Sexual Jihad And Spreading Crabs In The Name Of Muhammad

0 Shares
beard

In Islamic law, fatwa is a legal opinion or decree handed down by an Islamic religious leader known as mufti. While the dictates issued in a particular fatwa are not necessarily binding, extremists have been known to act on the orders, often with devastating results.

One of the most infamous and widely-known fatwas was issued in 1989 when a novel penned by British Indian novelist and essayist Salman Rushdie irritated Iran’s then-supreme leader Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini.  More than two decades later, The Satanic Verses author still lives with the threat that “good Muslims” on a mission to assassinate him could show up at any time.

In the Middle East, fatwas abound, but are often so absurd that they get little attention from Western media. But, with heightened interest in the current struggle between Muslim fundamentalist rebels in the Free Syrian Army and that nation’s lawful government— and the looming prospect of U.S. intervention on the rebels’ behalf— it is worth taking a look at some recent Islamic fatwas.

In June, while the Muslim Brotherhood shill Mohamed Morsi was still in control of Egypt, the country’s fatwa council issued a directive banning Muslims from hunting and killing frogs to sell.

According to Jihad Watch, “the fatwa explains, according to Islam’s prophet Muhammad as recorded in a hadith, a frog’s ‘croaking is praise [to Allah].’ Accordingly, ‘a number of jurists [fuqaha] have relied on this [hadith] to forbid the eating of frogs, under the notion that “that which is banned from being killed, is forbidden from being eaten.”’”

Other animal-related fatwas in the past have ordered radical Muslims to kill Mickey Mouse and to kill all black dogs, among some animal rights decrees.

Later in June, a fatwa was issued in the Syrian city of Aleppo to punish people who dare to eat croissants.

From a previous Personal Liberty post:

According to an interview at China’s English-language Sina news website, one man who’s frustrated with the growing post-revolutionary power of Islamist extremists in Syria explains how fundamentalists are tightening their grip on local rule to an absurd extent.

“Al-Nusra Front fighters come up every day with a new unimaginable fatwa, or religious edict,” such as the fatwa against croissants, said the Syrian, identified only as “Ahmed.” The fundamentalists claim croissants are particularly relished by European infidels as a celebratory food (because of their “symbolic” crescent shape), which they allegedly tear into with gusto to commemorate historic victories over the Muslims.

Syrians originally inspired by a revolution they hoped would ensure stability and expanded freedoms are now taking to the internet to criticize al-Nusra’s growing intolerance of behaviors that fall outside various factions’ interpretations of sharia law. Other recent fatwas have involved women drivers, unveiled young girls, smoking and even listening to music.

Two—dare I note, unfortunately timed—fatwas surfaced in media more recently.

According to Ahlulbayt News, an English-language Shia Islamic television channel, the Free Syrian Army issued a fatwa prohibiting the killing of lice in the Muslim beard or else “be punished with 50 lashes by Sharia.”

A translation of the order from the Sharia Authority in Aleppo explains:

The Sharia Authority in Aleppo has prohibited the killing of lice that appears in the Muslim beard, as some of the Muslim brothers who have released [grown] their beards in accordance with prophet Muhammad PBuH Sunnah [prophet’s doctrine], blessed lice has appeared in their beards, and that’s because of their lack of bathing due to the water non-availability all the time on the Jihad [holy war] fronts, and they have limited to ablution before their prayers (may God accept it), thus their beards became moist and thick, which made of it (in God’s will) a natural place for lice to live in.

The Sharia Authority in Aleppo recommends the Mujahideen [holy fighters] brothers to dye their beards with Henna, like our prophet Muhammad PBuH, the thing that would reduce the itching caused by the lice, and to maintain this lice that would have not appeared in those blessed beards, if it was not from God’s Muslim believing creatures.

If the jihadists are to run around and be mercilessly shelled by the Syrian government all while having itchy beards, at least their sexual appetites will be satiated long before they reach Muhammad and all of those celestial virgins. That is thanks to a separate fatwa becoming popular in some Middle Eastern regions which calls on the widows of al-Qaida commanders and fighters to join the effort through “Sexual Jihad.”

The Assyrian International News Agency reported late last month:

Reports attribute the fatwa to Saudi sheikh Muhammad al-‘Arifi, who, along with other Muslim clerics earlier permitted jihadis to rape Syrian women.

Muslim women prostituting themselves in this case is being considered a legitimate jihad because such women are making sacrifices–their chastity, their dignity–in order to help apparently sexually-frustrated jihadis better focus on the war to empower Islam in Syria…

… On the basis of this fatwa, several young Tunisian Muslim girls traveled to Syria to be “sex-jihadis.” Video interviews of distraught parents bemoaning their daughters’ fates are on the Internet, including one of a father and mother holding a picture of their daughter: “She’s only 16–she’s only 16! They brainwashed her!” pleads the father…

..While all these sex-fatwas may seem bizarre, they highlight two important (though little known in the West) points. First, that jihad is the “pinnacle” of Islam–for it makes Islam supreme; and second, the idea that “necessity makes permissible the prohibited.”

And the sex jihad is becoming increasingly popular throughout the Middle Eastern region, which is indicative of a big problem for the U.S. (a problem that has been evident to those paying attention for years) if the President decides to entangle the country in another war to help Syria’s rebels: al Qaida and various other groups of Muslim extremists are running the show in any area that the Western powers help to destabilize.

Via Alsumaria, an independent Iraqi Satellite TV Network:

A local official in Diyala province revealed that Al Qaeda Organization has asked the widows of its commanders and fighters to abide by “Sexual Jihad Fatwa” as a means of support to its guerillas; considering that such a Fatwa is transnational.

“Intelligence cells commissioned with monitoring Al Qaeda’s activities within Diyala’s borders have reported that the highly-ranked officials in the organization urged the widows of the commanders and members to abide by the sexual Jihad Fatwa. This Fatwa allows Al Qaeda’s women to have sexual intercourse with members of the organization to lift their morale”, said Al Khalis district’s administrative official, Oday Al Khadran in a statement to Alsumaria.

“The attempt to implement the Sexual Jihad Fatwa issued by clergymen that support the armed groups in Syria proves that such laws are transnational. This also points out that Al Qaeda’s course of action in Syria or in any other country is closely related to the events that are taking place in Iraq”, he added.

The President of the United States will to contend that the Nation is on some great humanitarian mission when it becomes clear that a Syrian war (to, no doubt, be followed by an Iranian conflict) is imminent— but it certainly will be a lie. In reality, the U.S. will jump headfirst into a holy war in support of the very jihadists who, we are to believe, attempted to bring us to our knees just under a decade and a half ago.

Do you want your tax dollars used in aid of people taking orders from men who advocate such barbarism as forced copulation and the proliferation of pubic lice?

Sam Rolley

Sam Rolley began a career in journalism working for a small town newspaper while seeking a B.A. in English. After covering community news and politics, Rolley took a position at Personal Liberty Media Group where could better hone his focus on his true passions: national politics and liberty issues. In his daily columns and reports, Rolley works to help readers understand which lies are perpetuated by the mainstream media and to stay on top of issues ignored by more conventional media outlets.

Join the Discussion

Comment Policy: We encourage an open discussion with a wide range of viewpoints, even extreme ones, but we will not tolerate racism, profanity or slanderous comments toward the author(s) or comment participants. Make your case passionately, but civilly. Please don't stoop to name calling. We use filters for spam protection. If your comment does not appear, it is likely because it violates the above policy or contains links or language typical of spam. We reserve the right to remove comments at our discretion.

  • independent thinker

    may the lice of a thousand jackals infest each jihadist beard and crotch.

    • mathis1689

      And may their arms and hands be broken so that they can’t scratch!

    • fenix1

      Good One!

    • rocketride

      Make that rabid, syphilitic jackals. OTOH, the syphilis might just be superfluous. After all, without immunological testing, how would you even tell if one of those goobers had acquired tertiary syphilis?

  • nancy anderson

    savages!!!!

  • Paul

    Hey Ma forget the oysters, Dad is coming home with the crabs!

    • Bill

      Paul,
      Glad to see some comedians on this post. The uptight liberals with a point to prove and a stick up their butt get boring.

  • mark

    Another PDL appeal to religious hatred and bigotry, to demonizing people of another faith because of the beliefs and actions of a small minority within that faith. Congratulations, Mr. Rolley. Your article is very reminiscent of extremist Muslim writers who claim all Catholic priests are pedophiles (when of course only 0.24 % of priests have ever even been accused of such crimes 99.76% have not), that all protestant ministers are charlatans, thieves, and womanizers (when only a handful of highly publicized cases involving notorious televangelists in fact were), that Christians routinely let their children die rather than give them medical care (when in fact only a small group of Christian scientists follow this belief) that all Jews are dangerous idolaters who have practiced Christian child sacrifice ( when in fact, they never have), that the Ku Klux Klan is a prime Christian organization in the United States (this group does exist and makes that claim but it in no way represents the vast majority of American Christians), that the U.S. invaded Muslim countries like Iraq and Afghanistan and is about to strike Syria solely to wipe out the faith of Islam, which is patently false. These same Muslims hate-mongers also pick out the most extreme quotes from the Bible in which Jehovah calls for blood vengeance against His enemies, in which He calls upon Abraham to sacrifice his own son – and then claim that this represents Christianity, there it is, the very words of their God from their own Holy Book! Most of us in the West condemn these distortions of the truth regarding Christians and Jews but then we have shameful hate-spewers like yourself, Mr. Rolley who do the very same thing trying to portray the vast majority of peaceful and humane Muslims only according to the beliefs of that faith’s most radical and evil fanatics (like the Christian KKK in the U.S.). You employ the following logic: the overwhelming majority of serial killers in the United States are white, therefore most whites are serial killers and/or approve of serial killing – an absurd conclusion to any thinking adult. It is clear that you make good living doing this and you have lots of bigoted supporters. But you mostly do a great disservice to humanity by feeding hatred and encouraging people to only view Islam through the lens of its most bizarre and twisted followers (which by the way exist in all faiths unfortunately consider the Christian minister Fred Phelps who condemns our veterans and their families to Hell at their funerals, the Christian minister who held a televised burning of the Koran, the snake-handling Christian sect in Appalachia, or the polygamist cults of extremist Mormons who sexually abuse young girls as just a few of many examples. Would any sane person claim that these represent mainline Christianity?).

    • Moshe McCarthy

      The overwhelming majority of Christians in the world have grown up & moved onward & upward….The Muslims who at one point had great & tolerant civilizations, relatively speaking, are overwhelmingly moving backward & downwards. These are just plain facts!

      • mark

        Hundreds of millions of Muslims are on-line, use Facebook, I-Pads, attend universities, raise normal families, take vacations, go to the beach, tens of millions study medicine, law, engineering ,run businesses and have zero to do with religious violence. These are also the plain facts. A small minority of very dangerous Muslims have unfortunately seized the headlines and all of Western media attention that only focuses on violence, war, and sensationalism. They have also seized control unfortunatel of various political movements but they do not represent the majority of Muslims who like the majority of Christians, Buddhist, Confucionists, and Jews do not engage in war or violence. These are also the plain facts. Have you ever lived in or visited the Middle East, Indonesia, Bangladesh, Malaysia, Burma? If you have you will have discovered a wonderful and welcoming culture from the vast majority of these region’s Muslim inhabitants. Try not to live in the media hate-box. There is a much bigger and more wonderful world out there.

