NationStates Jolt Archive

A very useful "Food for thought" article for Muslims and all others alike about the state of affairs in Muslim nations and the concept of the "market of religons" and how it is fixed unfairly in favour of Islam. This article comes from the Spectator.

Article begins


The triumph of the East
There’s no plot, says Anthony Browne: Islam really does want to conquer the world. That’s because Muslims, unlike many Christians, actually believe they are right, and that their religion is the path to salvation for all

A year ago I had lunch with an eminent figure who asked if I thought she was mad. ‘No,’ I said politely, while thinking, ‘Yup.’ She had said she thought there was a secret plot by Muslims to take over the West. I have never been into conspiracy theories, and this one was definitely of the little-green-men variety. It is the sort of thing BNP thugs claim to justify their racial hatred.
Obviously, we all know about Osama bin Laden’s ambitions. And we are all aware of the loons of al-Muhajiroun waving placards saying ‘Islam is the future of Britain’. But these are all on the extremist fringe, representative of no one but themselves. Surely no one in Islam takes this sort of thing seriously? I started surfing the Islamic media.
Take Dr Al-Qaradawi, the controversial Egyptian imam who was recently fawned over by the Mayor of London even though he promotes the execution of homosexuals, the right of men to indulge in domestic violence, and the murder of innocent Jews. During the brouhaha it went unnoticed that he also wants to conquer Europe. Don’t take my word for it, just listen to him on his popular al-Jazeera TV show, Sharia and Life.
‘Islam will return to Europe. The conquest need not necessarily be by the sword. Perhaps we will conquer these lands without armies. We want an army of preachers and teachers who will present Islam in all languages and in all dialects,’ he broadcast in 1999, according to the Middle East Media Research Institute, which translates his programmes. On another programme he declared, ‘Europe will see that it suffers from a materialist culture, and it will seek a way out, it will seek a lifeboat. It will seek no life-saver but the message of Islam.’
Far from being on the fringe, his immensely popular programmes are watched by millions across the Middle East and Europe. The BBC cooed that he has ‘star’ status among the world’s Muslims.
Dr Al-Qaradawi, who is based in Qatar, is also the spiritual guide of the hardline Muslim Brotherhood, which is growing across Europe, and whose leader Muhammad Mahdi Othman ’Akef declared recently, ‘I have complete faith that Islam will invade Europe and America, because Islam has logic and a mission.’
In the most sacred mosque in Islam, Sheikh Abd al-Rahman al-Sudais of the Grand Mosque in Mecca uses his sermons to call for Jews to be ‘annihilated’ and to urge the overthrow of Western civilisation. ‘The most noble civilisation ever known to mankind is our Islamic civilisation. Today, Western civilisation is nothing more than the product of its encounter with our Islamic civilisation in Andalusia [mediaeval Spain]. The reason for [Western civilisation’s] bankruptcy is its reliance on the materialistic approach, and its detachment from religion and values. [This approach] has been one reason for the misery of the human race, for the proliferation of suicide, mental problems and for moral perversion. Only one nation is capable of resuscitating global civilisation, and that is the nation [of Islam].’
Al-Sudais is the highest imam appointed by our Saudi government ally, and his sermons are widely listened to across the Middle East. When he came to the UK in June to open the London Islamic Centre, thousands of British Muslims flocked to see him, our so-called race relations minister Fiona Mactaggart shared the platform, and Prince Charles sent a video message. He is probably the closest thing in Islam to the Pope, but I haven’t recently heard the Pope call for the overthrow of all other faiths.
Saudi Arabia, whose flag shows a sword, seems unabashed about its desire for Islam to take over the world. Its embassy in Washington recommends the home page of its Islamic affairs department, where it declares, ‘The Muslims are required to raise the banner of jihad in order to make the Word of Allah supreme in this world.’ Saudi Arabia has used billions of its petrodollars to export its particularly harsh form of Islam, Wahabism, paying for mosques and Islamic schools across the West. About 80 per cent of the US’s mosques are thought to be under Wahabi control.
Saudi Arabia’s education ministry encourages schoolchildren to despise Christianity and Judaism. A new schoolbook in the kingdom’s curriculum tells six-year-olds: ‘All religions other than Islam are false.’ A note for teachers says they should ‘ensure to explain’ this point. In Egypt, the schoolbook Studies in Theology: Traditions and Morals explains that a particularly ‘noble’ bit of the Koran is ‘encouraging the faithful to perform jihad in God’s cause, to behead the infidels, take them prisoner, break their power — all that in a style which contains the highest examples of urging to fight’.
A popular topic for discussion on Arabic TV channels is the best strategy for conquering the West. It seems to be agreed that since the West has overwhelming economic, military and scientific power, it could take some time, and a full frontal assault could prove counterproductive. Muslim immigration and conversion are seen as the best path.
Saudi Professor Nasser bin Suleiman al-Omar declared on al-Majd TV last month, ‘Islam is advancing according to a steady plan, to the point that tens of thousands of Muslims have joined the American army and Islam is the second largest religion in America. America will be destroyed. But we must be patient.’
Islam is now the second religion not just in the US but in Europe and Australia. Europe has 15 million Muslims, accounting for one in ten of the population in France, where the government now estimates 50,000 Christians are converting to Islam every year. In Brussels, Mohammed has been the most popular name for boy babies for the last four years. In Britain, attendance at mosques is now higher than it is in the Church of England.
Al-Qa’eda is criticised for being impatient, and waking the West up. Saudi preacher Sheikh Said al-Qahtani said on the Iqraa TV satellite channel, ‘We did not occupy the US, with eight million Muslims, using bombings. Had we been patient and let time take its course, instead of the eight million there could have been 80 million [Muslims], and 50 years later perhaps the US would have become Muslim.’
It is difficult to brush this off as an aberration of Islam, which is normally just tickety-boo letting the rest of the world indulge in its false beliefs. Dr Zaki Badawi, the moderate former director of the Islamic Cultural Centre in London, admitted, ‘Islam endeavours to expand in Britain. Islam is a universal religion. It aims to bring its message to all corners of the earth. It hopes that one day the whole of humanity will be one Muslim community.’
In Muslim tradition, the world is divided into Dar al-Islam, where Muslims rule, and Dar al-Harb, the ‘field of war’ where the infidels live. ‘The presumption is that the duty of jihad will continue, interrupted only by truces, until all the world either adopts the Muslim faith or submits to Muslim rule,’ wrote Professor Bernard Lewis in his bestseller The Crisis of Islam.’

The first jihad was in ad 630, when Mohammed led his army to conquer Mecca. He made a prediction that Islam would conquer the two most powerful Christian centres at the time, Constantinople and Rome. Within 100 years of his death, Muslim armies had conquered the previously Christian provinces of Syria, Palestine, Egypt and the rest of North Africa, as well as Spain, Portugal and southern Italy, until they were stopped at Poitiers in central France in ad 732. Muslim armies overthrew the ancient Zoroastrian empire of Persia, and conquered much of central Asia and Hindu India.
Ibn Warraq, a Pakistani who lost his Islamic faith, wrote in his book Why I am not a Muslim, ‘Although Europeans are constantly castigated for having imposed their insidious decadent values, culture and language on the Third World, no one cares to point out that Islam colonised lands that were the homes of advanced and ancient civilisations.’
It took 700 years for the Spanish to get their country back in the prolonged ‘Reconquista’. In the meantime the Turks, a central Asian people, had been converted to Islam and had conquered the ancient Christian land of Anatolia (now called Turkey). In 1453 they captured Constantinople — fulfilling Mohammed’s first prediction — which was the centre of the Eastern Orthodox Church. The glorious Hagia Sophia, which had been one of the most important churches in Christendom for nearly 1,000 years after it was built in ad 537, was turned into a mosque, and minarets were added. The Turks went on to occupy Greece and much of the Balkans for four centuries, turning the Parthenon into a mosque and besieging Vienna, before retreating as their power waned.
In the Middle East, there are regular calls for Mohammed’s second prediction to come true. Sheikh Muhammad bin Abd al-Rahman al-’Arifi, imam of the mosque of the Saudi government’s King Fahd Defence Academy, wrote recently, ‘We will control the land of the Vatican; we will control Rome and introduce Islam in it.’
Not all conversion has been by the sword. Muslim traders peaceably converted Indonesia, now the most populous Islamic nation. But nor have the conquests stopped. Islam has continued spreading in sub-Saharan Africa, most notably in Nigeria and Sudan. Abyssinia — Ethiopia — is an ancient Christian land where Muslims have come to outnumber Christians only in the last 100 years. Just 50 years ago, Lebanon was still predominantly Christian; it is now predominantly Muslim.
Of course, Christianity has been just as much a conquering religion. Spanish armies ruthlessly destroyed ancient civilisations in Central and South America to spread the message of love. Christians colonised the Americas and Australia, committing genocide as they went, while missionaries such as Livingstone converted most of Africa.
But the difference is that Christendom has — by and large — stopped conquering and converting, and indeed in Europe simply stopped believing. Even President Bush’s most trenchant critics don’t believe he conquered Afghanistan and Iraq to spread the word of Jesus. It is ironic that by deposing Saddam, who ran the most secular of Arab regimes, the US actually transferred power to the imams.
I believe in a free market in religions, and it is inevitable that if you believe your religion is true, then you believe others are false. But this market is seriously rigged. In Saudi Arabia the government bans all churches, while in Europe governments pay to build Islamic cultural centres. While in many Islamic countries preaching Christianity is banned, in Western Christian countries the right to preach Islam is enshrined in law. Christians are free to convert to Islam, while Muslims who convert to Christianity can expect either death threats or a death sentence. The Pope keeps apologising for the Crusades (even though they were just attempts to get back former Christian lands) while his opposite numbers call for the overthrow of Christendom.
In Christian countries, those who warn about Islamification, such as the film star Brigitte Bardot, are prosecuted, while in Muslim countries those who call for the Islamification of the world are turned into TV celebrities. In the West, schools teach comparative religion, while in Muslim countries schools teach that Islam is the only true faith. David Blunkett in effect wants to ban criticism of Islam, a protection not enjoyed by Christianity in Muslim countries. Millions of Muslims move to Christian countries, but virtually no Christians move to Muslim ones.
In the last century some Christians justified the persecution and mass murder of Jews by claiming that Jews wanted to take over the world. But these fascist fantasies were based on deliberate lies, such as the notorious fake book The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Now, many in the Muslim world are open about their desire for Islam to conquer the West.

Article ends

Good advice. Now go over there and start preaching it.

Good advice. Now go over there and start preaching it.

Exactly my point. I have reletives who do that in Turkey, but in many Muslim nations you can be arrested for spreading Christanity.

While soem may be intolerant, Christians are guilty of that as well. Witch burnings, shooting abortion doctors, etc, doesn't make us sound very accepting, does it?

While soem may be intolerant, Christians are guilty of that as well. Witch burnings, shooting abortion doctors, etc, doesn't make us sound very accepting, does it?

Read the article. The point is that those things in Christianity are not mainstreem, in Islam they often are.

Exactly my point. I have reletives who do that in Turkey, but in many Muslim nations you can be arrested for spreading Christanity.

And you're the big man denouncing them from your internet chatroom halfway across the world.

Read the article. The point is that those things in Christianity are not mainstreem, in Islam they often are.






As Evangelical Christians become the more mainstream of the religion, those things will start to occur more regularly.

And you're the big man denouncing them from your internet chatroom halfway across the world.

Excuse me! I am trying to make a point. I am showing people what Muslim nations and Islam in genral is like in many ways. I am doing my best to show people a side of Islam which is often ascoiated with cries of "racisim". What exactly is wrong with that?

Excuse me! I am trying to make a point. I am showing people what Muslim nations and Islam in genral is like in many ways. I am doing my best to show people a side of Islam which is often ascoiated with cries of "racisim". What exactly is wrong with that?



Well if we're on sides of religions that promote racism, why not touch on the KKK? Certain Muslims are racist but many aren't, hopefully the same is still true for Christianity.

If the Christians read the Bible they wouldn't be racist. I agree with Neo Cannen. This view gets pushed aside and is not shown as often as it needs to be.

Excuse me! I am trying to make a point. I am showing people what Muslim nations and Islam in genral is like in many ways. I am doing my best to show people a side of Islam which is often ascoiated with cries of "racisim". What exactly is wrong with that?

No, you're doing your best to show your one, narrow view of Islam, and trying to pawn it off as an actual, unbiased analyzation.

No, you're doing your best to show your one, narrow view of Islam, and trying to pawn it off as an actual, unbiased analyzation.

Read the article. I believe Islam to have great principles and ideals, but Isamic nations have severe problems, and they are nothing like the problems of Christian nations. And if you read the article you will see that there are only facts there, not bias.

Here's a good barometer in judging the amount of tolerance demonstrated by the average Muslim country(a country with a high percentage of Muslim citizens). Just go onto the street and ask your average citizen to pick their belief from these three choices.

A) The Holocaust never happened.
B) The Holocaust was a good thing.
C) The Holocaust was a bad thing.

The amount of ignorance might surprise you. ;)

I don't buy this "Islam is violent, Christianity is not" argument. People decide what they want to do with religion. Some people are driven to violence by their religion, some aren't.

Well if we're on sides of religions that promote racism, why not touch on the KKK? Certain Muslims are racist but many aren't, hopefully the same is still true for Christianity.

The article explains that the extreme actions are not on the fringe, but mainstreem. Islamic education teaches Christianity to be heritical from an early age but in the UK comparitve religon is taught.

Good article.

Scary but accurate.

Talking about preaching christianity to Muslims, my pastor had problems with the police, and been to prison lots of times. When the economy gets shit, guess who they blame?

Islam + christianity have alot in common, both went through or are going through a dark ages with brutal perversion of the faith.

Christians went through this 600 years ago, for islam it is happening now. Just as christians felt they were under attack back then and went nuts fighting back so is islam doing so now perhaps...

Or perhaps as a muslim you would like to live in a country like saudi or a taliban like regime? Having bad guys use the koran to justify terrible deeds not unlike what happened to christians so many years ago........

Islam is as dangerous as Christianity. And, if not waged by warped fanatics, it would be far more tolerant, as it is written al-qoran.

I must say that my country (Portugal) has a very good colective memory of the Arabs that were in our country: Never, except in modern ages, has my country experienced such tolerance as in the times that we were under the Arab rule. Comunities of Jews and Christians were tolerated and lived in peace under islam.
It was when the Christians expelled the Muslims that we fell into brutal intolerance. My country, and our spanish neibours spent the next 600 years preaching the bible down the throats of the people of Africa, South America, Asia. And i mean, we had the inquisition! Each inquisitor would make your local Alqaeda terrorist seem a nice guy..

Currently, in muslim states that are NOT Islamic states, you have high degrees of tolerance. The wife of Arafat was christian, and that didnt pissed off the palestinians when he was alive. The last prime minister of Saddam, was also a christian.


The conflict that must be waged isnt Christians vs muslims, anyway. It is Secular versus religious states.

A very useful "Food for thought" article for Muslims and all others alike about the state of affairs in Muslim nations and the concept of the "market of religons" and how it is fixed unfairly in favour of Islam. This article comes from the Spectator.

Article begins


The triumph of the East
There’s no plot, says Anthony Browne: Islam really does want to conquer the world. That’s because Muslims, unlike many Christians, actually believe they are right, and that their religion is the path to salvation for all

A year ago I had lunch with an eminent figure who asked if I thought she was mad. ‘No,’ I said politely, while thinking, ‘Yup.’ She had said she thought there was a secret plot by Muslims to take over the West. I have never been into conspiracy theories, and this one was definitely of the little-green-men variety. It is the sort of thing BNP thugs claim to justify their racial hatred.
Obviously, we all know about Osama bin Laden’s ambitions. And we are all aware of the loons of al-Muhajiroun waving placards saying ‘Islam is the future of Britain’. But these are all on the extremist fringe, representative of no one but themselves. Surely no one in Islam takes this sort of thing seriously? I started surfing the Islamic media.
Take Dr Al-Qaradawi, the controversial Egyptian imam who was recently fawned over by the Mayor of London even though he promotes the execution of homosexuals, the right of men to indulge in domestic violence, and the murder of innocent Jews. During the brouhaha it went unnoticed that he also wants to conquer Europe. Don’t take my word for it, just listen to him on his popular al-Jazeera TV show, Sharia and Life.
‘Islam will return to Europe. The conquest need not necessarily be by the sword. Perhaps we will conquer these lands without armies. We want an army of preachers and teachers who will present Islam in all languages and in all dialects,’ he broadcast in 1999, according to the Middle East Media Research Institute, which translates his programmes. On another programme he declared, ‘Europe will see that it suffers from a materialist culture, and it will seek a way out, it will seek a lifeboat. It will seek no life-saver but the message of Islam.’
Far from being on the fringe, his immensely popular programmes are watched by millions across the Middle East and Europe. The BBC cooed that he has ‘star’ status among the world’s Muslims.
Dr Al-Qaradawi, who is based in Qatar, is also the spiritual guide of the hardline Muslim Brotherhood, which is growing across Europe, and whose leader Muhammad Mahdi Othman ’Akef declared recently, ‘I have complete faith that Islam will invade Europe and America, because Islam has logic and a mission.’
In the most sacred mosque in Islam, Sheikh Abd al-Rahman al-Sudais of the Grand Mosque in Mecca uses his sermons to call for Jews to be ‘annihilated’ and to urge the overthrow of Western civilisation. ‘The most noble civilisation ever known to mankind is our Islamic civilisation. Today, Western civilisation is nothing more than the product of its encounter with our Islamic civilisation in Andalusia [mediaeval Spain]. The reason for [Western civilisation’s] bankruptcy is its reliance on the materialistic approach, and its detachment from religion and values. [This approach] has been one reason for the misery of the human race, for the proliferation of suicide, mental problems and for moral perversion. Only one nation is capable of resuscitating global civilisation, and that is the nation [of Islam].’
Al-Sudais is the highest imam appointed by our Saudi government ally, and his sermons are widely listened to across the Middle East. When he came to the UK in June to open the London Islamic Centre, thousands of British Muslims flocked to see him, our so-called race relations minister Fiona Mactaggart shared the platform, and Prince Charles sent a video message. He is probably the closest thing in Islam to the Pope, but I haven’t recently heard the Pope call for the overthrow of all other faiths.
Saudi Arabia, whose flag shows a sword, seems unabashed about its desire for Islam to take over the world. Its embassy in Washington recommends the home page of its Islamic affairs department, where it declares, ‘The Muslims are required to raise the banner of jihad in order to make the Word of Allah supreme in this world.’ Saudi Arabia has used billions of its petrodollars to export its particularly harsh form of Islam, Wahabism, paying for mosques and Islamic schools across the West. About 80 per cent of the US’s mosques are thought to be under Wahabi control.
Saudi Arabia’s education ministry encourages schoolchildren to despise Christianity and Judaism. A new schoolbook in the kingdom’s curriculum tells six-year-olds: ‘All religions other than Islam are false.’ A note for teachers says they should ‘ensure to explain’ this point. In Egypt, the schoolbook Studies in Theology: Traditions and Morals explains that a particularly ‘noble’ bit of the Koran is ‘encouraging the faithful to perform jihad in God’s cause, to behead the infidels, take them prisoner, break their power — all that in a style which contains the highest examples of urging to fight’.
A popular topic for discussion on Arabic TV channels is the best strategy for conquering the West. It seems to be agreed that since the West has overwhelming economic, military and scientific power, it could take some time, and a full frontal assault could prove counterproductive. Muslim immigration and conversion are seen as the best path.
Saudi Professor Nasser bin Suleiman al-Omar declared on al-Majd TV last month, ‘Islam is advancing according to a steady plan, to the point that tens of thousands of Muslims have joined the American army and Islam is the second largest religion in America. America will be destroyed. But we must be patient.’
Islam is now the second religion not just in the US but in Europe and Australia. Europe has 15 million Muslims, accounting for one in ten of the population in France, where the government now estimates 50,000 Christians are converting to Islam every year. In Brussels, Mohammed has been the most popular name for boy babies for the last four years. In Britain, attendance at mosques is now higher than it is in the Church of England.
Al-Qa’eda is criticised for being impatient, and waking the West up. Saudi preacher Sheikh Said al-Qahtani said on the Iqraa TV satellite channel, ‘We did not occupy the US, with eight million Muslims, using bombings. Had we been patient and let time take its course, instead of the eight million there could have been 80 million [Muslims], and 50 years later perhaps the US would have become Muslim.’
It is difficult to brush this off as an aberration of Islam, which is normally just tickety-boo letting the rest of the world indulge in its false beliefs. Dr Zaki Badawi, the moderate former director of the Islamic Cultural Centre in London, admitted, ‘Islam endeavours to expand in Britain. Islam is a universal religion. It aims to bring its message to all corners of the earth. It hopes that one day the whole of humanity will be one Muslim community.’
In Muslim tradition, the world is divided into Dar al-Islam, where Muslims rule, and Dar al-Harb, the ‘field of war’ where the infidels live. ‘The presumption is that the duty of jihad will continue, interrupted only by truces, until all the world either adopts the Muslim faith or submits to Muslim rule,’ wrote Professor Bernard Lewis in his bestseller The Crisis of Islam.’

