The Sacred Cow of Liturgy

Buy cheap lopressor , discount generic lopressor

Yhanks you
45a50b381547c89c9696ede4dea3e0b7

Hello people
af60ca7c97cad3689ed9a4c75f507ce0

Yhanks you
3cd8e4f1c3950ae5aa385b0e80f1cf99

Seeker of Truth wrote:
Evidently Prophet Mohammad had adopted the Jewish law in this case - punishment by death for fornication and adultery. Since he had no power to forgive sins, he was merely acting like a just judge meting out the punishment prescribed by law.

Mo only used the shariah law based on the quran.

A prophet with a "anytime" access to someone he believed was God should have been a role model for humanity. If as muslims claim "Allah forgives all sins except shirk" then why could'nt Mo forgive this woman.

I have never received a muslim explanation for this one.

http://www.faithfreedom.org/forum

Ross:

On several ocassions you wanted to know why Prophet Mohammad did not forgive the women who were guilty of fornication and adultery even after they had repented of their sin.

Obviously it seems to be an issue that concerns you very much. Since no explanation was given by any Muslim, here my non-Muslim one.

Evidently Prophet Mohammad had adopted the Jewish law in this case - punishment by death for fornication and adultery. Since he had no power to forgive sins, he was merely acting like a just judge meting out the punishment prescribed by law.

Regarding your concern about a mother with a new born child being put to death for fornication: It should be of some consolation for you to know that new born infants form a bond with their biological mother only with time. Infants and little children seem to find it easy to form bonds with anyone with whom they relate to, whether biologically related or not. So there was no way the new born child of the woman who was put to death as punishment would have missed its biological mother. One must assume that Prophet Mohammad found a loving married woman to take care of the new born infant within a secure family situation.

Having said that, I do not approve of death as penalty for fornication or adultery, even if such an extreme measure was probably chosen to maintain social order, stability of families and to offer the most stable and healthy environment for children to be brought up in.

I hope Muslims will give you a more complete explanation for Prophet Mohammad's behaviour. Maybe their speculation would give a clearer picture of the social situation of the time in which Prophet Mohammad lived.

I hope that helps.

Please note: When I referred to Western/ised Muslims in my earlier post, I did not mean it in a derogatory sense. I only meant to emphasise the cultural difference of Muslims stemming from the East/Middle East. Ms Taylor and Victoria are both white American Muslims, late converts to the religion. It means that they were born and raised in the white American culture, strongly influenced by a non-Muslim culture. Their personal experience before converting to Islam has been with other religions or atheism. Jihadist is half Western in origin although she lives in Asia. The point I was trying to make was - they do not for those reasons represent the average Muslim, most of whom live in the East/Middle East. Not all Muslims of the East/Middle East, who live in the West are westerised (I am not referring to the values of Christianity here) in their culture and values.

Victoria:

You say your Turkish Muslim husband would be comfortable and proud about the way you present yourself on this forum. About absolutely everything? You say so. It would have been good to have some objective feedback though, hence my questions were addressed to others. You continue to remain silent to questions addressed to you.

Terminator:

The diatribe goes as long as interested parties want it to. Freedom of speech cuts both ways. Muslims are allowed freedom of expression of course. Non-Muslims are allowed to express criticism. That is the whole point of this forum, in case you haven't noticed. OK that's enough with you deciding when something is enough!

OK that's enough! Does this diatribe go on ad infinitum? The original question was about the Latin mass, remember? So what does all this Islamic ranting have to do with that? WE DO HAVE FREEDOM OF SPEECH in this country so it's alright for muslums to express themselves. Of course, we couldn't do that in an Islamic dominated country without being brought to court, killed or harmed. Freedom of expression or religion is not allowed in those lands. By the way I thought Frank's comment about huggs and kisses was funny. When I first read it I laughed out loud. But I did regain my composure after reading some of the other sobering responses.

Victoria:

You have not answered the questions directed at you either (20 July 2007 at 2:09 AM).

What I observed about posts by Ms Taylor, Victoria, and Jihadist:

Sisterhood is expressed among Muslim women.

Muslim men are treated with respect and as brothers in faith.

Non-Muslim women are rarely responded to, almost never if they are critical of Islam.

Non-Muslim men are always responded to, seemingly with a great desire to please, no matter how critical of Islam they are.

Sexual morality in Islam was a topic that cropped up over and over again. There should definitely have been a more efficient way to bring the discussion to a meaningful closure. Nobody goes on and on about the life of Prophets and sexual practices mentioned in the Jewish Scripture. What people need to know about is the current sexual morals as recommended/commanded by Islam and how progressive Muslims practice their faith in that regard.

I would imagine that no Asian/Middle Eastern Muslim woman (if not completely Westernised) would discuss so many personal details online on a serious international forum such as this.

Views other than mine would make very interesting reading.

well- since your incommunicado- go on to the boards on muslims speaking out

seeker of truth-

those are interesting and deep questions, ones ive thought about alot in my life, from different perspectives (besides muslim i mean)

personally, my husband is comfortable and proud with how i present myself in this forum.

since no one has bothered to answer or remark on your questions about us ladies, it seems you yourself have an opinion about the questions you raised.

its late right now and i just peeked in before going to sleep after a long day-

i dont work tomorrow, so if i can, ill try to give a decent answer.

possibly you could share your own critique of our styles and manners of communication, since you seem to be the only one paying any attention.

peace

Ms Pamela Taylor, Jihadist, Victoria et al:

What does Islam say about sexual morality?

What does a progressive Muslim woman say about sexual morality in a sexually permissive age?

Is fornication and adultery still a sin, even if not punished with death?

Attention researchers, Muslim and non-Muslim:

Ms Pamela Taylor, Jihadist and Victoria have on The Post On Faith forum functioned as ambassadors for the Muslim faith.

Read through all the posts since the beginning of the discussions in November 2006 and try to answer the following questions:

How convincing is their testimony as married Muslim women representing their faith - to Muslims, to non-Muslims?

How do they respond and relate to Muslims and non-Muslims on this thread?

Do they respond more often to Muslims or non-Muslims, males or females?

Their hijabs declare chastity and modesty externally. Is it reflected in their communication with males?

Would you have negative comments about their style of communication if they were your mother/wife (all of them are married and have children)/sister/daughter?

They have disclosed a lot of personal details. Would you be comfortable about such disclosure if they were your mother/wife/sister/daughter?

What could be considered appropriate disclosure of personal details in a faith forum such as this?

oss is Frank Collins wrote:
Your painting of the whole faith with the same brush is hateful. You blame all of the faithful for the actions of an overall small percentage.

I blame the FAITH (not the faithful) for the actions of an overall small percentage.

Ross is Frank Collins wrote:
Even God said of Sodom, "And he said: I will not destroy it for the sake of ten" (righteous men).
Do you actually purport to know that there are not at least TEN righteous Muslims in the world (or an equivalent to ten in comparison of the two populations)? Would you maintain an attitude less charitable than God, even if what you allege IS true?

I will not want ANYONE destroyed even if there are NO righteous muslims in the world. My aim is to awaken muslims to this evil called islam not wish death or evil upon them (islam is already doing that).

Frank,

Don't YOU tell me what MY faith is! There is absolutely nothing Chirstian about your posts. NOTHING!

If your concern is that "Islam is inherently evil", what are you doing to HELP the situation?

That's right, NOTHING!

I, for one, intend to continue to learn as much as I can, and never presume that I know enough about anything...even after I have finished my formal education.

That being said, I have already learned enough to know that you are just discouraging any valuable conversation on the subject. You've made up your mind in an ignorant fashion, and are far too stubborn about that to actually LEARN anything new. Your posts serve only as an attempt to convince yourself that you have any kind of validity. Unfortunately, you say far more about YOURSELF than you do of Islam, and any sane person sees right through your hateful rhetoric, and irresponsible hack scholarship.

I will continue to pray for you.

Where does it say that they are Christian, Frank?

catholic:
you are islamic not catholic. and at least write the entire quote.
i wrote it that way becasue a lot of butt holes think its ok to kill gays, BECAUSE THEY ARE GAY. religion hardly ever plays a part for these animals, they just want to kill.
but is does play a part for islamics because THEY MAKE IT A PART!
the koran commands murder and hate, the new testament does not.
to murder and hate all an islamic need do it follow the koran.
for a christian to murder and hate they muct VIOLATE the teaching of jesus.
that is the difference.

As per Anon early in the discussion:

"The hurdle towards the reformation of Islam is to recognise the fact that Islam is not a religion but a cult. Cults are exponentially more difficult to reform than religions."

One definition of a cult:

A religion or religious sect generally considered to be extremist or false, with its followers often living in an unconventional manner under the guidance of an authoritarian, charismatic leader e.g. 1 )Muslims and their Mohammed, and the clerics, ayatollahs, imams and "angel freaks" who follow/ed the illiterate, warmongering, hallucinating Arab's koranic ways 2) "Jesus Freaks" like Bob Jones' followers 3) "Latin Mass /Catholic only/"angel loving" Filiciders brainwashed by the likes of B16 and the previous all white male, "celibate, "aarpie", European "charismatics" called popes.

Frank says:

"religion hardly ever plays a part for these animals"

But according to EVERYTHING you ever rant about, Frank, religion plays the WHOLE part for Muslims. The attackers were not identified by faith, and possibly had none at all. But what difference does it make, really? You've finally said something I can come close to agreeing with (the quote above), but you contradict EVERYTHING you hatefully waste so much space on these threads with.

bashir is just another islamic terrorists who does not appear to know that moho the child rapist was in the 7th century and not the 14th.

Bashir has a very well-written piece on PostGlobal... I recommend it to people on this thread arguing about fanaticism in Islam.

http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/postglobal/bashir_goth/2007/07/men_die_for_other_men_not_for.html

CATHOLIC:
i wrote it that way becasue a lot of butt holes think its ok to kill gays, BECAUSE THEY ARE GAY. religion hardly ever plays a part for these animals, they just want to kill. and when we catch them we prosecute them and i hope they execute this animal.
i never said it was becasue of the victim being homophobic and if you were not so obtuse you would have seen that, but you are just so upset at me that you want to make up something to complain about.
and anno:
the book was the old and new testament - and the new testament has no restrictions on food and if the fake prophet was really talking to god, his god would have known it too.

and who said i condoned this action, i condemned it. its islam i condem.

Frank,

Only you, the klan and the skin heads condone such hate killing or try to defend it. You are in a good company...

Oops, make that "empathize with your situation". My "pretty wingie talking guardian thingie"'s spell checker is not working today.

Ahh, Catholic School Student,

Still having problems with Latin and its "angelic" callings??

As one also bred, born and brainwashed in the Catholic/Latin Church, I can emphatize with your situation. I would pray for your acceptance of reality but an omniscient God needs no prayrers since the Singulariy knows all before it happens and therefore should be correcting all ills since He/She is also all-merciful. I wonder why babies are still born then with defects??

Maybe Father Edward Schillebeeckx, the famous contemporary Catholic theologian, has a better answer?

Church: The Human Story of God,
Crossroad, 1993, p.91 (softcover)

"Christians (et al) must give up a perverse, unhealthy and inhuman doctrine of predestination without in so doing making God the great scapegoat of history."

"Nothing is determined in advance: in
nature there is chance and determinism; in the world of human activity there is possibility of free choices. Therefore the historical future is not known even to God, otherwise we and our history would be merely a puppet show in which God holds the strings. For God, too, history is an adventure, an open history for and of men and women."

i.e. No one, not even God can prophesy since that would violate the God-given gifts of Free Will and Future.

What Was God's Original Commandment about eating the meat of the swine?

In Leviticus God said:
“There are some that only chew the cud or only have a split hoof, but you must not eat them. The camel, though it chews the cud, does not have a split hoof; it is ceremonially unclean for you. 5 The coney, [a] though it chews the cud, does not have a split hoof; it is unclean for you. 6 The rabbit, though it chews the cud, does not have a split hoof; it is unclean for you. 7 And the pig, though it has a split hoof completely divided, does not chew the cud; it is unclean for you. 8 You must not eat their meat or touch their carcasses; they are unclean for you.”

Jesus came as a messenger to the Israelites only and his testimony is clear:

A Canaanite woman from that vicinity came to him, crying out, "Lord, Son of David, have mercy on me! My daughter is suffering terribly from demon-possession." Jesus did not answer a word. So his disciples came to him and urged him, "Send her away, for she keeps crying out after us."
He answered, "I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel." The woman came and knelt before him. "Lord, help me!" she said. He replied, "It is not right to take the children's bread and toss it to their dogs." "Yes, Lord," she said, "but even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their masters' table." Then Jesus answered, "Woman, you have great faith! Your request is granted." And her daughter was healed from that very hour.

And Jesus was born a Jew, lived like a good Jew and died a Jew and his confirmation that the Law stands is obvious from his words in the book of Mathew:

“Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill.
For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one title shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. “

So there you have it. We have a commandment from God not to eat pork and Jesus confirmed and conformed to the Law. So if some Christians decide to eat Pork, that’s their problem. They’ll have to answer to their maker for it.

"homophobic words? maybe they did not like that."

There's a fine example, Frank. I'm sure HE did NOT like it, but he's dead now.

Why do you write it that way? Are you under the impression that this poor man's attack was the result of HIS homophobic words? That's not at all what that post says. Quite the opposite.

If I understand YOU, then you have poor reading comprehension (in addition to poor writing skills), which makes your allegations of facts dubious.

If I don't understand you correctly, it's because you write like an ignorant mad man.

anno:
re Mr. Satendar Singh
how do we know it was because of his being islamic? homophobic words? maybe they did not like that.
and who is going to go after these criminals, those very people who islam give you permission, no commands you to, hate, murder, kidnap, torture, sell into slavery, rape, cut off body parts, etc..
it would be nice if islamics would actually go after islamics who commit acts of violence against infidels, BUT THAT WILL NEVER HAPPEN.

Frank Collins,

Aren't you some kind of professor, or something? Go back and read what I said. I never said being incorrect was bearing false witness. Concerned does not express his summations of world religions as opinions either.

I wouldn't bother to waste my time checking YOUR alleged "facts" since critical thinking alone leads me to hypoethesize that you have no credibility. It would be an exercise in futility.

You think formality doesn't matter, well guess again. Manner of dress is no indication of ability, but you won't get most jobs dressed in cut-offs and flip flops. Besides, writing in a manner that, at least, IMPLIES that you have an education does not require the effort you claim...if you actually have an education.

Sorry Frank, Sir, This is the extent of the time I have for you. I will keep you in my prayers though, and ESPECIALLY your poor family. I pity them having to suffer the embarassment of you.

if the koran says:
""5.5": This day (all) the good things are allowed to you; and the food of those who have been given the Book is lawful for you and your food is lawful for them; and the chaste from among the believing women and the chaste from among those who have been given the Book before you (are lawful for you); when you have given them their dowries, taking (them) in marriage, not fornicating nor taking them for paramours in secret; and whoever denies faith, his work indeed is of no account, and in the hereafter he shall be one of the losers."
why cant you eat pork, or have alcohol, they are not denied the people of the book, when he was also including chritians?
the fact is his education about religion sucked and he had no idea what he was talking about when he put his words into his alleged god's mouth.

CATHOLIC STUDENT:
being wrong is not a lie, and is not false witness. a statement of opinion is not a lie, its just a different opinion.
here is a fact about martin luther. do you know why the german princes all got behind him so fast? MONEY!
you see the catholic church did not allow money lending, so as trade expanded so did that business, as well as banking, which charged interest for certain acts.
luther told the princes he did not care about that and all of a sudden they were right behind him and his new religion. that gave rise to the great german and holland banking houses, as well as others.

Washington, DC - July 17, 2007 - The Sikh American Legal Defense and Education Fund (SALDEF) and the Council of American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) are saddened about the death last week of Mr. Satendar Singh, a 26 year-old Sikh American victim of a vicious hate crime, as he was removed from life-support at a local hospital.

On Sunday July 1, 2007, Mr. Singh was beaten unconscious while enjoying a picnic with some friends at Lake Natoma in Folsom, CA. His attackers reportedly yelled xenophobic and homophobic remarks to him and his friends. After being taken to the hospital, Mr. Singh clang to life for four days before family members agreed to remove him from life-support after seeing he was registering little to no brain activity.

SALDEF and CAIR are concerned with this senseless murder of a promising young man. Hate crimes are designed to create fear amongst particular communities. Mr. Singh was targeted due to the color of skin, his national origin, and because he was the only one in his group without a female friend present. This attack was intended to create fear in the Fijian, South Asian, Arab, Muslim, Sikh and LGBT communities.

"We, SALDEF strongly condemn this act of violence. Such hate has no place in this country," said SALDEF Volunteer Attorney Neilinder Ranu. "Sadder still, Mr. Singh had lived peacefully in the US since he was 19, only to have his life ended around the Fourth of July, when we celebrate the freedoms and principles of inclusion that this country were founded upon."

Mr. Singh passed away in the intensive care unit at Mercy San Juan Medical Center thousands of miles away from his parents who live in Fiji. He lived with his aunt, uncle, and grandmother in Sacramento.

"The Sacramento Valley community has made a pledge in Mr. Singh's memory to fight against hate, said CAIR-Sacramento Valley Executive Director Basim Elkarra. This tragedy shows highlights the importance of the community coming together to fight against hate."

Together SALDEF and CAIR stand in solidarity against all acts of hate. We hope the community and all of America will not tolerate such acts of violence. We hope that the residents of Sacramento will put aside any differences and realize a stronger sense of community after this tragedy.

As of this release, no one has been arrested for this crime.

there is only one frank collins but i do sometimes use only my first name.
i never post songs. and im not concerned christian either.
i like my name. its been my name for a very long time. i am proud of is and i use it.
the hadith are a record of what moho said and did that is not part of the koran. as such is is not the aleged inspired word of the islamic god, it is what moho the child rapist did to comply with that word.
like telling his people it is ok to lie, or murdering women as the breast fed their child, or having sex with a 9 year old child - which is always rape.
and i know im called a bigot because i paint all islamics as terrorists, but i do that becasue they are. i am told that i am wrong in judging all islamics by the acts of a few. but isn't that what islam does and has been doing for 1400 years. the koran demands that jews, christians, hindu's, anyone not islamic, they are hated, kidnaped, held for ransom, have body parts cut off, tortured, sold into slavery, raped, murdered if you will not become islamic or murdered if you leave islam. isn't that bigoted?
and the koran is written as the events happened, not by topic. so those few areas where islamics are fond of quoting about peace, well they are abrogated by subsequent verses demanding those vile acts to be performed on infidels.
if you have a neighbor and he tells you he wants to live in peace, ok, you believe him. then he tells you that he is the chosen son of your religion and you have to accept him and his new religion. well you decide not to deal with him. then he and others come to your house and attack it, killing some or your family and some friends that were there too. now you [and your family] do not surrender to him and he keeps attacking you, day after day, year after year, and his followers century after century attacking surviving members of your family. they kidnap you, hold you for ransom, cut off body parts, sell you into slavery, torture you, take your property and lands, and hunt you down where ever you are, all with the stated purpose of complying with the commands of a god that demands his conduct towards you.
do you conisder his first words of peace as controling or his and his followers subsequent conduct in hate and murder.
once islam got an army - islam no longer wanted peace they wanted PIECE. a piece of this, a piece of that, until they have it all.
and there is no dispute about parts of islam,
ALL ISLAMICS MUST BELIEVE THE KORAN IS THE INSPIRED WORD OF THEIR ALLEGED GOD AND GODS' COMMANDS MUCT BE COMPLIED WITH.

Thanks for your response Pam...certainly hope we are able to curb fanaticism based on religion and make the world a better place to live

Concerned The Christian Now Liberated,

Guardian Angels don't give orders, hence the title "Guardian". If they did, the orders would not come before those of God. God did not order anything to be spoken in Latin, and neither did the Pope. He merely provided the option.

It's sad to see you turn your back on God by denying yourself REAL knowledge, trading it for humor and cleverness, then failing miserably at that too.

I may be Catholic, but I also know that your "characterization" of Martin Luther is just plain wrong! That is the bearing of false witness against thy neighbor.

Lord God, please allow into your light and presence blaspheming hack scholars who spread dis-information in order to shake the faithful of all faiths. Amen.

Blessed Mother, please join me in my prayer. Amen.

Catholic School Student,

Your "pretty wingie talking guardian thingie" is not happy. He/she expects all comments to be presented in Latin. Such lack of respect for the language of our Roman slave lords will put you in limbo for eternity.

Ross is Frank Collins wrtoe:
You're practically a narcotic!

Again, does'nt matter what I am, my aim is open the muslim eyes to this evil called islam. A cult that is beheading, lashing or stoning people as we speak.... but you can continue napping.

I'm against hate not faith.

"I'm against hate not faith."

Your painting of the whole faith with the same brush is hateful. You blame all of the faithful for the actions of an overall small percentage.

Even God said of Sodom, "And he said: I will not destroy it for the sake of ten" (righteous men).

Do you actually purport to know that there are not at least TEN righteous Muslims in the world (or an equivalent to ten in comparison of the two populations)? Would you maintain an attitude less charitable than God, even if what you allege IS true?

Pamela,

The problem is not going to be solved by taking polls ( a reference to your statistics?). The problems as with all religions are the foundations of said religions.

Once again, with respect to Islam:

Mohammed, an illiterate, hallucinating Arab, also had embellishing/hallucinating scribal biographers who not only added "angels" and flying chariots to the Koran but also a militaristic agenda to support the plundering and looting of the lands of non-believers. The agenda continues as witnessed by the conduct of the seven Muslim doctors in the UK, the 9/11 terrorists, the 24/7 Sunni suicide/roadside/market/mosque bombers , the 24/7 Shiite suicide/roadside/market/mosque bombers , the Bali crazies, the Kenya crazies, the Pakistani koranics, the Palestine suicide bombers/rocketeers, the Lebanese nutcases and the Filipino koranics i.e. a summary of the War on Terror-the Muslim "who are the bad guys" Problem.

Pamela,

Repeat 10 times, "There are/never were any angels". This will put you on the path to the reality of Islam.

Ross,

You say 'my aim is open the muslim eyes' I think your objective is to insult. As far I am concerned you can go to hell you redneck

Gandalf --

It is hard to assess the percentages of Muslims who believe in particular ways. For instance, on the recent Pew survey which has been discussed on this thread, one of the questions asked if the respondent believes the Qur'an is literally the word of God. A yes answer would seem to align the respondent with fundamentalist Christian views about the Bible. But the fact of the matter is that the Qur'an and the Bible are very different sorts of books, and to say that you believe the Qur'an is the actual word of God means something quite different than saying that you believe the Bible is the Word of God, so that perceived alignment would not necessarily exist in reality. This kind of false assumption of meaning can cloud the results of surveys.

So too when people are asked about controversial topics, different understandings of the question can cloud the meaning of the response. Say suicidal operations. Let us leave aside the case of the person who straps a bomb on their body and blows it up in the market place, and move to the case where a soldier or a platoon storm a beach knowing that hundreds of them are going to die. Their commander is willing to sacrifice those men, and perhaps even to risk the entire platoon being wiped out, for the advantage of holding the beach. The mission could be described as suicidal, especially if the odds of success aren't very good, yet we are not likely to call that a suicidal mission, and the commander is likely to be hailed as a hero if it succeeds, and perhaps commemorated post mortem as a brave soul if it fails. Is there a qualitative difference between the two, of course. But there are also some similarities that muddy the waters for many Muslims answering polls like the Pew survey. And, I would think, posing the above two scenarios to non-Muslims would also make them pause to think about how we define tactics that are ok, or not ok, and so on, what is suicidal and what is not. If you define the beach storming operation as suicidal, then the question takes on whole new parameters. The reason I raise this issue is because I have heard Muslims struggling with them here in the US -- they are clear that strapping a bomb on one's chest and blowing up a restaurant is horrific and unacceptable, but what about the beach storming -- that may be just as desperate an act, but it may be justified. More than that, they have struggled with where to draw the line. Again, I can't think of one person I've talked to who did not say civilians were off limits, particularly women and children, but there are grey areas around combatants and what may or may not consist of a suicidal mission, what may or may not be an acceptable tactic, whether the man has to be an active combatant or a soldier or if it is ok to attack potential combatants, and so on.

Either way, the number of Muslims who condone the archetypal terrorist attack, blowing up trains or buildings or markets is a very small percentage. The problem is when you are dealing with 5 billion + people, even 1 percent is a horribly huge number. :(

As for combatting -- there are several things we can do. 1) Muslims must challenge other Muslims on a one on one basis. At the same time, we need to have a wide ranging, frank, and hard hitting conversation within the greater community and with our traditional jurisprudence. 2) Developed nations must take action to alleviate the economic inequalities of the world, at to acknowledge that their economic prosperity came largely on the backs of free labor imported from Africa, and the exploitation of natural resources that enriched their countries, but did not enrich the countries where those resources were located. We can discuss till the cows come home as to how that played out and whether those resources would have gone undeveloped without Western industrial power, etc, etc, but the fact remains that there is a perception of injustice that is coloring relations between those who align themselves with the developing world and those who live in developed countries. With the various attacks since 2001 it is very clear that actually living in deprived conditions is not the key to the terrorist mentality, but identification with the injustices those countries have suffered through (from colonialism to natural resource exploitation to drug company profiteering and the huge economic imbalance of the world)(often through some personal contact or experience but not always) is essential. 3) political injustices/oppression must be ended. This one is more problematical because it's clear from any number of American military adventures that military solutions to political problems are not very effective.

Z Z Z Z Z Z *snort* ...oh, did you say something Ross?

Consider this Ross/Frank,

Native American Proverb: When you find you are riding a dead horse, the best strategy is to dismount and find a new one.

Back to my nap. You're practically a narcotic!

I think the one who is dogmatic and arrogant is the one that claims Christianity is the only true religion and there is only one path to God. Their proof is the quote attributed to Jesus, which can not be found anywhere else in the bible that says "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.” That is intolerance and I dare any Christian to say otherwise.

Ross is Frank Collins wrtoe:
You're practically a narcotic!

