Comments on: USA: “Obsession” Anti-Islam Film Angers Bloggers http://globalvoicesonline.org/2008/10/08/global-obsession-propaganda-film-incites-anger-toward-republicans/ The world is talking. Are you listening? Tue, 01 Dec 2009 23:56:12 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: Doug Swallow http://globalvoicesonline.org/2008/10/08/global-obsession-propaganda-film-incites-anger-toward-republicans/comment-page-11/#comment-1548001 Doug Swallow Thu, 22 Jan 2009 03:58:36 +0000 http://globalvoicesonline.org/?p=51192#comment-1548001 What follows is mainly intended to confirm that I did read your reply and it would be of no benefit to anyone for me to go into a lengthy dissertation at this time regarding my interpretation of Islam and what it's teachings are. I do offer up this appraisal of Islam and your dissertation supports this: "My fight is against Islam only. Not because it is a religion but because it IS NOT. Islam is politics in the garb of religion. It is an instrument of domination and subjugation. It only uses religious mask to penetrate and conquer." After reading episodes that follow: Sira, p463-4: Then they {the tribe of Quraiza} surrendered, and the apostle confined them in Medina in the quarter of d. al-Harith, a woman of Bani al-Najjar. Then the apostle went out to the market of Medina and dug trenches in it. Then he sent for them and struck off their heads in those trenches as they were brought out to him in batches. Among them was the enemy of Allah Huyayy bin Akhtab and Kab bin Asad their chief. There were 600 or 700 in all, though some put the figure as high as 800 or 900. As they were being taken out in batches to the Apostle they asked Kab what he thought would be done with them. He replied, "Will you never understand? Don't you see that the summoner never stops and those who are taken away do not return? By Allah it is death!" This went on until the Apostle made an end of them. Please explain again how this can be a religion of peace. The actions of today's jihadist tell the story in far more detail than what their words do. It is said that the vast majority of Muslims have not read or digested the Koran (90%) has two major implications. First, if rational, modern-thinking Muslims read the Koran thoroughly, they would desert Islam. They would argue, God cannot incite to hatred and violence. The Koran cannot be the “word of God”. Second, if simple-minded Muslims read the Koran and digested it, they would stick to the above “commandments”, and we would have more radical and extremist Muslims around the world. Since Muslims can be anything from blond haired and blue eyed to black African to Asiatic and any where in between, how can racism enter into a discussion of Islam? You, being a scholar, I'm sure have knowledge of Godwin's Law. Another question I have is that so many to the far left of center politically say that they are atheist, which is fine, but then why do so many seem to embrace Islam? Again, I Say: Have a nice day What follows is mainly intended to confirm that I did read your reply and it would be of no benefit to anyone for me to go into a lengthy dissertation at this time regarding my interpretation of Islam and what it’s teachings are.

I do offer up this appraisal of Islam and your dissertation supports this:
“My fight is against Islam only. Not because it is a religion but because it IS NOT. Islam is politics in the garb of religion. It is an instrument of domination and subjugation. It only uses religious mask to penetrate and conquer.”

After reading episodes that follow:
Sira, p463-4: Then they {the tribe of Quraiza} surrendered, and the apostle confined them in Medina in the quarter of d. al-Harith, a woman of Bani al-Najjar. Then the apostle went out to the market of Medina and dug trenches in it. Then he sent for them and struck off their heads in those trenches as they were brought out to him in batches. Among them was the enemy of Allah Huyayy bin Akhtab and Kab bin Asad their chief. There were 600 or 700 in all, though some put the figure as high as 800 or 900. As they were being taken out in batches to the Apostle they asked Kab what he thought would be done with them. He replied, “Will you never understand? Don’t you see that the summoner never stops and those who are taken away do not return? By Allah it is death!” This went on until the Apostle made an end of them. Please explain again how this can be a religion of peace. The actions of today’s jihadist tell the story in far more detail than what their words do.

It is said that the vast majority of Muslims have not read or digested the Koran (90%) has two major implications. First, if rational, modern-thinking Muslims read the Koran thoroughly, they would desert Islam. They would argue, God cannot incite to hatred and violence. The Koran cannot be the “word of God”. Second, if simple-minded Muslims read the Koran and digested it, they would stick to the above “commandments”, and we would have more radical and extremist Muslims around the world.

Since Muslims can be anything from blond haired and blue eyed to black African to Asiatic and any where in between, how can racism enter into a discussion of Islam? You, being a scholar, I’m sure have knowledge of Godwin’s Law.

Another question I have is that so many to the far left of center politically say that they are atheist, which is fine, but then why do so many seem to embrace Islam?

Again, I Say: Have a nice day

]]> By: Manus http://globalvoicesonline.org/2008/10/08/global-obsession-propaganda-film-incites-anger-toward-republicans/comment-page-11/#comment-1542926 Manus Wed, 31 Dec 2008 18:37:58 +0000 http://globalvoicesonline.org/?p=51192#comment-1542926 Firstly, I would like to thank you for answering my previous comment and clearly made a clear distinction between Islam as an Ideology and Muslims as human beings, contrary to some previous commentators who turned the debate into a racial theory. Therefore, I do believe you deserve an answer to what is in my opinion are genuine questions that need to be addressed and debated. As an atheist and academic I treat all religious texts as historical documents and all my research methods start from that principal. Once the decision is made to conduct historical research, there are steps that should be followed to achieve a reliable result. To have a viable historical method the study needs to encompass the: origins, growth, theories, personalities, crisis, etc. The recognition of a historical problem will require the identification of a need for certain historical knowledge: To achieve that purpose, it is fundamental to understand the chronology of the Quran to comprehend the logic and what is sometimes perceived as contradictions in that work. It is possible however to link the different parts of the Quran to different periods of Muhammad’s life, each characterized by a slightly different philosophy. During the early part of his ministry in Mecca, his followers were few in number, and the peaceful passages all come from this period. Moreover, enemies and adversaries were ruthless from the beginning towards the adherent of the new faith. They practised all type of torture and persecution and those early years have had a deep impact in the shaping of Muslim’s thinking for centuries to come. During the Medinan period, his followers had grown in numbers, were stronger and much more militarily organised and this is reflected in a much more assertive attitude. Especially, after all the Jewish tribes Banu Nadir invited the Arabs Banu Quraish to form a coalition against Muhammad so that they might get rid of him altogether. Then they persuaded the tribe of Ghaftan to join the battle against Muhammad. It is at that stage that the first verses 33:9-33:27 targeted the Jews (Benu Nadir, Banu Qurayza) and unbelievers (Quraish, Ghaftan). Also, Banu Qurayza served as tax collectors for the Persian Empire and practised usury. Conversely, when the Quran highlights “Ahl al Kithab – People of the Scriptues” he speaks about the Islamised Jewish tribes “Banu Aws and Banu Khazraj” who were his allies. The third period, marked by the return to and conquest of Mecca gives us an altogether different picture of Islam. It was a readjustment to the reality of becoming a new power in that region. Surrounded by two great Empires “a dying Roman empire and the rise of a hostile Byzantine Empire in the west, and Persia in the east” Muhammad was extremely aware of the precarious military predicament and the rapport of force. This geopolitical situation gave birth to early Islamic Diplomacy and was evident by the letters he sent to the head of states of all superpowers and particularly to Heraclius. It shows clearly how politically astute he was. Firstly, he was trying to keep Heraclius at bay and pacify him. When Heraclius took power the Empire was in a desperate situation. Heraclius conducted many military campaigns in order to restore the glory of the Roman Empire and 609 launched an overland invasion of Egypt, went into a series of wars against the Persians that ended with an uneasy truce. However, it was Ghassanids, Byzantine vassal state, hostile acts that started the tensions. One of Muhammad’s main priorities was to limit the economical influence of the Jewish tribes of Banu Nadir. He regulated the whole fiscal system and put in place very detailed guidelines to regulate profit and banned usury. He was determined to create an extremely prosperous treasury to finance any eventual conflicts in a treacherous region. The Ghassanids maintained their rule as the guardian of trade routes, policed Bedouin tribes and was a source of troops for the Byzantine army, and for somebody who was an expert in the commercial trade he understood the threat they represented. The first military encounter was in Battle of Mu'tah in 629, where a small 3000 men confronted a 100,000 men force led by Heraclius himself. It was so bad that when the Muslim force arrived at Medina, they were berated for withdrawing and accused of fleeing. It was at this moment that Muhammad needed a Manifesto to unify all the Arab tribes and prepare for an eventual conflict with the Byzantines. It is at this moment that the Quran changed focus from a book of peace to a manifesto for war. The rallying cry bared fruits and in October 630 Muhammad organised a military expedition that he led himself, made of 30,000 men (Tabouk in present-day northwestern Saudi Arabia). However, no military confrontation occurred. Heraclius, then the Byzantine emperor, had decided that reducing the growing Muslim power had become an urgent necessity and the conquest of Arabia should, in his opinion, be achieved before the Muslims became too powerful to conquer and raise troubles and unrest in the adjacent Arab territories. According to the Muslim accounts, the Emperor was rumored to have mustered a huge army of Byzantine soldiers and pro-Roman Ghassanid tribes to launch a decisive military attack against the Muslims. The rhetoric of war intensified and culminated in the clash of both armies over six days in August 636 in the battle of Yarmouk. The Muslim forces 24,000 strong were led by the greatest Arab general if not the greatest military brain ever seen at that time Khalid ibn Walid. Heraclius led the 200,000 strong Byzantines army. It was a most decisive victory, and cemented Khalid ibn Walid reputation as a great tactician and cavalry commander. The Battle of Yarmouk can be seen as an example in military history where an inferior force manages by superior generalship to overcome a superior one. The Quran mirrored the politics of the day and was a tool to unify and galvanise the Muslims and Arab Tribes against an enemy who never acknowledged them as a new entity. Muhammad was also active as a diplomat, merchant, philosopher, orator, legislator, reformer, military general, and, for Muslims and followers of several other religions, an agent of divine action. He was a true polymath, but most of all, he was the earliest Modern politician as defined today. Islam is a religion of peace but never claimed to be a religion that embraced Pacifism. To understand the Quran in any other contest is really a misrepresentation of historical facts and revisionism. The type of analysis reflected by the film and literature that is propagated on the internet against Muslims is not only inspired and uses the same techniques as Neo-Nazi web-sites, it is totally inaccurate and out of the historical context. It only serves one purpose, dehumanising a significant part of humanity. This first part of my answer is dedicated to the historical background of the Quran. I will tackle on the second tranche of my answer the myth of Islamic Threat and its long history in the Christian tradition. Also, I will look into, using your method of research (I mean by that looking at the literal sense of the biblical text and the use of Christianity to fulfil political and colonial aims), examples in the Bible and Christian history that will be seen by today vision as wicked and evil. Also, I will look into all the myths in western media and examine the political agenda they serve. As far as Orthodox Judaism is concerned, there is so much material that clearly shows the lethal nature of Jewish Orthodoxy (From Hasidism, Kabbalah and Talmudic texts) that I do not know from where to start. According to them I am not even a human being and for that matter any “Goyim - Shaygets” or Gentile. However, I advice anybody looking for the truth, to read a book written by an outstanding Israeli Jewish scholar with remarkable insight and depth of knowledge. Israel Shahak is an Israeli Jew who was incarcerated in Belson, and the book is “Jewish History, Jewish Religion: The Weight of Three Thousand Years” http://www.amazon.com/Jewish-History-Religion-Thousand-Eastern/dp/0745308198/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1230732565&sr=8-1 Most of these translations by The Gutenberg Press project (Especially translation by J M Rodwell 1808–1900 and George Sale 1697- 1736) are simply wrong and lies. I am a polymath who holds multiple degrees one of them is a Master degree in Linguistics and speaks 6 languages including Arabic. I am really doubtful of the motives of the people that use these translations as a reference. Especially, when people like George Sale have often been encumbered and disgraced. I will deal with few of these comments: “Muhammad himself was allowed to engage in unlimited sex with female slaves and captives (Koran 4:3, 23:6, 33:50-52 and 70:30) This reference was for the Justification of polygamy in extreme war situations with a caveat to marry only one wife – which is the norm today in most of the Arab world “4:3 -If you deem it best for the orphans, you may marry their mothers - you may marry two, three, or four. If you fear lest you become unfair, then you shall be content with only one, or with what you already have. Additionally, you are thus more likely to avoid financial hardship” 23:6 الا على ازواجهم او ماملكت ايمانهم فانهم غير ملومين [not giving way to their desires] with any but their spouses - that is, those whom they rightfully possess [through wedlock]: [Lit., "or those whom their right hands possess" (aw ma malakat aymanuhum). Many of the commentators assume unquestioningly that this relates to female slaves, and that the particle aw ("or") denotes a permissible alternative. This interpretation is, in my opinion, inadmissible in as much as it is based on the assumption that sexual intercourse with ones female slave is permitted without marriage: an assumption, which is contradicted by the Quran itself (see 4:3, 24, 25 and 24:32, with the corresponding notes). Nor is this the only objection to the above-mentioned interpretation. Since the Quran applies the term "believers" to men and women alike, and since the term azwaj ("spouses"), too, denotes both the male and the female partners in marriage, there is no reason for attributing to the phrase ma malakat aymanuhum the meaning of "their female slaves"; and since, on the other hand, it is out of the question that female and male slaves could have been referred to here it is obvious that this phrase does not relate to slaves at all, but has the same meaning as in 4:24 - namely, "those whom they rightfully possess through wedlock (see note on 4:24) - with the significant difference that in the present context this expression relates to both husbands and wives, who "rightfully possess" one another by virtue of marriage. On the basis of this interpretation, the particle aw which precedes this clause does not denote an alternative ("or") but is, rather, in the nature of an explanatory amplification, more or less analogous to the phrase "in other words" or "that is", thus giving to the whole sentence the meaning, "save with their spouses - that is, those whom they rightfully possess [through wedlock]", etc. (Cf. a similar construction 25:62 - "for him who has the will to take thought -that is [lit., "or"], has the will to be grateful".)] For then, behold, they are free of all blame I can go and on. But I think these ideas need to be challenged because they are simply wrong. Firstly, I would like to thank you for answering my previous comment and clearly made a clear distinction between Islam as an Ideology and Muslims as human beings, contrary to some previous commentators who turned the debate into a racial theory. Therefore, I do believe you deserve an answer to what is in my opinion are genuine questions that need to be addressed and debated.
As an atheist and academic I treat all religious texts as historical documents and all my research methods start from that principal. Once the decision is made to conduct historical research, there are steps that should be followed to achieve a reliable result. To have a viable historical method the study needs to encompass the: origins, growth, theories, personalities, crisis, etc.
The recognition of a historical problem will require the identification of a need for certain historical knowledge:
To achieve that purpose, it is fundamental to understand the chronology of the Quran to comprehend the logic and what is sometimes perceived as contradictions in that work. It is possible however to link the different parts of the Quran to different periods of Muhammad’s life, each characterized by a slightly different philosophy. During the early part of his ministry in Mecca, his followers were few in number, and the peaceful passages all come from this period. Moreover, enemies and adversaries were ruthless from the beginning towards the adherent of the new faith. They practised all type of torture and persecution and those early years have had a deep impact in the shaping of Muslim’s thinking for centuries to come.

