a Texas congresswomen, said in response to the study: "We cannot allow xenophobia, prejudice, and bigotry to prevail, and eviscerate the constitution we are bound to protect."

Muslim beating in New York

Five Orthodox Jewish teens have been slammed with hate-crime charges in the brutal beating of a Pakistani immigrant in Brooklyn. "They hit me in the face with brass knuckles four or five times while somebody held my hands," said the victim, Shahid Amber, 24, a gas station attendant. "Then they all beat and kicked me. They were screaming 'Muslim m-f-r. You m-f-g Muslim terrorists. Go back to your country'."

Surge in anti-Muslim racism in London schools
Racist incidents in London schools have increased by 26 per cent in just one year. Attacks on Muslim children have increased since the 7/7 bombings and the debate about the wearing of the veil has prompted further incidents. The figures include verbal and written insults, physical attacks and spreading racist material over the internet.

Professor Heidi Mirza, an expert in equality studies at the Institute of Education, University of London, said: "Islamophobia is a huge problem since the July bombings with Muslim children becoming the focus of abuse and Jack Straw's comments about women wearing a veil, which is just guarded racism, has led to Muslim girls being taunted in the playground."

Compare that to hourly killings and massacres by Muslims. I rather be a victim of discrimination rather than Islam.

Muslim worker threatened in South Carolina

WASHINGTON, D.C. – A prominent national Islamic civil rights and advocacy group today called on the FBI to investigate alleged threats against a Muslim worker in South Carolina as a possible hate crime.

The 66-year-old Muslim worker told the Washington-based Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) that fellow employees at a BMW Manufacturing Co. plant in Spartanburg, S.C., have repeatedly made Islamophobic comments such as, 1) "Muslims are no good. They should all be killed," and 2) "We will f**k up your family, we'll kill you all." Other comments allegedly disparaged Islamic attire and suggested that Muslim women be raped. According to the Muslim employee, one of the abusive co-workers confronted him in a facility restroom on March 31st and put a box-cutter to his throat, saying: "I'll slice your throat and kill you."

The Muslim employee says company officials did not take appropriate action against the assailant when the incident was first reported.

ASYLUM SEEKER AND BABY SEXUALLY ATTACKED IN GLASGOW

An Algerian woman and her one-year-old baby were sexually assaulted in broad daylight in Glasgow in a racially aggravated attack. The 33-year-old woman was pushing her son in his pram through the Yoker area of the city when a group of young men threw stones at them and kicked the woman. One man then exposed himself, indecently assaulted the woman and attempted to perform an indecent act on the one-year-old boy.

The woman, who cannot be identified, had her headscarf torn from her head. She escaped by snatching her son from his pram and running away, leaving behind the pram, headscarf and a baby's bottle.

The Herald

LONG ISLAND WOMAN VICTM OF HATE CRIME

Zohreh Assemi, 50, owns Givan Nail and Skin Center, a high-end nail salon in a cluster of chic stores near Birch Hill Road called The Plaza. At 6:30 a.m. Saturday, Assemi was opening her second-floor shop when two men burst out of a bathroom across the hall. They grabbed her from behind, put a gun to her head and forced her inside, she said. There, they slammed her head on a counter, shoved a towel in her mouth, smashed her hand with a hammer and sliced her face, neck, back and chest with a knife and a box cutter, she said. "They were cursing, ' -- -- Muslim, leave Locust Valley, leave The Plaza. Go back to the place you came from,'" she recalled. They scrawled anti-Muslim messages on her mirrors and tore the place up, she said.

The Council on American-Islamic Relations called on the FBI Sunday to investigate the beating as a hate crime. "The bias attack on Zohreh Assemi is an indicator of the rising trend of Islamophobia that is growing in certain segments of American society and is promoted by a small minority of Islamophobes," said Aliya Latif, civil rights director of the group's New York chapter. Last year, the group saw a 9 percent increase in anti-Muslim hate crimes across the country, she said.

Newsday

My, my. More whining from Mr. Patel about how the whole problem between Islam and pretty well the whole rest of the world is that the rest of the world just does not understand Islam.

I’m incredulous. There is overwhelming irony here, and Mr. Patel should know the source of that irony, but I’d sure it will fly right past him. I have on several occasions posted on these very pages the fact that Mr. Patel never deigns to respond after an original comment by him elicits hundreds of responses. I have pointed out that any attempt at dialogue with Mr. Patel quickly becomes a dialogue of the deaf. We all might as well be talking to a brick wall if we try to get a response from Mr. Patel.

Now, this same Mr. Patel complains that no one is listening!! (I know exclamation points are bad form, but I can think of no better case for their appropriate use). All those moderate Muslims express their moderate opinions—and Americans do not listen!! Proof positive that Americans are not making any attempt to understand Islam!!

Just like Mr. Patel never listens or responds to the comments of his readers!! Proof positive, I guess, that Mr. Patel is not making any attempt to understand Americans and how they comprehend Islam!!

As to the substance of Mr. Patel’s latest outpouring. What another pluperfect example of the horse manure that he and others pour forth trying to defend Islam. What another pathetic attempt to employ the abstract, meaningless words of multiculturalism to present his case. How insulting to me, as an American, to try to draw parallels between my culture and Islamic culture to make his point. Another pluperfect example of a self-justifying argument: People who criticize Islam are revealing their ignorance of Islam. Therefore, any critics of Islam can be dismissed as simply revealing their ignorance. I give Mr. Patel credit for one thing: he is skillful is using this particular rhetorical flim flam. But in the end, that’s the essence of his entire piece: pure flim flam.

For the record, let me join those who have already introduced cold reality into this nonsense. No one needs to engage in meaningless, abstract arguments about Islam and Christianity. No one needs to come up with meaningless comparisons between the Bible and the Koran.
One only needs to look at the empirical facts that are right before our eyes. Look, on the one hand, and the countries and societies produced under predominantly Christian populations in the West. Look, on the other hand, at the countries and societies produced under Islam. Judge them by:

The freedoms allowed their citizens
Religious freedom
Freedom of expression
Level of democracy
Respect for basic human rights
The ones led by elected leaders, and the fossil regimes still led in the 21st Century by kings, princes, princesses, sultans, sheikhs, emirs, etc., etc.
Status of women.
The ones that grant full legal equality to women
Gross Domestic Product--and don't cheat by bringing up the irrelevant matter of the small minority of lucky oil-producing Muslim states
The ones with no modern economy at all
Unemployment
Level of education--with a focus on the relative level of men and women
Number of books published annually
Ditto for scholarly works at universities
Ditto for scientific treatises recognized as valid by the international scientific community
University graduates in other than religious studies
Ditto high school graduates

Above all, look at how ordinary people have voted with their feet about which culture is superior. Look at the Muslims pouring into the West, and look at the movement in the opposite direction.

Need I go on? Perhaps if Mr. Patel tried dialogue, instead of only listening to the sound of his own voice, some of this would become clear to him. But I won’t hold my breath.

Friends of The NATION OF ISLAM U.S.A.

"ON-WOMANS-WRONGS & SHAME, not RIGHTS!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=peFQWuk4nuo&feature=related

UNDERCOVER MOSQUE! THOUSANDS INVOLVED!

Abolish islam in Sweet Sweet U.S.A.!

Remove Tax free Status & Building permitts etc..!

Omar:

Apostate had linked the Birmingham Mosque 'Interfaith Dialogue' on this thread on March 16 at 9:18 AM. Here it is again:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NlV-6-FihFg

< ?: +) / :
[joz][evz][.us]

[FREE][PRiZEZ for Home on Weekends via a RAFFELL] and a Weekend BLOG , coming Soon Soon Very Soon!

Please visit from time to time. Things are getting better, never worse! There will a GOOD PHiLOSOPHY {NEW} {SONG} coming fron O.U.R. OLD songs too! for ALL the world to enjoy each week too!

And No More Deleating my or OUR ESSACY's!

Genuine FREEDOM OF THOUGHT IS HERE!

Huggs n Kisses to ALL!

J
O
Z
E
V
Z

.
U
S

J
O
Z
E
V
Z

.
U
S

OBAMA has declared that he is practising Christian.Obama has made it very clear that the reason he would like to pull out troops is to save the sinking U S economy.Remaining in Iraq will only serve the purpose of MNCs and not ordinary Americans.Let nobody try to instill fear in ordinary Americans by saying OBAMA is a Muslim.If anybody wants to fight Islam and Muslims let them send their own troops

Why does the anti-Islam crowd keep resorting to DISTORTIONS, LOGICAL FALLACIES and OUTRIGHT LIES?

Now that Omar and Man Cat have fled from the facts, only a few like Deb Chatterjee remains to spew the right-wing propaganda.

Deb Chatterjee: “one must vote against Barack Obama, though he is exceptionally well-educated and qualified as a candidate. But, I am almost sure that he won't support any legislation that would specifically prevent Muslims from cominng into USA”

What a stinking pile of Limbaugh limburger.

Deb Chatterjee, I challenge you to PROVE that John McCain will support any such BIGOTED legislation that would BAN Muslims from entering the US.

If you FAIL to present such evidence, you admit you are a FRAUD!

If you have ZERO EVIDENCE, you are just another far-right SPAMBOT abusing people’s fears of terrorism as pretext to hurt the “exceptionally” qualified Barak Obama.

Shame on you.

Hmmmm. I thought someone posted a link to the Channel 4 Dispatches "Undercover Mosque" youtube video . . . and now it seems to be missing. The video contains undercover footage from one of the main mosques in Birmingham, UK. In public, the mosques claims to be dedicated to "Interfaith dialogue" and understanding, but in private, it's another story altogether. As this kind of behavior is central to the question posed by Mr. Patel, i.e., "Why Islamophobia?," I think it needs to be linked and viewed in this thread.

JJ,

Your village has called so much that I am getting annoyed. Their idiot is missing - please go home.

Apostate,

You are right in your remarks to Jihadist. I think USA should redefine its political connections to the Islamic world. Like it or not the vaccum created by the demise of the Communist regime (Soviet Union) has been soon overtaken by Islam.

Anyway, banning Muslims from coming to USA is a safer method. That way, USA need not flex its muscle. Flexing muscles is good, but needs to be done at appropriate times.

The growth of (radical) Islam in UK should indeed serve as a stark reminder that if left unchecked, Islam can create havoc. Muslims form about 5% of the UK population. But the social havoc they are creating in UK is significant. If we allow Islam to flourish in West, we shall soon see the end of the (sinful) Western civilizatioin as we know it. The purpose of USA's existence is the 1st Amendment of the US Constitution (Freedom of Speech). If that goes away, eventually with the rise of Islam as a political alternative, then obviously USA as we know mit shall cease to exist. Is that what we would like to see happen ? If not, how do you prevent the strength of Islam inside USA from growing in leaps and bounds ? The only controversial (?) but "bloodless" way is to clamp down on immigration process. For this, the USA need not bow down before United Nations and other NATO countries. I don't see anything wrong with that at all.

Probably because of this reason, one must vote against Barack Obama, though he is exceptionally well-educated and qualified as a candidate. But, I am almost sure that he won't support any legislation that would specifically prevent Muslims from cominng into USA, given his extreme leftist position on most matters of common interest.

As I said way back circa #50, Patel's premise is false. To see, again, what I mean, consider the following:

"I expanded on many of the points that I had made in the initial conversation with Marty Moss-Coane – that the dominant ethos of Islam tends towards compassion and pluralism, values that Islam shares with other traditions."

This claim regarding compassion and pluralism is wrong--and I mean utterly, completely wrong. Wrong on stilts. For Patel to support his claim, he cannot point to peaceable Muslims, for this is not the issue. The issue is "the dominant ethos of Islam," and that requires assessment of the doctrine itself. That doctrine is patently in opposition to pluralism, and the compassion involved is not universal by any stretch. As I noted way back when, the doctrine can be found in the Koran, the traditions of the "Prophet," i.e., the Hadith (as collected by Abu Muslim and Bukhari), and the life of Mo (the Sira). The only possible quibble with my statement would be that Shiites would have somewhat different collections of ahadith.

The nature of pluralism is tolerance of those with different beliefs. Islam doesn't even tolerate pluralism within Islamic doctrine. When I can point to specific texts as definitive and complete without fear of contradiction, despite over 1000 years of Islamic history, that means simply that Islamic doctrine is fixed. A fixed doctrine is inherently not pluralistic. Nothing comparable can be said of Judaism or Christianity. The ONLY challenge to Sunni orthodoxy is Shia orthodoxy, and the difference between them is tiny. And the Shiites are only a tiny minority of all Muslims. THAT is the extent of pluralism in the House of Islam. There isn't even pluralism in the "Prophets" of Islam: there is only one who brings the final "Truth." According to doctrine, there will be no others.

Nor is there pluralism with respect to the non-Muslim world, called by Islam the House of War. As I recall, Mo was involved in a real war every ***12 days*** or so after consolidating power in Medina. This is part of doctrine (part of his life and Islamic traditions), and it shows no tolerance for differing views. Not only this, but it shows that differences will and should be obliterated by war.

The only "compassion" is for fellow Muslims, and this exists only so long as they are doctrinally correct. Compassion is never to be shown to the Infidel.

Patel's laughable claim about pluralism and compassion should be ridiculed. No other major religion so emphatically and for all time rejects these concepts. I am happy to debate Patel here regarding doctrine. He cannot win, though. We can disagree about how Muslims at any given time actually feel or what they do, but there can be no doubt regarding the politically relevant aspects of Islam.

MY QUESTION to Patel has nothing to do with those two that he complains about. I ask simply whether he is ignorant of Islamic doctrine (and therefore should not be writing or speaking about it) or is not ignorant and is lying to us all (in which case we should see him as an excellent example of a non-moderate Muslim).

Jihadist:
You say:
"From what I've been reading in On Faith threads, some Americans are really against Muslim migrants going to the USA for any reason in case they are the fifth column to implement Shariah and start a global caliphate."

Do you blame them? Listen to their mosque sermons in Washington, London and Rome. Those Mohammedan misfits can’t bear to see a civilized and prosperous cultures. They want to desertify the West as they had done in some parts of the East. The famous 15th Century Arab historian Ibn Khaldoun was right when he said “The Arabs /Muslims ravage the lands they dwell in.” We can see that for ourselves. Everybody in the world tends forward except that cult which strongly tends toward the past. No wonder why the only common bond between predominantly Muslim societies, other than off course their religion, is their abject poverty,superstitions and ignorance despite the vast mineral wealth that nature bestowed upon many of their states.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NlV-6-FihFg

All wars are ultimately about the control and distribution of natural and human resources.

A countries wealth and personal freedoms doesn't give it the right to prop up foreign governments that continue to abuse it's people and to invade countries that don't fall in line with it's agenda. This policy will radicalize a certain segment of a native population to do anything to loosen this grip. These radicalized people will use the religion of it's people, as the wealthy country will use it's religion, to justify the actions taken by it's soldiers.

OBSERVER:

You mentioned with regards to Arab/Muslim illegal client states under illegal subcontractors that:

“The present day Arab states were provinces in the Ottoman Empire. The British and French who liberated them from the Turkish predatory and primitive colonialisms also helped them lay down the institutions of a modern state. They also granted sovereignty to the different provinces. If the Arabs wanted to remain separated into more than twenty countries that is not the European’s fault; the Arabs can unite any moment if they have the will. It is always somebody’s else’s fault; western powers , Arab leaders, Zionist spies etc. and never their fault. Maybe it is this type of irresponsible mentality that keeps them regressing into the past as the rest of the world moves forward”

Those were provinces of Caliphate since earliest period of Caliphate and enemies of Prophet Jesus (Peace be upon him) i.e. Romans divided that Caliphate into illegal clients States and stationing their armed forces, Air forces and naval forces with all kind of WMD.

When will those Roman leave the land of Caliphate including Iraq and Persian Gulf permanently never to return again and compensate in trillions of dollars for the destruction and killing of millions including present destruction and killing in Iraq?

Rest is here in:

http://books.google.com/books?id=FoMZ9tpMBXsC&dq=the+election+of+%22caliph+khalifah%22+and+world+peace&pg=PP1&ots=qkJHFYv9Pc&sig=TR2poSsEtbMvXsFu83vgjA9AjJ4&hl=en&prev=http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=The+Election+of+Caliph/Khalifah+and+World+Peace&btnG=Search&sa=X&oi=print&ct=title&cad=one-book-with-thumbnail#PPA4,M1

Oh there "Reality Challenged" and Obfuscating Jihadist,

What is there to refute? Your version of history? Not necessary as it reeks of the typical anti-American venom that has and is constantly promulgated by the dark forces of OBL.

Back to the major issue:

Islam is severely flawed. You know the flaws. You know how to correct them and we await you to lead a deflawed Islam into the modern world!!!

Hello Concerned the Christian Now Liberated:)

Yo pussycat! How goes the Crossanization of Americans? Not so good,eh?

You : And I continue to laugh as again you observe history in the eyes of Mohammed, still wishing for that global conversion to the flaws of one illiterate, warmongering, greed and lust driven, hallucinating Arab.

Moi : Ahhhh....not even refuting, eh?

Well, we will have to wait for your fellow Americans to come in then - Gerry or Jimbo et al or anyone else.

You : IT AIN'T GOING TO HAPPEN!!!! THE FLAWS ARE TOO GLARING EXCEPT IN YOUR EYES.

Moi : Getting hysterical, xenophobic, Islamophobic and other phobics now and screaming at the top of your lungs? On the present global political, economic and social realities?

Moi : Does it hurt?

You : Only when I laugh.

Take it easy pussycat.

Oh there "Reality Challenged" and Obfuscating Jihadist,

And I continue to laugh as again you observe history in the eyes of Mohammed, still wishing for that global conversion to the flaws of one illiterate, warmongering, greed and lust driven, hallucinating Arab.

IT AIN'T GOING TO HAPPEN!!!! THE FLAWS ARE TOO GLARING EXCEPT IN YOUR EYES.

Concerned the Christian Now Liberated :)

Yo pussycat!.

You : I am laughing hysterically as I read your last commentary as you mesh facts and fiction about the USA.

Moi : I am counting on that you would. For you do live in a seperate reality, a seperate universe from mine.

You : By the way, you forgot to note that US military-industrial complex saved the Muslim rosy arses of Kuwait, Kosovo and Bosnia.

Moi : The Europeans should be taken to task for not doing anything about genocides in their own backyard until Clinton comes in and pushed them. Germany was then only "protective" of Croatia, and Russia of Serbia. Don't forget Muslim states were asked to dole out hundreds of millions to clean up the mess call "reconstruction"

You : And I doubt very much if Hitler or the "Empirer" of Japan would bother to pay for Muslim oil. And who defeated the Nazis and Japs??

Moi : The irony of Hitler and Japan is that, World War II weakened Europe, emboldened some colonised countries to seek independenc from their colonial masters such as Britain and France.

The Japanese taught Asians that Europeans are not invincible and can't be defeated. As far as I know now, Germany and Japan are paying for Muslim oil without having to go to war for it. They bought it in the open market. Not to invade countries to secure the realm for Israel's security or oil for US economy.

Whoever said US has not profited from World War II? The recession finally broke with UK orders for supplies and war related materials, including weapons. And the UK paid back billions to the US for that.

The Marshall Plan for Europe is generous. But, that was a historical generousity unlikely to be repeated.

The world has changed pussycat. Germany and Japan don't need to have a military-industrial complex to keep their economies humming. They are no more mongerers of wars, or merchants of deaths selling weapons here, there and everywhere.

Hello Maverick,

Saw how much profits made by US oil companies last year and recently? One would be naive to think that they would not now and they did in the seventies and solely blame OPEC for all high prices.

You : It is amazing how the fanatics among the Muslims are afraid of American ideas and ideals.

Moi : That would be a contradiction. There is Islamphobia said to be held and fostered. And now you are saying what Bush said in the 'war on terror' - "They hate our freedoms".

Before 9/11, Osama was griping about US military bases in Saudi Arabia, and now in other Gulf states. Perhaps they want freedom from US military bases. Can Americans stand it to have a German or Japanese airbase in, say, Montana say?.

You are wrong to assume freedom and democracy is an American ideal or invention. The Europeans would beg to differ. Or Muslims don't want them. Like all people, we want to shape our lives in freedom and democratic means to do it.

As I've said, a free and open society and a democratic one is the best check against all excesses in the name of secularism or religion.

You : Everyone of them has one gripe or another against this country and its people yet those same characters would risk life and limb to get to our door steps.

Moi : Yes, I am certainly putting out in this threads "gripes" that is coursing in the Muslim world. Frankly, in most Muslims, there is no personal animosity against Americans, but on US foreign policy.

Those who are trying to get into the US as refugees are largely those persecuted by
their own governments, or are from areas of armed conflicts.

There is some 1.5 million Iraqi refugees in Syria alone since the US invasion and occupation. Are they all asking to go into the US?

Likewise over 3 million Afghan refugees (in Iran and Pakistan) and internally displaced persons. Are they all seeking to go to the US?

From what I've been reading in On Faith threads, some Americans are really against Muslim migrants going to the USA for any reason in case they are the fifth column to implement Shariah and start a global caliphate.

You : As for the thesis that this country invaded Iraq for its oil, I do seriously doubt it. Or how do you explain the price of gallon of gas hitting the $4 mark.

Moi : Like I said, the US companies do profit from rising oil prices. Back in the seventies and now. There is whole raft of books on Bush and reasons for the Iraqi invasion. And it is for oil in gist. Everything else is "securing the realm".

The US government did draft an agreement with Iraq to give control of 17 oil-fields out of 80 there. The rest to US oil companies for the next 30 years. It is a forced agreement to benefit Americans with assured and lower oil prices, but at the expense of Iraqis.

For your information, in the first Gulf War, the Gulf States, including and especially Kuwait, paid substantively to the US in expelling Iraqi troops from Kuwait.

This is public and common world knowledge as part of the international commitment to share in defraying the cost.

At least Bush Sr. a much better and respected fellow internationally than his son, seek the global community's consensus throught an UN Security Council Resolution. That is why Japan and Germany also made substantial funds available to.

Re the invasion and occupation of Iraq, the whole world knows why already. That is why there is not global community support or UN Security Council resolution to go into Iraq over dubious claims of WMD and Osama/Al Qaeda linkages with Saddam.

You : We would seize that oil to at least finance part of our mission there, not to mention relieving us poor people here of these exhorbitant oil bills.

Moi : Well, your Dick Cheney related companies are among others, including Halliburton. And US oil companies are taking Iraqi oilfields, about 63 out of 80 leaving 17 for the Iraqis. If the Iraqis can stand that ppoposed agreement submitted by the US government.

Even thought the high oil prices asked is becuase the Gulf states, among others, has had to directly and indirectly pay continued presence in Iraq, buy all those outdated and overprised weapons as a security umbrella against the US bogeyman, Iran, and to pump in money to bail out US financial problems starting with sub-primes fall outs?

You government is also not acceding to the Kyoto Protocols. Other countries are seeking alternatives to petroleum power, including biofuels such as ethanol. There is nothing I want to say about the US being way behind in not stepping up to lead the world in seeking alternate fuels.

Even the Iranians are aware their oil-fields will not last forever and actively seek to have nuclear power. But of course spinned into their seeking to make nuke warheads. I have heard of Iranian intentions to have nuclear power for their future needs since the mid-nineties. And they are still members of the IAEA.

Well, if the neoconed US government wants short term unilateral pursuits, there is not much the whole world can do but to prudently keep at arms length and to pursue their own course to do the right thing for themself politically and economically as necessary.

Factor in EU, China, Russia, India and see that they are multilateralising the world again and changing the global political, economic and security landscape.

People and countries now have choices for political and economic decoupling, for new political, economic and security realignments. Even for Muslims and Muslim states.

It is a jungle out here, a battlefield for influence for minds, hearts and pocketbooks.

The US's CNN is now competing with other global news networks. The US dollar is competing with Euro.

The point is, we now have more choices in this marketplace of ideas and products and not just American-originated ones.

Thanks and regards

"J"

Oh there "Reality Challenged" and Obfuscating Jihadist,

I am laughing hysterically as I read your last commentary as you mesh facts and fiction about the USA. By the way, you forgot to note that US military-industrial complex saved the Muslim rosy arses of Kuwait, Kosovo and Bosnia. And I doubt very much if Hitler or the "Empirer" of Japan would bother to pay for Muslim oil. And who defeated the Nazis and Japs??

Then of course there is also the forever-missing commentary about the flaws of Islam, flaws that are keeping the US in Iraq and on edge with your Shiite "brothers" (aka "scum" to Sunnis) in Iran.

Anyway let us assume once again you forgot what these flaws are, so once again here are the first four:

1. Believe in "pretty/ugly wingie" thingies and teach their children that such fictional things really exist.

2. Believe that the long-dead Arab did actually talk to the "pretty Gabriel" in the hot "Gabe" cave and therein received the warmongering and anti-female words now listed in the koran.

3. That Sunnis believe they are superior to Shiites in all aspects of life. Shiites think the same way about Sunnis.

4. That Islam is perfect and the koran inherently condones no sin even though the 24/7, 800 year-old blood feud between Sunnis and Shiites gives significant credence that greed, hate, suicides, assassinations, maiming, and murder are condoned by the koran. Having multiple wives also gives significant credence to the sins of rape, adultery, lust and polygamy. The condoned treatment of these wives gives credence that the koran allows the sins of hatred, anger and greed.

Jihadist:
You say "not (American) personal ideals, ideas and beliefs."

It is amazing how the fanatics among the Muslims are afraid of American ideas and ideals. Everyone of them has one gripe or another against this country and its people yet those same characters would risk life and limb to get to our door steps.
As for the thesis that this country invaded Iraq for its oil, I do seriously doubt it. Or how do you explain the price of gallon of gas hitting the $4 mark. I wish , though, We would seize that oil to at least finance part of our mission there, not to mention relieving us poor people here of these exhorbitant oil bills.

Hello Moody,

You : "Aaaaaaaaaand the usual honky donkey’s are also present for fun sake with there same old shuffle record cassettes."

So why not have fun too! And I see that you are. Honky donkey? That's a new one.

Well, we have to let some of their self-induced manufactured Islamphobia loose here.

As you know, there was a Depression in the US and full employment not restored until World War II.

Following the end of World War II, in the Fifties, President Eisenhower spoke of the military-industrial complex in place which would not dismantle itself for economic survical.
Hence from Nazism to Communism to now, Islamism, Islam as the enemy sustain its economy.

Hence Korea war in the fifties.

The Vietnam War in the sixties.

The little wars in the seventies does not do it and there was troubling times domestically in the US.

Then the Iran-Iraq War in the Eighties (with US giving tacit support and supplying weapons to Saddam Hussein) and also US/CIA supported war by Afghan Mujahidden against Soviet invasion in Afghanistan too.

Then the First Iraq War in the early nineties when Iraq invaded Kuwait, and Iraq was expelled from Kuwait, and right wingers, neo-cons complained Bush Sr should have taken ownership of Iraq (for oil).

Then again the troubling nineties with no new clear cut enemies, and Huntington in his "Clash of Civilisation" characterise Islam is one.

Then 9/11 convveniently comes, and Viola! Great new reason for new phobias to sustain the US military-industrial complex - Invade Iraq, take ownership of Iraq and its oil.

Americans like to think and believe that the Iraq war is a disaster. But it is not for American oil companies and other rebuilding contractors. The huge US embassy being build, one of the biggest in the world, and bigger than any Iraqi governmental office complex, is a clear indication that the US already really owned Iraq. It is to their interest to divide and let the insurgents continue rampaging to continue being in Iraq.

Everything you read about Islam and Muslims here, how evil and vile we are, is just like in the fifties, sixties, seventies and eighties when communism is evil and vile. It gives a great reason to wage wars, invade our countries, take our resources. In characterising us as the greatest threat to civilisaition, they find it easy to kill without a conscience innocents designated cooly and coldly as "collateral damage".

The only problem is, unlike Vietnam which actually waged war against the US, no country since World War II actually declared war against the US.

Osama/Al Qaeda, a terrorist group, strikes at them (and us too, for they often forget), and the US has to invade Afgahnistan and Iraq. With Iran on the table. And the neo-cons put it out that they are against Islamofascism, Islamism etc. Notice the "isms"? Islam now as a political ideology like Nazism, Fascism, Communism? And therefore all Muslims are members of this vile and evil "ism" to be wiped out?

The world has changed since World War II. But not them. They may speak of globalisation and global norms etc, but it just means monopolisation of their products in the global markets for everything from Starbucks to McDonalds to Microsoft. Nothing wrong with that for the world takes on those voluntarily, but not personal ideals, ideas and beliefs.

They are underestimating the independence of minds, beliefs, choices and will of everyone from Argentina to Zimbabwe. Even the poorest and unschooled farmer in Bangladesh.

Salam
"J"

I imagine this thread is about dead, but if anyone is interested in some of the issues raised, this is a really interesting symposium addressing some of the issues:

http://www.aina.org/news/20080314152412.htm

The panel includes a well known 'Quran only' muslim moderate named Thomas Haidon who comports himself reasonably well, in addition to some well known muslim apostates and critics.

"Anybody know who cast the spell?"

Just a guess... how about those guys that tore down the ancient Buddhist statues with mortar and small arms fire because Islam forbids graven images?

Maybe it was Mohammed Atta? Osama bin Laden? Or the nice people who force women to cover themselves up from head to toe?

Maybe it was our friendly neighbors in Saudi Arabia, who still behead people for trivial "crimes" against Islam?

Appeals to history are ironic... Islam is stuck in the dark ages. Where else will you have to stick your butt in the air five times a day to please an invisible deity? The reason people are suspicious of Muslims isn't JUST because they appear to organize themselves into barbarian tribes, it's also because they cannot evolve into modern civilization. Apparently.

Great point, Observer.

Now . . . Freddy:

All four schools of Islam say that a sane male muslim apostate should be killed. This is also what the scholars say at Al Azhar University. This is part of mainstream islamic theology.

It's not the product of my fevered imagination. It's not something that happened 400 years ago.
It's the law right now. TODAY.

Virtually every prominent, full-time critic or apostate of islam is under some form of death fatwa or physical threat. (In fact, I can't think of one that ISN'T).

When the texts, the scholars, the theological schools all teach THE SAME THING (i.e., death to apostates and blasphemers), the death fatwas and threats can no longer be foisted off as the work of 'isolated fanatics.'

Now, although it has absolutely no bearing or relevance to the arguments and facts that I've presented on this board, I will answer your "Anti-Islam" question:

As a personal religion, islam is not my cup of tea.

As a political doctrine, however, I think it's one of the most brutal, retrograde, mysogynistic, fascistic ideologies ever devised by the mind of MAN (not God) . . . And believe me, I've come by my opinion honestly.

Does that help?

Caliph;
You say with regards to Arab/Muslim states
“Will we(USA) allow any power to come to USA and create separate 50 illegal clients States fighting each other every day and every year?’

The present day Arab states were provinces in the Ottoman Empire. The British and French who liberated them from the Turkish predatory and primitive colonialisms also helped them lay down the institutions of a modern state. They also granted sovereignty to the different provinces. If the Arabs wanted to remain separated into more than twenty countries that is not the European’s fault; the Arabs can unite any moment if they have the will. It is always somebody’s else’s fault; western powers , Arab leaders, Zionist spies etc. and never their fault. Maybe it is this type of irresponsible mentality that keeps them regressing into the past as the rest of the world moves forward.

agapian:

I think you make a good timely point in the discussion.

Will we forever point to the other side's abuses of love as justification for our abuse's of love?

The answer is blowin' in the wind...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ced8o50G9kg

Why does the anti-Islam crowd keep resorting to DISTORTIONS, LOGICAL FALLACIES and OUTRIGHT LIES?

LOL! Omar surrenders in abject defeat, trying to cling to some small SHRED OF DIGNITY!

But Omar is still AFRAID to say whether he is “anti-Islam” or not!

Omar: “Freddy, it doesn't seem that anything productive can be garnered from further correspondence with you. Your most recent comment appeared at 9:40 p.m., referring to my comments of 8:25 a.m. and 9:27 a.m. (March 14, 2008). One of us has posted factually and rationally, the other has not. I trust the readership to decide which is which”

LOL!

Omar, you BEGGED me to address your comments. I answered completely, and then questioned you. Like all HATERS exposed to a drop of reality, OMAR FLED.

Here are some of the questions that Omar is AFRAID to answer:

Omar: “Freddy: I posted a comment at 12:57 p.m. Please identify which portion of my submission constitutes a "DISTORTION, LOGICAL FALLACY or OUTRIGHT LIE."”

2) Omar, since you are acting as if you believe my comment about “the anti-Islam crowd” applies to you, is this your way of admitting you really are anti-Islam?

6) You still fail to say if you are anti-Islam. Are you anti-Islam or not?
While we wait for you to explain your way out of your failure of logic, let’s take a look at the post you are pleading for attention about. You list a bunch of allegations about the behavior of SOME Muslims, and then say “well, I suppose you get the picture.”

7) No, Omar, we don’t get your “picture.” Why don’t you actually have the intellectual fortitude to actually state your conclusion instead of making vaguely ominous IMPLICATIONS?

8) What do you conclude from all your allegations?

9) Are you implying that your allegations (if true) apply to ALL Muslims or ALL of Islam?

10) Are you implying that there are no parallels between your allegations (if true) and the behavior of certain people and group in OTHER religions?
Omar “the FACT that just about anyone who makes a habit of criticizing Islam, Mohammad or the Quran ends up needing full time security for the rest of their lives.”

11) That is not a "FACT". That is a DISTORTION, at the very least, and possibly an outright lie. The right-wing Christian Islam-bashers at places like Fox “News” make a “habit of criticizing Islam. Are they all traveling with "full time security"? No. Wrong. So did you just commit a DISTORTION or a LIE?

Omar replied: “Your accusation of “Distortions, Logical Fallacies and Lies” was general in scope and referred to everyone on the board who was being critical of Islam, including my comment and many others.”

12) Wrong! My comments were NOT “general.” They were VERY SPECIFIC! I referred ONLY to the “anti-Islam crowd.” NOT people who are merely “critical.” Do you understand that being “critical” and being “anti” are TWO DIFFERENT THINGS?

Omar goes on: “No logical fallacy there.”

13) Wrong again! And you just committed another logical fallacy, in conflating mere “criticism” of Islam with being “anti-Islam.” Since logic clearly eludes you, I’ll use an example. Is it possible to be “critical” of America without being “anti-American”?
(What are the odds Omar FAILS to actually answer the above question, since it PROVES he is wrong?)

14) Are you critical of America?

15) Are you anti-American?
Omar goes on: “As for those critics who are the subject of death threats and now require (and will continue to require) security, here’s a short sample:”

What Omar FAILS to understand is that the actions of a minority of people who are Muslim does NOT mean that all Muslims are terrorists, and it does NOT mean that Islam is inherently bad.

16) There are plenty of doctors and clinics in US that STILL require security from Christian terrorists. Does those Christian terrorists mean that Christianity is inherently bad?
And you STILL fail to say if you are anti-Islam. Are you anti-Islam or not?

For the true body count in Iraq: see http://www.iraqbodycount.org/

Documented civilian deaths from violence

82,109 – 89,605

Recent data:

Friday 14 March: 14 dead
Baghdad: football coach is shot dead, Al-Yarmuk; 2 bodies.

Wassit
Kut: 2 policemen are killed in clashes; motorcycle bomb kills 1; chieftain's son is killed in clashes; bomb strikes minibus, kills 2.

Babil
Hilla: rockets kill 4.

Ninewa
Rabiya: suicide bomber kills interpreter at Syrian border.

Thursday 13 March: 39 dead
Baghdad: car bomb kills 18, Bab al-Sharki; gunmen kill journalist; 3 bodies.

Diyala
Baquba: civilian killed by gunman.

Salahuddin
Al-Hajaj: 3 Sahwa killed by gunmen.
Tikrit: gunmen kill policeman.
Baiji: gunmen kill 2 at checkpoint.
Samarra: 15-year-old girl is shot dead by police who open fire on family car at checkpoint.

Najaf
Najaf: policeman killed in drive-by shooting.

Kirkuk
Al Zab: suicide bomber kills 3.
Kirkuk-Rashad highway: car bomb kills 1.

Wassit
Kut: 2 killed by rockets during clashes.

Ninewa
Daybaka: 1 body found.
Mosul: abducted Archbishop Paulos Faraj Rahho is found dead.

With respect to population and land mass "inequalities", write to the Chinese embassy and complain about the number of Chinese in the world. This is a Chinese issue without any influence from the outside.

War by Enemies of Prophet Jesus (Peace be upon him) i.e. Romans/Europeans/Anglo Saxons killed most mankind and have stolen more land than any other race.

Most recent crime

From:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/sep/16/iraq.iraqtimeline

Greenspan's damning comments about the war come as a survey of Iraqis, which was released last week, claims that up to 1.2 million people may have died because of the conflict in Iraq - lending weight to a 2006 survey in the Lancet that reported similarly high levels.

More than one million deaths were already being suggested by anti-war campaigners, but such high counts have consistently been rejected by US and UK officials. The estimates, extrapolated from a sample of 1,461 adults around the country, were collected by a British polling agency, ORB, which asked a random selection of Iraqis how many people living in their household had died as a result of the violence rather than from natural causes.

Previous estimates gave a range between 390,000 and 940,000, the most prominent of which - collected by the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and reported in the Lancet in October 2006 - suggested 654,965 deaths.

In recent past

From:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II

Over 60 million people, the majority of them civilians, were killed, making it the deadliest conflict in human history.[2] The financial cost of the war is estimated at about a trillion 1944 U.S. dollars worldwide,[3][4] making it the most costly war in capital as well as lives

In past

Enemies of Prophet Jesus (Peace be upon him) have stolen 4 vast Continents besides stealing wealth of whole world under occupatrion by power of WMD though they always speak loudly for others' far lesser crimes.If Europeans, Spaniards and Anglo Saxons had to right to steal 4 cotinients of North America, South America. Australia and Occenia and lately Palestine from rest 6 billions Asians and Africans?

Continents
BY SIZE

#1 Asia - (44,579,000 sq km)
#2 Africa - (30,065,000 sq km)
#3 North America - (24,256,000 sq km)
#4 South America - (17,819,000 sq km)
#5 Antarctica - (13,209,000 sq km)
#6 Europe - (9,938,000 sq km)
#7 Australia/Oceania - (7,687,000 sq km)

BY POPULATION 2005 est.

#1 Asia - (3,879,000,000)
#2 Africa - (877,500,000)
#3 Europe - (727,000,000)
#4 North America - (501,500,000)
#5 South America - (379,500,000)
#6 Australia/Oceania - (32,000,000)
#7 Antarctica - (0)

Thus total area of Asia and Africa is:

#1 Asia - (44,579,000 sq km)
#2 Africa - (30,065,000 sq km)
Total 74,644,000 sq km

Thus total population of Asia and Africa is:

#1 Asia - (3,879,000,000)
#2 Africa - (877,500,000)
Total 4,756,500,000

Thus almost 5 billion people live in Asia and Africa

And how much land Europeans are occupying through their power of WMD?

#3 North America - (24,256,000 sq km)
#4 South America - (17,819,000 sq km)
#5 Antarctica - (13,209,000 sq km)
#6 Europe - (9,938,000 sq km)
#7 Australia/Oceania - (7,687,000 sq km)
Total 72,909,000 sq km

How much population European dominated land?