Again, does'nt matter what I am, my aim is open the muslim eyes to this evil called islam. A cult that is beheading, lashing or stoning people as we speak.... but you can continue napping.

I'm against hate not faith.

Re: ROSS is FRANK COLLINS

Even if I am Frank, Mo still remains a child molestor and islam still remains a wicked faith.

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

Muslim "song"

Islam's Not for Me

They try to tell me my religion is wrong
They try to tell me to follow Islam
They said their prophet was a righteous dude
But I found out none of their words were true
I read the Quran and I read the Hadith
And the sickness of Muhammad was apparent to me
He justified perversion in the name of Allah
When he married a girl too young for a bra
She was playing with dolls when the prophet came
Her childhood was stolen in Allah’s name
Aisha was nine when he took her to bed
Don’t tell me that fool’s not sick in the head
Ain’t gonna follow no child molester, sex offender, prophet pretender.
Aint gonna follow no child molester

Islam's not for me.
Islam's not for me.

The sickness of the Islamic mind
Has caused the Mullahs to be blind
To justify their prophet they would justify sin
So the sins of the prophet are repeated again
All over the world in Islamic states
9 year old girls suffer cruel fate
Sold into marriage to twisted men
And Aisha’s sad story is repeated again
Ain’t gonna follow no child molester, sex offender, prophet pretender.
Aint gonna follow no child molester,

Islam's not for me.
Islam's not for me.

Do you care about women all over the world?
Do you care about those little girls?
Then stand up and fight for human rights
Speak out against the laws of Islam
Ain’t gonna follow no child molester, sex offender, prophet pretender.
Aint gonna follow no child molester,

Islam's not for me.
Islam's not for me.
Islam's not for me.

Listen to it here:
http://www.jasoncoleman.com/BlogArchives/2005/11/in_case_you_wer_1.html

Concerned is not a myth, just a pretty wingie thingie...oh, never mind.

Take the first step and repeat ten times; "Concerned The Christian Now Liberated is a myth"!

Gators vs. Concerned The Christian Now Liberated

Gators are definitely not poets, but Concerned The Christian Now Liberated doesn't have the shame not to prove it.

I can see by the time of your posts that you really need an occupation. It would suit you much better than your ridiculous PREoccupation.

Poor Victoria, she still cannot see the myths in the foundations of her religion.

Victoria, read carefully, Gabriel did/does not exist. Mo was an illiterate, warmongering Arab who saw signficant profit in being a prophet aka fortune teller. You and your fellow Muslims must come to grips with these facts. Yes, indeed, you too can be part of the War against Terror by correcting the foundations of Islam and its current book of death aka the koran.

Take the first step and repeat ten times, angels are myths!!!!!!!!!

what the frenchy french are you on about now concerned?

are you that obsessed with what i think?

GANDALF- answer tomorrow

Muslim "poetry":

Seven Muslim, arsonists doctors in the UK,

the 9/11 terrorists,

the 24/7 Sunni suicide/roadside/market/mosque bombers ,

the 24/7 Shiite suicide/roadside/market/mosque bombers ,

the Bali crazies,

the Kenya crazies,

the Pakistani koranics,

the Palestine suicide bombers/rocketeers,

the Lebanese nutcases

and the Filipino koranics

i.e. a "poetic" summary of the War on Terror-the Muslim "who are the bad guys" Problem.

But Victoria continues with her Islamic "yackity yack" believing in angels and warmongering Arabs.

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

Anonymous @ 3:18 pm

I know this is a difficult question for you to answer, but do you think most muslims think the way you do or do they interpret quran in a way similar to that idiot fanatic Naik does?

its not that islam thinks it is the only true way, its that they torture and kill you if you dont think islam is the only true way.

I don’t know about Mr. Naik but I don’t agree with his dogmas and I sure don’t read verse 3:85 as he reads it. What I understand from the chapter and the Quran in general is that Islam means surrender to God and to his will and doing the right thing. Since God refers to Abraham as a Muslim, the term is not a title but a state of mind and of surrender to God and leading a righteous life. The following verses, 3:64-99, might shed some light on the subject and perhaps we can see if anyone arrives to the same conclusion Mr. Naik espouses.

Say: "O People of the Book! Come to common terms as between us and you:
That we worship none but God; that we associate no partners with him; that we erect not, from among ourselves, Lords and patrons other than God." If then they turn back, say ye: "Bear witness that we (at least) are Muslims (bowing to God’s Will).
O People of the Book! Why do you dispute about Abraham, when the Law [Torah] and the Gospel were not revealed till after him? Have you no understanding?
Ah! You are those who fell to disputing (Even) in matters of which you had some knowledge! But why do you dispute in matters of which you have no knowledge? It is God who knows, and ye who know not!
Abraham was not a Jew nor yet a Christian; but he was true in Faith, and bowed his will to God’s (Which is Islam) [Muslim], and he joined not gods with God.
Without doubt, among men, the nearest of kin to Abraham, are those who follow him, as are also this Messenger and those who believe: And God is the Protector of those who have faith.
It is the wish of a section of the People of the Book to lead you astray. But they shall lead astray (Not you), but themselves, and they do not perceive!
O People of the Book! Why do you reject the Signs of God, of which you are (yourselves) witnesses?
O People of the Book! Why do ye clothe truth with falsehood, and conceal the truth, while you have knowledge?
A section of the People of the Book say: "Believe in the morning what is revealed to the believers, but reject it at the end of the day; perchance they may (themselves) turn back;
"And believe no one unless he follows your religion." Say: "True guidance is the Guidance of God: (Fear ye) lest a revelation be sent to someone (else) Like unto that which was sent unto you? Or that those receiving such revelation should engage you in argument before your Lord?" Say: "All bounties are in the hand of God: He grants them to whom He pleases: And God cares for all, and He knows all things."
For His Mercy He specially chooses whom He pleases; for God is the Lord of bounties unbounded.
Among the People of the Book are some who, if entrusted with a hoard of gold, will (readily) pay it back; others, who, if entrusted with a single silver coin, will not repay it unless thou constantly stood demanding, because, they say, "there is no call on us (to keep faith) with these unlettered folk." but they tell a lie against God, and (well) they know it.
Nay, but God is aware of those who fulfils his promise, and are conscious of Him: and, verily, God loves those who are conscious of Him.

Behold, those who barter away their bond with God and their own pledges for a trifling gain - they shall not partake in the blessings of the life to come; and God will neither speak unto them nor look upon them on the Day of Resurrection, nor will He cleanse them of their sins; and grievous suffering awaits them.

There is among them a section who distort the Book with their tongues: (As they read) you would think it is a part of the Book, but it is no part of the Book; and they say, "That is from God," but it is not from God: It is they who tell a lie against God, and (well) they know it!
It is not possible that a man unto whom God had granted revelation, and sound judgment, and prophetic office, should thereafter have said unto people, "Worship me beside God"; but rather [did he exhort them], "Become men of God by spreading the knowledge of the divine writ, and by your own deep study [thereof]." And neither did he bid you to take the angels and the prophets for your lords: [for] would he bid you to deny the truth after you have surrendered yourselves unto God [muslinun]?
Behold! God took the covenant of the prophets, saying: "I give you a Book and Wisdom; then comes to you a messenger, confirming what is with you; do you believe in him and render him help." God said: "Do you agree, and take this my Covenant as binding on you?" They said: "We agree." He said: "Then bear witness, and I am with you among the witnesses."
If any turn back after this, they are perverted transgressors.
Do they seek for other than the Religion of God?-while all creatures in the heavens and on earth have, willing or unwilling, bowed to His Will [aslamu], and to Him shall they all be brought back.
Say: "We believe in God, and in what has been revealed to us and what was revealed to Abraham, Isma’il, Isaac, Jacob, and the Tribes, and in (the Books) given to Moses, Jesus, and the prophets, from their Lord: We make no distinction between one and another among them, and to God do we bow our will (in Islam) [mulimun]."
If anyone desires a religion other than Islam (submission to God), 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).
How shall God Guide those who reject Faith after they accepted it and bore witness that the Messenger was true and that Clear Signs had come unto them? but God guides not a people unjust.
Of such the reward is that on them (rests) the curse of God, of His angels, and of all mankind;-
In that will they dwell; nor will their penalty be lightened, nor respite be (their lot);-
Except for those that repent (Even) after that, and make amends; for verily God is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.
But those who reject Faith after they accepted it, and then go on adding to their defiance of Faith,- never will their repentance be accepted; for they are those who have (of set purpose) gone astray.
As to those who reject Faith, and die rejecting,- never would be accepted from any such as much gold as the earth contains, though they should offer it for ransom. For such is (in store) a penalty grievous, and they will find no helpers.
By no means shall you attain righteousness unless you give (freely) of that which you love; and whatever you give, of a truth God knows it well.
All food was lawful to the Children of Israel, except what Israel Made unlawful for itself, before the Law (of Moses) was revealed. Say: "Bring ye the Law(Torah) and study it, if ye be men of truth."
If any, after this, invent a lie and attribute it to God, they are indeed unjust wrong-doers.
Say: "God has spoken the truth: follow, then, the creed of Abraham, who turned away from all that is false, and was not of those who ascribe divinity to aught beside God."
Behold, the first house of worship ever set up for mankind was indeed the one at Bakkah [ Bakkah is synonymous with Mecca]: rich in blessing, and a source of guidance unto all the worlds, full of clear messages. It is the place whereon Abraham once stood; and whoever enters it finds inner peace. Hence, pilgrimage unto thereto is a duty owed to God by all people who are able to undertake it. And as for those who deny the truth - verily, God does not stand in need of anything in all the worlds.

Say: "O People of the Book! Why do you reject the Signs of God, when God is Himself witness to all that you do?"
Say: "O People of the Book! Why do you obstruct those who believe, from the path of God, Seeking to make it crooked, while you were yourselves witnesses (to God’s Covenant)? but God is not unmindful of all that you do." 3.64-99

That is some arrogant sob...that Zakir Naik! Does he reflect the arrogance of a religion per se...

I have a question for all the muslims on this forum and for Pam as well.

I agree not all muslims are crazy, fanatic and fundamentalists. But there is a big number (small percentage but big number) of them out there. I have provided an excerpt from a Zakir Naik interview (btw, this guy is a fundamentalist muslim and a doctor from India). I would again reiterate that not all muslims think this way! If they did, the rest of the world would be in deep (or should I say deeper) sh**!! If not, what can the world do to rid us of these fanatics? Is there anything in the islamic scriptures that makes islam more prone to misuse (if you will) by crazies?

Here's his interview (or part of it):

Interviewer: Here is a question from a non-Muslim from India. Are non-Muslims allowed to preach their religion and to build their places of worship in an Islamic state? If so, why is building of temples and churches disallowed in Saudi Arabia, whereas Muslims are building their mosques in London and Paris?

Zakir Naik: I ask the non-Muslims, suppose you are the principal of a school and you intend to select a mathematics teacher. Three candidates come and you ask them, what’s the total of 2 plus 2? The first replies: 2 plus 2 equals 3. The second answers: 2 plus 2 equals 4. And the third one answers that 2 plus 2 equals 6. Now, I ask these non-Muslims, will you allow the candidate to teach in your school who says that 2 plus 2 equals 3 or that 2 plus 2 equals 6? They’ll say, no. I ask, why? They’ll say, because he does not have correct knowledge of mathematics. Similarly, as far as matters of religion are concerned we (Muslims) know for sure that only Islam is a true religion in the eyes of God. In the Holy Quran (3:85), it is mentioned that God will never accept any religion other than Islam. As far as the second question, regarding building of churches or temples is concerned, how can we allow this when their religion is wrong and when their worshipping is wrong? Therefore, we will not allow such wrong things in our Islamic country.

Interviewer: But is it not that they (non-Muslims) also think that their religion is true, whereas we (Muslims) think that our religion is true?

Zakir Naik: In religious matters only we know for sure that we Muslims are right. They (non-Muslims) are not sure. Thus, in our country we can’t allow preaching other religions because we know for sure that only Islam is the right religion. However, if a non-Muslim likes to practise his religion in an Islamic country, he can do so inside his home — but he can’t propagate his religion. It is exactly as if a teacher thinks in his mind that 2 plus 2 equals 3. He has the right to do so, but we can never allow such a person to teach this to our children. Non-Muslims are no doubt experts in science and technology. But they (non-Muslims) are not sure about religious truths. Therefore, we are trying to get them to the right path of Islam.”

no ian, it means hindu killer-
it has nothing to do with war- but refers to the mountain range which are impossible to travail.

it has nothing to do with hindus at all.
it refers (in the persian language) to hindustan- the REGION. and kosh means mountain.

the nickname refers to the (as mentioned above)
treachery of the terrain.

i read the site you got your misinformation and it starts out with a lie.,staing the national geographic and ALL encyclopedias agree with it.

you must reasearch what you pesent as fact.

i googled several encyclopedias and none held thecontention of the questionable site.

i just searched through the national geographic, and there was no hindu killer mentioned anywhere-

and hindu "slaughter" is simply a sensationalized term made up by the author of your site.

why dont you read, instead-
the link provided by LQTM- it is written by a hindu and expresses very reasoned and balanced ideas.

citing sites by haters, and propogating their hatred on these boards- is specifically what were trying to avoid here

The Prophet lived a most simple, austere and modest life. He and his family used to go without cooked meal several days at a time, relying only on dates, dried bread and water. During the day he was the busiest man, as he performed his duties in many roles all at once as head of state, chief justice, commander-in-chief, arbitrator, instructor and family man. He was the most devoted man at night. He used to spend one- to two-thirds of every night in prayer and meditation. All of his children died before his death except Fatima who died six months after his death.

The Prophet’s possession consisted of mats, blankets, jugs and other simple things even when he was the virtual ruler of Arabia. He left nothing to be inherited except a white mule (a gift), few ammunition and a piece of land that he had made a gift during his life time.

"Any kiddie in school can love like a fool,/But hating, my boy, is an art."

Ogden Nash's "Plea for Less Malice Toward None"

I just read this at New Statesman in an article on Amartya Sen's new book, "Identity and Violence."

http://www.newstatesman.com/200607310036

Why does it appear to be so easy for formenters of hate to reduce people from "multidimensional human beings to one-dimensional creatures"?

I'm afraid this question will NEVER be addressed in this forum..

ill shout poetry all i want!

who are you to tell me what to say?

ill say what i want!

I'd be interested in reading some poetry from Concerned. Verse might, at least, make some of those posts interesting.

pam

the word Hindu Kush in afghanistan means hindu slaughter...where over 100 000 hindus were killed
(cleansed)by muslims.There are now only five hindu families left in afghanistan.This is only a minute percentage of hindus SLAUGHTERED by muslims during their invasion of the sub continent.(estimated 80 million hindu death).
You should be ashamed of yourself by refering to the muslim butchery in India in such a frivilous manner.(please study history..especially those from muslim sources themselves.)

ogden nash!
thanks danny b-

youre right of course, carroll has death approaching with a smile often, doesnt he.

Victoria,

Instead of shouting poetry, you should SHOUT, THERE WAS NO GABREIL, MOHAMMED WAS A ILLITERATE, WARMONGERING ARAB WHO PULLED THE PROPHET CON GAME FOR THE SAKE OF PROFIT!!!!!!!!

...and speaking of Lewis Carroll and crocodiles:

How doth the little crocodile
Improve his shining tail,
And pour the waters of the Nile
On every golden scale!

How cheerfully he seems to grin
How neatly spreads his claws,
And welcomes little fishes in,
With gently smiling jaws!

Victoria,

Yay! I love that one, but I think it is Ogden Nash (please, don't think me a "Professor Twist"). HA!

FOR JIHADIST

i think this is lewis carroll

I GIVE YOU NOW PROFESSOR TWIST
A CONSCIENTIOUS SCIENTIST
TRUSTEES EXCLAIM,"HE NEVER BUNGLES!"
AND SHIPPED HIM OFF TO FAR OFF JUNGLES.
CAMPED ON A TROPIC RIVERSIDE,
ONE DAY HE MISSED HIS LOVING BRIDE.
"SHE HAD", THE GUIDE INFORMED HIM LATER
"BEEN EATEN BY AN ALLIGATOR"
PROFESSOR TWIST COULD NOT BUT SMILE.
"YOU MEAN" HE SAID," A CROCODILE!"

now youre just beng silly ross.
Muhammad is the most popular name in the entire world.
also, the SUNNAH or the actions of the Prophet(pbuh) provide ample substantiation of his existence, as if the qu'ran is not enough.

NO SUCH THING AS A LIBERAL ISLAMIC
to be liberal or progressive they would have to reject parts of the koran. if they did that they would not be islamic anymore.

Concerned,

The previous post was mine.

Concerned wrote:
Jihadist again you and all "liberal" Muslims can start the ball rolling by questioning the Muslim hierarchy, as it is, about "pretty wingie talking thingies", "demons of the demented", prophets ("profits") vs. "fortune" tellers, the warmongering agenda of Mohammed and his scribes and what really happened 1400 years ago. We, Christians (e.g. Professors Crossan, Borg and Fredriksen) are doing this with our religion (as noted many, many times on these commentary pages to include putting B16's "theology" in proper context) and again is time for Islam to do the same with its religion. Without some major changes in your operating manual i.e. the koran aka the book of death, the spiraling Islamic terror will continue.

The hurdle towards the reformation is islam is to recognise the fact that Islam is not a religion but a cult. Cults are exponentially more difficult to reform than religions.

Islamic Exorcism : Mo is now a jinn !!!

Here is an exorcism performed by Dr. Shaikh Abu Ibrahim Abdul Majid Ali Hasan Bapu is a well known preacher who gained prominence in the city of Ajman in the United Arab Emirates. His Friday sermons in English are famous for drawing Muslims from different parts of the country.

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

Interview With an Exorcist

----------------------------------------------
Name: Abdul Majeed Ali Hasan
Profession: Imam and Khateeb in the Ministry of Islamic Affairs for the U.A.E Government

Q: Describe one case of exorcism, which you may have performed.

A: Al-hamdulillah, I have cured many people who were severely possessed by Jinn. One of them was in the year 1996, when in my Masjid after delivering the Friday sermon, a young man was brought to me who was suffering from severe neck pain. The people who brought him to me said that he was unable to straighten his neck after 12.00 pm, and he would shout very loudly due to severe pain. On the first day, I recited over him, Soorah al-Fatihah, the first chapter of the Quran, and Aayat al-Kursee (Soorah al-Baqarah (2): 255) seven times. The man regained his health and walked out of the mosque with no pain at all.

The next day, he was again brought to the Masjid complaining of the same neck pain. I took him to my house and recited Soorah al-Fatihah, Aayat al-Kursee, few verses of Soorah al-Jinn, Soorah an-Nas, Soorah al-Falaq, Soorah al-Ikhlas and Soorah al-Kafirun. After a while the man started to fall asleep and snore like a lion, I stopped the recitation and asked him to be returned back to his house. Suddenly, he started to utter some words in Arabic, which were not clear to me. Once more I started the recitation of Soorah al-Jinn and he shouted: "Do not read it... it burns me inside." I asked him his name, he replied: "Muhammad." I was shocked because Muhammad was not the name of the man possessed… it was the Jinn speaking. Al-hamdulillah, I asked Allah's Help and made Dawah to him. I explained to him the importance of his name and that it is wrong on the part of a Muslim to hurt his Muslim brothers. I inquired about the reason why he possessed the man and he said: "This man urinated on my head in the Rasal Kahimah Roundabout." This Roundabout is very close to my Masjid, where people usually gather and sit.

I then requested him to forgive the man, since his act was unintentional and he did not see the Jinn. Al-hamdulillah, he agreed to leave the body and work as a good Muslim. He also promised to never hurt anybody after this, and establish regular prayers. Then, he left… Al-hamdulillah

http://www.geocities.com/minutesage1/exorcist.html

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

Why does he ask this jinn called Mohammed to forgive the man ?????

Victoria:
hadith is not the source of islam.
the quran is.
hadith is what PEOPLE SAY the Prophet(pbuh) said.
some of them are very ugly and clearly written by PEOPLE who hated the Prophet or islam.
which is the nonsense frank posts.

Hadiths are an important source of islam, without the hadiths there is no evidence that Mo existed or is a prophet. The problem is some of the so called moderate muslims are just too embarrassed by the deeds of their murdering paedohile so it is easier blaming the hadiths and their authors !

Make that " we need to hope THERE are other "liberal" Muslims WHO do not fear Islamic death squads".

There goes the Jihadist again, trying to change the subject of major concern i.e. The foundation of Islam and its koran and the terror it continues to wreak over the world. the seven Muslim doctors in the UK, the 9/11 terrorists, the 24/7 Sunni suicide/roadside/market/mosque bombers , the 24/7 Shiite suicide/roadside/market/mosque bombers , the Bali crazies, the Kenya crazies, the Pakistani koranics, the Palestine suicide bombers/rocketeers, the Lebanese nutcases and the Filipino koranics i.e. a summary of the War on Terror-the Muslim "who are the bad guys" Problem.

Jihadist again you and all "liberal" Muslims can start the ball rolling by questioning the Muslim hierarchy, as it is, about "pretty wingie talking thingies", "demons of the demented", prophets ("profits") vs. "fortune" tellers, the warmongering agenda of Mohammed and his scribes and what really happened 1400 years ago. We, Christians (e.g. Professors Crossan, Borg and Fredriksen) are doing this with our religion (as noted many, many times on these commentary pages to include putting B16's "theology" in proper context) and again is time for Islam to do the same with its religion. Without some major changes in your operating manual i.e. the koran aka the book of death, the spiraling Islamic terror will continue.

But Jihadist, you yourself apparently cannot even come to grips with there being no Gabriel so we need to hope their are indeed some other "liberal" Muslims that do not fear Islamic death squads and will as noted above, START THE BALL ROLLING, to correct the ills of the koran.

Victoria

Concerned stated : "At least B16 has not enlisted any terrorists to further his cause of "sole soul" salvation and/or a return to the language of the Roman Slave Empire. Of course, his operating manual preaches peace on earth unlike the Muslim book of death."

Is B16 a bomber?

Concerned speaks of his own faith like it is a car or electical equipment with words like "operating manual". It seems that he still wants to save the souls of Muslims for not being Catholics.

I am not too sure about some Catholics not feeling terrorized or oppressed by B16. My Catholic friends in the third world from Brazil to the Philippines do feel the Vatican is out of touch with them. Too white, too European, too male, too rich to understand them. Like Concerned.

So, let Concerned state what he wants in On Faith. As you know, Vatican II is rather ambivalent about Islam and Muslims, on one hand calling for cooperation, on the other hand, somewhat seeing Islam as a competing faith.

I can understand Pope Benedict asserting the core belief re the divinity of Christ and the Trinity as expressed in his book, "Jesus of Nazareth". It is the dogma, the tenet of beliefs of Catholics and Christians.

I can understand Pope Benedict introducing Latin in Mass for prayers as express by Viejita Del Oeste and several other Catholics in the On Faith threads.

But now the Vatican seems to consider other Christian churches as "wounded", I think the Pope/Vatican has drawn so many lines of who are on the "wrong side" of beliefs. Not a very edifying development to draw the line even with other Christians of non-Catholic denominations. Much less non-Christians.

Best regards as ever and until next time my friend.

J

Wiccan, Viejita Del Oeste,

Thank you for sharing your beautiful prayers here - brevis oratio penetrat caelum.

Best regards as ever and until next time:)

J

Oh jeez Concerned:)

Don't you take time off for weekends? Lucky you, for being a retired person with lots of time on your hands.

I am not too sure anymore if you are a "Catholic of Reality" or "Catholic of Denial" on the needs and concerns of lay Catholics, not only in the US but much less the wider world.

You can't even respond to what is happening within you own church and the issues before it right now, but to deflect and focus on Islam and Muslims. It is a bridge too far for you my friend, and what more for you to ever learn to build bridges. Build walls! Raise the ramparts! Batten the hatches! Lock and load! Happy? :)

Here I am, fretting about the needs and concerns of lay Catholics in Third World countries who just want to get on with getting a better life for themselves. You are ignoring their needs.

No wonder third world Catholics are more comfortable working with non-Catholics, and even Muslims, in pursuit of poverty alleviation, better access to health and education, and population control than with their North American and European fellow Catholics.

Now, about being brainwashed. A projection of your own experience? And assuming all are like that? And now reduced to name calling? Surely that is not the best you can come up with? Gators? For a start, we only have crocodiles in Asia and Africa, not alligators. Alligators have shorter snouts and stockier bodies. Crocodiles are more streamlined. Get you geography and animals right.

Ah, yes, since the year 2000, I have been making a personal annual contribution the equivalent of US $500 to a Brazilian NGO associated with Liberation Theologist since a Brazilian banker friend who supported it told me about what they are doing and why. A very, very small sum, but a token of support for common cause. Viva Liberation Theologists!

And yes, I am happily on the wrong side of you and Pope Benedict for supporting the work the Liberation Theologists in honour of Jesus, one of the most lauded figures in Islam. Jesus, after all, is about love, faith, hope and charity. And what the Liberation Theologists do is very close to what Jesus taught and lead by example.

Frank Collins:)

I have no comment on what you have to say, including your frequent statements about nuking Medina and Mecca. Most Christians I know are not like you at all. I'll leave you to your rants as always.

And fellas, I won't be responding to your subsequent and productive posts. Am going off on the road again.

May God be with you both always.

Some clarification on Surah 6 ayah 74 by Muhammad Asad:

* v.74 : [...] In the Bible, the name of Abraham’s father is given not as āzar but as Tûrah (the Tārah or Tārakh of the early Muslim genealogists). However, he seems to have been known by other names (or designations) as well, all of them obscure as to origin and meaning. Thus, in various Talmudic stories he is called Zārah, while Eusebius Pamphili (the ecclesiastical historian who lived towards the end of the third and the beginning of the fourth century of the Christian era) gives his name as Athar. Although neither the Talmud nor Eusebius can be regarded as authorities for the purposes of a Qur’ān-commentary, it is not impossible that the designation āzar (which occurs in the Qur’ān only once) is the pre-Islamic, Arabicized form of Athar or Zārah.

victoria,

Chapter SIX.verse 74 says 'Lo!Abraham said to his father Azar...'
Chapter 6.verse 74 'Lo!Abraham said to his father Azar...'