During the Medinan period, his followers had grown in numbers, were stronger and much more militarily organised and this is reflected in a much more assertive attitude. Especially, after all the Jewish tribes Banu Nadir invited the Arabs Banu Quraish to form a coalition against Muhammad so that they might get rid of him altogether. Then they persuaded the tribe of Ghaftan to join the battle against Muhammad. It is at that stage that the first verses 33:9-33:27 targeted the Jews (Benu Nadir, Banu Qurayza) and unbelievers (Quraish, Ghaftan). Also, Banu Qurayza served as tax collectors for the Persian Empire and practised usury. Conversely, when the Quran highlights “Ahl al Kithab – People of the Scriptues” he speaks about the Islamised Jewish tribes “Banu Aws and Banu Khazraj” who were his allies.
The third period, marked by the return to and conquest of Mecca gives us an altogether different picture of Islam. It was a readjustment to the reality of becoming a new power in that region. Surrounded by two great Empires “a dying Roman empire and the rise of a hostile Byzantine Empire in the west, and Persia in the east” Muhammad was extremely aware of the precarious military predicament and the rapport of force. This geopolitical situation gave birth to early Islamic Diplomacy and was evident by the letters he sent to the head of states of all superpowers and particularly to Heraclius. It shows clearly how politically astute he was. Firstly, he was trying to keep Heraclius at bay and pacify him. When Heraclius took power the Empire was in a desperate situation. Heraclius conducted many military campaigns in order to restore the glory of the Roman Empire and 609 launched an overland invasion of Egypt, went into a series of wars against the Persians that ended with an uneasy truce. However, it was Ghassanids, Byzantine vassal state, hostile acts that started the tensions. One of Muhammad’s main priorities was to limit the economical influence of the Jewish tribes of Banu Nadir. He regulated the whole fiscal system and put in place very detailed guidelines to regulate profit and banned usury. He was determined to create an extremely prosperous treasury to finance any eventual conflicts in a treacherous region. The Ghassanids maintained their rule as the guardian of trade routes, policed Bedouin tribes and was a source of troops for the Byzantine army, and for somebody who was an expert in the commercial trade he understood the threat they represented. The first military encounter was in Battle of Mu’tah in 629, where a small 3000 men confronted a 100,000 men force led by Heraclius himself. It was so bad that when the Muslim force arrived at Medina, they were berated for withdrawing and accused of fleeing. It was at this moment that Muhammad needed a Manifesto to unify all the Arab tribes and prepare for an eventual conflict with the Byzantines. It is at this moment that the Quran changed focus from a book of peace to a manifesto for war. The rallying cry bared fruits and in October 630 Muhammad organised a military expedition that he led himself, made of 30,000 men (Tabouk in present-day northwestern Saudi Arabia). However, no military confrontation occurred. Heraclius, then the Byzantine emperor, had decided that reducing the growing Muslim power had become an urgent necessity and the conquest of Arabia should, in his opinion, be achieved before the Muslims became too powerful to conquer and raise troubles and unrest in the adjacent Arab territories. According to the Muslim accounts, the Emperor was rumored to have mustered a huge army of Byzantine soldiers and pro-Roman Ghassanid tribes to launch a decisive military attack against the Muslims.
The rhetoric of war intensified and culminated in the clash of both armies over six days in August 636 in the battle of Yarmouk. The Muslim forces 24,000 strong were led by the greatest Arab general if not the greatest military brain ever seen at that time Khalid ibn Walid. Heraclius led the 200,000 strong Byzantines army. It was a most decisive victory, and cemented Khalid ibn Walid reputation as a great tactician and cavalry commander. The Battle of Yarmouk can be seen as an example in military history where an inferior force manages by superior generalship to overcome a superior one.
The Quran mirrored the politics of the day and was a tool to unify and galvanise the Muslims and Arab Tribes against an enemy who never acknowledged them as a new entity. Muhammad was also active as a diplomat, merchant, philosopher, orator, legislator, reformer, military general, and, for Muslims and followers of several other religions, an agent of divine action. He was a true polymath, but most of all, he was the earliest Modern politician as defined today. Islam is a religion of peace but never claimed to be a religion that embraced Pacifism. To understand the Quran in any other contest is really a misrepresentation of historical facts and revisionism.
The type of analysis reflected by the film and literature that is propagated on the internet against Muslims is not only inspired and uses the same techniques as Neo-Nazi web-sites, it is totally inaccurate and out of the historical context. It only serves one purpose, dehumanising a significant part of humanity.