        • Nadzieja Batki

          But you, mark, don’t know hundreds of millions of Muslims, so your defense already started with a lie.

          • mark

            No, I also know that hundreds of millions of Americans have never committed the crime of murder. I don’t know them personally that that doesn’t make my statement about them a lie. FBI crime statistics bear out my claim that less than 1% of Americans commit murder in their lives. So is this a lie because the FBI doesn’t know each and everyone of these individuals? Global and international statistics show that only a small number of Muslims engage in terrorism out of the 1.5 billion Muslims in the world. This is not a lie, it is a fact.

          • Robert Messmer

            The 99% of Americans who don’t commit murder enact laws, arrest and jail those who do. The 99% of peaceful Muslims don’t do anything to contain their 1%.

        • Moshe McCarthy

          Alas, it is not a small minority…where are the Muslims who live the right way, speaking out against the dark ones?

          • rocketride

            There are some but they seem few and far between. But that could just be because they’re the ones not causing trouble so the news media don’t mention them. “If it bleeds, it leads” rules here, too.

        • Bill

          Mark,
          Let’s see, your first post preached hatred for those that do not think like you. And this last post preached peace and love. Sounds like you are kind of mixed up. Maybe you should look for a common ground and stop being so inconsistent

          • mark

            No, I actually called out and criticized the people, Christian and Muslim, who preach hate in my long post, Bill. Do you have problems understanding English? It is in English my criticism of Muslim hate-spewers who write articles claiming that tiny Christian minorities of Klansmen and sexual perverts represent all Christians. This is of course a lie like Rolley’s claim that jihadists extremists represent all Muslims. What part of my argument don’t you understand?

          • Vigilant

            “This is of course a lie like Rolley’s claim that jihadists extremists represent all Muslims.”

            Cite that fraudulent claim in Rolley’s article by specific quotation. You won’t find it. It exists only in your fevered fantasy mind.

            Seems YOU are the one who is woefully deficient in reading comprehension skills.

          • Vigilant

            “This is of course a lie like Rolley’s claim that jihadists extremists represent all Muslims.”

            Cite that fraudulent claim in Rolley’s article by specific quotation. You won’t find it. It exists only in your fevered fantasy mind.

            Seems YOU are the one who is woefully deficient in reading comprehension skills.

          • Robert Messmer

            Actually Rolley’s article deals with lice and sex, and not once does he make the claim that jihadists represent all Muslims. How did you not understand it since it is in English?

        • Robert Messmer

          If you manage to time your visits to those wonderful and welcoming spots in between attacks from the “oh so very small minority of Muslims” who have any voice. It is way past time for their “religious” leaders to tell them to knock off the barbarism.

      • Bill

        Moshe,
        Good Comments. Ever since King Cyrus, they started going downhill. They should have stayed Zoroastrian.

      • TML

        This is mostly due to the imperialist policies of the West and oppression of these people since that time, not because they are somehow inferior or just ‘fell behind’. As you alluded to by saying they at one point had great and tolerant civilizations – while they were making advances in science and medicine, and building great cities, and discovery (and conquest), and laid the foundation for the Renaissance Age; Europe lingered in the Dark Ages during the rule of the Christian theocracy, the Holy Roman Empire.

        The Myth of the Clash of Civilizations
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aPS-pONiEG8

        • ISHKABIBEL

          That excuse is BS to me!

          • Guest

            Shocking

          • TML

            It’s not an excuse really, it’s clearly known that the West has held imperialist and colonialist policies in the Middle East which has led to the perception that they are moving backward/downward as Moshe claimed. It’s merely been a long standing oppression by what is considered the ‘superior’ civilizations of our time – to hold the perceived inferior race under the boot, and frankly, is what leads to the excessiveness by Muslims as they turn to their religion, like anyone else, in times of despotism.

          • Moshe McCarthy

            Hey, did the West create the radical strain of Islam, known as Wahabbi? NO!! These rationalizations are pure BS…Hey, before this virulent strain of Islam, how did they treat their women? Much better than now, right?…That is why I say they are going backwards…any culture that treats women & children the way they do is DOOMED & it has nothing to do with Imperialism

          • TML

            You, like most people commenting, are obviously to preoccupied with prejudice and bigotry that you completely miss the point.

            Btw… Wahhabi? You mean the dominant form of Islam in Saudi Arabia? The same Saudi Arabia that is America’s close ally and seems to be doing very well economically as a result while we invade every other Middle East country? If you want to bash, then we can show that such extremism isn’t limited to Islam, and thus not necessarily inherent in it. Such as Orthodox Jews who follow their own form of Sharia, called Halakha, which has many of the same teaching of Islam – they segregate and ‘mistreat’ women, and follow the Talmud which contains laws which allow pedophilia, etc. Or even Christians, such as Westbrook Baptist Church, and other such wackos.

          • Moshe McCarthy

            Boy are you wrong….though Wahabbi started in Saudi Arabia, they were driven out by the Sheiks, Bin-Laden’s dream was to overthrow the Sheiks…the Saudis do not stand for this on their own turf, but they will export it all over the world or look the other way!

            Orthodox Jews & the Westbrook Baptist church are not blowing up pizza parlors or discos or office buildings, or stoning women to death , are they?

          • TML

            I’m not wrong according to this source – PBS Frontline. “Analyses – Wahhabism” 27 January 2012. “For more than two centuries, Wahhabism has been Saudi Arabia’s dominant faith.”. Where’s you source?

            No, they aren’t (although there are some wacko like the Waco incident and others – or we could talk about the Samson Option by Israel), but they are also not being oppressed like the Muslims are today – the West is at war with a religion under the guise of the ‘War of Terror’. It’s not much different than modern day Crusades. I don’t believe that such terrorism is the result of their religion telling them to kill the infidel, as much as it is an act of despotism by desperate people who have no other way of fighting an over-whelming military power that seeks to oppress them. Much like in Vietnam. Did they also carry out suicide bombings because of any religious belief? No, they did it for the reason I just point out. I believe it is this despotism that has spawn the modern day radical Muslim’s. And then there are just crazy people. What about the bombing in Oklahoma in 1995… was that a Muslim? No. Such things are not inherent in a [single] religion.

          • Virgil Lipinski

            Here’s the lowdown on the Sauds & Wahhabi right now:

            “According to a prominent Lebanese Islamic scholar (who remains anonymous for obvious reasons), during the last decade, Saudi Arabia has financed all of the Wahhabi movements in the region either directly or indirectly through non-governmental organizations.

            This means that al Qaeda, 9/11, and all the other terrorist acts against the United States and other nations received their funding from the House of Saud.

            “This was really a strategic mistake,” says this scholar. “The Arab rulers, as well as the policy analysts, have really underestimated the [fundamentalist] regeneration in the region. I would expect a war of Wahhabism against the Gulf countries, particularly Saudi rulers.”

            In effect the House of Saud tried to purchase protection for itself by channeling some of its vast wealth to the Wahhabis. Recent events, of course, have put the lie to this point of view.

            In most of the Islamic world, the Wahhabis control basic schooling. Between the ages of 7 and 15, students are taught fundamentals of strict Islam and religious obligations. Initial introduction to basic education (reading, writing, and arithmetic) is entirely absent, except as an adjunct to the teaching of strict, literal Islam. Between 15 and 25, young men are taught to fight – are prepared for jihad.

            Wahhabism flourishes in every Muslim country. Lebanon has about 4,000 Wahhabis. In Egypt , Saudi Arabia , and Pakistan it is far larger. Wahhabism goes by many names – Ikhwan, Wahhabi, Salifiyya, Mowahabin, and the Taliban. What all of them have in common is a strident, militant view of Sunni Islam, and financial support at the highest levels of the Saudi government. They also share a hatred of anything not strictly Wahhabi.

            Osama bin Laden has capitalized on this widespread Wahhabism to unite Muslims across the Islamic world. The movement grows by indoctrinating youngsters in its hatred while ostensibly educating them. It is fueled by massive infusions of Saudi money. And it is legitimized by Fatwas issued almost daily by Islamic clerics throughout the Islamic world.

            The system feeds upon itself, and is growing stronger by the day. In recent weeks, Iraqi clerics have begun issuing Fatwas to their local congregations that, in effect, put at risk every non-Islamic person anywhere in the region.

            These people cannot be stopped by reason. They cannot be starved out. And they certainly cannot be changed. Their message of universal fundamentalist Islamic rule over all Muslims now and over the entire world as soon as possible cannot be ignored if we value our freedom and way of life.

            The specter of universal Jihad is upon us. The longer we wait, the stronger the Wahhabis become, and more capable of achieving their goals.

            Will the entire Middle East become a Wahhabi-ruled theocracy? Quite possibly. Will the rest of the world fall to the Wahhabi sword? Not likely, so long as the United States remains willing to apply its overwhelming force to prevent this from happening.

            With the arrest this week in Saudi Arabia of the terrorists who attacked the residential compounds, and the subsequent arrest of several militant clerics who vociferously supported them, the Saudis have taken another small step in the right direction.

            In the meantime, we cannot allow Wahhabi schools to exist, let alone flourish in any area we control, or over which we exercise influence. The moment a cleric utters a Fatwa calling for anyone’s death is the moment for us to act. These clerics must be stopped permanently, no matter what it takes. We must speak to them in the only language they understand – force and violence. We must disperse Wahhabi communities and require their children to be educated in secular schools that Coalition forces and their follow-on civilian counterparts control, schools where they will learn about the real world, and how to build a self-governing society on the ruins of the Wahhabi disaster.

            If America lacks the will to take these drastic steps, I fear that our presence and influence in Iraq will be a momentary splash in the frying pan of history.”

        • rocketride

          Somehow, it’s always our fault. . .

          • TML

            It’s simple history. I suppose you would think the decline of the Indians wasn’t our fault either, eh?

          • rocketride

            Marxist revisionist “history”, that is. For a change, though, you did mention one that actually was our fault. But there have been many cultures that declined and even died out without any help from us. Specifically, Islamic culture started a precipitous decline about a half millennium ago, when they consciously and with malice aforethought rejected reason in favor of imams’ mouthings of revealed truth and mindless obedience.
            We (Europeans and the descendants of same) picked up the torch to their detriment and our benefit. Tough $#|+! If you shove your collective head up your equally collective &$$, you deserve whatever you get stuck with.

          • TML

            Half a millennium ago? You mean during the same time of the Inquisitions? And this you call picking up the torch of reason? You are clearly bias in your view of history as well as more modern history which absolutely shows that colonialism and imperialism of the Western (and supposedly superior) civilizations has stifled the Middle East countries particularly over the last two centuries (and by America specifically in the last half century).

