It probably makes him harder to reason with.

Islam is a peaceful religion.

4:89 They long that ye should disbelieve even as they disbelieve, that ye may be upon a level (with them). So choose not friends from them till they forsake their homes in the way of Allah; if they turn back (to enmity) then take them and kill them wherever ye find them, and choose no friend nor helper from among them,

9:29 Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Messenger have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection.

So there you have it. Kill people who convert away from Islam. Fight those who don't believe in Islam or follow its rules, unless they pay tax in acknowledgment of Muslim's superiority and are in a state of subjection.

Both the quran, the tanakh and the bible undeniably have extremely violent passages. This doesn't necessarily mean that Islam is not a peaceful religion. Most muslims live as removed from their holy work as modern mainstream Christians do.

Many people will then argue that the bible contains the teachings of Jesus, while neglecting that so does the Quran.

Now there are undoubtedly extremist sects of muslims, and it's only a few decades since we had extremist sects of Christians operating. If you go back to the 30s and through the 40s you had jewish sects and terrorists.

We also shouldn't confuse islamic religious extremists with political extremists which happen to be muslims. Most of the conflicts in the middle east are political, though admittedly an effect of the recent invasions in the middle east is that the traditionally rather strict boundary between religious and political extremist have been muddled.

FWIW I think muslims suck, but I'm with the crowd that doesn't concentrate on the details of religion much. Religion is much more dependent on social dynamics than social dynamics are dependent on religion. At the very least, trying to combat religious belief is a very ineffective way to go about changing someone's values. It is much more effective to try to persuade him from within the religion, to try to present yourself as a friend of his religion and try to show the reasonable behaviour as a teaching of his own religion.

I'm not really interested in the definition of 'Muslim' (I don't sweep leaves when it's windy, either), I'm just wondering where you get the idea that the vast majority of Muslims are essentially doing it wrong. Tens of millions of American Jews and Christians don't think homosexuality, adultery and witchcraft should be punishable by death. Their holy book says otherwise - are they likewise doing it wrong? Are they not Jews/Christians?

Christianity can be written off in a sentence. Something like if you believe jesus was god and you accept his sacrifice for all your sins then you are in the club.

I don't know about jews although i believe the hardcore don't believe you are a real jew if you don't live like them including having a rabbi suck the blood after circumcising you. So maybe they aren't real jews, I dunno.

Anyway, having a large family alone serves the great jihad. You don't have to blow up infidels, just do your bit to achieve the world domination of islam. So in fact they mostly aren't doing it wrong. Mass immigration is more effective than 9/11 anyway.

And by comparison with Islam? As in, why do you think that rigid, literal adherence to the letter of the Qur'an is necessary for 'real Muslim' status, but if you believe that Jesus was god you're a Christian regardless of all else?

But who gets to decide that? Them? You?

Aaaaand now I see where we're going with this. Oh well.

Accepting jesus is the central point of christianity. You don't just have to believe in him, you have to accept him even if you have been naughty. Like the thief on the cross. Submitting to allah is the central point of islam. There is a bonus point of obedience. No beer and pork for starters. Although wiki says a bad muslim can possibly get limited hell and then can go to heaven so maybe it's more like catholicism.

But world domination is part of the end game and I don't see many muslims who would actually state that they want the west to stay western without the constraints of islam, even if they don't desecrate war memorials.

When was the last time you saw moderate muslims going on a pro freedom of speech march to defend the rights of people to criticise islam?

I'm really not knowledgable at all about Judiasm. Not much point in me even talking about it.

This still doesn't address why you (seemingly) think 'real' Christians need not obey every tenet of the Bible, but also think that 'real' Muslims do need to obey every tenet of the Qur'an.

1) How do you know that world domination is 'part of the end game'?

2) How many Muslims do you know, and how many have you spoken to about these issues?

3) Is it safe to assume that you believe the world would be a better place if Islam didn't exist?

How knowledgeable are you about Islam, and where did you come by this knowledge?

Now that the 20th has come and gone, does anyone know if there were any incidents?

UN calls it the biggest population change in the history of the world.

What is that? It is the islamization of Europe. By 2050 countries like France are have a muslim majority. The demographics future, you can google that fwiw, is terrifying.

Regarding the topic (free speech), it is just one of the things we need to forget.

Islamists give us infidels two options:

1) Succumb to Allah.

2) Fight to the death.


Oour politically correct leaders & elite have chosen to capitulate so far, especially here in Europe.

Mark steyn ( http://www.steyonline.com ) writes really good observations regarding this subject. One of the things he writes is that if a country's population consists of muslims 20% or more then it is not free anymore by the Western standards.

More books are translated intoto Spanish each year that has EVER been translated into Arabic. One of the top3 Western bestsellers in the muslim world is Mein Kampf. My battle. Almost like Jihad.