The first jihad was in ad 630, when Mohammed led his army to conquer Mecca. He made a prediction that Islam would conquer the two most powerful Christian centres at the time, Constantinople and Rome. Within 100 years of his death, Muslim armies had conquered the previously Christian provinces of Syria, Palestine, Egypt and the rest of North Africa, as well as Spain, Portugal and southern Italy, until they were stopped at Poitiers in central France in ad 732. Muslim armies overthrew the ancient Zoroastrian empire of Persia, and conquered much of central Asia and Hindu India.
Ibn Warraq, a Pakistani who lost his Islamic faith, wrote in his book Why I am not a Muslim, ‘Although Europeans are constantly castigated for having imposed their insidious decadent values, culture and language on the Third World, no one cares to point out that Islam colonised lands that were the homes of advanced and ancient civilisations.’
It took 700 years for the Spanish to get their country back in the prolonged ‘Reconquista’. In the meantime the Turks, a central Asian people, had been converted to Islam and had conquered the ancient Christian land of Anatolia (now called Turkey). In 1453 they captured Constantinople — fulfilling Mohammed’s first prediction — which was the centre of the Eastern Orthodox Church. The glorious Hagia Sophia, which had been one of the most important churches in Christendom for nearly 1,000 years after it was built in ad 537, was turned into a mosque, and minarets were added. The Turks went on to occupy Greece and much of the Balkans for four centuries, turning the Parthenon into a mosque and besieging Vienna, before retreating as their power waned.
In the Middle East, there are regular calls for Mohammed’s second prediction to come true. Sheikh Muhammad bin Abd al-Rahman al-’Arifi, imam of the mosque of the Saudi government’s King Fahd Defence Academy, wrote recently, ‘We will control the land of the Vatican; we will control Rome and introduce Islam in it.’
Not all conversion has been by the sword. Muslim traders peaceably converted Indonesia, now the most populous Islamic nation. But nor have the conquests stopped. Islam has continued spreading in sub-Saharan Africa, most notably in Nigeria and Sudan. Abyssinia — Ethiopia — is an ancient Christian land where Muslims have come to outnumber Christians only in the last 100 years. Just 50 years ago, Lebanon was still predominantly Christian; it is now predominantly Muslim.
Of course, Christianity has been just as much a conquering religion. Spanish armies ruthlessly destroyed ancient civilisations in Central and South America to spread the message of love. Christians colonised the Americas and Australia, committing genocide as they went, while missionaries such as Livingstone converted most of Africa.
But the difference is that Christendom has — by and large — stopped conquering and converting, and indeed in Europe simply stopped believing. Even President Bush’s most trenchant critics don’t believe he conquered Afghanistan and Iraq to spread the word of Jesus. It is ironic that by deposing Saddam, who ran the most secular of Arab regimes, the US actually transferred power to the imams.
I believe in a free market in religions, and it is inevitable that if you believe your religion is true, then you believe others are false. But this market is seriously rigged. In Saudi Arabia the government bans all churches, while in Europe governments pay to build Islamic cultural centres. While in many Islamic countries preaching Christianity is banned, in Western Christian countries the right to preach Islam is enshrined in law. Christians are free to convert to Islam, while Muslims who convert to Christianity can expect either death threats or a death sentence. The Pope keeps apologising for the Crusades (even though they were just attempts to get back former Christian lands) while his opposite numbers call for the overthrow of Christendom.
In Christian countries, those who warn about Islamification, such as the film star Brigitte Bardot, are prosecuted, while in Muslim countries those who call for the Islamification of the world are turned into TV celebrities. In the West, schools teach comparative religion, while in Muslim countries schools teach that Islam is the only true faith. David Blunkett in effect wants to ban criticism of Islam, a protection not enjoyed by Christianity in Muslim countries. Millions of Muslims move to Christian countries, but virtually no Christians move to Muslim ones.
In the last century some Christians justified the persecution and mass murder of Jews by claiming that Jews wanted to take over the world. But these fascist fantasies were based on deliberate lies, such as the notorious fake book The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Now, many in the Muslim world are open about their desire for Islam to conquer the West.

Article ends


a) I find the part of the Muslim preachers funny, especially when you have so many Christian sponsored programs running around. They all want the same thing, why bash only the Muslims?

b) The part where muslims don't want to conquer by the sword, but by conversion.. if you are against it, I expect you all to demand the recalling of the literally thousands of christian missionaires in African countries. And the cursing of the many more that went to Asia and South America in the past, to convert the native populations.

c) ‘Islam endeavours to expand in Britain. Islam is a universal religion. It aims to bring its message to all corners of the earth. It hopes that one day the whole of humanity will be one Muslim community.’ So does christianity.

d) About the Appologising for the crusades.. the land were the Crusaders fought was of people that had converted to islam. Hell, they even killed every single woman and child when they took Jerusalem! Guess no one should appologise for that.


Hell, this text is just a paranoid reaction to the fact that Christians cant convert more people than islam does. Bah, religions.

a) I find the part of the Muslim preachers funny, especially when you have so many Christian sponsored programs running around. They all want the same thing, why bash only the Muslims?

b) The part where muslims don't want to conquer by the sword, but by conversion.. if you are against it, I expect you all to demand the recalling of the literally thousands of christian missionaires in African countries. And the cursing of the many more that went to Asia and South America in the past, to convert the native populations.

c) ‘Islam endeavours to expand in Britain. Islam is a universal religion. It aims to bring its message to all corners of the earth. It hopes that one day the whole of humanity will be one Muslim community.’ So does christianity.

d) About the Appologising for the crusades.. the land were the Crusaders fought was of people that had converted to islam. Hell, they even killed every single woman and child when they took Jerusalem! Guess no one should appologise for that.


Big diffrence. If Christians convert to Islam, then they get acceptence. If Muslims convert to Christianity, they often get death threats. Chrisitians explain, often Muslims force (not always but often)

Big diffrence. If Christians convert to Islam, then they get acceptence. If Muslims convert to Christianity, they often get death threats. Chrisitians explain, often Muslims force (not always but often)


Give me a significant amount of times this has happened.

Personally, i know that in some parts of Africa, some people have not converted to Islam not out of fear of death, but due to social pressure alone.

Exactly my point. I have reletives who do that in Turkey, but in many Muslim nations you can be arrested for spreading Christanity.

In many countries, so-called Christians are trying to force their moral views on other people.

This statement is really rich coming from you Neo. According to you, the majority should rule. Therefore, it is perfectly fine for these Muslim nations to do whatever they want, as they are majority Muslim.

If the Christians read the Bible they wouldn't be racist. I agree with Neo Cannen. This view gets pushed aside and is not shown as often as it needs to be.

If Muslims truly followed the teachings of Mohammed, they wouldn't be fundamentalists. Doesn't change the fact that *every* country needs to practice freedom of religion.

Yay! Once more, the flawed argument "Well if christians were in the middle age 1000 years ago, the muslims have the right to be barbarians today!" strikes again!

Ass. Hats.

Yay! Once more, the flawed argument "Well if christians were in the middle age 1000 years ago, the muslims have the right to be barbarians today!" strikes again!

Ass. Hats.

I haven't seen a single person say this.

Separation of church and state is *always* necessary. It has been demonstrated historically time and time again and is still being demonstrated.

Considering freedom of religion is a strictly American concept, Muslim nations neither have to accept, agree to, or practice and/or follow it. :rolleyes:

I haven't seen a single person say this.

Separation of church and state is *always* necessary. It has been demonstrated historically time and time again and is still being demonstrated.


I think this knuckehead was talking about my former post. I was just comparing how shitty christianity was back then and how brutal islam is now. You cant excuse either for anywrong doings...

Considering freedom of religion is a strictly American concept, Muslim nations neither have to accept, agree to, or practice and/or follow it. :rolleyes:

Nobody *has* to do anything. However, those nations that do not respect the basic human rights of their people *should* change.

Give me a significant amount of times this has happened.

Personally, i know that in some parts of Africa, some people have not converted to Islam not out of fear of death, but due to social pressure alone.

I don't know the exact number. But Alot. Especially in 3rd world countries, where the people can practically do lots of stuff, and the government does jack.

I have a buddhist friend from Indonesia, from the worst parts where lots of killings happen during 98 (Irian Jaya me thinks). When they stormed his house, they brought them all together and told them to denounce their religion or die.

So they did under threats.

After things more or less cool down abit, they migrated. Kinda sucked knowing your muslim neighbour can kill you any time because your a infidel.

I don't buy this "Islam is violent, Christianity is not" argument. People decide what they want to do with religion. Some people are driven to violence by their religion, some aren't.


It is not Christianity that is sub judice for vileness, it is Islam.
It is not Judaism that is sub judice for vileness, it is Islam.
It is not Hinduism that is sub judice for vileness, it is Islam.
It is not Buddhism that is sub judice for vileness, it is Islam.
It is not Religion that is sub judice for vileness, it is Islam.

Well if we're on sides of religions that promote racism, why not touch on the KKK? Certain Muslims are racist but many aren't, hopefully the same is still true for Christianity.

Oh yeah, the old "Well, the KKK are Christain!" argument. The KKK interpreted the Bible incorrectly, very incorrectly.


If the Christians read the Bible they wouldn't be racist.

Exactly


No, you're doing your best to show your one, narrow view of Islam, and trying to pawn it off as an actual, unbiased analyzation.

Oh yeah. I guess it would be biased to call Christianity anything but a warmongering, terrible, and untimately wrong religion, would it.


About the Appologising for the crusades.. the land were the Crusaders fought was of people that had converted to islam. Hell, they even killed every single woman and child when they took Jerusalem! Guess no one should appologise for that.

Hmm... I seem to remember the Musslims attacking first....



I don't have anything against Musslims, but I'm not going to let you warp facts and bash my religion.

Oh yeah, the old "Well, the KKK are Christain!" argument. The KKK interpreted the Bible incorrectly, very incorrectly.

Muslim fundamentalists interpret the Koran incorrectly, very incorrectly. What is your point? Muslim fundamentalists are correctly practicing Islam in exactly the same way that KKK members are correctly practising Christianity. Namely, not at all.

Hmm... I seem to remember the Musslims attacking first....

You were around during the Crusades!?!? WOW!

I don't have anything against Musslims, but I'm not going to let you warp facts and bash my religion.

And you should not warp facts and bash others' religion.

Muslim fundamentalists interpret the Koran incorrectly, very incorrectly. What is your point? Muslim fundamentalists are correctly practicing Islam in exactly the same way that KKK members are correctly practising Christianity. Namely, not at all.

I don't know whether their practicing islam incorrectly. I haven't read the koran, just parts of it.

But what I do know, is that fanatism is a very widespread thing, especially in the muslim world. Thats why countries like mine, have taken a stance to moderate and control the muslim religion. That if any school gets reported preaching fanatism, the religious leaders would send spies and catch the ulama. :p Even then, there's all sorts of problems with militancy going against the government that pops out once in a while.

The problem with most muslim countries, is the preaching and their religious schools. That they teach all kinds of stuff, from "America is the great Syaitan" and others. Those that breed fanatism. And their everywhere.

I say we abolish organize religion.

Organize religion is the one reason why there has been so many lives killed. Any big event that has mass murders had to do with organize religion in someway. Name a big event in history where there were mass murders and I can tell you how religion has something to do with it.

I say we abolish organize religion.

Organize religion is the one reason why there has been so many lives killed. Any big event that has mass murders had to do with organize religion in someway. Name a big event in history where there were mass murders and I can tell you how religion has something to do with it.


*looks up from his book*

I say you will find that you can no more abolish organised religion that you can abolish organised couples.

*continues reading*

I don't know whether their practicing islam incorrectly. I haven't read the koran, just parts of it.

Well, having actually taken the time to speak to a few Muslims, I can assure you that they are.

But what I do know, is that fanatism is a very widespread thing, especially in the muslim world.

Fanaticism is widespread anywhere, people are just more focused on Muslim fanatacism these days.

The problem with most muslim countries, is the preaching and their religious schools. That they teach all kinds of stuff, from "America is the great Syaitan" and others. Those that breed fanatism. And their everywhere.

Again, if you are against fanaticism, you must be against *all* fanaticism, not just this particular breed.

I say we abolish organize religion.

Organize religion is the one reason why there has been so many lives killed. Any big event that has mass murders had to do with organize religion in someway. Name a big event in history where there were mass murders and I can tell you how religion has something to do with it.

heh, for once I agree with Dunbarrow on this.

It can't be done.

Plus, religion isn't the only problem you have to deal with. You forgot about countries fighting for regions, ideologies (communism vs capitalist. etc).

The problem is not organized religion. It's man.

Well, having actually taken the time to speak to a few Muslims, I can assure you that they are..

Well okay, I live in Malaysia, 80% muslim nation. I talk to muslims everyday, with lots of close friends being muslim. Lots of religious one's too. However IMO, should always the read the book myself first. :p


Fanaticism is widespread anywhere, people are just more focused on Muslim fanatacism these days.
Again, if you are against fanaticism, you must be against *all* fanaticism, not just this particular breed.

Lots of ppl concentrate on Muslim Fanatism, it's because their the one's causing the most problems nowadays. We don't see KKK's hijacking planes and crashing into buildings yet. :D

Yeah.. I'm against all forms of fanaticism. Although I'm a christian. Those that Impose one's religion on another by any forceful means is what I consider 'evil'.

In many countries, so-called Christians are trying to force their moral views on other people.

This statement is really rich coming from you Neo. According to you, the majority should rule. Therefore, it is perfectly fine for these Muslim nations to do whatever they want, as they are majority Muslim.

Freedom of religon is a human right.

Stop talking about fanatics. The point of the article is that it is NOT fanatics BUT mainstream ISLAM. It is a side of MAINSTREAM ISLAM that is often covered up for fear of Racism. But it IS THERE.

Muslim fundamentalists interpret the Koran incorrectly, very incorrectly. What is your point? Muslim fundamentalists are correctly practicing Islam in exactly the same way that KKK members are correctly practising Christianity. Namely, not at all.

Except the KKK doesnt control the US. KKK is on the fringe of society, while extremist fundamentalism is mainstream in Islam. Regressive fundamentalist governments are in control of huge portions of the islamic world. Homosexuality is illegal in all Muslim nations, for example. Women must cover up their heads in Iran and most Arab gulf states. The Bahai religion is banned in Iran, and in many Arab nations it is illegal for Muslims to convert to other religions. The Muslim world truly needs to adopt more civil rights and religious liberties.

That's very frightful. I've heard many articles similar to that. Muslims countries have a very big problem--racism and intolerance. It's pretty pathetic that if you are in their country and you are not Islamic, they'll kill you and such. :headbang:

Well if we're on sides of religions that promote racism, why not touch on the KKK? Certain Muslims are racist but many aren't, hopefully the same is still true for Christianity.
When exactly was the last time someone was publicly lynched by the KKK?

"Islam is evil."
"Why?"
"Some of their members do horrible things"
"Yeah, but christianity is and was the same."
"Yeah, but it's ok for us"
"Why?"
"We're right"


That's what I've seen in this conversation so far.

Homosexuality is illegal in all Muslim nations, for example

Did you really think before posting this? It was also illegal in several STATES as well for some time.

Well, oddly, I find myself agreeing with this article. It is onlt presnting that specific argument of course, but it presents it well.

I do respect Islam quite a bit. However, being a polytheist I can not go to most Muslim countries for fear of death. A very real fear for me that has been mentioned (Although involving Christians) in the article.

A very useful "Food for thought" article for Muslims and all others alike about the state of affairs in Muslim nations and the concept of the "market of religons" and how it is fixed unfairly in favour of Islam. This article comes from the Spectator.

Article begins


The triumph of the East
There’s no plot, says Anthony Browne: Islam really does want to conquer the world. That’s because Muslims, unlike many Christians, actually believe they are right, and that their religion is the path to salvation for all



IT is the extremists in Islam out to conquer the world. Just like there are very extremist christians, out to prove to everyone they are right, by bloodshed, you just don't here about them in Western culture becuase christanity is favored, and it would mar the image. Christians have done pretty horrible stuff to in the name of saving the human race.

