R0bert,

In all sincerity I find your analytical ability lacking and quite disappointing.

My anti-Islam agenda was clear from the start. You failed to discern and then suggest I've been hiding something.

I'm foremost anti-Islam, not anti-Muslims. Islamic ideology manifests itself in human acts. I do not go around chasing and attacking Muslims. But a Muslim who actively protects the 'honour' of Muhammed and rationalizes evil doings carried out in the name of Islam and projects soft image of Islam naturally becomes my target.

You said: "- any muslim who...embrace peace, tolerance....just a very clever actor."
Your analysis is completely wrong. Read my earlier posts. I proved that FH does not really understand 'tolerance'. Not that I thought he was pretending or acting. I've always known Muslims have a warped sense of tolerance and peace. I simply attempt to prove and highlight the hypocrisy for all to see.

Your thinking that I am unfair and prejudicial is misguided. I do not attack or even mildly criticise any other ideology- Atheist, Buddhism, Christianity... Zzzzism. Not even Communism or Fanaticism (except with a caveat- as long as it is not Islamic).

My suggestion that Muslims are guilty/suspects by association is not a reckless anti-Muslim view as you may think. A hint- What happens in one part of the world can trigger events in other far-away places.

BUT THIS YOU SAID: "...none...christians on this site...challenge your views so far - guilt by silence...?". You statement is very POOR TASTE and very OFFENSIVE. I question your INTEGRITY foremost.

I do have some insight into Islam. Islam has been around and me too. (But you're a novice.)

Your belief that conflict with Muslim is provoked by people like me is SERIOUSLY FRAUDED. A hint- I mentioned earlier "Islam's uniquely deceptive"

It was obvious to me (very early on) you have a sort of propensity that actually makes it harder for you to open your mind to some ideas. If you value the trait you earlier mentioned "...a willingness to seek out a better understanding..." then this is something to think about.

Fellow Human – you criticise my source material. This following is the situation anyone who wants to understand Mohammed finds themselves in.

By the end of the seventh century Islam had expanded right across North Africa and up into Spain, and east as far as India. The Qur’an (according to tradition) was the centerpiece of their faith. Within that enormous sphere of influence, there should be some Qur’anic documents or manuscripts which have survived. Yet, there isn’t even a scrap from that period. There is literally nothing from the first three generations of Islam to suggest that the Qur’an existed.
“While Christianity can claim more than 5,500 known Greek fragments and manuscripts of the New Testament, 10,000 Latin Vulgates and at least 9,500 other early versions, adding up to 25,000 New Testament sources still in existence (McDowell, Evidence that Demands a Verdict), most of which were written between 25 to 350 years after the death and resurrection of Christ (or between the 1st and 4th centuries), Islam cannot provide a single manuscript until well into the eighth century (Lings, Safadi, Schimmel). If Christians could retain so many thousands of ancient documents, all of which were written centuries earlier, at a time when paper had not yet been introduced, forcing the dependency on papyrus which disintegrated more rapidly, then one wonders why Muslims were unable to forward a single manuscript from this much later period? This renders the argument that all the earliest Qur’ans simply disintegrated with age, absurd to the extreme.”

And you want to dispense with the only biography of Mohammed available! Ibn Hisham and al-Tabari both used the non-extant biography written by Ibn Ishaq around 750AD. Hisham wrote that he excluded material that was disfavourable to the prophet, al-Tabari used Ishaq when the material he collected conflicted with Ibn Ishaq i.e. Tabari considered Ishaq the authority not himself.

Allah says in the Q 100’s of times to follow the prophet’s example. The Q doesn’t contain hardly anything about Mohammed. Tabari is the history, Sahith Bukhari/Muslim are thematic reports only.

As for the similarities between apocryphal gospels and Tabari – there is none. Tabari/Hisham (who admits he edited unfavourable stuff from Ishaq) are the only history we have.

The apocryphal Gospels were written more than a century after the canonical ones. By those who had much to gain from the changes.

Islam has nothing earlier than Ishaq, if the only biographical info of Jesus were the Gnostic Gospels written 100 years after Jesus then we would have to take them seriously. But these documents were rejected by Christians because they had the authentic accounts at hand. When the canonical gospels were accepted there were ppl alive who could confirm or refute what was written in them. This is how they took their central place among the early Christians.

The Christian West has a long history of self censorship, I’d argue that these elements have gone to far lately are ideologically driven and have severely weakened our society. But remember no such tradition exists in Islam, it is religiously forbidden.

Christian source material has been scrutinised for two thousand years you’re on a hiding to nothing trying to defend Islamic source material as against the Christian.

I guess I'll add another century to my batting record.

From what I have seen ,heard,done,listened to and looked at on all forms of media in the past 27 years as a REAL Bible believing Christian aged in my 60's I have some wisdom as the Bible says," to look to the grey headed elders for wisdom".

I don't know it all, but see that religion is getting hated worldwide because of this RAGE from ALL Muslims not just the fanatics.

Jim Bramlett's site put out an e -mail a few days ago called "RAGE".With
It is all about Muslims, mad ,crazy,fist shaking,gun firing,yelling,abusive rage from men ,women,and kids as young as 3yrs old.
Some kids have machine guns and are burning flags of the West.This will be instilled in their psyche forever.
So,we can look forward to these hate filled demo's or world war 3 sooner or later .

I would like to add, that no where in the New Testament Bible does it say to kill,maim,abuse or retaliate ,anyone who hates you.
Jesus, a Prophet recognised by Islam ,and who is The Son of God ,tells no lies ,He can't ,He said," to love one another".

Islam or Muslims don't take this Prophet of God seriouslly ,but rampage all over the world in every country .

It cannot be stopped now as The Bible says they will cut off heads and kills Christians in the end days and think they are doing God a favour .
Have we reached that yet,I say "Yes"?

It is hard to me to assess a forum from some comps, so with some delay responding to

“Muslims rioting over a cartoon ? Nonsense. Why are they burning any flag other than Denmarks? Why is Iran blaming the Jews?

Posted by Benjamin, Wednesday, 8 February 2006 6:41:43 PM”


must admit once again that difference in mentality is a significant issue.

A cartoon is a next significant opportunity to express this difference on the streets while blaming the Jews for inspiring the Christian cartoonists, in all sins unthinkable as usual.
Are Muslims original in this