BD,

Your comment is still far from the truth:

The definition of the enemy is not elastic in Islam: an enemy is defined by someone armed and driving you out of your land/home. And you only fight until you property is restored. It is a clear cut statement “fight those who fight you and do not transgress” Salahudin didn’t follow the French/ Crusades into Europe after he chased them out. Further more he treated his fellow Christian and Jewish friends with the same love and courtesy (his prime minister was a Christian and his doctor/physician was a Jew). The pre-emption is only used in your beliefs not mine. Your history is full of it.

The elastic definition can only exist in a terrorist mind and that ‘probably explained why most of their victims are Muslims. You forget that these groups started by blowing up other Muslims like myself since early last century. Its not about religion to them but its about control.

Hitler made an elastic definition and so were the serbs who killed and raped in the name of your religion (including blessing by high priest filmed on TV). Look at some of the neo-con websites in the US and what they are openly calling for. There are nuts everywhere outside the nutshop!.

Yes there seem to be many interpretations of the Koran; Yes there seem to be a plethora of Islamist terrorists - but that loses sight of the fact that we are witnessing mans inhumanity to man; it may be today fought under the banner of some distorted concept of Islam but we ouight to see beyond that. Violence has been committed in the name of lots of gods - but at the monent it is Allah press tema that are getting all the work.

In the days of the reformation there was wide spread slaughter of christian by christian; the catholics after resting power from the moors slaughtered and exiles jews and muslims from Spain after the mulsims over saw a growth in the aesthetic, the economy and religious tolerance.

It is a waste of time to pick bits out of context from the religious texts and expect to base a real arguement on them - I mean if your wife is old and barren the bible seems to endorse you shagging your sister in law or one of your slaves - slaves indeed!

Verses at twenty paces is a recipe for disaster we simply have to talk to each other; dispense with preconceptions and see where we end up;

Kenny: Jh.2:10 was to warn Christians about Judaisers who were apparently trying to get them back to Judaism.
The koran tells its followers not to be friendly with unbelievers. Some quotes even say it's OK to slay unbelievers - to be-head them actually.
AGAIN! I do not hate moslems. but I do not like at all their religion its aims and conduct. At the risk of appearing dogmatic I see them as arrant death loving, misogynist pagans. numbat

Numbat,

Read my posting above. Muslims are not allowed to fight anyone except
within defending themselves and hence the reference you refer to.
Muslims should treat unbelivers "who do not wage war" against them is a good manner.

"I don't hate [Muslims]. I just see them as death-loving, misogynist pagans." Is it just me or is this quote a tad insensitive towards people of the Islamic faith? I also feel it may be contradictory if I'm not mistaken. Not so much a case of "love the sinner, hate the sin" but more "love the sinner, hate the sin...nah, stuff it, hate the sinner as well."

Of course, Muslims can adequately defend themselves against such ludicrous rubbish. A more serious issue is that Islamic extremists will use these types of anti-Muslim diatribes in their recruitment campaigns. Way to go!

"American power, however, under the Reagan Administration propped up Saddam Hussein in his war against Iran, supported Saudi Arabia ... bla bla bla.

If I hear this one more time, I'm going to scream. Listen, all of you, Reagan did not "prop up Saddam", except to play one side agaisnt the other. Reagan was not Saddam's friend, OK

Have you all ever heard of Iran-Contra? Duhhhhhhhhhh. This is where the Reagan Administration supplied arms to IRAN in exchange for Iran giving weapons to the Contras. This almost got RR impeached.

Reagan played both sides, which was the best way to handle an impossible situation (A plague on both your houses...). He did not want either side to win. A somewhat imoral attitude, but probably in the US best interests.

If you want anti-semetism, look at modern liberals and Muslims of any shape and form.

Conservative Christians and Moderate Muslims share many social norms, but they cannot work together, because Muslims refuse to allow full freedoms to Christians where they domninate. They may not be enemies, but they sure aint friends.

Liberal Christians, on the other hand, love Islam and cannot be too nice to it. The NCC-USA (National Council of Churches) even defends Mohammud's actions and has a link to a book promoting Islam on its site's main page. The NCC obviously never read the Hadiths either, otherwise they would be better informed about the life of Islam's great prophet.

As I read these arguments above, they all sound familiar...

Ciao.. Adios.. Uma boa noite a todos

Juan, aka kactuz