Azar was the servant of Abraham,not his father.
His father name was Terah,not Azar.

The bible is full of Contradictions and therefore can not be trusted as source of information.

The Creation Account:

In chapter one of Genesis, God is said to have created plants on the third day (Genesis 1:12-13), with animals being created on the fifth and sixth day (Genesis 1:20-25). Man was made after all these, on the sixth day (Genesis 1:26-31). However, in the very next chapter, the Bible contradicts itself by explicitly noting that man was created before the plants and animals.

Created Before the Plants:

Genesis 2:4-7 In the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens, when no plant of the field was yet in the earth and no herb of the field had yet sprung up for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was no man to till the ground; but a mist went up from the earth and watered the whole face of the ground then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.

Created before the animals:

Genesis 2:18-19 Then the LORD God said, "It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him." So out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the air, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called every living creature, that was its name.

The difference between the above two accounts cannot be more explicit.

In Genesis 1:12 it was noted that the land had already produced vegetation on the third day, three days before the creation of man. Yet in Genesis 2:5, no shrub or plant had even grown when man was created.

Furthermore in Genesis 1:20-25, we are told that the animals were created on the fifth and sixth day of creation, all before man; yet in Genesis 2:18-19, they were created explicitly to find man a companion! Thus within the first couple of chapters of the Bible contradictions already exist.

The Flood Account:

Our second example also comes from Genesis, this time from the story of Noah’s ark. In the first set of verses, God commanded Noah to bring a single pair or every animal into the ark:

Genesis 6:19-20
"And of every living thing of all flesh, you shall bring two of every sort into the ark, to keep them alive with you; they shall be male and female. Of the birds according to their kinds, and of the animals according to their kinds, of every creeping thing of the ground according to its kind, two of every sort shall come in to you, to keep them alive."

The wording here is very specific that each and every kind of animals was sent to the ark in pairs. However, a few verses later, a different commandment from God was recorded:

Genesis 7:2-3
“Take with you seven pairs of all clean animals, the male and his mate; and a pair of the animals that are not clean, the male and his mate; and seven pairs of the birds of the air also, male and female, to keep their kind alive upon the face of all the earth. "

Again we have another obvious contradiction staring at us. Genesis 6:19-20 says there are to be two of every kind of birds and no separation is made between clean and unclean animals, the word every before the kind of animal excludes the possibility, yet Genesis &;2-3 says that there are to be seven of every kind of birds and seven pairs of every kinds of clean animals.

The Slaying of Goliath:

Any child with an exposure to Christian education would have heard of the story of David and Goliath. David was the Hebrew hero who slew the Philistine giant Goliath. This story comes from the first book of Samuel:

I Samuel 17:23, 50
the champion, the Philistine of Gath, Goliath by name...David prevailed over the Philistine with a sling and with a stone and struck the Philistine and killed him.

In the second book of Samuel we have an entirely different account of the slaying of Goliath:

II Samuel 21:19
And there was again war with the Philistines at Gob; and Elhanan the son of Joareoregim, the Bethlehemite, slew Goliath the Gittite.

Gittite means "man of Gath". So it is the same Goliath that was described as being slain in both I and II Samuel. In the former, David was the giant killer, in the latter it was Elhanan. So at least one of these verses must be false. Who slew Goliath: David or Elhanan? This inconsistency was so obvious to the translators for the King James Bible (or "The Authorized Version") that in an act of dishonest piety they actually rewrote the verse in II Samuel 21:19 to read as
Elhanan, the son of Joareoregim, the Bethlehemite, slew the brother of Goliath the Gittite.

Of course, the words "the brother of" are not found in the ancient manuscripts and has been supplied by the translators from a similar verse in the Bible (I Chronicles 20:5). Whatever the case may be, the fact remains that there exists two contradictory accounts of the slaying of Goliath in the Bible.

ross- youre trying to be tricky- i did not say hadiths.

i said qu'ran.

hadith is not the source of islam.
the quran is.

hadith is what PEOPLE SAY the Prophet(pbuh) said.

some of them are very ugly and clearly written by PEOPLE who hated the Prophet or islam.

which is the nonsense frank posts.

halozcel-
i dont know what nonsensical site you got your misinformation from.

first of all there are 56 ayats in sura 74.

NOT ONE MENTIONS THE NAME OF ABRAHAM!! HIS FATHER, OR ANYONE!

you cant just make things up.

http://www.submission.org/suras/sura74.html

anyone can read this and see the truth.

it is ironic that it describes in this sura the characteristics of those who refute the qu'ran.

i will not waste any more time arguing with foolishness.

Profane expletives against Islam, spray-painted multiple times in red across Hasib Sejfovic's house on a quiet Sarasota street, shock people who drive by.

When people see the words, and the burned shell of the Sejfovic home on Avila Avenue, just south of University Parkway, they slow their cars to stare.

"This is on the severe end of the hate crimes that have occurred in our state so far," Ahmed Bedier, executive director of the Tampa Council on American-Islamic Relations, said as he toured the site Friday.

None of the damage or graffiti has been cleaned up, pending completion of police and insurance investigations, Bedier said.

On July 6, one or more persons set a fire that charred the inside of the house while the family was on vacation, Sarasota Fire Marshal Jack Shireman said.

The case is being treated as arson, Shireman said.

Bedier said the epithets, which also were sprayed on the floor of every room inside the house and on almost all the outside walls, constitute a hate crime of such magnitude that CAIR has called on the FBI to investigate.

No arrests have been made, and the investigation was continuing, Sarah Kenniff, a Sarasota County Sheriff's Office spokeswoman, said Friday.

On Friday, the Sejfovics came to their home for the second or third time since the fire, and noticed the phrase "kill all Arabs" sprayed on the floor.

The Sejfovics are not Arab. They are originally from Bosnia, part of the former Yugoslavia.

When they came from Bosnia in 2001, that country was still recovering from a bitter civil war, when several parts of Yugoslavia broke away to become independent countries.

Many Muslims were killed during that war, victims of ethnic cleansing.

Sejfovic says he is unsure how he was singled out.

"They must have read my name on the mailbox," Sejfovic said, shrugging his shoulders.

Other writings on the floor and walls included crosses sprayed in red paint and "F--- Alla."

The Sejfovics said they don't want any help for the loss of their furnishings and their possessions. They are hard-working people.

Hasib Sejfovic has worked for six years as an equipment operator at the Longboat Key Club golf course.

"Everyone there wants to help us, but we say we will be OK," Sedefa Sejfovic, Hasib's wife, said Friday.

They say their insurance company, Citizens, will reimburse them. At least they hope so. Everything is being left as it is, including the ugly words outside the house, until law enforcement and the insurance company finish their investigations, Hasib Sejfovic said.

The family was sponsored to come to the United States by members of Unitarian Universalist Church of Sarasota in 2001. The Sejfovics are proud to say they are members of that church and the local Sarasota mosque, Sedefa Sejfovic said.

The Sejfovics have three sons: Samir, Suad and Sayad.

The incident doesn't sour Hasib Sejfovic on America.

"These were not Americans," Sejfovic said. "They were bad people." By RICHARD DYMOND
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b-Me4ykDG8E

Rodney,

If you want to know islam read the original islamic sources i.e. quran and the hadiths, that's where Frank (and all the anti islam posters) get all their quotes from.

'You want to know what islam brought?'
Social justice(!)
For the Allah sake,can you show any islamic country where 'social justice' exists ?

'Equality of all humans-regardless of sex,skin color,social status.
For the Allah sake,can you write any islamic country where 'equality of man-womam' exists ?

'If you want to know about islam,ask a muslim'.No,ask a convert muslim,because they know much better islam then 'real muslim'.

'Investigate yourself and find good source'.
Yes,Cattle chapter 74 says 'Lo!Abraham said to his father Azar...',but the name of Abraham's father was Terah,not Azar.Azar was the servant of Abraham,not father.
Isnt it an absolute mistake ?

Victoria,

You noted: "you want to know what islam brought?

Well recently:

Seven Muslim terror doctors in the UK, the 9/11 terrorists, the 24/7 Sunni suicide/roadside/market/mosque bombers , the 24/7 Shiite suicide/roadside/market/mosque bombers , the Bali crazies, the Kenya crazies, the Pakistani koranics, the Palestine suicide bombers/rocketeers, the Lebanese nutcases and the Filipino koranics i.e. a summary of the War on Terror-the Muslim "who are the bad guys" Problem.

At least B16 has not enlisted any terrorists to further his cause of "sole soul" salvation and/or a return to the language of the Roman Slave Empire. Of course, his operating manual preaches peace on earth unlike the Muslim book of death.

And Victoria you continue your Muslim "yackity yack" still not being able to come to grips with the reason for this Islamic terror i.e. the foundations of Islam!!!!!!!

rodney- dont listen to strangers on a blog-
read for yourself-
mohammed by martin ling is an easily understood good read that gives a good historical account-

im not sure where you got some ofyour ideas about islam, but this idea that islam was an improvement over the idol worship at the time is just not a muslim perspective-

you want to know what islam brought?

social justice
equality of all humans- regardless of sex, skin color, social status.

the largest gathering of human beings on the planet occurs every year at the pilgrimage to mecca-

everyone there dons the same white clothing- heads of state next to dishwashers, and no one knows who is who- they are all completely equal and there for one purpose- to worship god.

most of the information frank is giving you is ywisted lies.

if you want to know about islam- ask a muslim
if you want to know about christianity, ask a christian.

if you want an excuse to hate someone- listen to haters.

you can even read the quran yourself, and fins out what it says.

dont listen to me, frank or anyone.
investigate yourself and find good sources.
even go back on these boards and read blogs by muslim panelists.

'Spy animals' are not first.

-Pigeons had been used by French intelligence during WWII.
-Hens used against 'chemical weapons' in Kuwait in the First Gulf War.
-Mouses as spy studied by English MI5.
-Dogs used against German Panzers in WWII.
-Dolphins being trained by USA against enemy submarines.
-White Whales bred by Russians as spy.

Glad you liked it, Frank. It has created lots of blogchatter:

"Police in Iran are reported to have taken 14 squirrels into custody - because they are suspected of spying."

"You just wait, Ahmedinejad—wait until we release the hamsters!"

"Unleashing the Badgers of War"

My personal favorite:

"With most of the blogosphere chuckling at the news that Iran has ‘detained’ 14 spying squirrels, blogolob decided to dig deeper.

In an exclusive interview with a British Intelligence source who has requested that he not be named, blogolob has learnt that specially trained spy squirrels were indeed sent into Iran but, even more astonishingly, the British military sent in giant badgers to eliminate further squirrels that had been sent into Southern Iraq but had been ‘turned’ by al Qaeda animal training cells.

The squirrels sent into Iran had been trained to detect nuclear facilities and to indicate their locations using trails of radioactive acorns. Our source admitted that 14 of the squirrels have been intercepted by a crack Iranian counter-squirrel unit but had this message for the Iranian president:

“We sent 15 trained squirrels, Ahmadinejad. One of them is still out there.”

Meanwhile, of the Iraqi squirrels, our source admitted:

“We had not expected al Qaeda to have such sophisticated squirrel turning technology but we believe the equipment was obtained in the US. We had to send in the honey badgers but were not fully prepared for the consequences. The badgers were trained to go after the squirrels, we didn’t expect them to terrorize the Iraqi population. Still, we had no choice - the squirrels knew too much.”

There is even a youtube of a honey badger:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article2059824.ece

I may have to change my name from:

LQTM -laughing quietly to myself to

ROTFLMAO

i love the squirl story. and that part about spying equipment was the best. notice no one showed a picture of the equipment. i bet they were little iphones with virtural keyboards and head sets so the rodents could use the inet and talk to each other in squirl - a code that is unbreakable by anyone.
but the squirl with the machine gun, the little m60- with tiney bullets - hey that was good too. he was there to provide support and cover for the others.
the secret is out now.

what's next?

maneating badgers and spy squirrels..

http://www.anorak.co.uk/twitterings/175184.html

"Evolution of Arabic (Roman) Numerals from India

A close investigation of the Vedic system of mathematics shows that it was much more advanced than the mathematical systems of the civilizations of the Nile or the Euphrates. The Vedic mathematicians had developed the decimal system of tens, hundreds, thousands, etc. where the remainder from one column of numbers is carried over to the next. The advantage of this system of nine number signs and a zero is that it allows for calculations to be easily made. Further, it has been said that the introduction of zero, or sunya as the Indians called it, in an operational sense as a definite part of a number system, marks one of the most important developments in the entire history of mathematics. The earliest preserved examples of the number system which is still in use today are found on several stone columns erected in India by King Ashoka in about 250 B.C. Similar inscriptions are found in caves near Poona (100 B.C.) and Nasik (200 A.D.). These earliest Indian numerals appear in a script called brahmi.

After 700 A.D. another notation, called by the name "Indian numerals," which is said to have evolved from the brahmi numerals, assumed common usage, spreading to Arabia and from there around the world. When Arabic numerals (the name they had then become known by) came into common use throughout the Arabian empire, which extended from India to Spain, Europeans called them "Arabic notations," because they received them from the Arabians. However, the Arabians themselves called them "Indian figures" (Al-Arqan-Al-Hindu) and mathematics itself was called "the Indian art" (hindisat).

Evolution of "Arabic numerals" from Brahmi
(250 B.C.) to the 16th century.

Mastery of this new mathematics allowed the Muslim mathematicians of Baghdad to fully utilize the geometrical treatises of Euclid and Archimedes. Trigonometry flourished there along with astronomy and geography. Later in history, Carl Friedrich Gauss, the "prince of mathematics," was said to have lamented that Archimedes in the third century B.C. had failed to foresee the Indian system of numeration; how much more advanced science would have been.
Prior to these revolutionary discoveries, other world civilizations-the Egyptians, the Babylonians, the Romans, and the Chinese-all used independent symbols for each row of counting beads on the abacus, each requiring its own set of multiplication or addition tables. So cumbersome were these systems that mathematics was virtually at a standstill. The new number system from the Indus Valley led a revolution in mathematics by setting it free. By 500 A.D. mathematicians of India had solved problems that baffled the world's greatest scholars of all time. Aryabhatta, an astronomer mathematician who flourished at the beginning of the 6th century, introduced sines and versed sines-a great improvement over the clumsy half-cords of Ptolemy. A.L. Basham, foremost authority on ancient India, writes in The Wonder That Was India,

Medieval Indian mathematicians, such as Brahmagupta (seventh century), Mahavira (ninth century), and Bhaskara (twelfth century), made several discoveries which in Europe were not known until the Renaissance or later. They understood the import of positive and negative quantities, evolved sound systems of extracting square and cube roots, and could solve quadratic and certain types of indeterminate equations." Mahavira's most noteworthy contribution is his treatment of fractions for the first time and his rule for dividing one fraction by another, which did not appear in Europe until the 16th century."

here is what i get from the above story.

these 4 guys took the kid and killed him, then they told people that they were passing on his commands to them, which made them all the bmoc - big man on campus.
then they began to die off. well they could hardly tell people that they had been giving them a line of crap all these years and the people had to think of something. well islamics do what they always do, they stole an idea.
they decided to steal the story of jesus rising from the dead but since the kids had already been dead for some time they could not say here he is, so they said - ok some day he will come back, like jesus is supposed to do for a second time.
did i say steal something?
how about every inch of land they have - their history is one of theft.
how about zero?
would it surprise anyone to learn that zero was not an islamic thought - it was an indian concept, long before islam pretended it was theirs. google it. the indians firt conceptualized it around 400 ad.
and you know when islam talks about the golden age of islam, notice how that only happened when they were invading other lands and stealing those ideas from others?
oh, you think im wrong? ok, now that islam is not being very successful in its wars of conquest of other lands, any new thoughts from them, any new golden age without conquest?
just wondering.

here is the history of islam and the use of the term imam. it violates islam to call her by that title, as she must first be a shia, and then in line with ali.

Islam at its very origins divides into two major sects; this division arose not out of any doctrinal or interpretive question, but over the question of who should succeed Muhammed the prophet as both the secular and spiritual leader of Islam. It is this quetion that lies at the heart of the split between Shi'a and Sunni Islam, though Shi'a has developed into an intellectually and spiritually different religion than the majority Sunni sect. The secular leader of Islam was designated Caliph, or successor to the prophet. But there was also the question of spiritual leadership, and the Shi'a, who never recognized Abu Bakr or his successors as Caliphs, instead recognized 'Ali and his descendants as the Imams, or spiritual leaders, of Islam.

Upon Muhammed's death, a hastily collected group of prominent Muslim leaders elected Muhammed's father in law, Abu Bakr, to be the secular head of Islam. However, 'Ali, Muhammed's son-in-law and cousin, was not part of this committee nor were other members of Muhammed's immediate family, and many believed that Muhammed had designated 'Ali as a successor, for the Traditions had Muhammed naming him as both his brother and his successor. 'Ali had been raised with Muhammed and was the second person (after Muhammed's wife Khadija) to recognize Muhammed's role as a prophet; he was the first of Muhammed's tribe to declare himself an apostle (rasul ). But the Meccan and Medinan leaders, with no members of Muhammed's house present, gave their allegiance to Abu Bakr as CalipH and attempted through force of arms to coerce 'Ali into acknowledging Abu Bakr as well. However, during the Caliphates of Abu Bakr and his successor, 'Umar, not only did 'Ali not advance any claims to the Caliphate, he even participated in the government of 'Umar. It was not until the Caliphate passed to 'Uthman, who ruled somewhat degenerately and was a member of the Umayya family, which had fiercely fought against Muhammed during his lifetime, that 'Ali was provoked into accepting the Caliphate. 'Uthman placed members of his family in charge of various provinces and they ruled disgracefully; various rebel factions, seeing their grievances unredressed, attacked 'Uthman's house and assassinated him. The prominent families of Medina and other areas persuaded 'Ali to become Caliph, which he did in 656; 'Ali had become the fourth Caliph of Islam and the first Imam of Shi'a Islam.
However, the Umayyads in charge of the various governments would not accept this arrangement and rose up in rebellion; eventually, 'Ali would be forced to flee Medina and settle in Kufa in Iraq—central Iraq would become the center of Shi'a Islam for several hundred years. 'Ali would eventually have to contend with dissension in his own army while fighting the Umayyads; after defeating these dissenters in battle, he would be assassinated a few years later by one of them in revenge for this defeat.

From this point onwards, authority was divided in the Islamic world. The Umayyads continued to pass the Caliphate down through the ages among their family; but their now existed in Iraq a separate Islamic community that did not recognize the authority of the Umayyad Caliphs. Rather they recognized only the successors to 'Ali as authorities, and they gave these successors the title Imam, or spiritual leader of Islam, both to differentiate their leaders from the more worldly and secular Umayyads and because Abu Muhammed Hasan ibn 'Ali, the second Imam, ceded the Caliphate to the Umayyads. A grand total of ten Imams succeeded 'Ali, passing the Imamate down to their sons in hereditary succession. However, the eleventh Imam, Hasan al-Askari, died without a son, and the Shi'ites were thrown into disarray. Shi'a Islam divided into several different sects, the most important of which was the Qat'iyya ("those who are certain"). The Qat'iyya believed that Hasan al-Askari did indeed have a son, Muhammed al-Mahdi; one of the Qat'iyya sects believed that Muhammed al-Mahdi, the twelfth Imam, had hidden himself and remained in hiding. This sect was called Ithna-'Ashari (Twelver) or Imami (Imam) Shi'a, and was the form of Shi'a that eventually came to exclusively represent Shi'ism.

The Imamate is the central aspect of Shi'ite Islam. At no time in human history has the world been bereft of an Imam who serves as both a guide (Hadi ) to humans and a Proof of God (Hujjat Allah ) and a Sign of God (Ayyat Allah ). The Imams span history from Adam to the present day; the Imams, according to Shi'ites, were a light created before the creation—this light was the instrument of creation. The Imam has secret knowledge of God and creation; the most important of these secrets is "The Greatest Name of God." The Imams are designated or appointed by God (mansus ), they are free from all sin or fault (ma'shum ), and they are the most perfect of humans (afdal an-nas ). But above all, the Imam is the one who teaches human beings the mystical truths of the universe; it is throught the Imam that the esoteric, mystical aspects of God are transmitted to human beings.

However, in Twelver Shi'a, the twelfth Imam, Muhammed al-Mahdi, hid himself way as a boy when his father, the Imam Hasan al-Askari, died in 874 A.D.. This, in Shi'a, is called the doctrine of "occultation" (ghayba ). He hid himself in a well within a cave because of the threats to his life by his enemies, and remained in communication with the "four agents," each succeeding the other, until 941. This period, in which the Hidden Imam was in contact with the rest of humanity through these agents who passed on the Imam's messages to the world, is called the Lesser Occultation. However, starting in 941, the Hidden Imam ceased communicating to humanity through these agents; this period in which the Hidden Imam, still alive and on earth, cuts of all communication with humanity is known as the Greater Occulation. However, at some point, Muhammed al-Mahdi, will return and reveal himself to humanity and appear again (zuhur ). With him will return from the dead all his enemies, and the Imam will lead the forces of righteousness against the forces of evil in one last battle after which will follow the Day of Judgement. At that point will return Jesus Christ and all the saints, prophets, and Imams of history; this, in Shi'a, is called the doctrine of Return (raj'a ).

i like the part about rising from the dead. still waiting. jesus did it in 3 days - you have had over a 1,000 years. i bet you are a bit ripe by now.

RODNEY I FORGOT TO INCLUDE THE KORAN QUOTES FOR YOU. I POST THIS ONE A LOT.

The Hadith No. 284, The Muslim, volume one, says that any Jew or Christian, who heard of Muhammad but did not convert to Islam, and died in disbelief, would rot in hell! Thus Islam withdraws from all Jews and Christians the right to believe in their faiths, and practice them as such.
"The unbelievers of the People of the Book and the idolators shall be in the Fire of Hell therein dwelling for ever; those are the worst of creatures. But those who believe, and do righteous deeds, those are the best of creatures..." (XCVIII: The Clear Sign: 5)
Here those Jews and Christians, who spurn Islam, have been lumped together with the idolators such as the Hindus, and classified as 'the worst of creatures'. Therefore the Koran commands:
"O believers, take not as your friends those of them, who were given the Book before you, and the unbelievers, who take your religion in mockery and as a sport..." (V: The Table: 60)
"The true believers say: Has not God ordered a chapter that commands the holy war" (Sura 47:22); or elsewhere: "Kill the idolaters wherever you find them, imprison them, besiege them, ambush them" (Sura 9:5); and, "Make war on unbelievers" (Sura 9:29). "When you come upon unbelievers, massacre them, tighten the bands of the captives that you will have taken. Then you will set them free, or you will release them for a ransom" (Sura 8:57).
"To Allah, there are no animals viler than those who do not believe and remain unbelievers" (Sura 8:57). That is why it is necessary to Islamize them by force and by humiliation. And those who resist Islam and its founder must be chastised, according to the Koran: "Here is the fate of those who fight Allah and his messenger: you will put them to death or you will make them suffer the torture of the cross; you will cut their hands and their feet alternately. They will be driven from the country" (Sura 5:37).
"Do not display cowardice, and do not call the infidels to peace when you are superior to them" (Sura 47:22). THIS ALLOWS THEM TO MAKE PEACE SO THAT THEY CAN MAKE WAR AGAIN LATER.
4.89": They desire that you should disbelieve as they have disbelieved, so that you might be (all) alike; therefore take not from among them friends until they fly (their homes) in Allah's way; but if they turn back, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them, and take not from among them a friend or a helper.
"4.90": Except those who reach a people between whom and you there is an alliance, or who come to you, their hearts shrinking from fighting you or fighting their own people; and if Allah had pleased, He would have given them power over you, so that they should have certainly fought you; therefore if they withdraw from you and do not fight you and offer you peace, then Allah has not given you a way against them.
"4.91": You will find others who desire that they should be safe from you and secure from their own people; as often as they are sent back to the mischief they get thrown into it headlong; therefore if they do not withdraw from you, and (do not) offer you peace and restrain their hands, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them; and against these We have given you a clear authority."
or the islamics crying over the crusades when they started them. here is a little short history about that:
The first Crusade began in 1095… 460 years after the first Christian city was overrun by Muslim armies, 457 years after Jerusalem was conquered by Muslim armies, 453 years after Egypt was taken by Muslim armies, 443 after Muslims first plundered Italy, 427 years after Muslim armies first laid siege to the Christian capital of Constantinople, 380 years after Spain was conquered by Muslim armies, 363 years after France was first attacked by Muslim armies, 249 years after Rome itself was sacked by a Muslim army, and only after centuries of church burnings, killings, enslavement and forced conversions of Christians.
so tell us in what context do you put the war like history of islam, considering that they started the war before anyone ever knew about them. or why there are no longer any jews in mecca?

RODNEY:
even mickey mouse has a place in islam:
first little mickey says to murder jews:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lZEGsnWZKh8

and when that is not enough - they have a program with a pretend jew murdering him so that little children think it really hapened and the hate of islam is with them forever.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=iDMta_VBdLQ

and lets not remember the exhaulted place of females in islam.

_____________________________________

Khomeini's Teachings on sex with infants and animals
Islamic Teachings on sex with infants:

"A man can have sexual pleasure from a child as young as a baby. However, he should not penetrate. If he penetrates and the child is harmed then he should be responsible for her subsistence all her life. This girl, however would not count as one of his four permanent wives. The man will not be eligible to marry the girl's sister."

The complete Persian text of this saying can be found in "Ayatollah Khomeini in Tahrirolvasyleh, Fourth Edition, Darol Elm, Qom"

Islamic Teachings on sex with animals:

"The meat of horses, mules, or donkeys is not recommended. It is strictly forbidden if the animal was sodomized while alive by a man. In that case, the animal must be taken outside the city and sold."

Editor's notes: I wonder if it is OK to sodomize a dead animal? What happens if the buyer brings the poor animal back into the city?