This first part of my answer is dedicated to the historical background of the Quran. I will tackle on the second tranche of my answer the myth of Islamic Threat and its long history in the Christian tradition. Also, I will look into, using your method of research (I mean by that looking at the literal sense of the biblical text and the use of Christianity to fulfil political and colonial aims), examples in the Bible and Christian history that will be seen by today vision as wicked and evil. Also, I will look into all the myths in western media and examine the political agenda they serve.
As far as Orthodox Judaism is concerned, there is so much material that clearly shows the lethal nature of Jewish Orthodoxy (From Hasidism, Kabbalah and Talmudic texts) that I do not know from where to start. According to them I am not even a human being and for that matter any “Goyim – Shaygets” or Gentile. However, I advice anybody looking for the truth, to read a book written by an outstanding Israeli Jewish scholar with remarkable insight and depth of knowledge. Israel Shahak is an Israeli Jew who was incarcerated in Belson, and the book is “Jewish History, Jewish Religion: The Weight of Three Thousand Years” http://www.amazon.com/Jewish-History-Religion-Thousand-Eastern/dp/0745308198/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1230732565&sr=8-1

Most of these translations by The Gutenberg Press project (Especially translation by J M Rodwell 1808–1900 and George Sale 1697- 1736) are simply wrong and lies. I am a polymath who holds multiple degrees one of them is a Master degree in Linguistics and speaks 6 languages including Arabic. I am really doubtful of the motives of the people that use these translations as a reference. Especially, when people like George Sale have often been encumbered and disgraced.

I will deal with few of these comments:
“Muhammad himself was allowed to engage in unlimited sex with female slaves and captives (Koran 4:3, 23:6, 33:50-52 and 70:30)

This reference was for the Justification of polygamy in extreme war situations with a caveat to marry only one wife – which is the norm today in most of the Arab world “4:3 -If you deem it best for the orphans, you may marry their mothers – you may marry two, three, or four. If you fear lest you become unfair, then you shall be content with only one, or with what you already have. Additionally, you are thus more likely to avoid financial hardship”
23:6 الا على ازواجهم او ماملكت ايمانهم فانهم غير ملومين
[not giving way to their desires] with any but their spouses – that is, those whom they rightfully possess [through wedlock]: [Lit., "or those whom their right hands possess" (aw ma malakat aymanuhum). Many of the commentators assume unquestioningly that this relates to female slaves, and that the particle aw ("or") denotes a permissible alternative. This interpretation is, in my opinion, inadmissible in as much as it is based on the assumption that sexual intercourse with ones female slave is permitted without marriage: an assumption, which is contradicted by the Quran itself (see 4:3, 24, 25 and 24:32, with the corresponding notes). Nor is this the only objection to the above-mentioned interpretation. Since the Quran applies the term "believers" to men and women alike, and since the term azwaj ("spouses"), too, denotes both the male and the female partners in marriage, there is no reason for attributing to the phrase ma malakat aymanuhum the meaning of "their female slaves"; and since, on the other hand, it is out of the question that female and male slaves could have been referred to here it is obvious that this phrase does not relate to slaves at all, but has the same meaning as in 4:24 - namely, "those whom they rightfully possess through wedlock (see note on 4:24) - with the significant difference that in the present context this expression relates to both husbands and wives, who "rightfully possess" one another by virtue of marriage. On the basis of this interpretation, the particle aw which precedes this clause does not denote an alternative ("or") but is, rather, in the nature of an explanatory amplification, more or less analogous to the phrase "in other words" or "that is", thus giving to the whole sentence the meaning, "save with their spouses - that is, those whom they rightfully possess [through wedlock]“, etc. (Cf. a similar construction 25:62 – “for him who has the will to take thought -that is [lit., "or"], has the will to be grateful”.)] For then, behold, they are free of all blame
I can go and on. But I think these ideas need to be challenged because they are simply wrong.

]]> By: Doug Swallow http://globalvoicesonline.org/2008/10/08/global-obsession-propaganda-film-incites-anger-toward-republicans/comment-page-11/#comment-1542369 Doug Swallow Mon, 29 Dec 2008 09:50:43 +0000 http://globalvoicesonline.org/?p=51192#comment-1542369 Manus: I happened on your basically incomprehensible post and, from what I could glean from it was that you disagree with some of the things that I maintained and found some it to be comical. You couldn't seem to quit laughing long enough to present any examples that would lead to your mirth that a logical individual might, maybe, learn from or at least answer. I also noticed that you took a similar view of a Mr. Lance Moxey's thoughtful, well researched and easily understood thoughts on this subject of jihadist Islam. "Tell me which part of the Koran tells you to kill, still, lie cheat, deceit and rape??" If you have a sincere interest in this matter, look up these verses from the Koran and see for yourself what that document is telling its followers and then maybe some of your questions will be answered. This is not "cherry picking" like so many apologist for this faith do because the Koran 2:106 states that the Mecca verses, or "peaceful verses" are abrogated by the "sword verses" or Medina verses that follow them. "If they would read the Koran, they will find out that Allah wants Muslims to kill the infidels (unbelievers) wherever they are found (Koran 9:5), and that peace will come only to those who submit to him (Koran 8:17, 48:29, and 65). The Koran also has Allah saying that unbelievers should be killed (Koran 2:191, 3:141, 4:104, 4:89, 8:12-16, 9:5, 9:73-74, 9:123, 25:52…), that Muslim apostates should be killed or chastised (Koran 2:39, 2:85, 3:85, 3:106, 4:89, 16:106, and 47:25-28), that the heads and fingers of unbelievers should be cut off (Koran 5:33, 8:12, and 47:4), and that Muslims should fight and humiliate Jews and Christians (Koran 5:18 and 9:29). Is this a religion of peace? There is more. For Allah, warfare is good (Koran 2:216) and jihad (fighting in the way of Allah) should continue until only Islam is dominant (Koran 2:193, 3:85, 8:39, 9:33, 35:37 and 61:9). Allah wants his followers to slaughter his enemies (Koran 8:67), allows Muslims to loot (Koran 8:1, 8:41, 8:69, and 59:7), to commit suicide (Koran 2:154, 2:207, 3:140-144, 3:157, 9:111 and 47:4), and to acquire slaves (Koran 4:3, 4:23-24 and 8:67). Muhammad himself was allowed to engage in unlimited sex with female slaves and captives (Koran 4:3, 23:6, 33:50-52 and 70:30). Is this a religion of tolerance?" Have a Nice Day: Doug Manus: I happened on your basically incomprehensible post and, from what I could glean from it was that you disagree with some of the things that I maintained and found some it to be comical. You couldn’t seem to quit laughing long enough to present any examples that would lead to your mirth that a logical individual might, maybe, learn from or at least answer. I also noticed that you took a similar view of a Mr. Lance Moxey’s thoughtful, well researched and easily understood thoughts on this subject of jihadist Islam.

“Tell me which part of the Koran tells you to kill, still, lie cheat, deceit and rape??” If you have a sincere interest in this matter, look up these verses from the Koran and see for yourself what that document is telling its followers and then maybe some of your questions will be answered.

This is not “cherry picking” like so many apologist for this faith do because the Koran 2:106 states that the Mecca verses, or “peaceful verses” are abrogated by the “sword verses” or Medina verses that follow them. “If they would read the Koran, they will find out that Allah wants Muslims to kill the infidels (unbelievers) wherever they are found (Koran 9:5), and that peace will come only to those who submit to him (Koran 8:17, 48:29, and 65). The Koran also has Allah saying that unbelievers should be killed (Koran 2:191, 3:141, 4:104, 4:89, 8:12-16, 9:5, 9:73-74, 9:123, 25:52…), that Muslim apostates should be killed or chastised (Koran 2:39, 2:85, 3:85, 3:106, 4:89, 16:106, and 47:25-28), that the heads and fingers of unbelievers should be cut off (Koran 5:33, 8:12, and 47:4), and that Muslims should fight and humiliate Jews and Christians (Koran 5:18 and 9:29). Is this a religion of peace? There is more. For Allah, warfare is good (Koran 2:216) and jihad (fighting in the way of Allah) should continue until only Islam is dominant (Koran 2:193, 3:85, 8:39, 9:33, 35:37 and 61:9). Allah wants his followers to slaughter his enemies (Koran 8:67), allows Muslims to loot (Koran 8:1, 8:41, 8:69, and 59:7), to commit suicide (Koran 2:154, 2:207, 3:140-144, 3:157, 9:111 and 47:4), and to acquire slaves (Koran 4:3, 4:23-24 and 8:67). Muhammad himself was allowed to engage in unlimited sex with female slaves and captives (Koran 4:3, 23:6, 33:50-52 and 70:30). Is this a religion of tolerance?”

Have a Nice Day: Doug

]]> By: Manus http://globalvoicesonline.org/2008/10/08/global-obsession-propaganda-film-incites-anger-toward-republicans/comment-page-10/#comment-1538930 Manus Thu, 11 Dec 2008 12:12:08 +0000 http://globalvoicesonline.org/?p=51192#comment-1538930 I think the more I research the more I am starting to understand Israel Shahak. God bless your soul my friend. I think the more I research the more I am starting to understand Israel Shahak. God bless your soul my friend.

]]> By: Manus http://globalvoicesonline.org/2008/10/08/global-obsession-propaganda-film-incites-anger-toward-republicans/comment-page-10/#comment-1538926 Manus Thu, 11 Dec 2008 11:58:28 +0000 http://globalvoicesonline.org/?p=51192#comment-1538926 I am not going to answer the Neo-Cons Straussen pro-Zionist mantra, fuelled by Christian evangelical religious bigotry and self-adulation. You are not even worth getting into an intellectual debate with as you are incapable to reason. You have re-writing history to suit your hate and prejudices. Your sets of ideas and logic are identical to the worst form of Islamic fundamentalism. You are the other side of the same coin. I am an atheist but not a believer on of “Social Dominance Theory” I am a democrat not a fascist hiding behind democracy and use it as a tool for oppressing the others and that is what you are my friend, a fascist. Tell me which part of the Koran tells you to kill, still, lie cheat, deceit and rape?? Or for that matter any monotheistic religion. Poor man taking historical events and totally disassociating them from the context and environment where they happened. This type of historical revisionism needs to be laugh at and thrown in the rubbish bin where it should stay. You seem to be suffering from selective historical Amnesia. I thought I was talking to people with an iota of decency but it seems I was wrong. I am not going to answer the Neo-Cons Straussen pro-Zionist mantra, fuelled by Christian evangelical religious bigotry and self-adulation. You are not even worth getting into an intellectual debate with as you are incapable to reason. You have re-writing history to suit your hate and prejudices. Your sets of ideas and logic are identical to the worst form of Islamic fundamentalism. You are the other side of the same coin. I am an atheist but not a believer on of “Social Dominance Theory”
I am a democrat not a fascist hiding behind democracy and use it as a tool for oppressing the others and that is what you are my friend, a fascist. Tell me which part of the Koran tells you to kill, still, lie cheat, deceit and rape?? Or for that matter any monotheistic religion.
Poor man taking historical events and totally disassociating them from the context and environment where they happened. This type of historical revisionism needs to be laugh at and thrown in the rubbish bin where it should stay. You seem to be suffering from selective historical Amnesia. I thought I was talking to people with an iota of decency but it seems I was wrong.