Big diffrence. If Christians convert to Islam, then they get acceptence.

Tell that to converts in Uzbekistan or Bosnia. Or Cat Stevens.

It's interesting that the author of the article doesn't suggest any practical steps Western governments should take. Now, he's not here to enlighten us as to what he thinks but you are, what do you suggest?

"Islam is evil."
"Why?"
"Some of their members do horrible things"
"Yeah, but christianity is and was the same."
"Yeah, but it's ok for us"
"Why?"
"We're right"


Stop missing the point. The whole point of the article is that it is not talking about extrememists, but Muslim STATES. Countrys run by authoritarian Muslim governments who will arest people who are not Muslims. Simmilar things were done by the Nazis in the holocaust. Many of these Muslim states will arrest and execute people for breathing Christian ideals in public. This is not the fringe it is mainstreem and happening NOW. Christians learnt from this long ago. Muslims still do it.

IT is the extremists in Islam out to conquer the world. Just like there are very extremist christians, out to prove to everyone they are right, by bloodshed, you just don't here about them in Western culture becuase christanity is favored, and it would mar the image. Christians have done pretty horrible stuff to in the name of saving the human race.

It is not just the extremeists, but mainstreem Islam. Here is an extract from the end of the article


I believe in a free market in religions, and it is inevitable that if you believe your religion is true, then you believe others are false. But this market is seriously rigged. In Saudi Arabia the government bans all churches, while in Europe governments pay to build Islamic cultural centres. While in many Islamic countries preaching Christianity is banned, in Western Christian countries the right to preach Islam is enshrined in law. Christians are free to convert to Islam, while Muslims who convert to Christianity can expect either death threats or a death sentence. The Pope keeps apologising for the Crusades (even though they were just attempts to get back former Christian lands) while his opposite numbers call for the overthrow of Christendom.
In Christian countries, those who warn about Islamification, such as the film star Brigitte Bardot, are prosecuted, while in Muslim countries those who call for the Islamification of the world are turned into TV celebrities. In the West, schools teach comparative religion, while in Muslim countries schools teach that Islam is the only true faith. David Blunkett in effect wants to ban criticism of Islam, a protection not enjoyed by Christianity in Muslim countries. Millions of Muslims move to Christian countries, but virtually no Christians move to Muslim ones.

There can be little doubt that there are radical and violent Islamic followers, and radical and violent Islamic states.

There can be little doubt that the reduction or transformation of such followers or states would be a desirable objective.

But to pretend or assert that such followers and states are somehow peculiar to Islam is fanciful in the extreme, and cannot be surported once any serious (and unbiased) research is undertaken.

The KKK and the Crusades have already been quoted as examples.

There are, of course, many more examples to be found.

One merely needs to look at the long history of sectarian violence in Northern Ireland to uncover the deep respect and tolerance which can be found in those who profess to be Christian.

The Spanish Inquisition was nothing other than state sponsored intolerance and persecution.

The French Wars of religion 1562-1598 provide another example.

The English reigns of the Tudors from Henry V111 through to Elizabeth 1 is little other than a sad tale of religious persecution.

The witch trials of Salem were carried out by Christians, using Christians ideals and motives.

Nazi Germany was a (supposed) Christian state with many religious leaders using the Bible to support the persecution of Jews. Germany, of course, has a sad history of religious wars and intolerance, including the writings of Luther, and Germany's own wars of religion (1517-1648).

None of this, of course, means that Islamic repression, persecution, or intolerance is somehow less wrong.

But to claim that such attitudes are somehow more prevalent in one religion than another is fanciful, inaccurate, and under examination looks like nothing less than a form of religious intolerance itself.

I think Americans need to learn religious tolerance themselves before telling Muslim nations to do so... :rolleyes:

Stop missing the point. The whole point of the article is that it is not talking about extrememists, but Muslim STATES. Countrys run by authoritarian Muslim governments who will arest people who are not Muslims. Simmilar things were done by the Nazis in the holocaust. Many of these Muslim states will arrest and execute people for breathing Christian ideals in public. This is not the fringe it is mainstreem and happening NOW. Christians learnt from this long ago. Muslims still do it.



It is not just the extremeists, but mainstreem Islam. Here is an extract from the end of the article


I believe in a free market in religions, and it is inevitable that if you believe your religion is true, then you believe others are false. But this market is seriously rigged. In Saudi Arabia the government bans all churches, while in Europe governments pay to build Islamic cultural centres. While in many Islamic countries preaching Christianity is banned, in Western Christian countries the right to preach Islam is enshrined in law. Christians are free to convert to Islam, while Muslims who convert to Christianity can expect either death threats or a death sentence. The Pope keeps apologising for the Crusades (even though they were just attempts to get back former Christian lands) while his opposite numbers call for the overthrow of Christendom.
In Christian countries, those who warn about Islamification, such as the film star Brigitte Bardot, are prosecuted, while in Muslim countries those who call for the Islamification of the world are turned into TV celebrities. In the West, schools teach comparative religion, while in Muslim countries schools teach that Islam is the only true faith. David Blunkett in effect wants to ban criticism of Islam, a protection not enjoyed by Christianity in Muslim countries. Millions of Muslims move to Christian countries, but virtually no Christians move to Muslim ones.

"Authoritarian muslim countries that will arrest people that are not muslim" mmmm Well, let me see. You got Saudi Arabia, its a islamo-fascist state, but they don't do that. If i get to think of it, the only country that is controled by a muslim goverment and hunts down christians is Sudan, in Darfur. But even that is more about race and lifestyle (blacks vs Arabs, Farming vs Cattle breeding) than a jihad against the christians. I mean, show me were Christians are being executed in public for being christians, in muslim countries..

I think you quoted that part of the text before: That is warped, and falacious. I particularly like the last part "Millions of Muslims move to Christian countries, but virtually no Christians move to Muslim ones". Millions of MEXICANS moved to the US, are mexicans trying to conquer the US??? And Brigite Bardot.. she was hot when she was young. Now, she is a fascist supporter that literally likes more of animals than of people.

Stop talking about fanatics. The point of the article is that it is NOT fanatics BUT mainstream ISLAM. It is a side of MAINSTREAM ISLAM that is often covered up for fear of Racism. But it IS THERE.

"Mainstream" is relative to time, place, and point of view. At one time, "mainstream" Christianity was racist. The "mainstream" Christians in the Scandinavian nations don't have a problem with homosexual marriage being legal. Here in the United States, I have heare Christians argue over which whether wanting to pass a gay marriage ban is "mainstream" or "fanatical."

Even so, you seem to be wanting to point out that because in some places what locally passes as 'mainstream' Islam is responsible for attrocities as an indication that Islamic religion itself is bad. It is no better or no worse than any other idealogy (meaning the vast majority of if not all idealogies) that can be used to commit attrocites, force people into acting against their will, prevent them from obtaining happiness when said happiness would harm no one, etc.

I would just like to point out to all those who cite "the Crusades" as an example of where Christians have been vilonet in there past, that the Crusades were in fact more a teritiorial war than religious. The Saracans (Muslims) had invaded several territorys which European Chrisitan nations owned. The Crusades were the Christian attemts to get them back. So if anything Muslims were more responsable for that that Christians. What were the Christians supposed to do, let them have what was then Christian land. That would be like France annexing Cornwall. And another point, while Christians have been murderous in the past they are not now. We have learnt from the past but many Muslim nations have not.

None of this, of course, means that Islamic repression, persecution, or intolerance is somehow less wrong.

But to claim that such attitudes are somehow more prevalent in one religion than another is fanciful, inaccurate, and under examination looks like nothing less than a form of religious intolerance itself.

Find a Christian nation of today which can arrest muslims purely because they are preching Islam.

Both Christianity and Islam are both at their core non-violent ideologies. However, the problem we are facing is that those that are IN POWER in Islamic states are fans of violence, whereas those in charge of Christian states are not. During the Crusades, Pope Urban II and the like were not opposed to violence. Pope John Paul II (who is basically a socialist isolationist) would NEVER do such a thing. Those in power in Muslim lands would.

The problem is the people in charge. The fact that Iran always seems to be on the verge of a revolution that keeps getting quashed should point in that direction.

Find a Christian nation of today which can arrest muslims purely because they are preching Islam.

The Maldives. Of course there aren't many, because there aren't many Christian nations. There are secular nations where Christianity is the largest religion, but that is a different matter entirely. What you are discussing is not Islam vs Christianity but theocracy vs secular government. Theocracies of any religion tend to act in the way described earlier.

Now I've answered your question will you answer mine, what action do you believe Western governments should take?

There’s no plot, says Anthony Browne: Islam really does want to conquer the world. That’s because Muslims, unlike many Christians, actually believe they are right, and that their religion is the path to salvation for all
that's certainly an unfair generalization. i've spoken to muslims with more tolerance for other religions than some christians.

hell, in highschool, a muslim friend of mine explained about the taliban (this was about a year before 9/11) and how it was a corruption of the koran, he also explained a number of things about his religion... meanwhile, when i discussed christianity (namely god's need to be worshipped) with some christians, i got called a heretic and they stopped talking to me after they tried to convince me a couple more times that god does need to be worshipped...

And another point, while Christians have been murderous in the past they are not now. We have learnt from the past but many Muslim nations have not.
isn't christianity also 1500 years or so older than islam?

and to think they only got out of persecuting others fairly recently.

And another point, while Christians have been murderous in the past they are not now. We have learnt from the past but many Muslim nations have not.

I don't think the 16000 iraqui civilian killed would agree.

Read the article. I believe Islam to have great principles and ideals, but Isamic nations have severe problems, and they are nothing like the problems of Christian nations. And if you read the article you will see that there are only facts there, not bias.
believe me, if there were nothing but chrsitian theorcracies in western nations, you'd have as many problems as the muslim theorcracies.

i mean, unless going back to the tradition of oppressing women sounds like a good idea to you.

Oh yeah, the old "Well, the KKK are Christain!" argument. The KKK interpreted the Bible incorrectly, very incorrectly.
and the fundamental muslims have done the same with the koran. what's your point?

Oh yeah. I guess it would be biased to call Christianity anything but a warmongering, terrible, and untimately wrong religion, would it.
no, that would be biased. stop assuming that because someone says christianity isnt' all sunshine and candy that they believe it to be a demonic, horrible thing.

While soem may be intolerant, Christians are guilty of that as well. Witch burnings, shooting abortion doctors, etc, doesn't make us sound very accepting, does it?
Witch burnings? When's the last time there was a witch burning? Shooting abortion doctors happens, but very rarely.

Freedom of religon is a human right.
and being able to marry who you love is a less important right?

you can't have it both ways. if majority rules in america, then it also rules in other countries.

Islam is as dangerous as Christianity. And, if not waged by warped fanatics, it would be far more tolerant, as it is written al-qoran.

I must say that my country (Portugal) has a very good colective memory of the Arabs that were in our country: Never, except in modern ages, has my country experienced such tolerance as in the times that we were under the Arab rule. Comunities of Jews and Christians were tolerated and lived in peace under islam.
It was when the Christians expelled the Muslims that we fell into brutal intolerance. My country, and our spanish neibours spent the next 600 years preaching the bible down the throats of the people of Africa, South America, Asia. And i mean, we had the inquisition! Each inquisitor would make your local Alqaeda terrorist seem a nice guy..

Currently, in muslim states that are NOT Islamic states, you have high degrees of tolerance. The wife of Arafat was christian, and that didnt pissed off the palestinians when he was alive. The last prime minister of Saddam, was also a christian.


The conflict that must be waged isnt Christians vs muslims, anyway. It is Secular versus religious states.
Absolute bullshit. Do you know the laws that applied to dhimmis?

Fanaticism is mainstream islam. Or it has became mainstream Islam.

Most are fanatics, but because they live in a country that is predominantly muslim and have no contact with the outside world, they don't start blowing themselves up for no reason.

Well, mostly in very isolated countries it is. In Arabs and some 3rd world countries.

When exactly was the last time someone was publicly lynched by the KKK?
wasn't a black man dragged to his death a while back in the states? they chained him up to their truck and drove.

and let's not forget the persecution of gay people in the u.s.

Considering freedom of religion is a strictly American concept, Muslim nations neither have to accept, agree to, or practice and/or follow it. :rolleyes:
No, it's not a strictly American concept. It exists in many nations. France even goes so far as to ban conspicuous religious symbols in public schools. It's a good concept that increases freedom.

Fanaticism is mainstream islam. Or it has became mainstream Islam.

Most are fanatics, but because they live in a country that is predominantly muslim and have no contact with the outside world, they don't start blowing themselves up for no reason.
way to stereotype.

wasn't a black man dragged to his death a while back in the states? they chained him up to their truck and drove.

and let's not forget the persecution of gay people in the u.s.

James Byrd, Jasper, Texas, 1998.

Absolute bullshit. Do you know the laws that applied to dhimmis?

In the middle ages? Yes, there was ABSOLUTE tolerance, as long as they recognized the muslim as their rulers. As late as the 16th century, the greatest haven for religious tolerance was.. the ottoman empire.

In the modern age, very few ISLAMIC nations (not nations that have muslim majorities), even have written laws about persons living in muslim states that are not muslim. (the exception is notably Iran).

So, what is bullshit?


PS: In what country do you live in?

"Islam is evil."
"Why?"
"Some of their members do horrible things"
"Yeah, but christianity is and was the same."
"Yeah, but it's ok for us"
"Why?"
"We're right"


That's what I've seen in this conversation so far.



Did you really think before posting this? It was also illegal in several STATES as well for some time.
Yeah, but there isn't a death penalty for homosexuality here.

way to stereotype.

Uh I re-edit it abit. Accidentally posted before finished what I type.

But it is true, that they are fanatics. Especially in majoritily muslim countries. Where there is little tolerance, racism and the land is ruled by the shariah laws very very harshly.

They live in total ignorance, and of course, everything the Al-Jazeera says is the absolute truth.

James Byrd, Jasper, Texas, 1998.
who was the gay kid who was beaten to death horribly.

you know, the people of the town were prancing about saying "so and so entered hell on this day" and acting like the people who killed him were some kind of heros and the victim was the villian?

I think Americans need to learn religious tolerance themselves before telling Muslim nations to do so... :rolleyes:
Nobody can be killed, fired from his job, denied government benefits or discriminated against in any way for his religion in the US. Unlike in many muslim nations. I think you need to know a thing or two about America before you criticize us.

"Authoritarian muslim countries that will arrest people that are not muslim" mmmm Well, let me see. You got Saudi Arabia, its a islamo-fascist state, but they don't do that. If i get to think of it, the only country that is controled by a muslim goverment and hunts down christians is Sudan, in Darfur. But even that is more about race and lifestyle (blacks vs Arabs, Farming vs Cattle breeding) than a jihad against the christians. I mean, show me were Christians are being executed in public for being christians, in muslim countries..

I think you quoted that part of the text before: That is warped, and falacious. I particularly like the last part "Millions of Muslims move to Christian countries, but virtually no Christians move to Muslim ones". Millions of MEXICANS moved to the US, are mexicans trying to conquer the US??? And Brigite Bardot.. she was hot when she was young. Now, she is a fascist supporter that literally likes more of animals than of people.
Christians can be arrested in Saudi for publicly expressing their faith.

who was the gay kid who was beaten to death horribly.

you know, the people of the town were prancing about saying "so and so entered hell on this day" and acting like the people who killed him were some kind of heros and the victim was the villian?
The famous incident I can think of was when Matthew Sheppard was beaten to death in Wyoming. There's some dispute as to whether it was because he was gay, or whether it was a drug-related crime.

George Bush pushed for the death penalty for the people who did those things to James Byrd, just a note (not to anyone).

Nobody can be killed, fired from his job, denied government benefits or discriminated against in any way for his religion in the US.
by law.... that doesn't mean that it still doesn't happen.

how does one really proce discrimination.

and aside from that, there has been a lot of muslims persecuted in the u.s. especially since the fundamentalists attacked the world trade centre.

who was the gay kid who was beaten to death horribly.

you know, the people of the town were prancing about saying "so and so entered hell on this day" and acting like the people who killed him were some kind of heros and the victim was the villian?

Matt Shepherd, Laramie, Wyoming, 1998.

Christians can be arrested in Saudi for publicly expressing their faith.


You got me there. Well, yes. Publicy. But not in private. Well, they ARE fascist, for all accounts. Still, generalizing one country law to all, is still abusive.

Whilst I think the article is very good and very true I am not going to criticize it.

For me, to believe in a certain religion (i.e: Islam or Catholicism) is to believe, quite arrogantly, that yours is the only true religion and all others are false. I don't understand how you can truly believe in one religion and yet accept that other religions are not false - that just doesn't make sense to me.

So, Muslims have it sorta right - at least they virtually all believe that their religion is the only true religion, Christianity lost that virtue a long time ago and now even those who proclaim a slight belief in any kind of spirituality are stigmatised and persecuted.

In the middle ages? Yes, there was ABSOLUTE tolerance, as long as they recognized the muslim as their rulers. As late as the 16th century, the greatest haven for religious tolerance was.. the ottoman empire.

In the modern age, very few ISLAMIC nations (not nations that have muslim majorities), even have written laws about persons living in muslim states that are not muslim. (the exception is notably Iran).

So, what is bullshit?


PS: In what country do you live in?
Actually, christians and jews living in muslim lands were bound by rules that prevented them from testifying against a muslim in court, blaspheming against islam (which carried a death penalty, and you couldn't testify in your defense), holding authority over any muslim, building or repairing houses of worship, building houses higher than those of their muslim neighbors, owning weapons, marrying muslim women (muslim men could marry christian or jewish women), wearing the same clothes as muslims, etc. Plus they had to pay a punitive tax. So much for absolute tolerance. That was a myth promoted by politically correct historical revisionists. Saudi Arabia, Yemen, and others also have laws on the books to restrict religious freedom for non-muslims today.
I'm from the USA.

by law.... that doesn't mean that it still doesn't happen.

how does one really proce discrimination.

and aside from that, there has been a lot of muslims persecuted in the u.s. especially since the fundamentalists attacked the world trade centre.
Yeah, but the people who do discriminate can be prosecuted and sued. By Law.

Actually, christians and jews living in muslim lands were bound by rules that prevented them from testifying against a muslim in court, blaspheming against islam (which carried a death penalty, and you couldn't testify in your defense), holding authority over any muslim, building or repairing houses of worship, building houses higher than those of their muslim neighbors, owning weapons, marrying muslim women (muslim men could marry christian or jewish women), wearing the same clothes as muslims, etc. Plus they had to pay a punitive tax. So much for absolute tolerance. That was a myth promoted by politically correct historical revisionists. Saudi Arabia, Yemen, and others also have laws on the books to restrict religious freedom for non-muslims today.
I'm from the USA.