#3 Europe - (727,000,000)
#4 North America - (501,500,000)
#5 South America - (379,500,000)
#6 Australia/Oceania - (32,000,000)
#7 Antarctica - (0)
Total 1,640,000,000

Thus 4,756,500,000 people are living in Asia and Africa consisting 74,644,000 sq km are and on the other hand

1,640,000,000 Europeans are living in European dominated area of 72,909,000 sq km.
Europeans are occupying almost same land in size though population ratio is 3 to 1.
So where is justice of equal opportunity for food, shelter and Wealth as those Europeans are also holding most of the wealth of this world through their power WMD. More in:

http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&id=FoMZ9tpMBXsC&dq=Khondakar+Mowla&printsec=frontcover&source=web&ots=qkJHE2z8Jc&sig=knHF7u6fhgEuEq7QBV2l2Wcnh9c#PPA4,M1

Time for An Update: Our War on Terror and Aggression:
( or how are we spending or have we spent USA taxpayers’ money to eliminate global terror and aggression)

First: A Partial Body Count-

1a) Assassination of Benazir Bhutto.

1b) 9/11, 3000 mostly US citizens, 1000’s injured

2) The 24/7 Sunni-Shiite centuries-old blood feud currently being carried out in Iraq, 4000 US troops and 82,109 – 89,605 Iraqi civilians http://www.iraqbodycount.org/

3) Kenya- In Nairobi, about 212 people were killed and an estimated 4000 injured; in Dar es Salaam, the attack killed at least 11 and wounded 85.[2]

4) Bali-in 2002-killing 202 people, 164 of whom were foreign nationals, and 38 Indonesian citizens. A further 209 people were injured.

5) Bali in 2005- Twenty people were killed, and 129 people were injured by three bombers who killed themselves in the attacks.

6) Spain in 2004- killing 191 people and wounding 2,050.

7) UK in 2005- The bombings killed 52 commuters and the four radical Islamic suicide bombers, injured 700.

Other elements of our War on Terror:

1. Saddam, his sons and major henchmen have been deleted. Saddam's bravado about WMD was one of his major mistakes.

2. Iran is being been contained. (beside containing the Sunni-Shiite civil war in Baghdad, that is the main reason we are in Iraq. And yes, essential oil continues to flow from the region.)

3. Libya has become almost civil. Apparently this new reality from an Islamic country has upset OBL and his “crazies” as they recently threatened Libya. OBL sure is a disgrace to the world especially the Moslem world!!! or is he???

4. North Korea is still uncivil but is contained. With the opening up of rail traffic between North and South Korea after 50 years and with the assistance of the US Navy in retrieving NK ships and personnel, a fresh sense of civility is afoot. One of the most eminent US cultural institutions, the New York Philharmonic Orchestra, has performed a landmark concert in North Korea. The concert included music by Western composers and a Korean folk song, and was broadcast live on local television.

5. Northern Ireland is finally at peace.

6. The Jews and Palestinians are being separated by walls. Hopefully the walls will follow the 1948 UN accords and the Annapolis Peace Conference is at least somewhat successful.

7. Bin Laden has been cornered under a rock in Western Pakistan since 9/11.

8. Fanatical Islam has basically been contained to the Middle East but a wall between India and Pakistan would be a plus for world peace. Ditto for a wall between Afghahistan and Pakistan.

9.Timothy McVeigh was executed. Terry Nichols will follow soon.

10. Eric Rudolph is spending three life terms in prison with no parole.

11. Jim Jones, David Koresh, Kaczynski, the "nuns" from Rwanda, and the KKK were all dealt with and either eliminated themselves or are being punished.

12. Islamic Sudan, Darfur and Somalia are still terror hot spots.

13. The terror and torture of Muslims in Bosnia, Kosovo and Kuwait were ended by the proper application of the military forces of the USA and her freedom-loving friends in NATO and the Arab world.

14. And of course the bloody terror and aggression brought about the Japanese, Nazis and Communists was with great difficulty eliminated by the good guys.

Most Muslims 'desire democracy'

Some 93% of those polled called themselves "moderate" Muslims
The largest survey to date of Muslims worldwide suggests the vast majority want Western democracy and freedoms, but do not want them to be imposed.
The poll by Gallup of more than 50,000 Muslims in 35 nations found most wanted the West to instead focus on changing its negative view of Muslims and Islam.

The huge survey began following the 11 September 2001 attacks in the US.

The overwhelming majority of those asked condemned them and subsequent attacks, citing religious reasons.

The poll, which claims to represent the views of 90% the world's 1.3 billion Muslims, is to be published next month as part of a book entitled Who Speaks For Islam? What A Billion Muslims Really Think.

New policies

According to the book, the survey of the world's Muslim community was commissioned by Gallup's chairman, Jim Clifton, shortly after US President George W Bush asked in a 2001 speech: "Why do they hate us?"

The radicals are better educated, have better jobs, and are more hopeful with regard to the future than mainstream Muslims - but they're more cynical about whether they'll ever get it

John Esposito
Author, Who Speaks For Islam?

Mr Bush wondered why radical Islamist militant groups such as al-Qaeda hated democratically elected governments, as well as "our freedom of religion, our freedom of speech, our freedom to vote and assembly and disagree with each other".

But one of the book's authors, John Esposito, says the survey's results suggest Muslims - ironically even many of the 7% classing themselves as "radical" - in fact admire the West for its democracy and freedoms. However, they do not want such things imposed on them.

"Muslims want self-determination, but not an American-imposed and defined democracy. They don't want secularism or theocracy," said the professor of Islamic Studies at Georgetown University in Washington.

"What the majority wants is democracy with religious values."

The poll sought to answer a question asked by George Bush

Bush address to Congress

Mr Esposito said "radical" Muslims believed in democracy even more than many of the moderate Muslims questioned.

"The radicals are better educated, have better jobs, and are more hopeful with regard to the future than mainstream Muslims," he added.

"But they're more cynical about whether they'll ever get it."

The research also indicates most Muslims want guarantees of freedom of speech and would not want religious leaders to have a role in drafting constitutions.

Those polled also said the most important thing the West could do to improve relations with Muslim societies was to change its negative views towards Muslims and respect Islam.

The authors said the conflict between Islam and the West was not inevitable, but needed decision makers to listen and consider new policies if the extremists on both sides were not to gain ground.

Zionophobia, Hindiphobia, Islamophobia, Ameriphobia, Atheiophobia. Nearly all of the posts here, including Patel's 'spell', have expressed some form of fearing the unknown or unseen. The definition of Xenophobia is: “an excessive and irrational fear of foreign people, places or objects. People who are xenophobic may display fear or even anger and wrath toward others who are different.” Note the terms 'excessive' and 'irrational' in the definition. This definition of xenophobia is not found in any book on psychiatry as a disorder because it is a natural to all people to some degree. The key in these posts is what qualifies as 'irrational' because, as the posts have pointed out, there is an enormous amount of xeno anger and wrath throughout history that has killed hundreds of millions of non-xenos by the xeno process itself. The common thread of the xenos is where they act out there 'excessive' fear on others instead of keeping it as an instinctive process in themselves. That is, do human beings react to xeno aggression in an endless cycle aggression/counter-aggression that perpetuates the phobias?
Zionophobics quote biblical references going back thirty five hundred years and justify current aggression with it. Islamophobics can quote the Quran for examples of xeno aggression have nothing to do with spirituality. How many non-xenos have died around the world as a result of these two phobias alone? How many non-xenos around the world have died or been enslaved by religious xenos, even when virtually all of the Spiritual Scriptures denounce a xeno mentality as spiritual degradation?

In these posts, it might be useful to ask the question: “Is he a xeno or isn't he?” before replying to a post.

HEALING IN THE COMMUNITY-

a completely free clinic opened by muslims in the poorest neighborhood in america

98% of its clients are not muslims

http://www.linktv.org/onenation/films/view/213

TJ:

Do you think "moderates" in the west should "get (our) boots on and go root out" the leaders who continue the economic colonialism that props up governments like Saudi Arabia and Pakistan so that no change can occur in these countries, allows Israel to run a nationwide prison in Gaza and the West Bank where people live a abject poverty, who's wars have killed more civilians than any "terrorist", and who's policies create radicalism amoung Muslims?

Moody, Moody, Moody, (and Muslims of Analogous Three B Syndrome Sufferers),

The Three B Syndrome = Bred, Born and Brainwashed in Islam.

You still do not see the problem i.e. the flaws in Islam so once again here they are for your perusal and action:

1. Belief in "pretty/ugly wingie thingies".

2. Belief that an hallucinating, illiterate Arab did actually talk to the "pretty Gabriel" in the hot "Gabe" cave and therein received the warmongering and anti-female words and resultant laws now listed in the koran.

3. That Sunnis are superior to Shiites in all aspects of life. And Shiites think the same way about Sunnis.

4. That Islam is perfect and the koran inherently condones no sin even though the 24/7, 800 year-old blood feud between Sunnis and Shiites gives significant credence that greed, hate, suicides, assassinations, maiming, and murder are condoned by the koran. Having multiple wives also gives significant credence to the sins of rape, adultery, lust and polygamy. The condoned treatment of these wives gives credence that the koran allows the sins of hatred, anger and greed.
These are tough issues.

Address these flaws, correct them then ask again to be allowed into the civil world!!!!!

And accusing someone of spreading hate and lies does not work when these "someones" are simply listing the facts. If you have counter points about your beliefs then list them. Hiding behind imams and clerics blinded by 1400 years of brainwashing serves no purpose other than to secure a dishonest living for said imams and clerics.

Eboo Patel asks: "Anybody know who cast the spell?"

Yes, Muslims crashing passenger jets into stuff cast the spell. In addition to the obvious damage they caused, you now get to deal with the collateral damage. Want to break the spell? Get your moderate Muslim crowd together (700,000 strong right?), get your boots on and go root out bin Laden and hand him over to the US.

Rick:

"Where do atheists fit into this divine muslim world?"

________________

Well, it depends. If the atheist is a former muslim who speaks openly about the reasons for his apostasy, he or she should is to killed (e.g. Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Taslima Nasreen, both subject to death fatwas, specific threats, and in the case of Nasreen, physical assault):

Mohammad said, "Whoever chages/discards his religion, kill him."

This is black letter law in some islamic countries. In others, you will be jailed for "insulting islam." In still others, the prohibition against open apostasy is enforced "extra-judicially."

Because the punishment under Shariah for open islamic apostates is technically the same whether the apostate has discarded Islam in favor of another religion (conversion, e.g. Abdul Rahman, sentenced to death in Afghanistan), or in favor of no religion (atheisim), you may find the following video informative:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=21967c24SRQ

DEAR OBSERVER:

Imam Muslim narrated from Abdullah bin Omar who said: “One who dies without having bound himself by an oath of allegiance will die the death of one belonging to the days of ignorance (Jahiliyah). Thus the Prophet (SAW) made it compulsory that every Muslim should have a pledge of allegiance (Baya) on his or her neck.

Thus World Muslims and Arab Muslims became like the people of the days of ignorance.

Arabs were not liberated during World War I by the West and in fact Arabs and Muslims were enslaved permanently by the West during World War I and their land was divided illegally without their consent into illegal client states.

Will Europe or Britain allow Arab/Muslim soldiers in Europe and Britain with hundred of Warship in the shore of Britain or Europe with deadly weapons, fighter bombers etc as their Warships are in Persian Gulf and Arab client States?

Why Saddam was supported with all kind of deadly weapons, Chemical weapons and intelligence by West against his brotherly war against Iran?

Why Kuwait was separated from Basra/Iraq by Britain as all other clients States from Baghdad capital of 500 years old Abbasid Caliphate?

Will we allow any power to come to USA and create separate 50 illegal clients States fighting each other every day and every year?

And world will find above answer with the situation of World Muslims today since World War I and even earlier or since 1492? More answer is in:

http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&id=FoMZ9tpMBXsC&dq=Khondakar+Mowla&printsec=frontcover&source=web&ots=qkJHE2z8Jc&sig=knHF7u6fhgEuEq7QBV2l2Wcnh9c#PPA4,M1

Regards,

Bulls eye Eboo Patel, well done!

Well written about Khilafat, Caliph!

Always speechless my hot blood Sis. Jihadist. (Not every body is able to put thoughts and real observations into words like you.)

Aaaaaaaaaand the usual honky donkey’s are also present for fun sake with there same old shuffle record cassettes.

This article by Eboo Patel is wonderful - thoughtful, nuanced, heartfelt. Thank you.

I do think, however, that he asks the wrong question: Anybody know who cast the spell, the one that puts people in a hypnotic state and prompts them to be unreasonable?

For me it's not *who*, but *what*. And the what is *ignorance*. Willful, intentional ignorance.

Ignorance is easy. It's comfortable. It doesn't require the time and hard work of reading and studying. Or talking with people who have different views or come from different backgrounds. It's the same ignorance that prompts antisemitism or racism or sexism or conspiracy theories. It's the same ignorance that conflates Islam with Arab, or sees Islam as represented by state leaders who are also Muslim, or that slips into easy, comforting patriotism and nationalism.

A good example is Darryl's post at 4am on 3/15. An excellent, tragic example of hateful ignorance.

One can and should criticize the media and its devotion to appealing to a market. And educational and religious institutions don't do as well as they should. But people have to take responsibility for what they think and say.

I know a Moroccan political scientist who says that at his Rabat university he often encounters students who proffer conspiracy theories about the Israelis or the CIA or the Israelis and the CIA, etc. And he says to them, "Okay, you can leave now. You're done. Go to the beach. Because you've stopped thinking."

I love that response to students; it points out that learning is hard work. It requires heavy lifting and long reading.

The same political scientist - who received his Ph.D. here in the US - also points out that there are few students in Morocco who would fit the common, stereotypical understanding of Muslim students as radical, anti-American, violent Islamists. Which leads to the question, again: Why the ignorance that conflates all Muslims and all Arabs and all Middle Easterners?

All of us in this country and elsewhere need to challenge people directly when they exhibit hateful ignorance - as in the case of Darryl or Rory and others.

Thank you again for your article, Eboo Patel.

The spell was cast on 9/11. Up to that time Americans didn't have any opinion on Muslims one way or the other (kind of like American opinion of the Chinese currently). There's a significant group of Muslims who believe that their religion calls on them to murder Americans. We will kill them before they kill us. If Muslims believe this is an attack on Islam as a whole, that's their problem.

Caliph
You talk about the Muslims of the world as a monolithic people. Far from the truth. The Arabs who are a subset of the Muslim world are much more monolithic than the Muslims as a whole and yet not even Nasser could unite two of their countries. Turkey dominated and exploited most Arabs by masquerading as the seat of “Caliphate" with its Sultan as a caliph; successor of the Prophet. The minute the Arabs were liberated during World War I, the Turks did not feel the need to pretend anymore. They maintained their predatory grip on the necks of the Arabs for four hundred years during which they drove them back into th Stone Age at a time when the West moved from the Dark Ages into the Industrial Revolution. If it were not for the Western Allies, the Turks would still be sitting on their throats till this day, and yet the Arabs blame all of their shortcomings and misfortunes on to the West and never mention the Turks, Why? Because the Turks are Muslims . Off Course!

A Saudi young cleric was making sense for a change while discussing terrorism on one of the Arab satellite TV channels. Toward the end of the interview the host remarked that he could not understand why this cleric who have long preached against Saddam Hussein would write an eighty line poem praising him. “Because I heard him say immediately before being hanged ’There is no God but Allah and Muhammad is the prophet of Allah’ was his reply. This is the type of mentality we are dealing with here. Does anyone still wonder why their affairs are in such a sorry state?

Maybe these islamophobe callers WANT to keep Islam as an enemy.
For many people it's FUN to have an enemy. Then they can HATE, and that makes them feel better.

Where do atheists fit into this divine muslim world?

I think you have discovered something far more important than you realize. All of these different people, of different faiths are seeing Muslims in ONE way. Muslims are violent and irrational.

I believe they only see this because the major Muslim leaders of government and policy makers, have, for a long time, supported and spouted anti-everything but themselves. This is the perception.

Now for the miscalculation! Those particular leaders, such as Saddam Husein, Amanidinajab (sp) Assad of Syria...the staged anti-American rallies (but NOT any mass peace rallies---all this we see, and have seen for a long time.

I remember when 911 hit. Both the common democrats and republicans spoke in one voice: "Nuke the Bastards!"

What the inflammatory Muslim leaders do not realize, is that if someone really would happen to succeed in doing major harm to this country, the people here would be so angry that when they got done with the Arab countries, there wouldn't be much left except one big smoking cinder.

I'm not saying all people here would be for that, but enough would be provoked to bring it to pass. Here, we have a long history of civil protests and people putting their lives on the line for freedom and civil rights. If what you say is true, that MOST Muslims are for the same values, they had better do something VERY significant, SOON, before the radical leaders do manage to successfully harm this country.

If they successfully harm this country, it won't do you any good to reflect-We should have acted sooner and with greater force- it will be too late. Those good Muslims you speak of, they had better understand that time is really running out for them, because as soon as their morbid leaders accomplish their goal, so will the lives of millions go up in smoke. This country has for so long ignored the vitriolic rhetoric of radical leaders. But more and more people here are paying atention.

I know many in the world view Bush as a tyrant etc....but guess what? Our presidents come, our presidents GO......UNLIKE your leaders. You see, the difference is this- The US changes its government employees regularly, so the opportunity to correct faults arises. We DO NOT identify our country by the PEOPLE in government. We identify our country by its SYSTEM of government.

HOWEVER, in the case of Muslim countries, we identify YOUR countries by the people RUNNING THEM!!!!

In other words, the days of your leaders shouting death to America, those days end just s soon as they somehow manage to pull it off. And it doesnlt matter whether they actualy did it, or just some small, independent terror cell. The people here will not distinguish the difference.

I really hope you understand just how LITTLE time your people have left!!! It would really be in all your best interests to destroy those radicals from your midst. Hunt them down until every last one is dead. Because if you don't, and they succeed in harming this country... you will wish you had taken this advice.

or all the vitriolic world criticism against this country, against a man that will soon leave office, the world has NO IDEA what this country would be like if it REALLY got angry.

Hiroshima? Nagasaki? Only two smaller cities, and they felt BAD about doing it. They did it to end the war quickly, but not , maliciously.

Some of the US haters will say it was malicious. No, no. I will tell you what malicious would have been. Reducing Japan to one big smoking cinder. That is what will happen to the Arab world if they provoke this country to anger. The world has seen Hitler, Stalin, Mao....but it has YET to see what and ANGRY United States would be.

I pray to God it never does. You ought to pray to your God the same thing.

You peaceful Muslims must realize, if you don;t take up arms and destroy those radicals, they are going to bring devestation upon you all.

David Ellis,

The stench of Nazism supposedly was buried after WWII. Apparently not!!!!!!!

Brilliant post Rory.

Millions of Iraqis are displaced and forced into human trafficking. They should all be allowed to immigrate to Texas.

Sam:

Interesting how so many groups of people have issues with Muslims: Hindus, Buddhists, Sikhs, Christians, Jews, Animists, atheists, Zoroastrians, etc... many of these groups have grievances with islam long before the discovery of America in 1402. Why is that do you suppose?

I don't think anyone cast a spell, though the experience feels engulfing. In various other challenges of life - environmental,family matters, human rights, economic outcomes, etc, - I find what I call fundamentalist thinking. The sources of this are many but the shared part is personal and cultural (group) vulnerability and fragility leading to response rigidity. That's partly individual style and partly social. It seems to intensify and spread as life broadly becomes uncertain and threateningly so. I'm not the only one to notice this. The evidence is shrillness in daily interactions, magnified by the most anxious speakers for groups. Anxiety is persistent fear?

Let's face it: As long as there are ignorant, evil, arrogant losers like Pat Robertson, Rush Limbaugh, Dick Cheney, Charles Krauthammer and their followers who are too sick and dumb to read, study history or think for themselves, there will always be Islamophobia. Islamophobia is exactly what Israel needs, and wants, to keep it's racist holy-war alive and well funded. Israel runs the (formerly) United States of America. Get used to it, folks.

White men need boogeymen. Muslims and hispanics happen to be the boogeymen of the year. Wait a few years and a new boogeyman will pop up. Nothing unites white men faster than finding a good scapegoat. I think having a boogeyman prevents white men from having to self-reflect. If you need to be 100% correct at all times, you need a punching bag. Hispanics really came to the fore when white men couldn't campaign on good government or fiscal responsibility.

Anon, Anon, Anon, wherever you are,

You apparently are new here. The complete synopsis of the flaws of the major religions as repeated on these blog pages almost once a day for the last six months:

1. Abraham founder/father of three major religions was either the embellishment of the lives of three different men or a mythical character as was Moses, the "Tablet-Man" who talked to burning bushes and made much magic in Egypt.

1.5 million Conservative Jews and their rabbis have relegated Abraham to the myth pile along with most if not all the OT. http://www.simpletoremember.com/vitals/ConservativeTorah.htm

2. Jesus, the illiterate Jewish peasant/carpenter possibly suffering from hallucinations, has been characterized anywhere from the Messiah from Nazareth to a mythical character from mythical Nazareth to a mamzer from Nazareth (Professor Bruce Chilton, in his book Rabbi Jesus). Analyses of Jesus’ life by many contemporary NT scholars (e.g. Professors Crossan, Borg and Fredriksen, On Faith panelists) via the NT and related documents have concluded that only about 30% of Jesus' sayings and ways noted in the NT were authentic. The rest being embellishments (e.g. miracles)/hallucinations made/had by the NT authors to impress various Christian, Jewish and Pagan sects.

The 30% of the NT that is "authentic Jesus" like everything in life was borrowed/plagiarized and/or improved from those who came before. In Jesus' case, it was the ways and sayings of the Babylonians, Greeks, Persians, Egyptians, Hittites, Canaanites, OT, John the Baptizer and possibly the ways and sayings of traveling Greek Cynics. http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/theories.html

For added "pizzazz", Catholic/Christian theologians divided god the singularity into three persons and invented atonement as an added guilt trip for the "pew people" to go along with this trinity of overseers. By doing so, they made god the padre into god the "filicider".

3. Mohammed, an illiterate, womanizing, lust and greed-driven,warmongering, hallucinating Arab, also had embellishing/hallucinating/plagiarizing scribal biographers who not only added "angels" and flying chariots to the koran but also a militaristic agenda to support the plundering and looting of the lands of non-believers.

This agenda continues as shown by the assassination of Bhutto, the conduct of the seven Muslim doctors in the UK, the 9/11 terrorists, the 24/7 Sunni suicide/roadside/market/mosque bombers, the 24/7 Shiite suicide/roadside/market/mosque bombers, the Islamic bombers of the trains in the UK and Spain, the Bali crazies, the Kenya crazies, the Pakistani “koranics”, the Palestine suicide bombers/rocketeers, the Lebanese nutcases, the Taliban nut jobs, and the Filipino “koranics”.

And who funds these acts of terror? The warmongering, Islamic, Shiite terror and torture theocracy of Iran aka the Third Axis of Evil and also the Sunni "Wannabees" of Saudi Arabia.

4. Luther, Calvin, Joe Smith, Henry VIII, Wesley et al, founders of Christian-based religions, also suffered from the belief in/hallucinations of "pretty wingy talking flying fictional thingie" visits and "prophecies" for profits analogous to the myths of Catholicism (resurrections, apparitions, ascensions and immaculate conceptions).

5. Hinduism (from an online Hindu site) - "Hinduism cannot be described as an organized religion. It is not founded by any individual. Hinduism is God centered and therefore one can call Hinduism as founded by God, because the answer to the question ‘Who is behind the eternal principles and who makes them work?’ will have to be ‘Cosmic power, Divine power, God’."

The caste/laborer system and cow worship are problems when saying a fair and rational God founded Hinduism."

6. Buddhism- "Buddhism began in India about 500 years before the birth of Christ. The people living at that time had become disillusioned with certain beliefs of Hinduism including the caste system, which had grown extremely complex. The number of outcasts (those who did not belong to any particular caste) was continuing to grow."
"However, in Buddhism, like so many other religions, fanciful stories arose concerning events in the life of the founder, Siddhartha Gautama (fifth century B.C.):"

Archaeological discoveries have proved, beyond a doubt, his historical character, but apart from the legends we know very little about the circumstances of his life. e.g. Buddha by one legend was supposedly talking when he came out of his mother's womb.

Bottom line: There are many good ways of living but be aware of the hallucinations, embellishments, lies and myths surrounding the founders and foundations of said rules of life.

Freddy, it doesn't seem that anything productive can be garnered from further correspondence with you. Your most recent comment appeared at 9:40 p.m., referring to my comments of 8:25 a.m. and 9:27 a.m. (March 14, 2008). One of us has posted factually and rationally, the other has not. I trust the readership to decide which is which.

Jihadist fulminated, thus:

"Too bad the Muslim hordes invaded India, diffused the power of the brahmins, caused many dalits to convert to Islam to break the spell of discrimination, and the brahmins and Indian Hindus to this day regard Indian Muslims with the same contempt they would for dalits."

Jihadist, the reasons you cite (as above) are incomplete/irrelevant. Hindus are most forgiving. However the "hatred" for Islam (barbaric ideology) is rekindled when
one reads the article on Partition of India in which Hindus had seen a holocaust like the Auschwitz.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/11/AR2008031103122.html?referrer=emailarticle

Are you faking ignorance ?

From:

http://csidonline.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=131&Itemid=73#osama

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2005/nov/01/religion.world

return of the caliphate (is only condition for World Peace)

There is no reason why the west should set its face against the vision of a reunited Islamic world

Osama Saeed
Tuesday November 1, 2005
The Guardian

It came as news to many Muslims, and probably non-Muslims too, that one of the things "fundamental to our civilisation" is opposition to any recreation of the Islamic caliphate. That is according to the home secretary, Charles Clarke, speaking last month as an honoured guest of the neocon Heritage Foundation in the US.

It follows hard on the heels of similar comments made by both Tony Blair and George Bush. With such luminaries pushing the policy, there must be significance to the words. The caliphate was wiped from the map, the message seems to be, and they want to keep it wiped.

The institution they attack is the idea of a united political leadership of the Muslim world, which was destroyed in 1924 after about 1,350 years. Following the death of the Prophet Muhammad, caliphs were appointed to the leadership of the Muslims. In the ensuing centuries, the centre and nature of this power moved around, resting in Istanbul at the time of its destruction.

In its dynamic period, the Islamic caliphate was at the heart of a great civilisation, leading the world in science, philosophy, law, maths and astronomy.

More recently, the Muslim world has had artificial lines drawn all over it, most notably by Mr Sykes and Mr Picot during the first world war.

The borders were defined for the colonial masters to extract what they needed and keep the natives divided. Western leaders are still determined today to defend these borders.

However, if Bush and Blair are serious about reform in Muslim countries, it must include not just democratic reform, but also economic development. As the people of the US and the EU know, creating economic blocks to allow this to happen is an imperative. No one argues that each federal state would be better off on its own not being part of the US. The EU managed to bring together a war-ravaged continent, on the basis of economic cooperation, which has led to further union.

India and China are emerging economically because of their size, an advantage the Islamic world would also enjoy if united.

There can be no doubt that there will eventually be a similar model for Muslim countries. Both the US and EU are structurally unique, and so will be any Islamic model. Instead of a president or a commission, there might be what is called a caliph. It's not the names but what the institutions do - and how they are accountable - that matters.

There is no point in comparing the political form a caliphate might take to those in centuries past. Institutions such as the British monarchy or the papacy have existed for centuries, but bear little resemblance today to what's gone before. A restored caliphate is entirely compatible with democratically accountable institutions.
..........

Muslim world was ruled by Kholafae Rashedin Era or the Caliphs with rightful Path from 632 to 661, Umayyad from 661 to 717, Abbaside from 750 to 1242 and lastly Osmani from 1299 to 1923. Others like Mamluks also ruled vast Muslim World. So Caliphate continued for almost 1300 years

Than enemy of Prophet Jesus (peace be upon him) i.e. Romans/Europeans/Anglo Saxon destroyed 1300 years Caliphate as they hate Muslims and Caliphate.

Opposition to the Caliphate has been at the core of Britain's Foreign Policy for centuries. Lord Curzon the British Foreign Secretary in 1924 said, "We must put an end to anything which brings about any Islamic unity between the sons of the Muslims. As we have already succeeded in finishing off the Caliphate, so we must ensure that there will never arise again unity for the Muslims, whether it be intellectual or cultural unity.

From:

http://www.khilafahmovement.org/

It came as news to many Muslims, and probably non-Muslims too, that one of the things "fundamental to our civilisation" is opposition to any recreation of the Islamic caliphate. That is according to the home secretary, Charles Clarke, speaking last month as an honoured guest of the neocon Heritage Foundation in the US.
It follows hard on the heels of similar comments made by both Tony Blair and George Bush. With such luminaries pushing the policy, there must be significance to the words. The caliphate was wiped from the map, the message seems to be, and they want to keep it wiped.
The institution they attack is the idea of a united political leadership of the Muslim world, which was destroyed in 1924 after about 1,350 years. Following the death of the Prophet Muhammad, caliphs were appointed to the leadership of the Muslims. In the ensuing centuries, the centre and nature of this power moved around, resting in Istanbul at the time of its destruction.
In its dynamic period, the Islamic caliphate was at the heart of a great civilisation, leading the world in science, philosophy, law, maths and astronomy.
More recently, the Muslim world has had artificial lines drawn all over it, most notably by Mr Sykes and Mr Picot during the first world war.
The borders were defined for the colonial masters to extract what they needed and keep the natives divided. Western leaders are still determined today to defend these borders.
However, if Bush and Blair are serious about reform in Muslim countries, it must include not just democratic reform, but also economic development. As the people of the US and the EU know, creating economic blocks to allow this to happen is an imperative. No one argues that each federal state would be better off on its own not being part of the US. The EU managed to bring together a war-ravaged continent, on the basis of economic cooperation, which has led to further union.

Why does the anti-Islam crowd keep resorting to DISTORTIONS, LOGICAL FALLACIES and OUTRIGHT LIES?

Omar ADMITS DEFEAT by failing to answer almost ALL of the questions I put to him. Thanks for rolling over and surrendering, Omar.

Omar replied: “Your accusation of “Distortions, Logical Fallacies and Lies” was general in scope and referred to everyone on the board who was being critical of Islam, including my comment and many others.”

12) Wrong! My comments were NOT “general.” They were VERY SPECIFIC! I referred ONLY to the “anti-Islam crowd.” NOT people who are merely “critical.” Do you understand that being “critical” and being “anti” are TWO DIFFERENT THINGS?

Omar goes on: “No logical fallacy there.”

13) Wrong again! And you just committed another logical fallacy, in conflating mere “criticism” of Islam with being “anti-Islam.” Since logic clearly eludes you, I’ll use an example. Is it possible to be “critical” of America without being “anti-American”?

(What are the odds Omar FAILS to actually answer the above question, since it PROVES he is wrong?)

14) Are you critical of America?

15) Are you anti-American?

Omar goes on: “As for those critics who are the subject of death threats and now require (and will continue to require) security, here’s a short sample:”

What Omar FAILS to understand is that the actions of a minority of people who are Muslim does NOT mean that all Muslims are terrorists, and it does NOT mean that Islam is inherently bad.

16) There are plenty of doctors and clinics in US that STILL require security from Christian terrorists. Does those Christian terrorists mean that Christianity is inherently bad?

And you STILL fail to say if you are anti-Islam. Are you anti-Islam or not?

To Concerned The Christian Now Liberated:

A few things to address in Christianity which are just as "obfusing" as anything claimed about Islam.

1. Belief in "pretty/ugly wingie thingies" like angels and Satan.

2. Belief that an hallucinating, illiterate Israelite did actually talk God and receive tablets graven with Commandments for His Chosen People to follow.

3. That a guy claiming to be the Son of God got himself crucified and then came back to life and this magically makes a difference for everyone else in the world.

4. That Protestants are superior to Catholics in all aspects of life. And Catholics think the same way about Protestants.

5. That Christiaity is the one true religion.

These are tough issues.

Address them, correct them then ask again to be allowed into the civil world!!!!! Christianity's track record is no better than Islam's.

The comment you refer to were prejudicial, which of course is founded on ignorance. The Western view of Islam and Muslims is not based on a single thing but instead come from many sources.

First, what we see of Muslims is images from Palestine, from the conflicts in India with the withdrawal of British rule and the partitioning of Pakistan and India, from the 1979 revolution in Iran, from Beirut and the SS Cole... and the icing on the cake was the images from 9/11 and the days that followed- including the reaction in parts of the Middle East, and the images of the Taliban and al Qaeda, the bombings in Madrid and London, the routinely outrageous comments by the president of Iran, rioting in the streets in protest of the rest of the world not bowing to the bliefs of Islam (e.g., the cartoon controversy), etc. The issues of dress create a separation between those Muslims who dress traditionally and Westerners (denouncing the West as corrupt doesn't help).

Because the Taliban and al Qaeda claim that legitimacy for mass murder is based in the Koran, the image that Westerners have of Islam is very vivid. That image is of a violent and backwards part of the world, one in which culture and faith are not separated, and a part of the world that will not hesitate to attack those who believe differently. It may be vividly wrong, but how are we to know otherwise?

There are two ways to change the images of Islam for Westerners. One is doing what you are doing- to tell people what Muslims believe. Another is for Muslims to get to know non-Muslims. I have had the pleasure of a number of conversations with Muslims in which I discovered that we had more in common than we had dividing us.

I bet Allah is proud of His Martyrs.
You gotta love people who love you
so much they explode themselves all over
the world Trade Center for you,
and burn thousands of infidels
while they're at it.

Without their Faith in their maker,
they never would have had the courage
for such a mind boggling assignment.

Everybody should have such Faith.
It's what God would want us to have; the ability
to believe so powerfully, that we can just
switch our brains off and go into Faithmode,
where nothing makes sense but is right anyhow.

Momma always said we should do what God
wants us to do.And God knows I try.
But somehow I can't help being a little
skeptical about the whole thing.
The older I get the more foolish does faith become.

Why does the anti-Islam crowd keep resorting to DISTORTIONS, LOGICAL FALLACIES and OUTRIGHT LIES?

I hesitate to dignify the deranged bile from “Spiderman2” with a comment, but here goes:

spiderman2: “wait till America is fed up coz the Bible predicts that death will visit those who oppose America.”

Wow. Do all haters of Islam believe such idiocy, or is it only “Spiderman2”?

OK, I challenge you to point out where in the Bible the word "America” appears. If you FAIL, then you must retract all your hate and apologize for it.

Why does the anti-Islam crowd keep resorting to DISTORTIONS, LOGICAL FALLACIES and OUTRIGHT LIES?

Man Cat, you have just admitted you are wrong.

Your FAILURE to answer basic questions means you admit defeat. The FACT that you are AFRAID to answer direct questions shows the failure of your arguments.

Out of ten, Mad Cat only ATTEMPTED to answer three. Less than 1/3rd is pretty pathetic.

Man Cat: “…Perhaps you meant Eric Rudolph. His bombings occurred in the mid 90s. Is this your best? You date yourself. Your bravada is stale.”

So, Man Cat, by failing to defend your comments, you lose. You said ““When has a Christian man, woman or child strapped a bomb on themselves and killed innocent people?”

I pointed out a genuine Christian terrorist who bombed innocent people, so I proved your point WRONG!

Your pathetic attempt to wriggle out by saying his bombings happened in the 90s is a pathetic joke. Eric Rudolph (you are correct that his name is not Roberts) is STILL a Christian terrorist bomber.

12) How does the DECADE of Eric Rudolph’s bombings change the fact that Eric Rudolph is still a Christian terrorist bomber?

13) Many Christian terrorists bombed Ireland until President Clinton help them make peace. Do the dates of those bombings mean they don’t count as Christian terrorism?

14) By your logic, does Islamic terrorism not count if it’s before the year 2000?

15) If you need examples in this decade, Christian terrorists bombed Soweto in 2002. Christian terrorist groups continue attacks on abortion clinics, right up to this year. Are you really unaware of that?

Man Cat says “Better go back to your truther boards- "Freddy". Your posts show your hand and that's no way to play a game of cards.”

16) Huh? Does that even mean anything?

Man Cat: “I don't hate Muslims or Mohammed. I reject Islam. Until and unless it is reformed- it is a poisonous ideology.”

17) Man Cat has FAILED to show what part of Islam is “poisonous” in a way that does not ALSO apply to actions by Christians or teachings in the Bible.

Man Cat FAILED to answer the following:
Man Cat lies: “"Freddy", you are just showing your own hatred of Christ.”

1) How? Prove it.

2) Since when is quoting scripture “showing hatred of Christ”?

3) Do your selective and out of context quotes from the Koran “show your hatred for Muslims?”

4) Or does logic not work in your world?

Man Cat’s ignorance goes on: “Are Christian children taught to kill themselves for the glory of God?”

8) Many people of all faiths teach their children to be willing die for their faith/ culture/ nationality. Some fanatics of all faiths twist that around to ENCOURAGE their kids to die for their faith/ culture/ nationality. But you can only see it when Muslims do it. How sad for you.
Mad cat: “when have you ever heard a Christian yell "God is great" while committing an act of violence?”

9) Truly silly argument. Plenty of soldiers of all faiths invoke their deity when killing and being killed. Again, you fail to ascribe evil only to Muslims.

Man Cat: “No Christian will force you to shut up as a Christ hater.”

10) Wrong again! First, you commit numerous logical fallacies here. Besides your ad hominem attack, you have failed to demonstrate in any way that I am a “Christ hater.” There have been plenty of Christians who sought to silence those who disagreed with them. Are you ignorant of Christian dictators like Frederick Chiluba? He declared that Zambia would henceforth be a Christian nation. He silenced Muslims and Hindus by refusing to allow them into schools to be educated. He made the national TV and radio stations have Christian-only programming. Evil fanatic Pat Robertson said “Your country is not only the standard for Africa but for the rest of the world." And asked his audience "Wouldn't you love to have someone like that as President of the United States of America?"
Man Cat, aren’t you ashamed of your ignorance by now? Do you renounce your religious hypocrisy?

11) Man Cat: “Christ will take care of Himself and you without help.”

LOL. I love the veiled threats of religious hypocrites. I take comfort in the fact that the Bible makes it clear that religious hypocrites will have their own special reward.

Independent.co.uk
Joan Smith: Sorry, God. You're not on the guest list

This is the high point of a fantastic week for secularism.

When the leaders of 27 countries meet in Berlin today to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the EU, there will be one significant absence. To the annoyance of many Poles, who have what is arguably the most crackpot right-wing government in Europe, God has not been invited to the party. Neither Christianity nor the deity feature in the declaration which Europe's leaders will sign to mark the occasion, signalling the high point of what has been a fantastic week for secularism.

I would think that, you might say, given that one of the jobs I most fancy is poster-girl for a strictly rational approach to human affairs. But recent events show that it isn't just sceptics who are worried by the inroads which other people's imaginary friends have been making in secular states. The politician behind the decision to exclude any reference to religion from the Berlin declaration is the German Chancellor Angela Merkel, a pastor's daughter, who recognises the crucial importance for most modern societies of a separation between church and state - and of not providing ammunition to critics who accuse the EU of being a Christian club.

In this country, in a blow to the Islamophobia industry which has tried to silence critics of Islam through strident accusations of racism, the Education Secretary Alan Johnson issued guidelines which will allow schools to ban paranoid forms of religious dress, including the mask, or "niqab", worn by some Muslim girls. I'm sure this will have wide public support, because the last thing most people want is a Talibanisation of relations between men and women in the UK.