]]> By: Lance Moxey http://globalvoicesonline.org/2008/10/08/global-obsession-propaganda-film-incites-anger-toward-republicans/comment-page-10/#comment-1538824 Lance Moxey Thu, 11 Dec 2008 00:35:25 +0000 http://globalvoicesonline.org/?p=51192#comment-1538824 The most effective tactics of a shallow mind is to first call into question the facts without presenting anything specific in rebuttal and then use words and phrases which most people associate with a person trying to sound smart, (neo-colonialism, an exquisite illustration of sophism and self adulation, The New Anti-Semitism) and finally to raise the specter of Nazism. This is all intended to stifle debate and allow you to feel you have the moral high ground. Wrong!!! Did you not know that the grand Mufti of Jerusalem was a great friend of Hitler and even visited him in Germany and sent troops to fight with the Germans in WWII? He cited the Koran as his moral authority for his association with the Nazis. So, who really smells like 1936 again, or in fact still? As for judging medieval societies by today’s standards, If one can’t draw comparisons one is left with no frame of reference to evaluate anything. One of the most interesting comparisons is if you compare Islam today to Islam in the 7th century ---there is very little difference. By any objective standard the Muslim world is light years behind the western democracies. The only thing keeping them afloat is oil revenue. To support this view one only needs to look to Africa where the countries with no oil revenue and are Muslim are as backward as when Mohamed was raping women, raiding businesses, and slaughtering innocent people, in the name of spreading the “religion of peace”. Somalia comes to mind as an example. They just recently stoned a 14 year old girl to death for the crime of being raped!!! I don’t mean getting raped, I mean being raped….see the difference? To anyone that takes just a few minutes to study the subject it is crystal clear that Islam is a scourge on the world and has been the catalyst for most of the slaughter in the middle ages and is now trying to surpass that dubious distinction. For example since 9-11 there have been 12,386 Islamic terrorist attacks. How about the Somalia pirates?? Are they not Muslim? It just so happens that the Koran legitimizes this type of action as a way to raise money. Just for your information the reason the National Archives had an old copy of the Koran was that Thomas Jefferson wanted to learn about Islam so he could effectively deal with the Barbary Pirates since they were devout muslims. In 1786, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams went to negotiate with Tripoli's envoy to London, Ambassador Sidi Haji Abdrahaman or (Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja). Upon inquiring "concerning the ground of the pretensions to make war upon nations. In 1786, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams went to negotiate with Tripoli's envoy to London, Ambassador Sidi Haji Abdrahaman or (Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja). Upon inquiring "concerning the ground of the pretensions to make war upon nations who had done them no injury", the ambassador replied: It was written in their Koran, that all nations which had not acknowledged the Prophet were sinners, whom it was the right and duty of the faithful to plunder and enslave; and that every mussulman who was slain in this warfare was sure to go to paradise. He said, also, that the man who was the first to board a vessel had one slave over and above his share, and that when they sprang to the deck of an enemy's ship, every sailor held a dagger in each hand and a third in his mouth; which usually struck such terror into the foe that they cried out for quarter at once. [2] [3 I call your attention to the first sentence and I ask you how is the above statement different from what the Muslim terrorist say today about why they do what they do. In any case when Jefferson became president and the new USA had enough strength he sent the marines to the “Halls of Montezuma and Shores of Tripoli” and ended the pirate issue. That fix held up until the past few years, and now what is in the news? Muslim pirates taking ships and crews for ransom and the owners of the ships dutifully paying tribute to these murdering psychopaths!!! Who was it said if you can’t learn from history you are doomed to repeat it.? As for lying cheating, stealing and deceiving, the Koran admonishes its adherents to use these tactics as well as force of arms and other terrorist activities to spread their faith. Whatever it takes to spread Islam is enthusiastically endorsed by Allah. Imperial wars you say. Hah, how many times has the United States gone to war and occupied the conquered territory and FORCED the population to convert to Christianity? NONE is the right answer. On the other hand what country that has been Christian and is now Muslin do you know of that has a large Christian population? Again the right answer is NONE. Oh, one more question how many countries that have a significant Muslim population are living in peace? Once again the answer is NONE. The obvious conclusion to draw from these facts is that Islam is intolerant to other religions and other ways of life and carries the intolerance to absolute maniacal lengths. Regards Lance The most effective tactics of a shallow mind is to first call into question the facts without presenting anything specific in rebuttal and then use words and phrases which most people associate with a person trying to sound smart, (neo-colonialism, an exquisite illustration of sophism and self adulation, The New Anti-Semitism) and finally to raise the specter of Nazism. This is all intended to stifle debate and allow you to feel you have the moral high ground. Wrong!!!
Did you not know that the grand Mufti of Jerusalem was a great friend of Hitler and even visited him in Germany and sent troops to fight with the Germans in WWII? He cited the Koran as his moral authority for his association with the Nazis. So, who really smells like 1936 again, or in fact still? As for judging medieval societies by today’s standards, If one can’t draw comparisons one is left with no frame of reference to evaluate anything. One of the most interesting comparisons is if you compare Islam today to Islam in the 7th century —there is very little difference. By any objective standard the Muslim world is light years behind the western democracies. The only thing keeping them afloat is oil revenue. To support this view one only needs to look to Africa where the countries with no oil revenue and are Muslim are as backward as when Mohamed was raping women, raiding businesses, and slaughtering innocent people, in the name of spreading the “religion of peace”. Somalia comes to mind as an example. They just recently stoned a 14 year old girl to death for the crime of being raped!!! I don’t mean getting raped, I mean being raped….see the difference?
To anyone that takes just a few minutes to study the subject it is crystal clear that Islam is a scourge on the world and has been the catalyst for most of the slaughter in the middle ages and is now trying to surpass that dubious distinction. For example since 9-11 there have been 12,386 Islamic terrorist attacks. How about the Somalia pirates?? Are they not Muslim? It just so happens that the Koran legitimizes this type of action as a way to raise money. Just for your information the reason the National Archives had an old copy of the Koran was that Thomas Jefferson wanted to learn about Islam so he could effectively deal with the Barbary Pirates since they were devout muslims.
In 1786, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams went to negotiate with Tripoli’s envoy to London, Ambassador Sidi Haji Abdrahaman or (Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja). Upon inquiring “concerning the ground of the pretensions to make war upon nations. In 1786, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams went to negotiate with Tripoli’s envoy to London, Ambassador Sidi Haji Abdrahaman or (Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja). Upon inquiring “concerning the ground of the pretensions to make war upon nations who had done them no injury”, the ambassador replied:
It was written in their Koran, that all nations which had not acknowledged the Prophet were sinners, whom it was the right and duty of the faithful to plunder and enslave; and that every mussulman who was slain in this warfare was sure to go to paradise. He said, also, that the man who was the first to board a vessel had one slave over and above his share, and that when they sprang to the deck of an enemy’s ship, every sailor held a dagger in each hand and a third in his mouth; which usually struck such terror into the foe that they cried out for quarter at once. [2] [3
I call your attention to the first sentence and I ask you how is the above statement different from what the Muslim terrorist say today about why they do what they do. In any case when Jefferson became president and the new USA had enough strength he sent the marines to the “Halls of Montezuma and Shores of Tripoli” and ended the pirate issue. That fix held up until the past few years, and now what is in the news? Muslim pirates taking ships and crews for ransom and the owners of the ships dutifully paying tribute to these murdering psychopaths!!! Who was it said if you can’t learn from history you are doomed to repeat it.?
As for lying cheating, stealing and deceiving, the Koran admonishes its adherents to use these tactics as well as force of arms and other terrorist activities to spread their faith. Whatever it takes to spread Islam is enthusiastically endorsed by Allah.
Imperial wars you say. Hah, how many times has the United States gone to war and occupied the conquered territory and FORCED the population to convert to Christianity? NONE is the right answer. On the other hand what country that has been Christian and is now Muslin do you know of that has a large Christian population? Again the right answer is NONE. Oh, one more question how many countries that have a significant Muslim population are living in peace? Once again the answer is NONE. The obvious conclusion to draw from these facts is that Islam is intolerant to other religions and other ways of life and carries the intolerance to absolute maniacal lengths.