I am Portuguese. Of roughly 700ac to 1250 ac, there were muslim in my country, and what you say is wrong. I invite you to my country to come see the churches that were built in muslim ground, at that time, to give an example.

Yeah, but the people who do discriminate can be prosecuted and sued. By Law.
...not that that convictions are assured, not that the victim won't be portrayed as the bad guy, not that their life won't be turned upside down anyways. not that the accusations can necessarily be confirmed... people get fired for all kinds of reasons, they don't get hired for all kinds of reasons either.

dont' fool yourself into thinking that discrimination against religion doesn't happen.

The famous incident I can think of was when Matthew Sheppard was beaten to death in Wyoming. There's some dispute as to whether it was because he was gay, or whether it was a drug-related crime.

George Bush pushed for the death penalty for the people who did those things to James Byrd, just a note (not to anyone).
Actually, there is no dispute as to whether or not it was a hate crime. It was most certainly a hate crime--the attempt to shift blame onto the victim was repudiated by the jury when the murderers tried to use it in their defense at trial, and it's shameful that they're still trying to shift blame from themselves even after they've been convicted. What's even more shameful is that some in the media have gone along with them in it. Make no mistake about it--this was a gay-bashing, no more, no less.

Whilst I think the article is very good and very true I am not going to criticize it.

For me, to believe in a certain religion (i.e: Islam or Catholicism) is to believe, quite arrogantly, that yours is the only true religion and all others are false. I don't understand how you can truly believe in one religion and yet accept that other religions are not false - that just doesn't make sense to me.

So, Muslims have it sorta right - at least they virtually all believe that their religion is the only true religion, Christianity lost that virtue a long time ago and now even those who proclaim a slight belief in any kind of spirituality are stigmatised and persecuted.
and now you're arguing for the goods of christian fanatacism, isn't this wonderful. it's not a virtue to kill and torture those who don't agree with you.

I am Portuguese. Of roughly 700ac to 1250 ac, there were muslim in my country, and what you say is wrong. I invite you to my country to come see the churches that were built in muslim ground, at that time, to give an example.

Muslims of your country have been living side by side with other religions for the last few hundred of years.

Unfortunately, it's not the same with alot of arab and asian muslim countries.

Muslims of your country have been living side by side with other religions for the last few hundred of years.

Unfortunately, it's not the same with alot of arab and asian muslim countries.
You know, you could take that post, transpose "muslims" with "christians" and still be completely accurate.

...not that that convictions are assured, not that the victim won't be portrayed as the bad guy, not that their life won't be turned upside down anyways. not that the accusations can necessarily be confirmed... people get fired for all kinds of reasons, they don't get hired for all kinds of reasons either.

dont' fool yourself into thinking that discrimination against religion doesn't happen.
You're right, it does occasionally happen. For instance I read a news story about a woman fired from a muslim owned telecom company in Florida who was fired for (according to her) eating a ham sandwitch in the office. Still, there are laws to protect minorities here. And they are obeyed more often than not. And when they are violated, the courts rule in favor of justice and tolerance more often than not.

You're right, it does occasionally happen. For instance I read a news story about a woman fired from a muslim owned telecom company in Florida who was fired for (according to her) eating a ham sandwitch in the office. Still, there are laws to protect minorities here. And they are obeyed more often than not. And when they are violated, the courts rule in favor of justice and tolerance more often than not.
hahaha. i love how you pick a muslim example...

it happens with christians too.

hahaha. i love how you pick a muslim example...

it happens with christians too.
I know, Those cases get publicized all to hell. I picked one that showed that Islam isn't any better than christianity. IMHO they are too often portrayed as the victims.

I don't think the 16000 iraqui civilian killed would agree.

You seriously believe the idea that Iraq is a religious war? I pity you.

Muslims of your country have been living side by side with other religions for the last few hundred of years.

Unfortunately, it's not the same with alot of arab and asian muslim countries.


Nope. The christians expeled the muslim powers from my country in 1254. After that, persecutions started, that culminated in the wipe out of most muslims and jews from our ground. Tolerance for religion was only re-started in the xviii century (when we expelled some christian orders), but we never had many muslims to live with side by side again.

And yes, there are SOME, not alot of arab countries that do not have religious freedom. And by giving gross generalizations, you don't improve the standing of those muslims that strive for their countries to be even more free. Its like people that bash aljazeera: Its true that aljazeera is biased, but that happens because if they aren't, they would be shut down: They are already called bastions of the west or something by some of the most nationalist arabs.

Considering that in Islam, you aren't allowed to force anyone - not even your wife or children - to convert to Islam, it would seem to me that religious freedom is something Muslims have already understood for a long time.

by law.... that doesn't mean that it still doesn't happen.

how does one really proce discrimination.

and aside from that, there has been a lot of muslims persecuted in the u.s. especially since the fundamentalists attacked the world trade centre.
Actually if you look at reactions to events of 9/11 nature, our reaction against in-house muslims was rather mild.

Actually if you look at reactions to events of 9/11 nature, our reaction against in-house muslims was rather mild.
Just out of curiosity, are you stating that as objective fact or with a hint of regret that we weren't harsher as a nation? It'll help me form an opinion of you if I know.

Considering that in Islam, you aren't allowed to force anyone - not even your wife or children - to convert to Islam, it would seem to me that religious freedom is something Muslims have already understood for a long time.

Islam yes. Muslim nations no.

You seriously believe the idea that Iraq is a religious war? I pity you.


I don't need your pity, thank you.
And no, i dont think Iraq is a religious war. But regretfully for the US, most arabs now do believe that. And can they be blamed? Crazy mullahs and bin laden himself have told the arab world that the west was waging a cruzade against them. And what did the west did? BANG! Invaded an arab country. Gave them arguments. Now they can substantiate a lie.

I don't need your pity, thank you.
And no, i dont think Iraq is a religious war. But regretfully for the US, most arabs now do believe that. And can they be blamed? Crazy mullahs and bin laden himself have told the arab world that the west was waging a cruzade against them. And what did the west did? BANG! Invaded an arab country. Gave them arguments. Now they can substantiate a lie.

Precisely. So who did the Arabs look to for truth about what America has been doing over the last few years. America itself, making a point or crazy terrorists making acusations?

Actually, christians and jews living in muslim lands were bound by rules that prevented them from testifying against a muslim in court, blaspheming against islam (which carried a death penalty, and you couldn't testify in your defense), holding authority over any muslim, building or repairing houses of worship, building houses higher than those of their muslim neighbors, owning weapons, marrying muslim women (muslim men could marry christian or jewish women), wearing the same clothes as muslims, etc.

Do you know why such laws came about?

It all started a very long time ago when the Muslim greeting (As sala'amu alaikum) was perverted by local Christians and Jews in what are now Muslim nations to say "as-samu alaykum", which means "death to you". Over time, as Muslims came more into power, they enacted laws which made it so that Christians and Jews weren't allowed to look Muslim so that the exchange of greeting between Muslims (which, by the way, is of extreme importance) would not be tainted by those attempting to mock.

I guarantee you that every law passed as such in a Muslim nation is in direct response to a threat to the Muslim way of life. Muslims do not perform "pre-emptive" strikes.

It's no different than the US's fundamentalist christians turning out in record numbers to vote against (pre-emptively, I might add) the "icky idea of gay marriage".

Precisely. So who did the Arabs look to for truth about what America has been doing over the last few years. America itself, making a point or crazy terrorists making acusations?


The crazy terrorists making acusations, regretfully.
a) Those terrorists have the same religion, history, etc. than them.
b) The medling of the US in arab countries affairs, directly or indirectly. Saudi arabia, for example, as a tyrannical goverment that is supported by the US. And then, you got the invasion of Iraq.
c) The bias towards israel that the US has.
d) The US culture has invaded many arab countries, and you get a backlash.

Why would they believe in what the US says?

Islam yes. Muslim nations no.

Yes, well, men make laws and Allah makes laws. Men are weak and imperfect while Allah is perfect. If a lunatic comes along and makes strange laws that are against Islam, those laws don't stick around very long in Muslim nations.

I also highly doubt that there are any laws in any Muslim nation that forces its citizens to convert to Islam. Such a conversion would not be valid because it would not have been done out of free will.

Do you know why such laws came about?

It all started a very long time ago when the Muslim greeting (As sala'amu alaikum) was perverted by local Christians and Jews in what are now Muslim nations to say "as-samu alaykum", which means "death to you". Over time, as Muslims came more into power, they enacted laws which made it so that Christians and Jews weren't allowed to look Muslim so that the exchange of greeting between Muslims (which, by the way, is of extreme importance) would not be tainted by those attempting to mock.

I guarantee you that every law passed as such in a Muslim nation is in direct response to a threat to the Muslim way of life. Muslims do not perform "pre-emptive" strikes.

It's no different than the US's fundamentalist christians turning out in record numbers to vote against (pre-emptively, I might add) the "icky idea of gay marriage".
No, these laws were not to defend the poor helpless muslims (Who were the rulers). They were intended to punish the dhimmis in order to make them convert without having to do it at the point of a sword.

Read the article. The point is that those things in Christianity are not mainstreem, in Islam they often are.
however, when Christianity had the antiquity that islam has, these things were mainstream. Because it is so concentrated in one area, it must be given time to evolve.

Yes, well, men make laws and Allah makes laws. Men are weak and imperfect while Allah is perfect. If a lunatic comes along and makes strange laws that are against Islam, those laws don't stick around very long in Muslim nations.

I also highly doubt that there are any laws in any Muslim nation that forces its citizens to convert to Islam. Such a conversion would not be valid because it would not have been done out of free will.
That's the problem with any theocracy. No invisible sky-wizard wrote any laws. Men wrote them and claimed perfection in the name of their imaginary friend. Islam, being the only religion that still seriously tries to impose theocracy, therefore is a dangerous lie. Other religions are benign lies.

No, these laws were not to defend the poor helpless muslims (Who were the rulers). They were intended to punish the dhimmis in order to make them convert without having to do it at the point of a sword.

o.O

O.o

o.o

Even if those laws were inforced (some people out here must have forgotten them, as in all the study of my country history, have i came across such descrimination), they seem to have very little impact. Large christian comunities lived for very long in muslim controled areas, with little impact o.o

And its curious: Without such laws, there are many people that actually are converting to islam out here in europe.. o.o

No, these laws were not to defend the poor helpless muslims (Who were the rulers). They were intended to punish the dhimmis in order to make them convert without having to do it at the point of a sword.


I guess you need to go back and study some history. I'll wait. Go ahead. Or, hey, hang on to your pre-conceived notions. It's not really my problem.

Nobody can be killed, fired from his job, denied government benefits or discriminated against in any way for his religion in the US.

Cat Stevens would disagree

*echo* *echo* *echo*

That's the problem with any theocracy. No invisible sky-wizard wrote any laws. Men wrote them and claimed perfection in the name of their imaginary friend. Islam, being the only religion that still seriously tries to impose theocracy, therefore is a dangerous lie. Other religions are benign lies.

Are you shure it is the only one? We had this Catholic italian commissioner that went to the european parliament express is views on homossexuality and women.. he was such a zealot, that the entire comission almost fell o.o

As someone said, this isnt a question of islam or christ or something. This is secular vs. religious states.

That's the problem with any theocracy. No invisible sky-wizard wrote any laws. Men wrote them and claimed perfection in the name of their imaginary friend. Islam, being the only religion that still seriously tries to impose theocracy, therefore is a dangerous lie. Other religions are benign lies.

Impose? No ... a person has to choose Islam, not have it forced on them. You want to talk about an attempt to impose theocracy, let's look at what the fundie christians are trying to do to the US.

Even in Iran, one of the strongest and most villified Muslim theocracies, there are laws allowing Jews and Christians to openly and freely practice their religion. So you're really just talking out of your US Government issue asshat.

o.O

O.o

o.o

Even if those laws were inforced (some people out here must have forgotten them, as in all the study of my country history, have i came across such descrimination), they seem to have very little impact. Large christian comunities lived for very long in muslim controled areas, with little impact o.o

And its curious: Without such laws, there are many people that actually are converting to islam out here in europe.. o.o
Actually, in the book Onward Muslim Soldiers, there is a chapter showing how christians and jews under muslim rule were oppressed. Those laws were often enforced. And when the government failed to enforce them the muslim civilian population sometimes rioted and killed and raped christian and jewish people.

Are you shure it is the only one? We had this Catholic italian commissioner that went to the european parliament express is views on homossexuality and women.. he was such a zealot, that the entire comission almost fell o.o

As someone said, this isnt a question of islam or christ or something. This is secular vs. religious states.I was wondering when someone would get around to making that distinction. That's precisely the difference being discussed here.

Are you shure it is the only one? We had this Catholic italian commissioner that went to the european parliament express is views on homossexuality and women.. he was such a zealot, that the entire comission almost fell o.o

As someone said, this isnt a question of islam or christ or something. This is secular vs. religious states.
It's the only one with any serious chance at establishing theocracies because western countries have established a separation of church and state.

Impose? No ... a person has to choose Islam, not have it forced on them. You want to talk about an attempt to impose theocracy, let's look at what the fundie christians are trying to do to the US.

Even in Iran, one of the strongest and most villified Muslim theocracies, there are laws allowing Jews and Christians to openly and freely practice their religion. So you're really just talking out of your US Government issue asshat.
These laws were a way to motivate people to choose islam and still say it was voluntary. After all, nobody threatened them with death if they didn't convert, only with degradation, lack of security and financial ruin. A way for muslims to get around their own religious law prohibiting forced conversions.
The fundies in the US will fail. We have separation of church and state. For all the work they do there still isn't organized prayer in public schools, evolution is still taught, etc. Look at the plight of the copts in egypt. Tell me they aren't suffering. www.Copts.com

Actually, in the book Onward Muslim Soldiers, there is a chapter showing how christians and jews under muslim rule were oppressed. Those laws were often enforced. And when the government failed to enforce them the muslim civilian population sometimes rioted and killed and raped christian and jewish people.

Oh yah ... Robert Spencer ... great source for all your Muslim information ... after all Dr. Laura promotes it. Let's go ask the leaders of the KKK how they feel about black people next, shall we? Oh ... and don't forget to cite jewwatch.org as a good source for information on the Jewish people, mmkay?

:rolleyes:

Considering that in Islam, you aren't allowed to force anyone - not even your wife or children - to convert to Islam, it would seem to me that religious freedom is something Muslims have already understood for a long time..

Uh, No.

THe laws in Indonesia, and Malaysia (to my knowledge) forces the husband/wife to convert and their children as well if he/she marries a muslim wife/husband.

If you don't follow, the religious leaders would come knocking on your door.

And for example, A man who has married a non-mislim wife, if the man marries another wife who is muslim, the non-muslim marriage is considered nulled unless she (the non-muslim) and her children converts.

That's the problem with any theocracy. No invisible sky-wizard wrote any laws. Men wrote them and claimed perfection in the name of their imaginary friend. Islam, being the only religion that still seriously tries to impose theocracy, therefore is a dangerous lie. Other religions are benign lies.

Well India under the BJP came dangerously close to theocracy. And Israel is hardly a bastion of tolerance. Wait, though, that's OK because they believe they are under immediate threat by a directly opposing religion and culture that wants to wipe them out. Hmm...

Besides, there has as of yet been no equivalent of the Enlightenment in predominantly muslim areas. Is that because Islam is backward? Maybe. It's equally possible, though, that it's just an accident of history.

Oh and on the subject of Christianity (not directed at you but others on this thread) may I just point out that secularism and religious tolerance is a relatively new idea in Christian nations. China practised it millenia before the Enlightenment.

These laws were a way to motivate people to choose islam and still say it was voluntary. After all, nobody threatened them with death if they didn't convert, only with degradation, lack of security and financial ruin. A way for muslims to get around their own religious law prohibiting forced conversions.

And, yet, Jewish and Christian people live well and flourish in Iran. Of course, with your endorsement of Spencer's book, you have shown your true self. You don't care about this issue, you're just looking for ways to speak poorly of Muslims.

I doubt you'd know the difference between a Jew, Muslim, or Christian if you saw one on the street.

Oh yah ... Robert Spencer ... great source for all your Muslim information ... after all Dr. Laura promotes it. Let's go ask the leaders of the KKK how they feel about black people next, shall we? Oh ... and don't forget to cite jewwatch.org as a good source for information on the Jewish people, mmkay?

:rolleyes:
The opinions are debatable. The facts are not. The book states facts along with opinions.

THe laws in Indonesia, and Malaysia (to my knowledge) forces the husband/wife to convert and their children as well if he/she marries a muslim wife/husband.



Those are manmade idiocies, not Islamic law.

Well India under the BJP came dangerously close to theocracy. And Israel is hardly a bastion of tolerance. Wait, though, that's OK because they believe they are under immediate threat by a directly opposing religion and culture that wants to wipe them out. Hmm...

Besides, there has as of yet been no equivalent of the Enlightenment in predominantly muslim areas. Is that because Islam is backward? Maybe. It's equally possible, though, that it's just an accident of history.

Oh and on the subject of Christianity (not directed at you but others on this thread) may I just point out that secularism and religious tolerance is a relatively new idea in Christian nations. China practised it millenia before the Enlightenment.
I don't know that much about India, but Israel tolerates all religions. There are muslim members of the knesset.

And, yet, Jewish and Christian people live well and flourish in Iran. Of course, with your endorsement of Spencer's book, you have shown your true self. You don't care about this issue, you're just looking for ways to speak poorly of Muslims.

I doubt you'd know the difference between a Jew, Muslim, or Christian if you saw one on the street.
Well since each of the three come in all shapes and colors, I doubt you would either.

In almost all majority christian countries I could walk down the street wearing a shirt that says "Jesus was a liar" and nobody would try to kill me. If I went to an Islamic country and wore a shirt that said "Muhammad was a liar", there would be a mob trying to lynch me. It shows that muslims in general are less tolerant people. It's a less tolerant culture.

The opinions are debatable. The facts are not. The book states facts along with opinions.

The same can be said about jewwatch. Even the Klan says its facts are true facts and undeniable facts.

Spencer has no substantiating evidence for his book and has been debunked by many scholars.

I was wondering when someone would get around to making that distinction. That's precisely the difference being discussed here.

Well I raised it, but no-one's listening to me.

Why do I feel 5 years old again?

So you're really just talking out of your US Government issue asshat.

Can you buy those anywhere?