At the same time, some of the country's most senior Anglican prelates were roundly defeated in the House of Lords when they made the idiotic error of supporting the Catholic Church in its attempt to discriminate against gay couples who want to use its state-funded adoption agencies. "What do we want? Discrimination! When do we want it? Now!" has never seemed to me a persuasive platform for any religion to fight on, especially when the public has warmed to gay weddings such as that of the singer Sir Elton John (who, by the way, is celebrating his 60th birthday with an eloquent blast against gay-bashing worldwide).

In a dramatic sign of the times, the Archbishop of York and two Anglican bishops found themselves criticised by peers who wanted to know what had happened to the notion of Christian love. Baroness Howarth and the former Culture secretary, Lord Smith, spoke as practising Christians and were supported by Lord Alli and my friend Baroness Massey, easily winning the debate. The Anglican hierarchy needs to do some soul-searching about why they joined this doomed cause, placing themselves on the same side as monstrously prejudiced bishops from Latin America and Africa.

Meanwhile in Paris, in a ruling welcomed as a robust assertion of the right to free speech, a French court acquitted Philippe Val, editor of the weekly satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo, who was taken to court by Muslim organisations after publishing three cartoons deemed offensive to the Prophet. And the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg ruled against Poland, which has one of the most restrictive abortion laws in Europe, after a Polish woman lost most of her sight when she was denied a legal abortion on medical grounds.

The Enlightenment, in other words, is back with a bang. Of course people have a right to their religious views, but they aren't entitled to exercise them in ways that trample on the rights of women, children, gay people and freethinkers. Wake up and smell the coffee: God doesn't rule, OK?

A Jesuit priest put it succinctly. Before the creation of Israel the USA had no enemies in the Middle East.

Islamophobia is a zionist/christian fundies propaganda started by a Bernard Lewis [a zionist jew] and promoted as an anchor to tie Israel and the US in a common crusade type.

If Islamophobia is accepted as a given by the zionists and their sympathisers in the US and elsewhere how can one describe the worldwide anti-israel/antisemitic growth in non Islamic societies.

And using what is sauce for the goose must be also sauce for the gander if Arab/islamic peoples are considered enemies then its hard to condemn the Arab/Islamic people for feeling the same sentiment about the American fundamentalists like John Hagee, Pat Robertson, Ron Presely, israel, and zionisim in general.

Hatred is an equal opportunity activity.

Martinanado says, addressing peace-loving Muslims like me: "Where is your Gandhi? Where is you Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King Jr, may peace be upon them? Where are Muslims ACTING in ways that show their tolerance and love?"

I ask: If I show and tell you where you can find a Muslim Gandhi or MLK is, how convinced WILL YOU TRULY BE?

I can bet dollars to donuts as Eboo's article excellently shows, you will still not be satisfied. As Eboo correctly notes, "Its a drone and an ignorant hypnotic trance."

But just for argument's sake: check out 1) Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani the most regarded cleric in all of Iraq whose non-violent calls to drop the arms actually paved the way for US troops en route to Baghdad. 2) Heard of Jalaludeen Rumi? (A man million times more enveloped in the ocean of love than MLK could ever be) 3) Abdel Qadir-al-Jelani 4) And modern day a good American born teacher is Hamza Yusuf.

Note MLK existed, how much of his teachings have been implemented by his gov't? For if he were alive today, I'm convinced he would be even sadder at the state of our country, much less the injustice in the world?

Chris Everett;

Um...err..no comment...

I mean uh...yeah thanks.

What can I say?

I meant well.

(Yeah that's the ticket).

You d'man.

The rest of us do what we can.

Daphne.

Oh there "Reality Challenged" and Obfuscating Jihadist and Muslims in General,

As much as the "obfusing" Jihadist tries to distract the global community from the flaws of Islam, they are the facts, facts that continue to keep the world in an elevated state of terror and a threat to world peace.

Once again for everyones perusal since the "obfusing" one will not address them:

1. Belief in "pretty/ugly wingie thingies".

2. Belief that an hallucinating, illiterate Arab did actually talk to the "pretty Gabriel" in the hot "Gabe" cave and therein received the warmongering and anti-female words and resultant laws now listed in the koran.

3. That Sunnis are superior to Shiites in all aspects of life. And Shiites think the same way about Sunnis.

4. That Islam is perfect and the koran inherently condones no sin even though the 24/7, 800 year-old blood feud between Sunnis and Shiites gives significant credence that greed, hate, suicides, assassinations, maiming, and murder are condoned by the koran. Having multiple wives also gives significant credence to the sins of rape, adultery, lust and polygamy. The condoned treatment of these wives gives credence that the koran allows the sins of hatred, anger and greed.
These are tough issues.

Address them, correct them then ask again to be allowed into the civil world!!!!!

And accusing someone of spreading hate and lies does not work when these "someones" are simply listing the facts. If you have counter points about your beliefs then list them. Hiding behind imams and clerics blinded by 1400 years of brainwashing serves no purpose other than to secure a dishonest living for said imams and clerics.

Martiniano,

You : Every Muslim will say that Islam is a tolerant religion. Nice words.

Moi : Yes. Nice words. But we don't tolerate repressive governments and invasions in our countries. Or corrupt and ineffective and unjust governance.

You : Where is your Gandhi? Where is you Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King Jr, may peace be upon them?

Moi : The British as colonialists, are not as nasty as the Dutch or the French. It is possible for former colonial countries of Britain to have their indepennce with comparatively less bloodshed in India, Malaya, Burma. Indonesia, under the Dutch, and Algeria and Vietnam under the French, saw too much violence towards attaining their independence. The Dutch and French were not as civil and fair-minded as the British. Hence, Gandhi is possible in India.

Martin Luther King Jr? Civil rights against institutionalised racial discrimination within states?

I know you are talking about passive resistance or peaceful protests. But America is a democracy and most Muslim states are not quite. The chances of being mowed down by your own government's guns is quite high. We are lucky if they only throw tear gas and blast water cannons our way.

You : Where are Muslims ACTING in ways that show their tolerance and love?

Moi : We don't have too much tolerance and love for our corrupt, ineffective, repressive and non-democratic governance.

You : You (Eboo Patel) seem to say that it is incumbent upon non-Muslims to change their belief. I say it is incumbent upon Muslims to change our belief.

Moi : It would also be hard to change some beliefs held by Muslims that America is arrogant, rapactious and self-centred.

It is better to be phobic on repressive governments and governance from Cuba to Burma to Iran to China to North Korea than on the faith of their own people.

The western media and pundits keep telling themselves that Islam and democracy is incompatible etc.

Unlike Burmese and Chinese who tolerated their authoritarian governments, Muslims don't. If Muslim governments don't open up their countries to democracy and free speech etc, there will be more extremism and violence.

See Egypt and the Muslim Brotherhood. See Algeria when the military declared the results of elections null when Islamic-leaning parties won elections and nary a word of protest from Europe and US. Hence more repression and more violence.

It is possible to have elections as in Indonesia, Malaysia and Turkey. Even so-called Islamic parties, when elected, do act in a pragmatic and accountable way. Openess and democracy is the best antidote to extremism.

Oppressive Muslim governments also tend to paint all dissenters as pro-western or western/CIA agent or apostate or terrorist; and all dissenting groups as insurgents/terrorists. And said so to their anxious people and/or friendly western countries. Whatever their spin is. The "war on terror" is a blessing for repressive governments of Muslim states.

Just as there are Christian Democrats in Europe, there are now Muslim Democrats in the Muslim world. Islamic parties' platform are close to the Democrats - pro-social service for all etc. That's simplyfying it too much, but they proved to be less corrupt and more efficient in governance. As in Turkey.

Only in open democracies can the excessess of secularism and religion can be checked. We learn that now in Indonesia, Malaysia and Turkey.

And you will never see America support ruthless governments like Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. We won't stand for giving those Islamo-fascists weapons. We only support freedom.

I'll try one more time to get a response to "what is a moderate Muslim?"

Is this what you mean? Here are Muslim leaders speaking out.

http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/world/international-islamic-summit.html

Excerpts: "We continue to strongly condemn all forms of extremism and dogmatism which are incompatible with Islam, a religion of moderation and peaceful coexistence," the declaration said."
EXCEPT WHEN WE DON'T CONDEMN:
"But, in an apparent reference to the Palestinian fight against Israel, it said terrorism should be differentiated from "legitimate resistance against foreign occupation."
IF YOU ARE JEWISH WE STILL CONDEMN:
"The conference denounces the current and increasing Israeli military campaign against the Palestinian people and the serious violation of human rights and war crimes including the killing and injuring of Palestinian civilians," an OIC statement said."

Of course the council did not denounce the violence against Israeli civilians, which happens to be THE reason Israel is forced to attack. Palestinian daily rocket attacks and sometimes suicide bombers killing Israeli civilians do not get censured by "World Muslim leaders".

Yes, where is your Ghandi? I haven't seen him on American television yet.

Concerned the Christian Now Liberated:)

Hello pussycat.

You : Oops, sorry for the rational/rationale mixup.

Moi : I know. Terrible is it not? Phobias can lead us to excitability to kneejerking to mix things up. Can't even tell mainstream Muslims from Al Qaeda and its ilks? Saying Al Qaeda and its ilks to represent all Muslims?

Of course, everyone knows neo-cons cast a spell on Americans to go adventuring for oil in the Middle East - the cast of spell of bringing about "birth pangs" for a new Middle East, to bring freedom and democracy and what not. But not not to Cuba and China. Or to Burma and North Korea.

A spell indeed. It used to be American phobias on communism as spinned and spurned. Only people who spin their own spells fell for it. Just ask the neocons.

You : The two words (rational/rationale) blend together when dealing with the flaws of religions i.e. fundamental irrational basis for the "irrationale" of it all.

Moi : Thanks for that rationalisation of words and English lesson. We learn many new words from Mr. Donald Rumsfeld. Not too much from Dick Cheney. He don't say much. It is, "irrationality" by the way.

You : So make that Islam is still the most irrational of the "Abrahamic" religions especially when it comes to relying on "pretty wingie thingies" to be the basis of Islam's warmongering, violence and stench.

Moi : I see. Very logical deduction and conclusion Sherlock. I wonder why there is a Crossanization of Christianity then?

Nahh..we don't have as many "pretty wingie thingies" as you do raining bombs on our heads in the Middle East. We've been reading lots of books by Noam Chomsky. We find nothing rational about non-Muslim US since WW II. Everyone knows that the CIA bothched everywhere from Cuba to Iran to Vietnam. If it were not for CIA/US interference, Cuba will not have Castro, Iran will not have a theocracy, and Vietnam would still not be communist/socialistic.

Warmongering? Violence? Stench?.

Not asking Latin Americans, Africans and Asians who are the biggest war-mongerers, the biggest weapons exporter, the most violent, the most stench?

--------------------------------------------------

Hello Deb Chatterjee,

How goes fighting for the rights of dalits and to stop discrimination and violence against them because their non-status in society?

Too bad the Muslim hordes invaded India, diffused the power of the brahmins, caused many dalits to convert to Islam to break the spell of discrimination, and the brahmins and Indian Hindus to this day regard Indian Muslims with the same contempt they would for dalits.

Nahhh....I am not blaming you for the caste system. Not your fault. And not holding your personally accountable for the state and condition of dalits in India.

--------------------------------------------------

Geogiason : All you need to do is rigorously examine the countries in which Islam is the predominant religion to know what Islam really means.

Moi : Well, it means a lot as Muslims are still devout believers. Just as Christianity means not a lot in Europe, not much for some Americans, and too much for other Americans.

--------------------------------------------------

Patrick O'Neil : Luckily, I can travel freely in Buddhist countries without fear.

Moi : Must have been Japan or South Korea. Which are not quite pure Buddhist countries anymore. Been to Burma or Sri Lanka?

But Muslim states don't like to have the sex industry as in Buddhist Thailand though. So, it is safe for sex tourists.

--------------------------------------------------

Dotherightthing: That would be a great day for their resident countries AND for the Muslims themselves - to shake off their cultural apathy and ambivalence toward speaking up against purported-but-not-authentic "fellow" Muslims.
We're waiting.

Moi : There is no Fox TV offices in all Muslim countries. And some of our governments are the worst terrorist in terrorising their own people with repressive laws and curtailments on free speech.

Thanks for waiting anyway in spite of all that media focus on the antics of Ferraro and Governor of New York. Besides, as rightly pointed out by some posters, the rational voices don't get media coverage. Only the extremists ones. Like Osama. We all are fed by what the media wants to feed us everywhere. And media organisations everywhere has political alignments and biases.

Words vs Action.

Every Muslim will say that Islam is a tolerant religion. Nice words.

But...

Where is your Gandhi? Where is you Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King Jr, may peace be upon them?

Where are Muslims ACTING in ways that show their tolerance and love?

You seem to say that it is incumbent upon non-Muslims to change their belief. I say it is incumbent upon Muslims to change our belief.

Daphne,

You're my kinda girl. And I love the name.

Eboo,

Speechless? You have a horn for your propaganda and you never ever reply. How many times does one have to ask you to answer just one question? You hate free speech.
*****************************
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewForeignBureaus.asp?Page=/ForeignBureaus/archive/200803/FOR20080313a.html
OIC Wants 'Binding Legal Instrument' to Fight Islamophobia
By Patrick Goodenough
CNSNews.com International Editor
March 13, 2008

(CNSNews.com) - An international humanist organization has warned that Islamic governments are trying to use the United Nations to shut down free speech. The warning comes as a bloc of Islamic states is holding a summit with "Islamophobia" high on the agenda.
........
********************************

Islam has thrived by silencing the questioners. Kill the apostates and now the followers of the death cult want to use the laws of the Kafirs to silence the Kafirs?

Instead of lying, trying answering any of the questions put to you? Islam will be questioned and will be examined. Modern technology will not yield to violence and bloodshed that Islam has used very very effectively to date.

"Just a hundred years ago newspapers were just beginning, not everybody could read, electricity was in few homes, automobiles were happening, and a whole new world was just taking off, leaving the darker ages behind for ever."

This is a little off-topic, but isn't it funny how every generation thinks that it is the great culmination of history? Now I like modern life as much as the next guy. Hot showers, electric lights, and the internet, woohoo! But it's hard to read Aeschylus and still think that people were ignorant fools in the past.

First publication dates of a few newspapers (Wikipedia).
16th century privately published Beijing news sheets.
Opregte Haarlemsche Courant, Haarlem, The Netherlands, 1656.
The Daily Courant, 1702.
Boston News-Letter, 1704.
Halifax Gazette, Canada, 1751.
Pennsylvania Evening Post, 1783.
Times of London (The Daily Universal Register), 1785.
New York Sun, 1833.
New York Times, 1851.
Boston Globe, 1872.
Washington Post, 1877.

My,my,my. Perhaps some of Mr. Patel's perplexity about alleged bias toward Muslims woul be be alleviated if he went back and read some of my previous comments to him. My comments, in particular, that are a virtual mirror image of his. The ones in which I point out that myself and others have raised valid points in rebuttal of Mr. Patel--and he never bothers. Like Mr. Patel, we are left speechless by the experience of talking to a brick wall. Like Mr. Patel, we feel we are encountering the same questions over and over again, long after they have been answered.

Maybe Mr. Patel would also get better treatment if he stopped engaging in the same dishonesty and hypocrisy over and over again. The flagrant dishonesty that the "truth" of Islam can be found by rigorous examination of the Koran and other of Islam's founding documents. All you need to do is rigorously examine the countries in which Islam is the predominant religion to know what Islam really means.

But just like those non-Muslims keep asking the same questions about Muslim terrorists and Muslim moderates, devoid of any reference to empirical facts, my guess is that Mr. Patel will keep challenging us to find the real meaning of Islam in his own ever so sophisticated analysis, not by any examination of empirical facts.

As an "Islamophobe" I can answer by pointing out that this is the wrong question.

It doesn't matter to me how many people condemn "terrorism" because it is the "moderate" muslims that "condemn terrorism" that I am afraid of.

A "moderate" muslim is more "fundamentalist" than our extreme "christian fundamentalist" and in any "Islamic Republic" in the world as a gay man I stand a good chance of imprisonment or execution at the hands of "moderate" muslims.

Luckily, I can travel freely in Buddhist countries without fear.

I can answer by pointing out that this is the wrong question.

It doesn't matter to me how many people condemn "terrorism" because it is the "moderate" muslims that "condemn terrorism" that I am afraid of.

A "moderate" muslim is more "fundamentalist" than our extreme "christian fundamentalist" and in any "Islamic Republic" in the world as a gay man I stand a good chance of imprisonment or execution at the hands of "moderate" muslims.

Luckily, I can travel freely in Buddhist countries without fear.

Eboo;
So easy to moderate Islam while living in America... a nation without an Islamic foundation. In fact the only place on earth that you can live a moderate Islam is in fact places where Islam is not at the root or core of it's history of control and persecution of Kafir.
Ezekiel

The other side is to blame. The media on my side says I am right and all my friends agree. The violence committed by my side is for the right reasons. The other side is evil and they are crazy fanatics.

Can't you get it through your head that I am right.

Mr Patel;

Do you actually read these comments?
If you do, do you get discouraged that once again
the majority of posters strongly disagree with what you write?
Does any of it get through to you?
You impress no-one here with your diatribes.

In The Spell of Islamophobia Eboo Patel
wrote:

> I spoke about how Muslim history and
> theology support religious pluralism.

Yes? This may help explain why it is that
Islamic cultures (all of which started out
from pluralistic non-Islamic civilizations)
are everywhere today a monolithic Islamic
mind-control culture where even the mere
expression of a possible change of religion
is instantly punished by death (and where
children are encouraged to murder their
parents, brothers, and sisters ... and it is
demanded of parents they murder their
children if they stray from Islamic law).

Today only a few Christian souls remain of
what was an Egypt which was once all Christian.
The last few surviving Christians are even now
leaving Iran and Iraq. In the East, where Islam
has but only recently taken over countries like
Indonesia, Thailand, and the like... and in Africa
the old civilizations there are in abeyance and
steady retreat under the unrelenting violence
and intimidation of Islam--so too there soon you
will see nothing but the soulless mind-control
slavery you see everywhere in the Islamic world.

DO NOT FALL FOR THE MUSLIM PROPAGANDA.

Look into the history of the Islamic Plague
which has devastated a third of humanity.
The answer is in history, not in articles by
Muslim propagandists like Eboo Patel & others.

VISIT THOU http://islamisbad.com

You can begin from there, and Google your way
to the truth, maybe even before it's too late.

S D Rodrian

Religious belief, of any kind, becomes by definition, closed, separative and ultimately violent. Once you take the first step into childish irrational belief systems, any subsequent violent behavior can be justified or, just as bad, tolerated.
The question is not whether there are "nice" Christians, Muslim or Jews, and "bad" versions.
The question is why do you think you need belief? Why do you want to follow? Why do you need a book or a priest to be generous and kind?
Believers believe out of fear or greed. They want to avoid something or get something.
All the money spent supporting preachers, priests, rabbis, imams, ayatollahs, churches, mosques and synagogues could be spent directly helping people. Believers give because they want to get, which is not giving. It’s a business transaction.
All the talk of tolerance and compassion is babble to make believers feel better.
It’s like prayer. It’s a placebo. It lets you think you’ve done something when you’ve done exactly nothing but talk to the air.
Terrorists at least do something, ugly, hateful and despicable as they are. The good news is, terrorists are revealing religious belief for what it is. The Christians tried terrorism during the Crusades. Now the Muslims are taking their turn at displaying the ignorance of religious belief.
You want to do something. Take the first step. Walk away from religious belief. Life is better on the sane side.

Being an optimist I figure this century has to be religion's last.

We have access to information in this modern era, that our ancestors could only dream of.

Just a hundred years ago newspapers were just beginning, not everybody could read, electricity was in few homes, automobiles were happening, and a whole new world was just taking off, leaving the darker ages behind for ever.

Now we have it all; computers, the net, radio and television,CD's, DVD's, IPods and Blackberries,newspapers,magazines,books, and a greater knowledge of the world, and a greater mastery of science and technology than the most optimistic could ever have hoped for.

We are becoming too literate and too knowledgeable to take religious thinking seriously for too much longer. More and more people are having second thoughts about the irrationality of it all, and, since 9/11 we see how terribly dangerous it is too.

As more and more people get more education than ever before, and literacy levels rise, computer and internet access increases worldwide, religious superstition would seem to be a commodity increasingly unreal, and irrelevant; a relic of our weird and nasty past.

who started it - many major mass media orgs and the bush administration may not have lit the initial flame - but they fanned the fire and threw gasoline on it for sure

how to fix it - the reverse, more visual representation, more muslims openly speaking comfortably about the faith and countering ignorance when they feel comfortable doing so, more publicity and media coverage of the issues in a fair way (not in the muslims hate israel and christians kind of way because that's a false statement) that brings out the complexities and details of issues, a more accurate discussion of the roles of the US in the so-called muslim world, more visible celebration of muslim cultures and customs (though i did see coca-cola doing ramadan advertisements this year...), better protection and community education when discrimination happens, more non-muslims speaking up from a place of knowledge or at least encouraging critics/the confused to read more about it before making silly/ignorant statements....oh, the list goes on and on...but if someone has a silver bullet...

the muslim community - a growing community in the states - has always been one of the strongest, most community oriented and "patriotic" groups in this country whether foreign or domestic in origin and horrible things have been committed by radical individuals apparently in the name of each faith up until this post is being written.

maybe start highlighting famous muslim celebrities and have them talk openly about their faith like madonna and tom cruise and those guys always do.

Ruth Shaver said: "A substantial pillar in any solution of those conflicts will have to be the recognition that NONE of the world's religions are inherently violent, despite millennia of misuse and twisting by political leaders and their ambitions religious advisors."

You have it backwards Ruth.

It should read: " A substantial pillar in any solution of those conflicts will have to be the recognition that ALL of the world's religions are inherently violent, INVOLVING millennia of misuse and twisting by political leaders and their ambitions religious advisors.

There, much better!

I would be sad to see peaceful Islam destroyed but it could happen all too easily if terrorists were to detonate one nuke on U.S. or European soil and the West were to overreact with nuclear retaliation across the board- there are more than enough nukes to do this.

At minimum I am sure that world leaders are going to panic if the first terrorist nuke goes off. Car bomb is one thing. Flash of white light is another. Security goes out the window. Maybe an impetus for a one-world government.

Washington Post Foreign Service
Saturday, September 15, 2007;

BURGESS HILL, England -- Every morning on his walk to work, high school teacher Graham Wright recited a favorite Anglican prayer and asked God for strength in the day ahead. Then two years ago, he just stopped.

Wright, 59, said he was overwhelmed by a feeling that religion had become a negative influence in his life and the world. Although he once considered becoming an Anglican vicar, he suddenly found that religion represented nothing he believed in, from Muslim extremists blowing themselves up in God's name to Christians condemning gays, contraception and stem cell research.

"I stopped praying because I lost my faith," said Wright, 59, a thoughtful man with graying hair and clear blue eyes. "Now I truly loathe any sight or sound of religion. I blush at what I used to believe."

Wright is now an avowed atheist and part of a growing number of vocal nonbelievers in Europe and the United States. On both sides of the Atlantic, membership in once-quiet groups of nonbelievers is rising, and books attempting to debunk religion have been surprise bestsellers, including "The God Delusion," by Oxford University professor Richard Dawkins.

New groups of nonbelievers are sprouting on college campuses, anti-religious blogs are expanding across the Internet, and in general, more people are publicly saying they have no religious faith.

More than three out of four people in the world consider themselves religious, and those with no faith are a distinct minority. But especially in richer nations, and nowhere more than in Europe, growing numbers of people are actively saying they don't believe there is a heaven or a hell or anything other than this life.

Many analysts trace the rise of what some are calling the "nonreligious movement" to the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. The sight of religious fanatics killing 3,000 people caused many to begin questioning -- and rejecting -- all religion.

"This is overwhelmingly the topic of the moment," said Terry Sanderson, president of the National Secular Society of Britain. "Religion in this country was very quiet until September 11, and now it is at the center of everything."

Since the 2001 attacks, a string of religiously inspired bomb and murder plots has shaken Europe. Muslim radicals killed 52 people on the London public transit system in 2005 and 191 on Madrid trains in 2004. People apparently aiming for a reward in heaven were arrested in Britain last year for trying to blow up transatlantic jetliners. And earlier this month in Germany, authorities arrested converts to Islam on charges that they planned to blow up American facilities there.

Many Europeans are angry at demands to use taxpayer money to accommodate Islam, Europe's fastest-growing religion, which now has as many as 20 million followers on the continent. Along with calls for prayer rooms in police stations, foot baths in public places and funding for Islamic schools and mosques, expensive legal battles have broken out over the niqab, the Muslim veil that covers all but the eyes, which some devout women seek to wear in classrooms and court.

Christian fundamentalist groups who want to halt certain science research, reverse abortion and gay rights and teach creationism rather than evolution in schools are also angering people, according to Sanderson and others.

"There is a feeling that religion is being forced on an unwilling public, and now people are beginning to speak out against what they see as rising Islamic and Christian militancy," Sanderson said.

Though the number of nonbelievers speaking their minds is rising, academics say it's impossible to calculate how many people silently share that view. Many people who do not consider themselves religious or belong to any faith group often believe, even if vaguely, in a supreme being or an afterlife. Others are not sure what they believe.

The term atheist can imply aggressiveness in disbelief; many who don't believe in God prefer to call themselves humanists, secularists, freethinkers, rationalists or, a more recently coined term, brights.

"Where religion is weak, people don't feel a need to organize against it," said Phil Zuckerman, an American academic who has written extensively about atheism around the globe.

He and others said secular groups are also gaining strength in countries where religious influence over society looms large, including India, Israel and Turkey. "Any time we see an outspoken movement against religion, it tells us that religion has power there," Zuckerman said.

One group of nonbelievers in particular is attracting attention in Europe: the Council of Ex-Muslims. Founded earlier this year in Germany, the group now has a few hundred members and an expanding number of chapters across the continent. "You can't tell us religion is peaceful -- look around at the misery it is causing," said Maryam Namazie, leader of the group's British chapter.

She and other leaders of the council held a news conference in The Hague to launch the Dutch chapter on Sept. 11, the sixth anniversary of the terrorist attacks in the United States. "We are all atheists and nonbelievers, and our goal is not to eradicate Islam from the face of the earth," but to make it a private matter that is not imposed on others, she said.

The majority of nonbelievers say they are speaking out only because of religious fanatics. But some atheists are also extreme, urging people, for example, to blot out the words "In God We Trust" from every dollar bill they carry.

Gaining political clout and access to television and radio airtime is the goal of many of these groups. With a higher profile, they say, they could, for instance, lobby for all religious rooms in public hospitals to be closed, as a response to Muslims demanding prayer rooms because Christians have chapels.

Associations of nonbelievers are also moving to address the growing demand in Britain, Spain, Italy and other European countries for nonreligious weddings, funerals and celebrations for new babies. They are helping arrange ceremonies that steer clear of talk of God, heaven and miracles and celebrate, as they say, "this one life we know."

The British Humanist Association, which urges people who think "the government pays too much attention to religious groups" to join them, has seen its membership double in two years to 6,500.

A humanist group in the British Parliament that looks out for the rights of the nonreligious now has about 120 members, up from about 25 a year ago.

Doreen Massey, a Labor Party member of the House of Lords who belongs to that group, said most British people don't want legislators to make public policy decisions on issues such as abortion and other health matters based on their religious affiliation.

But the church has disproportionate power and influence in Parliament, she said. Forexample, she said, polls show that 80 percent of Britons want the terminally ill who are in pain to have the right to a medically assisted death, yet such proposals have been effectively killed by a handful of powerful bishops.

"We can't accept that religious faiths have a monopoly on ethics, morality and spirituality," Massey said. Now, she added, humanist and secularist groups are becoming "more confident and more powerful" and recognize that they represent the wishes of huge numbers of people.
While the faithful have traditionally met like-minded people at the local church, mosque or synagogue, it has long been difficult for those without religion to find each other. The expansion of the Internet has made it a vital way for nonbelievers to connect.

In retirement centers, restaurants, homes and public lectures and debates, nonbelievers are convening to talk about how to push back what they see as increasingly intrusive religion.

"Born Again Atheist," "Happy Heathen" and other anti-religious T-shirts and bumper stickers are increasingly seen on the streets. Groups such as the Skeptics in the Pub in London, which recently met to discuss this topic, "God: The Failed Hypothesis," are now finding that they need bigger rooms to accommodate those who find them online.

Wright, the teacher who recently declared himself a nonbeliever, is one of thousands of people who have joined dues-paying secular and humanist groups in Europe this year.

Sitting in his living room on a quiet cul-de-sac in this English town of 30,000, Wright said he now goes online every day to keep up with the latest atheist news.

"One has to step up and stem the rise of religious influence," said Wright, who is thinking of becoming a celebrant at humanist funerals. He said he recently went to the church funeral of his brother-in-law and couldn't bear the "vacuous prayers of the vicar," who, Wright said, "looked bored and couldn't wait to leave."

Now, instead of each morning silently reciting a favorite nighttime prayer, "Lighten our darkness, we beseech thee, O Lord, and by thy great mercy defend us from all perils and dangers . . . " (from the Anglican Book of Common Prayer), he spends the time just thinking about the day ahead.

He said his deceased mother, a Catholic, was comforted by her faith: "It kept her going through difficult times," particularly when his father left her when he and his sister were young.

"I really don't know how I will react if something really bad happens," he said. "But there is no going back. There is nothing to go back to."

Not believing in an afterlife, he said, "makes you think you have to make the most of this life. It's the now that matters. It also makes you feel a greater urgency of things that matter," such as halting global warming, and not just dismissing it as being "all in God's plan."

He called himself heartened that the National Secular Society, which he recently joined, is planning to open chapters at a dozen universities this fall. The rising presence of the nonreligious movement, he said, is "fantastic."

"It's a bit of opposition, isn't it?" he said. "Why should these religious groups hold so much sway?

After listening to Obama’s pastor preach against whites … I'm afraid Obama's religious indoctrination, even though Christian, has racial hatred and victimization at its core.

That may mean the whole country has been duped by Obama.

Even Obama may not be conscious of the extent of his own racism. But the fact he “projects” the motivation of racism onto others like Bill, Hillary and Ferraro—who have fought their entire political careers for racial equality—is a sign that lurking in his heart might be racist points of view. How else could he feel comfortable sitting at the feet of this pastor?

There is no way Obama can win the general election against McCain with this kind of connection to racist views against whites. The Republicans will blow this up and scare everyone, since he has family members that are Muslim too.

The question I imagine they will ask people to consider is:

How can you trust him as President to represent all the people of this great nation, when he is comfortable listening to a preacher who teaches hatred against whites and has a basic anti-American sentiment?

The spell casting emanates from Saudi Arabia, The reaction to that spell is what you are describing. The holy tenants of Islam are (still to this day) promoting supremacist attitudes, and exhorting the followers to spread the faith by the sword. Everyday stories from around the world show that the message is being taken literally. Why can't the rest of the muslims clean up this part of their culture? How many atrocities are systematically being performed in the name of Islam - look to Darfur, for just one example.

Often muslims seem to be pointing outward to the injustices that they must endure in world opinion. This persecution complex ironically is what justifies so many of these unholy terrorists. It is my opinion that the muslim consciousness needs therapy, and real quick.

because anti-islamism is the new anti-semitism.

this is not surprising. the west had tried to separate the islam from the active politics of muslims which trail had successfuly been implemented.thus in muslim countries the western type of democracy run by proffessional criminals remain usually availble instead the original form of islamic governace for which it is not required here to discuss the merits and the demerits of such of islamic governce.however; west is so obsessed with word islam and muslims which permits them to coin everything linked with terrorisim. when pakistan developed necular weapon purely on scientific basis the same was called islamic bomb.we can apprehend that in near future islamic chemistry islamic physics and islamic necular sciences could also be linked just on the notion of name muslims.the humans begin to behave above logic when they have bais thus blocking themselves from free investigation and research.let us hope that truth may prevail.thanks

Who cast the spell? American politicians of both parties who discovered, in the years after the fall of the Soviet Bloc, that they needed a new enemy in order to justify a bloated defense budget. 9/11 turned the volume up on that chant, and sadly we have now bought two very broken countries and the enmity of nearly 1/3 of the world.

We can't undo what has been done, but I do wonder what the world would be like now had the post-Soviet era been focused on the diplomatic solution of what remain intractable international problems such as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Serbia, Armenia, Georgia, and Hindu-Muslim conflicts in India. A substantial pillar in any solution of those conflicts will have to be the recognition that NONE of the world's religions are inherently violent, despite millennia of misuse and twisting by political leaders and their ambitions religious advisors.

When was the last time Muslims as a group in any Western country demonstrated in the streets in the thousands explicitly against muslim terrorism attacks and against "the hijacking of Islam"?
That, combined with the Islamic precept allowing deception in the furtherance of jihad, makes Westerners unsure of the good intentions of the Muslims in their midst.
So, if Muslims truly are against Osama and his ilk, let them physically demonstrate their opposition and condemnation in the streets of the countries in which they reside. That would be a great day for their resident countries AND for the Muslims themselves - to shake off their cultural apathy and ambivalence toward speaking up against purported-but-not-authentic "fellow" Muslims.
We're waiting.

You just proved your callers point. It is no longer enough to condemn the violent action. It is now action that speaks louder than words.

Your proof in the pudding would be when you need to insist that Churches are built in Saudi. Or you willing to die for a non-muslim (preferably Hindu). Or go to Somalia or Sudan in the midst of the anarchy and insist that they not kill other muslims. And then take action to demolish anyone who counters you thirst for support the oppressed man. You being probably a product of the Arab liason should condemn all of the conquest that took place in the name on Religion.

Finally, insist that Pakistan become a secular state

Next time make this comment instead of holding it in:

“Don’t you feel a little embarrassed revealing that level of ignorance and bigotry on Public Radio? Do you know nothing more about the religion of one-fifth of humankind for over 1000 years but the violent bits? Isn’t that a little like knowing nothing more about the United States Constitution than the clause which states black people only count as three-fifths of a human being”.

Next time make this comment instead of holding it in:

“Don’t you feel a little embarrassed revealing that level of ignorance and bigotry on Public Radio? Do you know nothing more about the religion of one-fifth of humankind for over 1000 years but the violent bits? Isn’t that a little like knowing nothing more about the United States Constitution than the clause which states black people only count as three-fifths of a human being”.

Sari:

Awesome job with the list of authors - this is the kind of information I have been trying to get a hold of. I definitely plan on looking them up.

One thing, however - most the of people on this forum complaining about how violent Muslims are probably will never pick up a single book from an author without a Judeo-Christian name. People prejudice against Islam are probably prejudice against Arabs, Persians, and the like. If you know of anyone named "John Smith" or "Michael Jones" who write of progressive Islam, we might be able to woo a few more people to the informed side.

To the "independent who just posted." Stop spewing hate. Do something constructive. If your current profession fails, you may want to try applying for a job as a Hamas propagandist. Perhaps Meshal would hire you. I think you'd be too extreme for Haniyeh's faction.

Why not read some books and learn about the complexity of the Arab-Israeli conflict and stop getting all your information from the al Jazeera website.

Mr. Patel's wholly justified heartfelt reply so eloquently addresses a terrible problem, it ought to be read in public school civics classes - dare I hope schools still teach civics? Islamophobia, I remember precisely, had its origins in Republican excuses for the ongoing occupation of Iraq, in which we're trying to save Muslims from themselves. Jimmy Carter never felt obliged to make us hate Muslims for the Americans taken hostage, nor Bush 41 during our first war against Iraq, nor Clinton during Iraq sanctions. It keeps Bush's base from seeing his foreign policy fiasco as a failure but dooms his legacy. Indeed, his rhetorical sins alone are gross enough to ruin his legacy.

Why are Christians in Egypt murdered, raped, forced to convert, raped then forced to convert, burned, forced out of their homes, subject to unfair construction and business restrictions, threatened, harassed, unprotected by the law, punished for no reason in the name of the law...why all this injustice? And why has this been happening since Islam first appeared in Egypt?

None of this is covered by the American media, so no one can say that people who are aware of this or live through it are influenced by the media.

Why can't the Muslims who see this treatment as inhumane speak out? Why can't anyone speak against it? They go to jail or are killed. They need a full security detail to go anywhere.

But I guess it's my fault that I feel there might be a few problems with Islam in Egypt. It's ME, I'm under a spell. Anyone who feels that Westerners are hypnotized, go to Egypt as a non-Muslim. Go outside the tourist sites, and see how people of other faiths are treated.

There are many Islam Doctors here in the USA. My question if they let a few of us Unbelievers die unnecessarily will that be enough to get the 72 virgins in paradise. So many Muslins are willing to blow their selfs for that it seems credible that Islam doctors may be tempted also!

Dear Eboo,
I think the problem is that the radicals speak with megaphones and through bomb attacks that make news. When the moderates speak, it tends to be in books and at conferences. Those looking for evidence of "moderate" Islam would have to go to bookstores, amazon.com, the library and get their hands really dusty in the stacks. This means they have to look for it. And some people don't want to have to search for the info.

I would suggest posting a reading list on your website, if you have one, and directing those callers to that website, or, if you do not, offering to send them a copy of this kind of reading list. I have found the several books very enlightening in understanding progressive, liberal, moderate, non-radical Islam...

These include anything by Khaled Abou El Fadl, Abdurrahman Wahid, Abdolkarim Soroush, Azyumardi Azra, Anwar Ibrahim, the late Nurcholish Madjid, Rachid al Ghannouchi, and Fetullah Gulen. If they're looking for any good books or edited volumes, they may want to start with Charles Kurzman's book "Liberal Islam: A Sourcebook," Hakan Yavuz's work on the Fetullah Gulen movement;or Greg Barton's books on Nahdlatul Ulama. Fatima Mernissi is a wonderful Muslim Feminist, as are Zainah Anwar and Nooraini Othman. The Sisters in Islam website is a wonderful resource on pro-women tafsir from the Koran and Hadith.

I am sure you can list at least a dozen more. That should get people started. If someone reads articles or books by even a few of these authors, it should put to rest some of their concerns. Then, perhaps we can start having really informed discussions on Islam. And perhaps, you won't have to deal with so many, "WHY IS ISLAM SO BLOODY VIOLENT" questions. If you get them, just refer them to your list and tell them to start educating themselves. Knowledge is a beautiful thing.

Eboo Patel wrote (contemptuously):

"Whenever I’m on the radio or on television or giving a public talk about Islam and peace, I always get a bunch of questions from people who only associate two things with Islam – violence, and the absence of Muslims protesting violence."

Well, Eboo get a grip. People won't ask questions what you would like them to ask so as to throw a bone at you to gloat about Islam. That's people's freedom. And history of Islam shows that violence and barbarism is associated with this religion since its inception. So, why is it unfair to ask the probing question about Islam and violence. Calling these legitimate but uncomfortable inquiries on Islam as "Islamophobic" is quite a pedestrian mentality. If you cannot withstand the hard scrutiny, please get quit going on the talk shows to put up the false show of "spreading the message of peace that Islam professes". Islam means Submission (al-silm), and sanitizers like you have made Islam to mean "peace", which it is certainly not.