          • rocketride

            You mean the Inquisition that (like the Crusades) was mostly* a response to the inroads the Muslims were making in southern Europe? Of course, none of what our ancestors did could have been “pushback” for what had been/ was being done to them, could it? The moral thing for Christendom to do was simply knuckle under and accept dhimmitude without complaint, right? It is, after all western civilization that is the fount of EVIL, isn’t it.

            * Yes they did make some mistakes, like also going after Jews, for instance, but the information they had to go by was, if anything, of even lower quality that what you’re apparently accepting uncritically

          • TML

            The inquisitions were not a response to the ‘inroads’ of the Muslims in Spain. They were driven back prior to that time. Resistance to invaders is not a religious thing. The inquisitions were a response to Jews in the country – that’s who the Inquisitions targeted; not Muslims. And the Crusades were absolutely not a response to the encroachment of Islam in Europe. It was to reclaim Jerusalem – a city that didn’t belong to them in the first place and was thousands of miles from their Christian homeland. You paint with a very large brush and vague understanding of history. Nonetheless, you miss the point again.

          • rocketride

            My point is that the two cultural complexes had been going “tit-for-tat” for hundreds of years. Hatfields and McCoys times a million! There was no love lost on either side and even with distinctly improved communications (or maybe because of them), both sides still see each other (probably correctly) as existential threats. As usual, it takes two to tango.

          • TML

            I agree with that assessment… it does take two. But I’m reminded of the Treaty of Tripoli when peace was made with the Muslim pirates. They viewed America as a Christian nation to which the Treaty spelled out that we are not a Christian nation, and thereby had peace with them.

            In today’s world, however, I’m not sure that their view of America being “the great Satan” has much to do with them viewing America as a Christian nation (although most Christian’s will zealously claim that we are) and more to do with the imperialist policies (as my initial comments suggested), and intervening in their countries. Take Iran for example. They were our ally under a ruthless dictator, and when they nationalized the oil (own by British Petroleum – remnants of colonialism) we ousted the democratically elected Prime minister that led the effort, and put that oppressive Shaw back in power (stifling their progress of becoming a democratic nation). It led to a revolution of theocracy. Then, we allied with Saddam, and supported him as he invaded Iran with a blatant war of aggression, and used chemical weapons on Iran. It was then that Iran – or Muslims there – started calling us the great “Satan”. And this theme has continued to play out in one country after the next in the Middle East – now Syria.

            Additionally, we unconditionally support Israel despite them being engaged in an illegal military and settler occupation, almost as if this claimed “Jewish” state is an extension of America. I’m not saying that it’s always and only our fault, but our actions do have consequences on a world stage; our policies create our own enemies.

          • Robert Messmer

            Which Middle Eastern country did we invade and make our colony? Pretty hard to practise colonialism without at least one colony.

          • TML

            As I suggested further down in the comments; we unconditionally support Israel (whom is often seen as an extension of America as a result) with 3 billion dollars a year regardless of them being engaged in an internationally recognized, illegal, military and settler (colonial) occupation of land which was partitioned to Palestinians, and regardless of our 16 trillion dollar debt.

          • Robert Messmer

            OK my mistake did not realize that by the government sending foreign aid that was the same as being a colonial power. Wow all those years rebuilding Europe and the Pacific area after WWII what a fantastic colonial power we were. I always thought being a colonial power meant that the “Mother” country took whatever resources of the colony that it wanted. But I was wrong!

          • TML

            “…did not realize that by the government sending foreign aid that was the same as being a colonial power.”

            Correct me if I’m wrong, but I sense sarcasm….

            The British funded the colonies of America, did it not? And the topic was the Middle East, shall we then talk about the Spanish/American war that mostly took place in the Pacific Islands (which was purely admitted imperialism even at the time)? Or the Mexican/American war (in which the entire South West was taken)? Today it is said that we MUST continue to “let the money flow to Israel, because they are our closest ‘ally'” in the Middle East (even at the detriment of our own economy)…. and you don’t think this is colonialist, imperialist, or even religiously driven; hidden behind false rhetoric?

          • Robert Messmer

            The British did just a tad more than fund the colonies–they ruled them, taxed them and had a standing army in them. As to Spanish/American war, Mexican/American war neither of them are in the Middle East which is where you claimed American colonialism to have taken place.

          • TML

            You seem to be trying to pull off a Red Herring, or you have completely misunderstood my argument. I claimed Israeli colonialism (settlements) in illegally occupied territory and Americas imperialist policies of unconditional support despite such crimes citing them [Israel] merely as an ally in the Middle East.

            Your confusion might be coming from my statement “modern history… …absolutely shows that colonialism and imperialism of the Western (and supposedly superior) civilizations has stifled [progress in] the Middle East countries particularly over the last two centuries (and by America specifically in the last half century)”.

            The reference to Western civilizations was inclusive of British, French, and other colonial powers, whereas my reference to America concerned imperialism in support of colonialism as it exists in Israel today (to the point that Israel is often seen as an extension of America), while holding the imperialist policies of intervention and invasion of almost every other country in Middle East and North Africa. (In many of those countries, and Iran in particular, Israel is often considered Americas 51st state.)

          • Robert Messmer

            No, the Red Herring was supplied by you in bringing the Spanish/American War, Mexican/American War, and British “funding” into a discussion of the Middle East and the last half century as none of your examples hit the mark in either case. Just because some may consider Israel to be Americas 51 state does not in fact make Israel our colony. There have been instances where Israel, as many other of our allies, has done or not done things that we wanted. Using your argument that foreign aid equates to colony status, then that would mean that Russia is also our colony.

          • TML

            If your entire argument rest on the rejection that America is a colonial power then I will say again that you haven’t understood my argument.

            “Your confusion might be coming from my statement “modern history… …absolutely shows that colonialism and imperialism of the Western (and supposedly superior) civilizations has stifled [progress in] the Middle East countries particularly over the last two centuries (and by America specifically in the last half century)”.

            The reference to Western civilizations was inclusive of British, French, and other colonial powers, whereas my reference to America concerned imperialism in support of colonialism as it exists in Israel today””

            And there is no other nation on earth, other than Israel, that we unconditionally support with foreign aid. Btw, Russia is not receiving any foreign aid from us.

            My bringing up the Spanish/American war, and Mexican/American war, was to show that historically – and quite literally – America did practice colonialism (history often prefers the euphemism, “settlement”) as it expanded across the West.

          • Robert Messmer

            The fact that America practised colonialism in a different time and different place has no bearing on the Middle East. So in what way has our support of Israel “stifled” the other countries of the Middle East. Has Israel invaded and occupied any nation that has made and kept peace with it? I know there are border disputes with those who have waged war, unsuccessfully, against Israel. But desiring a buffer zone is not unreasonable.

          • TML

            Btw, my collective head up my collective a$$?? LoL
            I take it that’s supposed to be some kind of misinformed insult of being socialist of something? All I can tell you my idiot friend, is that I am certainly not a socialist or communist, I’m a Texan American atheist that could be described as a classical liberal or anti-federalist. Thomas Jefferson is one of my favorite icons.

          • rocketride

            I would describe myself similarly save for being behind enemy lines in upstate New York.

            So excuuuuuuuse me for assuming that what looked like the usual Stalinist-inspired “it’s all western civ’s fault” was coming from a socialist of some stripe.

            BTW, I didn’t mean your head and &$$, specifically. (Even were you a socialist, you wouldn’t have a collective one of either.) I was talking about Islamic Civilization’s (figuratively) collective anatomy.

          • TML

            Understood, friend.

          • dan

            fan of Jefferson ,myself

          • Vigilant

            Not to put too fine a point on it, TML, after our stimulating discussion about theism and atheism, but it’s nice to know that one of your favorite icons is Jefferson, a Deist.

          • TML

            He was one of the most brilliant minds at the time of the country’s founding.

            Edit: I was trying to be a smart ass, but it wasn’t workin out for me, lol.

          • dan

            one out of two ain’t bad

          • TML
          • Big_Jake

            No one cares who you consider your icons to be.

          • Virgil Lipinski

            No, it wasn’t…the PC historians like to gloss over the fact they were killing each other quite a bit hundreds of years before the white man ever set foot upon North America! I suggest you read, “The Song of Hiawatha” They were in decline way before…great respect for the land & nature, but not for each other…tribal hatreds, the same dynamic in many of these Muslim nations!

          • rocketride

            But we sure didn’t help with the various plagues we introduced, sometimes even unintentionally.

          • WTS/JAY

            Coexist With Islam?

            Here is a partial list of societies and civilizations that ceased to exist when Islam, a violent cult-like creed whose ethos entails absolute intolerance of all other creeds, destroyed them –

            The Jewish mercantile civilization of the Arabian Peninsula

            The Polytheist Arabic mercantile civilization of the Arabian Peninsula (which coexisted with the Jewish one)

            The Hellenized Egyptian-Christian Civilization of the Nile Delta

            The Syriac-Christian Civilization of Cilicia and the Levant

            The North African Christian Civilization

            Byzantine Christendom (which once extended from Greece itself eastward all the way to Mesopotamia)

            The partly Hellenized Buddhist Civilization of Central Asia (centering on what today is Afghanistan)

            The Persian Zoroastrian civilization

            The Brahmanic and Hindu city-states, nations, and kingdoms of the Indian subcontinent

            The Visigothic Christian civilization of the Iberian Peninsula

            The Gnostic-Christian Bulgarian Empire of the Balkan Peninsula…

            God’s Philosophers: How the Medieval World Laid the Foundations of Modern Science -by James Hannam

            http://conancimmerian.wordpress.com/2011/11/14/gods-philosophers-how-the-medieval-world-laid-the-foundations-of-modern-science-by-james-hannam/

          • rocketride

            If you took away that I think we can coexist with mainstream Islam from what I wrote, then I obviously should have gone straight past irony and on to sarcasm.

          • TML

            An empire is actually defined by the kind of destruction and subjugation of cultures, civilizations, and nations – indeed even other empires – that you have posted here; it wasn’t exclusive to the Arab Conquests.

            Christian empires have done the same (such as the Byzantine empire that you actually listed above, as one of many examples). Or is it that when it’s a Christian empire, you simply attempt to apologize it away, or claim that they aren’t really Christians (like you dubiously attempted to do concerning Catholics)?

            But based on your link that immediately begins to bash “atheists and secular humanists” claiming that just because they are atheist they have “a grasp of history stunted at about high school level” it becomes clear your prejudice simply can’t be bothered with the facts from an objective and balanced level on this issue.

            Since you think we can’t co-exist with Islam, what are you actually promoting? It seems you are hypocritically (or ignorantly) promoting the very things you claim to be against – the ‘War on Terror’ (a guise for a war on Islam) or destruction of Islam through the imperialist principles of intervention and invasion of one country in the Middle East after the next? Or promoting the idea of not living peacefully with Muslims here in the United States, as if they should all ‘go back to their own country’ – hypocritically dismissing the principle of freedom of religion on which this country was based, and that you supposedly hold so dear? Or is the 1st Amendment ok only for your religion?

