loudmouth

My understanding is that because Mohammed and his followers were illiterate, that is, unable to read or write, the story was dictated by Mohammed to scribes, and the only written language available was Aramaic.That doesnt mean the Mohammed spoke it.I understand that he spoke a tribal arabic dialect.

There are several sites that will explain this.

If interested look up also palimpsets found in a minaret in Sa'ana Yemen that were some of the oldest scribings ca 11th century If I remember correctly

Here is good old sincere Uthman playing the victim and justifying the Boston Bombings,plus every other atrocity, on the Evil West.

Its all our fault!!

But when the worldwide Caliphate is established everything will be OK.
Sharia law is the answer.

Actually he is very good at the ancient art of taqiyya-lying to and deceiving the infidel dogs for the benefit of Islam.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S9dFwx_OG8g

What a clever little article, turning on its head the main complaint agains islam that its so-called moderates must take a stand against the radical rump and saying it is the West and its moderates who must do the rooting out of the fanatics, not islam.

The author sprays around some examples of a drunken soldier stabbing a boy and the mysterious murder of a venerable muslim scholar as showing how islam is a victim of the West like the West is supposed to be a victim of islam.

It is third rate sophistry contradicted endlessly by the daily examples of islamic atrocities:

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/cleansing_christians_from_syria/

Islam is a primitive religion which has not evolved since its inception. It is like a living fossil of humanity's beastial past. The author's attempt to not only show equivalence by the West with islam's violence but that it is worse is grotesque; without the West Nazism, Facism and Communism would be rampant today.

With catholicism undergoing a justified trial for its vile deeds islam will remain as the last vestige of mankind's primitive past when religious based horrors were inflicted upon humanity.

The article makes 4 points which I summarise as follows:
1) Western nations commit violence on a larger scale than Muslim countries
2) The media of the West highlight atrocities against Westerners and play down the atrocities committed by Westerners
3) The Western public is uncritical of the Western media
4) The West has some serious problems within its own liberal-democratic framework

Many commentators here appear to insinuate that these points are presented as justification for Muslim violence. That is not the case: For one the author does not make such an assertion and secondly when one points out that X is wrong this does not mean that they imply that Y is right.

To criticise the article one must evaluate whether the points raised in the article are valid and whether the arguments are sound.

Unfortunately many of the comments here ignore this and focus instead on Muslim injustices. That would result in a big fat "Fail" for your school essay because the first rule is: your comments must address the topic: Western injustices.

Others conflate the role of the author and his beliefs with the points made in the article, committing the ad hominem fallacy. Again: Fail. Whether the author has an objective with his article or not is irrelevant with regards to the validity of the points he raises.

Others attempt to retort with 'you wouldn't be able to say this in a Muslim country'. This reasoning commits the straw-man fallacy, because nowhere does the author state in this article that he could. Fail.

Others simply assert that the author stereotypes Westerners. Where does he do so? I remember him stating "most Westerners are peaceful people". Straw-man: Fail.

Others again attempt to make their point by attaching vague reasoning to undefined concepts such as 'good' and 'evil' hoping to categorize people, beliefs and behaviours. Vagueness fallacy: Fail.

As a reader we may object on an emotional level with how we interpret an article, but if we want to learn from, and contribute to a conversation, we would do well to use disciplined reasoning.

Oh come on Mitch@T4R, there are only two thing to learn from this article.

1/ We must stop feeding the rubbish in the world, in the hope that it will stop biting the hand that feeds it.

2/ We should not allow a single one more in the country, & should deport any one who so much as J walks. Only fools not only allow a 5Th column to continue to function in their country, but actually feed it as well.

I would suggest to the author that even the west will only continue to turn the other cheek for so long. When our patience finally runs out, I suggest, you aint seen nothing yet.

Meanwhile we must stop loosing some of our best, trying to help these people. They are not worth the effort, & definitely the whole lot are not worth a single one of our men's lives.

I think it might be a very good time for them to start pulling their heads right in. Once the US is self sufficient in energy, attacking them will become much more dangerous

Mitch@T4R,

"your comments must address the topic: Western injustices."

Actually you've missed the point entirely (is that a category mistake?) the key phrase is-

"Muslim violence pales in comparison to western violence in all respects: " - any attempt to refute that statement requires an examination of Moslem violence, doesn't it? Of course there are a number of parameters we could use.

We could also agree with the author's proposition, but reject his supporting arguments.