More fundamentally, why should non-Muslims try to reform Islam ? It is like saying that "please give my violent child a break". He deserves equal respect like your well-mannered child. And this can also be extended like saying that those who engage in sexual abuse of minor children, should be forgiven even if it is not guaranteed that they will not commit such heinous crimes again.

That's why: you and your religion (Islam) should get a grip. Next time tell us in advance which talk show you shall be and I'll call you there.

I was excited to see the Gallup poll and I wondered why I didn't see it in any mainstream media. Then I read this from the results PDF:

"In order to investigate characteristics that distinguish Muslim world residents who are potentially prone to extremist views, we divided respondents from the region into two groups. Classified as political radicals were those who met the following criteria: 1) they felt the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, were “completely justified”, and 2) they indicate that they have an “unfavorable” or “very unfavorable” opinion of the United States. Those who did not say the attacks were completely justified were termed moderates. The “radical” group represents about 7% of the total population across the 10 countries included in the study."

Can anyone get the actual poll questions asked? Because I can see certain people tearing this survey apart if Gallup asked if the 9/11 attack was "somewhat justified" and those who said yes were considered moderate. I would like to point people to the survey but we need to know what questions were asked. Because this survey, if it was done properly really does show that most Muslims are moderate and fairly tolerant of others views.

The endless violence and threat of violence from the Muslim world cast the spell. You can not complain that Muslim leaders, Jihad Imams and the violent and terrorist groups they support have made us wary.

The comment about the American Constitution saying that "black people only count as three-fifths of a human being" is very inaccurate. The constitution does not contain the words 'black'in reference to a person, or slave, or even 'religion' except in the 1st Amendment's prohibition of state religion. The clause actually gave three fifths representation to non-citizens, including indentured servants, and this recognition of non-citizen rights existed nowhere else on earth. Slavery at the time was actually protected by Sharia or Islamic law, as it was in the laws of South America, India, China, and Africa. Indentured servants were a European form of slavery evolving from serfdom.

The 'spell' referred to in this article might be something other than Islamophobia. Americans have began to recognize that structured religions, as opposed to spirituality, are hiding places for many who can be diagnosed as sociopathic preditors (serial rapists, genociders, usury parasites, suicide advocates, power obsessionals and so on) who use religious dogmas to carry out their preditory natures against humans. The spell might involve a growing awareness that a small minority in each religion is perverting its message to their own fantasies and Americans are JUSTLY phobic about them.

The comment about the American Constitution saying that "black people only count as three-fifths of a human being" is very inaccurate. The constitution does not contain the words 'black'in reference to a person, or slave, or even 'religion' except in the 1st Amendment's prohibition of state religion. The clause actually gave three fifths representation to non-citizens, including indentured servants, and this recognition of non-citizen rights existed nowhere else on earth. Slavery at the time was actually protected by Sharia or Islamic law, as it was in the laws of South America, India, China, and Africa. Indentured servants were a European form of slavery evolving from serfdom.

The 'spell' referred to in this article might be something other than Islamophobia. Americans have began to recognize that structured religions, as opposed to spirituality, are hiding places for many who can be diagnosed as sociopathic preditors (serial rapists, genociders, usury parasites, suicide advocates, power obsessionals and so on) who use religious dogmas to carry out their preditory natures against humans. The spell might involve a growing awareness that a small minority in each religion is perverting its message to their own fantasies and Americans are JUSTLY phobic about them.

None are so blind as those who refuse to see. Islamophobes, like all who are blinded by prejudice, refuse to see. So, no amount of re-education is going to open their eyes. Experience is a better teacher. Muslims need to break any and all forms of self-imposed segregation and non-Muslims need to actively reach out to Muslims in worship, work, play and all other arenas of life. For starters every church in the USA should partner with a mosque and hold joint worship services.

I am frustrated with so many of these comments. So many people are basically saying "Because the leaders of Islam don't have very good Public Relations people, I should be allowed have whatever ignornant biases I have about Islam."

Think about the factors here: the average Muslim-majority nation is NOT as heavily influenced by the same level of media hype the US is. Think about it.

Energy companies and other big pollutors in the US show lots of commercials where 90% of the objects are either green or penguins. This is a marketing stragedy that they must use because if the American people get upset with them too much, they do less business.

If Americans are upset with Muslims in foreign countries, what consequences do they suffer? Nothing. I know we like to consider ourselves the world's only superpower and the moral pinnacle of the world, but these are just delusions. Stop thinking that people in the Middle East need to bend over backwards to win the popularity contest all of you want to participate in.

for your audiences'(in Phila.) questions (all genuine). These are all wire/news reports:

Aga Khan (your prophet/a Shiite Muslim leader from Karachi, Pak) offered 30,000 troops to Hitler in early 1940s (way before Israel was created). So did the chief Muslim cleric of Palestine who offered Hitler free access to Jews whenever Nazis got up to Palestine.

A prominent Muslim cleric has asked Muslims to blow up Danish buildings and the flying body parts will satisfy Allah's lust (due to cartoons).

A Paki cleric has said Kashmir should be snatched from India even if nuclear weapons have to be used.

And don't forget, Mr. Patel, I have seen you on this forum spewing fire and hatred at people like Hirsi Ali, Rushdie etc.

Read a newspaper (for news of daily mass killings of civilians by Muslims) for Allah's sake and you will not be surprised by Philadelphians' questions. You either do not seem to be too bright or are lying when you say you were surprised.

So the author claims that the problem here is not Islam and its violent teachings, history, or current practices. Rather, the problem is just how we perceive Islam. I don't think so.

And these moderate voices of Islam? They don't count for anything until they get some results. Like opening up Saudi Arabia so that people can practice their non-Islam religions. Like supporting a person's choice to no longer be a Muslim. Where are these moderate voices then?

They quickly silence themselve because they all want to prohibit the "infidel's" rights whenever possible. There are no moderate Muslims in the sense that they tolerate other religions. The so-called moderates are just Muslims that are less violent than the terrorist elements of Islam.

Oh there "Reality Challenged" and Obfuscating Jihadist and Faisal,

Oops, sorry for the rational/rationale mixup. The two words blend together when dealing with the flaws of religions i.e. fundamental irrational basis for the "irrationale" of it all

So make that Islam is still the most irrational of the "Abrahamic" religions especially when it comes to relying on "pretty wingie thingies" to be the basis of Islam's warmongering, violence and stench.

The muzlum so-called religion should be reclassified as what it truly is, a terrorist organization.

Following that, all muzlum immigrants who failed to list their affiliation with this terrorist organization would be deported.

Mr. Patel's point is correct: the vast majority of Muslims want to live peaceably with the rest of the world. The statement "Not In The Name of Islam" underscores this. But how many people know about this statement? Every terrorist act gets big headlines. I would suggest that if the leaders of Islam around the world really want to overcome the negative image of their faith that has been projected due to the repeated acts of violence perpetrated in its name, they should grab the microphones at every opportunity and denounce loudly the multiple acts of murder, the suicide bombings, the kidnappings that have been perpetrated supposedly for the sake of religion.

Our world, as we see it individually, is based on perceptions. We derive these perceptions through what we read, hear and see. Hence media becomes the most important formation tool of our worlds. Whether it is commercial, socio-political or religious. Unfortunately, today's media is driven by more of sesationalism in case of socio-politics, consumerism in case of commercial, and antithetical to religion in general. It is but a natural flow towards what we see as Islamophobia today among so many other things, and from what is happening around us, it is understandable. It may not be due to ignorance or bigotry, as the author hinted. These are highly relative terms and can only represent an opinion of an individual based on his or her perception. To me it is interesting to see how passionately both sides portray their views. To me, a constant reinforcements of their perceptions turns into their beliefs, which they begin to guard ardently. So what is the solution, then? In my view, any forum, in this case the moderate muslims, who intend to counter islamophobia, will have to adopt modern marketing and publicity techniques to passify this growing tide. I believe, this is not only true for Muslims, but also for all other moderate and liberal forces that promote peace and harmony among all peoples of the world.

Freddy asks-
"Are you truly ignorant of Christian terrorists?
Is Man Cat truly unaware of the blight of Christians who blow up clinics and murder doctors and nurses and bystanders? Are you truly ignorant of Eric Roberts? And those like him?"
Oh my. "Freddy" is all shook up.

Eric Roberts? He is an American actor. Perhaps you meant Eric Rudolph. His bombings occurred in the mid 90s. Is this your best? You date yourself. Your bravada is stale. Better go back to your truther boards- "Freddy". Your posts show your hand and that's no way to play a game of cards.
I don't hate Muslims or Mohammed. I reject Islam. Until and unless it is reformed- it is a poisonous ideology.

And Eboo says-

"a little voice inside my head that wanted to say to some of these callers, “Don’t you feel a little embarrassed revealing that level of ignorance and bigotry on Public Radio?"

C'mon Eboo. You know nothing of recent PBS history? You think PBS watchers missed this?

"This is a 7 minute sample of the PBS documentary that radical muslims decried & PBS refused to air until legal action was threatened. This documentary tells the story of courageous anti-Islamist Muslims in the West and the extraordinary challenges they face in taking on adherents to the theo-totalitarian ideology known as Islamism. What is happening to these moderates -- who are being ostracized, intimidated and, in some cases, threatened with death -- offers critical insights into the dangers that both they and we are facing."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQs1heD6_WE

I only have one question and one comment for you.

Question: Why don’t Muslim leaders condemn terrorism?”

Comment: "And how do we neutralize it"
Pack up and leave.

Hmm, does anybody know who cast the spell? Who made the majority of the world's population associate Islam with terror and death and violence?

Oooh! Pick me! I know! It was Muslims terrorizing and killing and maiming people in order to make them submit to their will and their beliefs and their god. It's a fact, Eboo. And they did it on purpose, that was their intent. So stop trying to look outside your faith for the reasons why the rest of us associate Isalm with terror and violence and death. The cause is right inside.

Now to answer your second question, how do Muslims get non-Muslims to be reasonable and compassionate with them? Easy, change your image. You can do that by being different. Suppress the violent, intolerant Islamic terrorists who are making the rest of us associate Islam with violence and intolerance and terrorism and root them out. Then be reasonable and compassionate and non-violent for a long time until the fear goes away.

It's quite simple, really. Not easy, but very simple. Don't want people to associate Islam with terror and violence? Stop Islamic terror and violence. In time, people's memories will fade and a positive image can be built up. In time. Good luck.

Oh, and apropos of my earlier comment, the model for this extremely offensive, despicable conduct is Mohammad himself:

Assassination of Marwan the poetess for writing "insulting verses" against Mohammad:

Ishaq: 676 [Marwan said]“You obey a stranger who encourages you to murder for booty [definitely a smart lady, and an EYEWITNESS to boot]. You are greedy men. Is there no honor among you?' Upon hearing those lines Muhammad said, ‘Will no one rid me of this woman?' Umayr, a zealous Muslim, decided to execute the Prophet's wishes. That very night he crept into the writer's home while she lay sleeping surrounded by her young children. There was one at her breast. Umayr removed the suckling babe and then plunged his sword into the poet. The next morning in the mosque, Muhammad, who was aware of the assassination, said, ‘You have helped Allah and His Apostle.' Umayr said, ‘She had five sons; should I feel guilty?' ‘No,' the Prophet answered. ‘Killing her was as meaningless as two goats butting heads.'

Some others:

Ka’ab ibn Ashraf was assassinated by Muhammad ibn Maslamah for harming Muhammad with "words," Abu Raafi’ was killed by Abu Ateeq for swearing at the prophet, Khalid bin Sufyaan was killed by Abdullah bin Anees who cut off his head and brought it to the prophet (he had also insulted Mohammad), Al-Asmaa bintu Marwan was killed by Umayr bin Adi’ al-Khatmi, (See above) for writing poetry against the prophet, Al-Aswad al-Ansi was killed by Fairuz al-Daylami and his family for insulting the Messenger Muhammad (saw) . . .

Maybe NOW you get the picture.

Mr. Patel,
Your Holy Book is full of hatred and calls to kill the infidel. What exactly is plural and tolerant about Islam?

Freddy, aka “anonymous”:

Your accusation of “Distortions, Logical Fallacies and Lies” was general in scope and referred to everyone on the board who was being critical of Islam, including my comment and many others. No logical fallacy there. As for those critics who are the subject of death threats and now require (and will continue to require) security, here’s a short sample:

- Ayann Hirsi Ali - The object of numerous death fatwas. (A Pennsylvania Imam confirmed, almost off-handedly, that she was subject to the death penalty as an open apostate). Living under armed guard after her co-producer was murdered. (A note pinned to his chest with a knife directly threatened her life.)

-Taslima Nasreen - author of the book ‘Laja,’ documenting the systematic rape and religious based cleansings of Hindus in Bangladesh by muslims. She is the recipient of numerous death fatwas in Bangladesh. After fleeing her home there, she currently lives in forced hiding in India (after Indian muslims rioted, demanding that she be expelled from the country for “hurting their sensibilities”).

- Salman Rushdie - subject of numerous permanent death fatwas, his Japanese Translator was assassinated.

-Ali Sina- prominent internet, subject to numerous fatwas and death threats - conducts his work anonymously for security reasons. (Ibn Warraq and several others fall into this category)

-Robert Spencer - recipient of numerous death threats and fatwas, conducts his work from a “secure, undisclosed location.”

-Geert Wilders - prominent Dutch critic, recipient of numerous fatwas and death threats, requires constant, round the clock security.

- Kurt Westergaard - author of the most “offensive” Danish cartoon. Three muslims were arrested last month for plotting his murder. Following their apprehension and the republishing
of the cartoons, local muslim “youths” rioted for a week. Westergaard now lives in hiding and was recently expelled from his accommodations because the hotel ownership didn’t want to place its staff and other guests in danger.

- The Bishop of Rochester - now requires heightened police protection after receiving specific, credible death threats for writing that certain parts of Great Britain were becoming “no-go” areas, dominated by Islamic extremists. . . .

This is only a very partial list, but it covers many of the most prominent critics, and it certainly reflects the kind of threats and abuses meted out to them, as well as apostates, and even potential reformers. But don’t take it from me, take it from Tawfik Hamid, the Jerusalem Post, January, 2008, “The Making of a Jihadist’s Mind”:

“. . . Among the more appalling notions it [Islam] supports are the enslavement and rape of female war prisoners and the beating of women to discipline them. It permits polygamy and pedophilia. It refers to Jews as "pigs and monkeys" and exhorts believers to kill them before the end of days . . .(Koran 5:60). Homosexuals are to be killed as well; . . .

"These doctrines are not taken out of context, as many apologists for Islamism argue: They are central to the faith and ethics of millions of Muslims, and are currently being taught as part of the STANDARD CURRICULUM” in many Islamic educational systems in the Middle East as well in the West (emphasis added).

"Moreover, there is no single approved Islamic textbook that contradicts or provides an alternative to the passages I have cited... . . ."
. . . . .
"Muslims who live in the West - who insist to outsiders that Islam is a "religion of peace" and who enjoy freedom of expression, which they demand from their Western hosts - have threatened me with MURDER AND ARSON. I have had to choose between accepting violent Salafi views and being rejected by the OVERWHELMING MAJORITY of my fellow Muslims. . . (emphasis added)" . . "As time has passed, this violent and threatening behavior has become more common: Dr. Wafa Sultan in the US, Abdul Fatah in Egypt and MANY OTHERS have received and continue to receive death threats. Recently, Dr. Nawal al-Sadawi, a liberal Muslim thinker and women's rights activist, was forced to flee Egypt because of her public statements. Dr. Rashad Khalifa was murdered in the United States after he published his own reinterpretation of the Koran which was less violent than was traditional. . . .

"In Egypt, Dr. Faraq Fuddah was shot to death after publishing condemnations of Jihadists. Egyptian Nobel Prize winner Najib Mahfouz was stabbed in the neck for writing his novel, Awlad Haretna, perceived by Salafists as blasphemous. The list goes on. Still, the MAJORITY of members in many Muslim communities have adopted the violent teachings of the Islamists. . . .(emphasis added). "

_______________

At some point, Freddy, silence becomes complicity. You need to wake up. (That goes for the author of this article as well.)

Christians and westerners in general were also blood thirsty fanatics, in the medieval ages!! We have evolved. Do you see Christian fanatics marching by the thousands calling for a holy war or the Pope preaching for new crusades? Tell the muslim moderates to show -in their respective countries- that they have a voice against violence.
Oh, they can't. They are afraid of being murdered by the fanatics.

Concerned The Christian Now Liberated:)

Pussycat! Having fun?

How goes the Crossanization of Americans?

How goes the organising of letter by the Jesus Seminarians to the Pope/Vatican on an intra-faith dialogue and to present the findings of the Jesus Seminarians to the Pope/Vatican?

Not so good eh? What's that? Deflaw Islam?

Oh, I see. Ah well, not within your means, grasp and ability unfortunately.

Not sticking to Crossanization of Americans that we assume you know better than JD Crossan?

What's that? Oh, I see. Easier and more fun to glee-ram Muslims in the sea of Americans in On Faith threads.

Ah well. One is really tough in one's own backyard and as a member of a majority group, no?

What? Crossanization of Americans is a failure?

Ummmm...you can always do what you do best here -fostering and inducing phobias. Well, do continue to cast the spell of phobia by all means.

It works for me if anyone is scared of me for being a Muslim or for any reason.

Al Qaeda and its ilks would be proud of you. That is exactly what they wanted. Fear of them out of proportion of their actual numbers and ability.

No one can make anyone afraid unless you let them. So, be brave pussycat. Have no phobias, have no fear.

After all, since 9/11, over 85,000 Americans are murdered by Americans in the US of A. And many, many more Muslims killed as collateral damage by US troop here and there in Afghanistan and Iraq and still Osama is on the loose.

Any people of any nation that has the most Stealth bombers, aircraft carriers, nuclear subs and nukes in the world should never have to say or be afraid, be fearful, be phobic, be xenophobic.

You can fool and tap into American phobias, but well, we outside here don't watch or hear Fox TV, Ann Coulter or that Rush Limburgh fellow.

Yep. Muslim violence and wars is profitable for US companies at the cost of the lives of American troops. We are helping to boost the US economy by our blood, sweat, tears and oil.

But you can continue to phobiarize Americans on Islam and Muslims. It is good for the soul and the conscience.

Er, by the way, it is "rationale", not "rational" in your post to Faisal. And I had thought that English is your mother tongue.

Not wonder Iraq is a mess. Can't tell "rational" from "rationale" eh?

And by the way too, as a reminder, the rationale for the Iraq invasion and occupation was to take ownership of that country and its oil resources. Everyone knows that. It is only rational for Iraqis to fight against those who invaded, occupied their country and take control of their resources, and against their countrymen they perceive to be giving control of their country and its resources to foreigners.

Not quite a Boston Tea Party, but bloodier.

Faisal, Faisal, Faisal,

Like Eboo, you still don't get it. It is the "rational" behind the horrific violence carried out by members of your religion that of even more horrific. And this "rational" is centered on the flaws of Islam. Correct the flaws and there will be no more Islamophobia.

The flaws of Islam, a synopsis:

Mohammed was an illiterate, womanizing, lust and greed-driven,warmongering, hallucinating Arab, who also had embellishing/ hallucinating/ plagiarizing scribal biographers who not only added "angels" aka "pretty wingie thingies" and flying chariots to the koran but also a militaristic agenda to support the plundering and looting of the lands of non-believers.

This agenda continues as shown by the assassination of Bhutto, the conduct of the seven Muslim doctors in the UK, the 9/11 terrorists, the 24/7 Sunni suicide/roadside/market/mosque bombers, the 24/7 Shiite suicide/roadside/market/mosque bombers, the Islamic bombers of the trains in the UK and Spain, the Bali crazies, the Kenya crazies, the Pakistani “koranics”, the Palestine suicide bombers/rocketeers, the Lebanese nutcases, the Taliban nut jobs, and the Filipino “koranics”. (also note the list of Islamic terrorists' attacks presented today by Who Cast the Spell).

And who funds these acts of terror? The warmongering, Islamic, Shiite terror and torture theocracy of Iran aka the Third Axis of Evil and also the Sunni "Wannabees" of Saudi Arabia.

Luke 18:9-14
To some who were confident of their own righteousness and looked down on everybody else, Jesus told this parable: "Two men went up to the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. The Pharisee stood up and prayed about himself: 'God, I thank you that I am not like other men—robbers, evildoers, adulterers—or even like this tax collector. I fast twice a week and give a tenth of all I get.'
"But the tax collector stood at a distance. He would not even look up to heaven, but beat his breast and said, 'God, have mercy on me, a sinner.'
"I tell you that this man, rather than the other, went home justified before God. For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted."

jimbo:

Maybe you could explain a few things about your last post.

"Everything you say is predicated on the existence of a god. If there is no god then what you say makes no sense."

Could you be more specific? I wrote about the fallibility of human creeds (I focused on non-religious creeds since most of the people posting here are attacking religion, mostly Islam.) and I wrote about tolerance. Certainly it does not require any religious belief to see the failings of numerous large-scale secular movements in the last century. I also found nothing in what I wrote about tolerance that was predicated on the existence of any supreme being, unless you believe that tolerance requires the existence of a supreme being. That is hard to understand unless you are saying that since you believe that no deity exists, then you are under no obligation to show tolerance towards anyone who believes in deity. This is such a ridiculous argument that I'm sure that can't be what you mean.

"Nobody says atheism is a panacea for anything, how ridiculous."

Have you been reading this blog for long?

"Religious thinking does a lot of damage to the world, and to the mind. It is a very negative influence and based on lies and supernatural hocus-pocus."

Many horrible things have been done in the name of religion. I commented previously on a few of the many horrible things done in the name of non-religious ideologies. Singling out religion hardly seems fair. A lot of white people commit murder, but I don't say, "Look at all the murders committed by stupid white people! Being white does a lot of damage to the world, and to the mind. It is a very negative influence and based on their lies of racial supremacy and their hocus-pocus supernatural belief that God made them best." I don't say such silly things because people who are not white also commit murder.

Looking at the comments here, it seems that people's religious beliefs (and I include the belief that there is no god) continues to be a force for intolerance. But religious thinking has also done great good. For example, head to an inner city Catholic school. Often, they are the only schools in the area where students can get a decent education. And because so many of the staff are clerics (priests, nuns, monks) and receive only a small living allowance, tuition is affordable. Having lived in economically depressed urban areas, I've seen the huge impact that they have in the lives of their students. In addition, religious organizations take care of the homeless and rebuild the lives of addicts. They help people with rent. They bring joy into people's lives. Internationally, religiously based charitable organizations do tremendous good. From Catholic Charities to Mother Theresa, I don't think their inspiration is Fabian socialism.

I know a Buddhist nun who upon retirement couldn't find a successor, so she gave her property, worth over a million dollars, to the state so they could put it to good use, and then she went to live in the basement of one of her congregation. She has always lived an austere life of worship and great service, and is greatly respected and appreciated by those who know her, both Buddhist and not.

Or on a smaller scale, I've known evangelical Christians who seemed to embody their religion. They radiated kindness, and they did me a lot of good. And I am not an evangelical Christian. At the same time, I've had other evangelical/fundamentalist types condemn me for believing differently than them. So I know well the power of religion to do both good and bad. Actually, I think the people least tolerant of my beliefs have been a few Christian fundamentalists or evangelicals and a few atheists. I don't know what it is about the two philosophies that make them so similar. Intolerant fundamentalists think that I'm not as righteous as them, and intolerant atheists think I'm not as smart as them, so I think that the common strand is arrogance. Am I a stupid sinner? Yes, I am, but people of other beliefs have tended to be more forgiving of that.
I have also known very tolerant Christian evangelicals and atheists.

"I hope I live long enough to witness it's demise."

I hope you live a long and happy life.

"If there is no god then atheism is the reality, not an ideology or a groupthink of any kind."

This is not an argument that favors any ideology. If there is a god, then religion "is the reality." We can neither prove nor disprove the existence of god to everyone's satisfaction. The tolerant person respects the right of people to believe what they want and recognizes the good that comes out of it. You don't need to believe in religion to value tolerance. You don't even need to believe that its value is self-evident. The value of tolerance is empirically provable both on an international scale (Toronto, tolerant. Riyadh, not so much. Where would you like to live?), and on a personal scale (Hi, Jimbo! vs. Get out my way you atheist *%#*@!)

"Look, do you believe in Apollo? Really. Do you believe in Apollo? If you don't believe in Apollo then you are an atheist in regards to Apollo."

By the head of Zeus, how do you know that I don't believe in Apollo?

"I'm an atheist in regards to the current god, that's all. It's no big deal;"

Yes, and this is my whole point. Your atheism is no big deal. And the fact that others believe in a god or gods is also no big deal. Their beliefs in deity in their many forms and your belief that there is no deity are all beliefs. Publicly insulting any of them, including yours, does not serve the common good. Talk, compare, debate, but please don't insult. It hurts my little feelings. And it hardens the positions of terrorists.

Mr. Eboo Patel seems like a most reasonable and hate-free Muslim. He seems genuinely perplexed why some people would associate Muslims with Terror. He asks:

Anybody know who cast the spell?

Well, I do. And here is who:

Chronological List of Islamic Terrorist Attacks, 1968 - 2004

1968

June 5 - U.S. presidential candidate Robert Kennedy murdered by Palestinian Sirhan Sirhan, in Los Angeles, which causes further terrorist attacks, as Arab terrorist groups demanded his release.

1969

Feb. 18 - Boeing 707 attacked at Zurich, Switzerland, killing the pilot and 3 passengers.

Aug. 29 - TWA 707 hijacked from Rome to Damascus, released with only wounded.

Nov. 27- EL AL office in Athens, Greece attacked. Innocent bystanders killed.

1970

Feb. 21 - Swiss airliner blown up over Switzerland, killing all 47 people on board.

Feb. 23 - PLO terrorists open fire on a busload of Christian pilgrims killing 1 and wounding 2 Americans.

April 21- Bomb explodes aboard a Philippines airliner. All 36 aboard are killed.

Sept. 6 - “Skyjack Sunday” in Jordan. 3 planes (TWA, Swissair, Pan Am) en route to the U.S. hijacked, 400+ hostages, planes blown up in Jordan, Governments agreed to PFLP’s demands, released terrorists from jails and hostages released.

Sept. 14 - The PFLP hijacked TWA flight to Ammon, 4 Americans injured.

1971
Nov. 28 - Jordanian prime minister Tal killed by terrorists at the Sheraton Hotel in Cairo, Egypt.

Dec. - Jordanian ambassador to London, England is shot by hit squad.

1972

Jan. 26 - Bomb explodes on a Yugoslav plane killing all but one passenger.

May 30 - Ben Gurion Airport, Israel attack killed 26, and wounded 78 U.S. citizens from Puerto Rico.

Sept. 5 - Palestinian terrorists seize 11 athletes in the Olympic Village in Munich, Germany, 9 hostages and 5 terrorists killed, plus David Berger from Cleveland.

1973

March 2 - Khartoum, Sudan. Cleo Noel, Jr., U.S. ambassador, and George C. Moore, U.S. diplomat, were held hostage and then killed by terrorists at the U.S. Embassy.

Aug. 5 - Suicide squad attacks Athens airport, Greece, killing 3 civilians and injuring 55.

Dec. 17 - Bomb explodes at Pan Am office at Rome, Italy killing 32 and injuring 50+. The terrorists take 7 Italian policemen hostage and hijack an aircraft to Athens, Greece, killing one of them.

1974

March 1 - Diplomats taken hostage from Saudi Arabian Embassy in Khartoum, Sudan, 2 that are killed are Americans.

April 11 - Kiryat Shmona Massacre at an apartment building killing 18 people, 9 were children.

Sept. 8 - Athens, Greece. TWA Flight 841 exploded from bomb in cargo hold, all 88 passengers killed, including 32-year-old Steven Lowe, an American citizen.

Nov. 23 - British DC-10 hijacked at Dubai, UAE, flown to Tunisia where a German passenger was killed.

1975

Jan. 19 - Arab terrorists attack Orly airport, Paris, France, seizing 10 hostages from a bathroom. French provided the terrorists with a plane to fly them to safety in Baghdad, Iraq.

Sept. 30 - Hungarian airplane explodes killing all 64 persons on board.

Dec. 21 - Carlos “The Jackal” holds 11 oil ministers and 59 civilians hostage during the OPEC meeting in Vienna, Austria. Flew to Algeria, got $300,000,000 in ransom money, Carlos and his Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine terrorists escape.

1976

Jan. 1 - 82 innocent travelers are killed aboard a Lebanese plane.

June 27 - Air France airliner hijacked, forced to fly to Uganda. Some 258 passengers and crew are held hostage. 3 passengers killed. July 4th, Israeli commandos rescue the remaining hostages.

Aug. 11 - Terrorists attack Istanbul airport, Turkey, killing 4 civilians (1 from U.S.) and injuring 20.

Dec. 4 - Terrorists occupied the Indonesian Embassy in The Hague, Netherlands, 1 official killed.

Dec. 14 - Passenger train hijacked and passengers were kept hostage, 3 were killed.

1977

Jan. 1 - F.E. Melov U.S. ambassador to Lebanon, and Robert O.Waring, the U.S. economic counselor, kidnapped and later killed in Beirut.

Oct. 13 - Palestinian terrorists hijack a Lufthansa Flight 181 Boeing 737 and order it to fly around a number of Middle East destinations for four days, pilot is killed by the terrorists, 90 hostages rescued.

1978

March 11 - Gail Rubin, niece of U.S. Senator Ribicoff, among 38 people shot to death by terrorists on a beach near Tel Aviv.

June 2 - A bomb kills 2 people at the CHOGM meeting in Sydney Australia.

1979

July 29 - Terrorist bombs two railway stations in Madrid, kills 7.

Nov. 4 - Terrorists seized the U.S. Embassy in Tehran and took 66 American diplomats hostage. 13 freed, but the remaining 53 were held until their release on January 20, 1981 - 444 days - at the inauguration of President Ronald Reagan.

1980

April 30 - Terrorists took over the Iranian Embassy in London, holding 26 hostages, 2 of whom died on May 5th after being tortured. Much of the embassy was destroyed by fire.

1981
April 19 - 13 people killed, 177 injured in a terrorist attack in Davao Philippines.

May 13 - Pope John Paul II seriously wounded in assassination attempt in Rome, Italy, by terrorist Mehmet Ali Agca.

Oct. 6 - Egyptian President Anwar Sadat machine gunned dead by Islamic Jihad in Cairo for working for peace. 7 others killed, 28 wounded. The assassins are later executed.

1982

Beginning of the 8 years of terrorism in Lebanon.

July 19 - David Dodge, President of the American University in Beirut kidnapped, spends one year in captivity.

Aug. 19 - Two American citizens, Anne Van Zanten and Grace Cutler, were killed along with 6 others when the PLO bombed a Kosher restaurant in Paris, France.

Sept. 14 - Lebanon’s President Gemayel and 26 others assassinated by a massive car bomb in Beirut.

1983

Mar. 16 - 5 Marines wounded in hand grenade attack on Beirut International Airport.

April 18 - CIA’s Middle East Director, and 83 others are killed, 120 injured in truck bomb on the US Embassy in Lebanon.

Sept. 29 - Gulf Air Flight 771 is bombed, explodes killing all 166 aboard.

Oct. 23 - Simultaneous suicide truck bombs in Lebanon: 1st crashed into lobby of US Marine Corps Headquarters, 241 Marines dead, 82 seriously injured - and 2nd was French compounds killing 58 paratroopers.

Dec. 12 - US Embassy in Kuwait targeted to destroy the building with a truck bomb, attack foiled by guards and the device killed 5 people and injured 80.

1984

Jan. 18 - Malcolm Kerr, President of the American University of Beirut, was killed by two Hizballah gunmen.

Mar. 8 - Rev. Weir and wife kidnapped in Lebanon and held for 16 months.

Mar. 9 - Car bomb kills 80 (22 Americans) and wounds more than 200 civilians when it drove past the checkpoint at the U.S. Embassy in Awkar.

Mar. 16 - Hizballah kidnapped, tortured and killed William Buckley, an officer at the U.S. Embassy in Beirut.

Apr. 12 - Hizballah bombed restaurant adjacent to US Air Force base in Torregon Spain, 18 servicemen killed and 83 Americans wounded.

Sept. 20- US embassy in the Beirut is bombed - 2 servicemen and 23 employees are killed, 21 Americans injured including the U.S. and British Ambassadors. 50+ Lebanese were injured.

Dec. 4 - Terrorists hijacked Kuwait Airlines Flight 221 and demanded the release from Kuwaiti jails of some members, serving sentences for attacks on French and American targets. 2 Americans murdered.

1985

March 16 - US journalist Terry Anderson kidnapped in Lebanon, finally released in Dec. 1991 - 6 years later.

April 5 - Bomb explodes outside Hezbollah headquarters in Beirut killing 80 people.

April 12 - Bombing of U.S. soldier’s favorite restaurant in Madrid, killing 18 and injuring 82.

June 14 - TWA Boeing 727 Flight 847 hijacked en route to Rome, 8 crew and 145 passengers were held for 17 days, U.S. Navy diver was murdered. After being flown twice to Algiers, the hostages were released after the US pressured to release 435 Lebanese and Palestinian prisoners.

Sept. 30 - Four Soviet diplomats kidnapped in Lebanon, 1 killed but other three released unharmed after a relative of the terrorist leader’s was kidnapped and killed by the Soviet KGB.

Oct. 7 - Terrorists seize the Italian cruise liner, Achille Lauro, during a cruise in the Mediterranean, taking more than 700 people hostage for 3 days. Disabled U.S. citizen, Leon Klinghoffer, was murdered in front of other hostages by throwing him in the ocean, before the Egyptian Government offered the terrorists safe haven in return for the hostages’ freedom.

Nov. 23 - 98 passengers and crew of an Egyptair Flight 648 are held hostage by Palestinian terrorists in Malta. 5 passengers shot, 2 died, later 57 additional passengers killed when the terrorists set off explosives in the aircraft.

Dec. 27 - Suicide grenade and gun attacks in passenger terminals at Rome and Vienna, Italy airports results in 16 people being killed plus 5 Americans and more than 100 civilians injured.

1986

March 30-April 2nd - A bomb exploded on a TWA flight 840 from Rome as it approached Athens airport. The attack killed 4 U.S. citizens who were sucked through a hole made by the blast, 1 infant, and 9 injured, although the plane safely landed.

April 6 - An explosion at the “La Belle” nightclub in Berlin, U.S. soldiers’ hang-out, was bombed, killing 3 and injuring 230 people, including 79 U.S. soldiers.

Sept. 5 - Pan Am Boeing 747 Flight 73 en route to Frankfurt and on to New York hijacked by Palestinian terrorists, with 379 passengers, including 89 Americans, 22 hostages killed, 127 wounded.

Sept. 9 - Hezballah kidnapped Frank Reed, President of American University in Beirut, and held for 44 months, and Joseph Cicippio, and Edward Tracy who were each held for 5 years.

Sept. 17 - A 10-month series of terrorist bomb attacks in France begins. One bomb in Paris kills 5 and injures 52.

1987

A car bomb exploded outside the back gate of the U.S. Embassy in Rome and rockets were fired at the compound from across the street. One passerby was injured in the attacks.

1988

Feb. 5 - US Marine Corps Lt. Colonel Higgens, Chief of the U.N. Truce Force kidnapped and murdered by Hezbollah.

March 16 - 4000+ Kurdish civilian bodies found after Saddam Hussein ordered nerve gas attack (weapon of mass destruction) in northern Iraq, after they revolted against his rule from Baghdad. 1.5 million relocated, 200,000 disappeared.

April 5 - 122 held hostage after a Kuwaiti Boeing 747 was hijacked and diverted to Iran, then Cyprus. Kuwait refused requests by hijackers to release 17 convicted terrorists. After 15 days the hijackers were granted asylum in Algeria and released their hostages.

June 26 - US Naval Attache killed in Athens, Greece.

Dec. 21 - Pan Am Flight 103 - Boeing 747 from London to New York, blown up over Lockerbie, Scotland, by a bomb. All 259 passengers and 11 on the ground were killed, including 35 Syracuse University students and many U.S. military personnel.

1989

June 12 - A bomb exploded aboard an unoccupied boat used by U.S. consular staff.

Sept. 19 - 171 passengers killed when French UTA flight 772 explodes in mid-air over Niger.

October 11 - Izmir, Turkey. A bomb went off outside a U.S. military PX.

1990

Feb. - Attack of tour bus in Egypt killing 11.

1991
Feb. 7 - Incirlik Air Base, Turkey, U.S. civilian contractor shot as he was getting into his car.

Oct. 28 - Ankara, Turkey. Victor Marwick, an American soldier serving at the Turkish-American base, Tuslog, was killed and his wife wounded in a car bomb attack.

Oct. 28 - Two car bombings killed a U.S. Air Force Sergeant and severely wounded an Egyptian diplomat in Istanbul.

Nov. 8 - Bomb destroyed part of the American University in Beirut, killing 1 and wounding 12.

1992

March 17 - Israeli Embassy in Buenos Aires, Argentina, destroyed by bomb killing 29, injuring 60.

Hotel in Yemen bombed and U.S. servicemen killed, Operation Restore Hope.

1993

Jan. 25, Virginia, U.S.A. A Pakistani terrorist opened fire with AK-47 on CIA employees standing outside the building. Two agents, Frank Darling and Bennett Lansing, were killed and 3 others wounded.

Feb. 26 - World Trade Center in New York badly damaged by a massive bomb by Islamic terrorists. The van bomb was planted in an underground garage and left 6 people dead and 1042 injured and almost � billion dollars in damage.

Feb. 26 - A bomb exploded inside a cafe in downtown Cairo killing 3, 18 wounded, 2 U.S. citizens.

July 5 - In 8 separate incidents, 19 Western tourists traveling in southeastern Turkey were kidnapped, including U.S. citizen Starger, after weeks in captivity, they were released.

Oct - Killing of U. S. soldiers in Somalia.

1994

July 18 - 86 civilians killed and 300 wounded in bomb attack on Jewish social centre in Buneos Aires, Argentina.

July 26 - Israeli Embassy in London is car-bombed, wounding 20.

Air France Flight 8969 is hijacked to crash the plane in Paris but didn’t succeed.
A small bomb explodes on board Philippine Airlines flight 434, killing a Japanese businessman.

1995

Jan. 22 - Islamic Jihad militants blow themselves up amid a group of soldiers near Netanya, killing 21. Operation Bojinka is discovered on a laptop in a Manila, Philippines apartment, in which Osama bin Laden was planning to blow up 12 planes as they flew to the U.S., plus kill the Pope.

March 8 - Attack on US Diplomats in Pakistan.

April 9 - Islamic Jihad suicide bomber attacks military convoy in Gaza, killing 7 soldiers and an American tourist.

May 5 - Five foreign oil workers murdered by Islamic GIA terrorists in Algeria.

June 26 - Assassination attempt made against Egyptian President Honsi Mubarak by Islamic radicals who ambushed his motorcade.

July 4 - Six tourists, including two U.S. citizens taken hostage in Kashmir, India. Terrorists demanded the release of Muslim militants held in Indian prisons. On Aug. 13 the decapitated body of the Norwegian hostage was found with a note stating that the other hostages also would be killed if the group’s demands were not met. They were not and all other hostages were killed in 1996 by the terrorists.

July 25 - Islamic terrorists explode bomb in metro station in Paris, France, killing 7 people and injuring 84.