            What exactly is your angle with posting this kind of stuff, along with a bias and un-credible link of cognitive dissonance?

          • WTS/JAY

            So what is the truth about the Crusades? Scholars are still working some of that out. But much can already be said with certainty. For starters, the Crusades to the East were in every way defensive wars. They were a direct response to Muslim aggression–an attempt to turn back or defend against Muslim conquests of Christian lands.

            “Christians in the eleventh century were not paranoid fanatics. Muslims really were gunning for them. While Muslims can be peaceful, Islam was born in war and grew the same way. From the time of Mohammed, the means of Muslim expansion was always the sword. Muslim thought divides the world into two spheres, the Abode of Islam and the Abode of War. Christianity–and for that matter any other non-Muslim religion–has no abode. Christians and Jews can be tolerated within a Muslim state under Muslim rule. But, in traditional Islam, Christian and Jewish states must be destroyed and their lands conquered. When Mohammed was waging war against Mecca in the seventh century, Christianity was the dominant religion of power and wealth. As the faith of the Roman Empire, it spanned the entire Mediterranean, including the Middle East, where it was born. The Christian world, therefore, was a prime target for the earliest caliphs, and it would remain so for Muslim leaders for the next thousand years.

            “With enormous energy, the warriors of Islam struck out against the Christians shortly after Mohammed’s death. They were extremely successful. Palestine, Syria, and Egypt–once the most heavily Christian areas in the world–quickly succumbed. By the eighth century, Muslim armies had conquered all of Christian North Africa and Spain. In the eleventh century, the Seljuk Turks conquered Asia Minor (modern Turkey), which had been Christian since the time of St. Paul. The old Roman Empire, known to modern historians as the Byzantine Empire, was reduced to little more than Greece. In desperation, the emperor in Constantinople sent word to the Christians of Western Europe asking them to aid their brothers and sisters in the East.

            “That is what gave birth to the Crusades. They were not the brainchild of an ambitious pope or rapacious knights but a response to more than four centuries of conquests in which Muslims had already captured two-thirds of the old Christian world. At some point, Christianity as a faith and a culture had to defend itself or be consumed by Islam. The Crusades were that defense.

            “Pope Urban II called upon the knights of Christendom to push back the conquests of Islam at the Council of Clermont in 1095. The response was tremendous. Many thousands of warriors took the vow of the cross and prepared for war. Why did they do it? The answer to that question has been badly misunderstood. In the wake of the Enlightenment, it was usually asserted that Crusaders were merely lacklands and ne’er-do-wells who took advantage of an opportunity to rob and pillage in a faraway land. The Crusaders’ expressed sentiments of piety, self-sacrifice, and love for God were obviously not to be taken seriously. They were not just a front for darker designs.

            “During the past two decades, computer-assisted charter studies have demolished that contrivance. Scholars have discovered that crusading knights were generally wealthy men with plenty of their own land in Europe. Nevertheless, they willingly gave up everything to undertake the holy mission. Crusading was not cheap. Even wealthy lords could easily impoverish themselves and their families by joining a Crusade. They did so not because they expected material wealth (which many of them had already) but because they hoped to “store up treasure where rust and moth could not corrupt.” They were keenly aware of their sinfulness and eager to undertake the hardships of the Crusade as a penitential act of charity and love.

            “Europe is littered with thousands of medieval charters attesting to these sentiments, charters in which these men still speak to us today if we will listen. Of course, they were not opposed to capturing booty if it could be had. But the truth is that the Crusades were notoriously bad for plunder. A few people got rich, but the vast majority returned with nothing.”

            http://www.christian-community.org/library/crusades.html

          • TML

            You reply without directly addressing anything I said? Your copy paste job amounts to an incoherent Red Herring.

            Assuming you have injected into my statement “Christian empires have done the same (such as the Byzantine empire…)”;

            The Crusades concerned (a) European Christian forces (b) called to war by the Pope (the Holy Roman Empire theocracy), and at the request of the Byzantine Empire (whom had taken the land by force themselves once) (c) who were specifically intended to ‘retake’ Jerusalem and open the road and their Holy sites to religious pilgrims (Christians) (d) even though such city, and land, were never theirs to “retake” in the first place.

            In short, your post supports my argument that “…subjugation of cultures, civilizations, and nations – indeed even other empires – that you have posted here wasn’t exclusive to the Arab Conquests”, and that when it’s a Christian empire, you simply attempt to ‘apologize’ it away.

          • WTS/JAY

            TML: In short, your post supports my argument that “…subjugation of cultures, civilizations, and nations – indeed even other empires – that you have posted here wasn’t exclusive to the Arab Conquests”,

            Yes, it was a constant back and forth struggle for world domination. The Ottoman empire ruled for 5 centuries, and wasn’t exactly a benign Empire; i suppose, no different than any other empire that existed previous. Today, unfortunately, the shoe is on the other foot; the West reigns supreme over the Muslim people. How long that will last, is anyone’s guess. Is it right or wrong? It’s just the way it is. You and i have nothing to say about it. Well, we can offer our opinions, for what its worth, and we can argue back and forth till the cows come home, trying to pin the tail on the evil guy, but at the end of the day, your opinions and my opinions don’t mean squat in the grand scheme of things. The forces at play will do that which they have always done, and that, under which ever banner, and for whatever supposed reason, (Democracy)-(War on terror)-(Holy Jihad) (Allah’s will), best greases the skids and is agreeable with their subjects/citizens. So who’s the evil one, TML? Both!!! Both are consumed with lust for absolute power and control. But for you to suggest that the muslim people were always the victim and the West always the aggressors, is ridiculous. Both have destroyed, both have conquered, subjugated, mutilated, and exterminated; and it continues to this day.

          • TML

            Jay says, “for you to suggest that the muslim people were always the victim and the West always the aggressors”

            That’s a well thought out, articulate response, but I’m not sure how you arrived at the conclusion that I suggested Muslims were ‘always’ the victims. Even in your quote of my words, I said “…subjugation of cultures, civilizations, and nations – indeed even other empires – that you have posted here wasn’t exclusive to the Arab Conquests” – implying that they are not always the victims. My argument was more to the point that Christianity was not ‘always’ the victim, as your initial post implied that we can not co-exist with Islam (to which you have not responded) based on the civilizations conquered (which you went on to list) during the Arab Conquests.

          • WTS/JAY

            TML: My argument was more to the point that Christianity was not ‘always’ the victim, as your initial post implied that we can not co-exist with Islam (to which you have not responded) based on the civilizations conquered (which you went on to list) during the Arab Conquests.

            Christianity was always, the victim, and it is at this point where you and i clash. The Roman Empire, although it incorporated certain aspects of Christianity, was not a Christian-empire, but Pagan. But it begs the question; how could you, a self-proclaimed Atheist, or any Atheist, know who or what is a Christian? You can in no way know, unless you are one.

          • TML

            We were talking about the Holy Roman Empire, which was indeed a ‘Christian’ Empire.

            Indeed we do clash on that point. As we just covered the Crusades, shall we also cover the Inquisitions which targeted Jews? Shall we talk about entire Pagan civilizations that were whipped out, including those during the Spanish Conquests, and Era of ‘Discovery’? Or Christian priests such as Mark of Arethusa or Cyrill of Heliopolis who were famous as “temple destroyers”? Or the conflict between Catholics and Protestants themselves? Or even up to today with the ‘War of Terror’ being, for many Christians, a war of Islam that was given to us as a response to 9/11 when in fact we had already been bombing and intervening in their countries for decades prior to that time? No, Christians are not ‘always’ the victim. That is a cheap attempt at justification that is even used by Israel today as they seem to always claim their actions are ‘defensive’ even though they are engaged in an illegal military and settler (colonial) occupation of land that doesn’t belong to them under any internationally recognized basis. (There’s no such thing as “defense” when you’re on someone else’s land trying to take it)

            And we’ve had that conversation before, if you remember… it was the discussion in which you were attempting to say that Catholics were not really Christians several month ago (even though that is the very roots of the Christian faith – Catholicism – with extremely devout followers of Christ). This idea that you somehow have exclusive knowledge that gives you the ability to judge, unquestionably, what a Christian is or is not, just because you are one, is nothing more than an appeal to authority. I was a Christian once. Many of my family members are devout religious Christians. And beyond that – a Christian is anyone who follows the teachings of Jesus, believes in Jesus Christ, and accepts him as their savior. Honestly, there are many Christians I know that would say your belief that Christians and Muslims can’t co-exist is not only false, but not very Christian like. There are many examples of Christians and Muslims living and working together peacefully, for anyone who takes the time to look. Perhaps you should be promoting understanding, rather than hate and fear.

          • WTS/JAY

            TML: We were talking about the Holy Roman Empire, which was indeed a ‘Christian’ Empire.

            No, it was not a Christian Empire. Just because it incorporated into its pagan religion(s) certain aspects of Christianity, did not make it so. If anything, by doing so, they created a hybrid religion, (Catholicism), worse in so many ways than the previous hedonistic-paganistic-religion that they observed. But, what most people don’t realize is that, the creation of Catholicism, by incorporating/mixing various religions, including, but not entirely, only aspects of Christianity, was in essence the beginning of the Ecumenical-movement; the merging of all religions into one. I should, however, make clear, that, the Ecumenical endeavour initiated by Constantine was, at that time, for the purpose to deal with ‘heresies'; dealing with matters such as; the deity of Christ and the personage of God…ect. However, post-modern Ecumenism, strives to bring all religions under one banner by connecting them by a common thread that is present in all religions; belief in a supernatural-being, after life, peace, good will to men and so forth; and avoiding, or discarding those aspects that make each one unique and distinct. In essence, the attempt, if successful, will be the creation of a one world religion. If you thought the Roman-empire was evil incarnate, the new world religion, incorporated into the NWO, will make the Roman-empire look like a paragon of virtue.

            TML: Indeed we do clash on that point. As we just covered the Crusades, shall we also cover the Inquisitions which targeted Jews? Shall we talk about entire Pagan civilizations that were whipped out, including those during the Spanish Conquests, and Era of ‘Discovery’? Or Christian priests such as Mark of Arethusa or Cyrill of Heliopolis who were famous as “temple destroyers”? Or the conflict between Catholics and Protestants themselves? Or even up to today with the ‘War of Terror’ being, for many Christians, a war of Islam that was given to us as a response to 9/11 when in fact we had already been bombing and intervening in their countries for decades prior to that time?

            But what does that have to do with Christianity? Christianity approves of none of the above, TML.

            TML: No, Christians are not ‘always’ the victim. That is a cheap attempt at justification that is even used by Israel today as they seem to always claim their actions are ‘defensive’ even though they are engaged in an illegal military and settler (colonial) occupation of land that doesn’t belong to them under any internationally recognized basis. (There’s no such thing as “defense” when you’re on someone else’s land trying to take it)

            Yes, true Christians are, always the victims. Nowhere in the New Testament are Christians instructed to do those things you mentioned; in fact, are instructed to behave in the exact opposite.