Those are manmade idiocies, not Islamic law.

Is it? Well, I've never read the whole Koran before. So I can't debate to you on that level.

However Malaysia follows nearly very strictly to the Shariah laws though.

Except they minus off the parts where it's inhumane by today's standards (however still practiced in northern Malaysia and southern Thailand).

-Like if caught stealing, they chop off your hand.

-And Women cannot testify. (Thats why the ammounts of rape is 0).

-Oh yeah, and you'll get runned off the streets if you don't dress properly (my sis got chased because she didn't wear long a shirt that covered her shoulders)

In almost all majority christian countries I could walk down the street wearing a shirt that says "Jesus was a liar" and nobody would try to kill me. If I went to an Islamic country and wore a shirt that said "Muhammad was a liar", there would be a mob trying to lynch me. It shows that muslims in general are less tolerant people. It's a less tolerant culture.

How do you know? Have you tried it or are you just assuming?

I wore a jacket in college for a while that had on the back "Jesus is dead and isn't coming back" and I had the occasional rock thrown at me, vulgar shouts, and prayer vigils held outside my apartment.

So, again, stop using your personal thoughts as reality.

Is it? Well, I've never read the whole Koran before. So I can't debate to you on that level.

However Malaysia follows nearly very strictly to the Shariah laws though.

Except they minus off the parts where it's inhumane by today's standards (however still practiced in northern Malaysia and southern Thailand).

-Like if caught stealing, they chop off your hand.

-And Women cannot testify. (Thats why the ammounts of rape is 0).

-Oh yeah, and you'll get runned off the streets if you don't dress properly (my sis got chased because she didn't wear long a shirt that covered her shoulders)
Actually a woman can testify against her rapist. If she can come up with 4 male witnesses who saw the event. Unless the rapist and his buddies decide to commit suicide and confess there's not much chance of that.

In almost all majority christian countries I could walk down the street wearing a shirt that says "Jesus was a liar" and nobody would try to kill me. If I went to an Islamic country and wore a shirt that said "Muhammad was a liar", there would be a mob trying to lynch me. It shows that muslims in general are less tolerant people. It's a less tolerant culture.

Wow don't go there. I haven't seen anyone got killed for wearing a shirt like that.

But I got a friend who was beaten near inch of his life for wearing a shirt "I love Jesus". They said he was racial. :p

How do you know? Have you tried it or are you just assuming?

I wore a jacket in college for a while that had on the back "Jesus is dead and isn't coming back" and I had the occasional rock thrown at me, vulgar shouts, and prayer vigils held outside my apartment.

So, again, stop using your personal thoughts as reality.
I've seen loads of people with blasphemous things written on their t-shirt walking around unmolested. You must have been in the buckle of the bible belt, among the american taliban.

Can you buy those anywhere?

It gets issued when you're born in the US. Most of us spend our lifetimes trying desperately to have it removed.

Actually a woman can testify against her rapist. If she can come up with 4 male witnesses who saw the event. Unless the rapist and his buddies decide to commit suicide and confess there's not much chance of that.

Thats true. But what are the chances of that happening? :p

In almost all majority christian countries I could walk down the street wearing a shirt that says "Jesus was a liar" and nobody would try to kill me. If I went to an Islamic country and wore a shirt that said "Muhammad was a liar", there would be a mob trying to lynch me. It shows that muslims in general are less tolerant people. It's a less tolerant culture.

Gah, SECULAR not Christian. THEOCRATIC not islamic. The denomination is irrelevant, the culture is vital.

Do you know why such laws came about?

It all started a very long time ago when the Muslim greeting (As sala'amu alaikum) was perverted by local Christians and Jews in what are now Muslim nations to say "as-samu alaykum", which means "death to you". Over time, as Muslims came more into power, they enacted laws which made it so that Christians and Jews weren't allowed to look Muslim so that the exchange of greeting between Muslims (which, by the way, is of extreme importance) would not be tainted by those attempting to mock.

I guarantee you that every law passed as such in a Muslim nation is in direct response to a threat to the Muslim way of life. Muslims do not perform "pre-emptive" strikes.

It's no different than the US's fundamentalist christians turning out in record numbers to vote against (pre-emptively, I might add) the "icky idea of gay marriage".
Actually the "fundamentalist" numbers didn't change much. Of course, I really don't see what the big deal is with GM anyway, but whatever.

Actually a woman can testify against her rapist. If she can come up with 4 male witnesses who saw the event. Unless the rapist and his buddies decide to commit suicide and confess there's not much chance of that.
4 male muslim witnesses or 8 non-muslim male winesses.

I know, Those cases get publicized all to hell. I picked one that showed that Islam isn't any better than christianity. IMHO they are too often portrayed as the victims.
i wasn't even referring to muslim victims... what about atheists? hell, the first bush president said that atheists weren't even citizens.

Gah, SECULAR not Christian. THEOCRATIC not islamic. The denomination is irrelevant, the culture is vital.
Got me there.

It gets issued when you're born in the US. Most of us spend our lifetimes trying desperately to have it removed.

C'mon, a hat. With an ass. With "US government" written on it. What's not to love?

Gah, SECULAR not Christian. THEOCRATIC not islamic. The denomination is irrelevant, the culture is vital.

Umm.. Hence the Title 'A concept that Muslim Nations need to understand. :D

i wasn't even referring to muslim victims... what about atheists? hell, the first bush president said that atheists weren't even citizens.
Yeah, I know. I'm an atheist. Luckily we have that bill of rights thing that keept him from revoking my citizenship.

Umm.. Hence the Title 'A concept that Muslim Nations need to understand. :DHow about you pass a similar message along to all the yahoos who make the claim (a bullshit claim, but they make it all the same) that the US is a christian nation.

How about you pass a similar message along to all the yahoos who make the claim (a bullshit claim, but they make it all the same) that the US is a christian nation.

Sure. I'll try to.

But you can imagine the ignorance I have to live with daily. Sometimes it pisses me off, that when I go to restaurant, they have a big poster of Osama bin Laden with his ugly mug, and below there is "Allah Uakbar"

Thats why I come sometimes very hard down on Islamic fanaticism. These people live in ignorance that there's 2 worlds, the muslim world, and the infidels.

Once I make my money, I'll migrate to Australia. :D Half my family is there already.

Sure. I'll try to.

But you can imagine the ignorance I have to live with daily. Sometimes it pisses me off, that when I go to restaurant, they have a big poster of Osama bin Laden with his ugly mug, and below there is "Allah Uakbar"

Thats why I come sometimes very hard down on Islamic fanaticism. These people live in ignorance that there's 2 worlds, the muslim world, and the infidels.

Once I make my money, I'll migrate to Australia. :D Half my family is there already.

Hate to break it to you but ignorance exists everywhere. Even Australia has its own Ms Pauline Hanson.

Hell, you should try living where I do where nearly everyone is almost wholly ignorant of their own country but knows the solution to innumerable intractable problems worldwide. At least that's what they say.

You got me there. Well, yes. Publicy. But not in private.

Wrong! In Saudi Arabia, you cannot hold any type of religious service, or even a prayer meeting, in the privacy of your own home. You cannot have a bible or any other religious symbol on you or in your home.

In Turkey it is illegal to pass out any religious literature or try to convert someone to another faith. Turkey is not an Islamic fascist state either.

Wrong! In Saudi Arabia, you cannot hold any type of religious service, or even a prayer meeting, in the privacy of your own home. You cannot have a bible or any other religious symbol on you or in your home.

In Turkey it is illegal to pass out any religious literature or try to convert someone to another faith. Turkey is not an Islamic fascist state either.
I have heard that they will confiscate bibles at the airport or refuse you entry. I don't know if it's true though. I do know that American servicemen stationed in Saudi have to hold their sunday church services in secret.

I have heard that they will confiscate bibles at the airport or refuse you entry. I don't know if it's true though. I do know that American servicemen stationed in Saudi have to hold their sunday church services in secret.

They will confiscate any religous materials when you go thhrough customs and they might not let you into the country.

Military chaplans could not wear their chaplans insignis (it is the cross or the star of David) and religious services were held in secret.

I would just like to point out to all those who cite "the Crusades" as an example of where Christians have been vilonet in there past, that the Crusades were in fact more a teritiorial war than religious. The Saracans (Muslims) had invaded several territorys which European Chrisitan nations owned. The Crusades were the Christian attemts to get them back. So if anything Muslims were more responsable for that that Christians. What were the Christians supposed to do, let them have what was then Christian land. That would be like France annexing Cornwall. And another point, while Christians have been murderous in the past they are not now. We have learnt from the past but many Muslim nations have not.

Kindly read some history before making such farcical claims. The third crusade and the so-called "childrens crusade" may prove particularly instructive. Ask a reponsible adult to show you how to use Google to assist in your research.

Kindly read my post which quotes many more examples of Christian war and intolerance if for some reason you wish to disregard the Crusades.

Kindly explain how Christian nations are not know invading Muslim nations.

You may care to reflect upon the well publicised connections between Bush and the Christian right. There is considerably more evidence for links there there was ever the case for those seeking links between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden.

Islam bashing may be the flavour of the month, but does not stand up to realistic scrutiny.

Sure. I'll try to.

But you can imagine the ignorance I have to live with daily. Sometimes it pisses me off, that when I go to restaurant, they have a big poster of Osama bin Laden with his ugly mug, and below there is "Allah Uakbar"

Thats why I come sometimes very hard down on Islamic fanaticism. These people live in ignorance that there's 2 worlds, the muslim world, and the infidels.

Once I make my money, I'll migrate to Australia. :D Half my family is there already.

I am Australian.

We scarcely require further xenophobes.

Kindly remain where you are until you are able to learn some tolerance and respect.

The premise of the original post was; first, Islam or Islamic Nations do not understand the concept of freedom of religion and secondly that Islam has as one of its goals taking over the world. In this, we are talking about the present day although many of you reverted to history to prove your point, which was not related to the original discussion. So, let’s leave history behind.

In the original post, the author of Why I am not a Muslim, Ibn Warraq was cited in the article as support for the idea Islam wants to rule the world. In his book, Warraq discusses many of the points brought up in these discussions. If you have not read the book, I highly recommend it. Another book on the subject worth reading is Islam Unveiled by David Pryce-Spencer. He devotes an entire chapter the question of “Is Islam Tolerant of Non-Muslims?”

The Muslims who believe in the use of violence are not “fundamentalists” but are very possibly devout Muslims who are following the commands of Allah that are found in the Koran:
Sura 47:4 ”When you meet the unbelievers, strike off their heads; then when you have made wide slaughter among them, carefully tie up the remaining captives.”
Sura 9:73 “Prophet, make war on the unbelievers and the hypocrites and deal rigorously with them. Hell shall be their home: an evil fate.”
Sura 9:5-6 “Kill those who join other gods with God wherever you may find them.”
Sura 4:76 Those who believe fight in the cause of God.
Sura 8:12 I will instill terror in the hearts of the Infidels, strike off their heads then, and strike off from them every fingertip.”
Sura 4:76 “True believers fight for the cause of God, but the infidels fight for the devil. Fight then against the friends of Satan.”

The Moslems believe the Koran was in fact written by God and given to the Prophet by the angel Gabriel. As it was written by God it must be followed to the letter. Thus, those Moslems who use violence against infidels are not “fundamentalists” but mainstream Moslems.

The premise of the original post was; first, Islam or Islamic Nations do not understand the concept of freedom of religion and secondly that Islam has as one of its goals taking over the world. In this, we are talking about the present day although many of you reverted to history to prove your point, which was not related to the original discussion. So, let’s leave history behind.

In the original post, the author of Why I am not a Muslim, Ibn Warraq was cited in the article as support for the idea Islam wants to rule the world. In his book, Warraq discusses many of the points brought up in these discussions. If you have not read the book, I highly recommend it. Another book on the subject worth reading is Islam Unveiled by David Pryce-Spencer. He devotes an entire chapter the question of “Is Islam Tolerant of Non-Muslims?”

The Muslims who believe in the use of violence are not “fundamentalists” but are very possibly devout Muslims who are following the commands of Allah that are found in the Koran:
Sura 47:4 ”When you meet the unbelievers, strike off their heads; then when you have made wide slaughter among them, carefully tie up the remaining captives.”
Sura 9:73 “Prophet, make war on the unbelievers and the hypocrites and deal rigorously with them. Hell shall be their home: an evil fate.”
Sura 9:5-6 “Kill those who join other gods with God wherever you may find them.”
Sura 4:76 Those who believe fight in the cause of God.
Sura 8:12 I will instill terror in the hearts of the Infidels, strike off their heads then, and strike off from them every fingertip.”
Sura 4:76 “True believers fight for the cause of God, but the infidels fight for the devil. Fight then against the friends of Satan.”

The Moslems believe the Koran was in fact written by God and given to the Prophet by the angel Gabriel. As it was written by God it must be followed to the letter. Thus, those Moslems who use violence against infidels are not “fundamentalists” but mainstream Moslems.

Firstly, I can understand your "let’s leave history behind" request. After all, it hardly helps your case.

If you wish to try some quotes from "holy books" try some of these:

"And that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams, shall be put to death; because he hath spoken to turn you away from the LORD your God..." (Deuteronomy 13: 5)

"If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers;" (Deuteronomy 13: 6)

"Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him: But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people." (Deuteronomy 13:8-9)

"Thou shalt surely smite the inhabitants of that city with the edge of the sword, destroying it utterly, and all that is therein, and the cattle thereof, with the edge of the sword." (Deuteronomy 13:15)

"Every one that is found shall be thrust through; and every one that is joined unto them shall fall by the sword. Their children also shall be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their houses shall be spoiled, and their wives ravished." (Isaiah 13:15-16)

"And to the others he said in mine hearing, Go ye after him through the city, and smite: let not your eye spare, neither have ye pity: Slay utterly old and young, both maids, and little children, and woman: but come not near any man upon whom is the mark; and begin at my sanctuary. Then they began at the ancient men which were before the house." (Ezekiel 9:5-6)

"Ye shall utterly destroy all the places, wherein the nations which ye shall possess served their gods, upon the high mountains, and upon the hills, and under every green tree: And ye shall overthrow their altars, and break their pillars, and burn their groves with fire; and ye shall hew down the graven images of their gods, and destroy the names of them out of that place." (Deuteronomy 12:2-3)

Unfortunately, many Christians believe that the Bible is the literal word of God, and must be followed to the letter.

Well, you have stated that the use of historical fact is "not related" and should be "left behind".

I have little doubt that you will now claim that quotes from the Bible are "not related" and should also be "left behind".

Leaves you starting to look like nothing other than the ignorant biased intolerant fundamentalist xenophobe that you are accusing others of.

Except the KKK doesnt control the US. KKK is on the fringe of society, while extremist fundamentalism is mainstream in Islam. Regressive fundamentalist governments are in control of huge portions of the islamic world. Homosexuality is illegal in all Muslim nations, for example. Women must cover up their heads in Iran and most Arab gulf states. The Bahai religion is banned in Iran, and in many Arab nations it is illegal for Muslims to convert to other religions. The Muslim world truly needs to adopt more civil rights and religious liberties.

You mistake "ruling power" with "mainstream." They are not the same.

Firstly, I can understand your "let’s leave history behind" request. After all, it hardly helps your case.

If you wish to try some quotes from "holy books" try some of these:

"And that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams, shall be put to death; because he hath spoken to turn you away from the LORD your God..." (Deuteronomy 13: 5)

"If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers;" (Deuteronomy 13: 6)

"Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him: But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people." (Deuteronomy 13:8-9)

"Thou shalt surely smite the inhabitants of that city with the edge of the sword, destroying it utterly, and all that is therein, and the cattle thereof, with the edge of the sword." (Deuteronomy 13:15)

"Every one that is found shall be thrust through; and every one that is joined unto them shall fall by the sword. Their children also shall be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their houses shall be spoiled, and their wives ravished." (Isaiah 13:15-16)

"And to the others he said in mine hearing, Go ye after him through the city, and smite: let not your eye spare, neither have ye pity: Slay utterly old and young, both maids, and little children, and woman: but come not near any man upon whom is the mark; and begin at my sanctuary. Then they began at the ancient men which were before the house." (Ezekiel 9:5-6)

"Ye shall utterly destroy all the places, wherein the nations which ye shall possess served their gods, upon the high mountains, and upon the hills, and under every green tree: And ye shall overthrow their altars, and break their pillars, and burn their groves with fire; and ye shall hew down the graven images of their gods, and destroy the names of them out of that place." (Deuteronomy 12:2-3)

Unfortunately, many Christians believe that the Bible is the literal word of God, and must be followed to the letter.

Well, you have stated that the use of historical fact is "not related" and should be "left behind".

I have little doubt that you will now claim that quotes from the Bible are "not related" and should also be "left behind".

Leaves you starting to look like nothing other than the ignorant biased intolerant fundamentalist xenophobe that you are accusing others of.
See, the problem here is that you think all of us are coming at this from the angle that christianity is better. That can, of course, be argued as the case but the reason for christianity being "better" is that is has had it's nose bloodied enough by secular/non-authoritarian forces that it has essentially become quiescent. Islam has not, but it will learn.

See, the problem here is that you think all of us are coming at this from the angle that christianity is better. That can, of course, be argued as the case but the reason for christianity being "better" is that is has had it's nose bloodied enough by secular/non-authoritarian forces that it has essentially become quiescent. Islam has not, but it will learn.

Are you proposing then that Isalm should in fact have its "nose bloodied enough by secular/non-authoritarian forces" for its own good?

Are you proposing then that Isalm should in fact have its "nose bloodied enough by secular/non-authoritarian forces" for its own good?
Yep, quickest way to get those countries better Human Rights laws and such. Especially since they are the ones that have decided to press the issue.

Just to keep someone from spreading falsehoods about Islam:


Sura 47:4 ”When you meet the unbelievers, strike off their heads; then when you have made wide slaughter among them, carefully tie up the remaining captives.”

Sura 47:4 isn't talking about non-Muslims, it is talking about Muslims who reject Allah.


Sura 9:73 “Prophet, make war on the unbelievers and the hypocrites and deal rigorously with them. Hell shall be their home: an evil fate.”

Sura 9:73 is talking about Muslims who swear by Allah that they have not uttered a falsehood, but have been proven otherwise. Read 9:74.


Sura 9:5-6 “Kill those who join other gods with God wherever you may find them.”

9:5 is talking about the Babylonian Pagans who attempted genocide against the fledgling Muslims. The whole of 9:5-6 says "But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, an seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practise regular charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful. If one amongst the Pagans ask thee for asylum, grant it to him, so that he may hear the word of Allah; and then escort him to where he can be secure. That is because they are men without knowledge. "

Don't pick and choose a single sentence.