Regards
Lance

]]> By: Manus http://globalvoicesonline.org/2008/10/08/global-obsession-propaganda-film-incites-anger-toward-republicans/comment-page-10/#comment-1538177 Manus Mon, 08 Dec 2008 11:15:53 +0000 http://globalvoicesonline.org/?p=51192#comment-1538177 I m not going to give a lesson of western history for the last 2000 years or even try to dispute or answer this skewed version of Muslim and Christian past or the role of women in Christian societies at the same period . However, what we have seen above is an exquisite illustration of sophism and self adulation. In fact the explanations of many historical events were rather comical and in many instances absurd if not utterly inaccurate. Also, judging medieval societies by modern secular values is the worst form of political manipulation and the dehumanisation and demonization of a civilisation we have seen in recent years since the 3rd Reich The whole political discourse has a wiff of 1936 again. The New Anti-Semitism (And I mean the recipients this time are the Arabs/ Ishmaelites) is so virulent mainly based on the caricaturization of a whole civilization is alarming. This sustained onslaught by the Media and Politicians alike serve only one objective – The moral pretext for a new wave of Neo-colonialism. This form of thoughts (Ad nauseam) provides a moral platform to justify the unjustifiable and shape the geopolitics of that region using Culture, Values, and Religion as a tool to reach that purpose. Moreover, this phenomena is not only limited to the “Common Man” but gained also momentum within intellectual and academic circles and anybody that disputes the validly or rational of those ideas becomes a Persona non grata. What we are seeing in recent years from western governments is an increasing appetite for conflicts, cheating, lying, deceiving and even as democracies pursue of power and desire abroad in their imperial wars, they became inherently unstable at home and at the heart of their ideals dreams of tyranny. I m not going to give a lesson of western history for the last 2000 years or even try to dispute or answer this skewed version of Muslim and Christian past or the role of women in Christian societies at the same period . However, what we have seen above is an exquisite illustration of sophism and self adulation. In fact the explanations of many historical events were rather comical and in many instances absurd if not utterly inaccurate. Also, judging medieval societies by modern secular values is the worst form of political manipulation and the dehumanisation and demonization of a civilisation we have seen in recent years since the 3rd Reich

The whole political discourse has a wiff of 1936 again. The New Anti-Semitism (And I mean the recipients this time are the Arabs/ Ishmaelites) is so virulent mainly based on the caricaturization of a whole civilization is alarming. This sustained onslaught by the Media and Politicians alike serve only one objective – The moral pretext for a new wave of Neo-colonialism. This form of thoughts (Ad nauseam) provides a moral platform to justify the unjustifiable and shape the geopolitics of that region using Culture, Values, and Religion as a tool to reach that purpose. Moreover, this phenomena is not only limited to the “Common Man” but gained also momentum within intellectual and academic circles and anybody that disputes the validly or rational of those ideas becomes a Persona non grata. What we are seeing in recent years from western governments is an increasing appetite for conflicts, cheating, lying, deceiving and even as democracies pursue of power and desire abroad in their imperial wars, they became inherently unstable at home and at the heart of their ideals dreams of tyranny.

]]> By: Doug Swallow http://globalvoicesonline.org/2008/10/08/global-obsession-propaganda-film-incites-anger-toward-republicans/comment-page-10/#comment-1533297 Doug Swallow Sat, 22 Nov 2008 06:12:06 +0000 http://globalvoicesonline.org/?p=51192#comment-1533297 Jillian York. Thanks for giving me the opportunity to look into the depths of the politically correct, far left of center mind. I will restrict this first part to the Middle East and Western involvement there in the last century. As you should know, the Ottoman Turks got on the wrong side during WWI, the loosing side, and due to the League of Nations, England and France were given mandates to take over former Ottoman holdings in the area. Do you recall that Laurence of Arabia was helping the Arabs in their attempt to get rid of the Turks? I'm sure that it will pain you to recall that America wasn't involved in this because they didn't join the League. I offer this to show just how progressive the Ottoman's had been and how much fun it could be to come under their rule. Something you should certainly should have some knowledge of is what happened to the Armenians under the peace loving Islamic Turks in 1915-1918 when 1,500,000 Armenians were killed. Because what follows certainly pertains to what is happening to day, I will copy-paste what follows: "There were also big cultural differences between Armenians and Turks. The Armenians had always been one of the best educated communities within the old Turkish Empire. Armenians were the professionals in society, the businessmen, lawyers, doctors and skilled craftsmen. And they were more open to new scientific, political and social ideas from the West (Europe and America). Children of wealthy Armenians went to Paris, Geneva or even to America to complete their education. By contrast, the majority of Turks were illiterate peasant farmers and small shop keepers. Leaders of the Ottoman Empire had traditionally placed little value on education and not a single institute of higher learning could be found within their old empire. The various autocratic and despotic rulers throughout the empire's history had valued loyalty and blind obedience above all. Their uneducated subjects had never heard of democracy or liberalism and thus had no inclination toward political reform. But this was not the case with the better educated Armenians who sought political and social reforms that would improve life for them and Turkey's other minorities." Does this seem like the world today? Do you think that maybe the Armenians have some cause to, as you put it, be pissed? Pasted from http://www.historyplace.com/worldhistory/genocide/armenians.htm Islam is politics in the garb of religion. It is an instrument of domination and subjugation. It only uses a religious mask to penetrate and conquer. Just look at where Islam is and how it got there. Would that not seem like Imperialism that has been happening since the beginning of the faith? Take a look at India and the invasion by Mahmud Ghazni about 1000 A.D. that lasted for several centuries and, by some estimates, accounted for 80 million Indian deaths. Mountains were built using the skulls of these victims. This gives you some idea of the mentality that prevailed: "Aurangzeb was a champion destroyer of Hindu temples. Amongst the famous temples he destroyed were: the Kashi Vishvanath, one of the most sacred places of Hinduism, Krishna's birth temple in Mathura, the rebuilt Somnath temple on the coast of Gujurat, the Vishnu temple, overlooking Benares that was replaced with the Alamgir mosque (Alamgir is another name of Aurangzeb), and the Treta-ka-Thakur temple in Ayodhya. Aurangzeb's own official chronicles have recorded mind-blowing figures of temple destruction. Aurangzeb had ordered his provincial governors to destroy all schools and temples of the pagans and to make a complete end to all pagan teachings and practices. The Aurangzeb's chronicle sums up the temple destructions as follows: "Hasan Ali Khan came and said that 172 temples in the area had been destroyed... His majesty went to Chittor and 63 temples were destroyed. Abu Tarab, appointed to destroy the idol-temples of Amber, reported that 66 temples had been razed to the ground.." Aurangzeb did not stop at destroying temples only, their users were also often wiped out; even his own brother, Dara Shikoh, was executed for taking an interest in Hindu religion. The Sikh Guru Tegh Bahadur Singh was beheaded because he objected to Aurangzeb's forced conversions. Even during the rule of Mohammad Shah after Aurangzeb's death, Persian ruler Nadir Shah invaded of India (1738-39) and killed an estimated 200,000 people in Northern India alongside plundering and looting." http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1653953/posts This is probably the type of conduct that would not bother you if it were to occur in Europe and the US and was centered on Christianity. The world famous historian, Will Durant has written in his 'Story of Civilization' that "the Mohammedan conquest of India was probably the bloodiest story in history". Why did you not answer D? You did claim to be a feminist and have read the Koran. Did you not understand what Mohammad was saying? I have seen that the majority of the dwellers of Hell-Fire were women....[because] they are ungrateful to their husbands and they are deficient in intelligence. " (The Prophet Muhammad) Sahih Bukhari V 2, B 24, N 541 Men are superior to women because Allah has made so. Therefore good women are obedient, and (as to) those (women) on whose part you fear desertion, admonish them, and leave them alone in the sleeping-places and BEAT them; then if they obey you, do not seek a way against them; surely Allah is High, Great. (Sura 4, verse 34) According to the Koran, a woman’s testimony is worth half of that of a man. Women, according to the Koran, are, in general, unclean creature. After a Muslim has washed and prepared himself for prayer, he should not touch a woman. Therefore, “pious” Muslims never shake hands with women. O you who believe! do not go near prayer until you have washed yourselves; and if you have touched women, and you cannot find water, betake yourselves to pure earth, then wipe your faces and your hands; surely Allah is Pardoning, Forgiving. (Sura 4, verse 43) In case of inheritance, a woman inherits half of the portion a man inherits. As for the name calling, I would rather be referred to as a Zionist than a Politically Correct individule that is unable to see what the truth is regarding some very important issues of our time. Jillian York. Thanks for giving me the opportunity to look into the depths of the politically correct, far left of center mind. I will restrict this first part to the Middle East and Western involvement there in the last century. As you should know, the Ottoman Turks got on the wrong side during WWI, the loosing side, and due to the League of Nations, England and France were given mandates to take over former Ottoman holdings in the area. Do you recall that Laurence of Arabia was helping the Arabs in their attempt to get rid of the Turks? I’m sure that it will pain you to recall that America wasn’t involved in this because they didn’t join the League. I offer this to show just how progressive the Ottoman’s had been and how much fun it could be to come under their rule.
Something you should certainly should have some knowledge of is what happened to the Armenians under the peace loving Islamic Turks in 1915-1918 when 1,500,000 Armenians were killed. Because what follows certainly pertains to what is happening to day, I will copy-paste what follows:

“There were also big cultural differences between Armenians and Turks. The Armenians had always been one of the best educated communities within the old Turkish Empire. Armenians were the professionals in society, the businessmen, lawyers, doctors and skilled craftsmen. And they were more open to new scientific, political and social ideas from the West (Europe and America). Children of wealthy Armenians went to Paris, Geneva or even to America to complete their education.
By contrast, the majority of Turks were illiterate peasant farmers and small shop keepers. Leaders of the Ottoman Empire had traditionally placed little value on education and not a single institute of higher learning could be found within their old empire. The various autocratic and despotic rulers throughout the empire’s history had valued loyalty and blind obedience above all. Their uneducated subjects had never heard of democracy or liberalism and thus had no inclination toward political reform. But this was not the case with the better educated Armenians who sought political and social reforms that would improve life for them and Turkey’s other minorities.” Does this seem like the world today? Do you think that maybe the Armenians have some cause to, as you put it, be pissed?
Pasted from http://www.historyplace.com/worldhistory/genocide/armenians.htm

Islam is politics in the garb of religion. It is an instrument of domination and subjugation. It only uses a religious mask to penetrate and conquer. Just look at where Islam is and how it got there. Would that not seem like Imperialism that has been happening since the beginning of the faith? Take a look at India and the invasion by Mahmud Ghazni about 1000 A.D. that lasted for several centuries and, by some estimates, accounted for 80 million Indian deaths. Mountains were built using the skulls of these victims.