            TML: And we’ve had that conversation before, if you remember… it was the discussion in which you were attempting to say that Catholics were not really Christians several month ago (even though that is the very roots of the Christian faith – Catholicism – with extremely devout followers of Christ).

            No, they are not, Christians. And for several reasons;

            -Catholics are taught only the RCC can forgive sins. The Bible teaches that forgiveness comes directly from God though faith in Christ, not through church membership and sacraments.

            -Catholics believe the lie that Baptism saves. Water baptism saves nobody. Salvation must precede water baptism.

            -Popes are infallible. The truth is, only God is infallible, and all men are corrupt.

            -Roman Catholics priests and leaders are infallible. This lie is clearly exposed everyday in the news.

            -The Catholic sacraments are essential for salvation. Nobody is saved by sacraments, but through faith in Christ alone.

            -The RCC is the only correct interpreter of Scriptural doctrine. The Holy Spirit is the only Interpreter man needs.

            -Transubstantiation; God is formed into a biscuit at the priest’s command. This unbiblical idolatrous blasphemy is taken from Babylonian sun worship.

            -The Eucharist keeps from sin. Only genuine faith in Christ takes away sin.

            -The virgin-Mary is a co-redeemer and saviour. This hideous blasphemy puts Mary into the Trinity.

            TML: This idea that you somehow have exclusive knowledge that gives you the ability to judge, unquestionably, what a Christian is or is not, just because you are one, is nothing more than an appeal to authority.

            The Scriptures make abundantly clear who is and who is not a Christian. The word of God/Scriptures is the ultimate authority in a Christians life, not man.

            TML: I was a Christian once.

            If you truly were, once a Christian, as you claim, you would not be saying; ‘I was once a Christian’.

            TML: Many of my family members are devout religious Christians. And beyond that – a Christian is anyone who follows the teachings of Jesus, believes in Jesus Christ, and accepts him as their savior. Honestly, there are many Christians I know that would say your belief that Christians and Muslims can’t co-exist is not only false, but not very Christian like. There are many examples of Christians and Muslims living and working together peacefully, for anyone who takes the time to look.

            I did not say that Muslims and Christians can’t co-exsist. What i said was; Islam and Christianity cannot co-exist.

            TML: Perhaps you should be promoting understanding, rather than hate and fear.

            I think you are much too defensive. (-:

          • TML

            “TML: We were talking about the Holy Roman Empire, which was indeed a ‘Christian’ Empire.”
            JAY says, “No, it was not a Christian Empire. Just because it incorporated into its pagan religion(s) certain aspects of Christianity, did not make it so. If anything, by doing so, they created a hybrid religion, (Catholicism), worse in so many ways than the previous hedonistic-paganistic-religion that they observed. ….”

            You’re putting the cart before the horse by saying “it [Catholicism] incorporated into its pagan religion(s) certain aspects of Christianity” when in fact, it was Christianity that, in trying to destroy Pagan religions, incorporated certain aspects of pagan customs and traditions (Christmas and Easter for example) in order to phase out those religions. Your understanding of Catholicism is backwards.

            What most people don’t understand (such as yourself who try to apologize away the history of Christianity for your own purposes) is that Christianity itself has always been fundamentally pagan in the concept of a Demi-God (God’s son), born of a virgin, his death and resurrection, which parallels many other pagan stories in various pagan religion such as Krishna (which predates Christianity by 1000 years – who was also a carpenter, crucified, resurrected), Mithra the Persian demi-god, 600 years before Christ, Horus the Demi-God (son of Osiris) of Egypt 1280 BC born of virgin crucified and resurrected, all of which performed the exact same miracles of Jesus.

            Objectively, what you describe is not separated from the entire concept of Christianity, and thus not separated from Catholicism, in anyway. Christianity itself is paganistic, and not limited to Catholicism (which you seek to distance yourself from just because of the atrocities it has committed parallel to Islam in regards to goals of a one world religion). You see the world through a very narrow-minded lens, my friend. You can continue to deny that Catholicism, and the Holy Roman Empire, was Christian, but you would be blatantly dismissing the facts.

            —————————-

            “TML: Indeed we do clash on that point. As we just covered the Crusades, shall we also cover the Inquisitions which targeted Jews? Shall we talk about entire Pagan civilizations that were whipped out, including those during the Spanish Conquests, and Era of ‘Discovery’? Or Christian priests such as Mark of Arethusa or Cyrill of Heliopolis who were famous as “temple destroyers”? Or the conflict between Catholics and Protestants themselves? Or even up to today with the ‘War of Terror’ being, for many Christians, a war of Islam that was given to us as a response to 9/11 when in fact we had already been bombing and intervening in their countries for decades prior to that time?”
            JAY says: “But what does that have to do with Christianity? Christianity approves of none of the above, TML.”

            Just because it is claimed that Christianity doesn’t approve of the above, doesn’t mean they were not Christian, and doing such things in the name of Christianity because they felt that their religion does approve. Take Luke 19:27 for example; Jesus said, “But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.”. Or Mark 7:9-10 for another example; Jesus says that the old commandments of God still apply saying “And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition for Moses said, ‘Honor your father and mother,’ and, ‘Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death.’”…. even you (who no doubt would deny or apologize away these things) do you not also silently condone (while claiming otherwise) the “War on Terror” and imperialist interventions in those countries by inciting hatred and fear of Islam through the kind of post you make? I think so.

            —————————-

            TML: No, Christians are not ‘always’ the victim. That is a cheap attempt at justification that is even used by Israel today as they seem to always claim their actions are ‘defensive’ even though they are engaged in an illegal military and settler (colonial) occupation of land that doesn’t belong to them under any internationally recognized basis. (There’s no such thing as “defense” when you’re on someone else’s land trying to take it)”
            JAY says: “Yes, true Christians are, always the victims. Nowhere in the New Testament are Christians instructed to do those things you mentioned; in fact, are instructed to behave in the exact opposite.”

            No, even true Christians are capable of not always being the victim.
            Even if we consider Romans 13:1-7 we see orders to obey the government without question which places them in a situation of doing things or supporting things that would make them the opposite of the victim, depending on the situation.

            Romans 13:1-7 “1 Obey the government, for God is the one who put it there. All governments have been placed in power by God. 2 So those who refuse to obey the laws of the land are refusing to obey God, and punishment will follow. 3 For the authorities do not frighten people who are doing right, but they frighten those who do wrong. So do what they say, and you will get along well. 4 The authorities are sent by God to help you. But if you are doing something wrong, of course you should be afraid, for you will be punished. The authorities are established by God for that very purpose, to punish those who do wrong. 5 So you must obey the government for two reasons: to keep from being punished and to keep a clear conscience. 6 Pay your taxes, too, for these same reasons. For government workers need to be paid so they can keep on doing the work God intended them to do. 7 Give to everyone what you owe them: Pay your taxes and import duties, and give respect and honor to all to whom it is due.”

            Sound familiar? And this is part of the New Testament which contradicts the principles that Jesus preached, since Jesus disobeyed many laws that were unjust, created by men who, according to such scripture, was put in power by god. Yet, this very verse has been used to rally the Church behind the state since it’s inception.

            Even on a matter of principle, to say Christians are always the victims (because anyone who “sins” or makes a mistake isn’t really Christian according to you) is so dubiously self-righteous as to be utterly devoid of reason.

            —————————-

            TML: And we’ve had that conversation before, if you remember… it was the discussion in which you were attempting to say that Catholics were not really Christians several month ago (even though that is the very roots of the Christian faith – Catholicism – with extremely devout followers of Christ).
            JAY says, “No, they are not, Christians. And for several reasons;
            -Catholics are taught only the RCC can forgive sins. The Bible teaches that forgiveness comes directly from God though faith in Christ, not through church membership and sacraments.
            -Catholics believe the lie that Baptism saves. Water baptism saves nobody. Salvation must precede water baptism.
            -Popes are infallible. The truth is, only God is infallible, and all men are corrupt.
            -Roman Catholics priests and leaders are infallible. This lie is clearly exposed everyday in the news.
            -The Catholic sacraments are essential for salvation. Nobody is saved by sacraments, but through faith in Christ alone.
            -The RCC is the only correct interpreter of Scriptural doctrine. The Holy Spirit is the only Interpreter man needs.
            -Transubstantiation; God is formed into a biscuit at the priest’s command. This unbiblical idolatrous blasphemy is taken from Babylonian sun worship.
            -The Eucharist keeps from sin. Only genuine faith in Christ takes away sin.
            -The virgin-Mary is a co-redeemer and saviour. This hideous blasphemy puts Mary into the Trinity.”

            So basically what you’re trying to say is that anyone who sins or follows the traditions, or holds beliefs that are not ‘yours” are not Christians. Thank you for clearing up your typical hypocrisy of the Christian faith.

            —————————-

            “TML: This idea that you somehow have exclusive knowledge that gives you the ability to judge, unquestionably, what a Christian is or is not, just because you are one, is nothing more than an appeal to authority.”
            JAY says, “The Scriptures make abundantly clear who is and who is not a Christian. The word of God/Scriptures is the ultimate authority in a Christians life, not man.”

            Yes, as I just said, a Christian is anyone who follows the teachings of Christ, believes in Jesus Christ, and accepts him as their savior. Just as a Muslim is anyone who follows the message of Mohamed (although they don’t believe him to be a deity of any sort) and who also accept the teaching of Jesus (but only as a prophet, not a Demi-God)

            —————————-

            “TML: I was a Christian once.”
            JAY says, “If you truly were, once a Christian, as you claim, you would not be saying; ‘I was once a Christian’.”

            I was such a devout Christian that ‘the word of God/Scriptures was the ultimate authority’ in my life, that I read it front to back 5 times, in addition to various independent study. Doing so led me to realize the many internal contradictions, atrocious commands, etc. I became a Deist for a number of years until I realized the logical folly of that position as well. I think Jefferson said it best.

            “The whole history of these books [the Gospels] is so defective and doubtful that it seems vain to attempt minute enquiry into it: and such tricks have been played with their text, and with the texts of other books relating to them, that we have a right, from that cause, to entertain much doubt what parts of them are genuine. In the New Testament there is internal evidence that parts of it have proceeded from an extraordinary man; and that other parts are of the fabric of very inferior minds. It is as easy to separate those parts, as to pick out diamonds from dunghills.” – Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Adams, January 24, 1814

            —————————-

            “TML: Many of my family members are devout religious Christians. And beyond that – a Christian is anyone who follows the teachings of Jesus, believes in Jesus Christ, and accepts him as their savior. Honestly, there are many Christians I know that would say your belief that Christians and Muslims can’t co-exist is not only false, but not very Christian like. There are many examples of Christians and Muslims living and working together peacefully, for anyone who takes the time to look.”
            JAY says, “I did not say that Muslims and Christians can’t co-exsist. What i said was; Islam and Christianity cannot co-exist.”