Nov. 13 - Car bomb exploded at US Army Office of the Program Manager for Saudi Arabian National Guard Modernization, in Saudi Arabia, killing seven, five of them U.S. citizens, and wounding nearly a hundred.

Nov. 19 - Islamic radicals plant bomb in Egyptian embassy in Pakistan killing 17.

Dec. 11 - 15 concurrent car bombings in Algiers kill 15 civilians and over 200 injured.

1996

Feb. 11 - Terrorists explode car bomb in Algiers killing 17. The following month, 2 more killed in another bomb and 10 are killed in a train ambush in western Algeria.

Feb. 25 - A suicide bomber blew up a commuter bus in Jerusalem, killing 26, including 3 U.S. citizens, and injuring 80 others, among them another two U.S. citizens.

April 19 - Eighteen Greek tourists were gunned down near the historic Pyramids in Egypt by Islamic terrorists aiming to destroy the country’s tourist industry.

May - Osama bin Laden unites the Islamic Fundamentalists worldwide in their Jihad against Jews and Western Gentiles, such as al-Qaeda, Palestinian Authority, Hezbollah, Hamas, Mujahideen, using the Taliban’s organization to help fund the operations.

June 25 - Terrorists explode a truck bomb next to a USAF Khobar Towers housing facility at Dhahran, Saudi Arabia, killing 19 American servicemen and 515 injured including 240 U.S. personnel.

Islamic terrorists attack tourists in Luxor, Egypt, killing 71 people, most of them vacationers.

Aug. 26 - Sudan Airways A310 Airbus airliner hijacked en route to Jordan and diverted to England. British authorities negotiate with hijackers who release all the 13 crew and 180 passengers unharmed.

Dec. 3 - A bomb exploded aboard a Paris subway train, killing four and injuring 86 persons, including a U.S. citizen.

A terrorist opened fire on tourists at an observation deck atop the Empire State Building in New York City, killing a Danish national and wounding visitors from the US, Argentina, Switzerland and France before turning the gun on himself.

Dec. 23 - A car bomb in the Algerian capital, Algiers, kills three and injures 70 people in cafe near the port. Again a week later, a car bomb kills 28 people and injures 35 people. 3rd car bomb in the past two weeks, killing additional 13 people and injuring more than 250.

1997

Jan. 2 - Major cities worldwide and U.S. get letter bombs with Egyptian postmarks at newspaper bureaus in DC, New York, London, Riyadh, S.A., and Leavenworth, KN. Experts defused all but the 1 in London, injuring 2.

Jan. 7 to 21st - Islamic terrorist rampage during these 14 days with car bombs and beheadings in Algiers, total of 238 dead, 139 wounded.

Feb. 23 - Palestinian gunman opened fire on tourists at an observation deck atop the Empire State building in New York, killing 1 and wounding over a dozen visitors before turning the gun on himself.

March 7 - Two killed in bus bomb attack in Beijing, China.

April - Terrorists behead innocent civilians this whole month with a total of 272 murdered and over 100 injured. Knives, axes and chainsaws were used and many of the bodies were burned while still alive.

Sept. 18- 9 German tourists killed when Muslims fire bombed bus in Cairo, Egypt.

Nov. 12 - 2 Terrorists shot to death 4 U.S. auditors of a Texas petroleum company and their driver at a Sheraton Hotel in Karachi, Pakistan.

Nov. 17 - 58 western tourists killed and 30 injured in gun attack at historic monuments in southern Egypt. 6 of the Islamic terrorists are killed in shoot out with police.

1998

Jan. 15 - U.S. Embassy bombing in Peru.

Feb. 23 (Published) - A Statement signed by many Islamic Jihad Leaders from most Muslim countries, first by Sheikh Osamah Bin-Ladin: “…In compliance with God’s order, we issue the following fatwa to all Muslims:
The ruling to kill the Americans and their allies–civilians and military–is an individual duty for every Muslim who can, in any country in which it is possible… We — with Allah’s help — call on every Muslim who believes in God and wishes to be rewarded, to comply with Allah’s order to kill the Americans and plunder their money wherever and whenever they find it. Unless you go forth, Allah will punish you with a grievous penalty, and put others in your place.”

Aug. 7 - Simultaneous bombs in US Embassies in Kenya, and Tanzania, heavily damaged by massive attacks. In the Nairobi attack 292 people were killed, including 12 Americans, and 5,000 injured. 10 people were killed and 86 injured in Tanzania incident for a total of 302 dead, 5086 injured within an hour.

Aug. 25 - 3 people killed and 25 injured in bomb attack on Planet Hollywood restaurant in Cape Town, South Africa.

Dec. 28 - 16 Western tourists kidnapped, 12 Britons, 2 U.S. citizens, and 2 Australians on the main road to Aden, Yemen. Four victims were killed during a rescue attempt the next day.

1999

Aug. 31 to Sept. 22nd - Russian apartment bombings kill almost 300 and injured 100.

Oct. 31 - EgyptAir Flight 990 crashed off the U.S. coast of Massachusetts, killing all 217 people on board, including 100 Americans.

Nov. 12 - Six rockets were fired at the U.S. and U.N. offices in Islamabad, Pakistan.

Dec. - Millennium terror plots foiled as customs agents arrest a man smuggling in explosives. Plan to attack Los Angeles airport and other sites intercepted by CIA. Also Jordanian authorities foil a plot to bomb US tourists in Jordan, pick up 28 suspects.

Indian Airlines Flight 814, en route to Delhi, India is hijacked, 1 passenger is killed. After negotiations with the Taliban, the hostages are released.

2000

The last of the 2000 millennium attack plots fails, as the boat meant to bomb USS The Sullivans sinks.

Oct. 12 - A suicide boat exploded next to the U.S.S. Cole (guided-missile destroyer), blowing a hole 40 feet in diameter, killing 17 American sailors and injuring 39.

2001

Feb. 5 - A bomb blast in Moscow’s Byelorusskaya subway station injures 15 people.

March 28 - Bombing at bus stop in Yemen. U.S. citizens injured including a 15 year old boy from NY.

Aug. 9 - Bombing at Sbarro’s pizzeria, killed 15 and wounded over 90, 2 of which were U.S. citizens.

Sept. 11 - 4 U.S. jetliners hijacked and forced to crash into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon like missiles, and 1 crashed in Pennsylvania on the way to the Capital Building in D.C. In all, 266 people perished in the four planes, 2602 people were killed on the ground, plus 343 firefighters, and 184 people at the Pentagon. Almost 5000 injured, 500 rescue workers now have respiratory ailments. 7 buildings collapsed in NY and 23 damaged, plus 4 subway stations.

Paris embassy terrorist attack plot foiled

Oct. 27 - Darya Khanah bombed

Dec. 13 - Terrorist attack on Indian Parliament.

Dec. 22 - Richard Reid, attempting to destroy American Airlines Flight 63 from Paris to Miami, is subdued by passengers and flight attendants before he could detonate his shoe bomb.

2002

Jan. 27 - A Palestinian woman triggered a massive explosion in Jerusalem killing 1 Israeli and injuring more than 150, including American Mark Sokolow, his wife, and both teenage daughters. Sokolow had survived the 9-11 attack on the World Trade Center, escaping from his law office on the 38th floor of the South Tower before it collapsed.

Feb. 16 - Bombing in Karnei Shomron, in a group of teenage girls from the U.S. 2 killed, 4 wounded.

Singapore embassies terrorist attack plot foiled

March 24 - 20 people die and 93 injured in 3 bomb attacks on Russian towns near the border of Chechnya.

April - Explosion at most historic synagogue in Tunisia left 21 dead, most are German tourists.

May 9 - A bomb exploded in Dagestan kills 42 people and injures 130 during Victory Day festivities.

French oil tanker Limburg bombing off Yemen

Kidnapping and murder of journalist Daniel Pearl

Oct. 12 - Bali car bombing of holidaymakers in a nightclub kills 202 Australian citizens.

Zamboanga bombings in the Philippines<

Oct. 19 - Car bomb explodes at McDonald’s restaurant in Moscow, killing 1 person and wounding 5.

Oct. 23 - Moscow theater hostage crisis begins; 120 hostages and 40 terrorists killed in rescue 3 days later.

Nov. - Kenyan hotel suicide bombing kills 16 safari tourists.
Marines attacked / murdered in Kuwait

2003

May 10- Suicide bombers killed 36 (10 U.S. citizens), at housing compounds for westerners in Riyadh, S.A. Many wounded.

May 12 - attack outside U.S. Consulate in Karachi, Pakistan, killing 12.

May 14 - 16 die in a suicide bombing at a religious festival in southeastern Chechnya.

May - 4 bombs killed 33 tourists (8 U.S. citizens) in Casablanca, Morocco.

July 5 - 15 people die and 40 are injured in bomb attacks at a rock festival in Moscow.

Aug. 1 - An explosion at the Russian hospital in North Ossetia kills 50 people and injures 76.

Aug. - Suicide car bomb killed 12 and injured over 150 at Marriott Hotel in Jakarta, Indonesia.

Sept. 3- A bomb on a passenger train in southern Russia kills 7 people and injures 90.

Oct. 15 - Bombing of US diplomatic convoy in the Gaza Strip: 3 U.S. citizens killed.

Nov. - Explosions rocked a Riyadh, S.A. housing compound, killing 17.

Nov. - Truck bombs detonated at London bank and British consulate in Istanbul kills 26, injures 22.

Dec. 5 - Suicide bombers kill 46 people in an attack on a train in southern Russia.

Dec. 9 - A blast in the center of Moscow kills 6 people and wounds at least 11.

Bombings of United States expatriate housing compounds in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia kill 26 and injure 160.

Attacks in Casablanca, Morocco leaves 41 dead. The attack involved 12 bombers and 5 targets. The targets were “Western and Jewish”.

Istanbul Bombings: Within five days, truck bombs go off at two synagogues, the British Consulate, and the HSBC Bank in Istanbul, Turkey

2004

109 Kurds are killed in 2 suicide bombings in Arbil, Iraq

Feb. 6 - Bomb on Moscow subway kills 41.

Feb. 27 - Superferry 14 is bombed in the Philippines by Abu Sayyaf, killing 116.

March 11 - 10 Simultaneous bombings of busiest rush hour commuter trains in Madrid, Spain kills 202 people and injures more than 1,400.

April 21 - Bombing of a security building in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia kills 5.

May 29 - Al-Khobar massacres–Islamic terrorists kill 22 people and one American at an oil compound in Saudi Arabia.

June 8 - Robert Jacobs, a US defense contractor employee is assassinated at his home in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia by Al-Qaeda terrorists.

June 11 - Terrorists kidnap and execute Paul Johnson, Jr. in Riyadh.

Aug. 24 - Russian airplane bombings kill 90.

Aug. 31 - A blast near a subway station entrance in northern Moscow, caused by a suicide bomber, kills 10 people and injures 33.

Sept. 1 - 3 - Beslan school hostage crisis in North Ossetia, Russia results in over 330 dead.

Sept. 9 - Australian embassy in Jakarta, Indonesia was bombed, killing 9 people.

Oct. 7 - 3 car bombs explode in the Sinai Peninsula hotel, killing 32 and wounding 114, most of them tourists.

PilgrimSoul2008 wrote " Islamophobia is the new anti-Semitism. The sooner we acknowledge that, the sooner we can start devising strategies to stop the Religious Right and the neocons from destroying everything decent in this country."
***

It just so happens that we the "Religious Right" protect everybody including the Jews and we protect them from people like you. What strategies are you talking about? Suicide bombing?

And what is decent? Gay marriage and abortion and evolution (humans are animals)? I'm interested what decency are you talking about.

There are no Jews in many places where your terrorist kins explode themselves. So much for the blame game, just accept it -- Islam is dangerous and everyone who practices it is under a devilish SPELL.

"Death to America", they say. But wait till America is fed up coz the Bible predicts that death will visit those who oppose America. The second "Angel of Death" or the second "Passover" is coming soon.

Sometimes its shocking to read comments on this site. We supposedly live in an educated and "free" country, yet the majority of writers on this site are neither.

Have we forgotten our own history where not long ago we persecuted Catholics, Quakers, and pretty much any one that was not Protestant. Christianity was used as a defense of slavery and even modern-day lynchings.

Why is it so difficult to believe that Islam is close to where Christianity was a few decades ago? Must we all think alike and be the same in order to live in peace and harmony? Are all Christians and Jews the same, all over the world? Have any of you gone to Nigeria or Kenya and seen the radical Christian ideology that is pervasive there (exported thanks to American Evangelicals waiting for the Messiah to descend upon Jerusalem).

READ a book or two for your own sanity and education folks. Islam, like all religions is filled with good and bad - practiced by good and bad people alike. Religion can and will be used to justify ANYTHING!

BUT - the fact of the matter is the majority of Muslims in this world want democracy (as demonstrated by the recent Gallup poll done). They want gender equality and they want freedom. Guess who doesn't want freedom? The US-supported tyrannical governments that are power hungry and live off of billions of US dollars to suppress their own societies (read Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Uzbekistan).

BTW - The Middle East as a whole represents only 12% of the entire Muslim world. Three of the largest Muslim countries have all had female heads of state (something we have yet to see in our so-called "gender equal" country). Iran has a very prominent and active Jewish community (in fact both Jews and Zoroastrians have representation in the Iranian parliament). There are Christian celebrations in Pakistan, Indonesia and Malaysia!

More than 20,000 clerics in India recently denounced terrorism and the killing of innocent civilians. Malaysia and Turkey have begun a radical campaign to "re-interpret" aspects of Islamic theology that have traditionally used by extremists within our faith to kill and maim innocent people.

The fact of the matter is folks - the US media is CONTROLLED and governed by a handful of individuals - who decide what can and cannot be shown or read by the American public.

Try reading the International Herald Tribune (UK), or Dawn (Pakistan), or even Al-Jazeera in English - if you want to get an idea of what 95+% of the world is thinking. The world doesn't revolve around the United States - as much as we'd like to think it does folks!

I'm sick and tired of "defending" my faith. My faith doesn't need any defending and it can and it will withstand attacks - because like other faiths, it too will go on.

Christians led the crusades to oust the world of any one who did not believe in Jesus as their Lord and Savior. Does any one ever stop to think that perhaps Osama bin Laden and the like are doing the same thing with Islam?? It is horrible - YES. It is disgusting and it is abominable.

At the end of the day though - only God can judge what the fate of people like Bin Laden will be. And it is our responsibility to keep promoting the sanity that is so often missing in our world today.

As the late Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. once said, "Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that."

I hope that we can all strive towards a country and indeed a world that is based on love and take back our religions and our faiths from those that would demonize them.

-Faisal

http://news.google.com/news/url?sa=t&ct=:ePkh8BM9E0Kzg0WIKTUHm00wS4wE2G0UxKuWG3tE71SZPoN73aJfbEAtAIm0Dvw/0-0&fp=47da06b4da904c36&ei=IBXaR67gE4Wc9wKm8PG3CA&url=http%3A//www.usnews.com/blogs/faith-matters/2008/3/13/the-influence-of-a-moderate-muslim-cleric.html&cid=0&sig2=y3T2-CvhHc9xMCB2GAvA5Q

Major survey challenges Western perceptions of Islam

Feb 27, 2008

WASHINGTON (AFP) — A huge survey of the world's Muslims released Tuesday challenges Western notions that equate Islam with radicalism and violence.

The survey, conducted by the Gallup polling agency over six years and three continents, seeks to dispel the belief held by some in the West that Islam itself is the driving force of radicalism.

It shows that the overwhelming majority of Muslims condemned the attacks against the United States on September 11, 2001 and other subsequent terrorist attacks, the authors of the study said in Washington.

"Samuel Harris said in the Washington Times (in 2004): 'It is time we admitted that we are not at war with terrorism. We are at war with Islam'," Dalia Mogahed, co-author of the book "Who Speaks for Islam" which grew out of the study, told a news conference here.

"The argument Mr Harris makes is that religion in the primary driver" of radicalism and violence, she said.

"Religion is an important part of life for the overwhelming majority of Muslims, and if it were indeed the driver for radicalisation, this would be a serious issue."

But the study, which Gallup says surveyed a sample equivalent to 90 percent of the world's Muslims, showed that widespread religiosity "does not translate into widespread support for terrorism," said Mogahed, director of the Gallup Center for Muslim Studies.

About 93 percent of the world's 1.3 billion Muslims are moderates and only seven percent are politically radical, according to the poll, based on more than 50,000 interviews.

In majority Muslim countries, overwhelming majorities said religion was a very important part of their lives -- 99 percent in Indonesia, 98 percent in Egypt, 95 percent in Pakistan.

But only seven percent of the billion Muslims surveyed -- the radicals -- condoned the attacks on the United States in 2001, the poll showed.

Moderate Muslims interviewed for the poll condemned the 9/11 attacks on New York and Washington because innocent lives were lost and civilians killed.

"Some actually cited religious justifications for why they were against 9/11, going as far as to quote from the Koran -- for example, the verse that says taking one innocent life is like killing all humanity," she said.

Meanwhile, radical Muslims gave political, not religious, reasons for condoning the attacks, the poll showed.

The survey shows radicals to be neither more religious than their moderate counterparts, nor products of abject poverty or refugee camps.

"The radicals are better educated, have better jobs, and are more hopeful with regard to the future than mainstream Muslims," John Esposito, who co-authored "Who Speaks for Islam", said.

"Ironically, they believe in democracy even more than many of the mainstream moderates do, but they're more cynical about whether they'll ever get it," said Esposito, a professor of Islamic studies at Georgetown University in Washington.

Gallup launched the study following 9/11, after which US President George W. Bush asked in a speech, which is quoted in the book: "Why do they hate us?"

"They hate... a democratically elected government," Bush offered as a reason.

"They hate our freedoms -- our freedom of religion, our freedom of speech, our freedom to vote and assemble and disagree with each other."

But the poll, which gives ordinary Muslims a voice in the global debate that they have been drawn into by 9/11, showed that most Muslims -- including radicals -- admire the West for its democracy, freedoms and technological prowess.

What they do not want is to have Western ways forced on them, it said.

"Muslims want self-determination, but not an American-imposed and -defined democracy. They don't want secularism or theocracy. What the majority wants is democracy with religious values," said Esposito.

The poll has given voice to Islam's silent majority, said Mogahed.

"A billion Muslims should be the ones that we look to, to understand what they believe, rather than a vocal minority," she told AFP.

Muslims in 40 countries in Africa, Asia, Europe and the Middle East were interviewed for the survey, which is part of Gallup's World Poll that aims to interview 95 percent of the world's population.

- - - - -
"Anybody know who cast the spell?"
- - - - -

Ever hear of rabid Republican right-wing hate-radio?
How about the Republican brainwashing and re-education network, FOX News?
And, as far as what to do with these "good people" my best guess is to ship them all to Mexico in exchange for the illegal aliens already here.

Why aren't there more moderate Christians protesting the state terrorism of torture? Why aren't there more moderate Jews protesting the horrors of the Israeli occupation? Because these are state terrorism, not the terrorism of insurgents or those fighting an occupation. White Americans know very well on some level that there is something wrong, and that it begins with their own attitudes, but they project their own aggressive orientations onto the Other--so they won't see themselves.

White Europeans turned exploitive during the industrial revolution, but couldn't look at their own greed--so they projected it onto the Jews.

Americans don't want to look at the aggression, lies and pure sadism of their own government, so they project it onto Muslims.

Islamophobia is the news anti-Semitism. The sooner we acknowledge that, the sooner we can start devising strategies to stop the Religious Right and the neocons from destroying everything decent in this country.

jimbo wrote " I don't believe there is a god...I hope I live long enough to witness it's demise.
It cannot last forever."

Sadly for you jimbo, it's not gonna happen coz the Bible predicts of your demise and it even foretells that Islam has a big part for your demise. "Death to America". You heard the slogan and it will come to you in real terms if you happen to live "long enough".

Lucy wrote : "Offering virgins to martyrs (How beautiful how wonderful)".

And, of course, how idiotic.

Guys, do you still wonder why they blow up themselves? Those virgins are to good to resist.

After 180+ commentaries, Islamophobia still comes down to that famous quote:

"No one is safe until the koran is deflawed!!!!"

did anyone actually read the piece? or just the question reformed by the editors?

many of the responses here are actually answering the question by sally and jon!
(eboo, if you read it- never asked that question on spells but proposed a theory)

without even reading the piece, let alone listening to the podcast that inspired it!

here's a hint-
go 25 minutes into the interview and listen to the phone calls that mirror the real paranoia, ignorance, and freely expressed phobias that are expressed in here-

maybe if you hear the tangible sound of stupidity- you will have the sense to be ashamed of your rants-

what minutely tiny attention spans exhibited-

almost 200 comments in one day-

and the rabbi, who posted on march 12-
4 comments!

he was VERY positive in his characterization of islam!
( i wont say the name as the haters would just go poison it)

well, for all the sneaky paranoiacs and hypocrites who came in here to spread the xenophobia-

kudos to you all for proving so voluminously your own blindness to peace!

spells? SPELLS?

i didnt imagine a more superficial peripheral skimming of the content could be possible

i am in constant amazement at the ever increasing brevity of the attention spans of my fellow americans

well, i hardly ever come in here any more for just this reason-

at LEAST read the short short piece before you comment on it folks-

my exasperation knows no bounds

number nine. number nine. number nine. number nine.

_kt_:

Everything you say is predicated on the existence of a god. If there is no god then what you say makes no sense. I don't believe there is a god. I believe it was all made-up by our ancestors thousands of years ago as the only way to explain existence.

That makes more sense to me than to actually believe there's a sky god up there in heaven who we'll live with when we die. I wince just typing that sentence, so absurd it strikes me.

Nobody says atheism is a panacea for anything, how ridiculous. If there is no god then atheism is the reality, not an ideology or a groupthink of any kind.
Look, do you believe in Apollo? Really. Do you believe in Apollo? If you don't believe in Apollo then you are an atheist in regards to Apollo. I'm an atheist in regards to the current god, that's all. It's no big deal; and I don't believe in the supernatural. Why on earth should I? Why should anyone?

Religious thinking does a lot of damage to the world, and to the mind. It is a very negative influence and based on lies and supernatural hocus-pocus.

I hope I live long enough to witness it's demise.
It cannot last forever. It's already well past its best-before-date, which was several hundred years ago.

There is no spell. Blaming anything on the evil influence of witchcraft or the "Evil Eye", or dark forces is simply not taking responsibility for one's own actions.

I have met several wonderful, peace-loving Muslims. However, they're in America, where most of our Muslim immigrants are educated, in good-paying jobs, and are assimilating into the "Melting Pot". However, I look at the world outside of America, where you have the Taliban blowing up ancient treasures, authors being given death sentences, women being oppressed and murdered, people being executed for the crimes of questioning Islam and "witchcraft, people rioting because of a few lousy cartoons, Muslim-on-Muslim genocide in Darfur, and people who get their jollies out of blowing up crowded trains in the name of their religion and I have to wonder.

The enemy is Fundamentalism of all stripes - be it Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Pagan, or even atheist. My message to all of the Grand Muftis, Imams, Ayatollahs, etc. is to stop preaching violence and hatred.

Hello, can you define moderate muslim or not? no more posts if not.

as usual you have written a very thoughtful article that asks many good questions and gives many good answers... first and foremost what would be wrong with asking an ignorant person if they want to continue in ignorance or to learn something they didnt know. given such a matter of fact question they would have to admit thier reluctance to listen. i wonder if you asked the good catholics whether they think everyone thinks thier religion condones the molestation of little boys. now i dont think they actually do but the fallacy of trying to generalize a whole people by the actions of a few has through out history been a challenge for all people who sincerely do not know much about each other . this is what may the real reason and the continued good representation of both facts and charictar will eventually educate the ignorant. there are too the people who infiltrate these events with an agenda already set seeking to spread disinformation. i think the proper thing to do is to correct all mistakes made by others in thier questions. it is you that has the microphone.. dont be afraid to use it for clarification. and last we have a group of social preditors in power in washington and other countries.. thier days are numbered by the people throwing them out in elections..they will at some point have to actually answer for all that they have done and not done. and remember if i rember right the english thought the american revolutionaries and the founders of our country to be terrorist because we threw thier tea in the harbor, refused to pay taxes levied or to house soldiers for free... we stood behind trees and shot thier neatly attired troops marching in line to battle by drumbeat and fifes which was considered outrageous and against the fine rules of war. i beleve mankind is fast getting to the point where violence of all kind will be usurped by peaceful means, the mideast with the terroist and the israelies and the cia trying to terrorize the terrorist thus becomeing what they say they hate will eventually lead the common folks of all nationalities to put all the mad dogs away where they canb do no harm. keep on with your example and repeat the truth as many times as neccesary ... i dont know how it works but sometimes with myself i hear something i have heard a million times before and for reasons i dont know it makes a difference that time. i dont think i'm too much different fromother people in that respect. but please check for truth if any i'm just an a dyslexic artist

I cant understand why anybody would not love Islam because of all the wonderful things it does around the world all the time.

Helping all those poor starving masses in Darfur.
Helping educate and feed the poor in Somalia and Ethiopia. Redesigning the World Trade Center. Keeping their women covered from head to foot to prevent them from sickness and disease. Offering virgins to martyrs (How beautiful how wonderful).

whats not to luv?

Jimbo wrote:
_kt_:
you write...
"As any history of 20th century eugenics demonstrates, unbelief isn't much of a guide, either. More accurately, even those who reject religion usually end up believing something, and sometimes the new belief is worse than the old".

"Oh I get it. Even if there are no gods we should believe there are,otherwise we'll end up believing in something worse. Brilliant. Pure gold."

I don't want to be misunderstood, so allow me to clarify. I meant that rejection of religious belief is not the panacea that some seem to think that it is. 20th century substitutes for belief in God have included communism, national socialism, nationalism, hedonism, ethnic chauvinism, eugenics, elitism, objectivism, and unashamed accumulation of wealth without regard to the harm done to others. If your goal is improvement of the human condition, history shows unequivocally that simply rejecting traditional religion doesn't always have a happy outcome. There are millions of Muslims in the world who sincerely believe that Islam brings great joy into their lives, and they do much good in the world. Lumping them in with terrorists and announcing that they should therefore give up their beliefs would be like lumping you in with Stalin and Mao, declaring you complicit in their killing of millions, and demanding that you renounce atheism.

Why is it important to not insult Muslims? In the current hateful climate, prejudice results in real harm. People are looking for excuses to commit violence. I even know of a US Sikh attorney (not even Muslim) who has been subjected to abuse several times, including being run off the highway. Also, insulting harangues against Islam just drive Muslims to hate non-Muslims, thereby worsening the terrorist threat. Insults against Islam are great recruiting tools for extremists. We say that the war is against terror, not against Islam. They say, no, the war is against Islam, and point to you.

Hello, again, Mr. Patel:

"It's like they were intentionally tuning out everything I said, even though they came to hear me speak."

Noticed, did you? Know just how *that* feels.

Consider those that do that, not people who will be convinced of anything, but those who show others exactly what the implications of certain unquestioned assumptions might make them. They do a service of acting this dynamic out for others, though they don't mean to.

"So here’s my new theory on this. There has been a spell cast on certain portions of America."

Yes. It was cast, in part, by the people who made blood-sacrifice of innocents on 9/11 in order to *bring about this state of war,* and in the other part, by those who *used* such events to establish and consolidate certain forms of power for an already-failing regime.

The most difficult spells for subjects to break are those that *invest* the victim in sustaining the illusion they're based on in the first place.

Take it from an old hex-breaker.

" Whenever they see a Muslim speaking – it doesn’t matter whether the talk is about gardens or finance or peace – they fall into a hypnotic state and can only ask two questions: “Where are the moderate Muslims?” and “Why don’t Muslims condemn terrorism?”"

Valid concerns, given the information they're getting. Frankly, despite your good efforts, information otherwise is *not* getting out there.

Not entirely satisfied on that count, myself, to be honest.

But I respect what you're doing, even if ou were the only one among all Muslims saying it, which I know you're not.

The media is certainly *not* helping in this regard, but, yes, the Muslim world could probably work on the communication skills.

Take *that* from a 'Witch.' For every word I say, there's a thousand voices of willful ignorance trying to make it more comfortable for people to think I'm some manner of horrible person rather than... A person.

"Anybody know who cast the spell?"

Moses and St. Paul are high on the list of usual suspects.

What I think of, here, is something that came up in some fiction I was working on writing, ...someone walks in on a pretty nasty barroom brawl and addresses a rather taciturn chararcter who'd been a warrior in many lifetimes, and says,

"Who threw the first punch?"

"Your Devil."

Who cast it? You. Me. Anyone. "Them."
Who *cares.*

Thing about breaking spells of this kind is, it's often about this:

You wanna see straight? Or not.

Sad fact is, a lot of folks are often much more willing to hurt someone than admit they were fooled in the first place.

And on it goes.

"And how do we neutralize it so that these good folks can be the reasonable, intelligent and compassionate people with Muslims that they are in the other parts of their lives? "

You don't.

You do what everyone does: Be human to your neighbors.

I'll be honest with you, Mr. Patel. By the time I met my first Muslim friend as a young teen, there was already one too-many 'Convert the world to the Holy Book-with-a-history-of-nasty-'Or Elses' in my world.

Humanity first. You're not going to convince anyone your religion is benign any more than you'll get the Christians out of denial what *their* religion has done.

The question is, are we all human enough to *trust* each other with religions like those, or like mine, for that matter.

You break the spell by *letting it go.* Greeting the world. As humans. Looking at each other. As we all must do, early and often.

And that's what that is.

As we bind, so are we bound.
*snap*

This is an unbinding.

There are far too many worthless comments on here. It's so simple to understand, yet so many people are commenting as though its so hard to comprehend.

There are far too many worthless comments on here. It's so simple to understand, yet so many people are commenting as though its so hard to comprehend.

Why does the anti-Islam crowd keep resorting to DISTORTIONS, LOGICAL FALLACIES and OUTRIGHT LIES?

Omar stomps in, spoiling for a fight and pleading for attention from me.

Omar: “Freddy: I posted a comment at 12:57 p.m. Please identify which portion of my submission constitutes a "DISTORTION, LOGICAL FALLACY or OUTRIGHT LIE."”

Waaa waaa waaa. I’m Omar and no one pays any attention to me so I am going to stomp my little feet and cry for attention.

1) OK, Omar. Calm down. Since I never addressed you personally, why are you applying my quote to yourself?

2) Omar, since you are acting as if you believe my comment about “the anti-Islam crowd” applies to you, is this your way of admitting you really are anti-Islam?

3) Note that this would be at variance with your earlier admission of "Islamowariness" instead of “Islamophobia.” Or were you not telling the truth then?

Omar FAILS to reply. Instead, Omar whines “you refuse to identify such lies when challenged to do so.”

4) Omar, you just committed a logical fallacy when you applied my comment to you. Did I address my comment to you?

5) Omar, we don’t know if my comment about distortions, logical fallacies, and outright lies applies to you, because you have not said whether you are anti-Islam. Until you identify as part of the anti-Islam lifestyle, the quote does not apply to you and there is no reason for me to “identify which portion of my submission constitutes a "DISTORTION, LOGICAL FALLACY or OUTRIGHT LIE.” Do you see that you FAILED to answer the question?

6) You still fail to say if you are anti-Islam. Are you anti-Islam or not?

While we wait for you to explain your way out of your failure of logic, let’s take a look at the post you are pleading for attention about. You list a bunch of allegations about the behavior of SOME Muslims, and then say “well, I suppose you get the picture.”

7) No, Omar, we don’t get your “picture.” Why don’t you actually have the intellectual fortitude to actually state your conclusion instead of making vaguely ominous IMPLICATIONS?

8) What do you conclude from all your allegations?

9) Are you implying that your allegations (if true) apply to ALL Muslims or ALL of Islam?

10) Are you implying that there are no parallels between your allegations (if true) and the behavior of certain people and group in OTHER religions?

Omar “the FACT that just about anyone who makes a habit of criticizing Islam, Mohammad or the Quran ends up needing full time security for the rest of their lives.”

11) That is not a "FACT". That is a DISTORTION, at the very least, and possibly an outright lie. The right-wing Christian Islam-bashers at places like Fox “News” make a “habit of criticizing Islam. Are they all traveling with "full time security"? No. Wrong. So did you just commit a DISTORTION or a LIE?

When you answer these questions, I’ll be glad to continue honoring your plea by pointing out MORE places where you’ve committed a "DISTORTION, LOGICAL FALLACY or OUTRIGHT LIE.”

Anti-A. Kafir:

I agree with you that Concerned the CNL is irritatingly repetitious with his message.

I think he would do us all a favor by using fresher material,and trying some other tactics. Repetition is boring, and is why I ignore many of his posts.

However, I'm inclined to agree with his message that Islam needs a reformation; that the Koran needs editing and all the nasty bits cut out. I mean it needs to be said, and it needs to be done. After all, as far as we know, there is no Allah.

It's not something we CAN know.

Eboo Patel,
phobia is a mental disorder. Are you a Board Certified Psychiatrist? No, then you are practicing Medicine - making a diagnosis- without a license.

Concerned The Christian Now Liberated:

The dog is still barking day and night and the parrot is still parroting the words.

Eboo Patel |"Has there been a spell cast on people that causes them to link Islam and violence, and tune out other voices?"

Mr Patel.
I am not a magician or a hypnotist so I do not speak as an expert on these matters, but as a layperson my guess would be that the spell could only have been cast by a demon of some kind, some evil supernatural pixie who is on the side of the devil; or perhaps, a witch.

Otherwise I'm completely at a loss. I don't imagine that the events of the 11th of September 2001 had anything to do with it; or the bombings in London and Madrid and elsewhere, either. Why would they? They were just the acts of crazy kids and had nothing to do with Islam, right Eboo?
So that can't be it.
Must have been those damn pixies up to no good.
Will we NEVER be free of them?

Once again, the anti-Islam crowd resorts to DISTORTIONS, LOGICAL FALLACIES and OUTRIGHT LIES?

Tantor spreads FUD: “Many people mourned Sep 11 around the world, but few Muslims.”

That is a lie.

“Leaders in most Middle Eastern countries, including Afghanistan, condemned the attacks. Iraq was a notable exception”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11,_2001_attacks#International_reaction

“Top Muslim organizations in the United States were swift to condemn the attacks on 9/11 and called "upon Muslim Americans to come forward with their skills and resources to help alleviate the sufferings of the affected people and their families"… In addition to massive monetary donations, many Islamic organizations launched blood drives and provided medical assistance, food, and residence for victims.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11,_2001_attacks#Muslim_American_reaction

Tantor, Now that you know you lied, does your apology include pleading that you were honestly ignorant, or willfully malicious.

"Anybody know who cast the spell? "

If you read the news, every place where there are Muslims, there are bombings. Thailand, the Philippines, India, Pakistan,Jordan, Lebanon, Egypt, etc. They're everywhere.

Eboo, the spell is within those who practice your religion. They kill and they don't seem to notice that they look like bloodthirsty murderers.

Islam is that spell.

_kt_:

you write...

"As any history of 20th century eugenics demonstrates, unbelief isn't much of a guide, either. More accurately, even those who reject religion usually end up believing something, and sometimes the new belief is worse than the old".

Oh I get it. Even if there are no gods we should believe there are,otherwise we'll end up believing in something worse. Brilliant. Pure gold.

After 150+ commentaries, Islamophobia still comes down to that famous quote:

"No one is safe until the koran is deflawed!!!!"

Mr. Eboo Patel,

Thank you for your essay as the responses to it, in all its diversity, shades and nuances of views, is interesting and enlightening to read.

Salam and best regard

"J"

Eboo Patel.

Once upon a time,Christianity was just as nasty and just as cruel as Islam,but they didn't have bombs back then,otherwise civilization might have disappeared long ago.

Christians enjoyed burning unbelievers in those days,or drowning them; they wrote the book on torture,and used it to persuade infidels to believe in their ever-loving god. (WELL didn't THEY?)

They had to give it up finally,because western thinkers like Voltaire cried "enough already!"

And later, Darwin showed that God was, well, unnecessary.

Islam is a nice warm cuddly religion I'm sure,that only blows up people who seem to deserve it. I mean they don't actually mean any harm. But God hates infidels,and Muslims are just doing God's work,just like President Bush is.

So don't feel so bad. Allah's up there to make sure things don't get out of hand.

Isn't He?

Maybe because there are probably 3/4 of a billion Muslims in the world who are sympathetic to the Islamist cause, several hundred million who are true believers, and tens of millions who are prepared to fight or who are fighting now, and thousands upon thousands of Imans who preach hate and violence . . . those voices drown out the softer ones who do represent the majority -- but only by a bit. Granted they are much more prevelant in America than elsewhere, but those who shout regularly get heard over those who whisper.

Those who cast the spell you speak of are the Muslims who dominate their religion in the parts of the world where Muslims dominate -- in the Muslim strongholds of the Middle East and Northern Africa, in Asia, and in pockets of Europe. Not to mention those who have actively waged war on western civilization, and the United States in particular, for nearly 30 years.

You've got a tremendous number of Muslims worldwide who are shouting louder than you -- and we do hear them.

Concerned The Christian Now Liberated:

I noticed that the man with OBSESSIVE, COMPULSIVE, BEHAVIORAL DISORDER is back.

As any history of 20th century eugenics demonstrates, unbelief isn't much of a guide, either. More accurately, even those who reject religion usually end up believing something, and sometimes the new belief is worse than the old.

Eboo Patel, my respects. You knew you'd get violent reactions for writing what you did, and wrote it anyway.

Someone in this thread asks (and this summarizes things rather well): "If no religions is responsible for propagating hate and violence, why are most terrorists Muslim? If Man is responsible, why aren't the terrorists evenly distributed over mankind?"

Well, sixty years ago, there were more Jewish terrorists than Muslim terrorists, and no one asked that question. Thirty years ago terrorism was mostly a trotskyist-communist thing, and no one asked that question. Different separatist groups have during some periods in recent history had a practical monopoly on terrorism, and no one asked that question. In the United States most terrorist acts have been committed by far-right militants, and no one asked that question.

Most of the propagation of hate and violence I see comes not from Muslims but from anti-Muslims indoctrinated by the Bush crowd, and if someone nukes someone else in the near future, it is pretty clear who will be the perpetrator and who will be the innocent victim. (Imagine how the US would react if a major presidential candidate in an Islamic nuclear state sang a ditty going, "bomb, bomb, bomb New York". It would be the ultimate proof in the eyes of many Americans that Muslims are violent and out to destroy them. So how about seeing it from the other side? Like, Americans are violent and out to destroy Muslims? Otherwise how to explain McCain's little song and the fact that he might win the presidency?)

By the way I live in a Muslim neighborhood and I feel quite safe.

Meg.

Thanks for sharing the brilliant Salman Rushdie piece. It's a great read, gotta copy this one.

I especially liked the following quote...

"To choose unbelief is to choose mind over dogma, to trust in our humanity instead of all these dangerous divinities.......Imperfect human knowledge may be a bumpy, pot-holed street, but it's the only road to wisdom worth taking".

Wow. Wish I could have said that. And I probably will from now on.

Great stuff. Thanks again.

"Anybody know who cast the spell?"