Sura 4:76 Those who believe fight in the cause of God.

Those who believe also brush their teeth in the cause of Allah. Islam means "submission" and is the 100% submission of the mind and body to Allah.

The whole of 4:76 says, "Those who believe fight in the cause of Allah, and those who reject Faith Fight in the cause of Evil: So fight ye against the friends of Satan: feeble indeed is the cunning of Satan. "

Sura 8:12 I will instill terror in the hearts of the Infidels, strike off their heads then, and strike off from them every fingertip.”

If you actually read the rest of the Sura, you will find this is a message of hope taken way out of context. Nice that you cut off the first part of the Sura ... you know ... the part that reads, "Remember thy Lord inspired the angels (with the message): "I am with you"

I don't know your source on what you're reading, but it isn't Qur'an.

Wouldn't by definition someone who didn't believe in Allah be a non-muslim? I mean, if you don't believe in Jesus as the Son of God you are not a Christian and if you don't believe in Yaweh you aren't a Jew. That's sorta how these things are defined. Basically the full suras you posted still pretty much say to kill or convert the infidel, whichever comes first.

Wouldn't by definition someone who didn't believe in Allah be a non-muslim? I mean, if you don't believe in Jesus as the Son of God you are not a Christian and if you don't believe in Yaweh you aren't a Jew. That's sorta how these things are defined. Basically the full suras you posted still pretty much say to kill or convert the infidel, whichever comes first.

Very little in Qur'an speaks of non-Muslims except in some of the parts on how to treat non-Muslims .... with respect and courtesy!

Read what I said again ... those passages aren't talking about non-Muslims, they're talking about Muslims who misbehave. Can you not see the difference?

Yep, quickest way to get those countries better Human Rights laws and such. Especially since they are the ones that have decided to press the issue.

I see.

One can only assume that Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay are educational facilities for the dissemination of Human rights to the ungodly.

A good bit of violence to teach them the values of tolerance and Christian brotherhood no doubt.

THe "ones that have decided to press the issue" is a peculiar statement - have Muslim nations commenced invading Christian ones in the last couple of hours, and I've somehow missed it?

I can only assume so, as you have already determined that using history is not permitted as it fails to support your prejedices.

Yep, quickest way to get those countries better Human Rights laws and such. Especially since they are the ones that have decided to press the issue.

I see.

One can only assume that Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay are educational facilities for the dissemination of Human rights to the ungodly.

A good bit of violence to teach them the values of tolerance and Christian brotherhood no doubt.

THe "ones that have decided to press the issue" is a peculiar statement - have Muslim nations commenced invading Christian ones in the last couple of hours, and I've somehow missed it?

I can only assume so, as you have already determined that using history is not permitted as it fails to support your prejudices.

I am Australian.

We scarcely require further xenophobes.

Kindly remain where you are until you are able to learn some tolerance and respect.
Yes, tolerate and respect the fascists or you will be killed.

I see.

One can only assume that Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay are educational facilities for the dissemination of Human rights to the ungodly.

A good bit of violence to teach them the values of tolerance and Christian brotherhood no doubt.

THe "ones that have decided to press the issue" is a peculiar statement - have Muslim nations commenced invading Christian ones in the last couple of hours, and I've somehow missed it?

I can only assume so, as you have already determined that using history is not permitted as it fails to support your prejudices.
Really, technically the first three Crusades were an attempt to reclaim for christianity/cathlocism Jerusalem etc. etc. that the muslims had conquered a little while back. And as I said before, having to listen to bad teen pop and rap is such torture. Last time I checked we weren't randomly beheading innocents. As for AG, that was taken care of, although such a fuss over the sexual humiliation parts of it was not warranted. How many Fatwahs have been declared upon the US and Israel again? Or how about shit like the Van Gogh murder eh. Seems to me they seem to be aiming for a submit to the tenets of our religion or die theme.

Really, technically the first three Crusades were an attempt to reclaim for christianity/cathlocism Jerusalem etc. etc. that the muslims had conquered a little while back. And as I said before, having to listen to bad teen pop and rap is such torture. Last time I checked we weren't randomly beheading innocents. As for AG, that was taken care of, although such a fuss over the sexual humiliation parts of it was not warranted. How many Fatwahs have been declared upon the US and Israel again? Or how about shit like the Van Gogh murder eh. Seems to me they seem to be aiming for a submit to the tenets of our religion or die theme.

If you bother to read all the posts, you will see many more examples of religious wars than the Crusades.

Using one set of religious violence to justify another is quite ridiculous. "An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind" in the words of Ghandi.

Proposing violence on anyone to demonstrate why they should not be violent seems a bit of a circular argument.

A large number of religions have, and had, a propensity towards violence.

To single out one for attack, while ignoring others, and to then propose that they should have their "nose bloodied" is to use the language of an aggressive bigot.

i have a plan that will solve all of the worlds problems....

ENJOY LIFE

it is your life and you should enjoy it while you can, dont worry about what other people are doing. beleive what you think is right, and have fun. you can try to help people, but when they decline just accept it. if your religion says they are going to hell for doing it and you have tried to help them there isnt much more you can do without effecting freewill.

so this post didnt really have much of a point except to enjoy your life and if believe in what you think is right, especially us living in a free country with the freedoms of being able to do so.

God bless you all

How many Fatwahs have been declared upon the US and Israel again? Or how about shit like the Van Gogh murder eh. Seems to me they seem to be aiming for a submit to the tenets of our religion or die theme.

Do you even know what a Fatwah is?

As for the murder of Van Gogh, well, he insulted with his ignorance 1.2+ billion people. He said all Muslims oppressed women and spread general ignorance and intolerance toward all Muslims. Qur'an says that women are the equal of men and the Prophet(pbuh) said that the best among men are those who treat their wives and daughters with respect and kindness.

Van Gogh spread lies about 1.2+ billion people. It was only a matter of time before a lone nut got sick of it and did something about it. If Van Gogh had been screaming about all Christians and a fundie Christian did it, that fundie would be paraded in the streets as a hero.

Qur'an says that women are the equal of men and the Prophet(pbuh) said that the best among men are those who treat their wives and daughters with respect and kindness.

why cant women drive cars in some arab countries?
or why do they have to cover themselves up and men dont have to?

just questions, not trying to beat you down :)

why cant women drive cars in some arab countries?
or why do they have to cover themselves up and men dont have to?

just questions, not trying to beat you down :)


Because some countries, like some people, rely on tradition rather than law. Qur'an says that women should cover everything but their faces and hands when in the Mosque - out of respect for Allah - and when travelling abroad - to set themselves apart as Muslims. Men cover their heads and wear long sleeves and long pants in the Mosque as well and modesty in dress is a part of Islamic daily life.

There were Arabs and Arabic countries prior to Muhammed(pbuh) and some of those countries still cling to the old pre-Islamic ways - such as female circumsicion (mutilation), restriction of women's freedoms, and even great sadness at the birth of a daughter! None of that is endorsed by Islam nor commanded by Allah ... quite the opposite, in fact. I mean ... c'mon ... look at my sig ... I'm about as pinko-liberal hippie as one can get ... yet I have embraced Islam ... you think I'd do that knowing it would make my wife - whom I love with all my heart and who is the best person I know - a second class citizen?

Questions are always good. Never be afraid to ask questions.

Because some countries, like some people, rely on tradition rather than law. Qur'an says that women should cover everything but their faces and hands when in the Mosque - out of respect for Allah - and when travelling abroad - to set themselves apart as Muslims. Men cover their heads and wear long sleeves and long pants in the Mosque as well and modesty in dress is a part of Islamic daily life.

There were Arabs and Arabic countries prior to Muhammed(pbuh) and some of those countries still cling to the old pre-Islamic ways - such as female circumsicion (mutilation), restriction of women's freedoms, and even great sadness at the birth of a daughter! None of that is endorsed by Islam nor commanded by Allah ... quite the opposite, in fact. I mean ... c'mon ... look at my sig ... I'm about as pinko-liberal hippie as one can get ... yet I have embraced Islam ... you think I'd do that knowing it would make my wife - whom I love with all my heart and who is the best person I know - a second class citizen?

Questions are always good. Never be afraid to ask questions.

thanks for answering my questions

Unfortunately, many Christians believe that the Bible is the literal word of God, and must be followed to the letter.

Well, you have stated that the use of historical fact is "not related" and should be "left behind".

I have little doubt that you will now claim that quotes from the Bible are "not related" and should also be "left behind".

Leaves you starting to look like nothing other than the ignorant biased intolerant fundamentalist xenophobe that you are accusing others of.

1. Most Christians beleive the Bible was written by men who were inspired by God, thus not necessarily "be followed to the letter."

2. All the quotes you site are from the old testament. The new testament is the new covanent and is the book that should be followed by Christians.

Qur'an says that women are the equal of men .....

If this is true then how come:
A woman's testimony counts as 1/2 a man. Not equal.
A woman cannot leave the house without the permission of her husband or father. Not equal.
A woman cannot drive a car in Saudi Arabia and must sit in the back seat. Not equal.
A Moslem woman cannot marry an infidel, but a man can. Not equal.
A Moslem woman cannot have more than one husband, but a man can. Not equal.

Do you even know what a Fatwah is?

As for the murder of Van Gogh, well, he insulted with his ignorance 1.2+ billion people. He said all Muslims oppressed women and spread general ignorance and intolerance toward all Muslims. Qur'an says that women are the equal of men and the Prophet(pbuh) said that the best among men are those who treat their wives and daughters with respect and kindness.

Van Gogh spread lies about 1.2+ billion people. It was only a matter of time before a lone nut got sick of it and did something about it. If Van Gogh had been screaming about all Christians and a fundie Christian did it, that fundie would be paraded in the streets as a hero.
Nooo, not quite the case unfortunately. First of all, his murderer was in no way a "lone nut".
http://www.useless-knowledge.com/articles/apr/nov130.html
http://www.slate.com/Default.aspx?id=2109523&
http://www.news24.com/News24/World/News/0,,2-10-1462_1620319,00.html
http://binarycircumstance.typepad.com/bc_blog/2004/11/andrew_sullivan.html

Secondly as far as I can tell he was an asshole to pretty much everyone. Thirdly the accounts show in the movie Submission were true, coming from a Somali ex-muslim raped in her teens. Also, you fail to realize that the Qur'an is not Islam and Islam is not the Qur'an. What is said in the Qur'an does not necessarily reflect upon the reality of the situation.

1. Most Christians beleive the Bible was written by men who were inspired by God, thus not necessarily "be followed to the letter."

2. All the quotes you site are from the old testament. The new testament is the new covanent and is the book that should be followed by Christians.

Not a problem. You have neatly managed to demolish a considerable basis for unChristian Christian beliefs.

Perhaps you should sample from the New Testament on tolerance, peace, and the status of women:

"If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple." (Luke 14:26)

"But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me." (Luke 19:27)

"I know thy works, and tribulation, and poverty, (but thou art rich) and I know the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews, and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan." (Revelation 2:9)

"For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man." (I Corinthians 11:8-9)

"Let the women learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression." (I Timothy 2:11-14)

"Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything." (Ephesians 5:22-24)

Now, kindly explain how Islam is violent and intolerant in comparison.

What is said in the Qur'an does not necessarily reflect upon the reality of the situation.
And the same thing is true of Christianity. In fact, I would argue that only a very tiny fraction of those who claim to be christian come anywhere near to actually following the teachings of Christ. They're too busy being self-righteous prigs to learn any humility and self-sacrifice.

"If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple." (Luke 14:26)

The word hate as used here does not literally mean hate. It means love less. Pretty much this verse says you cannot be a disciple of Jesus if you do not love Jesus more than everything else. Which is a common theme in the new testament.

"For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man." (I Corinthians 11:8-9)

This is really just a fact. The first woman was created from the first man (if you take all the Bible literally). Also in Genesis it says that God created women to be a companion for man. So neither of those statements really mean anything, they are just stating what was then taken as fact. Women were made from men, and God created women to provide partnership with men.

"Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything." (Ephesians 5:22-24)

In this same passage, or right near it, it is commanded that men must love their wives and treat them with love and provide/take care of them, just as God has loved and provided for the Church. Way to provide half of the information to slant things in your favor.


"I know thy works, and tribulation, and poverty, (but thou art rich) and I know the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews, and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan." (Revelation 2:9)

What? How does this provide evidence of unfair treatment of women or encouragement of violence, I'm confused.

"Let the women learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression." (I Timothy 2:11-14)

This is because in Jewish society, note not Christian as this is based solely off of the Old Testament and Christians are supposed to follow primarily the new, men were the head of the household and the church. So good job, you proved that an ancient society had instances of sexual discrimination, which I should probably add, is still quite prevelant today.

I am Australian.
We scarcely require further xenophobes.
Kindly remain where you are until you are able to learn some tolerance and respect.

And your saying I'm a xenophobe because I should respect fanaticism? That I must learn tolerance because if I don't my neighbour has the right to kill me?

I have lived both in Australia, Malaysia, Singapore and Indonesia for a couple of years each with friends of all races, religions and cultures. Hell, my sister in law is Indonesian, and my brother in law is an Australian.

And why I want to live in Australia is not solely because of muslims, but for business reasons. I have lots of muslim friends, some extreme, but most usually moderate thinking, and progressive muslims. Even the moderate one's despise the fanatics.

However the fundemantelist represent the population at large, which is the government trying to curb with education and controlling of the Islamic religion in Malaysia. We live on prayer that the ministry of Islamic religion doesn't get corrupted and start blaming Christians for all sorts of reasons like it happend during the 1970's.

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

And to some extent I think this topic is being slighted to Christians, pointing the fingers elsewhere, when what the thread is about is "Freedom of religion in Muslim Countries".

And since I am living in one currently, I just share my opinions about whats happening in the South East Asia's muslim worlds. The truths that I'm sure most of you wouldn't know unless you live here. I'm trying to be informative.

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

IMO, I respect Keruvalia for her efforts to debate back Islam even though fundamentalist muslim countries are doing such acts. Keep up the good work. :)

The word hate as used here does not literally mean hate. It means love less. Pretty much this verse says you cannot be a disciple of Jesus if you do not love Jesus more than everything else. Which is a common theme in the new testament.


This is really just a fact. The first woman was created from the first man (if you take all the Bible literally). Also in Genesis it says that God created women to be a companion for man. So neither of those statements really mean anything, they are just stating what was then taken as fact. Women were made from men, and God created women to provide partnership with men.



In this same passage, or right near it, it is commanded that men must love their wives and treat them with love and provide/take care of them, just as God has loved and provided for the Church. Way to provide half of the information to slant things in your favor.


What? How does this provide evidence of unfair treatment of women or encouragement of violence, I'm confused.



This is because in Jewish society, note not Christian as this is based solely off of the Old Testament and Christians are supposed to follow primarily the new, men were the head of the household and the church. So good job, you proved that an ancient society had instances of sexual discrimination, which I should probably add, is still quite prevelant today.

Thank you for explaining away the Bible.

I should have realised that words do not literally mean what they say, that bias and discrimination should be taken in the context of "an ancient society".

You have, of course, merely argued my case for me.

Now, lets see if you can accept the same reasoning for those attacking Islam.

Or are the scriptures of other faiths not subject to the same interpretations and revisions?

Remember, my last line from the quotes from the new testament was :

Now, kindly explain how Islam is violent and intolerant in comparison.

And to some extent I think this topic is being slighted to Christians, pointing the fingers elsewhere, when what the thread is about is "Freedom of religion in Muslim Countries".

And since I am living in one currently, I just share my opinions about whats happening in the South East Asia's muslim worlds. The truths that I'm sure most of you wouldn't know unless you live here. I'm trying to be informative.

No, the problem is that we're being told "Christian nations are fine, it's them dirty muslims that are evil!"

Honestly, look at the creator of the thread.

If this is true then how come:
A woman's testimony counts as 1/2 a man. Not equal.
A woman cannot leave the house without the permission of her husband or father. Not equal.
A woman cannot drive a car in Saudi Arabia and must sit in the back seat. Not equal.
A Moslem woman cannot marry an infidel, but a man can. Not equal.
A Moslem woman cannot have more than one husband, but a man can. Not equal.

I already answered that ...

It's 3 posts just before yours.

Pay attention.

If you need a refresher: http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7626005&postcount=167

Read what I said again ... those passages aren't talking about non-Muslims, they're talking about Muslims who misbehave. Can you not see the difference?

Infidels and unbelievers were pagans, Jews, and Christians. Those Moslems who turned away from the faith were and still are apostolate and the penalty for that is death.

Infidels and unbelievers were pagans, Jews, and Christians. Those Moslems who turned away from the faith were and still are apostolate and the penalty for that is death.

Nowhere in Qur'an is the word "Infidel" used. Nowhere.

Now, lets see if you can accept the same reasoning for those attacking Islam.

Or are the scriptures of other faiths not subject to the same interpretations and revisions?

The Koran was written by Allah and is perfect as it is written. It is the literal word of Allah and is not subject to interpretation or revision. To revise the Koran would be blasphemy.

The Koran was written by Allah and is perfect as it is written. It is the literal word of Allah and is not subject to interpretation or revision. To revise the Koran would be blasphemy.

Then everyone should read the Koran in the original Arabic in which it is written. Anything else is blasphemy.

Nowhere in Qur'an is the word "Infidel" used. Nowhere.

Sura 8:12 "I will instill terror in the hearts of the Infidels, strike off their heads then, and strike off from them every fingertip.”

Sura 8:12 "I will instill terror in the hearts of the Infidels, strike off their heads then, and strike off from them every fingertip.”

Not quite ...

8:12 "Remember thy Lord inspired the angels (with the message): "I am with you: give firmness to the Believers: I will instil terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers: smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them." "

Infidel is not used in Qur'an anywhere. Also, don't take 8:12 out of context ... I've already explained 8:12 in a previous message.

As Evangelical Christians become the more mainstream of the religion, those things will start to occur more regularly.

I'm slightly confused. How many Evangelical Christians do you actually know? Generally, and there are exceptions to every rule, Evangelicals are the most forgiving people in Christianity. For the most part, they follow the "Love the sinner, hate the sin" philosophy. That means that they might not like what you do, but that they love you, because they don't believe that what you do defines who you are.

IMO, I respect Keruvalia for her efforts to debate back Islam even though fundamentalist muslim countries are doing such acts. Keep up the good work. :)

His ... and thanks. :)

I only wish I could speak openly to some of the fundamentalist whack-jobs who are giving me a bad name. I suppose I may get the chance someday ... but, for now, I am content to hone my skillz on NS General.