"If one commits an act of sodomy with a cow, a ewe, or a camel, their urine and their excrements become impure, and even their milk may no longer be consumed. The animal must then be killed as quickly as possible and burned, and the price of it paid to its owner by him who sodomized it."

Editor's note: The poor animal first is sodomized and then killed and burned. What an Islamic justice towards animals? Where are the animal
rights group?

"It is forbidden to consume the excrement of animals or their nasal secretions. But if such are mixed in minute proportions into other foods their consumption is not forbidden."

"If a man (God protect him from it!) fornicates with an animal and ejaculates, ablution is necessary."

It does not say who should have ablution: the animal or the man?

________________________________________

you will note rodney that no islamic ever condems these things. they cant even deny them. but they will say i am hateful for posting them.

this is the start of your education on islam.

RODNEY:
more of islam today to see:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b32piz5fMk

8&NR=1 she only wants to serve allah and does

not care about peace on earth just murder -

called Suicide Killers

and from the teachings in the mosques:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=peFQWuk4nuo&mode=related&search=

RODNEY:

motherhood under islam:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yw2EisVqKZ4&mode=related&search=
48 seconds into this is a little girl of 3 or 4 who has been taught to hate jews.
and in another part the children are told to go out and kill jews.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nhbHVEGnYD8&mode=related&search= and 45 seconds into this one a 2 year old says jews are apes and pigs and must be killed.

not from me but from them.

RODNEY:
Here is islam during ww2 -
during ww2 while christians were fighting the nazis. here is the link http://www.tellthechildrenthetruth.com/gallery/ to ww2 and after.

and islamics telling the truth - here is their commands about that. its the only religion in the world that i know of that is COMMANDED TO LIE.
islam specifically tells other islamics its ok to lie - especially to non islamics.
The following quote demonstrates the broadness of situations in which the prophet permitted lying. "The sons of Adam are countable for all lies with these exceptions:
During war because war is deception,
to reconcile among two quarreling men, and
for a man to appease his wife."
The principle of Al-Takeyya - The Arabic word, "Takeyya", means "to prevent," or guard against. The principle of Al Takeyya conveys the understanding that Muslims are permitted to lie as a preventive measure against anticipated harm to one's self or fellow Muslims. This principle gives Muslims the liberty to lie under circumstances that they perceive as life threatening. They can even deny the faith, if they do not mean it in their hearts. Al-Takeyya is based on the following Quranic verse:
"Let not the believers Take for friends or helpers Unbelievers rather than believers: if any do that, in nothing will there be help from Allah:
except by way of precaution (prevention), that ye may Guard yourselves from them (prevent them from harming you.)
But Allah cautions you (To remember) Himself; for the final goal is to Allah." Surah 3: 28
According to this verse a Muslim can pretend to befriend infidels (in violation of the teachings of Islam) and display adherence with their unbelief to prevent them from harming him. Under the concept of Takeyya and short of killing another human being, if under the threat of force, it is legitimate for Muslims to act contrary to their faith. The following actions are acceptable:
Drink wine,
abandon prayers, and
skip fasting during Ramadan.
Renounce belief in Allah.
Kneel in homage to a deity other than Allah.
Utter insincere oaths.
The implications of the principle of Al-Takeyya
Unfortunately, when dealing with Muslims, one must keep in mind that Muslims can communicate something with apparent sincerity, when in reality they may have just the opposite agenda in their hearts. Bluntly stated, Islam permits Muslims to lie anytime that they perceive that their own well-being, or that of Islam, is threatened.
In the sphere of international politics, the question is: Can Muslim countries be trusted to keep their end of the agreements that they sign with non-Muslim nations? It is a known Islamic practice, that when Muslims are weak they can agree with most anything. Once they become strong, then they negate what they formerly vowed.
The principle of sanctioning lying for the cause of Islam bears grave implications in matters relating to the spread of the religion of Islam in the West. Muslim activists employ deceptive tactics in their attempts to polish Islam's image and make it more attractive to prospective converts.
They carefully try to avoid, obscure, and omit mentioning any of the negative Islamic texts and teachings.
An example of Islamic deception is that Muslim activists always quote the passages of the Quran from the early part of Mohammed's ministry while living in Mecca. These texts are peaceful and exemplify tolerance towards those that are not followers of Islam. All the while, they are fully aware that most of these passages were abrogated (cancelled and replaced) by passages that came after he migrated to Medina. The replacement verses reflect prejudice, intolerance, and endorse violence upon unbelievers. In conclusion, it is imperative to understand, that Muslim leaders can use this loop-hole in their religion, to absolve them from any permanent commitment. It is also important to know that what Muslim activists say to spread Islam may not always be the whole truth. When dealing with Muslims, what they say is not the issue. The real issue is, what they actually mean in their hearts."

as i have previously said - who cares what is in the heart of a man trying to kill you or your family? the last line only concerns islamics and tells them that their fake god will know they are just lying and dont really mean it.

RODNEY:
i hope this brief history of islam helps you understand:

HERE IS MORE OF THE LVOE OF ISLAM:

a woman poet - without a weapon - only poetry - murdered at the direct command of moho the child rapist - and why do i say rapist - because he was having sex with a 9 year old - as all islam agrees - what 9 year old can consent to sex?

SARIYYAH OF `UMAYR IBN `ADI
From Ibn Sa`d's Kitab al-Tabaqat al-Kabir, translated by S. Moinul Haq, volume 2, pages 30-31.

SARIYYAH OF `UMAYR IBN `ADI
Then (occurred) the sariyyah of `Umayr ibn `Adi Ibn Kharashah al-Khatmi against `Asma' Bint Marwan, of Banu Umayyah Ibn Zayd, when five nights had remained from the month of Ramadan, in the beginning of the nineteenth month from the hijrah of the apostle of Allah. `Asma' was the wife of Yazid Ibn Zayd Ibn Hisn al-Khatmi. She used to revile Islam, offend the prophet and instigate the (people) against him. She composed verses. Umayr Ibn Adi came to her in the night and entered her house. Her children were sleeping around her. There was one whom she was suckling. He thrust his sword in her chest till it pierced up to her back. Then he offered the morning prayers with the prophet at al-Medina. The apostle of Allah said to him: "Have you slain the daughter of Marwan?" He said: "Yes. Is there something more for me to do?" He [Muhammad] said: "No. Two goats will butt together about her. This was the word that was first heard from the apostle of Allah. The apostle of Allah called him `Umayr, "basir" (the seeing).

AND THEN THERE IS THE PEACE OF ISLAM IN INDIA

here is a outline of the love and peace showered on india by their peace loving islamic brothers. a good number of these accounts have come from the writings of ISLAMIC writers extoling the victory [?] over the lowly hindus:

the Islamic invasion actually attempted to decimate the Indian religions of Dharma and the Culture of Bhaaratvarsha, but they did not succeed.

(From the accounts of arikh-i-Yamini of Utbi the secretary of Mahmud of Gaznavi) talking about killing indians and battles.
At Thaneshwar.
"The blood of the infidels flowed so copiously at Thanesar that the stream was discolored, not withstanding its purity, and people were unable to drink it. The Sultan returned with plunder which is impossible to count. Praise be to Allah for the honor he bestows on Islam and Muslims."
At Somnath
"The Muslims paid no regard to the booty till they had satiated themselves with the slaughter of the infidels and worshipers of sun and fire.... The number of infidels killed exceeded 50,000"
At Mathura
"The infidels...deserted the fort and tried to cross the foaming river...but many of them were slain, taken or drowned... Nearly fifty thousand men were killed."
Mahmud of Ghori
(from Hasan Nizami's Taj-ul-Maasir) Kol (Modern Aligarh)
"Those of the horizon who were wise and acute were converted to Islam, but those who stood by their ancestoral faith were slain with the sword"
Kol (Modern Aligarh) 20,000 prisoners were taken and made slaves
'Three bastions were raised as high as heaven with their heads and their carcases became food for the beasts of prey
Kalinjar - 50,000 prisoners were taken as slaves
Varnasi or Kasi (Benaras) : Kamil-ut-Tawarikh of Ibn Asir records,
"The slaughter of Hindus (at Varanasi) was immense; none were spared except women and children,(who were taken into slavery) and the carnage of men went on until the earth was weary."
Sultan Firuz Shah Tughlaq
(from Insha-i-Mahry by Amud Din Abdullah bin Mahru)
Delhi: -a punishment in detail (from Tarikh-i-Firuz Shahi)
"A report was brought to the Sultan than there was in Delhi an old Brahman who persisted in publicly performing the worship of idols in his house and that people of the city, both Muslims and Hindus used to resort to his house to worship the idol. The Brahman had constructed a wooden tablet which was covered within and without with paintings of demons and other objects. An order was accordingly given to the Brahman and was brought before Sultan.The true faith was declared to the Brahman and the right course pointed out. but he refused to accept it. A pile was risen on which the Kaffir with his hands and legs tied was thrown into and the wooden tablet on the top. The pile was lit at two places his head and his feet. The fire first reached him in the feet and drew from him a cry and then fire completley enveloped him. Behold Sultan for his strict adherence to law and rectitude."
Delhi : (after Hindus paid the toleration tax (zar-i zimmiya) and poll-tax(jizya) they were foolish enough to build their temples.so...) "Under divine guidance I (Sultan) destroyed these temples and I killed the leaders of these infedility and others I subjected to stripes and chastisement "
Gohana (Haryana):
"Some Hindus had erected a new idol-temple in the village of Kohana and the idolaters used to assemble there and perform their idolatrous rites. These people were seized and brought before me. I ordered that the perverse conduct of these leaders of this wickedness be punished by publicly abd that they should be put to deathe before the gate of the palace."
Jajnagar:(Expedition objectives as stated by Sultan: Source:Ainn-ul-Mulk)
massacring the unbelievers, demolishing their temples, hunting the elephants, getting a glimpse of their enchanting country
I LOVE WHERE IN THE MIDST OF MURDER HE ACTUALLY TALKED ABOUT THE ENCHANTING COUNTRY - sort of nazi like isn't it.
Orissa:'Sirat-i-Firoz Shahi' records his expedition with the following words:
"Nearly 100,000 men of Jajnagar had taken refuge with their women, children, kinsmen and relations The swordsmen of Islam turned the island into a basin of blood by the massacre of the unbelievers. Women with babies and pregnant ladies were haltered, manacled, fettered and enchained, and pressed as slaves into service in the house of every soldier."
The Jihads of Shihabuddin,
the Sultankalka of Ghur

Around 1140, the Islamized Turko-Mongol chiefs of the Shansabanid tribe occupied Ghor in Afghanistan. Initially it was a vassal of the Ghaznavid Sultans, but around 1130 it came into conflict with them, after one of the leading Shansabanid nobles was murdered by the Ghaznavid Sultan, Bahram. A ferocious war ensued between the Sultans of Ghor and Ghazni, till Alla-ud-din Ghori invaded Ghazni with his entire cavalry and wrested it from Bahram. Alla-ud-din sacked the Indian spoils that Mahmud had placed there, massacred the city’s population in a 7-day killing spree and subsequently burnt it down. The next Ghaznavid Sultan, Khushro Maliq was driven out of Afghanistan by a coalition of Oghuz Turks and the Ghorids in 1157, and the Oghuz took Ghazni. The sons of Alla-ud-din, Ghiyas-ud-din Mu’azz-ud-din Ghori and Shihab-ud-din Muhammad Ghori defeated the Oghuz and annexed Ghazni in 1174. Ghiyas-ud-din, crowned himself Sultan, and appointed his brother Sultankalka. Shihab-ud-din was assigned the task of extending the kingdom to the East and he naturally gravitated towards India. 13 bloody campaigns that ravaged Northern India followed:

• Early in 1175 he invaded Punjab and sacked and burned Uch...(1)

• In 1178 he advanced south and marched towards Gujarat, but here the Indians acted quickly and rallying under the western chAlukya king MUlarAja II routed the Islamic forces completely forcing him to retreat...(2)

• In 1179 Ghori sent a message to PrithivirAja chAhamAna to make common cause with him against the Chalukyas. Prithivaraj however, wise disregarding his foolish minister, kadambavAsa’s advise to make a common cause with Ghori, preemptively attacked NaDDula and reconquered it from the Moslems.

• Shihab recovered in 1180 and invaded Sindh and ravaged the population carrying away much loot...(3)

• Then Shihabuddin Muhammad, quickly followed it up in 1181 and 1184 with two invasions of Lavapura (Lahore) accompanied with much slaughter...(4+5)

• In 1186 he invaded the Ghaznavid occupied Punjab and defeated the Sultan Khushro Maliq and wrested Punjab...(6)

• 1188 The Ghur Sultankalka invaded the ChAhamAna kingdom and sacked the fort of Tabarhindah killing the Hindu male populace and raping the women. Hindu refugees flocked around Delhi alarming the ChAhamAnas...(7)

• 1191 PrithivirAj advanced to meet Shihabuddin’s raid and routed him in the great battle of Tarai. While the Muslims suffered a crushing defeat, the Indians failed to butcher them to man and allowed Shihab to get away unharmed. He fled back to Central Asia leaving Punjab completely undefended...(8)

• 1191 PrithivirAj attacked Tabarhindah and took it back from the Muslims. Here the biggest mistake of the Hindus was not to reconquer and arm Punjab suitably.

• 1192 Shihab returned and sacked Tabarhindah again. This was followed by the second battle of Tarai, the ChAhamAna army was crushed and Prithiviraj was captured and brutally tortured to death...(9)

• 1192 the Ghur Sultankalka made a second trust towards Ajayamerupura (Ajmer) and sacked it smashing Hindu temples and a Hindu university in course of this invasion. The Hindus captured in this expedition caused slave prices to fall to a few Dirhams in the Muslim markets...(10)

• 1193 The sultankalka invaded Kannauj and slew the GAhadwala king Jayachandra. He followed this up with an invasion of vArANsipura slaughtering Hindus with great savagery and desecrating the holy city...(11+12)

After this, his viceroy Kutub-ud-din (also his lover?) and the Turkish adventurer Ikhtiyaruddin Khalji furthered the violence of Islam in the land of Hind. Meanwhile Shihab’s brother died in Ghazna and he crowned himself Sultan and immediately launched himself into another Jihad on the infidels of Hindustan in 1206. The exact course of this campaign is not clear. While on the North-western reaches of the Sindhu, he was ambushed by the Khokar chiefs and shot down by an arrow...(13). Thus ended the carrier of the Moslem brigand who brought misery to the whole of northern India through his 13 invasions.

Aurangazeb (1658 - 1707 )
Aurangzeb considered himself "The Scourge Of The Kafirs" (non-believers) and closed Hindu schools and libraries. In his lifetime he destroyed more than 10,000 Hindu, Buddhist and Jam temples and often erected mosques in their stead.3 In 1669 in Agra he had hacked off the limbs of the recalcitrant Hindu King Gokla and in 1672 several thousand revolting Hindus were slaughtered in Mewat.

From: Maasi-i-Alamgiri

Issued general order to destroy all centers of Hindu learnings including Varnasi and destroyed the temple at Mathura and renamed it as Islamabad
In Khandela (rajastan) he killed 300 Hindus in one day for they resisted the destruction of their temple.
In Udaipur all Hindus of the town were killed as they vowed to defend the temple of Udaipur from destruction.
172 temples were destroyed in Udaipur.
66 temples were pulled down in Amber. All Hindu clerks were dismissed from the office of the Imperial empire.
In Pandhpur , Maharashtra, the Emperor ordered and executed the destruction of temple and butchering of cows within the temple.
Aurangazeb also tortured to death the disciples of Guru Tegh bahadur before his death and also killed Guru. Guru Tegh Bahadur - the pride of Hindustan was martyred for he spoke for the persecuted Hindus of Hindustan. Aurangazeb also killed Guru Gobind singh's two children aged less than ten by walling them alive for not accepting the choice of Islam. In Punjab Muslim governors killed hundreds of Sikh children and made Sikh women eat the flesh of their own killed children. Banda Bahadur another great Sikh martyr before being torturd to death was also made to eat the flesh of his own children killed before his eyes. Any Muslim bringing the head of a dead Sikh was also awarded money

Zahiru'd-Din Muhammed Babur (1526 - 1520 )
Babur's Own Words on Killing Hindus:
For the sake of Islam I became a wanderer,
I battled infidels and Hindus,
I determined to become a maryr
Thank God I became a Killer of Non-Muslims!

From Baburnama, the Memoires of Babur Himself:
In AH 934 (1538 ) I attacked Chanderi and by the grace of Allah captured it in a few hours. We got the infidels slaughtered and the place which had be Daru'l-Harb (nation of non-muslim) for years was made into a Daru'l-Islam (muslim nation).

Guru Nanak on Babur's atrocities:
Source:Rag Asa Guru Nanak Dev witnessed first hand the atrocities Babur committed on Hindus and recorded them in his poems. He says: Having attacked Khuraasaan, Babar terrified Hindustan. The Creator Himself does not take the blame, but has sent the Mugal as the messenger of death. There was so much slaughter that the people screamed. Didn't You feel compassion, Lord? pg (360)

On the condition of Hindu women in Babur's monster rule:
Those heads adorned with braided hair, with their parts painted with vermillion - those heads were shaved with scissors, and their throats were choked with dust.They lived in palatial mansions, but now, they cannot even sit near the palaces.... ropes were put around their necks, and their strings of pearls were broken. Their wealth and youthful beauty, which gave them so much pleasure, have now become their enemies. The order was given to the soldiers, who dishonored them, and carried them away. If it is pleasing to God's Will, He bestows greatness; if is pleases His Will, He bestows punishment pg(417-18)

On the nature of Mughal rule under Babur:
First, the tree puts down its roots, and then it spreads out its shade above. The kings are tigers, and their officials are dogs; they go out and awaken the sleeping people to harass them. The public servants inflict wounds with their nails. The dogs lick up the blood that is spilled. Source:Rag Malar, (pg.1288)

From an article by Dr. Harsh Narain on Muslim Testimony (Indian Express 2/26/90):
Since the establishment of Zahiru'd-Din Ghazi's rule, officers and religious leaders spread Islam vigorously desteroying the Hindu faith. We cleared the filth of Hinduism from Faizabad and Avadh.

Jahangir (1605 - 1628)
Source: Tuzuk-i-Jahangiri
Though in the beginning of his rule Jahangir followed the humanistic rule of his father Akbar the great -the policy of sulehkul even issued a proclamation against the forcible conversion of Hindus to Islam, he revoked Akbar's orders that those who have been forcibly converted from Islam could return to Hinduism. He severely punished Kaukab, Sharif and Abdul Latif for showing inclination to Hinduism. He also prohibited the free inter-marriage customs between Hindus and Muslims in Kashmir. Hindus marrying Muslim girls and those who had already married were given a hoice between Islam and death. Many were killed.

Jahangir's torture of Guru Arjun Dev ji: Guru was imprisoned at Lahore fort. He was chained to a post in an open place exposed to the sun from morning to evening in the summer months of May to June. Below his feet a heap of sand was put which burnt like a furnace. Boiling water was poured on his naked body at intervals. His body was covered with blisters all over. In this agony Guru used to utter.

Tera Kiya Metha lage, naam padarath Nanak mange(whatever you ordain appears sweet. I supplicate for the gift of name)

The Guru was ordercd to be executed. In addition a fine of Rupees two lakhs was imposed on him. Some historians say that, as a measure of clemency at the intervention of Mian Mir, this fine was imposed in lieu of the sentence of death. The Sikhs offered to pay the fine themselves but the Guru forbade them to do so. He replied to the Emperor, "Whatever money I have is for the poor, the friendless and the stranger. If thou ask for money thou mayest take what I have; but if thou ask for it by way of fine, I shall not give thee even a Kaurz (penny)." The Guru accepted death by torture.

Shah Jahan (1658 - 1707)
In 1632 Shah jahan ordered that all Hindu temples recently erected or in the course of construction should be razed to the ground. In Benares alone seventy six temples were destroyed. Christian churches at Agra and Lahore were demolished. In a manner befitting the Prophet he had ten thousand inhabitants executed by being "blown up with powder, drowned in water or burnt by fire". Four thousand were taken captive to Agra where they were tortured to try to convert them to Islam. Only a few apostacised, the remainder were trampled to death by elephants, except for the younger women who went to harems.

Shahjahan put enormous eonomic pressure on Hindus particularly peasents to become Muslims. The criminals too were forced to become Muslims.

Source: Badshah Nama, Qazinivi & Badshah Nama , Lahori

When Shuja was appointed as governor of Kabul he carried on a ruthless war in the Hindu territory beyond Indus...The sword of Islam yielded a rich crop of converts....Most of the women (to save their honour) burnt themselves to death. Those captured were distributed among Muslim Mansabdars.

Source: Manucci, Storia do Mogor vol-II p.451 & Travels of Frey Sebastian Manrique

Under Shahjahan peasents were compelled to sell their women and children to meet their revenue requirements....The peasents were carried off to various Markets and fairs to be sold with their poor unhappy wives carrying their small children crying and lamenting. According to Qaznivi Shahjagan had decreed they should be sold to Muslim lords.

HERE IS HOW THE CHRISTIANS DID IT

Circa 33AD: Traditional date for Jesus Christ, Jewish religious leader, crucified. (C40AD?)

45-47AD: A famine strikes Judea. Christians in Antioch send relief to the church in Judea. THe procurator of Judea 46-48 is Tiberius Julius Alexander. (Item from Thomas Robinson, The Bible Timeline.)

46-48AD: On the first Christian missionary journey, Paul and Barnabas travel through Cyprus (home island of Barnabas) and Asia Minor, (Acts 13-14), preaching in Salamis and Paphos, even teaching the new Roman proconsul. With them is cousin of Barnabas, John Mark. Paul preaches in the synagogue in Antioch of Pisidia, but conflict arose over his teaching. But Paul and Barnabas begin teaching Gentiles and found a mixed Gentile-Jewish church. In 47AD, Paul and Barnabas establish mixed churches at Derbe in Lycaonia, Iconium, and Lystra. Paul heals a man in Lystra and the locals try to worship he and Barnabas as embodiments of Greek gods Hermes and Zeus. Later the people turn against Paul and try to stone him to death. in 48AD, Paul and Barnabas revisit the new churches to strengthen them before returning to Antioch. (Item from Thomas Robinson, The Bible Timeline.)

49AD: Jerusalem: A conference is held of Apostles and other Christian leaders. Are non-Jewish Christians required to observe Jewish matters of Law. Leaders are Peter, John and James brother of Jesus, and they decide that Paul is correct in not requiring Gentiles to observe Jewish Law, while Peter is correct in preaching to Jews to keep their Law. The same arguments surface later in Antioch, but Paul now disagrees with position of Peter, Barnabas and other Jewish Christians. (Item from Thomas Robinson, The Bible Timeline.)

49-52AD: Paul and Silas (Silvanus), travel Asia Minor and Greece establishing churches (The Second Missionary Journey). (Acts 15:40-18:21) Timothy from Lystra joins Paul and becomes a close associate. Paul and Silas preach in Phrygia and Galatia in Central Asia Minor, establishing Gentile churches. Paul in Galatia has an unknown ailment. (Item from Thomas Robinson, The Bible Timeline)

50AD: A written collection of Jesus' teachings and shorter sayings is assembled (it is not said where, in Jerusalem?). This collection is later used by the writers of the Gospels. Paul and Silas move to Europe and to Philippi of Macedonia. A Jewish woman, a merchant in purple cloth, Lydia, is converted. Opposition to Paul grows, he and Silas are arrested, beaten, jailed, forced to depart the city. In Thessalonica and Beroae, Paul and Silas start more mixed churches and apposition again drives them from towns. Paul preaches in Athens but evidently has no success there. He once addresses Greek philosophers in the council known as The Areopagus. In 50-51AD, Paul and Silas are in Corinth for 18 months, converting a head of a synagogue and Gentiles. Paul lives and works with Aquila and Priscilla, Jewish Christians who have moved from Rome. (Item from Thomas Robinson, The Bible Timeline.)

51AD: Paul writes 1 Thessalonians and possibly 2 Thessalonians, the earliest writings of The New Testament. Paul is brought to trial by Jews before Gallio, governor of the area. But Gallio refuses to hear the case. (Item from Thomas Robinson, The Bible Timeline.)

52-56AD: On Paul's Third Missionary Journey he works in Ephesus and travels through Macedonia and Greece. He visits churches in Galatia and returns to Ephesus. Between 52-55AD he works with Ephesus, and sends other missionaries to surrounding cities. In 52AD writes a now-lost letter to Corinthians. (Item from Thomas Robinson, The Bible Timeline.)

52AD: Paul travels with Aquila and Priscilla to Ephesus. Paul leaves them and journeys to Palestine, then to Antioch. Apollos of Alexandria a follower of John the Baptist, arrives in Ephesus and is taught by Priscilla and Aquila. Apollos becomes an eloquent Christian preacher and goes to Corinth. (Item from Thomas Robinson, The Bible Timeline)

53AD: Herod Agrippa II, son of Agrippa I, is granted rule of northeastern Palestine by Claudius in Rome. Paul writes his letter Galations to the church he founded in Galatia. He has enemies, those who have told the Galations they must keep the Jewish Laws. The church in Corinth asks Paul about marriage relationships, food from pagan sacrifices, manifestations of the Holy Spirit, etc. In 54AD, Paul writes Corinthians I which is delivered by his assistant, Titus. In 54-55AD, Paul finds that new Christian teachers have come to Corinth criticizing his message. Paul writers 2 Corinthians. In 54AD, Paul is evidently imprisoned in Ephesus; he writes his letter to Philippian church. In 55AD, Ephesians devoted to goddess Artemis protest against Paul and he travels north to Macedonia. (Item from Thomas Robinson, The Bible Timeline.)