Short answer, Osama bin Laden. It's unfair, I know, but people tend to listen to the loudest voices. The reputation of your religion suffers because your religion is used as the pretext for sensational violence designed to attract as much attention as possible. (After all, the whole point of terrorism is to draw a lot of attention and make a big impact disproportionate to your actual strength.) Terrorists try very hard to make Muslims and non-Muslims alike think that they are the true followers of Islam.

In order to change minds, the condemnation much be louder than the provocation. I'm talking about loud and angry condemnation of terrorism by huge crowds of Muslims. It's unfair that it is even necessary, but that's what it would take. If Egypt were to march into Gaza and remove Hamas in the name of Islam, the way that NATO fought for Bosnia and Kosovo, it might go a long way toward changing minds in the non-Muslim world. Otherwise, I'm afraid that many will continue to think that Osama bin Laden is a prominent Muslim cleric.

That said, there is a difference between recognizing the danger of Islamist terrorists and persecuting your peaceful Muslim neighbor. To prejudge some people because of the actions of others is a violation of our national beliefs as Americans. If you want to think like that, get the out of my country!

Freddy:

You've prefaced each one of your comments with the accusation that those on this board who criticize Islam (an explicitly POLITICAL doctrine as much as a religion) are engaged in "DISTORTIONS, LOGICAL FALLACIES and OUTRIGHT LIES." Yet, you refuse to identify such lies when challenged to do so. Forget about my 12:57 p.m. comment. . . . How about Ibrahim Mahfouz's comment of 12:13 p.m.? Or SK's posts of 11:15 and 11:35? How about ManCat at 12:41 p.m.?

Hmmm, time to update the status on our War Against Terror and Aggression:

( or how are we spending or have we spent USA taxpayers’ money to eliminate global terror and aggression)

A Partial Body Count

1a) Assassination of Benazir Bhutto.

1b) 9/11, 3000 mostly US citizens, 1000’s injured.

2) The 24/7 Sunni-Shiite centuries-old blood feud currently being carried out in Iraq, 4000 US troops and 82,078 – 89,573 Iraqi civilians http://www.iraqbodycount.org/

3) Kenya- In Nairobi, about 212 people were killed and an estimated 4000 injured; in Dar es Salaam, the attack killed at least 11 and wounded 85.[2]

4) Bali-in 2002-killing 202 people, 164 of whom were foreign nationals, and 38 Indonesian citizens. A further 209 people were injured.

5) Bali in 2005- Twenty people were killed, and 129 people were injured by three bombers who killed themselves in the attacks.

6) Spain in 2004- killing 191 people and wounding 2,050.

7) UK in 2005- The bombings killed 52 commuters and the four radical Islamic suicide bombers, injured 700.

Other elements of our War on Terror and Aggression:

1. Saddam, his sons and major henchmen have been deleted. Saddam's bravado about WMD was one of his major mistakes.

2. Iran is being been contained. (besides containing the Sunni-Shiite civil war in Baghdad, that is the main reason we are in Iraq. And yes, essential oil continues to flow from the region.)

3. Libya has become almost civil. Apparently this new reality from an Islamic country has upset OBL and his “crazies” as they recently threatened Libya. OBL sure is a disgrace to the world especially the Moslem world!!! or is he???

4. North Korea is still uncivil but is contained. With the opening up of rail traffic between North and South Korea after 50 years and with the assistance of the US Navy in retrieving NK ships and personnel, a fresh sense of civility is afoot.

"The New York Philharmonic Orchestra has performed a concert in Pyongyang, North Korea in an effort to improve relations between the communist country and the Western world. At the same time, an anonymous North Korean official revealed that Eric Clapton has been invited to play Pyongyang in 2009.

The orchestra played in East Pyongyang Grand Theatre, with the entire concert broadcast on state television."

5. Northern Ireland is finally at peace.

6. The Jews and Palestinians are being separated by walls. Hopefully the walls will follow the 1948 UN accords and the Annapolis Peace Conference is at least somewhat successful.

7. Bin Laden has been cornered under a rock in Western Pakistan since 9/11.

8. Fanatical Islam has basically been contained to the Middle East but a wall between India and Pakistan would be a plus for world peace. Ditto for a wall between Afghahistan and Pakistan.

9.Timothy McVeigh was executed. Terry Nichols will follow soon.

10. Eric Rudolph is spending three life terms in prison with no parole.

11. Jim Jones, David Koresh, Kaczynski, the "nuns" from Rwanda, and the KKK were all dealt with and either eliminated themselves or are being punished.

12. Islamic Sudan, Darfur and Somalia are still terror hot spots.

13. Although a bit dated, the terror and torture of Muslims in Bosnia, Kosovo and Kuwait were ended by the proper application of the military forces of the USA and her freedom-loving friends in NATO.

14. And of course the bloody terror brought about the Japanese, Nazis and Communists was with great difficulty eliminated by the good guys.

Also, as a sociologist, there is much destruction and violence in the world. Some of it comes from America.

Did not our own President say, Bring It On?
Is that Blood Lust? What? No regrets or hesitation to use force? Carter hesitated to attack Iran in 1979. Bush does not seem very hesitant nowadays. Imagine Carter saying, Bring It On?

Jimmy is the kind of Christian that treasures human life a lot more than George.

Sociologists hate double standards.

How evil for THEM to take a human life,
but it is a regretful necessity for us to take a human life to make a better world.

NATO:
1. It was created before the Warsaw Pact.
2. It has persisted long after the Warsaw Pact has dissolved.
3. NATO has been used as an offensive force outside the borders of its member countries in ways it was not intended back in 1949.

All my life I was told the Soviets were the bad guys out to get us. Maybe the Soviets are partly right about us Westerners being the aggressors: the former colonial imperialists, now the NATO allies.

Included in bin Laden's ravings were some legitimate gripes (except for the survival of Israel which the U.N. world body agreed to in 1948). Why couldn't we eventually create our own renewable energy and tell the petro-sheiks what they can do with their filthy carbon rich oil? No, it is cheaper to have an army over there. American blood doesn't count for anything. Certainly not if your last name isn't Bush.

America has some real problems, like ten trillion dollars of debt, some of which it owes to people and governments someplace else. I don't think Monopoly money is going to be the answer. Losing a significant portion of our land mass and mineral wealth might, and maybe we will be smarter if we do.

Ethnocentrism: the tendency of one society to try to write the rules for everybody by itself.

Let's avoid ethnocentrism, at least today.

Eboo, Eboo, Eboo,

You still don't get it. The violence committed by Muslims is horrifying but what is more horrifying is the rational supporting said violence, i.e. the flaws of Islam.

Since this apparently continues to fly over your Islamic, brainwashed neurons, here are yet again the first four flaws. Correct them and there will be no more Islamophobia because there will be no Islam.

1. Believe in "pretty/ugly wingie" thingies and teach your children that such things really exist (strange though that you laugh at those who believe in Santa Clause and tinkerbells).

2. Believe that the long-dead Arab did actually talk to the "pretty Gabriel" in the "Gabe" cave and therein received the good words now listed in the koran.

3. That Sunnis are superior to Shiites in all aspects of life and Shiites believing the exact opposite.

4. That Islam is perfect and the koran inherently condones no sin even though the 24/7 800 year-old feud between Sunnis and Shiites give significant credence that suicides, assassinations, maiming, and murder are condoned by the koran. Having multiple wives also gives significant credence to the sins of lust and polygamy. The condoned treatment of these wives gives credence that the koran allows the sins of anger and greed.

Analogous flaws exist for orthodox Christianity. Correcting those flaws will basically eliminate said orthodoxy.

Eboo Patel;

I hope you can take the time to read this essay by Salman Rushdie, written several years ago, as a letter to the world's Six-Billionth Child, who was about to be born.

Dear little Six - Billionth Living Person: As one of the newest members of a notoriously inquisitive species, it probably won't be too long before you start asking the two $64,000 questions with which the other 5,999,999,999 of us have been wrestling for some time.
How did we get here? And, now that we are here, how shall we live?
Oddly - as if six billion of us weren't enough to be going on with - it will almost certainly be suggested to you that the answer to the question of origins requires you to believe in the existence of a further, invisible, innefable Being "somewhere up there", an omnipotent creature whom we poor limited creatures are unable even to perceive, much less to understand.
That is, you will be strongly encouraged to imagine a heaven, with at least one god in residence.
This sky god, it's said, made the universe by churning its matter in a giant pot. Or, he danced. Or, he vomited creation out of himself. Or, he simply called it into being, and lo, it Was. In some of the more interesting creation stories, the singly mighty sky god is subdivided into many lesser forces - junior dieties, avatars, gigantic metamorphic "ancestors" whose adventures create the landscape, or the whimsical, wanton, meddling, cruel pantheons of the great polytheisms, whose wild doings will convince you that the real engine of creation was lust; for infinite power, for too easily broken human bodies, for clouds of glory. But it's only fair to add that there are also stories which offer the message that the primary creative impulse was, and is, love.
Many of these stories will strike you extremely beautiful, and therefore seductive. Unfortunately, however, you will not be required to make a purely literary response to them. Only the stories of dead religions can be appreciated for their beauty. Living religions require much more of you. So you will be told that belief in "your" stories, and adherence to the rituals of worship that have grown up around them, must become a vital part of your life in the crowded world. They will be called the heart of your culture, even of your individual identity.

It is possible that they may at some point come to feel inescapable, not in the way that the truth is inescapable, but in the way that a jail is. They may at some point cease to feel like the texts in which human beings have tried to solve a great mystery, and feel, instead, like the pretexts for other properly anointed human beings to order you around. And it's true that human history is full of the public oppression wrought by the charioteers of the gods.
In the opinion of religious people, however, the private comfort that religion brings more than compensates for the evil done in its name.

As human knowledge has grown, it has also become plain that every religious story ever told about how we got here is quite simply wrong. This, finally, is what all religions have in common. They didn't get it right. There was no celestial churning, no maker's dance, no vomiting of galaxies, no snake or kangaroo ancestors, no Valhalla, no Olympus, no six-day conjuring trick followed by a day of rest. Wrong, wrong, wrong.

But here's something genuinly odd. The wrongness of the sacred tales hasn't lessened the zeal of the devout in the least. If anything, the sheer out-of-step zaniness of religion leads the religious to insist ever more stridently on the importance of blind faith.

As a result of this faith, by the way, lt has proved impossible, in many parts of the world, to prevent the human race's numbers from swelling alarmingly. Blame the overcrowded planet at least partly on the misguidedness of the races spiritual guides. In your own lifetime, you may witness the arrival of the nine billionth world citizen.

(If too many people are being born as a result, in part, of religious strictures against birth control, then too many people are also dying because religious culture, by refusing to face the facts of human sexuality, also refuses to fight against sexually transmitted diseases.)

There are those who say that the great wars of the new century will once again be wars of religion, jihads and crusades, as they were in the Middle Ages. I don't believe them, or not in the way they mean it. Take a look at the Muslim world, or rather the Islamist world, to use the word coined to describe Islam's present day "political arm". The divisions between its great powers (Afghanistan against Iran against Iraq against Saudi Arabia against Syria against Egypt) are what strike you most forcefully. There's very little resembling a common purpose. Even after the non-Islamic NATO fought a war for the Muslim Kosovan Albanians, the Muslim world was slow in coming forward with much needed humanitarian aid.

The real wars of religion are the wars religions unleash against ordinary citizens within their "sphere of influence." They are wars of the godly against the largely defenceless - American fundamentalists against pro-choice doctors, Iranian mullahs against their country's Jewish minority, Hindu fundamentalists in Bombay against that city's increasingly fearful Muslims.

The victors in that war must not be the closed-minded, marching into battle with, as ever, God on their side. To choose unbelief is to choose mind over dogma, to trust in our humanity instead of all these dangerous divinities. So, how did we get here? Don't look for the answer in story books. Imperfect human knowledge may be a bumpy, pot-holed street, but it's the only road to wisdom worth taking. Virgil, who believed that the apiarist Aristaeus could spontaneously generate new bees from the rotting carcess of a cow, was closer to a truth about origins than all the revered old books.

The ancient wisdoms are modern non-senses.

Live in your own time, use what we know and, as you grow up, perhaps the human race will finally grow up with you and put aside childish things. As the song says, "It's easy if you try."

As for mortality, the second great question - how to live? What is right action, and what wrong?- it comes down to your willingness to think for yourself. Only you can decide if you want to be handed down the law by priests, and accept that good and evil are somehow external to ourselves.

To my mind, religion - even at its most sophisticated - essentially infantalizes our ethical selves by setting infallible moral Arbiters and irredeemably immoral Tempters above us; the eternal parents, good and bad, light and dark, of the supernatural realm.

How, then, are we to make ethical choices without a divine rulebook or judge? Is unbelief just the first step on the long slide into the brain death of cultural relativism, according to which many unbearable things - female circumcision, to name just one - can be excused on culturally specific grounds, and the universality of human rights, too can be ignored?
(This last piece of moral unmaking finds supporters in some of the world's most authoritarian regimes, and also, unnervingly, on the editorial page of the Daily Telegraph,UK.)

Well, no, it isn't, but the reasons for saying so aren't clear-cut. Only hard-line ideology is clear-cut. Freedom, which is the word I use for the secular-ethical position, is inevitably fuzzier. Yes, freedom is that space in which contradiction can reign, it is a never-ending debate. It is not in itself the answer to the question of morals, but the conversation about that question. And it is much more than mere relativism, because it is not merely a never-ending talk show, but a place in which choices are made, values defined and defended.

Intellectual freedom, in European history, has mostly meant freedom from the restraints of the Church and not the state.

This is the battle Voltaire was fighting, and it's also what all six billion of us could do for ourselves, the revolution in which each of us could play our small, six-billionth part; once and for all we could refuse to allow priests, and the fictions on whose behalf they claim to speak, to be the policemen of our liberties and behavior. Once and for all we could put the stories back into the books, put the books back on the shelves, and see the world undogmatized and plain.

Imagine there's no heaven, my dear Six-Billionth, and at once the sky's the limit.

Extracted from Letters to the Six-Billionth World Citizen, published in English by Uitgeverij Podium, Amsterdam.

Rebuttal, I think we've found common ground. At least two of us :). You tolerate my non-belief (I am an atheist) and I tolerate your belief. We are agreed that outward showing of faith/non-faith is fine, but imposing your beliefs on others is not. We both disagree with the French solution. Now what can we do to make this happen on a global basis?

The point of this thread was that non-Muslims don't believe that the majority of Muslims are peaceful and tolerant of others. And that Muslims do/do not do enough to protest violence by what many deem a minority but others say is the majority. The author says those of us that are not Muslims tune out the moderates. I think if we could know what a moderate is, especially regarding tolerance of others culture and freedom of expression, we could have a better dialogue.

I think of myself as moderate in my beliefs on social issues. I believe that everyone has the right to practice their own religion, their own sexual orientation and family structure so long as all races and genders are treated equally and those practices do not harm others.

I have a Wiccan friend who says the first most important rule in their religion is: "Do no harm". If all religions could make that their first rule I think we'd be way ahead in our civil society.

One can ask, with equal legitimacy, where are the moderate voices of Christianity in the United States?

They don't exist on self-described Christian radio or TV -- only theocratic, fundamentalist voices are permitted by their station and network decision-makers.

Turn on any self-labeled Christian media outlet, listen for an entire year, and you will never, even once, hear a host say that separation of church and state is a good thing, and that Americans who don't believe as they do, have the right to be left alone. You will never, ever, hear a "Christian" host say that voting for a Democrat for President might be the Christian thing to do.

There are NO, absolutely NO moderate voices of Christianity in the "Christian" media. Yet I know that moderate Christians exist. Why their silence?

As for whether Islamic radicals are actually worse than their American "Christian" counterparts, here's my answer:

God's Warriors: Is Comparison With America's Religious Right Unfair?
http://churchstatewall.typepad.com/the_church_state_wall/2007/08/gods-warriors-i.html

Our ancestors who invented all these gods in the first place, invented them because they could account for existence no other way. It was a 'natural' reaction to their confusion and ignorance.
God-did-it, seemed like a good idea at the time. Nobody could think of a better idea.

But that was long long ago. It's a different world now. We no longer need to believe in gods, or devils, or heaven and hell. Looking at it now, it's so infantile. It's what kids would come up with.

Jacqueline: "No religion is responsible for propogating hate, oppression, violence and discrimination. Man has done these things."

If no religions is responsible for propagating hate and violence, why are most terrorists Muslim? If Man is responsible, why aren't the terrorists evenly distributed over mankind?

I knew moderate, peaceful Muslims for years. First we had the Khan family who coincidentally relocated from Rockville to Waldorf at roughly the time we did, and the children's high-school age uncle was my Spanish I classmate. Later in college I had a sociology professor/adviser from the former British territory of The Gambia: yep, another Muslim, as Kunta Kinte had been. He said he was only prejudiced against people who discriminate, and that he didn't know he was black until he came to America. I have known other Muslims as well: I had an Iranian professor of sociology in graduate school, and a work colleague put Post-It notes in the Quran I got from the Saudi embassy so I could compare Islam to Christianity (in this day and age, I think it is time to read up on Islam). I don't want other people telling me what to believe about other people, I'd rather meet the people and make up my own mind.

It would be very easy to settle the problem. Why don't you and the 700,000 other Muslims sign a declaration saying: 1) Islam is just one religion among many; it has no dominion over any other religion or believer 2) We will render unto God what is God's and render unto Caesar what is Caesar's.

I'm an atheist and I find it immature to view religion as the root of all evil. Furthermore, just as I am offended by people who condemn my soul to eternal hell and damnation, I am equally offended by those who view religious faith as "ridiculous" and religious adherents as "gullible."

No religion is responsible for propogating hate, oppression, violence and discrimination. Man has done these things.

Religion, in and of itself, is harmless. People are dangerous. Religion is only a threat when it mixes with government and public institutions.

Although I'm sure we would all agree that religious fundamentalists and those that crusade for power in the name of religion are misleading and loathsome, I'm certain that I cannot support the same intolerance of any opinion other than one's own that has gotten us to this hopeless state.

It is regrettable that for some people to practice their way of life, they must believe that any other way of doing so is wrong.

DATDAMWF:

I think the Muslim taxi drivers who refuse to accept passengers with sealed alcoholic bottles are crazy. That is an exaggeration of their faith. It is one thing not to drink due to religious prohibition but it is different thing to impose your faith upon others this way. Their behavior is an absolute non-sense.

I still do not accept the argument that the French are integrating their society by imposing a ban on hijab or turban or kirpan. Any sociologist will tell you that integration comes from a change in the mindsets of the people and is a long term process which takes generations. And diffusion of ideas is never a one way process.

Integation is a good concept but it should not be imposed by asking people to give up their beliefs or practices. Diversity is indeed a great thing. It is diversity that makes America a beautiful nation.

1. Americans like to have an enemy--we don't have communists any more so "Islamic Terrorists" is the enemy of the moment. The reason is that it requires thought to explain what we are for while it takes only attitude to express what we are against.

2. Our enemies are always seen as monolithic--see no. 1 above and any book on the Cold War

3. Anyone wishing to make finer distinctions would do well to read Karen Armstrong's biography of Muhammed and her Short History of Islam.

I consider myself to be a compassionate and logical person. I have faith, but I think of Organized religion as more of a tool of the past that for some reason exists in our modern world. This interaction between old and current creates a kind of illogical, scary view of the world and where it should go. This reason along with the fact that organized religion acts to separate rather than bring together are why I don't participate in the Catholic Church anymore. That aside, one problem I had with your article is that you didn't really answer the question presented to you. Everyone knows that there is a majority of moderate, wonderful Muslims in our world that truly work for peace and community, but there are plenty of people in general who do this as well. It has nothing to do with religion, it is merely the way that people should act (be good for the sake of being good). That isn't enough though. I am not satisfied with moderate Muslims merely saying that they don't support or they don't agree with terrorism and living good lives. As a part of the Muslim faith, you have a responsibility to attend to and try and heal the problems that your faith faces when it comes down to people taking other peoples lives in the name of your faith. You, as participants in the muslim tradition, have a responsibility to stop the terrorists. We, as americans, are so far away from the terrorists way of thinking that it is impossible for us to reason with them. We need you to do that for us. It isn't alright to just condemn terrorism, do something to stop it. Destroy these brain washing schools in the middle east where real knowledge is outlawed. In my opinion religion itself is to blame. Not to say that Islam is more to blame than any other religion, but it has a reputation for disliking freedom (drinking, sex, drugs, fun (hehe)), which I don't appreciate. All in all, I know I have bounced around a lot, but I really think it is your responsibility as an intelligent Muslim to condemn the terrorist to death, and to try and free the minds of the children that they enslave with their ancient tradition. I hope I wasn't offensive at all. I really appreciate the muslim faith as a tool, and a very good one at that, but it has been put into the wrong hands already, so maybe it would be better if all religion was done away with.

Dear Eboo Patel,

Is this what you do here? Post an article, ask for feedback and never respond? What is the point in your posting at all?

I really want an answer to the question I posted earlier, what is your definition of moderate Muslim?

here is original post again:

An important point is, that when you say moderate, you do not define it. First you need to tell us what it means.

I will give you an example of why I ask this. The danish cartoons of Muhammad sparked violent, even deadly protests around the world in just about every nation with a large muslim population. It's happening again on a smaller scale with the reprint of one cartoon. I do note that the muslim protest at the danish newspaper was indeed peaceful.

So the question I have is this, do moderate muslims think the rest of the world should censor their writings and drawings in deference to the muslim religion? Note that we don't do this for any other religion.

The answers to many more questions would help to define moderate. Such as, do moderates believe Sharia law should be the law of the land? Do they believe that Israel has the right to exist? Do they believe that women are equal? Define moderate please!

Friend,

Many people mourned Sep 11 around the world, but few Muslims. Iran was the surprising exception and the ruling mullahs quickly shut down those rallies in support of America. Before the towers fell, members of a mosque in Manhattan (on 12th St?) were celebrating in the street at the sight of the burning buildings. Ditto for a mosque in New Jersey within sight of the towers.

In Palestine, they danced in the streets and passed out candy. In Saudi Arabia, they slaughtered goats and feasted. In the Muslim Turkish quarter of Berlin, they shot off rockets. In Bahrain, school kids high-fived and bought up Bin Laden T-shirts. In Egypt, they celebrated the attack for a month before the government shut it down. In Kuwait, high school kids crowed about how America deserved it.

The celebration extended to the printed press. You can find plenty of wildly exuberant articles from the Middle East praising the Sep 11 attacks in translation on MEMRI.

The fact is that the majority of the Muslim world is governed by murderous religious bigotry that delights in bloodshed. They enjoy attacks on America because they believe that infidels should not hold power in the world, only Muslims.

L.Kurt Engelhart:

You;
"...if you could bring yourself to accept that your beliefs are also, in some sense, superstitious or mythical..."

Me;

Atheism is not a belief; it is lack of a belief. An atheist sees no reason to believe in the existence of a supernatural world of gods and angels. It really is that simple.

Given that frame of mind, atheists like myself do get impatient and blunt when responding to those who seem gullible enough to accept, and preach, with no evidence at all,the unlikely idea of a sky god superman who takes care of us when we are dead, and all the rest of it.

With all the goodwill in the world, such ideas seem patently ridiculous to me; and also dangerous and undesirable. I believe the world would be a better place without religious superstition.

I must say, however, that I've only become an 'outspoken' atheist since 9/11.(further encouraged by later bombings, and the Iraq debacle etc.)

It is my opinion that religion just might destroy us all one day in the future, and for this reason I would urge all atheists to speak out against it.

Why don't moderate Muslims condemn terrorism?

Catholic "love and acceptance" is a joke, too.
Catholics exclude gays, divorced people and non-members from Christ's table.

Religion is the root of all evil.

Arif wrote:

"The 700,000 or so "moderate" Muslims who signed the petition are indeed only a "handful" when you people are 1.2 Billion, therefore it does not mean much."

This crazy guy wants 1.2 billion Muslims to sign a petition?

He is out of his mind, isn't he?

Why does the anti-Islam crowd keep resorting to DISTORTIONS, LOGICAL FALLACIES and OUTRIGHT LIES?

Omar stomps in, spoiling for a fight and pleading for attention from me.

Omar: “Freddy: I posted a comment at 12:57 p.m. Please identify which portion of my submission constitutes a "DISTORTION, LOGICAL FALLACY or OUTRIGHT LIE."”

Waaa waaa waaa. I’m Omar and no one pays any attention to me so I am going to stomp my little feet and cry for attention.

OK, Omar. Calm down. Since I never addressed you personally, I’m not sure why you are applying my quote to yourself.

Is this your way of saying you hate Islam?

Rebuttal wrote:
"Your statement shows how blatantly trapped you are in your prejudices. "A direct result of violence" by many Muslims? So, the teenage school girls or those that are 8 year olds were violent? Is that why the hijab was banned?

"Many Muslims"? You seems to be totally ignorant of modern social theory that violence committed by a small group of people at one time and place can not be a justification for committing violence against the people of the same identity in another place or time. According to modern sociological theory even maligning of the people of the same identity can not be justified.
GUILT BY ASSOCIATION IS ILLOGICAL AND IRRATIONAL."

Rebuttal, you are confused here, the French are trying to integrate many religious and cultural differences, I don't agree with their methods at all. But really, banning the hijab is violence and malice against Muslims? I think not. And there is no guilt by association, the banning is an attempt to help the many different immigrants to France to integrate, to become French first, and any other affiliation second. Is it aimed primarily at Muslims? Yes, due to intolerance by Muslims, riots, violence. Why should western countries change to accommodate your religion? Why can't you be as tolerant of us as we are of you. We are secular nations by and large, if you wish to live by Islamic law why do you go to France?

I have a question for you, in the US a number of Muslim taxi drivers who were supposed to service a major airport were refusing to take passengers who had bottles of alcohol with them. Do you think that is OK? Or do you think, given their religious beliefs they should find a profession that does not cause them to refuse customers?

To make this simple for you to answer, I will include this question also. There are Christians that are pharmacists and refuse to fill birth control prescriptions. Do you think that is OK? Or do you think, given their religious beliefs they should find a profession that does not cause them to refuse customers?

Your answers will tell me whether you are open to a debate that can help us understand one another or not. I think that both groups should find other professions because their expression of their religion is infringing on the rights of fellow citizens that believe differently.

And because you don't seem to see it at all in all these posts, one last time! I don't agree with banning the hijab or any other religious symbol, I simply understand why it happened.

I am Dutch. When van Gogh was murdered by a muslim no muslim spoke out to condemn the murder. So what should I think about that?

I have been a student of MidEast politics for many years, going back to the 1982 Israeli invasion of Lebanon. As Edward Said and Fouad Ajami have remarked in the past, one of the great failings of Islam has been its inability to communicate effectively with the West. Moderate Muslims around the world seem to want Americans to understand them and be sympathetic, but they don't employ effective means to communicate their position. Mr Patel seems like a reasonable man, but giving thoughful interviews on a Philly radio station isn't going to get it done.

Other minority groups in the U.S. (Jews, African-Americans, Gays, Armenians, Native Americans, Disabled people, etc) have found various ways to craft their message and deliver it, and fight discrimination through the use of the media, celebrities, lobbbying groups, advertising, rallies, TV appearances, movies, sponsorships, etc. The Muslim community seems to think that gee, if only you Americans would take the time to learn about us, you would understand that we're OK. Well, nothing works that way.

So, get some money together, hire a PR firm, and make a plan. Certainly 1/5th of the world can afford a little PR. If you're not serious enough about the issue to spend a little money, then don't expect people to pay attention.

I think UBL would get my point.

Tantor:

In Iran, many people went to the streets to mourn our loss on 9/11. This happened around the world.

Our subsequent policies has caused a different government to be elected in Iran.

In the US, many watched the highly produced shows on the war. We even had a national speech by the President where he flew on the deck of a carrier with huge words that said 'Mission Accomplished'. Of course, many civilians in Iraq had died and were dying at that very moment.

Maybe you would have more luck convincing Americans that Islam is peaceful if Muslims stopped killing people for their religion. Muslims all over the world celebrated the Sep 11 attacks. By contrast, you didn't see Americans dancing in the streets when a thousands of Muslims were killed by the Asian tsnunami of 2004. That is a major difference between us in which Muslims demonstrate a depraved enthusiasm for death that is repugnant to moral people.

Attributing the bad reputation of Muslims to Islamophobia rather than to their behavior is specious rhetoric. It's a false accusation that holds that Americans don't judge Muslims by the Sep 11 attacks, the Tube bombings, the Madrid train bombings, the Mumbai train bombings, the Danish cartoon riots, the Al Qaeda torture cells, the snuff videos, and the ten thousand Islamic terror attacks since Sep 11 that have killed 60,000 people and wounded 90,000, but rather Americans are just inexplicably prejudiced against Muslims for no good reason at all.

If you want our respect, earn it. First, tear out all those hateful pages from the Koran that demand you kill infidels and reject them as friends. Second, give up your idea that you are going to rule the world with non-Muslims as your subjects. Third, try extending the same respect for other religions you demand for yours. You can start by ditching all that business about Jews and Christians being pigs and apes. Fourth, stop plotting to kill your fellow citizens in America.

There's more, but that's a good start. Now get busy.

Thank you, Eboo, for your voice and your fine representation of the best in Islam. Once again, I will ask Jews and Christians whether they would condemn Moses for how his people conquered Canaan, or attack Christianity on the basis of the Inquisition. So many here attack the Prophet Muhammad without fairmindedness.

The 700,000 Muslims who signed a petition protesting the hijacking of their faith by terrorists represent many more than the 700,000 who signed. To dismiss this as a pittance among 1.8 billion is to fail to understand the statistical likelihood of signing a petition. Those of you who issued this criticism, how often do you sign petitions protesting the misuse of your faith or party or group? My guess is, most of you don't, even when you would agree with such a petition.

What Eboo experiences is not about reasonableness and facts, but about highly charged emotions that fit very well with the prejudices of our time.

The problem isn't that moderate Muslims are not condemning extremism - plenty of them do; the problem is that western media outlets are just not reporting it, or not reporting it enough. The fact is that for centuries Muslim societies have coexisted peacefully with other cultures and most continue to do so today.

The real bias in the media isn't "liberal" (whatever that loaded term means anymore). The motto of the press has been and continues to be "If it bleeds, it leads." Reporting bad news means increased circulation, which, of course, translates into more dollars (euros, pesos, yen, yuan etc.).

So, of course, moderate voices and positive news pieces tend be drowned out in the sea of bombings, kidnappings, political assassinations, war and Eliot Spitzer's call girl problems.

And - at the end of the day - wouldn't you rather be informed anyway? You don't see the train coming at you unless you're willing to look down the tunnel.

"Has there been a spell cast on people that causes them to link Islam and violence, and tune out other voices?"

Maybe it was cast by that woman that the Saudis sentenced to death because she was "practicing witchcraft"? (Accused by her husband and not allowed to speak in her own defense, naturally.)

Really. At least Christians stopped executing women accused of witchcraft a few centuries ago.

Here is the latest from the followers of Quran:

Archbishop of Iraq kidnapped and killed (3 were killed during kidnapping).

11 civlians blown up in Iraq today. Yesterday 16 Shiites were blown up in a bus.

Gazans continue to fire rockets at civilians in Israel.

11 civilians killed in Pakistan, in addition to 24 yesterday.

6 civilians blown up in Afghanistan...

Why does the anti-Islam crowd keep resorting to DISTORTIONS, LOGICAL FALLACIES and OUTRIGHT LIES?

Man Cat lies: “"Freddy", you are just showing your own hatred of Christ.”

1) How? Prove it.

2) Since when is quoting scripture “showing hatred of Christ”?

3) Do your selective and out of context quotes from the Koran “show your hatred for Muslims?”

4) Or does logic not work in your world?

Man Cat shows more actual ignorance: “When has a Christian man, woman or child strapped a bomb on themselves and killed innocent people?”

5) Are you truly ignorant of Christian terrorists?

6) Is Man Cat truly unaware of the blight of Christians who blow up clinics and murder doctors and nurses and bystanders?

7) Are you truly ignorant of Eric Roberts? And those like him?

Man Cat’s ignorance goes on: “Are Christian children taught to kill themselves for the glory of God?”

8) Many people of all faiths teach their children to be willing die for their faith/ culture/ nationality. Some fanatics of all faiths twist that around to ENCOURAGE their kids to die for their faith/ culture/ nationality. But you can only see it when Muslims do it. How sad for you.

Mad cat: “when have you ever heard a Christian yell "God is great" while committing an act of violence?”

9) Truly silly argument. Plenty of soldiers of all faiths invoke their deity when killing and being killed. Again, you fail to ascribe evil only to Muslims.

Man Cat: “No Christian will force you to shut up as a Christ hater.”

10) Wrong again! First, you commit numerous logical fallacies here. Besides your ad hominem attack, you have failed to demonstrate in any way that I am a “Christ hater.” There have been plenty of Christians who sought to silence those who disagreed with them. Are you ignorant of Christian dictators like Frederick Chiluba? He declared that Zambia would henceforth be a Christian nation. He silenced Muslims and Hindus by refusing to allow them into schools to be educated. He made the national TV and radio stations have Christian-only programming. Evil fanatic Pat Robertson said “Your country is not only the standard for Africa but for the rest of the world." And asked his audience "Wouldn't you love to have someone like that as President of the United States of America?"

Man Cat, aren’t you ashamed of your ignorance by now? Do you renounce your religious hypocrisy?

11) Man Cat: “Christ will take care of Himself and you without help.”

LOL. I love the veiled threats of religious hypocrites. I take comfort in the fact that the Bible makes it clear that religious hypocrites will have their own special reward.

Marjorie Streeter,

If you had been around during the Spanish Inquisition, what would you have thought about a Catholic apologist who proposed that people must be under some kind of "spell" that made them link Catholocism with violence? Wouldn't you have considered them a scoundrel?

What would you have thought about people who placed the responsibility for the violence on the Catholic church? Whouldn't that have constituted a "no brainer?"

The 700,000 or so "moderate" Muslims who signed the petition are indeed only a "handful" when you people are 1.2 Billion, therefore it does not mean much.

The declaration, Not in the Name of Islam states ...

"We, the undersigned Muslims, wish to state clearly that those who commit acts of terror, murder and cruelty in the name of Islam are not only destroying innocent lives, but are also betraying the values of the faith they claim to represent...."

Are these people also condemning the acts of your prophet Mohammed? After all he too destroyed innocent lives, committed acts of terror murder and cruelty all in the name of Islam. All one has to do is to read the hadith and koran to know how the Muslim prophet mohammed propagated his new found plagiarized religion.

Glad to know that at least the listeners of Philadelphia public radio are very well informed about "peaceful" Islam. They may have read or heard of the Muslims blowing up other Muslims in Pakistan? Did you know that Islamic suicide bombers killed about 30 Muslims and injured about 200 including 50 school children just two days ago? How long will it be before we start seeing this behavior from home grown American Muslims?

Freddy:

I posted a comment at 12:57 p.m.

Please identify which portion of my submission constitutes a "DISTORTION, LOGICAL FALLACY or OUTRIGHT LIE."

More people should be aware of such web sites such as: http://www.libforall.org/home.html if they truly want an enlightened, balanced view of Islam - and not be poisoned by the bigoted views of those who think that Islam translates to terrorism. We don't think that Christianity is terrorism because of the Spanish Inquisition or the Salen witch-burnings.

Andrew:
“Religion is not knowledge. It is superstition, and as such it is anti-knowledge. It is myth.”

As you point out, others would always have us believe otherwise than we do. You are one of those ‘others.’ I am one also, but a different one. I believe you are acting in the same interests as I, but I cannot support you because you are not what I call ‘charitable’ in your criticism of other beliefs. If you could bring yourself to accept that your beliefs are also, in some sense, superstitious or mythical, but that they are also superior beliefs for some reason you could explain rationally, there might be a basis on which we could discuss what makes some beliefs better than others.

Why does the anti-Islam crowd keep resorting to DISTORTIONS, LOGICAL FALLACIES and OUTRIGHT LIES?

courthouseguy: “I consider myself about as moderate and tolerant of a person as one can be.”

1) Uh-oh. Why are those words so often followed by INTOLERANCE?

courthouseguy:” it is hard to ignore the violence committed by some Muslims in the name of that particular faith.”

2) Was it also hard was it for you to ignore the violence committed by Christians in the name of their faith? Show us all the places you’ve complained about that.

Courthouseguy: “Nor do I see the leaders of Islam reaching out to Christians and Jews in the way, on on the scale, that for example, Pope John Paul II tried to reach out to those of different faiths - including Muslims and Jews.”

3) Then you FAIL to see the obvious. After 911, virtually the entire Muslim world joined in huge outpouring of sympathy and cooperation, including nations like Syria, Libya, and Sudan. All but Iraq and Afghanistan condemned the attacks and offered resources to fight international terrorism.

4) How could you miss the MASSIVE OUTREACH OF THE MAJORITY OF THE MULSIM WORLD? It was far greater than your claimed Papal outreach, involving FAR more people in FAR more nations.

5) Now that your eyes have been opened to the obvious, can you see that Bush squandered much of the good-faith outreach of the Muslim world, just as Bush squandered our Surplus, squandered our economy, squandered our best opportunities to get Bin Laden, and squandered thousands of American lives in a pointless war of deceit in Iraq.

6) Did you miss that Muslim outreach because the majority of your information comes from bogus sources like Murdoch/Ailles Fox “News”?
Fox “News” spends spend far more time and frenzy covering the violent minorities in the Muslim world than they cover any “fair and balanced” portrayal of the majority of moderate Muslims who condemn terrorism.

7) But then Fox “News” credulously regurgitated Bush administration LIES to help create an unnecessary Iraq war, right?

Christianity went through some bad phases in its early years (Inquisition, Crusades, etc.). I think the relatively young Islam is going through a similarly unfortunate rite of passage. Maybe it will eventually move on to televangelism and pedophilic clergy scandals...

I'm glad that there are moderate Muslim voices, but Islam doesn't seem to be listening. Islam seems to be in need of a good reformation; is there a Muslim Martin Luther out there?

It won't solve everything, but it doesn't look like we'll be getting rid of organized religion anytime soon.

It's great to see people such as yourself standing up and showing that there are in fact moderate muslims.

I can understand where the callers are coming from though. Our mainstream media in this country focuses on the bad more than the good. People like yourself get appearances on a radio show which I'm assuming is only broadcast in one state. Meanwhile, We have groups like CAIR, which is an unindicted co-conspirator in the HLF trial, shoved down our throats by the MSM (and goverment) constantly. CAIR, A group claiming to be the voice of islam in america, has only a membership of around 1300 according to tax records. We can see through the BS of this group, and look to see real moderates.

This is why these questions are repeatedly asked of you. Please be patient as you have been.

I hope and pray that your messege reaches a wider audience. I also hope and pray the MSM in this country will wake up and realize they are being duped by groups like CAIR. We need more people like you in the MSM to combat the jihad ideology with ideas, not just weapons. Keep up the good fight!! Much respect to you, sir!

Andrew:

Why myths? Why should we care about myths? What do they have to do with my life?

http://www.spiritsight.com/writing/joscam/part1.shtml

The sign of a true bigot is when a person makes a stupid, bigoted claim about Muslims, hears Mr. Patel's unequivocal response, only to make the exact same stupid, bigoted claim tomorrow.