I'm slightly confused. How many Evangelical Christians do you actually know? Generally, and there are exceptions to every rule, Evangelicals are the most forgiving people in Christianity. For the most part, they follow the "Love the sinner, hate the sin" philosophy. That means that they might not like what you do, but that they love you, because they don't believe that what you do defines who you are.



I went to an Evangelical Christian School for 3 years. Those people were not that forgiving. I've also been on sports teams with them, so I know plenty of them.

No, the problem is that we're being told "Christian nations are fine, it's them dirty muslims that are evil!"

Honestly, look at the creator of the thread.

I am not saying Islam is wrong. Islam itself is at its heart a fine ideology and practice. But Islamic states often do not allow freedom of religon. For newcommers I will repost the article (I would give a hyperlink but its password protected, you have to sign up to the spectator archive)


The triumph of the East
There’s no plot, says Anthony Browne: Islam really does want to conquer the world. That’s because Muslims, unlike many Christians, actually believe they are right, and that their religion is the path to salvation for all

A year ago I had lunch with an eminent figure who asked if I thought she was mad. ‘No,’ I said politely, while thinking, ‘Yup.’ She had said she thought there was a secret plot by Muslims to take over the West. I have never been into conspiracy theories, and this one was definitely of the little-green-men variety. It is the sort of thing BNP thugs claim to justify their racial hatred.
Obviously, we all know about Osama bin Laden’s ambitions. And we are all aware of the loons of al-Muhajiroun waving placards saying ‘Islam is the future of Britain’. But these are all on the extremist fringe, representative of no one but themselves. Surely no one in Islam takes this sort of thing seriously? I started surfing the Islamic media.
Take Dr Al-Qaradawi, the controversial Egyptian imam who was recently fawned over by the Mayor of London even though he promotes the execution of homosexuals, the right of men to indulge in domestic violence, and the murder of innocent Jews. During the brouhaha it went unnoticed that he also wants to conquer Europe. Don’t take my word for it, just listen to him on his popular al-Jazeera TV show, Sharia and Life.
‘Islam will return to Europe. The conquest need not necessarily be by the sword. Perhaps we will conquer these lands without armies. We want an army of preachers and teachers who will present Islam in all languages and in all dialects,’ he broadcast in 1999, according to the Middle East Media Research Institute, which translates his programmes. On another programme he declared, ‘Europe will see that it suffers from a materialist culture, and it will seek a way out, it will seek a lifeboat. It will seek no life-saver but the message of Islam.’
Far from being on the fringe, his immensely popular programmes are watched by millions across the Middle East and Europe. The BBC cooed that he has ‘star’ status among the world’s Muslims.
Dr Al-Qaradawi, who is based in Qatar, is also the spiritual guide of the hardline Muslim Brotherhood, which is growing across Europe, and whose leader Muhammad Mahdi Othman ’Akef declared recently, ‘I have complete faith that Islam will invade Europe and America, because Islam has logic and a mission.’
In the most sacred mosque in Islam, Sheikh Abd al-Rahman al-Sudais of the Grand Mosque in Mecca uses his sermons to call for Jews to be ‘annihilated’ and to urge the overthrow of Western civilisation. ‘The most noble civilisation ever known to mankind is our Islamic civilisation. Today, Western civilisation is nothing more than the product of its encounter with our Islamic civilisation in Andalusia [mediaeval Spain]. The reason for [Western civilisation’s] bankruptcy is its reliance on the materialistic approach, and its detachment from religion and values. [This approach] has been one reason for the misery of the human race, for the proliferation of suicide, mental problems and for moral perversion. Only one nation is capable of resuscitating global civilisation, and that is the nation [of Islam].’
Al-Sudais is the highest imam appointed by our Saudi government ally, and his sermons are widely listened to across the Middle East. When he came to the UK in June to open the London Islamic Centre, thousands of British Muslims flocked to see him, our so-called race relations minister Fiona Mactaggart shared the platform, and Prince Charles sent a video message. He is probably the closest thing in Islam to the Pope, but I haven’t recently heard the Pope call for the overthrow of all other faiths.
Saudi Arabia, whose flag shows a sword, seems unabashed about its desire for Islam to take over the world. Its embassy in Washington recommends the home page of its Islamic affairs department, where it declares, ‘The Muslims are required to raise the banner of jihad in order to make the Word of Allah supreme in this world.’ Saudi Arabia has used billions of its petrodollars to export its particularly harsh form of Islam, Wahabism, paying for mosques and Islamic schools across the West. About 80 per cent of the US’s mosques are thought to be under Wahabi control.
Saudi Arabia’s education ministry encourages schoolchildren to despise Christianity and Judaism. A new schoolbook in the kingdom’s curriculum tells six-year-olds: ‘All religions other than Islam are false.’ A note for teachers says they should ‘ensure to explain’ this point. In Egypt, the schoolbook Studies in Theology: Traditions and Morals explains that a particularly ‘noble’ bit of the Koran is ‘encouraging the faithful to perform jihad in God’s cause, to behead the infidels, take them prisoner, break their power — all that in a style which contains the highest examples of urging to fight’.
A popular topic for discussion on Arabic TV channels is the best strategy for conquering the West. It seems to be agreed that since the West has overwhelming economic, military and scientific power, it could take some time, and a full frontal assault could prove counterproductive. Muslim immigration and conversion are seen as the best path.
Saudi Professor Nasser bin Suleiman al-Omar declared on al-Majd TV last month, ‘Islam is advancing according to a steady plan, to the point that tens of thousands of Muslims have joined the American army and Islam is the second largest religion in America. America will be destroyed. But we must be patient.’
Islam is now the second religion not just in the US but in Europe and Australia. Europe has 15 million Muslims, accounting for one in ten of the population in France, where the government now estimates 50,000 Christians are converting to Islam every year. In Brussels, Mohammed has been the most popular name for boy babies for the last four years. In Britain, attendance at mosques is now higher than it is in the Church of England.
Al-Qa’eda is criticised for being impatient, and waking the West up. Saudi preacher Sheikh Said al-Qahtani said on the Iqraa TV satellite channel, ‘We did not occupy the US, with eight million Muslims, using bombings. Had we been patient and let time take its course, instead of the eight million there could have been 80 million [Muslims], and 50 years later perhaps the US would have become Muslim.’
It is difficult to brush this off as an aberration of Islam, which is normally just tickety-boo letting the rest of the world indulge in its false beliefs. Dr Zaki Badawi, the moderate former director of the Islamic Cultural Centre in London, admitted, ‘Islam endeavours to expand in Britain. Islam is a universal religion. It aims to bring its message to all corners of the earth. It hopes that one day the whole of humanity will be one Muslim community.’
In Muslim tradition, the world is divided into Dar al-Islam, where Muslims rule, and Dar al-Harb, the ‘field of war’ where the infidels live. ‘The presumption is that the duty of jihad will continue, interrupted only by truces, until all the world either adopts the Muslim faith or submits to Muslim rule,’ wrote Professor Bernard Lewis in his bestseller The Crisis of Islam.’

The first jihad was in ad 630, when Mohammed led his army to conquer Mecca. He made a prediction that Islam would conquer the two most powerful Christian centres at the time, Constantinople and Rome. Within 100 years of his death, Muslim armies had conquered the previously Christian provinces of Syria, Palestine, Egypt and the rest of North Africa, as well as Spain, Portugal and southern Italy, until they were stopped at Poitiers in central France in ad 732. Muslim armies overthrew the ancient Zoroastrian empire of Persia, and conquered much of central Asia and Hindu India.
Ibn Warraq, a Pakistani who lost his Islamic faith, wrote in his book Why I am not a Muslim, ‘Although Europeans are constantly castigated for having imposed their insidious decadent values, culture and language on the Third World, no one cares to point out that Islam colonised lands that were the homes of advanced and ancient civilisations.’
It took 700 years for the Spanish to get their country back in the prolonged ‘Reconquista’. In the meantime the Turks, a central Asian people, had been converted to Islam and had conquered the ancient Christian land of Anatolia (now called Turkey). In 1453 they captured Constantinople — fulfilling Mohammed’s first prediction — which was the centre of the Eastern Orthodox Church. The glorious Hagia Sophia, which had been one of the most important churches in Christendom for nearly 1,000 years after it was built in ad 537, was turned into a mosque, and minarets were added. The Turks went on to occupy Greece and much of the Balkans for four centuries, turning the Parthenon into a mosque and besieging Vienna, before retreating as their power waned.
In the Middle East, there are regular calls for Mohammed’s second prediction to come true. Sheikh Muhammad bin Abd al-Rahman al-’Arifi, imam of the mosque of the Saudi government’s King Fahd Defence Academy, wrote recently, ‘We will control the land of the Vatican; we will control Rome and introduce Islam in it.’
Not all conversion has been by the sword. Muslim traders peaceably converted Indonesia, now the most populous Islamic nation. But nor have the conquests stopped. Islam has continued spreading in sub-Saharan Africa, most notably in Nigeria and Sudan. Abyssinia — Ethiopia — is an ancient Christian land where Muslims have come to outnumber Christians only in the last 100 years. Just 50 years ago, Lebanon was still predominantly Christian; it is now predominantly Muslim.
Of course, Christianity has been just as much a conquering religion. Spanish armies ruthlessly destroyed ancient civilisations in Central and South America to spread the message of love. Christians colonised the Americas and Australia, committing genocide as they went, while missionaries such as Livingstone converted most of Africa.
But the difference is that Christendom has — by and large — stopped conquering and converting, and indeed in Europe simply stopped believing. Even President Bush’s most trenchant critics don’t believe he conquered Afghanistan and Iraq to spread the word of Jesus. It is ironic that by deposing Saddam, who ran the most secular of Arab regimes, the US actually transferred power to the imams.
I believe in a free market in religions, and it is inevitable that if you believe your religion is true, then you believe others are false. But this market is seriously rigged. In Saudi Arabia the government bans all churches, while in Europe governments pay to build Islamic cultural centres. While in many Islamic countries preaching Christianity is banned, in Western Christian countries the right to preach Islam is enshrined in law. Christians are free to convert to Islam, while Muslims who convert to Christianity can expect either death threats or a death sentence. The Pope keeps apologising for the Crusades (even though they were just attempts to get back former Christian lands) while his opposite numbers call for the overthrow of Christendom.
In Christian countries, those who warn about Islamification, such as the film star Brigitte Bardot, are prosecuted, while in Muslim countries those who call for the Islamification of the world are turned into TV celebrities. In the West, schools teach comparative religion, while in Muslim countries schools teach that Islam is the only true faith. David Blunkett in effect wants to ban criticism of Islam, a protection not enjoyed by Christianity in Muslim countries. Millions of Muslims move to Christian countries, but virtually no Christians move to Muslim ones.
In the last century some Christians justified the persecution and mass murder of Jews by claiming that Jews wanted to take over the world. But these fascist fantasies were based on deliberate lies, such as the notorious fake book The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Now, many in the Muslim world are open about their desire for Islam to conquer the West.

and being able to marry who you love is a less important right?

you can't have it both ways. if majority rules in america, then it also rules in other countries.

You can't force American political ideologies on other nations. I know that our dear President thinks we can, but let's be serious for a second here. Saying that all nations must have free democratic elections and freedom of religion is the same as the Muslim nations trying to say that all nations must have a tyrannical, theocratic government.

Firstly, I can understand your "let’s leave history behind" request. After all, it hardly helps your case.

If you wish to try some quotes from "holy books" try some of these:

"And that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams, shall be put to death; because he hath spoken to turn you away from the LORD your God..." (Deuteronomy 13: 5)

"If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers;" (Deuteronomy 13: 6)

"Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him: But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people." (Deuteronomy 13:8-9)

"Thou shalt surely smite the inhabitants of that city with the edge of the sword, destroying it utterly, and all that is therein, and the cattle thereof, with the edge of the sword." (Deuteronomy 13:15)

"Every one that is found shall be thrust through; and every one that is joined unto them shall fall by the sword. Their children also shall be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their houses shall be spoiled, and their wives ravished." (Isaiah 13:15-16)

"And to the others he said in mine hearing, Go ye after him through the city, and smite: let not your eye spare, neither have ye pity: Slay utterly old and young, both maids, and little children, and woman: but come not near any man upon whom is the mark; and begin at my sanctuary. Then they began at the ancient men which were before the house." (Ezekiel 9:5-6)

"Ye shall utterly destroy all the places, wherein the nations which ye shall possess served their gods, upon the high mountains, and upon the hills, and under every green tree: And ye shall overthrow their altars, and break their pillars, and burn their groves with fire; and ye shall hew down the graven images of their gods, and destroy the names of them out of that place." (Deuteronomy 12:2-3)

Unfortunately, many Christians believe that the Bible is the literal word of God, and must be followed to the letter.

Well, you have stated that the use of historical fact is "not related" and should be "left behind".

I have little doubt that you will now claim that quotes from the Bible are "not related" and should also be "left behind".

Leaves you starting to look like nothing other than the ignorant biased intolerant fundamentalist xenophobe that you are accusing others of.

You may want to include that all of the examples you cited are from the OT, and that Christians believe that the OT is no longer relevant law since the birth, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ happened.

You may want to include that all of the examples you cited are from the OT, and that Christians believe that the OT is no longer relevant law since the birth, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ happened.

And yet ... they still keep it as part of their Bible and quote it every time it serves their agenda.

You may want to include that all of the examples you cited are from the OT, and that Christians believe that the OT is no longer relevant law since the birth, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ happened.

See what happens when you don't read the whole thread?

A previous member has already tried this "cherry-picking" exercise. Funny how it applies when you want it to, and not when you don't.

But, as I said, this has been addressed.

Page 12 contains several quotes from the old testament.

Oh, and if you are still having trouble reading the whole thread, we have already had the "not literal", "out of context" and "for an ancient society" defences. And been assured that they apply only to the Bible, not to any other sacred texts.

i can't be hacked with reading all 13 pages...but here's my view on it.

The OT is still relevant to Christians, as it preaches the coming of Christ. Any Christian who calls it irrelevant is in effect blaspheming. So to the guy who was quoting from the OT - you were right to do so.

However, in defence of Islam, what they are doing now is merely what the non-Muslim peoples (mostly Christians) have done over the past few millenia. What's wrong with it?

If you say nothing, then leave them be.
If you say everything, then you're being rather hypocritical. Your society was probably based on religious strife.

Personally, I believe that religion is an individual affair, only to be shared with others in a non-coercive fashion. All religious texts say something along the lines of: 'Try to convert as many people as possible to the true path, but don't worry about those who don't let themselves be converted - God will fuck them up real bad.' Nuff said

Oh, and if you are still having trouble reading the whole thread, we have already had the "not literal", "out of context" and "for an ancient society" defences. And been assured that they apply only to the Bible, not to any other sacred texts.

Noone ever said that it only pertainted to the Bible. As I see it most ancient texts should not be taken literally, nor should you ever pick half of a sentence to support your arguement and forget the other half that goes right against it. And as far as the ancient society thing goes, the Old Testament is not really something Christians are supposed to follow, it is left in the Bible as a history of Christianity. The issue here is not whether or not we should take ancient texts literally. We are supposed to be discussing freedom of religion in muslim countries, or lack there of.

You can't force American political ideologies on other nations. I know that our dear President thinks we can, but let's be serious for a second here. Saying that all nations must have free democratic elections and freedom of religion is the same as the Muslim nations trying to say that all nations must have a tyrannical, theocratic government.

Freedom of religion is a human right. You should not be hunted down for what you believe. You should never grant it to one group and not another.

We are supposed to be discussing freedom of religion in muslim countries, or lack there of.

Now that's a contradiction.
Of course there's no freedom of religion in 'Muslim' countries, precisely because they are Muslim countries. There's nothing wrong with that.

If there was no freedom of religion in a hypothetical state where Muslims were a majority, but a fully secular state existed, then that would be a problem. Like France. I see France as far worse than any of the Muslim states.
If you want to have freedom of religion - don't go and live in a state where the compulsory state religion isn't your own! It's like going to Germany and complaining that everyone speaks German not English!

Freedom of religion is a human right. You should not be hunted down for what you believe. You should never grant it to one group and not another.

I'm sorry...who made these human rights?
Oh yes...the 'Christian Democratic' West, led by America. Fair enough.

However, in defence of Islam, what they are doing now is merely what the non-Muslim peoples (mostly Christians) have done over the past few millenia. What's wrong with it?
Because the was "the past few millenia" The situations changed and if they can't adapt we'll force them too.

Because the was "the past few millenia" The situations changed and if they can't adapt we'll force them too.

the situation has only supposedly changed because the West has developed...let's face it, the Islamic world hasn't developed as much in any sense. And I don't see the West rushing to help the rest of the world along economically...if we wish to push them in a religious sense, we must be consistant and do it in all areas, not just ones that suit us.

the situation has only supposedly changed because the West has developed...let's face it, the Islamic world hasn't developed as much in any sense. And I don't see the West rushing to help the rest of the world along economically...if we wish to push them in a religious sense, we must be consistant and do it in all areas, not just ones that suit us.
Where did you learn strategy?

Like France. I see France as far worse than any of the Muslim states.
:confused: Why is France far worse than any of the Muslim states? Would you explain please. When it comes to freedom of religion, France has it. After all, the banned the wearing of all conspicuous religious symbols, large crosses and yarmulke, not just head scarves. :confused:

Because the was "the past few millenia" The situations changed and if they can't adapt we'll force them too.

We will bribe them. We will sell wine, jet fighters, air-conditionning, porn and cable TV for a few million barrels of oil. And they will change themselves.

Eventually (when the oil runs out) we may be able to sell them our religion, but for now they can buy everything they want without changing.

I'm sorry...who made these human rights?
Oh yes...the 'Christian Democratic' West, led by America. Fair enough.

Don't worry about Neo, he only believes that freedom of religion is important if:

(a) you only put the aspects of religion that he likes into law
(b) Christians are the ones supposedly being oppressed.

Now that's a contradiction.
Of course there's no freedom of religion in 'Muslim' countries, precisely because they are Muslim countries. There's nothing wrong with that.

Not really. When Islam was first beginning, the ruling power was often Muslim. However, Jews and Christians were both allowed to live their lives as they were seen to be "partially enlightened." Ancient Muslims were very tolerant of other religions.