55-56AD: Paul winters in Corinth and writes a letter to church in Rome explaining his teachers and asking for their help when he travels to Spain. In 56AD he travels to Macedonia and Asia Minor then to Jerusalem, with money he has collected for the poor in the church at Jerusalem. But crowds in the Temple threaten Paul, he is arrested by Roman soldiers and Jerusalem authorities bring charges of sacrilege against him. (Item from Thomas Robinson, The Bible Timeline)

50aAD and after 62AD after the martyrdom of James, Writing of Gospel of Thomas. (Date from Crossman, p. 427)

55-56AD: Writing of Writing of Letter of Paul to the Romans. (Date from Crossman, p. 427)

Winter 53-54AD: Writing of First Letter of Paul to the Corinthians. (Date from Crossman, p. 427)

Winter 52-53AD Writing of Letter of Paul to the Galatians (Date from Crossman, p. 427)

Late 50AD: Writing of First Letter of Paul to the Thessalonians. (Date from Crossman, p. 427)

57AD: A plot is discovered against life of Paul so Romans transfer him to Caesarea, where he is examined by procurator Felix, who makes no decision. In 57-59AD, Paul is in prison in Caesarea, till Felix is replaced by Festus. In 59-62AD, procurator of Judea is Porcius Festus. (Item from Thomas Robinson, The Bible Timeline)

59AD: Procurator of Judea Festus suggests Paul be returned to Jerusalem, but Paul appears to Caesar, that he be sent to Rome for trial. Paul is given an audience before Festus, Agrippa II and his sister Bernice. Paul is sent with military guard on ship to Rome which breaks up on the island of Malta, but all survive. In 59-60AD, Paul winters on Malta and arrives in Rome in early spring. (Item from Thomas Robinson, The Bible Timeline

60-62AD: Paul in Rome is under house arrest, and writes letters to Colossians, a lost letter to the Laodiceans, to Philemon, and to the Ephesians. It is thought that perhaps Paul was beheaded in Rome by Nero in 62AD, and later, perhaps after the fire of 54AD. Others suggest Paul was released and went not to Spain as he had planned, but back to Asia Minor and Crete. Some feel Paul was imprisoned twice from 62AD to 68AD. The Pastoral Letters 1 and Timothy 2 and Titus would date from this period. (Item from Thomas Robinson, The Bible Timeline)

62AD: Killing of James the Just at the Temple, Jerusalem.

63-64AD: Rome: Apostle Peter in Rome asks Silvanus to compose a letter in his name to Christians in Asia Minor. Tradition has it that Peter is crucified upside down during the persecutions by Nero. (Item from Thomas Robinson, The Bible Timeline)

64AD: Rome: A great fire burns for nine days from 18 July. Nero blames the Christians and begins to cruelly persecute them. "the first official condemnation of Christianity by the Roman government". (Item from Thomas Robinson, The Bible Timeline) The first Roman persecution of Christians begins about now.

75AD: Likely date for writing of The Letter to the Hebrews. Author is unknown but might have been Apollos, Priscilla, Barnabas or Luke. (Item from Thomas Robinson, The Bible Timeline)

85AD: The Gospel of Matthew is written.

85-90AD: The Gospel of Luke and Acts of the Apostles are written.

90-95AD: The Gospel of John is completed.

95AD: Gospel writer John is exiled on island of Patmos. He records apocalyptic visions and sends them to seven Christian churches in western Asia Mintore. (Item from Thomas Robinson, The Bible Timeline)

95AD: The guide to Christian church order called "Teaching" or Didache, is written about now. (Item from Thomas Robinson, The Bible Timeline)

Early90sAD: Date for writing of Gospel of Luke.

Late 90sAD: Date for writing of Epistle of Barnabas.

100AD: The Christian Letters called 1, 2 and 3 John are written about now.

100AD: 1 Clement is written from the Christian Church at Rome to the Church at Corinth.

100AD: The Gospel of Thomas is written in Greek. It is now known only in its Coptic translation.

100AD - early C2nd: Writing of Gospel of John.

100AD approx: Date for Writing of Revelation/Apocalypse of St John. (Date from Crossman, p. 431)

107AD: Ignatius as Bishop of Antioch is arrested and sent to Rome to die in arena. While travelling in Asia Minor he writes to Christians at six churches, Ephesus, Magnesia, Tralles, Philadelphia, Smyrna and Rome. Also to Polycarp, the Bishop of Smyrna. (Item from Thomas Robinson, The Bible Timeline)

110AD: Writing of Letter of Ignatius, Bishop of Syrian Antioch as he is taken to Rome to martyrdom.

115AD: New religion, Christianity, spreads quickly in Eastern Syria and in Northern Mesopotamia. (Item from Thomas Robinson, The Bible Timeline) Rome copes with a Jewish rebellion in Cyrene.

100-115AD: Some scholars feel that the (Christian) Pastoral Letters are possibly composed in this period by a follower of Paul (of Tarsus). (Item from Thomas Robinson, The Bible Timeline)

THERE IS MORE BUT NOT ONE ARMY OR WAR IN THEIR FIRST 300 YEARS.

639AD: Invasion of Egypt by Moslem, Amru.

To 640AD: Arab forces take Palestinian cities such as Dara, Caesarea, Antioch, the isthmus of Suez. Iraq was taken by 637AD. In 639, Egypt was invaded by Moslem Arabs. In 641, Babylon (Old Cairo) was taken. Alexandria was recaptured in 645. By 700AD, Roman Africa was under Moslem control.

640AD: Islam, The Arabs invade Egypt and burn the library of Alexandria . However, the Arabs preserve the use of engineering skills known in Egypt at the time, while Europe remains ignorant.

610AD-641AD: Emperor Heraclius fails to stem the Arab threat and loses Africa, Spain and Northern Italy.

641AD: Islam: Battle of Nehavend, great victory for Islam over Persians, and many Persian nobility come to terms with Islam. Yezdegerd the king flees to a remote corner and holds a vestige of power till about 651-652. Alexandria is captured.

642AD: Islamic invasion of Egypt.

644AD: Islam: Death of Omar succeeded by Othman, a weak ruler who allows Islamic power to fall into the hands of the Koreish nobility.

647AD: Islam: Invasion of Africa by Abdallah, Arabs expel the Romans.

649AD: Islam: Invasion of Cyprus in 649, Conquest of Aradus in 650, Conquest of Armenia in 652, Conquest of Rhodes in 654, in 655 is defeat of emperor Constans by Mohammedans in naval battle off Mt Phoenix in Lycia.

Circa 650AD: Revelations of Mohammed are written; they become The Koran.

656AD: Islam: Murder of Othman by a party in opposition to growing worldliness of Islam. Leader of the opposition, and son-in-law of Mohammed the Prophet, is Ali, who succeeds. Battle of the Camel. Moawiyah, governor of Syria, heads the opponents of Ali, and incites them to revenge.

657AD: Islam: Ali invades northern Syria. Battle of Siffin. The theocratic faction rebels against Ali.

658AD: Islam: Decision of the Umpires, Ali and Moawiyah, the latter wins. Peace made with the Byzantine Empire. Egypt conquered for Moawiyah.

659: Islam: Moslem conquest of Egypt.

635AD: Islam: Moslem capture of Damascus. by 636 are added conquests of Emesa, Heliopolis, Chalcis, Beroae, Edessa, Battle of Yermuk. Heraclius abandons Syria to the Moslems.

636AD: Kingdom of Ghassan (300-636AD): Founded about 300AD by Thalaba, the first to take the name of king. His successors rule until 636, when Djabala VI surrenders to the Mohammedans.

637AD: Arabia: Middle East, Battle of Cadesia, or Kadisiya, Moslem victory over the Persians. Omar captures Jerusalem, then Aleppo and Antioch.

637AD and later: Moslem missionary expansionism had meant that Moslems had intervened at Jerusalem from 637AD. Moslems, partly due to their existing maritime skills, were actually invited into Portugal to help with problems by 711. Later they occupied Toledo. They were on Crete by 826, taking the island from the Byzantines, another obviously maritime adventure. Moslems had intervened in Sind (India) by the early Eighth Century, but they did not dominate Northern India till the Eleventh Century.

637AD: Sasanid power in Iran is broken by Moslem Arabs.

638AD: Mesopotamia is conquered by Islam who also take Tarsus and Diar-Bekr.

629AD: Arabia, Mohammedan war against the Greek subjects in Arabia.

629AD: Emperor Heraclius in Constantinople receives embassies from as far away as France and India, and surprisingly, also a letter (as an apocryphal legend) from an Arabian chieftain and a Prophet of God, Mohammed, suggesting that he join a new faith.

630AD: Arabia, Mohammed moves against Mecca and conquers it. War with the Hawazin. Rapid spread of Islam. The Ka'aba in Mecca, a repository of idols, is cleansed of idols and becomes a building deeply revered by Moslems.

632AD: Death of Mohammed. The Prophet's successor is his father-in-law, Abu Bakr (Abu Bekr) who is chosen Caliph, or representative, and pursues an expansionist policy. Persians are expelled from Bahrein. An army under Khalid sets out against the Byzantine Empire. An Arab army moves up the south coast of Palestine and takes Gaza. Abu Bakr reduces a revolt in Nejd and Yemen, and defends Medina.
634AD: Moslem conquest of Yemen.

RODNEY:
you want the history of islam - here it is - but i have to do it in parts:
ISLAM - IN THE BEGINING:

622-623AD: Mecca-Medina: Mohammed with followers flees opposition in Mecca and go to Medina. The first mosque is built. Mohammed becomes a warrior.

625AD: Arabia: Battle of Ohod, victory of the Meccans.

624AD: Arabia: First battle for the faith with the Meccans at Bedr. Victory of Mohammed.

628AD: Mohammedan war against the Jews of Khaibar.

Hmmm..... Interesting discussion you people are having. I am going to get back to points made in Ms Taylor's article.
As a non-Muslim I am grateful that Ms Taylor realizes that this certain phrase in the liturgy that she refers to, might not be appropriate.
But what I question is her interpretation of why it made sense in a historical context, that is, that Muslims were at war for the survival of the community with those who did not believe in Muhammed and his message.
Muslims interpret their early history as being victims of the surrounding peoples and that the earliest Muslims heard and believed in Muhammed's message, and were attacked by the non-believers, and needed to defend themselves. I find this interpretation of what happened, suspect. Could it also not be, that Muhammed, seeking to increase his power and influence, precipitated the conflict with the non-believers, who could care less what his theological beliefs were, but who felt threatened by a group of organized people claiming to have found the truth and a prophet to go with it? So instead of the first Muslims being the victims of the non-believers, it was the non-believers who were the victims of the Muslims. But since the Muslims won the war, and like all groups who win wars, the Muslims were the ones who got to write the history of that time, and were able to make themselves out as the aggrieved ones. This type of rewriting of history happens all the time. Groups of people, Americans, Japanese, Chinese, Russian, cannot face up to the ignominy of what they have done, so they rewrite history.
This rewriting of history on the part of the first Muslims is the only way I can interpret all the contradictory statements in the Quran. Yes, there is beauty in the Quran, but also much aggression, which is justified by Muslims by their interpretation of their history. So fundamentally what I am saying is that it was not the non-believers who attacked the Muslims, but the other way round.
Furthermore, Muslims present Islam as an improvement upon the idol-worshipping religions that were prevalent in that part of the world at the time.. But in what way was it an improvement? In what way is worshipping one god, Allah, an improvement over worshipping many gods? The only improvement, if you can call it that, that I can see that Muhammed brought, is that he created a unified group of people that were able to militarily defeat their enemies. But in terms of how humans treat one another, what improvement did he bring?

here is a dialog i had once.
what is a "progressive" or "moderate" islamic and when you answer remember to compate it with a non progressive or moderate islamic.
when someone answered and said a progressive or moderate does not believe in bombings i ask if those who are not progressive do.
i was told that no even those who were not progressive and moderate did not believe in it.
so i asked again then what makes you progressive and moderate.
i was told that a progressive and moderate believes in peace and love.
can you see it coming? i asked if non progressive and modersates did not believe in peace and love and was told that they did too.
so i asked again what makes someone progressive and moderate, and how many are you, and why call yourselves progressice and moderate if every answer to the questions applied to islamics that were not progressive and moderate.
they would not answer.
so i asked what about speaches in the mosques calling for war and violent imposing of islam on others, and gave them some links to internet sites with sermons in the mosque. and asked if these were the words of a progressive and moderate and if they were not progressive and moderate to quote the words used that were not progressive or moderate.
can you quess what happened? the progressive and moderate islamic refused to answer because the words from the mosque were based on the koran, they were almost exact quotes, and to point out what was not progressive and moderate would mean that they would be rejecting some of the commands of islam.
that would be offensive to islam, and you know what islamics think about that.
so maybe pam can tell us, what part of the teching of the koran do you reject which that make you different from the run of the mill islamic, and make you progressive and moderate?
i keep answering questions and no one can answer mine because to do so would mean that they would have to reject the positions they have previously taken.
like wicc - he cant even admit that if you follow the evil parts of the koran means you are an evil person. he takes a contrary point to me becasue he can do nothing else, even though he may think that hate, kidnaping, torture, cutting off body parts, murder to force islam on someone, murder to keep them in islam, are vile and that following those commands make one an evil person he just cant bring himself to admit it.
but then again, maybe he does think that these things are ok, that is another reason he may disagree with me.
or there is a 3rd reason. he is not what he pretends to be. despite his name he is just another islamic, following the korans commands to lie for islam.
yes i have posted all of the links and quotes about lying ok.
has anyone noticed that not one of the pro islamics has ever criticized islam in any form? if you were to read only their posts you would think that islam is the most peaceful religion on the face of the world and that no islamic ever does anything wrong.
does anyone believe that islam is peaceful and does nothing wrong?
oups here is the answer from wicc "its you we dont believe frank." and that is as close to an answer i will ever get, as if i wrote the koran or the hadath or faked all those links i posted.

WICCAN:

in answer to your questions. yes. yes. yes. yes. the koran, the hatith, the conduct of islam throughout the last 1400 year history of islam and its present conduct. nothing divine here. see prior writings and quotes from islam and pertaining to islam.

not long. truth is not a popularity contest. islam never offends islam and never considers islam wrong in anything it does. i never ask anyone to become any religion.

no. truth is important. no its not. as i said i read the koran, for a number of years, and i read the hadity and i read the hisotry of islam. i actually started thinking that islam was for peace, and turth and then i learned the real truth.

now will you answer one of my questions as i am answering yours. go and read the quotes from the koran that i posted about hate and murder and tell me in what context these are acceptable and if you cant find them acceptable then tell me why you still defend islam.

and i did say that bad islamics, that deny the cult of death as part of their islamic belief are not islamics anymore. they may call themselves islamic because they pray 5 times a day, and follow the forms of islam, but if they do not support terrorists, and do not engage in the hate and other vile acts of islam, they may be a good person, but they are not islamic.
the same is true of someone who follows all of the teaching of christ but deny that he was the son of god. that person may be a good person, but he is not a christian.

are you begining to understand wicc - or are you intentionally being obtuse.

Janet,

You noted: "1. I do NOT believe that all Muslims are murderers and terrorists."

That is a given for all of us non-believers. The problem is how do we tell the "good guys from the bad guys" especially after the conduct of the seven Muslim doctors in the UK, the 9/11 terrorists, the 24/7 Sunni suicide/roadside/market/mosque bombers , the 24/7 Shiite suicide/roadside/market/mosque bombers , the Bali crazies, the Kenya crazies, the Pakistani koranics, the Palestine suicide bombers/rocketeers, the Lebanese nutcases and the Filipino koranics i.e. a summary of the War on Terror-the Muslim "who are the bad guys" Problem.

At least B16 has not enlisted any terrorists to further his cause of "sole soul" salvation and/or a return to the language of the Roman Slave Empire. Of course, his operating manual preaches peace to earth unlike the Muslim book of death.

To Wiccan - Let me be clear about my point of view, so you don't confuse me with Frank nor put words in my mouth that I never said:
1. I do NOT believe that all Muslims are murderers and terrorists.

2.I do NOT believe that anybody, including any Muslim, should be slaughtered by nuclear weapons.

3.I do NOT believe that a billion or more people are responsible for the acts of a deranged few.

BUT:
4. There is a level of tacit support and turning a blind eye by most of those billion Muslims to the acts of a deranged few, and this turning a blind eye allows those deranged few to flourish and multiply. A blind eye was first turned to the suicide bombings in Israel. Now the chickens have come home to roost, and suicide bombings are happening to innocent people in so many different places, and Muslims themselves are now the victims as well.

5. Muslims like Pamela are far preferable to imams in places like Saudi Arabia etc. But just because Pamela is far preferable to just about any other Muslim leader, does not mean that when she comes into a public forum with what I regard as untruths, I am not going to argue with her.

6. I absolutely agree that the US has to acknowledge its role in many of the disasters in the world. But just because I oppose a great deal of American policy, doesn't mean that I in any way support the cruelty and barbarity that is found in the Quran and the life of Muhammed.

7. I am not going to burn some sage.

Wiccan,

Frank is typically very frank but has an important point to make and the Muslim commentators on this blog cannot guarantee him that flying on an airplane with a Muslim is safe especially not after the conduct of the seven, apparently peaceful Muslim doctors in the UK.

Any suggestions on how to remove the warmongering agenda of the koran? Any suggestions on how to eradicate the Islamic, koranic brainwashing of the citizens of Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Malaysia and Pakistan? Any suggestions on how to "Crossanize" the koran??

Frank-

Have you actually ever talked with a Muslim? Have you ever interacted with a Muslim in a courteous manner? I mean face to face. Have you ever tried to see any Muslim as a real human being, without your vision being clouded by your hatred? What caused this hatred anyway? I can't see you just waking up one morning with the divine revelation that Islam is evil. So why?

How long have you been posting here? In that time, I've seen maybe four people side with you, but the vast majority most definitely do not. And I've never seen a Muslim respond to you by saying, "You know, Frank, you're right! How could I have been so blind? I'm going to become a Christian, or Buddhist, or Atheist, or whatever this very second. Please forgive me. I never knew I was so evil!"

This has got to be frustrating for you, being the Cassandra about Islam. Why do you do it? It's got to be hell on your temperment and your soul, never mind your blood pressure. So what happened?

WICCA:
the point i try to make about islam is the same point you can make pointing to recent history.
were there any good mem who were members of the ss?
were there any good mem who were menbers of the nazi party?
if they were not good ss members then they may have been good men.
if they were not good nazi's they may have been good men.
that would depend on how they acted outside the affiliation with others.
BUT IF THEY WERE GOOD NAZIS OR GOOD MEMBERS OF THE SS THEY WERE EVIL! and that would be true even if they were nice to their children or parents, or their wives. THEY WERE EVIL!
being a good nazi or ss member cancelled out the possibility of being a good person because to be a good nazi or ss member required them to be evil.
the same is true of islam. if someone is a good islamic and they follow the koran THEY ARE EVIL, because the koran commands evil as by its very nature islam is evil.
i am sure that you have read my many posts pointing to the korans commands about hate, murder, etc. as part of islam. not that some islamics do it in violation of the koran, but that they do it in accord with the koran and for the purpose of forcing islam on others, again in conformity with the koran.
i did not write the koran, its commands were there long before my being here. and my understanding of islam is not unique, as islam has been at war with the non islamic world for 1400 years. they even joined with the nazis during ww2 and had their own ss divisions. islam was totally compatable with the nazis and the ss.
i have posted countless links to statements from islamics preaching in the mosques, the statements or iranian leaders, historical links most of which come from islamic writings. thank god for the internet - islamics post their vision for the world almost every day and it requires acceptance of islam. they post their sermons, and then there is the fact that not a day has gone by since 911 that an islamic has not murdered someone for the stated purpose of spreading islam. i know everyone wants to believe that religion is a tool for peace, and almost all of them are, including you pagans too, but islam rejects peace for war.
but that does not mean that there are not some people who are bad islamics - and as a result thereof, may be a good person.
well are they really islamic if they are bad islamics? probably not. they may accept part of the koran, but if they dont accept the entire thing and follow its commands of war, they are not really islamic.
the same is true of christians. if they reject christ they cannot be christians. that does not mean they cant be good people, but they are not christian. many people are not christian, or any specific religion, but THEY ARE STILL GOOD PEOPLE, as long as they treat others as a good person would.
being a christian is not, by its very nature evil, because christ called for love and peace. so if you are a good christian, you are a good person.
the same for jews and others. a good jew or hindu' or even pagan, etc. - is a good person as the religion is basiocally good and requires no evil to others.
but if you are a good islamic - you are an evil person - because islam requires you to be evil and to act evil.
lets move one more step. you call yourself an islamic but you reject the commands of hate, murder, torture, kidnaping, cutting off body parts, ransom, rape, slavery, killing to make others join islam and killing to prevent them from leaving, or you feel that the religion of others does not threaten you, that the word "innocent" includes non islamics, that you reject blowing up children, YOUR ARE NOT ISLAMIC!
your rejection of those very things that differentiate islam from other religions means you may be a lot of things, you may even be an offshute of islam, but you are not islamic.

gandalf, pax vobiscum is latin for peace be with you its said in the old latin mass- which if imnot mistaken, is the actual topic of conversation.

Ma'am,

If you will read the above post by Imam Taylor, you will find a good start. Most of the work has to be done by Muslims themselves, and our best strategy is to support those brave souls in the Muslim community who do want to bring Islam into the 21st century, with the beauty and grace that is in the Qur'an brought to the fore. I am unaware of any time that screaming hate and contempt at other people has brought them around to your point of view. Secondly, America needs to live up to its own mythology (concern for the underdog, etc) and put pressure on those who do have control in the Arab world to see that basic human freedoms are restored to their people, instead of using the West as a convenient scapegoat for all the ills in the Islamic world. Thirdly, we talk with each other. And talk. And talk some more. With respect, with courtesy, with truth. America must own up to what she has done wrong, and require the same from the Muslim nations. It will not be easy or swift, but, if we do these things, we just might have true peace between us, and not the peace of the graveyard.

And it wouldn't hurt to burn some sage.

Not all muslims are bad, that would be a ridiculous claim, I agree. But the quran is/can be subject to mis-interpretations and has been used by radicals and extremists more than any other scripture for any other religion. Why is it so? Can anything be done about it by those muslims who do not agree with this so-called fundamentalism? Can anything be done by other religions? What do YOU suggest? What do you do that will prevent well-educated, "smart" people (eg. doctors in UK) from strapping bombs and blowing themselves up to cause wanton destruction and death?

Janet-

I wonder if there any hope for the human race, when in this modern day and age, ANY people actually believe that ALL Muslims are murderers and terrorists. That over one billion people are responsible for the heinous acts of a deranged few. My question to you, Ma'am, is do you agree that ALL Muslims should be slaughtered by nuclear weapons, as our dear Dr. Collins has oft times suggested? If not, just what is all this hate-mongering accomplishing?

JANET:
thank you.

To Frank - people are just trying to silence you by ridiculing you. Maybe they are uncomfortable with the quotes that you post from the Quran. Maybe they just want to believe that the Quran is all peaches and cream and Muhammed was an honorable man. They have put all their eggs in that basket, staked their sanity on it, and find it difficult to reverse course even when faced with facts. Islam is a belief system and most people do not have the psychological maturity to stand on their own two feet in terms of their beliefs. They need someone else in authority to tell them how to think and what to do. This is a form of authoritarianism. This is a psychological problem not just a religious problem.
Keep posting. Someone needs to counter all the Islamic propaganda, that 1 1/2 billion people on the planet actually believe. Amazing. Is there any hope for the human race, when in this modern day and age, so many people actually believe all these myths?

GANDALF:
i think it means "peace be with you'

here is what moho the murdering child rapist thought of women poets:
SARIYYAH OF `UMAYR IBN `ADI
From Ibn Sa`d's Kitab al-Tabaqat al-Kabir, translated by S. Moinul Haq, volume 2, pages 30-31.

SARIYYAH OF `UMAYR IBN `ADI
Then (occurred) the sariyyah of `Umayr ibn `Adi Ibn Kharashah al-Khatmi against `Asma' Bint Marwan, of Banu Umayyah Ibn Zayd, when five nights had remained from the month of Ramadan, in the beginning of the nineteenth month from the hijrah of the apostle of Allah. `Asma' was the wife of Yazid Ibn Zayd Ibn Hisn al-Khatmi. She used to revile Islam, offend the prophet and instigate the (people) against him. She composed verses. Umayr Ibn Adi came to her in the night and entered her house. Her children were sleeping around her. There was one whom she was suckling. He thrust his sword in her chest till it pierced up to her back. Then he offered the morning prayers with the prophet at al-Medina. The apostle of Allah said to him: "Have you slain the daughter of Marwan?" He said: "Yes. Is there something more for me to do?" He [Muhammad] said: "No. Two goats will butt together about her. This was the word that was first heard from the apostle of Allah. The apostle of Allah called him `Umayr, "basir" (the seeing).

Pamela wrote:
I can't help but think that if Prophet Muhammad were alive today he would be struggling against many of the so-called "Muslim" regimes we have, and that he would be horrified over the way the shari'ah has been expanded and used as a blunt weapon against the populace.

Then how do you explain the prophet's action against a woman and a MOTHER here:

--------------------------------------------------
An unwed m o t h e r was stoned to death after she delivered the baby even though she repented profusely.

Narrated Imran ibn Husayn: Book 38, Number 4426:

A woman belonging to the tribe of Juhaynah (according to the version of Aban) came to the Prophet (peace be upon him) and said that she had committed fornication and that she was pregnant. The Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) called her guardian. Then the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) said to him: Be good to her, and when she bears a child, bring her (to me). When she gave birth to the child, he brought her (to him). The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) gave orders regarding her, and her clothes were tied to her. He then commanded regarding her and she was s t o n e d to d e a t h.

Assalaamu Aleikum,

As with Pamela, Jihadist and Victoria, you skip the important issue affecting the world today, i.e. the foundations of your religion and the terror it is dictating via your book of death.

As with the Jihadist, you also suffer from your breeding, birth and brainwashing in Islam and can't even make a clear escape from the significantly stupid concept of angels ("pretty wingie talking thingies") because you know full well that if angels go so goes any contact "big Mo" had with the Big Guy.