            Hmm, that’s an interesting, and seemingly dubious, difference. How can a Muslim be separated from Islam in this way anymore than a Christian can be separated from Christianity? Both of them pull from their holy books what is in the heart of the individual in the first place and choose to act or not act upon it. There seems to be 400,000 Muslims (Islam) in Texas living alongside Christians (Christianity) just fine – (well, for the most part anyway – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RF80BEeQAb4 )

            —————————-

            “TML: Perhaps you should be promoting understanding, rather than hate and fear.”
            JAY says, “I think you are much too defensive. (-:”

            I thought I was being rather aggressive ;) …particularly toward your posts which are designed to make people afraid, hate, and thus discriminate against Muslims and perhaps even support war against them for no other reason than being Muslim. You’re in a state of cognitive dissonance, my friend.

          • WTS/JAY

            TML: I think Jefferson said it best.

            “The whole history of these books [the Gospels] is so defective and doubtful that it seems vain to attempt minute enquiry into it: and such tricks have been played with their text, and with the texts of other books relating to them, that we have a right, from that cause, to entertain much doubt what parts of them are genuine. In the New Testament there is internal evidence that parts of it have proceeded from an extraordinary man; and that other parts are of the fabric of very inferior minds. It is as easy to separate those parts, as to pick out diamonds from dunghills.” – Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Adams, January 24, 1814.

            Hmm, and this from a man who owned slaves. Interesting. He would have made a fine Muslim, i would think, as Islam neither ignores nor condemns slavery. In fact, a large part of the Sharia is dedicated to the practice. Muslims are encouraged to live in the way of Muhammad, who was a slave owner and trader. He captured slaves in battle. He had sex with his slaves. And he instructed his men to do the same. The Quran actually devotes more verses to making sure that Muslim men know they can keep women as sex slaves than it does to telling them to pray five times a day. Yet Jefferson condemns the Bible and rewrites it, as well. But Jefferson never condemned the Quran nor made any attempts to re-write it. Most interesting indeed, not to mention, eye-opening. Off course he hated the Bible, in particular the New Testament, and praised the Quran; what slave owner wouldn’t?

            Btw, here are just a few historical personalities sharing their thoughts on Islam. Enjoy!

            SIR WINSTON CHURCHILL

            “Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities, but the influence of the religion paralyzes the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step.” Sir Winston Churchill – circa 1899Sir Winston Churchill…

            “How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property‹either as a child, a wife, or a concubine‹must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science‹the science against which it had vainly struggled‹the civilization of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilization of ancient Rome.” From The River War, first edition, Vol. II, pages 248 50 (London: Longmans, Green & Co., 1899)

            AYATOLLAH KHOMEINIKhomeini accordingly delivered notorious rebuke to 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.”

            JACQUES ELLUL (1912 – 1994) a French philosopher, law professor, sociologist, lay theologian, and Christian anarchist:

            “In a major encyclopedia, one reads phrases such as: “Islam expanded in the eighth or ninth centuries …”; “This or that country passed into Muslim hands…” But care is taken not to say how Islam expanded, how countries “passed into [Muslim] hands.” .. Indeed, it would seem as if events happened by themselves, through a miraculous or amicable operation… Regarding this expansion, little is said aboutjihad. And yet it all happened through war! …the jihad is an institution. and not an event, that is to say it is a part of the normal functioning of the Muslim world… The conquered populations change status (tney become dhimmis), and the shari’a tends to be put into effect integrally, overthrowing the former law of the country. The conquered territories do not simply change “owners.”–Jacques Ellul, forward to Les Chrestientes d’Orient entre Jihad et Dhimmitude. VIIe-XXe siecle (1991); English translation in the preface to Bat Ye’or, The Decline of Eastern Christianity under Islam (Cranbury, NJ: Fairleigh Dickinson University Press, 1996), pp. 18-19

            Theodore Roosevelt (1858 – 1919)
            “Christianity is not the creed of Asia and Africa at this moment solely because the seventh century Christians of Asia and Africa had trained themselves not to fight, whereas the Moslems were trained to fight. Christianity was saved in Europe solely because the peoples of Europe fought. If the peoples of Europe in the seventh and eighth centuries, an on up to and including the seventeenth century, had not possessed a military equality with, and gradually a growing superiority over the Mohammedans who invaded Europe, Europe would at this moment be Mohammedan and the Christian religion would be exterminated.

            Wherever the Mohammedans have had complete sway, wherever the Christians have been unable to resist them by the sword, Christianity has ultimately disappeared. From the hammer of Charles Martel to the sword of Sobieski, Christianity owed its safety in Europe to the fact that it was able to show that it could and would fight as well as the Mohammedan aggressor… The civilization of Europe, American and Australia exists today at all only because of the victories of civilized man over the enemies of civilization because of victories through the centuries from Charles Martel in the eighth century and those of John Sobieski in the seventeenth century. During the thousand years that included the careers of the Frankish soldier and the Polish king, the Christians of Asia and Africa proved unable to wage successful war with the Moslem conquerors; and in consequence Christianity practically vanished from the two continents; and today, nobody can find in them any “social values” whatever, in the sense in which we use the words, so far as the sphere of Mohammedan influences are concerned. There are such “social values” today in Europe, America and Australia only because during those thousand years, the Christians of Europe possessed the warlike power to do what the Christians of Asia and Africa had failed to do — that is, to beat back the Moslem invader.” –Theodore Roosevelt (1901-1909) Biography: Impact and Legacy – The Rector and Visitors of the University of Virginia, January 19, 2005, AND; Legacy/ Theodore Roosevelt

          • TML

            JAY says, “Hmm, and this from a man who owned slaves. Interesting. He would have made a fine Muslim, i would think, as Islam neither ignores nor condemns slavery. … … Yet Jefferson condemns the Bible and rewrites it, as well. But Jefferson never condemned the Quran nor made any attempts to re-write it. Most interesting indeed, not to mention, eye-opening. Off course he hated the Bible, in particular the New Testament, and praised the Quran; what slave owner wouldn’t?”

            You obviously don’t know anything about Jefferson… one of the most prominent founders, drafter of the Declaration of Independence, and co-drafter of the Constitution.

            His condemnations consisted of the factual contradictions in the Bible and the priest or church that historically had not been separated from the state.

            “Among the sayings and discourses imputed to him [Jesus] by his biographers, I find many passages of fine imagination, correct morality, and of the most lovely benevolence; and others again of so much ignorance, so much absurdity, so much untruth, charlatanism, and imposture, as to pronounce it impossible that such contradictions should have proceeded from the same being.” -Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Short, April 13, 1820

            “In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own.” -Thomas Jefferson, letter to Horatio G. Spafford, March 17, 1814

            He “re-wrote” it because of those contradictions but he felt that the New Testament was the “outlines of a system of the most sublime morality which has ever fallen from the lips of man.”

            No, Jefferson never outwardly condemned the Quran or Islam as far as anything he had directly written, but he never praised it as you claim either, and we can see he would not approve of teachings within it which resembled tyranny, and was a champion of separation of church (or mosque) and state.

            The typical attack on his character for owning slaves is another statement made by someone (usually liberal idiots – not usually from someone like you) who doesn’t know the history of Jefferson, or that slavery was a vile inheritance of British Colonialism. He actually held many of the same views as Lincoln did in the sense that both believed in gradual emancipation. But unlike Lincoln who felt that slaves should be deported back to Africa, Jefferson felt it was his duty to take care of them.

            “My opinion has ever been that, until more can be done for them, we should endeavor, with those whom fortune has thrown on our hands, to feed and clothe them well, protect them from all ill usage, and require such reasonable labor only as is performed voluntarily by freemen” – Thomas Jefferson in a letter to Edward Coles, August 25, 1814

            “No person hereafter coming into this country shall be held within the same in slavery under any pretext whatever.” – Draft of the Virginia Constitution by Thomas Jefferson

            “To prevent more effectually the practice of holding persons in Slavery and importing them into this State Be it enacted by the General Assembly that all persons who shall be hereafter imported into this Commonwealth by Sea of by Land…shall from thenceforth become free and absolutely exempted from all Slavery or Bondage.” – Bill to prevent the importation of slaves, authored by Thomas Jefferson

            ————————-

            JAY says, “In fact, a large part of the Sharia is dedicated to the practice. Muslims are encouraged to live in the way of Muhammad, who was a slave owner and trader. He captured slaves in battle. He had sex with his slaves. And he instructed his men to do the same. The Quran actually devotes more verses to making sure that Muslim men know they can keep women as sex slaves than it does to telling them to pray five times a day.”

            Interesting you say that considering the Bible itself condones such practices and goes into great detail of outlining the laws for slavery. Even taking the women as sex slaves, as spoils of war….

            Deuteronomy 20:14 “But the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself”

            Deuteronomy 21:10-14 “When thou goest forth to war against thine enemies, and the Lord thy God hath delivered them into thine hands, and thou hast taken them captive, And seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a desire unto her, that thou wouldest have her to thy wife; Then thou shalt bring her home to thine house; and she shall shave her head, and pare her nails; And she shall put the raiment of her captivity from off her, and shall remain in thine house, and bewail her father and her mother a full month: and after that thou shalt go in unto her, and be her husband, and she shall be thy wife. And it shall be, if thou have no delight in her, then thou shalt let her go whither she will”

            Interestingly enough, the Bible was predominantly used to support slavery in the White European polity that considered themselves Christian.

            ————————–

            As for the remainder of your quotations, it should be noted that Khomeini was a revolutionary, so of course he would need to preach war and resistance to the oppressive power of the Shah, which means it isn’t necessarily inherent in their religion as he rebuked those Muslim’s who disagreed with him. What’s interesting about this is that Khomeini sought to create a theocracy, just like any other theocracy in history, including Christian, although interestingly enough, Iran has never invaded another country under their theocracy.

            Islam, like Christianity or any other religion, is only a threat without the separation of church and state engrained in the 1st Amendment.

          • WTS/JAY

            TML: Interesting you say that considering the Bible itself condones such practices and goes into great detail of outlining the laws for slavery. Even taking the women as sex slaves, as spoils of war….

            Deuteronomy 20:14 “But the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself”

            Deuteronomy 21:10-14 “When thou goest forth to war against thine enemies, and the Lord thy God hath delivered them into thine hands, and thou hast taken them captive, And seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a desire unto her, that thou wouldest have her to thy wife; Then thou shalt bring her home to thine house; and she shall shave her head, and pare her nails; And she shall put the raiment of her captivity from off her, and shall remain in thine house, and bewail her father and her mother a full month: and after that thou shalt go in unto her, and be her husband, and she shall be thy wife. And it shall be, if thou have no delight in her, then thou shalt let her go whither she will”.

            Yours is an apologetic argument borne out of an anaemic understanding of Scriptures and the culture of the time. Yours is the typical assumption that regulating a behavior shows approval.

            Does the Old Testament condone slavery? Absolutely not! The reason some think that it does, is because they lack the basic understanding of the culture of such times.

            There are 33 Bible verses containing the word “divorce”. Divorce is specifically regulated in Scripture, but does that mean that the Bible condones divorce? No!

            I hate divorce,” says the LORD God of Israel…God hates divorce. If God hates divorce, then why would he give specific instructions governing it?