What did Churchill and Hitler say about Islam:

Hitler:


"Hitler usually concluded this historical speculation by remarking: 'You see, it's been our misfortune to have the wrong religion. Why didn't we have the religion of the Japanese, who regard sacrifice for the Fatherland as the highest good? The Mohammedan religion too would have been much more compatible to us than Christianity. Why did it have to be Christianity with its meekness and flabbiness?'"

Churchill, one of the men who beat Hitler, wasn't a fan of Islam either:


"How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy.

The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live.

A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property, either as a child, a wife, or a concubine, must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men.

Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities, but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it.

No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it had vainly struggled, the civilization of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilization of ancient Rome.

-- Sir Winston Churchill (The River War, first edition, Vol. II, pages 248-50 [London: Longmans, Green & Co., 1899])."


Think of poverty and Islam being coincidences?

I wonder if Hitler preferred cotton or Satin sheets? Because clearly whatever he likes is evil.

Haha, you know your religion is ****ed when Hitler wants it.

I know it is a fallacy to think whatever Hitler liked is automatically bad, but this still made me laugh.

I know that eventually, someday, someone who believes this will give me at least one good reason why they believe it. Will you be the one?

Yes, nothing says capitulation like banning burqas...

Something tells me ol' Adolf's opinions aren't necessarily connected with reality in any strict sense... oh, look, there's more:
So the Buddhists are in on it too? Always the quiet ones.

Hardly surprising, all things considered:


From the 'Literary Review' of Richard Toye's 'What Winston Really Wanted'.

Not really sure what you mean. Religious extremism and poverty are certainly correlated. Assuming (and I don't think it's unreasonable) that some causal relationship exists, I know which one I think is easier to tackle.

It just goes to show you their true evil colors, every once in while the devil shows he true evil colors.

Who's evil here the Muslims or the atheists? Both right?

the hate on islam itt is nothing short of appalling.

They are different religions. They have different requirements. Also you seem to think that definitions aren't important. I disagree. An atheist in Iran that publically claims to be a muslim to avoid being executed for "apostasy" isn't really a muslim in my book. I could say my whole family are catholics if being that liberal with the label even though I suspect my grandma is the only true catholic. I don't think mere belief in Allah's existence is enough either as the religion is called submission after all. Disregarding definitions is like arguing the existence of God with no consensus on what we both mean by God. It's better to go by the book than ask muslims themselves simply because of the book. In other words, believers can lie to unbelievers so they keep their guard down. A reason we hear alot that Islam means peace when it means submission. I don't want Islam to influence my life and freedoms in any way. I know bits and bobs. The internet etc. Freedom of speech is a big no no in europe. The man who made Fitna might be getting jailed this year even though it just includes Quranic quotes, rantings and atrocities which is all truth. Truth=illegal.

Also there is Sharia law in the uk

This is similar to the following:
Why does the UK have sharia law? The politicians want to give the west away. That's why.

The UK operates under sharia law? News to me!

Hate on Islam? I think its them that hate others, in my opinion.

Believe me they have the religion of hate, you should study more.

Christians are not after killing people.

Now please dont tie the stupid Catholic thing into this, I am talking about Christians not Catholics, and when I say Christians I am talking about those who are and know the truth.

So there is then somewhere in the Bible a clear and unambiguous edict that large tranches of the Bible can be ignored? Or is it more just that religion isn't the only factor that influences the mores and social norms of a culture?

I do think definitions are important, just not for this particular discussion at this particular time. You haven't offered one, anyway, just referred to a series of situations where one could feign a religious belief. 'Someone pretending to be a Muslim isn't a Muslim' doesn't lend any strength to your (bizarre) claim that Muslims who don't want to conquer the world - constituting, as they do, the vast majority of people world-wide who identify as Muslim - are not 'real Muslims'. I reject that claim, but you know who agrees? Bin Laden and his ilk. Strange bedfellows, eh?
I forget the name of the doctrine, but some Christians (I think it might be Catholics) have this also - the ability to essentially lie about their faith in certain situations.

I find the bolded part interesting. Do you mean 'my' Muslims, who you say aren't really Muslims, or 'your' Muslims, who are all terrorists? I'll rephrase the question, then: how many of 'my' Muslims do you know, and how many of them have you spoken to about these issues?

That's not an answer.

That really does not inspire confidence in your authority on these matters. You wouldn't have me represent you in court because I know bits and bobs about the law from the internet. You wouldn't let me act as your physician because I know bits and bobs about medicine from the internet... right?

Well, he's being tried under anti-hate speech laws, sure. But I'm with the New York Times - the guy called for the Qur'an to be banned; where does he get off moaning about free speech? That said, I hope he's aquitted.

As to the question of whether his film contains 'all truth' - it, and various statements made by Wilders, makes the claim that there is a necessary connection between violence and adherence to Islam. I disagree.

But what does 'Sharia law in the UK' mean to you? As in, what do you think it actually entails?

Sooo...? You intend to join the ranks of those who have failed to provide an answer?

Why do they want to give the West away? I want to see how deep the rabbit-hole goes here...