You know the problems with Islam, the foundations. Address them honestly (i.e. Gabriel did not talk or bring anything to Mohammed since angels are myths), historically (Mohammed was illiterate and had no idea what was written in the koran) and realistically (the koran was written by warmongering (just like Mo), Arabic scribes who had a militaristic agenda to conquer and pillage all the lands of the non-believers). The recent conduct of the seven Muslim doctors in the UK shows just how dangerous the followers of koranic passages can be.

When you come to grips with this, we non-believers will not really take anything you say seriously.

Oh Lady Marry how much I love thee...
Check out these tracks by Kareem Salama. I like the one about Mary called 'Lady Marry.' But my favorite is 'baby I'm a soldier.'
http://www.kareemsalama.com/

Victoria,
What is "pax vobiscum"?
G

sadly i have to agree with the lack of respect part little ole-

i visited countless convents in my youth 'shopping' for one that fit me.

the retirement plan for nuns differs wildly than the one offered priests, or even monks.

i knew one woman in her 60's- i actually saw a nimbus of light around her head briefly once - it was so strong i was forced to turn around in church and look at her-
she had been a novice for 18 years!!!!

completely forgotten and neglected by mother church- she was literally so recessive and humble she couldnt even push herself to the forefront to take her vows!
her health was in terrible shape, her ankles swollen and who knows what else- so i entreated the priest on her behalf- who said he'd look into it-
of course he didnt, so i started petitioning him, even to the point of following him around all day watching him have lunch in swank places with the rich and him ending up going to a very nice hospital to visit a priest in a private room-

while this poor sister lived in poverty without a doctors care at all, her life devoted to the church- but simply---forgotten.

i have bucketloads of stories of priests in mercedes in giant houses with private housekeepers, cooks, groundskeepers...
and sisters sharing squashed and cramped quarters in their declining years.

our mothers are usually our first teachers-
we learn our relationship with god at the knees of our mothers.

once, some of the companions of the Prophet(peace be upon him) and asked, who is worthy of our greatest respect?

He replied, "Your mother."

they asked again, "and after that?"

again,"Your mother."

2 times

and they asked again!

he replied."Your mother!"

3 times

not satisfied possibly (my asessment) they asked yet again!

"who is the most worthy of our respect?"

this time He replied, "Your father."

The Prophet(pbuh) also stated, "Paradise is at the feet of your mother."

i find this to be a very different attitude than the acclaimed ,"Who is my mother?" attributed to Jesus(peace to him)

that story always distressed me for more reasons than one.

i didnt start out trying to compare islam with christianity-
its not a competition, but the question of the treatment of women specifically in the catholic church has long been an issue with me.

since this is the blog of a woman muslim i felt comfortable expressing it here.

a salaamu alaikum (peace of god be with you) and pax vobiscum

Hi, Vie!

If you don't have the Mother, you're missing half of the Divine. Paganism runs in my family, and my father knew I was going to walk the Pagan Path when an aunt was telling me about Christianity, and I wanted to know who the Mommy God was. When she told me there wasn't one, I, with the wisdom (and arrogance) of a five-year old, told her you can't have a Daddy God without a Mommy God, and she had a silly religion. Dad rescued me before she could smack my butt, and I eventually learn to speak respectfully about others' religions. ;-)

i find it funny that islamics want to pretend that they are the victims when they have been waging a 1400 year war against anyone not islamic.
someone name one free islamic country - where women are free, there is freedom of speech, freedom of religion - any relgion, and a democratic system of government that allows for full participation by all adults, and the courts of law are not based on religion or some imman saying what is or is not acceptable.
i need agood laugh -

Ave Maria gratia plena
Dominus tecum
Benedicta tu in mulieribus
et benedictus fructis ventris tui Iesus
Santa Maria, mater Dei
Ora pro nobis peccatoribus nunc et in hora mortis.

Hail, holy Queen, Mother of Mercy!
Our life, our sweetness, and our hope! To thee do we cry, poor banished children of Eve, to thee do we send up our sighs, mourning and weeping in this valley of tears.
Turn, then, most gracious advocate, thine eyes of mercy toward us; and after this our exile show unto us the blessed fruit of thy womb Jesus; O clement, O loving, O sweet virgin Mary. Pray for us, O holy Mother of God
That we may be made worthy of the promises of Christ.
(Sorry I don't remember that one in Latin.)

Why do you think there are so many Catholic women?
It certainly isn't because the hierarchy treats us with so much respect.

halozcel,

There have been Mother Goddess religions all over this sweet Earth, and well before 7000 BCE. (Ha! Got it right this time!) The Mother Goddess is an universal archtype; even Christianity couldn't get away from her: Mary the Holy Mother.

I always enjoy reading Pamela's insights. Too bad about the haters and wackos who keep chiming in. There's no arguing with people like that and any response only encourages them. Please, folks, ignore them and maybe we can keep these discussions on topic!

On the subject of language and the Islamic focus on following the example of Muhammed (pbuh) there are two simple truths I can cite about his prayers:

(1) He prayed in Arabic

(2) He prayed in his native tongue, the language that spoke most easily through his heart and understanding.

I can follow his example one way or another, but for me, the two are mutually exclusive. I do think that a lot of people get hung up on the obvious surface and mechanics of the Prophet's example without examing the context and underlying substance.

And, yes, the other side of it is that keeping a core of unity in the Arabic is important. I've done translations and know how they are necessarily flawed. So those of us who put our faith in the Qur'an but are not Arabic-speakers do face a challenge here in negotiating between the Arabic and our mother tongues.

Regarding the "threats of violence":

Death threats, alas, are not new or unusual in politics. Muslims of any opinion are often threatened with violence from Islamophobes, but we don't usually make a lot of noise about it. Just as women live withthe constant threat of rape and other misogynist violence; gays face the constant threat of homophobic violence; and then there is the violence of racism at a constant low level with occasional outbreaks of murderous terror, threats of violence against Muslims who simply mind their own business are frequent. The hate-filled invective that we see even in this discussion shows the level of irrational fear, the justification of islamophobic violence, and the implied threats against us that we deal with fairly constantly.

While the murder of Theo van Gogh demonstrates that we can't trivialize or take lightly the reality of those threats I think we also have to contextualize them and observe that "jihadist" violence is in fact relatively rare. A few people who make a bundle with their heterodox pronouncements paint themselves heroic by playing up these death threats, but they seem to move around pretty freely without any problems.

Where definite threats are made, yes, they have to be taken seriously and investigated, but emphasizing the violence only encourages it. Like shouting "fire" in a crowded theatre, it does more harm than good.

Assalaamu Aleikum

wiccan,

There was 'Mother Goddess' cult like that at Catalhoyuk in Turkey 7000 BC.

No, Frank, because YOU haven't been casting your spells for peace. You have to use your Divine powers too. I can't do it alone.

wiccan
ok you cast your spell. if you really have special powers there should be peace now. is there?

Catholic School Student,

Like many of us, you suffer from the three B's i.e. Bred, Born and Brainwashed into the Roman/Latin Church and are being kept that way by old, "celibate", white, European males.

And watch your Back, you never know where a Muslim "gator" terrorist might be lurking

Jihadist-

We ALL have the power to cast spells for peace. It might help you to think of spellcraft as "athletic prayer", as my niece once described it. Spellcraft is the use of natural energies to effect needed change, as Scott Cunningham (a Wiccan sage) once put it. The Divine power is within us all; all the trappings of spellcraft, the incense, crystals, chants, etc. are there to help us raise, focus, and send out that power.

A Wiccan Prayer for Peace

Gracious Lady, Mother of all that lives, we call out to you to guide all of your children. Bless our eyes, that we may see each other with love. Bless our ears, that we may hear each other with understanding. Bless our mouths, that we may speak to each other with compassion. Bless our hands, that they may heal, not harm. Bless our feet, that we may walk beside each other in peace. Great Goddess, Mother of birth and death and rebirth, Goddess of the green Earth that feeds us, of the creatures that roam upon its surface, and the tides that lap its shores, Lady of the Cauldron, let all your children drink of its wisdom, and know that all names of the Divine are but one Name, and all worship but a dance to the singular music of Life.

Gators vs. Concerned the Christian Now Liberated (from reason).

Gators are definitely illiterate, but Concerned the Christian makes you read a lot of crap to come to that inevitable conclusion.

Poor, poor Jihadist!!! Again you continue to "duck" the issues about your religion's foundations. Maybe it is that demon of the demented in you???

Another observation about B16:

B16 also suffers from his breeding, birth and brainwashing in orthodox Catholicism and can't even make a clear escape from the significantly stupid concept of limbo because he knows full well that if limbo goes so goes original sin, one of the dogmas and guilt trips of orthodox Catholicism.

And the parallel observation:

Jihadist also suffers from her breeding, birth and brainwashing in Islam and can't even make a clear escape from the significantly stupid concept of angels ("pretty wingie talking thingies") because she knows full well that if angels go so goes any contact "big Mo" had with the Big Guy.

Wiccan:)

Do you have the power to cast spells for peace? I just saw Susan Jacoby's thread on this question.

You can discuss this humble proposal with Paganplace and Terra Gazelle, the other two bewitching ladies.

I hope you have a wonderful weekend with family and friends. I plan to do that.

Best regards as always.
J

Concerned the Christian Now Liberated

I do read your commentaries on the Catholic church and faith in On Faith threads as well as the reactions of others, including Catholics, on your posts.

Most seem to have differences of views with you. I generally stay out of the internal discourse of people of other faiths like most Muslims. I also read the posts by other Catholics, especially regulars like Mary Cunningham, Speed123 and Viejita Del Oeste, to glean the diversity of views among lay Catholics.

I only usually ask questions on the beliefs of others for clarifications that I am not clear on or know of well, and leave it at that after a response is given. I have no intention of disputing points on other people's beliefs that I know nothing of, nor adhere to. Of course, I do like to ask atheists too re their posts.

As for your post in response to mine, thanks. It is better for fellow Catholics to consider your post and to comment on them, and for you to send them to Pope Benedict care of the Vatican.

Let Hindus deal with Hinduism.
Let Jews deal with Judaism.
Let Buddhist deal with Buddhism.
Let Muslims deal with Islam.
Let Protestants deal with their respective demominations.

After all, within Islam, Hinduism, Judaism, Buddhism and Protestanism that are many denominations, sects and/or schools of thoughts and beliefs. And Catholics too, it seems.

The Pope and the Vatican have more say and sway on Catholic beliefs, internal Church matters and international affairs. I am already cooperating with operational Catholic-associated NGOs (among others), in the third world through Muslim and secular NGOs on issues ranging from trafficking in women to drugs abuse.

More can be done when one is not wasting time hair-splitting on questions of faith and theology with others or among fellow adherents of beliefs. People have and share common concerns, and the willingness to work together to overcome them, transcending race and religion to do so.

A Bangladeshi friend once told me the rich don't care for God, the poor really need God, and the middle class like to indulge in asking about God. He was a classmate of mine in the first univeristy I went to. He is from a very poor family, on scholarship and a brilliant student. He put me to shame and made me see the world in a new way, a temporal-focussed way in my belief, as a Muslim should.

Spend some time with family and friends over the weekend.

Regards
J

Jihadist,

Apparently you have been too busy investing oil blood money and have not read my commentaries about the Catholic Church. It is ironic that the oil profits paid by US consumers is used to support terror in order to keep the price of oil high.

Here is one of my favorite summaries which you have seen before and but have not found time to comment on:

1. Abraham founder of three major religions was probably a mythical character. If he was real, he was at best a combination of at least three men. 1.5 million Conservative Jews and their rabbis have put Abraham on the myth pile along with most of the OT.

2. Jesus, the illiterate Jewish peasant/carpenter possibly suffering from hallucinations, has been characterized anywhere from the Messiah from Nazareth to a mythical character from mythical Nazareth. Analyses of his life by many contemporary NT scholars via the NT and related documents have concluded that only about 30% of his 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 sects.

3. Mohammed, an illiterate, possibly hallucinating Arab, also had embellishing/hallucinating scribal biographers who not only added "angels" and flying chariots to the Koran but also a militaristic agenda to support the plundering and looting of the lands of non-believers.

4. Luther, Calvin, Smith, Henry VII, Wesley et al, founders of Christian-based religions, also suffered from the belief in/hallucinations of "pretty wingy talking thingie" visits and "prophecies" for profits analogous to the myths of Catholicism (resurrections, apparitions, ascensions and immaculate conceptions).

5. Hinduism (from an on-line Hindu site) - "Hinduism cannot be described as an organized religion. It is not founded by any individual. Hinduism is God centred and therefore one can call Hinduism as founded by God, because the answer to the question ‘Who is behind the eternal principles and who makes them work?’ will have to be ‘Cosmic power, Divine power, God’"
The caste/laborer system and cow worship are problems when saying a fair and rational God founded Hinduism."

6. Buddhism- "Buddhism began in India about 500 years before the birth of Christ. The people living at that time had become disillusioned with certain beliefs of Hinduism including the caste system, which had grown extremely complex. The number of outcasts (those who did not belong to any particular caste) was continuing to grow."

"However, in Buddhism, like so many other religions, fanciful stories arose concerning events in the life of the founder, Siddhartha Gautama (fifth century B.C.):"

Archaeological discoveries have proved, beyond a doubt, his historical character, but apart from the legends we know very little about the circumstances of his life.

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

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

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

A recent note:

"B16 is trying to re-establish himself as the sole leader of the Roman (Latin) Church. The problem is that when one closely evaluates the scripture that he depends on for this "God-given" role, it falls heavily on the side of embellishments made by scribes trying to "sell" Catholicism to folk accustomed to being led around by the swords of kings, queens and emperors and their "Divine Rights". Enter democracy and education of the masses about 200 years ago and things are now rapidly changing.

More and more priests and men are opting for marriage. Priests who do remain have significant issues with sex. Nuns what few are left are demanding installation in the priesthood.

What do many of the contemporary NT scholars conclude about scriptural approval of said papacy ??

John 14: 26 not historic ( 62-. Spirit under Trial: (1) 1Q: Luke 12:11-12 = Matt
10:19-20; (2) Mark 13:11 = Matt 10: 19-20 = Luke 21:14-15; (3) John 14:26.)

Matt 16: 18-19 not historic (73- Who Is Jesus?: (1) Gos. Thom. 13; (2a) Mark
8:27-30 = Matt 16:13-20 = Luke 9:18-21; (2b) Gos. Naz. 14; (2c) John 6:67-69.)

1 Timothy- not written by St. Paul (See Crossan’s “In Search of Paul”, Harper, San
Francisco, 2004, p.105)

2 Peter 1:20
Since Catholic theologian Father Edward Schillebeeckx basically ruled out prophecies by concluding God does not know
the future, one can rule out the infallible nature of this verse.

Also from Raymond Brown’s, An Introduction to the New Testament, 2 Peter was
the last canonical work written i.e. ~ 130 AD, author unknown. Tis a bit dated for use in claiming infallibility plus the verse is not from Jesus or Peter but some possible remembrance of a scribe.

From another source:
Also think about the logic (or lack thereof).
“I believe the Bible is inspired.” “Why?” “Because it says so.”

Would you or anyone let that logic pass if it came from the followers of any other book
or person? “I believe x is inspired because x says so.” Fill in the blanks:

x=Pat Robertson
x=the ayatolloah Sistani
x=David Koresh
x=the Koran
x=B16

Posted July 11, 2007 6:23 PM

danny:
is that the best you can do?
you wanted source documents - you got them in abundance. and the figures were 69% said it was not acceptable - that leaves 31 percent who did not say it was not acceptable.
that means that there are 300,000 islamics in merica that think its ok, and over 117,00 that are for ubl.
now will one of you lying islamics scums answer just one of my questions?
this one - look at my quotes for islam and tell me in what context they are acceptable.
but you will not.
islam is a terrorist organization that needs to be killed like a vile infected animal. fire cleans such things. so i will give you the solution to the islamic infection.
islam has already declared war on the rest of the world - and has reaffirmed that declaration every year for 1400 years.
the world must accept that as a fact and declare war too.
islamics must be tossed out of every country in the western word, i would suggest we send them to iraq, iran, syria and saudi arabia.
in america we should pass a constitutional amendment outlawing islam and declaring it a terrorist organization not subject to the protections of the constitution and thereby allowing us to kick your lying scum butts out of america.
then we nuke you all - mecca, medina, and all of the middle east. for the ones close to countries that we dont want to infect we simply use conventual bombs and keep bombing every country that still has islamics there the same as we did germany and we keep bombing.
when you are all dead we stop.
islamic problem solved.
we let the rats eat your rotting boddies.

"Jihadist-
Socially responsible and responsive applied faith is very challenging."

That is a great phrase: "responsive applied faith". You have an intuitive understanding of "Harm none"; that is what I try to do each day. It is challenging, but oh so rewarding when you get it right. I've a feeling you get it right more often than not. :-)

Asim

It is always a pleasure to read your posts here and thank you very much for your post re my post.

You are very right. I was hoping non-Arab Muslims from Turkey, Iran, Nigeria etc, would come in here and give their thoughts and views too.

I know what Arab Muslims think, as I know Arabic and do go into Arab language websites and blogs. The works of Muslim thinkers from the Indian sub-continent I am familiar with, including the ones you mentioned. But I don't know Turkish or Farsi for example, and what they wrote on Islam and Muslims that are translated in Arabic, French, English or my mother tongue I find most interesting in the discourse on Islam and Muslims.

Historically, Muslims, regardless of race and region, through Arabic as the common language of learning and communication apart from for prayers and religious functions, has more opportunity to enrich the discourses on Islam and Muslims in diversity of views and unity of core beliefs - the Five Pillars of course. Now it is done through conferences, seminars, meetings etc by members of the ulema, Muslim scholars and jurists to discuss on everything on human rights to Islamic family laws to Islamic banking at the state and inter-state level.

Personally, I don't like too much of these meetings, even if I have to attend many related to Islamic banking and financial services. I prefer the lay Muslims to define their personal beliefs guided by the Qur'an and Hadiths rather than being told by the Grand Mufti. Thank God the Grand Muftis are not infallible and can be questioned on their more questionable fatwas, and the fatwas can be ignored.

You have no idea how many times I have to revise my proposals for Islamic compliant banking and financial services when I first started out due to the hard questions posed by the Islamic banking and financial services committee, not to mention by my Muslim clients and customers - that it be just to borrowers,that it be socially responsible, that it be economically viable. Conventional banking and financial services is a piece of cake in comparision. Belief in God is easy. Socially responsible and responsive applied faith is very challenging :)

Peace be with you and have a nice weekend.

Best regards as always
J

Dr. Frank Collins, PhD.; J.D.; Esq.

"ok, i was wrong. its not 28% the end result of the survey was only 69% said it was unacceptable which means that 31% were contrary.
yes i know you will say that 5% did not know - i think i will consider that as a way to say yes but did not want to."

Yeah, I'm supposed to wade through all that crap so that you can ulimately say (and show) what I already knew about you...that you are full of it.

If you make 5% unknown just mean what YOU want it to, what other "facts" do you do that with?

You still did not show me where the SPECIFIC poll question was asked to back up your original claim.

Where does it say the respondents answered, "Do you think murder of innocents by bombings is acceptable"?

According to YOUR source, “While nearly 80 percent of U.S. Muslims say suicide bombings of civilians to defend Islam can not be justified, 13 percent say they can be, at least rarely.”

Furthermore, the specific figures given by you are for Muslims under 30, NOT the whole population.

Any credibility you may have is always drowned out by your exaggeration, vitriol, and shamefully belligerent ignorance.

Concerned the Christian Now Liberated

Hello my friend. Victoria and Pamela Taylor are your fellow Americans, regardless of gender and beliefs. They are protected and guided by the Bill of Rights and the US Constitution just as you are. Good example by you of an American going after a minority group whose beliefs are different from yours. I always find it rather odd you are not focussing on your fellow Catholics, but Muslims.

I would be more concerned (no pun intended) if I were you as a self-described "Crossanized Christian" and "Catholic of Reality", and to look at what Pope Benedict, as head of the Catholic Church, has done in the last few weeks and days, the latest being, drawing the lines against other Christian denominations. These recent statements and measures have great significance on Catholics and people of other faiths. Is this an assertion of Neo Conservative Catholicism? It will have social, political, economic and religious impact on the Catholic church and its adherents worldwide.

As the world knows, Pope Benedict is not too keen on Liberation Theologists, on the work of the Jesus Seminar/NT/OT scholars, nor of other Christian denominations, much less Jews, Muslims and Buddhists. I would not have known were it not for the fact that my Catholic friends from Brazil to the Philippines e-mailed me their personal views on the matter. They are from Catholic countries categorised as developing nations. The last thing on their minds are the latest move by the Pope to introduce Latin in mass, to call other Christian denominations "wounded", or arguments against the OT/NT scholars.

My Catholic friends are devout Catholics. As a person from a developing country, I emphatise with them on their concerns and priorities, which are the same as Muslims in Muslim countries - access to education, health, employment for their people and fellow believers. Ironically, Catholics in developing countries have more in common with Muslims in developing
countries in this way than with their Catholic brethen in North America and Europe.

The last thing on the minds of Catholics in places like Brazil and the Philippines are Mass in Latin, drawing the lines against other Christian denominations etc. The Pope and the Vatican is the central authority on the Catholic faith. So, what will it do to Catholics worldwide? Fragmentation of the church into Reformed Catholics? Crossanized Catholics? Conservative Catholics?

You have also not been paying attention to even the dismayed, saddened and searching posts by one of my favourite Catholics in On Faith threads, Viejita Del Oeste, on recent decisions by the Pope and the Vatican for all Catholics. As she is a strong, spiritual, decent and level-headed person who knows what she believe in and what she is looking for and want in life, this too shall pass for her.

Belief is not just an intellectual discourse or the historicity of the sources. It is also about the heart and mind - what inspired it, what give us hope, what give us joy, what see us through for many. Look at the troubled state, the distressed conditions of your fellow Catholics in developing countries too. Muslims in the wider world are out of your reach, out of your intellectual grasp, but the Catholics are not. Look within too.

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=25611_CAIR_on_Pew_Poll-_Support_for_Al_Qaeda_Nothing_to_Worry_About&only
this is a video of cair response to the survey.
it is an eye opener.

ok, i was wrong. its not 28% the end result of the survey was only 69% said it was unacceptable which means that 31% were contrary.
yes i know you will say that 5% did not know - i think i will consider that as a way to say yes but did not want to. after all - who does not know if murder is acceptable unless you want to hide your answer.
even if we only use 26% then we have 300,000 supporters of suicide attacks and 117,500 supporters of Al-Qaeda here in america.
we should be happy about that?

and here is another for you to read:
http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=329&loc=interstitialskip
Muslim Americans: Middle Class and Mostly Mainstream
War on Terror Concerns

Released: May 22, 2007

Navigate this report
Report Summary

Report Summary

Download the complete report

The first-ever, nationwide, random sample survey of Muslim Americans finds them to be largely assimilated, happy with their lives, and moderate with respect to many of the issues that have divided Muslims and Westerners around the world.

The Pew Research Center conducted more than 55,000 interviews to obtain a national sample of 1,050 Muslims living in the United States. Interviews were conducted in English, Arabic, Farsi and Urdu. The resulting study, which draws on Pew's survey research among Muslims around the world, finds that Muslim Americans are a highly diverse population, one largely composed of immigrants. Nonetheless, they are decidedly American in their outlook, values and attitudes. This belief is reflected in Muslim American income and education levels, which generally mirror those of the public.

Key findings include:

Overall, Muslim Americans have a generally positive view of the larger society. Most say their communities are excellent or good places to live.

A large majority of Muslim Americans believe that hard work pays off in this society. Fully 71% agree that most people who want to get ahead in the U.S. can make it if they are willing to work hard.

The survey shows that although many Muslims are relative newcomers to the U.S., they are highly assimilated into American society. On balance, they believe that Muslims coming to the U.S. should try and adopt American customs, rather than trying to remain distinct from the larger society. And by nearly two-to-one (63%-32%) Muslim Americans do not see a conflict between being a devout Muslim and living in a modern society.

Roughly two-thirds (65%) of adult Muslims in the U.S. were born elsewhere. A relatively large proportion of Muslim immigrants are from Arab countries, but many also come from Pakistan and other South Asian countries. Among native-born Muslims, roughly half are African American (20% of U.S. Muslims overall), many of whom are converts to Islam.

Based on data from this survey, along with available Census Bureau data on immigrants' nativity and nationality, the Pew Research Center estimates the total population of Muslims in the United States at 2.35 million.

Muslim Americans reject Islamic extremism by larger margins than do Muslim minorities in Western European countries. However, there is somewhat more acceptance of Islamic extremism in some segments of the U.S. Muslim public than others. Fewer native-born African American Muslims than others completely condemn al Qaeda. In addition, younger Muslims in the U.S. are much more likely than older Muslim Americans to say that suicide bombing in the defense of Islam can be at least sometimes justified. Nonetheless, absolute levels of support for Islamic extremism among Muslim Americans are quite low, especially when compared with Muslims around the world.

A majority of Muslim Americans (53%) say it has become more difficult to be a Muslim in the U.S. since the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. Most also believe that the government "singles out" Muslims for increased surveillance and monitoring.

Relatively few Muslim Americans believe the U.S.-led war on terror is a sincere effort to reduce terrorism, and many doubt that Arabs were responsible for the 9/11 attacks. Just 40% of Muslim Americans say groups of Arabs carried out those attacks.

more - just ask.

here is another one
PEW Surveys: 1. Young American Muslims on Suicide Bombing; 2. Do U.S. Christians Think of Themselves as Americans First or as Christians First?
1. The PEW Research Center recently released a survey of Muslim Americans. It has been interesting to watch which news sources and organizations have reported the results as a pleasant surprise, and which have presented them as disturbing. The PEW people themselves seemed to think a positive presentation was called for, at least so far as the title they decided to give to their report goes: "Muslim Americans: Middle Class and Mostly Mainstream."

Those who find the report disturbing have tended to focus on one number: 26. At least according to how I heard this figure reported on the radio, that's the percentage of younger (age 18-29) US Muslims who say that "suicide bombings are sometimes justified." And the disturbed find that number disturbingly high.