There are a lot of such stupid, bigoted people, blinded partisans in the cult-like world of talk radio.

http://churchstatewall.typepad.com/

I think most of the problems have started by tolerating Muslim immigrant communitites to bring in thier way of life in guise of multi culturalism and not understanding what sort of problems would arise in future. When the first woman insisting to cover her face would have denied that right it would have not become an issue in first place. Muslims coming to western countries must understand that they cant have both ways. If they believe in superiority of thier culture and way of life why are they migrating to western countries?. If they are making western countries as new adopted home they should adopt the western way of living as well. Rejecting western life style and insisting on your own life style is equal to disrespect the life style of the locals. As long as muslims will continue to identify themselves in religous terms first, they will continue to have problems in integration with the rest of the world.once they start identifying themselves as humans beings [Homasapiens] first equal and no differnt from other human beings all the problems would resolve. Tolerating of extemist Islamic Interpretations by western societies has actually helped more extremism in Islamic Lands.I would also like to say in end that I belong to a Muslim family myself.

Boy, reading these posts just goes to show how ignorant Americans are about anything outside their immediate sphere.
All this talk about Muslims and Islam as a death cult is hilarious.
How many hundreds of years were people killed and tortured in the name of Christ? I find it funny that people seem to forget this history.
Then those same people who know that history now think that Christianity today is all about love and peace and is somehow different than old Christianity - give us all a break. These same people are probably supporters of torture in the name of freedom and democracy - pitiful.

WE are COME!

[joz][evz][.us]

[FREE][PRiZEZ for Home on Weekends via a weekly RAFFELL] and a Weekend BLOG from Sat-12:Noon until SUN:Midnight!, coming Soon Soon Very Soon!

Please visit from time to time. Thanka Shame!

Things are getting better, never worse! PROMiSE, on me Honor!

There will a GOOD PHiLOSOPHY {NEW} {SONG} coming from O.U.R. OLD songs too! AND for ALL the world to enjoy [freely] each week too!

And No More Deleating my or YOUR ESSAY's again by Anyone!!

Genuine FREEDOM OF THOUGHT IS HERE!

Huggs n Kisses to ALL!

I wish I knew why everything we do not agree with or trust somehow turns into fear!??! If I don't go along with two men or two women being together sexually why is that considered a phobia and if we for some odd reason do not trust each and everyone who is from lands that hate America and all this country stands for, all of a sudden, that too is a phobia. I totally disagree. Many people believe The Word of God that if a man lay with another man acting out that which does not produce life it is an abomination (paraphrased). If we have not healed as a nation and do not open up to Islam and those of middle easter decent well just give us time but we are not afraid of them just leary OK?

"Freddy" says-

So, Man Cat, have you “publicly denounced the hatred and violence found in the verses of Christian holy writings?” If not, why shouldn’t we think of Christianity as “totalitarian ideology parading as "peace-loving" religion”?

"Freddy", you are just showing your own hatred of Christ.

When has a Christian man, woman or child strapped a bomb on themselves and killed innocent people?

Are Christian children taught to kill themselves for the glory of God?

For that matter- when have you ever heard a Christian yell "God is great" while committing an act of violence?

No Christian will force you to shut up as a Christ hater. Christ will take care of Himself and you without help.

Its not that way with Islam. Thousands of Muslims are still raging over the Danish Cartoons and even peace-lovin Eboo hates Ayaan Hirsi Ali with a righteous passion. And that sense of righteous passion is the same passion that inspires Mulsims to kill themselves and others daily. Don't you read Washington Post and Newsweek?

Listen to ex-Muslim Wafa Sultan speak of the need to criticise Islam. .

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZA5-D8vOcz8

Welcome to the world community, Islam.

The spell was cast on 9/11. You know that.

Like the spell that connects:
Germans to Nazism
Japanese to Kamikazi
Russians to failure
Americans to greed
American south to slavery
French to food & wine
Italians to better food
etc., etc., etc.

Wanna break the spell? That's easy. Let's not have another 9/11, okay? That would help tremendously. #2: feel free to condemn violence--by anybody at anytime. #3: accomplish something peaceful, then tell the world about it. I'm sure there are other things that can be done as well.

The other spells have weakened over time. Many are not even relevant anymore. But it takes work. And patience.

Mariano Patalinjug

I agree with Godfree Mann, why should anybody learn about Islam anymore than one should learn about Sikhism or Jainism or Hinduism?

As an atheist I find it comical that the religious expect others to be as interested in their delusions as they are themselves.

Are you interested in atheism Mr Patalinjug? Maybe you should be.

Mr. Patel,

You have helped me locate an inner source of frustration with the intolerance and bigotry that I encountered when I returned from the Middle East, when I studied the religion of Islam. Though I myself am a Christian, I faced countless questions from those who had one monolithic image of all Muslims: as terrioists who appeal to religious truth to justify all actions. However, my travels through the Middle East revealed a different narrative, one in which moderate Islam is alive and florishing.

Further, for all the bigots out there who refuse to even listen to the cries of injustice at the behest of American hegemony and imperialism in the Middle East, it might be helpful to actually listen to the moderate voices before so quickly critiquing them. Sadly, they have a laundry list of legitimate concerns... issues of American imperialistic power that go unaddressed. Take, for example, the recent wave of violence in Gaza/Israel, wherein over 100 Palestinian civilians were killed. Unjust? I say so! Interesting to note how many Israelis were killed... a total of 3. Do you hear this in the media?

So thank you for your insight into the manner. Indeed, the "spell of islamophobia" is something that needs to come to the public eye... it desparately needs to be addressed.

Mr. Patel,

You have helped me locate an inner source of frustration with the intolerance and bigotry that I encountered when I returned from the Middle East, when I studied the religion of Islam. Though I myself am a Christian, I faced countless questions from those who had one monolithic image of all Muslims: as terrioists who appeal to religious truth to justify all actions. However, my travels through the Middle East revealed a different narrative, one in which moderate Islam is alive and florishing.

Further, for all the bigots out there who refuse to even listen to the cries of injustice at the behest of American hegemony and imperialism in the Middle East, it might be helpful to actually listen to the moderate voices before so quickly critiquing them. Sadly, they have a laundry list of legitimate concerns... issues of American imperialistic power that go unaddressed. Take, for example, the recent wave of violence in Gaza/Israel, wherein over 100 Palestinian civilians were killed. Unjust? I say so! Interesting to note how many Israelis were killed... a total of 3. Do you hear this in the media?

So thank you for your insight into the manner. Indeed, the "spell of islamophobia" is something that needs to come to the public eye... it desparately needs to be addressed.

A. N. OTHER wrote:

"Why are Muslims immigrating to secular countries to begin with? Could it be because non-Muslim countries offer a much higher standard of living? Why is it that so many Muslims leave their religious countries and communities to come live here? Can't their Islamic way of live support a comfortable and happy life?"

Perhaps you are unaware that most Muslims in Western Europe today are the first three generations (brought to Europe) of Muslims from countries that were colonized by Europeans during the previous two centuries. These Muslims were brought from those countries as "cheap labor."

The Europeans colonized those countries (Moroccans, Algerians, Indonesians, Indians, Pakistanis etc. etc.)and exploited the resources of those countries. They (the Europeans) posed as great democrats and do-gooders. That is why there is a great deal of suspicion of the Europeans in many countries that were colonized by the Europeans. And there is a violent history behind colonialism.

L.Kurt Engelhart:

You write...
"Knowledge is a tool. Religion is knowledge. Any tool can be misused or abused. Religion is the most consistently misused aspect of human knowledge."

Hi Kurt. Religion is not knowledge. It is anything BUT knowledge. It is superstition, and as such it is anti-knowledge.

As far as we "know" Kurt, there are no gods, no after life, and no supernatural world; though religions would have us believe otherwise.
Maybe that's why it seems "the most consistently misused of human knowledge". It is not knowledge at all. It is myth.

Of course there are Muslim voices of moderation. However they have so far been totally ineffective to stem a worldwide tide of violence perpetrated by Muslims. Their voices sound tiny compared to visions of conflict generated in parts of Africa, Asia and the Middle East, all to a large extent creditted to Allah. And when some dimwit issues a Fatwah or stages a violent demonstration because of the least perceived insult or slur to the religion, there are no voices from Islam pointing out that he is in fact a dimwit. Those of us who simply report the prevalence of Muslim violence have nothing to be embarassed about. Muslim moderates should be more than embarassed-- they should be very frightened-- because if they are truly moderate, their religion is everyday hijacked by the violent extremists, which will eventually cause great injury not only to the extremists, but to all practioners of the religion.

well
image is what counts mr.islam man.
one rotten apple spoils the barrel you know.
straighten up your "peaceful" people.
then we'll talk.
thats just like how
there are lots of great african american people
that contributed immenesly to society.
but african americans of this time
ruin their efforts by being a majority in criminals/rapists/theifs/violent[ce].
it doesnt matter how good your religion is to you
your "god" may be fabulous. but muslims are just not doing so well. we love your "god", we sir, we respect it. but hate your people. is what America is saying

well
image is what counts mr.islam man.
one rotten apple spoils the barrel you know.
straighten up your "peaceful" people.
then we'll talk.
thats just like how
there are lots of great african american people
that contributed immenesly to society.
but african americans of this time
ruin their efforts by being a majority in criminals/rapists/theifs/violent[ce].
it doesnt matter how good your religion is to you
your "god" may be fabulous. but muslims are just not doing so well. love your god sir, but hate your people. is what America is saying

**The counterquestion to you is: The Western World uses "freedom" of the press as a defense in the cartoon controversy. The French took away the "freedom" to wear 'hijab" from Muslim school girls.
They took away "freedom" to wear turban from Sikh men. The Europeans use the "freedom" concept selectively whatever suits their ethnocentrism.

Why do the Europeans get bothered with too much clothing and not too little clothing (halters, bikinis, hotpants etc.)?**

The French education system not only disallows wearing the hijab, it also disallows crosses, kirpans, and turbans. This is because France is a secular country where religion is practiced at home and whatever house of cult one adheres to, but not in public. Why are Muslims immigrating to secular countries to begin with? Could it be because non-Muslim countries offer a much higher standard of living? Why is it that so many Muslims leave their religious countries and communities to come live here? Can't their Islamic way of live support a comfortable and happy life?

Ignorance and not Hypnosis: My regards to you or is it hats off to you?

You made very good points. However, Muslims are trying. People in America are by and large very good people. I have traveled around the globe. I always found that a vast majority of Americans are very open minded people. That is why I always longed to be back to my home (America).

well
image is what counts mr.islam man.
one rotten apple spoils the barrel you know.
straighten up your "peaceful" people.
then we'll talk.
thats just like how
there are lots of great african american people
that contributed immenesly to society.
but african americans of this time
ruin their efforts by being a majority in criminals/rapists/theifs/violent[ce].
it doesnt matter how good your religion is to you
your "god" may be fabulous. but muslims are just not doing so well. love your god sir, but hate your people. is what America is saying

Yonkers, New York
13 March 2008

I can only sympathize with Eboo Patel and millions of other Muslims like him who deplore what they perceive to be a serious misunderstanding about Islam on the part of non-Muslims.

No, Mr. Patel, non-Muslims who harbor this misunderstanding are not under any hypnotic spell.

At the root of the problem is sheer ignorance on the part of these non-Muslims who practically daily see mostly only the violence in Islamic lands on their television screens and jump to the conclusion that Islam indeed not only tolerates but actually advocates violence.

These non-Muslims do not know any better. They don't have the advantage of acquiring even only a minimum education about Islam for them to be able to look at Islam more fairly, more objectively and in a more balanced manner.

If they do, they will be appropriately enlightened and realize that in reality Islam neither tolerates let alone advocates violence in any form, in pretty much the same manner that Christianity does not.

Islam preaches tolerance, diversity, brotherhood, and love for mankind.

Part of the fault should be laid at the door of Muslims themselves. Their leaders have failed to make use of the mass-media tools available to them to educate non-Muslims, particularly in that area of the planet we call "The West," about Islam and about Muslims.

In sum, Mr.Patel, ignorance is at the root of the problem, and not hypnosis.

Mariano Patalinjug
MarPatalinjug@aol.com

DATDAMWUF:

In continuation of my previous post, let me ask you the following questions:

(1) On Christmas day in 2007, eight churches were burned in the State of Orissa, India by the local fanatic Hindus. Should the people of America or Europe burn the Hindu temples in America or Europe? Is this kind of retaliation sane?

(2) For 400 years, catholics and protestants remained at war in Northern Ireland--terrorising civilinas. Should catholics or protestants of other places take revenge against the opposite party? NOT IN MY VOCABULARY!

I could give you many other examples. But I made my point.

I repeat :" GUILT BY ASSOCIATION IS ILLOGICAL, AND IRRATIONAL."

J
O
Z
E
V
Z

.
U
S

J
O
Z
E
V
Z

.
U
S

Why does the anti-Islam crowd keep resorting to DISTORTIONS, LOGICAL FALLACIES and OUTRIGHT LIES?

Man Cat says: “Americans just go online and google: Koran violent verses.”

Man Cat, have you failed to apply your distorted, out-of-context “logic” to the Christianity?

1) Kill people for having a different faith:
“And hath gone and served other gods, and worshipped them… thou shalt stone them with stones, till they die.” -- Deuteronomy, Chapter 17:2-3,5

2) Kill anyone who does not submit to theocracy:
Anyone arrogant enough to reject the verdict of the judge or of the priest who represents the LORD your God must be put to death. (Deuteronomy 17:12 NLT)

3) Kill innocent children of enemies:
"Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones."--Psalm 137:9

It goes on and on. So, Man Cat, have you “publicly denounced the hatred and violence found in the verses of Christian holy writings?”
If not, why shouldn’t we think of Christianity as “totalitarian ideology parading as "peace-loving" religion”?

DATDAMWUF wrote:

"However, I will note that the banning of the hijab in France was a direct result of the violence of many Muslims. Every news report indicated the government was concerned about integration of the large Muslim population and fears of violence. I would also note that they banned large crosses, veils, and kippas."

Your statement shows how blatantly trapped you are in your prejudices. "A direct result of violence" by many Muslims? So, the teenage school girls or those that are 8 year olds were violent? Is that why the hijab was banned?

"Many Muslims"? You seems to be totally ignorant of modern social theory that violence committed by a small group of people at one time and place can not be a justification for committing violence against the people of the same identity in another place or time. According to modern sociological theory even maligning of the people of the same identity can not be justified.

GUILT BY ASSOCIATION IS ILLOGICAL AND IRRATIONAL.

I think you raise valid points, and I suspect that part of the problem is a lack of knowledge and/or sensitivity in the US press (of all types) about Islam as a religion, and lack of relationships with Muslims. How many reporters for the most important news media in America are Muslims? Very few, I'd guess. How many reporters even know a Muslim, professionally or as a friend? Again very few - I'd guess.

Our perceptions are guided to a large degree by the national, and then local, media. I do not know who to balance this lack of understanding out, but American Muslim groups may have to work very hard at establishing relationships with news media types, to educate them, and then to get your voice heard.

Johanfog,
(a Christian, in Omaha, Nebraska)

It is interesting that the Catholic listener said he was brought up to be loving and accepting. Would this be the same church that recently promulgated dogma, reiterated it actually, that of all the Christina sects, the only true one is the Roman Catholic faith? That is accepting? If a Catholic can't accept other Christians belonging to other traditions, how could they be accepting of those of other faiths? What he means by accepting is that anyone in anotehr Christian sect or from another faith can admit the error of their ways, recant their current faith, and become a Catholic. That may be acceptance, but only in a very narrow and particular way, i.e., stringently qualified.Also the love aspect is suspect. While the church would be teaching love when it speaks Christ's words from the gospel, many of its dogmas based on its mortal interpretation of His words would also only be loving in a highly qualified and particular way. When it comes to individual adherents of the Catholic faith, there have been many who have been as extreme and evil in its practice as any Muslim zealot. The response to that would be, yes, but that was way in the past, centuries ago. That isn't true. During the Spanish Civil War, there were several priest and bishops who brazenly bragged about the number of republicans and communists they had personally killed; I suppose that is OK for a follower of Franco or Bill O'Riley, but not for a follower of Christ. A more recent example was the priest and other Catholics in Rwanda that were intimately involved in inciting Hutus to kill Tutsis. It is bald faced hypocrisy for any religious adherent to call adherents of another faith to task for the sins of its individual members or for its exclusivistic dogma; all religions have militant extremists in their ranks and see themselves as the only true path to salvation or whatever. If Christians followed the Master's precept about only the sinless casting stones, then they would button their lips and keep silent contemplating the shame of their own imperfect churches.

Knowledge is a tool. Religion is knowledge. Any tool can be misused or abused. Religion is the most consistently misused aspect of human knowledge. The only cure for this is understanding the role of all religion in human existence. The seeds of this understanding are being sown at this moment by the likes of our Eboo Patel. Thank you.

I think the fact that our public discourse, intentionally or not, has coupled Islam with terrorism or associations of terrorism has a lot to do with it. Terms such as "Islamic extremism", "Islamic fundamentalism", "Radical Islamists", etc all help to cast this so called "spell" of Islamophobia.

One may argue that the threats we face by certain terrorist groups are undeniably intertwined to a religious basis and therefore it would be misleading to talk about terrorism without characterizing what kind of terrorism the US is currently facing. While I think the argument is valid to a certain extent, I think that by consistently intermixing a religion with a threat, the public discourse has taken a very nuanced issue and attempted to make it black and white.

Furthermore, while others may argue that by emphasizing that the threat of transnational terrorism comes from "extremist" or "radical" Islamists, or people on the fringes, that we somehow abrogate ourselves from any accusations of associating an entire religion with a tactic of political violence. But just as the callers who, no matter what Mr. Patel said for the last 30 mins, call in and ask the same questions over and over, many Muslims around the world are listening to the terms we use in our public discourse and are finding it offensive and alienating. In short, the lack of nuance and the coupling of Islam and political violence has, in my view, at best only led to more confusion about who is with "us" or "against" us.

Eboo;

9/11 spoke louder than anything else we have heard from the Muslim world. The bombings in London, Spain, and Glasgow, etc. along with the Dutch cartoon capers and the Teddy named Mohamed nonsense, also speak louder than any words could.
For many of us, those events were our introduction to the religion of Islam. And most of us would no more wish to delve into its history than we would wish to delve into the history of Sihkism, Jainism,or astrology. Why should we be interested?
We have better things to do.

By the way,recently, on BBC World, in the Doha debates, the motion was 'That this house believes that Muslims are not doing enough to combat Islamic terrorism.
After spirited discussion, the audience, which was mainly Muslim, voted overwhelmingly in favor of the motion.

It would seem that your opinion is out of step with other Muslims, and it is you who may be under hypnosis.

I consider myself about as moderate and tolerant of a person as one can be. I respect everyone's right to believe what they choose to believe. But while I'm sure there are plenty - perhaps even an overwhelming majority - of Muslims out there who are good and decent people, it is hard to ignore the violence committed by some Muslims in the name of that particular faith. The recent controversies over the Mohammad cartoons published in Danish newspapers are a great example. If similar cartoons had been published about Jesus, the pope, or an important Protestant figure, I (as a Catholic) and many other Christians would be outraged and upset. But you certainly would not see the vitriol and violence that has erupted in certain quarters of the Muslim world. There would not be mass rioting, destruction of property, etc., as has happened in some quarters in reaction to these cartoons. I think that difference speaks volumes. Plus, last time I checked, the Vatican doesn't limit access to St. Peter's to non-Christians and Israel doesn't prohibit gentiles from visiting the Western Wall the way Saudi Arabia prohibits all Muslims from even stepping foot in Mecca. Nor do I see the leaders of Islam reaching out to Christians and Jews in the way, on on the scale, that for example, Pope John Paul II tried to reach out to those of different faiths - including Muslims and Jews. Maybe that happens but I haven't seen it. Sadly, what we do see does seem to indicate that Islam as a whole is not as tolerant as many other religions, even if many of its adherents are perfectly lovely people as individuals.

WHIM99
you need to see the petition they signed. a petition that says no violence to the innocent you must understand that under islam only islamics can be innocent. if you are not islamic you cant be innocent. and that is understood by every islamic.

KATRINA:
you are right that all religions have violent people in them. but the difference is that all religions but islam condemn violence, only islam encourages it as part of the devotion to islam.
if an islamic is not killing a non islamic it is because they are cowards or dont think they can get away with it.

Gee, I'm impressed. 700,000 Muslims signed a petition denouncing violence. That's a whopping tiny-fraction-of-one-percent of worldwide Muslims. Boy, do I feel safer now!

I'm more impressed by the fact that if a cartoon is published with Mohammed's picture you have riots in the streets and people murdered, but if some Muslim terrorist blows up a crowd of innocent people there is no response in the streets whatsoever.

And you have the nerve to complain about islamophobia. Stop patting yourself on the back and do something meaningful. Talk to Muslims. Don't complain to us.

In hopes that my comment will slip through the "Eboo filter," I have amended my earlier comment. Each of these articles can be easily located with minimal effort:

Why Islamophobia . . .?(I actually prefer "Islamowariness" myself). Okay, here's a short rundown:

"Saudi Hate Literature Invades American Mosques" - The Freedom House Foundation. (80% of American Mosques so influenced . . . [If they're truly "hijacking" your religion, why are they able to get so much traction among your co-religionists?])

"Hardline Takeover of Brisitish Mosques" - Timesonline, Andrew Norfolk (nearly 50% of British Mosques conrolled/heavily influenced by the Deobandi's (aka Taliban)).

"Our Followers Must Live in Peace Til Strong Enough to Wage Jihad" - Andrew Norfolk, Timesonline (Premier Deobandi Scholar urges British Muslims to "live in Peace til strong enough to wage Jihad)

"Undercover Mosque" - Dispatches Channel 4 (Main Birmingham mosque advocates "interfaith dialogue" in public, but in private, one hears: "If she doesn't wear hijab, we hit her," "throw that homosexual man off the mountain," "you must live like a state within a state til you take over . . .," "We HATE the Kuffar . . ." (open, approved access on youtube. Just type in "undercover mosque".)

The Muslim Brotherhood, ideological parent of MAS, CAIR and ISNA (a full-on roster of mainstream muslim organizations) says the following about their plans for America:

"The process of settlement [of Islam in the United States] is a "Civilization-Jihadist" process with all the word means. The Ikhwan must understand that all their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and "sabotaging" their miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God's religion is made victorious over all religions. Without this level of understanding, we are not up to this challenge and have not prepared ourselves for Jihad yet. . . " (From an extensive, high level "North American Strategy" document entered into evidence without objection in a recent Federal trial.) . . .

That, plus the demonstrable lack of freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of association, and equality before the law prevalent in so many Islamic countries, coupled with the FACT that just about anyone who makes a habit of criticizing Islam, Mohammad or the Quran ends up needing full time security for the rest of their lives . . . .

well, I suppose you get the picture.

Vinay, like the rest of the Islam-bashers, has no argument without DISTORTIONS, LOGICAL FALLACIES and OUTRIGHT LIES!

Vinay: “Yes civilians were killed during early stages of war by Americans, but even they were not targeted.”

Wrong, wrong, and wrong.

1) “civilians were killed during early stages of war by Americans” Vinay is WRONG! Civilians are STILL being killed by US troops. If Vinay has PROOF that no Iraqis have been killed since the “early stages of the war” then provide it. If not, tell us why you LIED.

2) “… but even they were not targeted.” Vinay speaks without knowledge. How do you know such a thing for certain?

3) How do you the circumstances of all Iraqi civilian deaths? How can you know the circumstances of all those deaths if you don’t even know how MANY Iraqi civilians we have killed?

4) If you think you know how many violent deaths occurred in Iraq since Bush’s disaster of a war, give the number. Is it Opinion Research Business survey’s 1,033,000? Is it the Lancet’s 601,000 as of 2006? Is it the Iraqi Health Ministry’s 151,000 as of 2006? Or Bush’s 2005 guess of “30,000”?

5) How can we know how many have died, since due to the immoral decision to FAIL TO ACCURATELY TRACK Iraqi civilians killed by our troops in our name? Do you agree with that policy?

6) Should there be an investigation any time U.S. forces kill an Iraqi civilian in questionable circumstances?

7) Do you know that this is not Bush’s policy?

8) Do you think Bush is immoral to not investigate questionable civilians deaths?

9) “… but even they were not targeted.” Vinay is WRONG! We know of MANY instances where US troops have targeted civilians. Human Rights Watch has documented numerous instances in which US troops and lawless US mercenaries killed unarmed civilians and provoked unnecessary clashes with civilians. Anyone who does not know that has failed to read real news. Possibly by only watching the Bush propaganda mill called Fox News. Does that explain why you got so much wrong?

10) And Vinay FAILS to actually answer the questions I asked. Again:

11) Have you heard of Iraq? Are you aware that the US is blowing up civilians there because Bush LIED about WMD and LIED about a non-existent link between Al-Qadea and Saddam?

12) We Americans who can't imagine blowing up civilians are trying to end that tragic, wasteful, and unjust war. How about you?

Mr. Patel,

You are displaying a type of cultural myopia. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know why people are concerned about "radical" muslims. Many openly advocate violence against the West and seek to conquer or convert the world. Islam - like all the Abrahamic faiths - is at its core both intolerant and violent. They are where Christianity was 400 years ago, and where Judaism was more than 2000 years ago. The West has enforced multiculturism, and the Muslim radicals are using the West's guilt and this multicultural perspective to assault the West from within. It's really bizarre to listen to some Muslim religious leader or see a violent demonstration against the West calling for the destruction of the corrupt and decadent culture of Europe and America and then not expect people to take the rhetoric seriously. It's a little bit like how Europe initially responded to Hitler. They didn't believe that he would actually do the things that he advocated. I believe that the Imams and Muslim extremists mean exactly what they say, and this is comfirmed by what they often do. I can hear the few vocal moderates, and have known many peaceful and tolerant Muslims, but I think you are the victim of the spell, not us. Islam must either join a tolerant multicultural 21st Century or face the probabity of a tidal wave of reaction. This is not meant as any kind of threat, just something that I think that I can see. Many people are tired of tip-toeing around Muslim sensitivities.

Yes. The spell was cast by 19 idiots on 9/11/01, and thousand of its followers since who have chosen rather than to argue peaceably to blow up themselves along with pizzerias, supermarkets, school buses and a host of their fellow human beings all to try to make a political point. Unfortuantely the point they have made has served to condemn in the minds of many all of Islam not just the idiots who abuse it.

Eboo says-

"So here’s my new theory on this. There has been a spell cast on certain portions of America. Whenever they see a Muslim speaking.. they fall into a hypnotic state..
Anybody know who cast the spell?"

This is easy, Eboo. How many Americans had actually read the Koran before 911? Since then every act of Islamic-induced violence has induced more Americans to ask "what is going on with Muslims" and pick up the Koran and read. Or some Americans just go online and google: Koran violent verses. Would Eboo like to denounce the verses below? As soon as large groups of Muslims publicly denounce the hatred and violence found in the verses of their "holy writings"- then Americans will begin to stop thinking Islam is a totalitarian ideology parading as "peace-loving" religion.

--Warning: The following quotes are taken from the Koran (translated by N.J. Danwood). By reading these quotes you will have a basic understanding of the Muslim religion, the wars and tension in the Middle East, and the terrorism on September 11:

Surah 2:171- The unbelievers are like beasts which, call out to them as one may, can hear nothing but a shout and a cry. Deaf, dumb, and blind, they understand nothing

Surah 3:85- If anyone desires a religion other than Islam (submission to Allah), never will it be accepted of him; and in the Hereafter He will be in the ranks of those who have lost (All spiritual good).

Surah:5.51- Oh you who believe! Take not the Jews and Christians for friends. They are friends of one another. He among you who takes them for friends is one of them.

Surah 5:54- O believers, take not Jews and Christians as friends; they are friends of each other. Those of you who make them his friends is one of them. God does not guide an unjust people.

Surah 9:123- Believers! make war on the infidels who dwell around you and let them find harshness in you ye who believe!

Surah 25:52- Do not yield to the unbelievers but fight them strenuously with this koran hereafter infidelity above Faith: if any of you do so, they do wrong.

Surah 48:25- Muslims are harsh against the unbelievers, merciful to one another.

Surah 98:51- The unbelievers among the People of the Book and the pagans shall burn forever in the fire of hell. They are the vilest of all creatures.

more verses from another site:

"...now that a Book confirming their own has come to them from God, they deny it...they reply: 'We believe in what was revealed to us.' But they deny what has since been revealed, although it is truth...Say: 'Whoever is an enemy of Gabriel' (who has by God's grace revealed to you [Muhammad] the Koran as a guide...confirming previous scriptures)..will surely find that God is the enemy of the unbelievers.'...And now that an apostle has come to them from God confirming their own Scriptures, some of those to whom the Scriptures were given cast off the Book of God behind their backs...The unbelievers among the People of the Book, and the pagans, resent that any blessings should have been sent down to you from your Lord. " (Surah 2:88-, 98-, 103-)

"Slay them wherever you find them...Idolatry is worse than carnage...Fight against them until idolatry is no more and God's religion reigns supreme." (Surah 2:190-)

"Fighting is obligatory for you, much as you dislike it." (Surah 2:216)

"Men are tempted [in this life] by the lure of women...far better is the return of God. Say: 'Shall I tell you of better things than these, with which the righteous shall be rewarded by their Lord? Theirs shall be gardens watered by running streams, where they shall dwell for ever: wives of perfect chastity..." (Surah 3:14, 15)

"The only true faith in God's sight is Islam." (Surah 3:19)

"Believers, do not make friends with any but your own people...They desire nothing but your ruin....You believe in the entire Book...When they meet you they say: 'We, too, are believers.' But when alone, they bite their finger-tips with rage." (Surah 3:118, 119)

"If you should die or be slain in the cause of God, His forgiveness and His mercy would surely be better than all the riches..." (Surah 3:156-)

"Forbidden to you are...married women, except those you own as slaves." (Surah 4:20-, 24)

"Seek out your enemies relentlessly." (Surah 4:103-)

"Try as you may, you cannot treat all your wives impartially." (Surah 4:126-)

"The Jews and Christians say: 'We are the children of God and His loved ones.' Say: 'Why then does He punish you for your sins?" (Surah 5:18)

"Believers, take neither Jews nor Christians for your friends." (Surah 5:51)

"The God will say: 'Jesus, son of Mary, did you ever say to mankind 'Worship me and my mother as gods besides God?' 'Glory to You, 'he will answer, 'how could I ever say that to which I have no right?" (Surah 5:114-)

"Believers, when you encounter the infidels on the march, do not turn your backs to them in flight. If anyone on that day turns his back to them, except it be for tactical reasons...he shall incur the wrath of God and Hell shall be his home..." (Surah 8:12-)

"Make war on them until idolatry shall cease and God's religion shall reign supreme." (Surah 8:36-)

"If you fear treachery from any of your allies, you may fairly retaliate by breaking off your treaty with them." (Surah 8:51-)

"...make war on the leaders of unbelief...Make war on them: God will chastise them at your hands and humble them. He will grant you victory over them..." (Surah 9:12-)

"It ill becomes the idolaters [non-Muslims] to visit the mosques of God..." (Surah 9:17)

"Fight against such as those to whom the Scriptures were given [Jews and Christians]...until they pay tribute out of hand and are utterly subdued." (Surah 9:27-)

"It is He who has sent forth His apostle with guidance and the true Faith [Islam] to make it triumphant over all religions, however much the idolaters [non-Muslims] may dislike it." (Surah 9:31-)

"If you do not fight, He will punish you sternly, and replace you by other men." (Surah 9:37-)

"Prophet make war on the unbelievers and the hypocrites and deal rigorously with them. Hell shall be their home." (Surah 9:73)

"Believers, make war on the infidels who dwell around you. Deal firmly with them." (Surah 9:121-)

"Say: 'Praise be to God who has never begotten a son; who has no partner in His Kingdom..." (Surah 17:111)

"'How shall I bear a child,' she [Mary] answered, 'when I am a virgin...?' 'Such is the will of the Lord,' he replied. 'That is no difficult thing for Him...God forbid that He [God[ Himself should beget a son!...Those who say: 'The Lord of Mercy has begotten a son,' preach a monstrous falsehood..." (Surah 19:12-, 29-, 88)

"Fight for the cause of God with the devotion due to Him...He has given you the name of Muslims..." (Surah 22:78-)

"You shall not force your slave-girls into prostitution in order that you make money, if they wish to preserve their chastity." (Surah 24:33-)

"As for the faithful who do good works and believe what is revealed to Muhammad...He will forgive them their sins..." (Surah 47:1)

"Muhammad is God's apostle. Those who follow him are ruthless to the unbelievers but merciful to one another." (Surah 48:29)

"Shall the reward of goodness be anything but good?...Dark-eyed virgins sheltered in their tents...They shall recline on green cushions and fine carpets...Blessed be the name of your Lord..." (Surah 55:52-66-)

Mr Patel:

Perhaps something you haven't thought about or can't identify with is the fact that religion crosses international boundaries. For example, Israel receives rocket fire from Lebanon and Gaza. In the past that was considered an act of war that triggered events leading to the destruction of the leadership of one country or the other.

For some reason that violates all past protocol for how nations deal with each other. It is assumed that the countries involved, Lebanon for example that allows their territory to be used to launch attacks on Israel are somehow innocent. It's like the attack on Pearl Harbor, 12-7-1941 could only be met with hunting down the actual air crews and giving them fair trials, that attacking Japan was out of the question.

To sum that up, Islam stands as one nation under Allah that honors no international boundaries. Therefore, any attack by anyone flying the flag of Islam calls for a counterattack on Islam. That's especially true since the particular country at the time is held harmless.

Guess what. Islam has attacked many times and Islam is being counterattacked. But "faith" shields Islam from the full force of the counterattack. Case in point: Marines had Al Sada and his militant militia surrounded, hold up in a mosque. The obvious thing to do was call in air with a 21,000 "daisy cutter" and turn them into cosmic dust.

"Oh no" cried born-again Bush, "We must respect their faith." That puts evangelicals on the side of Islam and makes them subject to counterattack as well. Evangelicals think they're not a part of it, that they are innocent -dumb. Muslim and Baptist are just two faiths -seen one seen them all.

Those frustrated people calling in to talk radio haven't figured out yet that "faith" as now defined in the USA makes religion in general the enemy of all nations. Religions are a nation unto themselves that insist on and granted the right to operate unregulated, collect money unaccounted and untaxed and their real estate is sovereign meaning it can't be taxed by the government and the most sovereign right of them all, the right to make war.

If you didn't get it by now you're brain dead. Allah is not God but just another fallen angel like Lucifer that only wants to be God.

http://www.hoax-buster.org/sellyoursoul certainly applies to Jews and Christians. Can you give me anything to say Muhammad wasn't just like Moses, one who sold his soul to get rich, be a big shot etc? I mean, doesn't that little Bible lesson also apply to Islam?

Thank you, Eboo.

After reading the responses to your column, I don't know if humanity can break free from our ethnic, national, and religious prejudices. Our submission to leaders narrows our range of thought not to consider the other side.

They'll say, "Our aggression that kills civilians are unfortunate accidents, the other side uses terrorism". They will not understand that the despair of occupied people will make them use any weapon to strike back at a post-industrial army entrenched to control the distrubtion of human and natural resources, whose weapons and tactic far exceed those in the developing world. The root causes of these aggressions will not be pursued.

I admire your work, but sometimes I think we can't save the world, only ourselves.

The civilation is in trouble is all of humanity.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VuJ3Tjj40P8

I repeat my challenge to Mr. Eboo Patel

1. Can you name 5 prominent Muslim athiests/agnostics in any Muslim majority country?

2. Can you name any atheistic political party in any muslim majority country and if it is in power?

Mr. Patel, in non-muslim countries liberals-atheists just don't sit around bemoaning twiddling their thumbs and wailing NOBODY LISTENS TO US...boohoohoohoo, they take to street-they fight--sometimes extremely-- why this does not happen in Muslim Nations?

Patel:
We appreciate your efforts at bringing interfaith dialogue. You complain that Americans have two questions for you; why is Islam violent to the other adherants(denominations or religions), and why you do not condemn it.
You and others living in the West have condemned the Islamists' terror, but what Americans and others are asking for is a collective condemnation by the Muftis, (highest religious clerics) of Islam. Those are the ones who have the religious leverage on the common people of Islam. Until that happens we do not expect any change in attitudes. This, on the other hand, would not be easy to pass because discrimination against the other is at the core of the Muslim religion as seen below.

" Qur'an:9:5 "Fight and kill the disbelievers wherever you find them, take them captive, harass them, lie in wait and ambush them using every stratagem of war."
Qur'an:9:88 "The Messenger and those who believe with him, strive hard and fight with
their wealth and lives in Allah's Cause
Qur'an:9:112 "The Believers fight in Allah's Cause, they slay and are slain, kill and are killed."
Qur'an:9:29 "Fight those who do not believe until they all surrender, paying the protective tax in submission."
Qur'an:8:39 "So fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief [non-Muslims]) and all submit to the religion of Allah alone (in the whole world)."
Ishaq:324 "He said, 'Fight them so that there is no more rebellion, and religion, all of it, is for Allah only. Allah must have no rivals.'"
Qur'an:9:14 "Fight them and Allah will punish them by your hands, lay them low, and cover them with shame. He will help you over them.
"There is still lot more in the following link:
http://www.prophetofdoom.net/quotes1.html

The Imams and Scholars are preaching a much different message than the petition you and others had signed. Watch below
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NlV-6-FihFg

The treatment of the non-Muslim is institutionalized by the so-called Umar Pact. Read below.
http://www.bible.ca/islam/islam-kills-pact-of-umar.htm

I frankly can’t see the Muslim scholars to be able to abrogate all those verses in Quran and Hadith even if they have the will. I do not know what the solution is but it could not be by the petitions of common people only.

**Has there been a spell cast on people that causes them to link islam and violence**

No,they dont link.

Islam is the Violence Cult.That is the core issue.

Freedom is the blowing about your hairs.

I can understand Mr. Patel's frustration. As a peace-loving Muslim who easily finds validation of his perspective in his faith, holy book and Muslim aquaintances, he doesn't understand why so many people appear to automatically equate Islam with intolerance and violence. What he fails to acknowledge, however, is that there really is an enormous amount of violent rhetoric and action emerging from the Muslim middle east. His voice - while valid and very important - is being drowned out. His choice to blame this drowning on western xenophobia, though understandable for his perspective, will do nothing to bring others over to his view. The only thing that will work at this point is for the voices tolerant Islam to grow louder than the voices of radical Islam. After all, the radical voices been shouting for quite a long time --remember Salman Rushdie, condemned to death in absentia for wiriting a book?