A country can be a theocracy and still allow everyone to practice their religion of choice.

oh yeah christians NEVER go on "missions" to random parts of the world to bring "the love of christ" to the poor local heathens or to reenforce the idea christ loves the people after being conquered by christians hundreds of years ago and forced to change their religion and practices to those supported by the christians and get christian names like jesus or juan or maria or something.

and yeah check out history the muslims were the most tolerant religion, militant yets, intolerant no. the christians stamped out everything. only within the past couple hundred years i say has islam been taken over by people like the taliban and christians just START to be more accepting.

oh yeah christians NEVER go on "missions" to random parts of the world to bring "the love of christ" to the poor local heathens or to reenforce the idea christ loves the people after being conquered by christians hundreds of years ago and forced to change their religion and practices to those supported by the christians and get christian names like jesus or juan or maria or something.

and yeah check out history the muslims were the most tolerant religion, militant yets, intolerant no. the christians stamped out everything. only within the past couple hundred years i say has islam been taken over by people like the taliban and christians just START to be more accepting.

This is unfortunately true. One of the reasons that Christian "missionaries" are not allowed into many Muslim countries like Indonesia is that too many tribes were forced to convert by such missionaries "at the end of the sword." Being Christian is not illegal there, nor will the local people (especially in the rural areas) really hold it against you if they know you. But missionary and Christian both hold very poor connotations there because of past atrocities. These connotations are only beginning to be dispelled.

Freedom of religion? To hell with that! A concept the entire world needs to understand is freedom FROM religion.

Why is France far worse than any of the Muslim states? Would you explain please.

France has gone well beyond secularism into the realm of militant atheism.

When it comes to freedom of religion, France has it.

As long as no one else knows that you have it.

After all, the banned the wearing of all conspicuous religious symbols, large crosses and yarmulke, not just head scarves.

Notice which religions are actually affected by this. Notice that yamulke (in some cases) and head scarves are both articles of clothing that the person will feel indecent without. Notice that, regardless of whether *all* religious symbols are banned, this is still militant atheism with the purpose of eradicating religious feelings in schoolchildren, not simply of secularising the *state*.

Freedom of religion? To hell with that! A concept the entire world needs to understand is freedom FROM religion.

Any true freedom of religion would include the latter.

I'm sorry...who made these human rights?
Oh yes...the 'Christian Democratic' West, led by America. Fair enough.

Well personally I like to think torture, murder, rape, oppression, intolerance etc are wrong whether or the west does or does not say so. Maybe you think that these things are all based in a certain amount of cultural relevancy?

:confused: Why is France far worse than any of the Muslim states? Would you explain please. When it comes to freedom of religion, France has it. After all, the banned the wearing of all conspicuous religious symbols, large crosses and yarmulke, not just head scarves. :confused:

never thought i'd say it, but go france! if all the letter-writing girlfriendless whiners aren't going to say 'under god' in the pledge, then they can't parade THEIR religion around schools.

don't get me wrong, i have great respect for other religions, and one of my best friends is muslim, but lets face it folks, it's a two way street.

never thought i'd say it, but go france! if all the letter-writing girlfriendless whiners aren't going to say 'under god' in the pledge, then they can't parade THEIR religion around schools.

don't get me wrong, i have great respect for other religions, and one of my best friends is muslim, but lets face it folks, it's a two way street.

How exactly does someone *else* wearing a head scarf hurt *you*?

Oh wait.... it doesn't.

Any true freedom of religion would include the latter.

VERY interesting, and i think accurate as well.

How exactly does someone *else* wearing a head scarf hurt *you*?

Oh wait.... it doesn't.

How exactly do the words *under God* hurt someone else? if they don't like them, don't say them. there are alternatives to getting the pledge changed to please the minority.

How exactly do the words *under God* hurt someone else? if they don't like them, don't say them. there are alternatives to getting the pledge changed to please the minority.

Many people do simply skip over them, but what you either don't know or don't understand is that the original pledge didn't even have "under God" in it. The pledge was changed *specifically* to discriminate against atheists, which is absolutely wrong. Those who argue that the words should be removed are simply asking to go back to the *original* version of the pledge, which was used much longer than the one we have now.

How exactly do the words *under God* hurt someone else? if they don't like them, don't say them. there are alternatives to getting the pledge changed to please the minority.
its not so much that it hurts me as it shouldnt be there. it was placed there by pro religious nutters riding a wave of superiority during the communist era placing god in everything. "in god we trust" wasnt OFFICIALLY on money until the mid 1900s, same with under god in the pledge

and i never recalled saying under god in the pledge because i never did. all during elementary school we used the version previous to the under god version (ironically the biggest redneck backwards ass school around)

Many people do simply skip over them, but what you either don't know or don't understand is that the original pledge didn't even have "under God" in it. The pledge was changed *specifically* to discriminate against atheists, which is absolutely wrong. Those who argue that the words should be removed are simply asking to go back to the *original* version of the pledge, which was used much longer than the one we have now.

whatev. all i'm saying is that religions could have a little MUTUAL respect for each other. my muslim friend is faithful to Islam, but has no beef with the 'under god' clause of the pledge. If they (i know i sound bigoted but i'm not trying to) are adamant about wearing their religious paraphernilia to school, they shouldn't have a problem with two words.

it does annoy me when people use religion as a platform from which to preach to others. sure, the bible says a lot of things. the bible says i can have slaves and should sacrifice to god. that doesn't make it right.

as for the whole atheist thing, i don't know anything about that. so whatev.

excuse me while i go slaughter a lamb.

:headbang:

Why woulda muslim have a problem with saying under god?

You realise the Koran basically establishes that muslims worship the same god as Christians. Oh wait, no you don't, you fuckers never read it. In the Koran, Jesus is recognised as a prophet, along with all the other jewish and christian prophets. Muslims just think Christians and Jews have deviated from the true path, etc.

And also, Allah is just the Arabic word for God. It's not some seperate entity.

God is God.

Why woulda muslim have a problem with saying under god?

We say "Allah" because it has no gender connotation. Allah is above such things. God can have a Goddess.

And also, Allah is just the Arabic word for God. It's not some seperate entity.


Not quite. Allah actually means "the Being Who comprises all the attributes of perfection". Ilah means "god".

Contrary to popular belief, the word Allah is NOT a contraction of al-ilah (al meaning 'the', and ilah meaning 'god').

Had it been so, then the expression ya Allah ('O Allah!') would have been ungrammatical, because according to the Arabic language when you address someone by the vocative form ya followed by a title, the al ('the') must be dropped from the title. For example, you cannot say ya ar-rabb but must say ya rabb (for 'O Lord'). So if the word Allah was al-ilah ('the God'), we would not be able to say: ya Allah, which we do.

and yeah check out history the muslims were the most tolerant religion, militant yets, intolerant no.

The books "Why I am not a Muslim" and "Islam Unveiled" both dispute your statement as does history.

During the medieval period when european nations were regularly persecuting, murdering and exiling jews, the muslim countries of the Middle East were remarkable for their tolerance and reapect for the Jews and Christians who loved in their countries. The only time they didn't do this was when Christians turned up in large numbers to murder and drive them out believing they were doing God's will.

People in glass houses etc....

Actually, christians and jews living in muslim lands were bound by rules that prevented them from testifying against a muslim in court, blaspheming against islam (which carried a death penalty, and you couldn't testify in your defense), holding authority over any muslim, building or repairing houses of worship, building houses higher than those of their muslim neighbors, owning weapons, marrying muslim women (muslim men could marry christian or jewish women), wearing the same clothes as muslims, etc. Plus they had to pay a punitive tax. So much for absolute tolerance. That was a myth promoted by politically correct historical revisionists. Saudi Arabia, Yemen, and others also have laws on the books to restrict religious freedom for non-muslims today.
I'm from the USA.

I'm sorry that you havn't been able to read abot Islamic history.
1- Jews and christians had and have the right to testify against muslims. The Khalifh Umar was taken to court by a jewish man that accused him of taking properties that belonged to him. When Umar steped into the courtroom the judge got up in respect for him and Umar had him fired.

2- The tax they paid was called " Jizya " and it was taken from them to provide protection. When muslim forces retreated from a city theywould return the money to their respective owners.
Lets not forget that corrupted people have perverted the teachings of Muhammed.

Facts About Islam:

- gave women the right to property, inheritance, the right to choose a husband on her own.

- gave jews and christains a special position by calling them"the people of the book" and told muslims in the koran not to trea them injustly.

- was not spread by the sword, if it was there would not have been any christains left in Spain to launch the recounquest. The fact that not a single muslim army ever landed in south east asia and it having the largest concetration of muslims in the world should prove that. There is also a large Christain population in almost all arab countries( Saudi Arabia not included) and they have no problems with muslims.

-Some of the greatest Jewish theologians lived in muslim spain where peace, tolerance, and prosperity was a code of law.

The koran states

" ...and tell them O Muhammed that he who kills a single innocent life it is like he has killed all of humanity. And he who saves a single human life it is like he has saved all of humanity."

" ... religion is not to be made compulsary... the truth is clear from the wrong."

" Those who believe from the believers and the Jews and the Christains and the Sabians and believe in the oneness of God and believe in the day of reckoning they would have their reward with their Lord"

Finally: The prophet Muhammed states.

" Allah does not like injustice, and if a person was to rise their hands to the heavens and seek retribution to an opperssion which was committed against him, Allah would be swift in coming to his aid even if he was not a muslim. Allah would support a nation so long as they are fair in their judgment and will abandon a nation if they opress the people whether they are muslim or not"

hopefully that cleared up some misconceptions. If you take a closer look at the actual teachings of Muhammed you would see that very few muslims actually follow it.

*Iran is Shiate Islam their not even mainstream.

please excuse my spelling.

Thank you for explaining away the Bible.

I should have realised that words do not literally mean what they say, that bias and discrimination should be taken in the context of "an ancient society".

You have, of course, merely argued my case for me.

Now, lets see if you can accept the same reasoning for those attacking Islam.

Or are the scriptures of other faiths not subject to the same interpretations and revisions?

Remember, my last line from the quotes from the new testament was :

Now, kindly explain how Islam is violent and intolerant in comparison.


The issue is more about the practice of the religion, less the dogma. I know you are familiar with my current views on the separation of church & state. But I will say this, the English versions of the translations from the original Aramaic being quoted (eg. "HATE") are fair game for discussion. In my earlier days when I studied such things, this verse was handled in exactly the way described by Collegeland. Hate means to love less. Interestingly the words that have been translated "LOVE" come from a variety of Aramaic, & later Greek, words having a range of meanings.

Interestingly, the practice of Christianity is also a far cry from the dogma. Personally I would prefer a more mature view of the universe and any God that there might be. These interpretations of God that are religion are below juvenile and to a one are destructive influences on public peace.

Due to the lack of paragrafs, I couldn't muster the strength reading that article, but the first part reminds me of George W. Bush's "crusades"...

I'm sorry...who made these human rights?
Oh yes...the 'Christian Democratic' West, led by America. Fair enough.
Actually in America it was Ben Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, etal who were nominally Christian but truly more pragmatist who made freedom of religion a basic human right. Exactly because these petty religious squabbles are disruptive and ridiculous wastes. However your words seem to prefer ongoing strife over the nature of God and whether or not a person has the right to live their lives as they see fit. Since that is the stated intent of some Islamics then they will be opposed by force if necessary. There are plenty of non-Christians who will join that fight.

Many people do simply skip over them, but what you either don't know or don't understand is that the original pledge didn't even have "under God" in it. The pledge was changed *specifically* to discriminate against atheists, which is absolutely wrong. Those who argue that the words should be removed are simply asking to go back to the *original* version of the pledge, which was used much longer than the one we have now.

Amen brother! :D :D

Why woulda muslim have a problem with saying under god?

You realise the Koran basically establishes that muslims worship the same god as Christians. Oh wait, no you don't, you fuckers never read it. In the Koran, Jesus is recognised as a prophet, along with all the other jewish and christian prophets. Muslims just think Christians and Jews have deviated from the true path, etc.

And also, Allah is just the Arabic word for God. It's not some seperate entity.

God is God.
A little note: Not all Christians think Jesus is God and even fewer think Mary has deity status. As for deviating from the "true path" Christian sects believe that about each other. The stated Islamic view is quite different.

How exactly does someone *else* wearing a head scarf hurt *you*?

Oh wait.... it doesn't.

You are right, and my saying a prayer or the words "under God" in school doesn't hurt you either. In France they are at least consistant by banning the wearing of religious symbols in school for all religions.:headbang:

Amen brother! :D :D
sister :D

You are right, and my saying a prayer or the words "under God" in school doesn't hurt you either. In France they are at least consistant by banning the wearing of religious symbols in school for all religions.:headbang:
Forget France. Bush is also consistent. It doesn't make for sound public policy. It is an intrusive ruling. People should be left to express themselves individually as you can by saying what you will on your own. That is fine. But to dictate that others say what you wish is intrusive. Using 'under God" in the pledge of allegiance is an intrusion and an imposition of religious belief. It is unconstitutional in the USA.

sister :D
Apologies,

AMEN SISTER! ;)

That was Dempublicients & you or which what?

Just to clarify, I am not insulting Islam here. Islam has some very high ideals which I respect. I disagree with them about the importance of Jesus but anyway. Islamic states on the other hand are extremely authoritarian in there practise. Just a case in point, why dont Islamic nations teach comparitve religion. Is it that they think Islam is so weak that it will not stand up to comparison. Granted in the UK and US there are single faith Christian school, but you have a choice not to go to them. In many Islamic nations however all schools teach Islam as being the only true faith and any others are heritical.

It is unconstitutional in the USA.

Not yet I don't think. Hasn't the Supreme Court decided to take the case? :confused:

Apologies,

AMEN SISTER! ;)

That was Dempublicients & you or which what?
No I just know she has busted my chops before for making an assumption
And rightfully so

(maybe it was not mine but someone elses) either way I learned the lesson

Amen brother! :D :D

(Sister) =)

Just to clarify, I am not insulting Islam here. Islam has some very high ideals which I respect. I disagree with them about the importance of Jesus but anyway. Islamic states on the other hand are extremely authoritarian in there practise. Just a case in point, why dont Islamic nations teach comparitve religion. Is it that they think Islam is so weak that it will not stand up to comparison. Granted in the UK and US there are single faith Christian school, but you have a choice not to go to them. In many Islamic nations however all schools teach Islam as being the only true faith and any others are heritical.

If you are not insulting Islam then why do you continue to suggest it is Islamic states that are the problem (as opposed to... well, we can guess) rather than non-secular states?

You are right, and my saying a prayer or the words "under God" in school doesn't hurt you either.

No one stops you from saying a prayer in school - as long as it is not led by an administrator. If you are being kept from personal prayer, you have grounds for a lawsuit.

The "under God" was specifically added to discriminate against atheists - it isn't really even in the pledge of allegiance.

In France they are at least consistant by banning the wearing of religious symbols in school for all religions.:headbang:

And you think they should be consistent in the US by forcing everyone to acknowledge the Christian God?

Both extremes are wrong - putting one religion foremost, and banning all religions.

thay last article was really a lot of bs. we cant just say a religion is terrible because corrupt governments practice it. the first thing it says is that mslims believe that they should conquer the world, unlike chrisians. well, christians have done a pretty good job of conquering the world since the emporer constantine.

(Sister) =)
I'll do my best (not all that great, but my best) to remember that!

Amen Sister!

Not yet I don't think. Hasn't the Supreme Court decided to take the case? :confused:
Not yet, but that is my position on it.

The people the article discuss's make me uneasy. But no more than any evengelical christian does. Both consider me evil, heritic, whatever. I'm atheist. Let whom worship whatever they want is what I say. I heard some time ago, that in maybe a hundred years, Europe will be predominatly muslim, but what bugs me, is will the indigounous cultures cease to exist? It only takes one nut to screw things up and become like another Taliban and whipe out all the non muslim culture from their land

Not yet I don't think. Hasn't the Supreme Court decided to take the case? :confused:

The Supreme Court has skirted it on a technicality, as the man who sued didn't actually have custody of his daughter, and his daughter didn't even share his beliefs.

However, the addition of the extra phrase was, itself, unconstitutional - and it is only a matter of time before someone with the authority to do so brings the case up.

The people the article discuss's make me uneasy. But no more than any evengelical christian does. Both consider me evil, heritic, whatever. I'm atheist. Let whom worship whatever they want is what I say. I heard some time ago, that in maybe a hundred years, Europe will be predominatly muslim, but what bugs me, is will the indigounous cultures cease to exist? It only takes one nut to screw things up and become like another Taliban and whipe out all the non muslim culture from their land
At the current rate of french birth vs. arab muslim immigration and birth in France within 20-30 years the majority of the people within France's borders will be Arab muslims.

If you are not insulting Islam then why do you continue to suggest it is Islamic states that are the problem (as opposed to... well, we can guess) rather than non-secular states?
Because the Vatican doesn't go around killing people that it disagrees with. At least, that I know of.

We have only the world's best interests at heart and are almost entirely moderate in our outlook. You should trust our better judgement. We are very happy to allow you total freedom in accordance with the principles outline in Sharia and by the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH).

Please stop being racist against us at once, you devilish white infidels.

The Kaliph :sniper:

Because the Vatican doesn't go around killing people that it disagrees with. At least, that I know of.

Kindly read the entire thread.

Then go to "google". Look up the French wars of religion, "bloody Mary", German wars of religion, the crusades, and the Spanish inquisition, for starters.

Then return with an informed opinion.

We have only the world's best interests at heart and are almost entirely moderate in our outlook. You should trust our better judgement. We are very happy to allow you total freedom in accordance with the principles outline in Sharia and by the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH).

Please stop being racist against us at once, you devilish white infidels.

The Kaliph :sniper:

Pardon, but your pathetic puppetry is presumably proof of profound and probably permanent perceptual problems.

Persistence only perpetuates peolpe's problems.

Kindly read the entire thread.

Then go to "google". Look up the French wars of religion, "bloody Mary", German wars of religion, the crusades, and the Spanish inquisition, for starters.

Then return with an informed opinion.

Christians do not arest/kill non Christians ANY MORE. Muslims did it in the past and they are doing it now. Everyone remebers the crusades but forgets the Muslim conquest of medievil SPAIN. The diffrence is Christians have stopped, Muslims havnt.

If you are not insulting Islam then why do you continue to suggest it is Islamic states that are the problem (as opposed to... well, we can guess) rather than non-secular states?

Well what would you like me to call them. Islamic theocracies? Muslim nations? Arab states? All of these do have intollerant and indocrinitve policies. There are no Chrisitan states where people are arested for spreading anti-christian litriture.

Kindly read the entire thread.

Then go to "google". Look up the French wars of religion, "bloody Mary", German wars of religion, the crusades, and the Spanish inquisition, for starters.

Then return with an informed opinion.
Within the last 58 years the Vatican hasn't endorsed any wars connected to religion. How's that.