Well, I wondered about that. I was mostly interested in finding out what the exact wording was of the question. Was it phrased so that it would be understood as asking whether suicide bombings could ever conceivably be justified, or was it was asking whether any actual suicide bombings that have occurred have been justified? The results, of course, are more disturbing if the latter was asked or suggested. If the former question was asked or suggested, then I was interested in how often people generally give "absolutist" answers to any such moral questions. On such matters, do many people like to "almost never say never"? (A question I'd love to see asked of Americans generally is whether they think it's ever permissible to torture prisoners. If anyone knows of such a survey, please let me know!)

So I went on-line, and here's what I found. I'm not trying to tell anyone whether and to what extent they should be disturbed. Just trying to get you the facts, so you can decide for yourself.

All 102 pages of the PEW Report are up on its web site. It's a big pdf document available here. The fateful number 26 occurs in a chart at the top of p. 54, entitled "More Support for Suicide Bombing Among Younger Muslims." As you can see, the answers given by 18-29 year old Muslim Americans are reported as follows:

Never justified: 69%

Rarely: 11%

Often/Sometimes: 15%

(Net) Ever Justified: 26%

Don't Know/Refused to answer: 5%

"Ever Justified" was not option given to the respondents. The number reported -- the 26 that's gotten a lot of attention -- was determined by adding together those who answered "Rarely" with those who answered "Often" or "sometimes." It represents the percentage of responents who answered the question but didn't say "Never." Given this, I'm a little disappointed in how the results were reported to me. As I said, the radio report I heard said that 26% of younger Muslims responded that suicide bombings are "sometimes justified." But "sometimes" and "often" were options that were actually given to respondants, and only 15% took either of them. Given that, I'd think there has to be a more accurate way of (even quickly) reporting the results. (For instance, it would have been more accurate to say that 26% responded that suicide bombings were ever justified. But much better yet, of course, to report separately the two numbers for "Sometimes/often" and for "Rarely.")

But, anyway, those are the answers. Here's the exact question that was asked:

Some people think that suicide bombing and other forms of violence against civilian targets are justified in order to defend Islam from its enemies. Other people believe that, no matter what the reason, this kind of violence is never justified. Do you personally feel that this kind of violence is often justified to defend Islam, sometimes justified, rarely justified, or never justified? (p. 91)

UPDATE (added on the morning of 5/25): I've now found (thanks to a link from this interesting blog post) a survey result that suggests that Americans generally tend not to be very absolutist when it comes to likes of not targetting civilians in attacks. In the course of comparing Iranian with U.S. attitudes, this survey reports the following:

Larger majorities of Iranians than Americans reject terrorist attacks against civilians, though both publics are quite opposed. Asked whether “bombing and other types of attacks intentionally aimed at civilians” can be justified often, sometimes, rarely or never, 80 percent of Iranians select never. Forty-six percent of Americans say such attacks can never be justified and 27 percent say they rarely can.

Well, now I can't resist asking this question: With only 46% of Americans answering "never" to that question, I wonder if those who are so disturbed by the results of the PEW survey of Muslim Americans will broaden out their concern to be greatly disturbed at the attitudes of Americans generally?

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

2. Quickly looking over the survey, one result really caught my eye, and some readers of this blog might find it interesting. On p. 31, there's a chart for "Do You Think of Yourself First as an American or First as a Muslim?" 28% answered "American first," 47% answered "Muslim first," with 18% volunteering "Both" and 7% were "Other/Don't Know." See the chart to see these results broken down by age, by level of education, and in some other ways. But what caught my eye was at the bottom of that chart. For the purposes of comparison, they included the results from an earlier, 2006 survey, where they asked U.S. Christians whether they thought of themselves first as Americans, or first as Christians. The exact question is reported in a footnote at p. 87:

In April 2006, the question asked Christians living in the U.S., "Do you think of yourself first as American or first as a Christian?"

The results? 48% said "American first"; 42% answered "Christian first" (with 7% volunteering "Both" and 3% "Other/Don't Know).

here is another - but radical site
300,000 U.S. Muslims Back Suicide Bombing
by Robert Spencer (More by this author)

Posted: 05/29/2007 Print This
Some of the results of the Pew Research Center poll of Muslims in America were startling: 26% of Muslims between the ages of 18 and 29 affirmed that there could be justification in some (unspecified) circumstances for suicide bombing, and five percent of all the Muslims surveyed said that they had a favorable view of Al-Qaeda. Given the Pew Center’s estimate of 2.35 million Muslims in America, and the total of thirteen percent that avowed a belief that suicide bombings could ever be justified, that’s over 300,000 supporters of suicide attacks. And 117,500 supporters of Al-Qaeda.

It is unfortunate that Pew pollsters were not equipped with a follow-up question for those who expressed support for suicide bombing, asking them about the circumstances in which they would consider it justified, and whether they would ever consider it justified in the United States. The pollsters might also have asked those who professed support for Al-Qaeda whether they were working or would be willing to work to further that organization’s goals in the United States -- but perhaps that kind of question shades too far over into what law enforcement officials should be doing.

The mainstream media generally reported the poll results as indicating that the overwhelming majority of Muslims rejected extremism and were comfortably assimilated into American society, without dealing in detail with those troubling minorities. Headlines in major newspapers included “Poll: Most Muslims seek to adopt American lifestyle”; “Poll: US Muslims Feel Post-9/11 Backlash Despite Moderate Outlook”; “Muslims assimilate better in U.S. than Europe, poll finds”; “U.S. Muslims more content, assimilated than those abroad”; and “Pew Study Sees Muslim Americans Assimilating.”

Similarly, Ibrahim Hooper of the Council on American Islamic Relations told MSNBC’s Tucker Carlson, “I don’t see a rise of religious extremism in the Muslim community….If you look at the totality of the survey results, the views of American Muslims more or less mirror the views of people of all faiths of America.” He did not cite, however, any evidence for this mirroring -- any survey, for example, of Christians or Jews indicating any significant percentages of support for, say, the Ku Klux Klan, or abortion clinic bombers. Terrorism expert Steven Emerson, meanwhile, confronted Edina Lekovic of the Muslim Public Affairs Council on CNBC’s Lawrence Kudlow show, reading an editorial in praise of Osama bin Laden published in the UCLA Muslim Students Association’s newspaper in 1999, while she was editor of the paper. Lekovic denied having been the editor of the paper at that time, but Emerson has made available a pdf of the paper’s masthead that lists her as editor. Kudlow had asked Lekovic what Muslims in America were doing to combat the jihadist views expressed by some in the poll, and she stated that they were doing a great deal, but offered no specifics -- and the incident with Emerson damaged her credibility. In fact, neither the CAIR nor the MPAC website contains any announcement about any program or initiative of any kind designed to lessen support for suicide bombing and Al-Qaeda within the Muslim community in America.

And therein lies the problem. The first poll-related question in every media analyst’s mind should have been this: What do Muslim groups plan to do to combat the spread of the jihadist ideology of Islamic supremacism among Muslims in America? Pointing out that most Muslims in America eschew that ideology is not enough; what about the others? Almost six years after 9/11, no pressure is coming either from the mainstream media or law enforcement for Muslim groups in the United States to institute comprehensive educational programs against jihadism in their mosques and schools. This poll, however, shows how much such programs are needed -- as well as a national debate about how these groups should be regarded if they refuse or fail to implement such programs.

But instead, we are supposed to be reassured that those holding jihadist sentiments number only a few hundred thousand. The public discourse about Islamic jihad has been dominated by fantasy since 9/11 and before that, and if anything, the fog is thicker now than ever.

the spread appears to be between 25% and as high as 40% see the entire study at the pew site.
http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/010044.php

its easy to find if you google it. you can also google pew research study - it is there too. its just that this was the first one that came up.
see i dont mind providing links for my statemens of fact - now when will you defenders of islam do the same? ok, never - you will never do it, but i can always count on you to think murder is just fine.

start of one of many articles on it _______________________

The Pew Research Center completed an exhaustive survey of American Muslims and found a disturbing trend among younger Muslims. As ABC reports, as many as 1 in 4 Muslims under the age of 30 belive that suicide bombings can be justified in defense of Islam:
While nearly 80 percent of U.S. Muslims say suicide bombings of civilians to defend Islam can not be justified, 13 percent say they can be, at least rarely.
That sentiment is strongest among those younger than 30. Two percent of them say it can often be justified, 13 percent say sometimes and 11 percent say rarely.
"It is a hair-raising number," said Radwan Masmoudi, president of the Washington-based Center for the Study of Islam and Democracy, which promotes the compatibility of Islam with democracy.
He said most supporters of the attacks likely assumed the context was a fight against occupation a term Muslims often use to describe the conflict with Israel.
U.S. Muslims have growing Internet and television access to extreme ideologies, he said, adding: "People, especially younger people, are susceptible to these ideas."
This has some implications for American security. The concern centers on the "home-grown jihadi" phenomenon that has been seen in both Canada and Britain. Radical imams take advantage of the younger Muslims, especially those already feeling dislocation, and inspire rage at the countries in which they live. Canada managed to stop the Toronto cell before they could strike, but the London bombings show that these younger, vengeful Muslims can attack without much warning at all.
Still, the numbers are worse in Europe. In Spain and the UK, around 1 in 4 of all Muslims approve of suicide bombing in defense of Islam, and in France that number goes up to 35%. In Germany, the numbers are closer to the US. Clearly, while we have an issue with younger Muslims, Europe has a greater concern with their entire Muslim communities, which have tens of millions. Hundreds of thousands of European Muslims see their way clear to conducting terrorist attacks to defend Islam, a number which should deeply concern Europeans.
I would recommend that people read the entire study. It's a fascinating and in-depth look at a community that has received a lot of attention but not much study. Even though they tend to have very socially conservative views, they also trend heavily to the Democratic Party -- most likely as a result of the Iraq war, which they reject in higher numbers than the rest of Americans. They also oppose the war in Afghanistan, which indicates that they will not approve of any military action against Muslims regardless of the provocation.
They also tend to wallow in conspiracy theories. Only 40% believe that "a group of Arabs" committed the 9/11 attacks. Thirty-two percent either said they didn't know or refused to answer. Seven percent claimed that George Bush committed the attacks. Even Nigerians scored better on this question, with 42% acknowledging that Muslims carried out the attacks. Great Britain's Muslims scored the worst among Western nations on this question; only 17% believe the truth.
Interestingly, there tends to be a divide between native-born Muslims (mostly African-Americans) and emigrés. For instance, on the question of whether anti-terrorism policies single out Muslims, a thin majority of all Muslims say yes (54%). Native-born Muslims have a much bigger chip on their shoulders (72%), while recent Muslim immigrants seem to have the least amount of problem with it (40%)
_______________________________
end of article

I missed it too Wiccan!

But...I've read, and lmao at it twice...so far. HA!

Dr. Frank Collins, PhD.; J.D.; Esq.

"the islamic community in america is not radical? 28% think murder of innocents by bombings is acceptable."

Now, Doctor, why is it you don't cite the source for this?

I'd like to see the poll that SPECIFICALLY asked, "Do you think murder of innocents by bombings is acceptable".

Pam and Victoria,

More and more Islamic "yackity yack" from both of you!!!!

You know the problems with Islam, the foundations. Address them honestly (i.e. Gabriel did not talk or bring anything to Mohammed since angels are myths), historically (Mohammed was illiterate and had no idea what was written in the koran) and realistically (the koran was written by warmongering (just like Mo), Arabic scribes who had a militaristic agenda to conquer and pillage all the lands of the non-believers).

And then maybe we might listen to your history/problems with Latin (or Arabic).

i did not see wiccan - please tell us a story about a christian tossing a bible at you - or maybe holy water.
your always a good time - please join in - and maybe you can answer some of my questions about islam and their conduct.

the islamic community in america is not radical? 28% think murder of innocents by bombings is acceptable. you think that is not radical? if it was 28% think killing islamics is acceptable - would that be ok? and when you say estranged as in other countries - you mean the countries that took them in when they ran away from their own islamic states? or are you talking about the poor doctors who had to try to murders hundreds in london?
and i dont help? good. islamics should know that we actually understand their cult of death. and people like you should know that your bs about islam being a religion of peace is just a ruse to get those te relax around you so you can find it easire to kill them in the name of the god of islam.
and was it moho's job to have sex with a 9 year old? and if he told you the word of god - and you must follow it - what about all that hate, torture, kidnapping, murder? do you ignore them?
what makes you progressive and the other islamics not progressive? why are there daily attacks by islamics if it is a peaceful religion?

and daniel:
yes i do type too much - its one of my faults - i try to cover everything at one time. but this is not professional writing so it is not necessary for me to engage in extensive editing, which i do for other professional writings.
as for islam, no one can stop worrying about them. they are like the terminator movie - they cannot be bargained with, they do not feel pity, and they will not stop until you are dead, its what they do, its all they do. ok that was a joke.
and why do they do it? because they think god commanded them to do it.
how do you deal with people that for 1400 years have been killing in the name of their god - to suddenly stop and do what their god commanded them not to do?

What! A meeting of the Frank Collins Fan Club and I wasn't invited? Damme.

Don't worry, Frank. We Pagans love you as much as we ever did. ;-)

is that all you got? weak - very weak boy. i dont use punct - well rarely - its not important in this context. yes i know it's it's.
now go back and make your 4th grade class cringe at you powers of spelling, its not that big a deal here.

Frankie,

YOU'RE, not your.

Frank
You do seem a little manic. You write too much; it is sign that there is something wrong. Maybe you should get checked out by a doctor, or something. You need some real social activities. Get a girlfriend. Then you will really have alot of distracting things to think and worry about, and can stop worrying so much about Islam.

Ignoring the whole Frank debacle...

Daniel -- I don't believe I am putting myself in any danger. 1)The incidents of violence against Muslims who are raising issues about Islam have primarily targeted people like Hirsan Ali or Wafa Sultan who are non-discriminate in blaming Islam for all the ills of the Muslim world.

In contrast, I believe that some of those ills arise from cultural practices which have no basis in Islam, and most of which are in fact contrary to Islamic teachings. (Honor killings for instance.) Some of them arise from illegitimate interpretations that twist the intention and meaning of the Qur'an, often in support of personal or political ends.(like using certain verses of the Qur'an to justify terrorism or domestic violence.) Some of them may arise from people using suspect sources, or wild extrapolation, or faulty logic. Some are genuine issues with which the Muslim community must grapple ... at the same time I advocate grappling with them in ways that seek to remain true to the most noble, the most humane and compassionate of what we find in the Qur'an. I believe that those of us who are raising these issues with a clear and frank devotion are less likely to be targeted than people who approach them with disdain and/or actual hatred for the religion.

2) the Muslim community in the US is generally not very radical. The open, tolerant, and economically bountiful society of America has been good to Muslims, and as a result the vast majority of Muslims here are not as alienated and estranged as are many in other countries. The war on terror has put major stress on our community, and people like Frank don't help, but the Muslims I know are all grateful that they are living here in America where their rights are respected (for the most part)and the rule of law reigns.

Ross -- I'm so glad you asked that question, because I have a confession to make. There are days I feel like throttling my children, or, even my husband. Of course, I've never done it, so I am not guilty of child or spouse abuse, but I certainly have felt like it at times. I think that the prophet is saying the exact same thing -- there were times when he was so frustrated, so astonished that these people who lived in the presence of a man they believed spoke to God and yet still neglected their prayers after all his efforts to teach them, to exhort them, to lead by example, to get them to understand that prayer is something vital to the human soul that he felt bursting to the point of breaking with impotent, helpless, frustration.

In fact, it is precisely this kind of hadith that endeared the Prophet to me. I mean, the transparency of that confession, the honesty of it, the admission that he felt such things, and that he did not achieve universal success is breathtaking to me. Most of us don't like to admit to our darker feelings, especially religious leaders, and especially religious leaders who are seeking to bring their people to a new way. The fact that the Prophet was not a serene, never ruffled, never disturbed kind of person makes him real to me, not idealized. The fact that he was so open and honest about his own failings as a leader makes me all the more trusting of his claims to have experienced what he says he experienced. This is a man who doesn't lie about the dark things in his soul, why then would he lie about the good things?

And last but not least... he was a Prophet. His job was to bring people to his religion. Although it is a bit paternalistic, I believe that he was using whatever tools he had to try and accomplish that. To use another parenting example... when my kids were little they sometimes balked at eating vegetables. I could explain how they needed the nutrients, the fiber, etc till I was blue in the face, they were not going to eat those vegetables simply because it would be good for them. Sometimes I had to resort to threats/consequences/punishments -- no dessert if you don't eat your veggies. Sometimes I said things like, you can sit there all night until your veggies are gone, which when you think about it, is probably a bit excessive (of course I never had to implement it, usually the veggies were eaten within half an hour). So too, I think the Prophet sometimes resorted to other tactics than simply saying this is good for you. Of course, it is important to note that he did not actually burn anything, but only expressed how mad it made him that they did not pray.

just for your information - esquire is a title for attorneys in america. jd is a juris doctor and entitles the holder to be paid for teaching at a phd salary level and also be called doctor.
as a practical matter attorneys do not like to be called doctor and while letters addressed to attorneys may use esquire after their name, i have never seen an attorney sign a letter or pleading with Esq.
your comments appear to indicae that it is one or the other.
additionally most attorneys are in private practice as sole practioners and therefore are ceo's of their own professional corporation.
and many type of groups have clients - not just attorneys.
and i said that i knew some bad islamics who were good people.
and if you look you will note that is is not an appellate brief and there is no need to run it through a word processor, dictate it to a secretary, edit for form and content, before i post it here. your not exactly worth that amount of trouble.

oh such is the rantings of those who cannot compete with those who can.
still waiting for all those mistakes of fact you islamics say i made.
on and on you go.
and in case your cant get the mesage - i go through the posts and respond to many on one of mine - therefore the topics change.
but you - well you are back to insults without arguments or facts.
ill be back in a while to see if what you write is worthy of response, but probably not.

Blah, blah, blah...did you scribble something, Frankie?

Oh yeah, here it is:

"as for hating islamics - well i hate nazi's, and members of the kkk. and as long as islamics demand hate and murder and then actually follow through, well i will hate those too, and those that support the islamic agenda."

"and i know and have represented a lof of islamics, including some retired ministers of islamic countries "

You slay me! I can be sure of one thing from your posts...No conscious BEING would allow YOU to represent them EXCEPT a Klansman or a Nazi.

How is it you hate "Islamics" (They are Muslims, and your ignorant @$$ knows it), but they have allowed you to "represent" them? Represent them as what?

Don't tell me you are claiming to be a LAWYER NOW!!!

So, its not:

Dr. Frank Collins PhD., its Frank Collins, Esq.?!?!?!

Or is it: Dr. Fank Collins, J.D.?

Your accomplishments know no bounds!

Will you be a CEO next, or an Astronaut?

And, imagine, all that with just 3rd grade writing skills, and an "its not an appellate brief" maverick-type attitude.

Sounds to me like YOU, Doctor, have made it to heaven by way of hate.

But who cares, Frank? Who cares? You're boring.

I have never read even one of your rants all the way through; I just take a look at the first couple of paragraphs, and the last couple of paragraphs, to get the picture. All that work, for nothing; who reads it? probably, nobody.

Sorry Frank. I got no facts to cite, nor criticisms to make, except to wonder, what is wrong with you?

if i am wrong all you need do is site the incorrect fact - then site the correct statement and link us to the source of it. i will look. if you are correct i will say so and change the fact for future reference.
i always ask for someone to first print what they allege i wrote - and to link to it as it is not uncommon that people will not accurately produce what i originally wrote.
and the fact that i actually respond to these alleged assertions means i do much more than islamics ever do.
as for hating islamics - well i hate nazi's, and members of the kkk. and as long as islamics demand hate and murder and then actually follow through, well i will hate those too, and those that support the islamic agenda. i do not deny that.
i used to think that only a "few" were hate mongers but then i started reading the koran and that hadith. that was a wake up call.
like many i was taught the crusades were wrong, but then i started reading about what islam did to cause that response.
i heard about the spanish inquisition and then learned that it was not the church but the king and queen that turned it into their private bank and used the terror to force others to give up their money.
i used to think that the jews were wrong - and then i studied what is happening in the middle east.
in each case i found that education was the key to knowledge and the more you learn the more you understand that the greatest evil on the earth today is islam. and i have linked to sites where islamic clerics say exactly what i say is happening, and are so proud of it that they distribute these sermons on the internet.
when i say that islamic women teach their children to hate i post links to the sites.
i have not bothered to post to the saudi sites - they would be cumulative, but they are out ther too.
when i say islam wants to impose its will on those not islamic i site to links that show rioting islamics demanding the death of the pope over a comment made by a 14th century empiror who said that it was evil to force islam on anyone. not just one link, but many, and showing riots from many different islamic countries.
there is not a single comment i have made that i do not post a citation to - except some dates and battles - which i presume are not subject to question as most of the time i get them from islamic history sites. such as the acts of islamics in india.
and why cant any islamic defender actually answer any of my questions? the fact is - islamics dont answer questions when the answers are not favorable to islam, or that there is so much authority to the contrary that they can be shown to lie if they deny them.
and i dont have a girlfriend - i have a wife - one wife only - and children and grandchildren.
and unlike islamics i did not show my children or grandchildren pictures of mickey mouse telling other children to murder jews, and i did not show my grandchildren mickey mouse being killed by a fake jew so that the children would grow up thinking a jew killed mickey mouse.
as a matter of fact i taught them to love people and it was only after they reached an age of reason that i ever discussed politics and then only at a level they would understand.
and no i dont have straining blood vessels and i dont shriek.
you see unlike islamics i have a lot of pleasure here on earth and hope for an afterlife, where the only pleasure is to be in the presence of god.
on the other hand islamics believe that they are here to suffer and that the way to paradise is to make others as miserable as you are, and then, when you get to heaven, your god will give you that which you could have had on earth - women, food and wine, but nothing else.
so here is my question - if you could get those things already, why continue to be miserable and make others miserable, in the hope that your god will give you what you can already have.
and i know and have represented a lof of islamics, including some retired ministers of islamic countries - surprise surprise. they are good people but very bad islamics. while they are in public they pretend the islamic life - when alone we drink, eat white steak [pork] and their wives drive cars, dont wear those nutty clothes and discuss how the governments they used to serve use islam as a way to make the common people stay poor, while the rulers live a nice life in their home countries and abroad.
there is one thing that does make all islamic people equal - MONEY. those with it want a good life and live it, but they dont mind their own countrymen living in poverty and dirt shacks.
such is islam in practice.

Oh! I'd like (figuratively, of course) to meet HER!

I suspect, however, that even with a patch kit he couldn't maintain a relationship for long.

Hey Frank Collins:

You NEED to get a girl friend. That would get your mind off this stuff, ok?

Frank Collins is trying to get everyone to hate the Moslems as much as he does. I am not a fan of Islam; probably most western people are not. But, you know, I am not feeling the hate; I just am not feeling it. So, what am I gonna do?

I can just picture Frank, with the blood vessels straining in his neck, ready to burst; I can just picture him, typeing at his keyboard, shrieking and red-faced with hysteria, a la John Belushi, until he finally gags on his own spit, and lurches up, and then topples over onto the carpet, flopping around and foaming at the mouth--a real Blanche-DuBois-in-a-strait-jacket moment.

To Anonymous,

Perhaps it is uncharitable, but when he provides the entertainment so freely, it is difficult to pass up the opportunity. Especially when he begins to drown out the intelligent and logical arguements that I had been attempting to follow earlier, though I had not seen any of that ilk I felt moved to respond to.

The Duchess of Brimestone Court

To The Duchess Of Brimesone Court;

Milady,

I could not agree more! However, it is somewhat uncharitable of us to use the mentally disenfranchised moppet as base entertainment.

But then again, base is the only entertainment option he provides...n'est ce pas?

Frankie,

What debate, Buddy? I haven't seen you debate anything. No one has given you a serious response on any thread in weeks, Sweetie.

Just to help you out there a little, Tiger, changing the subject is not a "debating technique", it STOPS the debate. Maybe it starts a new one, but it is not a "technique" within the original one.

Got it? Now keep the lower case letters below the dotted line when you respond. And think, Sport-O, before you just let go with more of that diarrhea of the mouth...OK?

Hey, Mrs. Collins, what time do you put him down for a nap? I might check out some of his facts if we could get a little quiet in here.

Anonymous - It's fun to make the troll dance, ne?

Though I must agree with you, his mother is clearly neglecting to moniter his internet usage.

-The Duchess of Brimestone Court

Hmm. No, not particularly. You're starting to loose your entertainment value.

If you want a true debate, by the way, you ought to invest in lessons in proper English grammar. It doesn't matter that it is not an appellate brief, or a formal paper. If you wish to be taken seriously, and not treated as a troll, you have to learn how to articulate yourself properly.

This shall be my final post making the troll dance. I have more thought-provoking and interesting entertainment planned for the afternoon, like watching Flaming Chicken... also known as Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix. Perhaps the movie shall prove more enjoyable for me than the book.

The Duchess of Brimestone Court
666 Brimstone Court
Ninth Circle, Hell
Apartment B

Frankie,

Look, Son, your SAYING you post facts is not really a guarantee of it.

I would have to look all those thing up to see if you are right. Unfortunately, your inability to use English grammar, your direspectful misuse of the names of others, general nastiness, and claims that "when you teach" you are paid "like a Phd." and "called Doctor" indicate that I don't need to fact-check your cyber-crayon scribbled crap.

Common sense, a little critical thinking, and basic ability to recognize social retardation tell me I don't need to waste any time checking your "facts".

Now, if you would get your butt outside and play on a nice summer's day like today maybe you could run-off some of that nastiness.

Oh, and Mrs. Collins, if you are paying any attention (as you should be supervising this one), your boy really should stay away from all that sugar. Maybe switch to Cheerios, instead of a heaping bowl of Fruit Loops. Remember, he is what he eats!

You're the one trying to defend something, Frank Collins. The rest of us are just poking at a troll with a stick to make it dance. I am easily amused by trolls such as yourself. It's cheap entertainment.

My previous statement on your lack of grammar still stands.

