Jardine, the Sarin and such was moved into Syria. This is why there is a multinational effort currently destroying the stockpile in Syria.

Yuyutsu, you confuse the Ottomans with the original Muslim conquest. Interestingly the Ottomans were the only state in history where fratricide was law. The new Caliph was, under the Ottoman law required to have all his brothers killed. Thus, one assumes removing the most likely suspects in any rebellion. it did however present a problem when the Caliph died. On one occasion the new Caliph was a mildly demented uncle found hiding in the Hareem, perfect evil grand Vazeir fodder.

When the Ottomans reached the gates of Vienna the first time, they left a deserted landscape peopled by corpses behind them. All of Southern Austria was effectively empty of any living thing. Bit of a mistake, that because when they retreated they starved in their thousands.

The defenders of Vienna heard the screams of their captives being thrown alive into the campfires the night before the Ottoman army withdrew.

The second time they reached the gates of Vienna, the city was saved after an epic seige by a European coalition led by Jan Sobieski. The celebration of this event is held on September 12th, and is a matter of great Polish pride.

Interesting story Jan.
We seem to have lost a lot of our European history.
If the sieges of Vienna were included in our school history I wonder
if there would be so many excusers of Islam.

Personally I had heard of the siege of Vienna and I thought there was
only one siege. I certainly did not have it covered in my education
and only read of it incidentally.

It certainly puts the Islamic Caliphate and its threats into context.
How many are aware that they believe that any territory that was once
conquered by moslems is always moslem. Watch out Spain. err & Lakemba.

Dear Jardine,

If Gibbons is correct, then this is fantastic, then what is known today as "Islam" are the teachings of Abubeker, having added, deleted and modified whatever he wanted, while poor Muhammad could have been a saint who never sanctioned these atrocities.

<<And why not just be moral to our fellow human beings, and cut out the middle-man of an imaginary superbeing?>>

First, because many cannot do it without that middle-man. Many wouldn't find the incentive otherwise.

Second, while achieving morality is a remarkable landmark, morality is only where religion begins, not where it ends: religion stops at nothing short of God-realisation - the direct and permanent experience of one's unity with God.

Obviously there is no such super-being in existence, but as human mind is frail and has no capacity to grasp God, if the best one can do is to imagine God as a super-being, such as Allah, then at least they have taken a step forward, embarking on a journey that will, by submission to this [imaginary] Allah and practising their devotion in the prescribed manner, chip away their ego, bit by bit. If they persist, then as their ego shrinks, which stands in the way to God-realisation, this brings them a step closer to God.

“If Gibbons is correct, then this is fantastic, then what is known today as "Islam" are the teachings of Abubeker, having added, deleted and modified whatever he wanted, while poor Muhammad could have been a saint who never sanctioned these atrocities.”

Could be.

But as I understand it, there is universal agreement that the text is a good rendition of what Mohammed actually said: far more contemporaneousl and accurate, e.g., than the Gospels.

“First, because many cannot do it without that middle-man. Many wouldn't find the incentive otherwise.

Second, while achieving morality is a remarkable landmark, morality is only where religion begins, not where it ends: religion stops at nothing short of God-realisation - the direct and permanent experience of one's unity with God.”

Well that assumes the religious perspective is right.

But if we assume there is no God, then some other theory must explain religion.

The best one I have heard is from evolutionary theory. Religion is an evolved adaptation because it’s good at getting genes into the next generation, either by aiding survival, or by aiding reproduction.

Since religion doesn’t have any obvious survival value – and often counts against it, e.g. martyrdom – we should inquire how it aids in *reproductive* success.

We can immediately see lots of ways that it can do, and has done this. Off the top of the head, three:
1. The greater sexual and reproductive opportunities for the charismatic leaders, for example, Moses and the patriarchs with their wives and concubines, Mohammed, Joseph Smith, even Knox and Calvin. Even Jesus had plenty of opportunities, whether or not he took advantage of them.

2. The greater sexual and reproductive opportunities for religious functionaries in all cultures, e.g. Hindu priests charged with the holy defloration of temple virgins, the Inca and Aztec priests, African holy men, the Australian Aboriginal custodians of religious knowledge. Again even in sex-negative Christianity, the sexual privileges of clergy through the ages are notorious.

3. The greater marriage-marketability of an ordinary guy able to present himself as religious: faithful, with dutiful belief in paternal investment etc.

What about that?

Dear Jardine,

You provided several evolutionary advantages for faking religion, which is sadly therefore commonplace, but none for actually being religious.

Indeed, religion has no survival or reproductive value: the more one is absorbed in God, the less one wants anything to do with the world.

Overall I thought this was a thoughtful and reasoned argument in favour of a more moderate response to the hysteria regarding ISIS and the Muslim threat generally. The following quote from HL Mencken is apposite here.

On different tack, I couldn't help but notice that one poster is up to his/her old tricks, and yes LEGO, I'm referring to you and your ilk. As far as your comments go on this and other posts where you have made your presence felt, they have about as much integrity and utility as a model aeroplane built from the same product you disguise your true identity with, accompanied by the same level of intellectual sophistication, mental acuity and emotional maturity one might expect from that same brand's target market. Whenever reasoned and reasonable people witness the immovable object of ignorance meeting the irresistible force of arrogance, we will no doubt find folk of your ilk loitering anonymously with mean spirited, malicious intent. If you feel that strongly that your POV is of any value and feel that it is worth putting it out there, might I respectfully suggest you submit your own article, with supporting evidence, documentation, references, links etc. and sans the splenetic vitriol - and put your real name to the piece. That to me is the true test of people who have the courage of their convictions - enough to put their backside on the line in public - and the integrity that goes with the territory.

Otherwise you are just a 'trolling' spoiler with nothing better to do to do with your time. In short, any critique you offer from what I have seen is completely undermined by your compulsive-obsessive need to spray your bile all over the place under the convenient cover of a pseudonym. Then, and only then, would I - and I suspect many others on this and any other post you deem fit to pollute with your half-baked insights and venomous sarcasm - be interested in taking you seriously much less engaging in any kind of discourse with you on any level.