Fellow Human

Thank you. I found your Blog very interesting, and very nicely presented.

Cheers
Kay

Hey, BD, what's this obsession with food laws? Would you force a Buddhist, Hindu, Jain, vegetarian or vegan to have that steak? If they don't have the steak are they are an unassimilable minority? Should the Government therefore bar Buddhists, Hindus, Jains, vegetarians and vegans from migrating to Australia? What about Australian-born converts to Buddhism? Should they leave?

Shallow_Hubris. O solemn dispenser of 'wisdom' to the unwary.
YOU seem to show up ALL the time (d'you think you own OLO? you sound annoyed that Kaffirs are expressing their opinions? you seem to have time on your hands for posting on this forum, are you receiving jizya/benefits from the govt?) with your usual 'Muslims are soooo misunderstood' shtick and I-do-understand-but-obfuscate-and-resort-to-smokescreens-and-half-truths approach.
Taqiyya and kitman have been a part of Arabic culture for about fourteen hundred years. It was developed by Shi'ites, as you say, but is common to BOTH Shi'ite and Sunni Muslim discourse and has significant implications for understanding Islamic fundamentalism, Da'wa and terrorist operations (see Al Qaeda Training Manual).
In operational terms, taqiyya and kitman allowed mujahadeen to assume whatever identity was necessary to fulfill their mission; they had doctrinal, theological and jurisprudential sanction to pretend to be Jews or Christians to gain access to Christian and Jewish targets. In Islamic jurisprudence and theology, the use of taqiyya against Infidels is regarded as a virtue/religious duty.
AND this from a hard-core Muslim site:
" al-Taqiyya/Dissimulation.
.....I intend to demonstrate and prove that the concept of "al-Taqiyya" is an integral part of Islam, and that it is NOT a Shi'ite concoction........The following exposition will Insha Allah demonstrate the existence of al-Taqiyya in the Quran, Hadith, the Prophet's (PBUH&HF) custom, and the companions' custom. As usual, Sunni books will be used to further the argument. This is in keeping with the commitment to reveal the truth by showing that the Sunnis reject the Shia's arguments, while THEIR OWN books are replete (full) with the SAME ideologies that the Shia uphold! .... "al-Taqiyya is with the tongue only; he who has been COERCED into saying that which angers Allah (SWT), and his heart is comfortable (i.e., his TRUE faith has NOT been shaken.), then (saying that which he has been coerced to say) will NOT harm him (at all); (because) al-Taqiyya is with the tongue only, (NOT the heart)."NOTE: The two words "tat-taqooh" and "tooqatan," as mentioned in the Arabic Quran, are BOTH from the same root of "al-Taqiyya." CONTINUED.....

A pox on the 350 word limit!
.....Narrated in Sahih al-Bukhari, v7, p102, that Abu al-Darda' said:"(Verily) we smile for some people, while our hearts curse (those same people)."" al-Ghazzali wrote about (in his book, "Ihya `Uloom al-Din), but did not invent taqiyya, you schmendrick.
As for the Crusades, I suggest you study history (not the revisionist kind popular since the 1970s, funded by Saudi petro-dollars). You paint the 'innocent' Muslims to be the 'victims' in the Crusades, and many appeasement-weasels on this thread will, no doubt, be taken in by your oily rhetoric.
HOWEVER:
The Crusades were a delayed response to the Islamic jihad, and its purpose was to recover by war what had been lost by war — to free the holy places of Christendom and open them once again to Christian pilgrimage. Whatever sins Christians committed during their course, the Crusades were essentially a defensive action: a belated and insufficient attempt by Western Christians to turn back the tide of Islam that had engulfed Christendom. The lands in dispute during each Crusade were the ancient lands of Christendom, where Christians had flourished for centuries before Mohammed’s armies dhimmified, converted or killed them. If Westerners had no right to invade these putative Muslim lands, then beturbaned prophet-monkeys had no right to take them in the first place. The 'saders were following accepted conventions of the time: a city that resisted capture could be plundered. A city that did not resist could not be. The Muslims followed this rule many times. That's the way they did things in those days (zeitgeist). Saladin was, according to his biographer, filled with joy as he watched the decapitation of hundreds of Christians in 1187. Saladin preached jihad throughout his reign, making no secret of his desire to capture Jerusalem and massacre its Christian/Jewish inhabitants. It is ahistorical politicking to single out the Crusades as some kind of singular event in history, an excuse for contemporary Muslim bigotry.
And don't presume to tell me what a dhimmi is, you patronising half-wit. If I wanted to listen to an arsehole, I'd fart.
Apostasize now!

Can anyone here remember what the riginal article was about? Or are you too busy quoting verses and sources whose identical message can also be found in the Old and New testaments and the writings of the Talmudic rabbis and the church fathers?

"If I wanted to listen to an arsehole, I'd fart".

While this is an obnoxious and offensive comment, at least it explains the derivation of its author's nickname!