The Duchess of Brimestone Court
666 Brimestone Court
Apartment B

Frank (but foolish) posts:

"thank you all for being unable to refute facts i have posted here"

Choosing not to do so, and being unable to do so, are not the same thing.

If your facts are "irrefutable", they do not require the actions of others to become that way.

However, the subtext of that statement does attempt to prove what seems to be the ONLY point you make; I need validation, even if only from strangers on the web.

What facts, Frank Collins?

I didn't attempt to refute your tantrum because there is no point in attempting to do so. You would merely throw another tantrum, purpotingmore "facts" that are nothing but the delusional ramblings of a infantile man with an inability to accept change.

Also, if you would be so kind, do learn how to use proper grammar before you post again. It might incline me to dispute your so-called facts, and do the research to support my rebuttal.

Her Grace, The Duchess of Brimestone Court
666 Brimestone Court
Apartment B

Frank Collins: i am accused of mud slinging and promoting hate, but why?

You are accused of such because your actions are thus. If you are incapable of understanding that, I pity you. I never did enjoy the knowledge that there are individuals such as yourself who are trapped at an early and inflexible stage of development.

It would do your arguement better if you did your research, and didn't indulge in childish yelling and tantrums.

Oh, Frankie, I could never assert that!

I would need to actually READ AND understand your scribbles to do so.

If you make any kind of point, I guess you're welcome for having me prove it.

Kids DO say the darndest things.

OOPS! Sorry for the double-post everyone!

Frank,

If this were not cyber-space, I would come to your street corner and throw a nickel into your cup! Thanks for the laughs.

Since this is cyber-space, I really think your parents need to move the computer to the living room so they can see what you are doing on it. It's a little irresponsible of them to allow you to interrupt and take over the grown-ups' conversation with your tantrums.

Frank,

If this were not cyber-space, I would come to your street corner and throw a nickel into your cup! Thanks for the laughs.

Since this is cyber-space, I really think your parents need to move the computer to the living room so they can see what you are doing on it. It's a little irresponsible of them to allow you to interrupt and take over the grown-ups' conversation with your tantrums.

Dr. Frank Collins posted: "i know im getting to them when they cant do anything but try to insult me."

As always, your eloquence is jaw-dropping. Why do you waste your grand education and hard earned credentials simply trying to "get to them"?

Frankly, Doctor, how is it that you never learned what irony is? There IS nothing to do but insult you. It is also known as returning in kind. You make allegations deeply hidden in verbose insults (and a lot of elementary school copying), but NEVER a point.

Furthermore, what you refer to as "trying" to insult you are, in fact, insults. Your lack of shame that allows you to deflect actually being insulted does not change what they are. Surely a scholar like yourself knows that.

I am inclined to agree with other posters above. It amazes me that the Washinton Post allows you to steal so much bandwidth for your personal crusade of childish, and bigoted baiting.

Your posts read like some sort of Unibomber-esqe manifesto, written by some sef-deluded "big fish" in a small trailer park who home-schools a brood of inbred bastards. Did you cultivate such a a style in graduate school, or is it just serendipity, Doctor?

Pamela,

Here is Ali Sina's ( www.faithfreedom.org ) reply to Karen Armstrong regarding islamic prayers in one of Ms. Armstrong's articles about prayers.

Have you any comments about the prophet's threat to those followers who do not pray ?

-----------------------------------------------------
Ms. Armstrong writes: “But then I came to understand that prayer is really for us.”

Dear Ms. Armstrong: Even if the prayers are for us; that is not the case in Islam. In Islam prayers are obligatory. Why? If it is for us, then it should be voluntary. Both Bukhari and Muslim report a hadith of Muhammad who has said: “I thought that I should order the prayer to be commenced and command a person to lead people in prayer, and I should then go along with some persons having a fagot of fuel with them to the people who have not attended the prayer (in congregation) and would burn their houses with fire.” (Muslim Book 004, Number 1370; and Bukhari Volume 1, Book 11, Number 626).

If in Islam the prayers were for the benefit of the believers then why force them to pray with this much violence? It is clear that Allah is very needy and desperate for praise. How can the maker of the universe be so petty? It is because Allah is not God but Muhammad’s other alias. This man whom you so mistakenly have come to believe was a prophet was a narcissist, a cult leader no different from Jim Jones, David Koresh, Charles Manson or Shoko Asahara. Islam was his way to get his narcissistic supply and make people love him, fear him and respect him. To be God is the narcissist’s wet dream. Muhammad realized that dream. As a narcissist he could not tolerate rejection and neglect. When he demanded his foolhardy followers to pray to Allah that prayer was for him. That is why he was so offended and acted so violently towards those who did not believe in him, did not pray to him and rejected his claim. A narcissist cannot tolerate rejection and neglect.

By defending Islam and portraying it as a religion, you have done a lot of harm. I have had many emails from westerners leaving Islam and blaming you for misleading them into Islam in the first place. It is time that you come to your senses and face the truth. I invite you to debate with me publicly in writing. I have shown that Islam is a cult and Muhammad was a psychopath narcissist. If you can prove me wrong or prove that Muhammad had anything to do with God, I will remove my site and publicly acknowledge that I was wrong.

Ali Sina

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

im proud of the courage imam taylor shows- shes a great deal ore eloquent than i- and her scholarship gives voice to someone like me who isnt knowledgeable enough to express coherently disquiet at some issues that make me uneasy when i encounter them- i feel they dishonor the spirit of unity that islam is (in particular the prayer to triumph over disbelievers)-
spiritual one-upsmanship has no place in any religion, but especially islam.

time for another story- im full of them-

for latin mass-

i was born in 1961 and vatican II came along when i was about 7 or 8, and lain started to get stricken from the churches-
when i was 10 or so- i went to one of the poorest catholic schools in america- in the hill distirct in pittsburgh pa (made famous by the tv show hill street blues).
we had a new priest, and i went to church every morning- and listened to the latin mass-
well- i THOUGHT i did anyway.

years later, i was at a missionary travelers house (it was full of missionaries on hiatus- in between assignments) and i mentioned to a priest there about my childhood experience-
it was 20 years later, and the priest knew well the priest i was talking about, but was confused -

that priest had never goven a latin mass i his life!
he was a brand new priest straight off the boat from india, and his accent was so heavy and unintelligible to my young ears that i thought he had been speaking latin!!!!

(as an adult i went to high mass (which is all latin) regularly and became more familiar with it- but at 10 i guess i just filled in the blanks myself)

it is funny, but also kind of sad- i was a really EARNEST kid, and sat front pew always-
if any kid was straining to understand in that church- i was definitely one of them-
and if it was all gibberish to me, and i accepted it- i cannot even begin to imagine what the other kids were getting out of it-
(589 of the 600 kids were african americans who were displaced when the hill district was burned down in the riots- and were all baptists)

i understand the desire for a sense of unity through language in worship,
but i also realize latin is not a living spoken language- no one converses in latin-

and communication is key to understanding.

one of the beauties of islam, is that everyone- all over the world, speaks the same language of prayer.
it is the qunitessential unifying force-

i would even daresay an overtly aquarian ideal but i know that will draw some strong critique.

for the american born and raised woman-

i am also one- but i dont think it implies a greater tendency or willingness to display ones posterior in public.

i think american women are very ladylike-

you misunderstand the mechanics of islamic prayer-

in the hundreds of congregational prayers i have shared, i have never one time had the opportunity to see the posterior of the woman 6 inches in front of me!

it is physically impossible to have a chance to view the lady in front of me, as we are acting in concert, when i am rising from my sadja(forehead to floor) position, so is the lady in front of me!

you simply cannot see whats in front of you when your forehead is pressed to the floor, and that is the only time ones posterior may be exposed in any way-

also, and this is a big difference, it is likely you have seen videos of the men praying, their knees are somewhat bent, and their lift up some off the ground.

when ladies pray, their bodies are closely hugging the ground,posteriors tightly resting on our feet and there is never any point at all where ones dignity may be compromised in any way- even if by some strange reason a person would deliberately attempt such a strange endeavor-

as the imam is always maybe a second or two ahead of the congregating worshippers- (as we are following their lead)
such a thing is just logistically improbable even somewhat impossible (but one should never say never)

thank you ladies and a salaamu alaikum to my sisters-

ill tell you- these past 3 days in new york, where its been almost 100 degrees- and at my job i am sweating a bit profusely under my scarf- (even my husband suggested i take off my hijab for the heat wave)

it is a real spiritual shot in the arm for me to come in here and get energized by my sisters-
from all corners of the globe, were all the same in here-

Roger Smith,

Quran describes Trinity as Father,Son and Mary.5.116. This is Wrong.

5.5 permits specifically muslim man may merry non-muslim women(but,first she must convert to islam),not muslim woman may merry to non-muslim,qafir man.Besides,in the same chapter it says 'Take not the Jews and Christians for friends'5.51,isnt it a contrdiction ?

2.62 says 'Jews,Christians shouldnt fear...',but,5.65 says 'if only they believe islam and be muslim admitted them to garden of bliss'.Isnt it a contrdiction ?

16.67 says 'the fruits of grapes,you can derive strong drink(that means wine)but,5.90 prohibits 'strong drink'.Isnt it a contrdiction ?

Roger Smith,
Islam is wrong.
Islam is contrdiction.
Islam is against US Constitution and Human Rights.
Islamic banking is not Truth.Sukut paper doesnt mean islamic banking and without golden,silver coins interest is not 'sin'.
Islam is backwardness and idleness.Could you explain why all muslim countries GDP is less then one american bank,Citibank market value ?

To the Editors Washington post"

Your site is so disgusting propaganda page for those blood thirsty hate mongers like Frankensick Collins and his other postings with various named the same pig.

He is worst than other violent Christian terrorisIs like Tim of Oklahama, This idiot is a dangerous madman - a potential mass murders how come they end up in your page. Please check his IP address and report to Police and other law agencies to arrest him, he is terrble and a potential person for a serious crime to happen. Please report to the authorities of this type of people among civilians.

I will not read anymore this page and will recommend to others not to read this page on religion, this is basically a racist platform for nazi style brainwash againt minorities like Muslims.

Shame on you editors of Washington post and shame on America. All Muslims should boycot this newsforum and muslim writers should not participate in this forum, this is a huge wasting of their time. This is not a civilized place but a place for criminals like Frank and idiots like the moderators/editors of this site.

To the Editors Washingtonpost"

Your site is so disgusting propaganda page for those blood thirsty hate mongers like Frankensick Collins and his other postings with various named the same pig.

He is worst than other violent Christian terrorisIs like Tim of Oklahama, This idiot is a dangerous madman - a potential mass murders how come they end up in your page. Please check his IP address and report to Police and other law agencies to arrest him, he is terrble and a potential person for a serious crime to happen. Please report to the authorities of this type of people among civilians.

I will not read anymore this page and will recommend to others not to read this page on religion, this is basically a racist platform for nazi style brainwash againt minorities like Muslims.

Shame on you editors of Washington post and shame on America. All Muslims should boycot this newsforum and muslim writers should not participate in this forum, this is a huge wasting of their time. This is not a civilized place but a place for criminals like Frank and idiots like the moderators/editors of this site.

To the Editors Washingtonpost"

Your site is so disgusting propaganda page for those blood thirsty hate mongers like Frankensick Collins and his other postings with various named the same pig.

He is worst than other violent Christian terrorisIs like Tim of Oklahama, This idiot is a dangerous madman - a potential mass murders how come they end up in your page. Please check his IP address and report to Police and other law agencies to arrest him, he is terrble and a potential person for a serious crime to happen. Please report to the authorities of this type of people among civilians.

I will not read anymore this page and will recommend to others not to read this page on religion, this is basically a racist platform for nazi style brainwash againt minorities like Muslims.

Shame on you editors of Washington post and shame on America. All Muslims should boycot this newsforum and muslim writers should not participate in this forum, this is a huge wasting of their time. This is not a civilized place but a place for criminals like Frank and idiots like the moderators/editors of this site.

To the Editors Washingtonpost"

Your site is so disgusting propaganda page for those blood thirsty hate mongers like Frankensick Collins and his other postings with various named the same pig.

He is worst than other violent Christian terrorisIs like Tim of Oklahama, This idiot is a dangerous madman - a potential mass murders how come they end up in your page. Please check his IP address and report to Police and other law agencies to arrest him, he is terrble and a potential person for a serious crime to happen. Please report to the authorities of this type of people among civilians.

I will not read anymore this page and will recommend to others not to read this page on religion, this is basically a racist platform for nazi style brainwash againt minorities like Muslims.

Shame on you editors of Washington post and shame on America. All Muslims should boycot this newsforum and muslim writers should not participate in this forum, this is a huge wasting of their time. This is not a civilized place but a place for criminals like Frank and idiots like the moderators/editors of this site.

To the Editors Washingtonpost"

Your site is so disgusting propaganda page for those blood thirsty hate mongers like Frankensick Collins and his other postings with various named the same pig.

He is worst than other violent Christian terrorisIs like Tim of Oklahama, This idiot is a dangerous madman - a potential mass murders how come they end up in your page. Please check his IP address and report to Police and other law agencies to arrest him, he is terrble and a potential person for a serious crime to happen. Please report to the authorities of this type of people among civilians.

I will not read anymore this page and will recommend to others not to read this page on religion, this is basically a racist platform for nazi style brainwash againt minorities like Muslims.

Shame on you editors of Washington post and shame on America. All Muslims should boycot this newsforum and muslim writers should not participate in this forum, this is a huge wasting of their time. This is not a civilized place but a place for criminals like Frank and idiots like the moderators/editors of this site.

To the Editors Washingtonpost"

Your site is so disgusting propaganda page for those blood thirsty hate mongers like Frankensick Collins and his other postings with various named the same pig.

He is worst than other violent Christian terrorisIs like Tim of Oklahama, This idiot is a dangerous madman - a potential mass murders how come they end up in your page. Please check this IP address and report to Police and other law agencies to arrest him, he is terrble and a potential person for a serious crime to happen. Please report to the authorities of this type of people among civilians.

I will not read anymore this page and will recommend to others not to read this page on religion, this is basically a racist platform for nazi style brainwash againt minorities like Muslims.

Shame on you editors of Washington post and shame on America. All Muslims should boycot this newsforum and muslim writers should not participate in this forum, this is a huge wasting of their time. This is not a civilized place but a place for criminals like Frank and idiots like the moderators/editors of this site.

OK John Doe, whoever else. Let's see if this gets censored.

The battle of Jericho is celebrated in myth and song yet it is a case of genocide, plain and simple. And to add to the humor of the situation, they saved the brothel, Sede and her stable of working girls along "with all in her house" were spared. That leads to the simplest of logic. If the Israelites attack head for the local brothel for it's the only safe place.

I'm not finished. They brought the loot, what the people of Jericho had worth anything, all the gold, silver, copper and iron objects to GOD'S TREASURY. Of course that God lives in a ball of fire, the being that Moses made the deal with to get IT'S chosen people set free from slavery in Egypt. Is that the being that gave Muhammad his instructions to start Islam?

Is that rotten enough for Muslims? I can give you a lot more. Try http://www.hoax-buster.org/sellyoursoul

To: Anonymous,

You are absolutely right Washington Post awlays prefers to post all the hate mongers postings like those busta*d Frank Collins, he has stolen the Christian teaching to spread hate and Washington Post loves it, so the peaceful message of Muslims writers will go to different path, basically to hijack the idea of peaceful dialog.

They will post comments like you wrote or I am wring now but the time I want to post those cut + paste Bible facts from different chapters that tells to kill everybody including infants and babies or provide statistics of the atrocities commited by the name of Christianity will not be published. I witness that and this is unfortunate truth and the western media wonders why they hate us.

Pam,

You noted:

"There would be instant rejection by most mosque going Muslims of the idea that we might change the wording of something that is well documented as a dua that the Prophet used to say. Indeed, that he said regularly."

How do you know what Mohammed said regularly? He was illiterate and therefore could not proofread or approve what the scribes were putting down in the koran. He and also every Muslim believe in angels, those mythical creatures of the ancients. People who believe in myths as truth are not taken seriously. Two historical strikes against knowing what Mo said.

Either he or his scribes dictated their warmongering agenda which called for the looting, pillaging and conquest of the lands of the non-believers and it still does. That makes Strike Three for Mohammed and his koran and whatever he may or may not have said.

Globo-Mojo.

I agree God's message comes from many many sources. It just depends where one is looking.

Washingtonpost.com moderators are biased to say the least. They have posted Frank Collins' hate filled diatribes consistently. However my one post giving a clear explanation on the meaning of the word Jihad was not posted. Thanks for making it abundantly clear that the washingtonpost has absolutely no intent on presenting a fair and balanced view when it comes to Islam or Muslims. I would not have so appalled at not having my comment posted if the comments of likes of Frank Collins were also omitted. This will be a perfect example that I will use in any argument for this point forward as to why the media has a negative bias towards Islam and Muslims. Clearly the idea that western media is somehow superior because it is "objective" is questionable. Thank you.

that was for FRANK COLLINS

If words were as deep as our minds could go, we would be shallow vessels indeed. If a religion really seeks to pursue truth, rather than pursue conformity of practice and behavior, then it must teach the limits and pitfalls of language. A "prohpet" offers a seed of wisdom, and a thousand scholarly exegeses can sprout like branches. Collectively it is still but one tree by which we can contemplate the universe. We must still grapple with the soil, the wind, the sea, etc. Those may take hundreds more prophets, and millions more scholars. And have we grappled yet with the spaces between the atoms? We need to contemplate EVERYTHING... all languages, all ideas, all prophets, all haters and lovers.

who's cutting your pay check?

Thank you Pamela for your aritcle. This is eye opening to know that muslims like you has the heart to stand up and say the right things in a public forum in this day when muslims are being targeted for just being muslim.

At the same time I think it good that Catholic Church is bringing back the tradition not because it is disliked by others but a tradition should remain in place as is without middle hand of correction or politically rightness statement.

Good work and keep up saying the truth as Islam demands tell the truth and witness the truth even it goes against you or your family.

Jihadist,
Islam is a universal faith that happened to be revealed to an Arabic speaking Prophet(pbuh)-and the Quran is unequivocal about that universality as in many verses.Islam's meritocracy is based on belief,piety and good deeds-not color,rcae or rank...etc. No need whatsoever for non-Arab muslims to hijack Islam from Muslim Arabs:Arabs never claimed they have a monopoly over Islam, God's Deen, in the first place. Arabic speaking Muslims are around 300 million out of a total of 1.6 billion Muslims-a concrete testimony to Islam's universality.Indonesia,the largest Muslim country in the world is non-Arab.Islam is absolutely Color Blind.

The greatest names in the history of Islam are not necessairly Arab by race-but were masters of Arabic-not because Arabic is a beautiful language of high culture but essentially because it's the language of the Quran.In fact the greatest linguist of Arabic of all times, Seebawaieh,was not Arab but Persian.
Arabs never claimed monopoly over the interpretation of the Quran:but even native Arabic speakers has to be well-grounded in the Arabic language and its subtilities to understand and interpret the Quran-and countless numbers of non-Arab Muslims throughout history just did that. A more recent eaxample:Abdullah Yousef Ali,an Indian Muslim,was not only a master of Arabic but also of English,which allowed him to produce a brilliant English translation of the Quran in 1934 that we still use to this very moment.

There is a muslim fundamentalist leader in the Indian sub-continent. His name is Zakir Naik and is supposed to be a "scholar", an "expert" on islam. Here is what he had to say on Polygamy and it kind of reflects the way islam treats women. Disgusting, to say the least! And the numbers he quotes are untrue and misleading too...

"In the USA, women outnumber men by 7.8 million. New York alone has one million more females as compared to the number of males, and of the male population of New York one-third are gays i.e sodomites. The U.S.A as a whole has more than twenty-five million gays. This means that these people do not wish to marry women. Great Britain has four million more females as compared to males. Germany has five million more females as compared to males. Russia has nine million more females than males. God alone knows how many million more females there are in the whole world as compared to males. Even if every man got married to one woman, there would still be more than thirty million females in U.S.A who would not be able to get husbands (considering that America has twenty five million gays). There would be more than four million females in Great Britain, 5 million females in Germany and nine million females in Russia alone who would not be able to find a husband.

In Western society, it is common for a man to have mistresses and/or multiple extra-marital affairs, in which case, the woman leads a disgraceful, unprotected life. The same society, however, cannot accept a man having more than one wife, in which women retain their honourable, dignified position in society and lead a protected life.

Thus the only two options before a woman who cannot find a husband is to marry a married man or to become public property. Islam prefers giving women the honourable position by permitting the first option and disallowing the second. There are several other reasons, why Islam has permitted limited polygyny, but it is mainly to protect the modesty of women."

FRANK COLLINS, what do you expect from devil worshipers, hugs and kisses?

Since Commentator brought it up:

I am female and completely western -born and bred. I would NEVER kneel down and bend over in front of a group of men like you do for prayers. That's NOT sacred for you to give them full view of your a$$.

Just my honest opinion..

FYI Pamela ,,, women can be imams for other women. but during the presence of a man the man should lead the prayer.

I repent my harsh remarks.

Let's leave it up to the Catholics.

Tell ya what -- I'll start commenting on the false gospel of the Koran, and you can start commenting on the Catholic Mass. Is it a deal?

I wish the Quran made more sense to me. I'd be mightily attracted to a religion of strict ritual and loose hierarchy. Maybe I should learn Arabic.

Sister Pamela:

Not to disagree with what you said but to add a little insight and ask a pointed question. Isn't Allah the being in the ball of fire that Moses met in the sheep pasture? That could explain a lot.

http://www.hoax-buster.org/sellyoursoul would lead us to believe, faith the being in the ball of fire to be the biggest Devil of them all, Lucifer the Lord of Hell itself. When I see what I see in the world and hear things like you say I am not discouraged from believing the hoax buster interpretation of the Bible. Can the Qu'ran be equally interpreted?

Don't you think Muslims would be well advised to give that some real serious thought. I'm sure you do not want to worship Devil or do what Devil wants. Is what is going on today in greater Islam what God wants or what Devil wants? It's certainly far from clear that God would ever, under any circumstances want His people to act like that. Don't you agree? If Almighty God wants anyone dead He doesn't really need people to do His killing for Him does He?

Daniel
I think Jihadist chose that name deliberately in attempt to win the concept back from the misinterpretation you cite.
As a Christian and currently a practicing Catholic -- although that last may be about to change -- I welcome a return to the essentials of the mass. Catholics have been subjected to a lot of pseudo-liturgical idiocy in the last forty years. The rest of the June 29th statement bothers me, though.

To Pamela and Jihadist

There is a guy (I won't bring up his name) who often posts some really sick anti-Islamic comments and tirades. I am not like him. I am not intending to be insulting like him. But I have a couple of comments and questions.

For the 2 of you to voice Islamic criticisms, as you have here, aren't you putting yourselves in danger of mortal attack? (At least Pamela is, whose true identity is not hidden). Isn't there sort of an invisible, behind-the-scenes group of "enforcers" who retaliate against diviation from tradtional Islamic custom and intrepretation?

And secondly, to Jihadist, the choice of your name bothers me. I am not sure that you comprehend the connotations of that word "Jihadist" in the English language. It conjures up the most horrible and ghoulish images of blood, death, and destruction, of headless and dismembered bodies, and of bloody body parts ripped apart in suicide bombings. I know that in your own mind, the word "Jihadist" might mean something else, possibly something good, but in English, it has come to symbolize all that is most wicked in the world, like the Nazis, for example.

I am not saying this to be mean; I am saying it because that is how it is.

Assalam mualaikum
Imam Pamela Taylor

Can I take some of the heat away from you on your essay here from both Muslim and non-Muslim? After all, you are a Muslim living in a country where Muslims are a minority. I am a Muslim from and of Muslim majority countries that is not Arab.

Don't worry about what you wrote here. It is the truth. As you know, even that prayer line, "There is no God but God, and Muhammad is Its Messenger" should be look at in a historical context. I am always happy to attest that there is no God but God, and that Muhammad is indeed Its Messenger.
But I really doubt that the Prophet, when he was alive and leading the Muslims in prayers, would actually say, ".....and Muhammad is Its Messenger". It is obvious that Muslims added that after the Prophet died, in the prayers.

As you know, there were others who said they are also prophets after Muhammad died. As you are aware, the Shiites' prayers add Al too in their prayers as such, "There is no God but God, Muhammad is Its Messenger, and Ali is its Companion/Friend". For obvious historical reasons too, and related to the beliefs of various competing factions after the Prophet died.

Yes, these things takes time. No one can force anyone what to say in their personal prayers, but some Muslim states, including Turkey, Indonesia and Malaysia that hires imams, do issue specific sermons to be read. Of course, imams do deviate from the state issued sermons (in the native language of course) and do improvise, especially if their own governments that hired them are corrupt, unjust and oppressive. Good for them.

Non Arab Muslims still prefer to say their daily prayers in Arabic and do know what is said as approximations/translations are widely available.

As for prayers thanking God for "taming this animal to me", admittedly, my husband do say that whenever I am driving my family. He is referring to me perhaps, as when I am at the wheel, the car is quite wild, beastly and speedy. I have dents in my car, and speeding tickets to show for it.

Back to Imam Pamela Taylor, a non Arab Muslim living as a non Muslim country putting honest thoughts without historical baggage and gripes about hurt and honour; as non-Arab Muslims are numerically more than Arab Muslims in the world, Islam will be hijacked by non-Arab Muslims from the Arabs in moving it forward for the community of believers.

Non-Arab Muslims are relying more and more on their own Muslim ulema, scholars and thinkers on Islam and matters relating to Muslim faith.

And why not? God gave Islam to everyone who believe in it, not just to Arabs, and not just for Arabs to interpret or define it. After all, during the classical period of Islamic civilisation, many of greatest Muslim scholars, statemen and commanders are not Arabs, but Persians, Kurds, Turkish and Andulasians. And we are all Muslims regardless of race, region and gender before God.

If my fellow Muslims from the Middle East miss my point completely, then, I rest my case of why the future of Islam will be in the hands of non-Arab Muslims.

Peace be with you.