This gives you some idea of the mentality that prevailed:
“Aurangzeb was a champion destroyer of Hindu temples. Amongst the famous temples he destroyed were: the Kashi Vishvanath, one of the most sacred places of Hinduism, Krishna’s birth temple in Mathura, the rebuilt Somnath temple on the coast of Gujurat, the Vishnu temple, overlooking Benares that was replaced with the Alamgir mosque (Alamgir is another name of Aurangzeb), and the Treta-ka-Thakur temple in Ayodhya. Aurangzeb’s own official chronicles have recorded mind-blowing figures of temple destruction. Aurangzeb had ordered his provincial governors to destroy all schools and temples of the pagans and to make a complete end to all pagan teachings and practices. The Aurangzeb’s chronicle sums up the temple destructions as follows:
“Hasan Ali Khan came and said that 172 temples in the area had been destroyed… His majesty went to Chittor and 63 temples were destroyed. Abu Tarab, appointed to destroy the idol-temples of Amber, reported that 66 temples had been razed to the ground..” Aurangzeb did not stop at destroying temples only, their users were also often wiped out; even his own brother, Dara Shikoh, was executed for taking an interest in Hindu religion. The Sikh Guru Tegh Bahadur Singh was beheaded because he objected to Aurangzeb’s forced conversions. Even during the rule of Mohammad Shah after Aurangzeb’s death, Persian ruler Nadir Shah invaded of India (1738-39) and killed an estimated 200,000 people in Northern India alongside plundering and looting.”
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1653953/posts

This is probably the type of conduct that would not bother you if it were to occur in Europe and the US and was centered on Christianity.
The world famous historian, Will Durant has written in his ‘Story of Civilization’ that “the Mohammedan conquest of India was probably the bloodiest story in history”.
Why did you not answer D? You did claim to be a feminist and have read the Koran. Did you not understand what Mohammad was saying?
I have seen that the majority of the dwellers of Hell-Fire were women….[because] they are ungrateful to their husbands and they are deficient in intelligence. ” (The Prophet Muhammad) Sahih Bukhari V 2, B 24, N 541

Men are superior to women because Allah has made so. Therefore good women are obedient, and (as to) those (women) on whose part you fear desertion, admonish them, and leave them alone in the sleeping-places and BEAT them; then if they obey you, do not seek a way against them; surely Allah is High, Great. (Sura 4, verse 34)
According to the Koran, a woman’s testimony is worth half of that of a man.
Women, according to the Koran, are, in general, unclean creature. After a Muslim has washed and prepared himself for prayer, he should not touch a woman. Therefore, “pious” Muslims never shake hands with women.
O you who believe! do not go near prayer until you have washed yourselves; and if you have touched women, and you cannot find water, betake yourselves to pure earth, then wipe your faces and your hands; surely Allah is Pardoning, Forgiving. (Sura 4, verse 43)
In case of inheritance, a woman inherits half of the portion a man inherits.
As for the name calling, I would rather be referred to as a Zionist than a Politically Correct individule that is unable to see what the truth is regarding some very important issues of our time.

]]> By: Lance Moxey http://globalvoicesonline.org/2008/10/08/global-obsession-propaganda-film-incites-anger-toward-republicans/comment-page-10/#comment-1533026 Lance Moxey Thu, 20 Nov 2008 19:39:06 +0000 http://globalvoicesonline.org/?p=51192#comment-1533026 As a new viewer to this site I am quite amazed at the willful blindness being exhibited by many of the posters. I will not go back to the beginning but it is enough to point out to Jillian York that to suggest that because the West invaded and colonized existing Muslim countries in the last century they (Muslims) have a right to be pissed takes a very very short sighted view of history. Ever hear of the Crusades? My question to you Jillian is: How do you determine whose country is whose? Islam being the newest faith on the block and recognizing that it started in what is now Saudi Arabia (Mecca) around 700AD by the “ignorant goat herder hearing voices in his head” spread from there to where it is now, 1 billion plus. History is full of stories of how Islam was able to expand at such a rate and the absolute barbarity it employed to accomplish the invasions and ultimate submission of the indigenous populations. Again the question, who is the rightful heir to any country? The answer is certainly not Islam since the Islamic soldiers invaded an existing country and slaughtered the inhabitants and occupied the country. This resulted in the defensive actions by the Christians in the form of the Crusades. Maybe you are referring to the Koran Jillian when you suggest they have a right to be pissed because it says once a Muslim occupation occurs then that country, region, city etc is and always will be Muslim. So yes they would be pissed. Do they have a right to be pissed? Absolutely not!! They are the invaders. Was the Wests colonization efforts a good thing? That is another debate for another time. The point I am trying to make is that Islam is not just a religion it is also a political movement and exhorts its followers to spread the word of Allah in any way possible to all the corners of the earth. Further Islam divides the world population into believers (in Islam) and infidel (non believers in Islam) "Formal Islamic theology, unlike Christian theology, does not allow for the separation of state and religion: they are considered to be one and the same (Political Islam). "For centuries, the reasoning of Islamic jurists has set down rules of interaction between Dar ul-Islam (the Land of Islam) and Dar ul-Kufr (the Land of Unbelief) to cover almost every matter of trade, peace and war. "But what Wahabbism the Taliban, and others who take a literal view of the Koran and Hadiths, do is to take this two steps further. Their first step has been to argue that, since there is no pure Islamic state, the whole world must be Dar ul-Kufr (The Land of Unbelief). “Step two, since Islam must declare war on unbelief, they have declared war upon the whole world." I would call this an attempt to invade the west!! Look it up, read the papers watch the news, not a day goes by that some Islamic group or Islamic true believer is not out crying for special treatment or actually slaughtering some innocent people. There is nothing that Islam is not willing to do to achieve their goal of uniting the world in Dar ul-Islam. One last comment. This thread was started about the video Obsession. My question is: How can you say this is propaganda? Were these actors chanting “death to America! Were these Imams preaching the lies and distortions to the cheering mobs of Islamic believers all bit players in some studio somewhere? Is the wack job leading the Iranian country some CIA plant to incite anti-Islam sentiment? Get real people, here it is from the great Ayatollah Khomeini architect of the Iranian revolution “Islam makes it incumbent on all adult males, provided they are not disabled or incapacitated, to prepare themselves for the conquest of countries so that the writ of Islam is obeyed in every country in the world. Khomeini also rebuked the Islam-is-a-religion-of-peace crowd: “Those who know nothing of Islam pretend that Islam counsels against war. Those [who say this] are witless. Islam says: Kill all the unbelievers just as they would kill you all! Does this mean that Muslims should sit back until they are devoured by [the unbelievers]? Islam says: Kill them, put them to the sword and scatter [their armies]….Islam says: Whatever good there is exists thanks to the sword and in the shadow of the sword! People cannot be made obedient except with the sword! The sword is the key to Paradise, which can be opened only for the Holy Warriors! There are hundreds of other [Qur’anic] psalms and Hadiths [sayings of the Prophet] urging Muslims to value war and to fight. Does all this mean that Islam is a religion that prevents men from waging war? I spit upon those foolish souls who make such a claim.” He pretty well sums it up too bad the producers of the video couldn’t have gotten this on tape but he has passed on and is now sitting next to Allah enjoying his 72 virgins, if you believe this “religion” As a new viewer to this site I am quite amazed at the willful blindness being exhibited by many of the posters. I will not go back to the beginning but it is enough to point out to Jillian York that to suggest that because the West invaded and colonized existing Muslim countries in the last century they (Muslims) have a right to be pissed takes a very very short sighted view of history. Ever hear of the Crusades? My question to you Jillian is: How do you determine whose country is whose? Islam being the newest faith on the block and recognizing that it started in what is now Saudi Arabia (Mecca) around 700AD by the “ignorant goat herder hearing voices in his head” spread from there to where it is now, 1 billion plus. History is full of stories of how Islam was able to expand at such a rate and the absolute barbarity it employed to accomplish the invasions and ultimate submission of the indigenous populations. Again the question, who is the rightful heir to any country? The answer is certainly not Islam since the Islamic soldiers invaded an existing country and slaughtered the inhabitants and occupied the country. This resulted in the defensive actions by the Christians in the form of the Crusades. Maybe you are referring to the Koran Jillian when you suggest they have a right to be pissed because it says once a Muslim occupation occurs then that country, region, city etc is and always will be Muslim. So yes they would be pissed. Do they have a right to be pissed? Absolutely not!! They are the invaders. Was the Wests colonization efforts a good thing? That is another debate for another time. The point I am trying to make is that Islam is not just a religion it is also a political movement and exhorts its followers to spread the word of Allah in any way possible to all the corners of the earth. Further Islam divides the world population into believers (in Islam) and infidel (non believers in Islam) “Formal Islamic theology, unlike Christian theology, does not allow for the separation of state and religion: they are considered to be one and the same (Political Islam).
“For centuries, the reasoning of Islamic jurists has set down rules of interaction between Dar ul-Islam (the Land of Islam) and Dar ul-Kufr (the Land of Unbelief) to cover almost every matter of trade, peace and war. “But what Wahabbism the Taliban, and others who take a literal view of the Koran and Hadiths, do is to take this two steps further. Their first step has been to argue that, since there is no pure Islamic state, the whole world must be Dar ul-Kufr (The Land of Unbelief).
“Step two, since Islam must declare war on unbelief, they have declared war upon the whole world.” I would call this an attempt to invade the west!! Look it up, read the papers watch the news, not a day goes by that some Islamic group or Islamic true believer is not out crying for special treatment or actually slaughtering some innocent people. There is nothing that Islam is not willing to do to achieve their goal of uniting the world in Dar ul-Islam.
One last comment. This thread was started about the video Obsession. My question is: How can you say this is propaganda? Were these actors chanting “death to America! Were these Imams preaching the lies and distortions to the cheering mobs of Islamic believers all bit players in some studio somewhere? Is the wack job leading the Iranian country some CIA plant to incite anti-Islam sentiment? Get real people, here it is from the great Ayatollah Khomeini architect of the Iranian revolution “Islam makes it incumbent on all adult males, provided they are not disabled or incapacitated, to prepare themselves for the conquest of countries so that the writ of Islam is obeyed in every country in the world. Khomeini also rebuked the Islam-is-a-religion-of-peace crowd: “Those who know nothing of Islam pretend that Islam counsels against war. Those [who say this] are witless. Islam says: Kill all the unbelievers just as they would kill you all! Does this mean that Muslims should sit back until they are devoured by [the unbelievers]? Islam says: Kill them, put them to the sword and scatter [their armies]….Islam says: Whatever good there is exists thanks to the sword and in the shadow of the sword! People cannot be made obedient except with the sword! The sword is the key to Paradise, which can be opened only for the Holy Warriors! There are hundreds of other [Qur’anic] psalms and Hadiths [sayings of the Prophet] urging Muslims to value war and to fight. Does all this mean that Islam is a religion that prevents men from waging war? I spit upon those foolish souls who make such a claim.”
He pretty well sums it up too bad the producers of the video couldn’t have gotten this on tape but he has passed on and is now sitting next to Allah enjoying his 72 virgins, if you believe this “religion”