            Simple: because divorce was a fact of life, as it is to this day. Failing to provide practical instructions on divorce would be like pretending it didn’t actually happen. Slavery was also a fact of life. Regulations for slavery should not be confused with the approval of slavery. The existence of regulations for specific behaviors is not the same as approval for those behaviours.

            You, like many, probably assume that the slavery in the Old Testament was like the modern western slavery of the 1700’s and 1800’s. Not so, as slavery, during the 17 & 1800’s, primarily benefited the rich, but Israelite slavery primarily benefited the poor.

            Slavery was almost always voluntary. Please note…(the basic types of “enslavement” were known as; Self-sale, Family-sale, and Indentured-servitude.

            These relationships were usually initiated by the slave as a remedy for poverty. Poor families would sometimes sell their children as slaves. Were this situation like modern western slavery, we could justifiably condemn the practice…but the reality is that this was of great benefit to the child.

            [[[…Slavery contracts often emphasized that the slave agreed to work in exchange for economic security and personal protection. While modern western slaves were forbidden to own property of any kind, Hebrew slaves could take part in business, borrow money, and buy their own freedom…in other words, they were free to “buy out” the contract they’d made. They were also able to own property, pay betrothal monies, and pay civic fines. Slaves could appear in court as witnesses, plaintiffs, and defendants…]]]

            [[[…Many ancient near-eastern slaves were able to buy time off as well, paying a fixed fee called a “quitrent” to their owner. This bought them a year where they didn’t have to work. The amount paid was roughly equivalent to the average annual pay of a hired worker, regardless of whether he was free or a slave…]]]

            The Old Testament also forbade the cruel treatment of slaves. In fact, slaves were afforded the same legal protections as free citizens.

            Leviticus 25 instructed Israelites to not mistreat slaves:

            Do not rule over them ruthlessly, but fear your God.

            …you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.

            …you must see to it that his owner does not rule over him ruthlessly.

            Instead of being cruel and inhumane, the relationships between slaves and owners appear to have been, at the very least, respectful. Many slaves were treated much like members of the owner’s family.

            Deuteronomy 15 has a very instructive passage regarding setting a slave free:

            If a fellow Hebrew, a man or a woman, sells himself to you and serves you six years, in the seventh year you must let him go free. And when you release him, do not send him away empty-handed. Supply him liberally from your flock, your threshing floor and your winepress. Give to him as the LORD your God has blessed you. Remember that you were slaves in Egypt and the LORD your God redeemed you. That is why I give you this command today.

            But if your servant says to you, “I do not want to leave you,” because he loves you and your family and is well off with you, then take an awl and push it through his ear lobe into the door, and he will become your servant for life. Do the same for your maidservant.

            Do not consider it a hardship to set your servant free, because his service to you these six years has been worth twice as much as that of a hired hand. And the LORD your God will bless you in everything you do.

            The personal rights and responsibilities of a slave were clearly more important than the owner’s “property rights”.

            Slavery was generally an economic transaction and not a human rights violation. As but one example, slaves were forbidden to work on the Sabbath and were expected to take part in social celebrations…just like their masters.

            It’s clear that the slavery in the Old Testament wasn’t like modern western slavery at all. Obviously, these slaves recieved great benefits from making such arrangements.

            Btw, i noticed you failed to properly exposit/expand on the verse, Deut: 20/14; Slavery, as it pertains to war.

            War, like Slavery, was also a reality at the time. Israel, being a fledgling nation, was surrounded by hostile neighbours who were always a threat to the survival of the Isrealites; the Hittites, the Amorites, the Canaanites, the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites. Naturally then, war was inevitable, and when the Isrealites were victorious, and if a city were to surrender to Israel, it would then become a vassal state to Israel, and its people would be considered serfs instead of slaves. They would be expected to work on civic projects, as the Israelites did under Solomon’s rule. Considering the fact that such conscriptions included both Hebrews and foreigners, such serfdom would be entirely voluntary. The serf as well as the slave enjoyed the protection and prosperity of the community.

          • TML

            “… at the end of the day, your opinions and my opinions don’t mean squat in the grand scheme of things. The forces at play will do that which they have always done”

            And statements like these make me again question what ‘forces’ you are trying to promote by claiming (absolutely) that we can’t co-exist with Muslims, whether at home or abroad.

          • WTS/JAY

            TML: And statements like these make me again question what ‘forces’ you are trying to promote by claiming (absolutely) that we can’t co-exist with Muslims, whether at home or abroad.

            Promote? I’m not promoting any, forces. I’m just stating a simple fact. The East and the West have been fighting over global control for centuries. And no, i don’t believe that the two can coexist!

          • TML

            Ever hear the phrase, if you believe you can then you can, if you don’t believe you can then you can’t? You’re belief has more to do with you not wanting to, than any factual inability of the two.

            Times are different, my friend. The East and West are no longer defined by Christian versus Muslim. That is the myth of the clash of civilizations.

          • WTS/JAY

            TML: Ever hear the phrase, if you believe you can then you can, if you don’t believe you can then you can’t?

            Yes, i have heard of that phrase, TML, and for certain things, an absolute must. But not when it comes to Islam co-existing with Christianity. Impossible! As Islam is all about obedience through force, where as, Christianity is the freedom to exercise the choice to believe and follow. How then, can the two be harmonized?

            TML: You’re belief has more to do with you not wanting to, than any factual inability of the two.

            No, that’s not true. My belief is rooted in the reality and understanding of the natures of the two, and that what you propose is simply not possible.

          • TML

            A proclaimed Christian who thinks an atheist can’t possibly know what a Christian is unless he/she is one, while simultaneously believing that a Christian knows all about what makes a Muslim, even though he isn’t one – even falsely believing his belief is rooted in understanding of Islam. What you have is fear friend, not understanding. And a hypocritical moral position typically inherent in Christians.

            Let me ask; How many Muslims do you know personally, Jay?

          • WTS/JAY

            TML: Let me ask; How many Muslims do you know personally, Jay?

            Why not just ask ex-muslims what it’s like to live under Islamic-oppression, TML. I think their opinion is of more value tgan yours, and by far, i would think.

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AOA75_utplI
            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=APCTo-A1sZo
            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hcm873G94johttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mljjb18M14M
            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yPe8NtArqiE
            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=caieknCI_iw&list=PL442D06CDF496497B
            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Iw-MpYAAiM
            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nX1k347Q0eU

            That is just a few examples of ex-muslims speaking out against the horrors of living under Islam, TML. I suppose you will call them hateful and fear-mongers as well, TML?

          • TML

            I see you refused to answer the question. Obviously your knowledge of Islam and Muslims is limited to bias research, and not based on any real experience.

            I have no doubt many Muslims who have turned from their religion would think poorly of it, just as many who have turned away from Christianity, when they reached the age of reason. But let me point something out to you – most of the Muslims in your links were in/from other countries; not the United States where they enjoy the freedoms of a society that separates church/mosque from the state. That’s why many of the Muslims came here to begin with – to escape the oppression from their own zealous leaders, not necessarily Islam.

          • WTS/JAY

            TML: But let me point something out to you – most of the Muslims in your links were in/from other countries; not the United States where they enjoy the freedoms of a society that separates church/mosque from the state. That’s why many of the Muslims came here to begin with – to escape the oppression from their own zealous leaders, not necessarily Islam.

            True, they were from Islamic countries. So does this mean Islam isn’t a growing problem elsewhere?

            ISLAM IN EUROPE

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ovUwG34kuEc

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ox2-Wun2dIg

            http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1054909/have-babies-muslims-uk-hate-fanatic-says-warning-comes-9-11-uk.html

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OEbC6ARKv6c

            British Islamists During Protest: Islam Will Dominate

            Francehttp://www.timesofisrael.com/france-struggles-to-separate-islam-and-the-state/

            http://www.thenational.ae/news/world/europe/new-german-anti-muslim-party-calls-islam-totalitarian

            http://www.therefinersfire.org/islam_in_germany.htm

            http://www.siasat.com/english/news/islam-will-soon-dominate-europe-italian-priest

            http://www.danielpipes.org/77/the-danger-within-militant-islam-in-america

          • Robert Messmer

            I have heard the saying you quote but I still say that no, Superman does not fly.

    • Nadzieja Batki

      Thinking of becoming a Muslim or are you already one? Your raving in defense of Islam will not work, history tells on Islam.

    • Bill

      Mark,
      Are you out of breath after that rant. When you put so many words into one paragraph with no breaks, people only read the first couple of sentences, then they leave. But, then again, you have never portrayed yourself as being that smart.

    • dan

      ….burning Christians and Churches …beheading chidren and the defencless…bombing schoolchildren ….throwing acid on women…
      and you want to beef about OUR hatred ….
      bwahahahaaaa …imbecile

      • mark

        How many Muslims have U.S. Air Force incendiary bombs burnt alive in Iraq and Afghanistan? How many U.S. Air Force fragmentation bombs have schredded defenceless Muslim women and children to pieces? How many Muslim women and children have been massacred like the 16 in Khandahar slaughtered by Sergeant Robert Bales (he just pled guilty to killing 16 unarmed Muslim civilians in a case even worse than the Ft Hood massacre by a Muslim Major Hasan). There are plenty of hateful atrocities to go around on both sides, dan, many of them committed by Christians against Muslims. You only count that they do to us – and totally discount what we Christians (and Israeli Jews) do to them.

        • trcrtps

          However many it was, it was not enough. These vermin keep multiplying like lice and keep spreading their doctrine of death and intolerance while the Christian world tries in vain to co exist with muslim pigs.

          • mark

            Exactly, you prove my point, trcrtps, with your racism and call for genocide against 1.5 billion people. You are exhibit A but fortunately you have zero power in society and are part of a small minority of haters and bigots, though they do form a substantial majority on this paranoid, hate-mongering website.

        • BEN CARSON IN 2016

          The biggest murderers & torturers of Muslims are other Muslims. Also, how about the deeply entrenched culturally acceptable homosexual pedophilia amongst the Muslim tribes in many of these nations, especially Afghanistan? Not a peep from Hillary or OBlahBlah on that one…this is what our money is propping up, combine that with the Karzai family providing 90% of the world’s opium, USA is making big karma here!

          Like Ron & Rand Paul keep espousing, enough of our gold & blood for these people who have no sense of freedom or liberty & are basically living in the dark ages!

          • mark

            Other newsflashes: the greatest murderers and torturers of Christians are other Christians, the greatest murderers and torturers of white people are other white people, the greatest murderers and torturers of black people are other black people, the greatest murderers and torturers of Asians are other Asians, the greatest murderers and torturers of Europeans are other Europeans, so what’s your point? People with the most widespread and easiest access to people in their own racial/ethnic/geographic group tend to commit the majority of abuses against members of that group. No kidding? That still doesn’t lessen the immorality of their acts or the immorality of those from other ethnic/racial groups who murder and torture those from outside their group who they typically considered to be their mortal enemies.

          • Moustache the First

            No pal, the greatest murderers of Christians ARE MUSLIMS!!! Wake up!!