Ever wonder about the possibility of peaceful co-existence with Islam? Not with the Iranians, anyway. They teach a conqueror Islam that must rule as a temporal government, and treats any other perspective as a heresy:

…Any transaction and any relation that might cause a non-Muslim to have authority over a Muslim or Muslims is null and unlawful
The establishment of Muslim rule is one of the most fundamental and most elementary Islamic goals. Without that entity Islam would be exposed to the danger of elimination and the full implementation of Islam would not be possible… Therefore, the theory of ‘Islam without rule’ is an evident [negative] innovation which has been propagated by the enemies of Islam in order to push the Muslims away from political power and from the sovereignty over their own destiny and [in order] to expand their own [i.e., the enemies’ own] rule and supremacy over Muslim societies. The bitter realities that exist in the Muslim societies are a living testimony to this matter.
- from Islamic Viewpoint, Grade 11 (2004) pp. 8-9

Of course, by the time Iranians have read this in the 11th grade, they’ve already covered it in the 7th:

Now, in order to continue the Islamic Revolution, it is our duty to continue with all [our] power our revolt against the arrogant ones [mostakberan – a term mostly used against the United States] and the oppressors, and not cease until all Islam’s commandments and the spread of the redeeming message of “there is no god except Allah” are realized in the whole world.
- from Islamic Culture and Religious Instruction, Grade 7 (2004) p. 29

And what about the influence of the West on Iranians, most of whom appear to want friendly relations — or at least friendlier than the ruling mullahs? They have a term for that — Westoxication:

The enemies of Islam have always thought of conspiring and planning in order to fail Islam and the Muslims, as they do at present. In our time, global policies and the world’s Arrogant Ones [i.e., America] seek to plunder the property of weak nations and enslave them. They make use of all the means they possess in order to demote the nations and make themselves the world’s [sole] wielders of authority. In order to strengthen their own rule, these leaders of unbelief and polytheism never pursue one course only. Rather, they penetrate with various faces and through various ways
(political, cultural, economic, military). One of their ways, especially in the last two centuries, has been the cultural one, on which they have based all their other plans. They tried in the beginning to propagate their thinking among a specific nation and train loyal adherents of their own, so that through them they would inflict all sorts of blows upon the body of that society.
[Footnote:] 1 – This plan has been implemented in Muslim countries, including Iran. With the penetration of Western thinking since the Qajar period, a group was trained for the service of the West, which accomplished its task successfully. It was such Westoxicated people who have created a new daily problem for the Revolution. Imam Khomeini said: “We will not be quickly saved from the hands of those who are educated in the East or in the West.”
- from Islamic Viewpoint, Grade 11 (2004) pp. 14-15

The goal is clear. The mullahs want a closed educational system that will indoctrinate paranoia and hatred in young Iranians to perpetuate their Islamist revolution. They have not prepared this plan with an eye towards peace, as these passages make very clear. They want a war with the West, and in fact cannot see Islam triumphant without a war with us.

(from Hot Air)

The problem is, we don't believe you. Here's why:

Most Muslims who come out against terrorism, when pressed, don't consider killing Jewish people to be terrorism.

Further, many Muslims who condemn terrorism in English then turn around and support it when speaking to their countrymen in Arabic.

Finally, fear of Islam is not a phobia. It's a reasonable response.

Eboo,

I may have misunderstood. When you say "Has there been a spell cast on people that causes them to link Islam and violence," maybe you are talking about Al Qaeda, or the Taliban, or the Ayatollas that issue murder fatwas. Or the doctors that bombed the British airport. The list goes on and on.

In that case, I agree with you; a spell has surely been cast over these people. That spell is Islam.

To Rebuttal:

I am in the US, we allow freedom of expression here.

However, I will note that the banning of the hijab in France was a direct result of the violence of many Muslims. Every news report indicated the government was concerned about integration of the large Muslim population and fears of violence. I would also note that they banned large crosses, veils, and kippas.

In Turkey they just overturned a ban of the hijab, I think that is a good thing.

I also wanted to add something, every time we hear a "moderate" Muslim say it's only a few extremists I have difficulty. Again, the thousands who protested violently over the Danish cartoons in every majority Muslim country and some that are not.

Eboo,

You say "Has there been a spell cast on people that causes them to link Islam and violence."

Is the absence of NATURAL causes for the link so absent that you are driven to seek answers in the supernatural? Are you BLIND?!!! Are you seeking to blind others?

HOLY CRAP!!! Open your eyes, man!!!

Most American's have not talked with any Muslims in America, they just follow the Bush Administration and call ALL Muslims EVIL.

This is a racist statement and needs to be stopped.

People can start by actually talking to a Muslim American. I have many Muslim friends and we don't not have any of the problems identified in the media. Most o0f my Muslim friends are hard working tax paying American's that go to Temple and support their core beliefs.

I know people that have never spoken to a Muslim, but say, Islam teaches Evil. They do not know about Islam, they are just parroting the Bush Administration fears of Islam.

The Bush Administration cast the spell of hatred and fear of Muslims world-wide.

Patrick

you go boy!

if islam was not such a death cult maybe we could accept it. since moho the child rapist faked this as a religion it has been based on death. it was only in the very begining when he was trying to get jews to proclaim that he was the massiah that he said anything about being nice to the jews. once they refused to accept him as the missiah he started preaching hate and murder of them as well as christians and hindus.
he started the war 1400 years ago and it has continued ever since.
and dont give me that "christians do it" garbage. if a supposed christian kills they violate the dictates of jesus. when an islamic does it he is following his cult of death.
islam must be declared a cult like the nazi cult and they should be eliminated. every one of them.
they have declared war on the entire world and we should act like it instead of letting people like you pretend islam is a religion of peace instead of what it really is, a cult of death.

Instead of 'preview', I clicked 'post', and the post escaped editing. Sorry.

Oh, and BTW, make it a rule to demand from those who speak of a "moderate Islam" a list of references to the Koran, Hadith, and Sira. What you will find is very predictable. If references are given to the Koran, these will be from Meccan suras that have been abrogated. If from the Hadith, these will be "weak ahadith," not from Bukhari or Abu Muslim, the two recognized collections of "strong ahadith." Nobody will refer to Mo's actual life, which is saturated with bloodshed.

"DATDAMWUF wrote:

So the question I have is this, do moderate muslims think the rest of the world should censor their writings and drawings in deference to the muslim religion? Note that we don't do this for any other religion."

The counterquestion to you is: The Western World uses "freedom" of the press as a defense in the cartoon controversy. The French took away the "freedom" to wear 'hijab" from Muslim school girls.
They took away "freedom" to wear turban from Sikh men. The Europeans use the "freedom" concept selectively whatever suits their ethnocentrism.

Why do the Europeans get bothered with too much clothing and not too little clothing (halters, bikinis, hotpants etc.)?

"Anybody know who cast the spell?" and
"how do we neutralize it so that these good folks can be the reasonable, intelligent and compassionate people with Muslims that they are in the other parts of their lives?"

Actions speak louder than word. It may be true that a religion practiced by over a Billion people around the world is not well-understood, but when we see violence in the name of religion, and religion used in political statements, enough reason is provided for the impressions made on public mind.

If the 'moderates' do condemn acts of violence in the name of religion and the violence continues nonetheless then clearly the 'moderates' are not effective. Some of the more effective ways would be to address: Muslim religious leaders dealing with the source of/reason for such acts that kill mostly innocent people (including Muslims themselves), why they are justified in some minds and why violence is the ONLY way to express disagreement and protest.

Obviously, no reasonable person is going to accuse the great majority of Muslims for the acts of a tiny extremist militant minority, but the acts by the few in the name of religion do raise the question: What is it in Islam that a minority keeps interpreting it so violently and the perpetrator feeling so convinced and 'religious' as to kill himself/herself, other Muslims and members of other faiths ?

One can always accuse others of not knowing what exactly does something (including a religion, political philosophy, or even a commercial product) stands for/means, but finding an effective, persuasive way to remove at least the misunderstandings can go a long way.

It is not just the 'moderates' voicing their condemnation, but doing it effectively to make at least a dent in the activity that the majority of Muslims themselves acknowledge is against the principles of Islam. This is an unfortunate situation, but he remedies lie within that community and must spring from within. Saying that other people don't understand Islam (or about some kind of "spell" is, I regret, deflecting the issue and blaming others for being confused by the mixed message they receive (peace and violence).

Interfaith efforts are laudable, but have been made necessary also by the militant actions of the extremists.

Freddy, it is the Muslims are targeting and blowing up civlians daily in Iraq. Yes civilians were killed during early stages of war by Americans, but even they were not targeted.

Look at the recent case: a small bomb gathers market shoppers and then 68 of them are blown up by a second bomb (not American forces's but peace loving Muslims').

Another reason the Philadelphians were asking those questions, could be they see almost 50 plus countries exclusively Islamic with almost no significant non-Muslim population, including the land of the compassionate and tolerant prophet.

I'm not "afraid" of Islam . I'm disgusted by it.

An important point is that when you say moderate, you do not define it. First you need to tell us what it means.

I will give you an example of why I ask this. The danish cartoons of Muhammad sparked violent, even deadly protests around the world in just about every nation with a large muslim population. It's happening again on a smaller scale with the reprint of one cartoon. I do note that the muslim protest at the danish newspaper was indeed peaceful.

So the question I have is this, do moderate muslims think the rest of the world should censor their writings and drawings in deference to the muslim religion? Note that we don't do this for any other religion.

The answers to many more questions would help to define moderate. Such as, do moderates believe Sharia law should be the law of the land? Do they believe that Israel has the right to exist? Do they believe that women are equal? Define moderate please!

I think one major reason that "moderate" muslims don't get much attention is because really there are few that I hear of. I read many papers and other sources online so I'm pretty well rounded. When we do see a muslim speak out forcefully they end up being killed or under heavy security, like AYAAN HIRSI ALI. So to some extent I can see why the peaceful folks that believe in Islam may be afraid to stand up.

A large peaceful protest of the violence perpetrated by the "muslim minority" that is attended by a large number of muslims would tell us that many are willing to stand up for peace and tolerance of other cultures and religions.

From the site you mentioned: "Since May 2004, this online petition has been signed by nearly 700,000 Muslim people and organizations." I am happy to see this but as you say 1/5th of the world is Muslim, you do the math. Also, that doesn't tell the people who signed are moderate, only that they condemn violence. I went to the actual http://www.cair.com/ site but couldn't find the petition, perhaps they could place it more prominently...

Amazing how the anti-Islam crowd relies so completely on DISTORTIONS, LOGICAL FALLACIES and OUTRIGHT LIES!

Vinay says "Americans like all other non-Muslims human, just can not imagine how any human being can blow up hundreds of civilians day in day out."

Wrong, Vinay. Non-Muslim Americans CAN "imagine" blowing up civilians every day.

Have you heard of Iraq? Are you aware that the US is blowing up civilians there because Bush LIED about WMD and LIED about a non-existent link between Al-Qadea and Saddam?

We Americans who can't imagine blowing up civilians are trying to end that tragic, wasteful, and unjust war. How about you?

There is a term called "al-Taqiyya" which means, roughly, religiously sanctioned lying about Islam in times of danger. "Danger" can be broadly defined.

Patel's column is based on al-Taqiyya. His suggestion that the issue is about "moderate MUSLIMS" is the prime example. This is NOT the issue. Rather, the issue is about the existence of a moderate ISLAM. No such body of doctrine exists. There is simply Islam, which, because of its early military successes under its "Prophet," the effectiveness of its political doctrines, and its early institutionalization, has remained remarkably stable since Mo's death. It seems so odd because it is from a far earlier time and culture.

Because of its stability, the aspects of Islam that are relevant to nonbelievers can be understood fairly easily. All that is necessary is to read three sources: the Koran, the Hadith (Traditions of the "Prophet"), and the Sira (Mo's official biography by Ishaq, written within 200 years of Mo's death). These are available in simple English from the Center for the Study of Political Islam. Just check out Amazon.

Many MUSLIMS do not understand their own faith. This is not surprising. But when imams (who DO understand their faith) preach, the results are very predictable. Most human beings are not natural born killers, of course. Most will never become killers. But Muslims who really believe will find themselves silent in the face of Muslim killers. They will therefore aid them, as Eboo is doing here.

There ARE differences in different parts of the Koran. The early suras (from Mecca) refer to such things as their being no compulsion in religion. But these are abrogated by the later suras (from Medina) where tolerance is rejected emphatically. Throughout Islamic doctrine, there is a division between insiders (the House of Islam) and outsiders (the House of War). While jihad need not be violent, it is always coercive. In Meccan times, Mo lacked the firepower to forcibly convert or subjugate the Infidel; in these times killing could not be done. In Medinan (and later) times, Mo had the firepower, and he used it.

What then of "peace"? Peace is only possible when the entirety of the House of War (Dar ul-Harb) becomes Muslim (i.e., becomes part of the House of Islam (Dar ul-Islam).

It's interesting that this essay should appear on the same day that the 65-yr-old Chaldean Catholic archbishop of Iraq was found dead ... kidnapped and killed by Islamic extremists.

I've been fighting a losing battle in my own family since 9/11 to convince parents and siblings that Islam is not inherently violent or broken. I've told them of my own experiences hitchiking alone in Muslim countries where I felt safer than in the U. S., but instead of making inroads on their irrational bigotry, I've seen their views become more hardened.

There has been a barrage of anti-Islamic emails circulating in conservative circles the past 7 years, and I think it would be fascinating to trace their origins. I think some of it is a response to our failures in the Middle East. Many people can't bring themselves to blame America or admit that they were wrong, so it must be someone else's fault.

Something needs to be done to create a more realistic view of Islam in the U.S., and Mr. Patel's efforts are a great step. There has to be a core of strong voices for moderation coming from the Muslim community. But the attitudes Patel wrote about won't change until those voices are strongly supported by people in the Christian community, and the broader American political community as well.

Often in the aftermath of a terrorist strike in which innocent AMericans or Israelis are killed, I hear of Arab Muslims celebrating in the streets. This happened most recently in Israel after the Yeshiva shooting in Jerusalem, and it happened after 9/11. Do Imams condemn this? You say they do and I believe you,and I havce heard a few anemic cries, but that is about it.

What we DO hear repeatedly in the news media is that many young Arab Muslim children are taught in school to hate AMericans and Israeli Jews. It is an integral part of their education.

Certainly this is not all Arab Muslims. You are correct of course that Islam teaches love and compassion, just like all the other major religions. There are millions of kind and loving Arab Muslims, Indonesians, PAkistanis, you name it, they are out there...and thank G-d for them.

And yet violence and hatred IS a scourge of Arab Islam. It is an epidemic.

Which is it, is the media failing to pick up the voices of reasonable Imams and Muslim leaders? Or are they too quiet? I suspect both. These voices need to roundly condemn the many acts of hate and violence that erupt almost daily from their Mulslim bretheren. And condemn them daily.

Extraordinary measures by Imams and Muslim leaders are required to get the message out that this is wrong, and that it must stop. You must do more. You are not doing enough. It is your responsibilitiy and right now, even if your intentions are good, you are failing. The stakes are high.

for your audiences'(in Phila.) questions (all genuine). These are all wire/news reports:

Aga Khan (your prophet/a Shiite Muslim leader from Karachi, Pak) offered 30,000 troops to Hitler in early 1940s (way before Israel was created). So did the chief Muslim cleric of Palestine who offered Hitler free access to Jews whenever Nazis got up to Palestine.

A prominent Muslim cleric has asked Muslims to blow up Danish buildings and the flying body parts will satisfy Allah's lust (due to cartoons).

A Paki cleric has said Kashmir should be snatched from India even if nuclear weapons have to be used.

And don't forget, Mr. Patel, I have seen you on this forum spewing fire and hatred at people like Hirsi Ali, Rushdie etc.

Wow. Look at all the hate from the anti-Islam crowd. The anti-Islam comments here are FULL OF DISTORTIONS, LOGICAL FALLACIES and OUTRIGHT LIES!

Mike says "Somehow this guy always manages to foist the blame for the worlds's ills on white, Christian xenophobe monocultural Americans."

What a LIE! When does Mr. Patel mention ANYTHING about white Christians?

Poor Brian from Portland contradicts himself: "...radical Islam follows in the footsteps of the Inquisition, Nazi Germany, or the Crusades. Those were other belief-oriented "movements" that used any and all means to further their ends, right up to slaughtering innocent people by the thousands."

Poor Brian. He doesn't realize that the very same argument could be made about Christianity. Isn't Christianity also a "belief-oriented "movement" that used any and all means to further their ends, right up to slaughtering innocent people by the thousands"?

Which was the religion of the people who brought us the Inquisition, Nazi Germany, or the Crusades?

But evil Christians can't make Christianity evil, does it Brian? Likewise some evil Muslims can't make Islam evil.

Mr. Patel,

I really am amazed at how many people read the words in your article (or hear to the words in your interview) and completely miss the meaning.

Too many people in this comments section are stating "Why aren't Muslims in the Middle East acting like they are a part of American or European culture and protesting the violence?"

Good old American hubris - the world should know what we feel and should always go out of its way to please us Americans.

The thing is, people in other parts of the world have more important things going on in their lives than to cater to the whims of what the American public wants to hear. The typical man in the Middle East is more concerned with feeding his family than making Americans like him.

And honestly, when does the American media report on ANYTHING happening around the world other than violence and faulty elections? (And if they did report on it, how many Americans would change the channel to get 'more interesting' news of some pretty white woman who was kidnapped/murdered?)

I'd be willing to bet that if most Muslims in the Middle East were protesting the violence, Americans would still be like 'Why is no one protesting violence in the Middle East? What an outrage!'

And as for Muslims here in the US - they make up only about 1% of the population so anything they do or say won't make it into the news anyways.

So, to all of you out there, rather than wait around til someone rubs it in your face 9-10 times a day that Muslims are anti-violence, go out and look for it yourselves. You have the internet and Mr. Patel gave you a few names of people to watch for in terms of the Muslim non-violence movement. Being informed is not just taking in whatever someone spoon-feeds you - an active search for yourself is also necessary.

Enough with the straw man of "Islamophobia." Muslims who speak out against terrorism are discounted for at least three reasons that have nothing to do with this fake issue of religious prejudice. First, many of these condemnations contain a loophole large enough to drive a truck bomb through (i.e., the justification of any atrocity in the name of "resistance" against the United States and Israel). Second, Muslims in Muslim-majority countries who actually do condemn evils like human bomb attacks without reservation take their lives into their hands, and not surprisingly these brave voices are almost as ineffectual as the "White Rose" protest against the Nazis in Germany during World War II. Third, dissident Muslims like Irshad Manji who live in Western countries and condemn terrorism without reservation are a vilified minority among their co-religionists, and are often in almost as much danger as their comrades in Muslim-majority countries.

Mr. Patel's complaint that condemning Islam because of terrorism is like condemning the U.S. Constitution for the clause that counted slaves as three-fifths of a person reveals more than he thinks it does. Does he not recall that the U.S. Constitution was in fact almost drowned in blood, precisely over the issue of slavery? It is becoming increasingly obvious that the Muslim world, like the 19th century United States, is going to have to fight a bloody civil war to purge its tragic flaws so that its greatness may shine.

It's very simple, Eboo. If there are 100 people in a room and 99 of them are sitting quietly minding their own business, while one of them is slapping me in the face, I guarantee that that one individual will have my complete attention. It doesn't matter how many peaceful and moderate Muslims there are in the world, as long as a sizable minority is committing the most heinous violent crimes against us.

It's not enough for those 99 to frown disapprovingly and say, "Hey, we're not violent extremists like that guy." That's not enough. Those 99 need to get up off their seats and STOP the slapper. Then I'll be able to pay them some attention, too.

There is no use blaming the audience, Mr. Patel. Americans like all other non-Muslims human, just can not imagine how any human being can blow up hundreds of civilians day in day out.

Perhaps there are moderate voices in the Islamic world as Mr. Patel claims. They are hard to find though. There are fundamentalist Christians here in America who, given the power and opportunity, would gladly stifle those who do not subscribe to their views about Armageddon. In fact, they claim that when the time comes they will ascend to heaven and the rest of us will suffer horrible deaths.

However, unlike rabble-rousing Islamic clerics who incite mob violence over such non-issues as cartoons and books that they perceive to be demeaning to the prophet,the rabid Christians are not heeded by majority of Americans.

Nothing new with this article, it is always islam is a peace loving relegion, etc. We have so many moderates and the same thing continues.

We all know how moderates u guys are, just dont say it mean it. Next look at all the trouble spots and question yourself who are the main culprits, hopefully you will find an answer. And just say to us we shun it, let us know what steps u take to preven them.

Nothing new with this article, it is always islam is a peace loving relegion, etc. We have so many moderates and the same thing continues.

We all know how moderates u guys are, just dont say it mean it. Next look at all the trouble spots and question yourself who are the main culprits, hopefully you will find an answer. And just say to us we shun it, let us know what steps u take to preven them.

One thing just came to mind-although I don't know if it is true or not.

Could it be that we don't hear moderate Muslim voices (ignoring the fact that our media picks up stories that people will likely read-ie, stories that already support a preconceived idea of Islam) because often in the countries where Islam is the majority religion, that free speech is not allowed? Could it be that it is dangerous to promote an idea not specifically sanctioned by the government or by a religious establishment?

he's talking about a spell?! How childish and ignorant! How symptomatic. How sad.

Much like 50 years ago in the US, when a white person saw a black person, the white person couldn't tell if the black person was a member of a gang or a hoodlum,today seeing anyone who looks or acts like a Muslim, inspires caution if not fear.
A white person never walked into Watts, the South Side of Chicago, etc.
Now the entire Muslim community is being held victim by the Islamic extremists.

In WW II, the Japanese in this country experienced the same problem.

Today, 50 years later, Americans still may look askance at a black person who doesn't dress like Wall Street.

It is interesting why there does not seem to be a similar phobia abut the Vietnamese in America.

Does the role of the Arab oil holding America hostage play a role? To most Islam and Arab are synonomous, even though Iran is not an Arab State.

I can sympathize, Mr. Patel, with your frustration. It is unfortunate that we seem as yet unable to have nuanced, open dialog about these topics.

I would like to add an additional dynamic that I have observed and believe is a challenge to productive discourse, as well. I work as a terrorism analyst, specifically focusing on Islamist groups, and therefore frequently attend lectures and discussions dealing with violent Islamism.

Quite often, in the question and answer period, a polite Muslim man or woman will rise to express their discontent that the presenter is discussing Salafism or Takfirism as though it was a legitimate form of Islam.

On the one hand, perhaps this is the much called for moderate voice. On the other, however, this sort of contribution leads the discussion to devolve into questions of what is and is not Islam, or whether folks such as Osama bin Laden are sincerely pious.

Every time I see a slogan along the lines of "Jesus Hates Fags" I shake my head and wonder what version of Jesus might have ever expressed hate toward anyone. Yet, I have never felt entitled to label the bearer of such slogans as a fake Christian. Who am I to define what is and is not Christianity?

My point is that all religious traditions have had dramatic differences in interpretation and out-layers, who we like to call radicals. I don't think this type of dramatic internal divide is such a foreign concept to non-Muslim Americans. But the necessary explanation of the internal divides within the global Muslim community has yet to be presented in a way many Americans can understand. If we are going to have a productive conversation about Islam, we need to be able to acknowledge both the traditions that have enriched our pluralistic society and the destructive elements that have provided a religious justification for violence.

Perhaps it is asking for an unreasonable level of sophistication. I believe, however, that the only way non-Muslims will be able to embrace the message that "Islam is peace" is if it can exist alongside "Some Islamic traditions have inspired violence." These two sides cannot be divorced, for when they are, many people will believe the narrative for which they have the most powerful evidence: thousands of Americans have been killed in the name of Islam.

To the Muslim lady or gentleman at these events who is clearly hurt that terrorism analysts take al Qeada's version of Islam seriously, I offer my sympathy. None of us like to feel as though our identity or ideals are being publicly trampled. Yet, al Qaeda takes their view of Allah seriously, and so must we if we are to address the very critical issues raised by other interpretations of Islam. It is of no use to anyone to simply label them illegitimate.

Indeed there is a certain irony of trying to defeat Islamists who claim the right to judge who practices the religion correctly and punish those who do not by labeling them apostates.

Thank you again for your commentary on this subject.

The "spell" of anti-Islam lies has been cast by the hate-radio / hate-tv crowd: Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, Ann Coulter, and the rest the far-right bigots who love to hate.

Here are some choice lies and threats from the propaganda wing of the Republican party:

Michael Savage: "a bloodthirsty religion that's practiced over there by a bunch of throwbacks, and we're gonna to kill 'em.

Neal Boortz: "it is perfectly legitimate, perhaps even praiseworthy, to recognize Islam as a religion of vicious, violent, bloodthirsty cretins."

Ann Coulter: "We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity."

Coulter also said: "we should throw Judaism away and we should all be Christians."

I also wonder where the moderate voices of Islam are? I have met many wonderful Muslims in the past and they too decry the violence that is committed in the name of Allah, may he be blessed. The problem as I see it is this, too many of the violent extremists are given a voice that is all pervading in the media, hardly any mention is made of the imams and sheiks that are working against the tide of violent extremism that is trying to hijack the Islamic faith. As Americans we can work towards the goal of listening to the voices that are working for peace, instead of hearing only one side of the conflict, that is the growth and stabilization of a faith that is young and willing to work with those of the book. Mr. Patel, please make sure that you carry on the work that you are doing, it is of vital importance that the word is spread that not all of the Muslims you will meet in the world are of the kind that wish to revert to an age where the misinterpretation of Shari'a law is allowed to reign and the oppression of women is a given. Too, we must make freedom of the press a sacred trust in the whole world, so that no one leader can take the fore and make his the only way to think and act. I, will continue to pray for your work, helping people of all faiths to meet and work to see the commonality of all is the highest and best calling that one can have. Thank you so much for your courage to continue the most important undertaking.

I grew up among Muslims. I know of one non-violent truly peaceful Muslim among the hundreds I know. Quite a sorry statistic.

Mr. Patel,

I think you should separate Islam into two branches. The Muslims that live in North America and the Muslims that live in the rest of the world. Among the Muslims here in the U.S., there are a lot of "moderates" and their voices are heard loud and clear.

I think what most of the callers were driving at is the Muslims who live in the rest of the world. Look at the events of the last decade. New York, Beirut, Kuala Lampur, Mogadishu, Madrid, Mumbai, Tel Aviv, etc. What do all of these cities have in common?

Well, Mr Patel, I hope the comments above help put it in perspective for you! They've said everything I would have said.

Wow. That is a rather insulting piece. The fact is, Mr. Patel, that people are not listening to you because you are not a person of influence. I am tired of people talking about the words of the Koran, and how peaceful and loving they are. Actions are more powerful than words. The fact is that the most “respected” Imam are issuing fatwa’s and promoting hatred, bigotry, destruction and murder from their pulpit loudspeakers. You can say that your audience is not listening to you, but I would say that we are. We just disagree with your analysis. You are the one who is blind to the words and actions said by and promoted by the most influential members of your faith. Yes, one can make the argument that Islam has itself been hijacked by radical fundamentalist, but until Muslims as a whole stand up and fight against these people, the faith as a whole should and will be viewed as an enemy of humanity.

The leadership in the Islamic world stinks. There is not a single person I can think of (who calls themselves a "leader") who possesses the strength, charisma, eloquence and willingness to build bridges with the rest of the world. There needs to be an ambassador of sorts, a (friendly) face for Islam. No Muslim "leader" seems to be concerned with the bad PR their religion is receiving and instead are more concerned with pushing their selfish agendas. As for the people out there who want Muslims that are moderate and anti-violence to speak up more, please suggest ways in which we can do so instead of being critical. Help us start a movement!

You are asking very good questions. I do think there is justified suspicion of some Muslim lobbying groups (CAIR comes to mind) that call themselves moderate but are essentially fronts for Saudi-style fundamentalist Islam and Hamas.

There also have been ample examples of Muslim leaders in this country who publicly support democracy but to their own followers speak of establishing an Islamic Republic of the U.S. At least the extremist Christian leaders are willing to discuss their aspirations for a Christian U.S. out in the open so we know who we're dealing with.

There is also a large swath of Muslim intelligentsia that thinks of itself as moderate but basically would like to see Tel Aviv incinerated and the Jews of the Middle East pushed into the Red Sea. Until such Muslims come to terms with the existence of Israel (and it must be pointed out that the dreadful Israeli leadership hasn't made that easy), it's a little hard to take them seriously when they speak of tolerance.

TB

Mr. Patel, thank you for brining this issue to the light. It is the Western media that has cast the spell on Muslims. Just watch FOX news.

Mr. Patel, thank you for brining this issue to the light. It is the Western media that has cast the spell on Muslims. Just watch FOX news.

Mr. Patel, thank you for brining this issue to the light. It is the Western media that has cast the spell on Muslims. Just watch FOX news.

I know many moderate peaceful, progressive Muslims, they are not, however Arabs. They tell me that the Arabs at the mosque, especially the Saudis, are arrogant and condescending. The Arab Muslim culture promotes a 'Master race' interpretation of Islam. They refer to us as 'sons of pigs and monkeys' meaning that we are sub-human. This interpretation that is a minority view in the Muslim world. However, I have yet to hear any Muslim leader publicly disagree with these extreme teachings, which, of course, lead to violence since sub-humans are fair game.

If the writer is wondering who is casting the spell, he should look no further than the Arab world and the silence among the non-Arab Muslim world.

You've got to be kidding. Of course there are moderate pluralistic anti-terrorist Muslims like yourself, but they are the exception. Why don't you try to organize an anti-terrorism rally in the West Bank, or in Damascus, or in Tehran? Honestly, how many Muslims do you think will show up? I don't know if most Muslim leaders in the Middle East are really blood-thirsty bigots or just afraid to speak up, but either way, the few voices of decency out there are drowned out by the flood of hate speech.

Why do you fail to recognize this reality? Even you, you speak about Islamic peace and pluralism to Americans, when are you going to Saudi Arabia to preach this message?

I don't know about a spell either. But when a simple drawing of Mohamed is published in a Danish newspaper it seems that most Muslims want violent retribution. How about wanting to prevent the showing of a movie in Holland? How about women being treated as second class citizens in Muslim countries? Maybe things will start to change when Muslims start respecting differing opinion. Ultimately though, like someone else posted here, the problem seems to come from believing in fairy tales.

Instead of talking about moderate Muslim voices and Muslim history/theology supporting pluralism, why doesn’t Iboo Patel talk about (1) Why is it that even supposedly moderate Karzai’s Afghanistan has to deport an Afghan laborer for converting to Christianity or why Afghan court sentences to death a reporter for criticizing Koran? (2) Why is it that all Islamic countries ban religious conversions? (3) Why is it that Mecca and Medina do not allow construction of Christian churches or Buddhist temples? (4) Why is it that not just the lunatic fringe but even main centers of Islam continue to propagate Koran’s sermon urging ‘to wage a jihad against nonbelievers and kill or convert kafirs? Why isn’t main stream Islam condemning that sermon of Koran? (5) Why main stream Islam continues to allow four wives for a man in this age of over population and allows a man to divorce just by saying ‘talaq’ three times? (6) Why is it that most acts of terrorism and violence are carried out by Muslims compared to any other religion?

Yeah, that's right, throw it back on the audience. Only uneducated morons take time from bumping their tobacco-stained pickup trucks together to question "Where are the moderate muslims" and "why don't Muslims condemn terrorism". As usual, when people watch Muslims stab film makers to death in the streets, or randomly fire rockets into villages or machinegun school children, the question "why?" is answered with "why are you so ignorant?". After all, an education in the many myriad glories of Islam surely must put all this in context and explain how these are just aberrations, how constant Islamic violence is - get this - actually un-Islamic!

Newsflash: it doesn't. If anything, the MORE one learns about Islam, the scarier it becomes. Hell, I wish I DIDN'T know anything about Islam. I wish I didn't know that it justifies "honor" killings and wife beatings. I wish I didn't know that it justifies the mass slaughter of apostates or anyone who denies the "true" Faith as interpreted by a lice infested (true) slave owning (true) pederast (true) captive-killing (true) polygamist (true) Prophet (false). I wish I didn't have to read about American Muslim "immigrants" who are "forced" to kill their beautiful daughters when they refuse to wear the burqa and marry 50 year old guys from Arab countries. I wish I didn't have to worry that some wholly self-absorbed Muslim with designs not on this life but on the totally selfish desire of 72 virgins (or fruit dates, depending) won't wander onto my bus or subway car and prevent me from ever seeing my family again.

Honestly, what is wrong with Islam? How is it possible that Islam is at war with every other faith or creed known to man? I mean, check out Thailand: thousands of Thais have been killed by Muslims there. Why? Payback for those Thai Crusades? The Thai invasion of Iraq? The great Thai-Israel alliance? You have to work pretty damn hard to pick a fight with Thai Buddhists, probably the most peaceful, friendly people the world has ever seen (the country's nickname is the Land of Smiles!) but somehow Muslims found a way.

Simply put, ignorance of Islam is pure bliss. I wish I never heard of Islam or its frothing-at-the-mouth adherents. I have a wife who is a different ethnicity and religion than mine. I have friends from every ethnic group and creed. Islam is the ideology with the tolerance problem, not ours, and "Islamaphobia" is ISLAM'S FAULT. If you want other people to stop criticizing you and your religion, then don't act like it's the 7th century and you have an IQ of 50. But that's not really the problem is it - you just want us to shut up while you're taking over the world and establishing your Ummah. Good luck with that.

the comments perfectly prove the point made by the columnist that so many in the u.s. are incapable of hearing anything but their preprogrammed associations:

"For whatever reason, Muslims say nothing, do nothing, to protest the violence being created by Islamist extremists to supposedly further their "peaceful" religion."

not hearing or seeing what others do, it is easy to accuse them of not saying or doing anything.

Islam, Christianity and Judaism all have violent, sexist, and slavery-promoting elements (not to mention various weird and totally illogical sections). To label any one religion or religious text as "more" violent is silly.

Just as there are Muslim clerics that promote divisive, hateful messages, there are also self-identified Christian pastors and leaders who promote hate and discrimination. (Sally Kerns and Fred Phelps come to mind.)

The Internet has emboldened people to be brash and abrasive in their discourse. One need only look at several posts above to see how this one-way type of commenting leads to aggressive posturing and name-calling.

There are those who chose to focus on the better messages in their religious texts, messages of peace and love, brotherhood and friendship, harmony and understanding. Let's try to stick in this camp.

They just think, they can convert entire humanity into Muslims. They don't believe any other religion or faith exist on the earth. Unless they start respecting other peoples faith, the other people will not respect theirs.

There is no moderate Muslim voice otherwise you would have heard by this time.

Only they can elevate their moderate Muslim voices, other people should not have to look for them.
When moderates become majority voice, whole world will know. But at present it is not.

Sir,

Respectfully, I believe you. However, many many Muslims in the world do not share your views. I think the less tense question when happily faced by a moderate man such as yourself would be, how do you get your message across to the vast numbers of Muslims who are anything but tolerant of others or peaceful?

Respectfully, a very large swath of the Muslim world has been committing or at least supporting very violent acts. If people are scared of Muslims it is because too many Muslims are scarey. The terrorists have succeed in making people wary of your religion.

The other thing that is an issue is that you are a journalist, not an Imam with influence or an Arab leader. When we listen to those people - particularly Imams from the mid-east, Pakistan, Iran and Europe, we are presented with a vastly different view of Islam then the one you present.
While we are at it, when in America leaders of Muslim "charity" organizations keep coming up on charges of financing terror, it is hard to see your picture as a ddominant Muslim view.

In short, I do not doubt that there are good and tolerant decent Muslim people. I doubt that they are the majority. For that to change, your community must change it's tone in a much more broad sense.

I traveled to Jordan and Saudi Arabia in 2003/2004 and was told endlessly how the 9/11 thing was a Zionist plot unfairly blamed on Muslims and how there had never been Arab country armies poised on the borders of Israel; that was just Zionist propaganda.

I also heard plenty about how Jews drank Muslim babies' blood and many other reasons Jews should all be killed -- and how Christians were just looking for excuses to wipe out all Muslims.

Admittedly, I know (and was in both countries as the guest of) moderate Muslims who were perfectly cool people, welcome in my house if they happen to visit Florida, etc.

But I'm sorry - I've read the Koran, and I don't see a lot of peace and love in it. And most of the Muslims I've met in Muslim countries seem to think anti-Jewish propaganda is true, right up to the old Protocols of the Elders of Zion hoax which has been totally discredited in the civilized world.

Where the are give peace a change rallies? Where are the groups condemning violence? I do not buy this at all. What is up with the Sunni and Shiite violence upon each other? Iraq's people are killing each other over differences in the same religion by 10s maybe even 100s of thousands.

Trying to turn the table on someone w/ a legitimate question, by categorizing that person as ignorant, will not win points. It will, however, make people wonder why you are reluctant to address this issue.
More importantly, why do Muslims seem so afraid to speak out against the hideous violence perpetrated by, hopefully, just a small number of wackos.
If you look back into the history of Islam, you will find that the "hashshashins" used a similar type of violence in the 12-13th centuries. These were Nizari Ismailis and they came to be known as, Assassins.

spell has been cast by the illiterate clerics who brain wash un educated chaps to violent means of practising religion. muslims have no hope till their people get better education

Well, you are one...........where are the others? Your religious leaders are not doing nearly enough to counter the violent side of Islam.

I think you're being a little to whinny on this subject. For instance, on yesterday's column, you noted how Mrs. Ferraro was basically right in claiming that B. Obama is where he is in the campaign because of his color. You seem to have discounted everything else about him that makes him qualified (Harvard Law, Illinois Senate, US Senate) and basically viewed his current situation through race-based lenses. Also, don't most people associate crime and drugs with black people, despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

Conversely, when the media focus is on multiple acts of violence by Muslin extremist, that's what people tend to associate them with.

Curious that when the situation relates to you - you can't understand why folks can't see it your way. Perhaps you're not as enlightened as you think yourself to be...

I think you're being a little to whinny on this subject. For instance, on yesterday's column, you noted how Mrs. Ferraro was basically right in claiming that B. Obama is where he is in the campaign because of his color. You seem to have discounted everything else about him that makes him qualified (Harvard Law, Illinois Senate, US Senate) and basically viewed his current situation through race-based lenses. Also, don't most people associate crime and drugs with black people, despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

Conversely, when the media focus is on multiple acts of violence by Muslin extremist, that's what people tend to associate them with.

Curious that when the situation relates to you - you can't understand why folks can't see it your way. Perhaps you're not as enlightened as you think yourself to be...

I do not know about a spell. But I do know that one often voiced complaint after 9/11 was that Muslim leaders in the U.S. did not condemn violence. But when they did, the mainstream media did not carry their message. Perhaps not surprising--the newsrooms find violence and threats of violence more newsworthy than calls for non-violence.

It's very tiresome to have Muslims attempt to portray Islam as some misunderstood pacifist philosophy, as well as Christians to decry Islam consistently as violent and aggressive as they gaze upon the visage of a murdered Jew and pray to him.

Anybody think that the unending invocation of an invisible, cloud-dwelling superbeing isn't the core of the problem here?

I don't think any "spell" has been cast in peoples minds when they link Islam with terrorist violence. It's more of a frank realization that radical Islam follows in the footsteps of the Inquisition, Nazi Germany, or the Crusades. Those were other belief-oriented "movements" that used any and all means to further their ends, right up to slaughtering innocent people by the thousands.
The old liberal bumper sticker of "Silence Equals Complicity" is certainly applicable to today's Muslims. For whatever reason, Muslims say nothing, do nothing, to protest the violence being created by Islamist extremists to supposedly further their "peaceful" religion. This tends to reinforce the idea in non-Muslims minds that all Muslims are therefore tacitly supporting the violence. When Muslims take to the streets protesting the violent methods of the radicals, demanding that the violence stop, then they will have some kind of moral separation from the Islamists. Until then, they will be painted with the same brush that coats Nazis, Communists, Ku Klux Klan, and others of the same ilk. Peaceful Muslims have nobody to blame but themselves. Their silence makes them complicit.

Somehow this guy always manages to foist the blame for the worlds's ills on white, Christian xenophobe monocultural Americans. I guess it makes him appear more enlightened and inclusive?