]]> By: Doug Swallow http://globalvoicesonline.org/2008/10/08/global-obsession-propaganda-film-incites-anger-toward-republicans/comment-page-10/#comment-1532535 Doug Swallow Wed, 19 Nov 2008 03:59:46 +0000 http://globalvoicesonline.org/?p=51192#comment-1532535 Redouane: Roman involvement with Greece came long before Constantine, The Romans conquered Greece in 168BC, Hadrian visited Greece in 124 and began a building program there. I have seen statues of him in Athens. "The leading role of Constantinople began when Constantine the Great turned Byzantium into the new capital of the Roman Empire, henceforth to be known as Constantinople, placing the city at the center of Hellenism a beacon for the Greeks that lasted to the modern era." What really changed Greece was when the Ottomans took over and in typical Islamic fashion tried to destroy everything from the past and subjugate the people. The Greeks finally got rid of these ignorant oppressors in 1829. Any one with any "gray matter" knows that it is the "Bad" side of a religion that produces the "Bad" results of that religion. To consider it any other way is plain stupid. I thank you for one thing and that is making me to realize that I am a Christian and proud of it. I do not care what beliefs you hold, you can worship Mickey Mouse and pray towards Disney Land 5 times a day for all I care but do not attempt to tell me what I'm to believe be cause "our" Constitution very wisely took all of that into account. I did not preach anything to you other than showing how Jesus and Mohammad handled the same situation totally different. Even you should be able to see that. It would appear that while you claim to have left Islam, Islam has not left you. You hold Christianity and I imagine Judaism and Jews in contempt. Where is your progress? Redouane:
Roman involvement with Greece came long before Constantine, The Romans conquered Greece in 168BC, Hadrian visited Greece in 124 and began a building program there. I have seen statues of him in Athens.
“The leading role of Constantinople began when Constantine the Great turned Byzantium into the new capital of the Roman Empire, henceforth to be known as Constantinople, placing the city at the center of Hellenism a beacon for the Greeks that lasted to the modern era.” What really changed Greece was when the Ottomans took over and in typical Islamic fashion tried to destroy everything from the past and subjugate the people. The Greeks finally got rid of these ignorant oppressors in 1829.

Any one with any “gray matter” knows that it is the “Bad” side of a religion that produces the “Bad” results of that religion. To consider it any other way is plain stupid.

I thank you for one thing and that is making me to realize that I am a Christian and proud of it. I do not care what beliefs you hold, you can worship Mickey Mouse and pray towards Disney Land 5 times a day for all I care but do not attempt to tell me what I’m to believe be cause “our” Constitution very wisely took all of that into account.

I did not preach anything to you other than showing how Jesus and Mohammad handled the same situation totally different. Even you should be able to see that.

It would appear that while you claim to have left Islam, Islam has not left you. You hold Christianity and I imagine Judaism and Jews in contempt. Where is your progress?

]]> By: Redouane http://globalvoicesonline.org/2008/10/08/global-obsession-propaganda-film-incites-anger-toward-republicans/comment-page-10/#comment-1531391 Redouane Fri, 14 Nov 2008 16:43:34 +0000 http://globalvoicesonline.org/?p=51192#comment-1531391 Doug, You seem to be rambling for nothing. There is no need to give lectures about religions. What I was saying about Constantine is NOT THAT HE STARTED CHRISTIANITY, I was making a point about the aftermath of making Christainity a state religion for the roman empire. The consequences were desastrous for greeks thoughts and free thinking. The story of the famous female philosopher Hiatha can give you an idea what was in wait for those who did not accept this new state religion. That's besind the point anyway, there is no need to discuss the bad side of any religion, because one may spend countless hours. And anybody with a little gray matter should know this. I do not want to debate with the facts, and there is no need to go on rambling about history. You would find me agreeing with you about ISLAM terror tactics, propaganda, fear, murders, mysogy, stoning, lies, deceit, ARROGANCE, slander, self-righteousness. However, you can stick with your christian beliefs but do not come to me to preach love and peace. Because it is not going to add anything new. You are exactly in the same delimma as the muslims who try to sanitize their religions, but fail miserably. SO PLEASE. Finally, what is it to you about what you say that "I came to YOUR country". EXCUSES ME !!! YOUR COUNTRY!!! YOURS???? What is this? Ownership of the land is a basis for "right". Careful Doug, you should know better about the history of this land, I may not respond to you next time, because what you said here is not only arrogant but a blatantly stupid. Doug,
You seem to be rambling for nothing. There is no need to give lectures about religions. What I was saying about Constantine is NOT THAT HE STARTED CHRISTIANITY, I was making a point about the aftermath of making Christainity a state religion for the roman empire. The consequences were desastrous for greeks thoughts and free thinking. The story of the famous female philosopher Hiatha can give you an idea what was in wait for those who did not accept this new state religion. That’s besind the point anyway, there is no need to discuss the bad side of any religion, because one may spend countless hours. And anybody with a little gray matter should know this. I do not want to debate with the facts, and there is no need to go on rambling about history. You would find me agreeing with you about ISLAM terror tactics, propaganda, fear, murders, mysogy, stoning, lies, deceit, ARROGANCE, slander, self-righteousness. However, you can stick with your christian beliefs but do not come to me to preach love and peace. Because it is not going to add anything new. You are exactly in the same delimma as the muslims who try to sanitize their religions, but fail miserably. SO PLEASE.

Finally, what is it to you about what you say that “I came to YOUR country”. EXCUSES ME !!! YOUR COUNTRY!!! YOURS???? What is this? Ownership of the land is a basis for “right”. Careful Doug, you should know better about the history of this land, I may not respond to you next time, because what you said here is not only arrogant but a blatantly stupid.

]]> By: Jillian York http://globalvoicesonline.org/2008/10/08/global-obsession-propaganda-film-incites-anger-toward-republicans/comment-page-10/#comment-1531331 Jillian York Fri, 14 Nov 2008 13:09:58 +0000 http://globalvoicesonline.org/?p=51192#comment-1531331 Oh Doug, Islam a cult trying to invade the West? How about when the West colonized nearly every Muslim country less than a century ago? Wouldn't you be pissed too? Oh Doug, Islam a cult trying to invade the West? How about when the West colonized nearly every Muslim country less than a century ago? Wouldn’t you be pissed too?

]]> By: Doug Swallow http://globalvoicesonline.org/2008/10/08/global-obsession-propaganda-film-incites-anger-toward-republicans/comment-page-10/#comment-1531258 Doug Swallow Fri, 14 Nov 2008 05:28:09 +0000 http://globalvoicesonline.org/?p=51192#comment-1531258 Redouane: This is what I had attempted to post several days ago: I find it extremely interesting that you can assume you know what my believes are regarding Christianity when I'm not all that sure myself what I believe about the faith. I do know that my mother was a devout Christian and from that I saw where her faith produced a certain peace and ability to deal with whatever crises arose, I know it pained her that I did not share that same devotion, but everyone is different for different reasons. I no where stated that I believed that Christianity was the salvation for humanity, but it would come closer to being such than what Islam is. I presented some biblical scripture to demonstrate the different approach taken both two thousand years ago and to an approach taken today by practitioners of Islam just a few days ago regarding the stoning to death of a 13 year old girl that was raped and had been charged with adultery or some other such crime. This is how Mohammad handled the, basically, same situation: Bukhari's collection, 3, 17:4206 ff :- "There came to him a woman … and said: Allah's Messenger, I have committed adultery, so purify me. He turned her away. … Go away until you give birth … wean him … He entrusted the child to one of the Muslims and … she was put in a ditch up to her chest and he commanded people and they stoned her. … he prayed over her and she was buried." Sound something like what happened just a few days ago? There are over two billion Christians or 32% of the population of the earth that believe that Jesus existed. That you do not is irrelevant to them, I'm sure. I wasn't there at the time; therefore, I can not say for certain one way or the other with the same certainty that he never existed and that it is all just a fiery tale. I do know that there are other historical accounts that mention some of the same individuals as what are mentioned in the Christian Bible and there have been many archeological discoveries that would seem to point to there being truth in the scriptures. You seem to imply that Constantine started the Christian Church, he only converted to a faith that was in existence during the time of Nero and was persecuted by him and this is not that long after Jesus lived. Many scholars believe that what developed into the Coptic branch of Christianity that was taken to Egypt by the apostle Mark shortly after the death, ascension of, how ever one wants to view it, of Christ so you should understand that there are other branches of the faith than what developed in the Roman Empire and the Copts still exist although, because of Islamic persecution, their numbers are in steady decline. What else would one expect when Judaism and Christianity have virtually been illuminated from the area in which they were conceived by Islam and it's intolerance to any other faith but Islam. Some seem intent on bring up past excesses committed by Christians and there is no denying that things happened and by doing so the perpetrators were not following the tenets of the faith as outlined by Jesus but had turned the religion to their own ends. The Church went through a reformation and evolved to where it is today. Please tell me the last time you know of Christians stoning anyone to death for anything, of Christians killing one of their faith for being an Apostate, of Christians cutting off hands and feet of what ever transgressor to exact punishment for, what may be considered in a civilized society to be a minor crime, or for that matter Buddhist or Hindus committing these heinous acts? Islam also went through a reformation and that produced Wahhabism and a return to the first three generations of Islamic history. Can one call that a step ahead? I think not, in that much has changed in the world since that time and much progress has been made to make peoples lives easier due to innovations that have come out of the West. (The Islamic world has not invented anything in the last 200 years, why?) This has occurred by moving ahead and not back in time to the point where girls are made to burn up in fires because the religious police will not let them flee a burning building because they are not properly attired. This happened not long ago in Saudi Arabia. Why don't you get all indigent over that and spare me your appraisal of whether or not Christ existed or not? The past must be dealt with and lessons learned from it. As far as me attempting to attack one religion to advocate another is untrue; I only offered examples of the different approaches that the central figures of Christianity and Islam took regarding similar situations. If you can't see that, then that is your problem & there would be no point in me trying to further explain it to you other than to mention the quote that I provided attributed to the very intelligent Jew, Einstein, regarding an observation made by the Dutch Jewish philosopher, Spinoza and his thoughts about God. Also my quote regarding religion in general attributed to Steven Weinberg is my basic feeling regarding religion and I stand by his thoughts regarding it. I have every right to compare Islam with Christianity because Islam is a cult that is attempting to invade the US and Europe and they both have traditionally been Christian. The past must be considered but it is the present that concerns me and the Islamic invasion that is occurring in the west is of great concern to me. The fact that Islam does not nor will not assimilate to the lands that they enter concerns me. Other immigrants into the US try to become US citizens and live their lives on American principles. I now find that my ridiculous government has allowed in 80,000 Somali Muslims when there are many other deserving groups that might be Buddhist, Hindus, Taoist or what ever that have shown that will assimilate and be a productive part of society. Seventy percent of all refugees in the world are Muslims and the vast majority of these people strive to flee to the west. After arriving in the west, many of these refugees conceive a hatred of the society that they enter and then strive for the destruction of that society. Seems like a strange way to say thank you. What my believes are is my business, what your believes are is your business and I guess that is why you and the atheist live in the U.S. & not some Islamic country where it is the states business what your religious believes are. As for my self, I have only spent 4 months out of the last 2 years in the US but live in a country that has tolerant people and a tolerant government that values people’s views and lets them believe as they want. The country is 90% Buddhist with a Muslim minority that is allowed to practice their faith in their Mosques spread all over the country. The southern three provinces have a Muslim majority and there it has turned into a killing field for the last 3 or 4 years with Jihadist not only randomly killing Buddhist but also other Muslims that they believe don't do enough to promote their Jihad. In closing, it appears you are the one being arrogant. You are an immigrant to my country and now you suppose that you have the right to tell me what I am to believe. I suggest that you look into the First Amendment of “our” Bill of Rights to see what “our” very astute founding fathers thought. Doug Redouane: This is what I had attempted to post several days ago: I find it extremely interesting that you can assume you know what my believes are regarding Christianity when I’m not all that sure myself what I believe about the faith. I do know that my mother was a devout Christian and from that I saw where her faith produced a certain peace and ability to deal with whatever crises arose, I know it pained her that I did not share that same devotion, but everyone is different for different reasons. I no where stated that I believed that Christianity was the salvation for humanity, but it would come closer to being such than what Islam is. I presented some biblical scripture to demonstrate the different approach taken both two thousand years ago and to an approach taken today by practitioners of Islam just a few days ago regarding the stoning to death of a 13 year old girl that was raped and had been charged with adultery or some other such crime. This is how Mohammad handled the, basically, same situation:
Bukhari’s collection, 3, 17:4206 ff :- “There came to him a woman … and said: Allah’s Messenger, I have committed adultery, so purify me. He turned her away. … Go away until you give birth … wean him … He entrusted the child to one of the Muslims and … she was put in a ditch up to her chest and he commanded people and they stoned her. … he prayed over her and she was buried.” Sound something like what happened just a few days ago?