          • mark

            No, the majority of Christians are killed by other Christians in gang warfare, drug warfare, personal murders, mafia killings, state executions, internal repression, and wars. During World War II Christians in the various nations of Europe, North America, Australia, Zealand, and millions of Russians Orthodox Christians killed millions of other European Christians of the Protestant, Catholic, and Orthodox faiths. Christian Germans and their European Christian collaborators also killed some 6 million Jews during the Holocaust of World War II. That was an example of Christian mass murder of Jews. During the Cold War right wing Catholic security forces from South and Central America led by various dictators killed hundreds of thousand of fellow Latin American Christians often at the behest of the U.S. Earlier of course this Christian on Christian violence includes the Wars of Religion between Protestants and Catholics and the Inquisition when Christians slaughtered hundreds of thousand of fellow Christians who they regarded as heretics. Not to mention all the centuries of European warfare that involved Christians slaughtering Christians. Read some more history about Christian-on-Christian violence and warfare throughout the centuries.

          • Big_Jake

            I seriously doubt many members of street gangs are Christians. You’re a misinformed fool, intentionally spreading misinformation. No one buys the load you’re shoveling.

          • mark

            No, most black gang members are Baptists. They are buried typically at very young ages in Baptist cemeteries after funerals at Baptist churches many of which are televised. Their funerals are not held at mosques. The vast majority of Germans who committed all those horrible war crimes in World War II were Lutherans and Catholics i.e. Christians.

          • Big_Jake

            Sorry to inform you mark but you’ve confused denominations within “christianity” as being the one on one relationship with God that Christianity IS. I realize it’s a convenient way to pigeonhole a politically inconvenient spiritual concept, although doing so does simplify the spinning of personal political agendas. To delve deeper into what being a Christian is, you’d have to look within yourself, utilizing your own open heart, mind and soul. It’s an intimate and individualized relationship many think they know but from the condition we find our world in, evidently don’t. The scripture informs us, that many lend lip service to the faith while within themselves miss the basic concept. From what I’ve read from you so far, I think that’s something you would need to come to grips with personally (like ALL of us) first, if you were to seriously pursue an understanding. Would your ego allow it?

        • dan

          How many intolerant moonrock worshipping death cultists does it take to plunder and murder their way into dominating and enslaving the world ? We need to deal with now ,,,and how do you know what I count ? How do I know you are actually a Christian or that any in history who have clained to be followers of Jesus Christ are not other than deceivers or decieved ? You do realise that it takes a lot of love to keep the innocent safe from the ravenous wolves…consider David.

    • Smee

      You may get your 72 virgins, but they could be virgin female pigs. BaaaHaaaaa

      • rocketride

        One way or another, they’ll find out how/why the lasses managed to remain virgins. And I’m not guessing that it’ll be a happy surprise.

    • Robert Messmer

      There is a vast difference between the way our majority reacts to lunatic fringe elements and the reaction by the “moderate” or “peaceful” Muslim. Fred Phelps and his group has now been handled by the courts and enjoined from their hatefilled demonstrations at funerals being limited in both distance and time. We put Jeff Warren in prison. The government puts dangerous cults out of business. We shun cults as weirdos and oddballs. The Sunnis and Shias have been slaughtering each other for centuries. They proclaim that it is a religious duty to lie, cheat, steal, betray, ambush and kill infidels–all who do not believe as they do. They do live streaming videos of beheading innocent people they snatch off the street. They shoot girls for going to school. And the reaction to all this by the “vast majority of moderate Muslims”? Well that is their interpretation of the Quran. You say that the Christian minister was wrong in burning the Koran–how about the murder of Christians? Isn’t that wrong as well? Where is the moral outrage of the moderate Muslims about their good name being besmirched by the minority?

    • Don 2

      So mark, when the Muslim students attending the University of Buffalo(NY) were jumping up and down and cheering upon hearing the news of the 9-11 attack on the twin towers, they were what you refer to as the most bizarre and twisted followers, and not mainstream moderate Muslims? Is that your position?

  • VictorLandry

    It doesn’t matter the fanatics are a small minority. The moderates are afraid to oppose them because the fanatics hold the power.

  • justus brother

    Need to get the aids virus in those jihadists.

    • Cliffystones

      Ebola would be a lot quicker and more effective.

  • Bill

    The guys hat, in the photo above, looks like the bag from a vacuum cleaner

    • KennyLLC

      LOL ! A J.Edgar Hoover, perhaps ?

      • trcrtps

        XLNT

    • Robert Messmer

      You use a very strange vacuum cleaner then. LOL

      • Bill

        Or maybe it is a glorified shower cap

    • mnkysnkle

      It’s a cowboy hat “slicker” for when it’s raining. I guess it keeps his fleas warm.

  • wavesofgrain

    And this is the culture our Admin embraces, while bashing Christianity!

    • KennyLLC

  • Bill

    There You Go, KC
    Some easy women for you to hang out with

  • dan

    well, I suspect the pResident needed a new ‘female’ dog bacause some
    things are halall and some aren’t….and Bo got lice somewhere

  • Alan

    Now we know Obamas executive orders are actually Fatwas. May the fleas of a thousand camels nestle in his crotch !

  • KennyLLC

    Muhammad’s intelligence whores make James Bond look like The Saint.

  • Clem_the_Great

    Ever read the jewish Talmud. it is full of nice filth and hate. we pay dearly for the jewish state. Cat got your tongue?

    “What
    exactly is so scandalous? How about Jesus punished in Hell for eternity by
    being made to sit in a cauldron of boiling excrement? That image appears in
    early manuscripts of the Babylonian Talmud, as does a brief account of
    Jesus’ trial and execution—not by the Romans, but by the Jewish high court,
    the Sanhedrin.” —From

    Publisher’s Weekly

    • Robert Messmer

      Nope never read it but I have been led to understand that Jews don’t believe in Hell.

    • Chester

      Also rather hard to accept, as the Talmud was written long before the time of Jesus, right along with the rest of the Old Testament.

      • BobTrent

        The Talmud was transmitted orally. It was not written until ca. AD 200 (Mishnah) and AD 500 (Gemara).

        The “Babylonian” Talmud was compiled in Babylonia, where the major rabbinical academies were since Nebuchadnezzar conquered the kingdom of Judah and took its educated and skilled population to Babylon. Only a relatively small number returned to Jerusalem with Ezra under license from the Persian (Iranian) emperor Khurush (Cyrus). The Jerusalem Talmud is much smaller and of relatively little influence.

  • Clem_the_Great

    from the jewish talmud:

    “What
    exactly is so scandalous? How about Jesus punished in Hell for eternity by
    being made to sit in a cauldron of boiling excrement? That image appears in
    early manuscripts of the Babylonian Talmud, as does a brief account of
    Jesus’ trial and execution—not by the Romans, but by the Jewish high court,
    the Sanhedrin.” —From

    Publisher’s Weekly

  • WTS/JAY

    ‘Islam isn’t in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant. The Qur’an should be the highest authority in America.’ – Omar Ahmed, CAIR

    NIQAB, BURKAS AND ISLAM DOESN’T HELP: MUSLIM COUNTRIES LEAD WEB SEARCHES FOR ‘SEX’, ‘GOAT SEX’, ‘RAPE’, ‘GAY SEX’, ‘A*S SEX’, ‘BIRD SEX’ AND ‘SEXY CHILD’….

    What is the actual truth about those ‘moral’ Muslims? In Afghanistan Hollywood is considered too timid and mild. They want hardcore porn. Video sellers get 90% of their revenue from the sale of porn. And Pakistan, where the Pedostani offenders come from, dominate every sex search on Google known to man – tightly followed by Saudi Arabia. If living in the West is what make Muslim men turn into rapists and beasts according to Muslim explanations to our staggering Muslim sex-crime statistics, then why are the biggest volume of sex key searches originating from Muslim countries? Why do they have such massive problems with sex-related crimes?

    Fact is: Islam creates a monstrosity out of Muslim men. In turn they transform into evil and sexually distorted and imbalanced individuals. While the Islamic world accuse the west for sexual crimes and problems, crime statistics, low birth rates and search terms reveal a completely different picture. Muslim addiction to sex and sexual perversions is enormous and correlate well with historical facts, the behavior of Mohammed and Muslim men through centuries. It is evident not only from the Quran and prophet Muhammad and his notorious history of rape, sodomy, murders, transgender dressing, bestiality, and incest – but internet statistics now correlate to the high volume of sexual crimes related to Muslim men.

    We strongly argue that violent rape and other sexual crimes and sexual harassment that are becoming rampant in Europe, and shown to be dominated by muslim men is highly over-represented by muslims, making muslim immigration extremely dangerous to women and children in western society.

    “In our religion [Islam], we can’t handle that stuff.” Really? Statistics indicate that Muslims not only can handle it, they want to handle it and are among the most active searching the web for it…

    Continued: http://themuslimissue.wordpress.com/2013/05/19/niqab-burkas-and-islam-doesnt-help-muslims-lead-web-keyword-searches-for-sex-goat-sex-dog-sex-rape-gay-sex-ass-sex-bird-sex-and-sexy-child/

    • Moustache the First

      You’ve hit on the unspoken truth about Islam in these medieval nations with their evil tribes!

    • BALONEY TONEY MAHONEY

      Hey, the revered prophet was a pedophile, too!!

  • WTS/JAY

    SHARIA’H LAW in America Today – Million Muslim March Planned on Capital

    Stealth Jihad…

    What you need to understand and know about Sharia’h Islamic Law and their intent for America: terrors secret weapon is Sharia’h. The Muslim Brotherhood are demanding that Obama accept the will of the Arab people (Muslims) and enforce Sharia’h Law …..

    http://teapartyorg.ning.com/forum/topics/sharia-h-law-in-america-today-million-muslim-march-on-capital-to?page=2

  • WTS/JAY
  • WTS/JAY
  • ndb

    Now I see! All these Executive Orders are merely fatwas from Mufti Obama.

  • WTS/JAY
  • WTS/JAY

    An Australian Woman is Gang Raped and Jailed for having Illicit Sex Under Sharia Law ..

    Alicia Gali was an Australian employee of hotel chain Starwood in the United Arab Emirates when she was subjected to a brutal attack. While using her laptop in the hotel bar, her drink was spiked and, while she was unconscious, Gali was raped by three of her colleagues. Gali woke up with multiple bruises and four broken ribs. At this point, she took herself to hospital and reported the crime herself.

    Under UAE law, a rape conviction is only possible if the rapist confesses or four Muslim males give testimony against the accused. Without this, Gali found herself charged with a crime: sex outside of wedlock. She was found guilty and spent eight months in a UAE prison as punishment for her “crime”. Although now freed from prison, Gali is still suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder and is currently being cared for by her family.

    http://bonniebonnbonnfocus.weebly.com/an-australian-woman-is-gang-raped-and-jailed-for-having-illicit-sex-under-sharia-law.html#54ECEEfvKRzPQKzk.99

  • WTS/JAY

    INTRODUCTION TO THE QURAN

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