There are over two billion Christians or 32% of the population of the earth that believe that Jesus existed. That you do not is irrelevant to them, I’m sure. I wasn’t there at the time; therefore, I can not say for certain one way or the other with the same certainty that he never existed and that it is all just a fiery tale. I do know that there are other historical accounts that mention some of the same individuals as what are mentioned in the Christian Bible and there have been many archeological discoveries that would seem to point to there being truth in the scriptures. You seem to imply that Constantine started the Christian Church, he only converted to a faith that was in existence during the time of Nero and was persecuted by him and this is not that long after Jesus lived. Many scholars believe that what developed into the Coptic branch of Christianity that was taken to Egypt by the apostle Mark shortly after the death, ascension of, how ever one wants to view it, of Christ so you should understand that there are other branches of the faith than what developed in the Roman Empire and the Copts still exist although, because of Islamic persecution, their numbers are in steady decline. What else would one expect when Judaism and Christianity have virtually been illuminated from the area in which they were conceived by Islam and it’s intolerance to any other faith but Islam.

Some seem intent on bring up past excesses committed by Christians and there is no denying that things happened and by doing so the perpetrators were not following the tenets of the faith as outlined by Jesus but had turned the religion to their own ends. The Church went through a reformation and evolved to where it is today. Please tell me the last time you know of Christians stoning anyone to death for anything, of Christians killing one of their faith for being an Apostate, of Christians cutting off hands and feet of what ever transgressor to exact punishment for, what may be considered in a civilized society to be a minor crime, or for that matter Buddhist or Hindus committing these heinous acts? Islam also went through a reformation and that produced Wahhabism and a return to the first three generations of Islamic history. Can one call that a step ahead? I think not, in that much has changed in the world since that time and much progress has been made to make peoples lives easier due to innovations that have come out of the West. (The Islamic world has not invented anything in the last 200 years, why?) This has occurred by moving ahead and not back in time to the point where girls are made to burn up in fires because the religious police will not let them flee a burning building because they are not properly attired. This happened not long ago in Saudi Arabia. Why don’t you get all indigent over that and spare me your appraisal of whether or not Christ existed or not?

The past must be dealt with and lessons learned from it. As far as me attempting to attack one religion to advocate another is untrue; I only offered examples of the different approaches that the central figures of Christianity and Islam took regarding similar situations. If you can’t see that, then that is your problem & there would be no point in me trying to further explain it to you other than to mention the quote that I provided attributed to the very intelligent Jew, Einstein, regarding an observation made by the Dutch Jewish philosopher, Spinoza and his thoughts about God. Also my quote regarding religion in general attributed to Steven Weinberg is my basic feeling regarding religion and I stand by his thoughts regarding it.

I have every right to compare Islam with Christianity because Islam is a cult that is attempting to invade the US and Europe and they both have traditionally been Christian. The past must be considered but it is the present that concerns me and the Islamic invasion that is occurring in the west is of great concern to me. The fact that Islam does not nor will not assimilate to the lands that they enter concerns me. Other immigrants into the US try to become US citizens and live their lives on American principles. I now find that my ridiculous government has allowed in 80,000 Somali Muslims when there are many other deserving groups that might be Buddhist, Hindus, Taoist or what ever that have shown that will assimilate and be a productive part of society.

Seventy percent of all refugees in the world are Muslims and the vast majority of these people strive to flee to the west. After arriving in the west, many of these refugees conceive a hatred of the society that they enter and then strive for the destruction of that society. Seems like a strange way to say thank you.

What my believes are is my business, what your believes are is your business and I guess that is why you and the atheist live in the U.S. & not some Islamic country where it is the states business what your religious believes are. As for my self, I have only spent 4 months out of the last 2 years in the US but live in a country that has tolerant people and a tolerant government that values people’s views and lets them believe as they want. The country is 90% Buddhist with a Muslim minority that is allowed to practice their faith in their Mosques spread all over the country. The southern three provinces have a Muslim majority and there it has turned into a killing field for the last 3 or 4 years with Jihadist not only randomly killing Buddhist but also other Muslims that they believe don’t do enough to promote their Jihad.

In closing, it appears you are the one being arrogant. You are an immigrant to my country and now you suppose that you have the right to tell me what I am to believe. I suggest that you look into the First Amendment of “our” Bill of Rights to see what “our” very astute founding fathers thought.

Doug

]]> By: D http://globalvoicesonline.org/2008/10/08/global-obsession-propaganda-film-incites-anger-toward-republicans/comment-page-9/#comment-1530967 D Wed, 12 Nov 2008 23:45:07 +0000 http://globalvoicesonline.org/?p=51192#comment-1530967 Hello everyone, a few quick observations. Jillian states that not all muslims are not alike. true. all moslems follow a hate filled murder promoting racist bgotted religion. also true. - if they didn't they wouldn't be moslems. {oh, and please oh pleeeeease try to debate me on any of those points I just made.} She { at another point } states "And to be honest, that has not been my personal experience with Muslims; perhaps I surround myself with a certain type of person, but most of the Muslims I am close with are open to questioning, at least to some degree (obviously certain things, such as the pillars of Islam, aren’t open to interpretation). I would suggest she pay attention to the very relevant section of either Obsession or "Islam. What the west needs to know" where a former terrorist describes how he had one persona with non-muslims and his true peresona. Whilst I dont recall the exact term for it, this is very much part of arab and islamic cultures {the Japenese have a similar thing...but they aren't trying to butcher all non- japenese}. I also find it more than a little bit interesting to see anyone who claims to be a feminist supporting or defending something like islam, given the way it treats women. Just take a good look at sharia law. {go on, ask me to give examples...although I suspect you won't. Best wishes, D Hello everyone,
a few quick observations.
Jillian states that not all muslims are not alike. true.
all moslems follow a hate filled murder promoting racist bgotted religion. also true. – if they didn’t they wouldn’t be moslems. {oh, and please oh pleeeeease try to debate me on any of those points I just made.}

She { at another point } states “And to be honest, that has not been my personal experience with Muslims; perhaps I surround myself with a certain type of person, but most of the Muslims I am close with are open to questioning, at least to some degree (obviously certain things, such as the pillars of Islam, aren’t open to interpretation).
I would suggest she pay attention to the very relevant section of either Obsession or “Islam. What the west needs to know” where a former terrorist describes how he had one persona with non-muslims and his true peresona.
Whilst I dont recall the exact term for it, this is very much part of arab and islamic cultures {the Japenese have a similar thing…but they aren’t trying to butcher all non- japenese}.
I also find it more than a little bit interesting to see anyone who claims to be a feminist supporting or defending something like islam, given the way it treats women. Just take a good look at sharia law. {go on, ask me to give examples…although I suspect you won’t.
Best wishes,
D

]]> By: Robby http://globalvoicesonline.org/2008/10/08/global-obsession-propaganda-film-incites-anger-toward-republicans/comment-page-9/#comment-1530889 Robby Wed, 12 Nov 2008 15:42:18 +0000 http://globalvoicesonline.org/?p=51192#comment-1530889 I am new do this discussion, and have not read all of the entries. But I wonder if the people that are against the Obsession DVD are equally against the publishing of the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion"? I am new do this discussion, and have not read all of the entries. But I wonder if the people that are against the Obsession DVD are equally against the publishing of the “Protocols of the Elders of Zion”?

]]>