Sept 11th, 1683. Violent global jihad stopped at the walls of Vienna, under armies of Polish King. 2001 was Al-Zawahiri's 50th year. After leading the assassination of Anwar Sadat in 1981, he told us, quite plainly, the "true Islamic religion" was being resurrected. He later joined the two dates in history: 9/11.

My concern is that Orhans strongest evidence isn't presented. Sayyid Imam [Dr. Fadl] wrote the edicts used by Al-Qaeda. Then renounced violent Jihad. He now attracts interest due to his 'deradicalisation' of Muslim youth. The drop-kick groupies, who have been bred, fed, educated and nurtured in 'infidel' nations are simple pond scum in the eyes of Islam. Why? Democracy is forbidden over Dhimmitude and the quest to dominate the world for Allah. Jihad is reached after lengthy debate/discussion/introspection.

Egypian jails working their magic on Fadl? Torture however, doesn't explain why Bin Ladens "battlefield comrade", UK based Mu'man Bin Othman, is also mighty pissed at Extremists. They still seek our demise - but fear for the souls of misled Muslims. *Indiscriminate* killing of Muslims, isn't sanctioned.

http://firesnake.org/index.php?post_id=373256

Noting the above, the authors general thesis has significant merit. In defence of defending a genocidal medieval scam artist [God changed his mind and by sheer fluke, we have to kill anyone who won't join me; Abrogation], it was truly those who followed that took his model and cut loose - no pun intended - polluting the world with the insanity we see today. Still, modelling oneself on a monotheistic sociopath who beheaded 7-900 polytheistic Jews, launching 1400 years of anti-Semitism, is disturbing.

Where he loses most is reinterpretation of scripture, denying evolution and calling for more faith school propogation of ignorance - at tax payer expense, of course. Hard to argue against ignorance being exploited, then insist the solution is more intense ignorance factories. His fragility is exposed in his failure to note UN Human Rights Commission has been hijacked by a twist of the right to free speech vs exploitation and /or abuse of same, used malignantly to supress democratic nations voicing concern over Islamic violence. What scamologists call "Islamophobia".

Paradise awaits any who prosecute the prophets doctrine - including via Taqiyya - which is most unfortunate for any Muslim in pursuit of trust, and devastating for Orhans quest to be representing key dynamics. Not one pillar of Islam was raised for elucidation.

Orhans failure to acknowledge the UNHR tragedy is deeply, deeply concerning. How he expects a patient ear, when the erosion of human rights in favour of the Cairo Declaration - which largely demotes humans to agents in the realisation of Allahs rights- global domination - is chilling. Humans have no rights, only Allah.

http://firesnake.org/index.php?post_id=370757

How can a sociopolitical model - which Islam is - that demands destruction of all we have achieved to secure equality, rights, tolerance and avenues for social justice be "integrated" into an opposing social model? It can't. How can calculated lies and misinformation fed to children, shown to invite social division and derision of innocents add anything beyond ignorance, withdrawal and conflict?

The view that Islamist teens and young adults will all be good little citizens is much like saying if we educate young drivers speeding, accidents will reduce. Well, no they don't. So at the last we turn to science to understand the brain - not mind - of precognizant humans. And we see the ability to act rationally, is 'compromised'.

Perhaps an analogy. Islam is the Nissan with the big exhaust. "Sure dad. Promise. I'll never speed". The difference, is the UN now prevents governments from confiscating these 'cars'. Sacred vessels. "It's our religion and saying speeding kills is abuse of the right to free speech. Doubt me you filthy infidel copper? Suffer man, the UNHR backs me up". Oh - and tax payers pay for the car, the court case, the material... the lot. "Hoonphobia" must be stopped. This hideous abuse of our deepest beliefs...

The UK legislated to allow Sharia Law Courts, to assist with integration:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J9BPH32tJKI&feature=related

Islam; what the west needs to know:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-871902797772997781

Also, "Farewell Israel" is enlightening. Pro-Jewish, but with an entire religion against them, I can hack one movie to balance things out:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a-IwwfeLp4M

david f,

"The so-called “members of other faiths” alluded to by Muslims are nearly always just nominal members who have no active involvement. They are neither inspired by, nor do they credit religion as Muslim terrorists do, and this is what makes it a very different matter. Islam is associated with Islamic terrorism because that is the association that the terrorists themselves choose to make. Muslims who compare crime committed by people who happen to be nominal members of other religions to religious terror committed explicitly in the name of Islam are comparing apples to oranges. By contrast, Islamic terrorists staged nearly ten thousand deadly attacks in just the six years following September 11th, 2001. If one goes back to 1971, when Muslim armies in Bangladesh began the mass slaughter of Hindus, through the years of Jihad in the Sudan, Kashmir and Algeria, and the present-day Sunni-Shia violence in Iraq, the number of innocents killed in the name of Islam probably exceeds five million over this same period. In the last six years, there have been perhaps a dozen or so religiously-inspired killings by people of all other faiths combined. No other religion produces the killing sprees that Islam does nearly every day of the year. Neither do they have verses in their holy texts that arguably support it. Nor do they have large groups across the globe dedicated to the mass murder of people who worship a different god. Muslims may like to pretend that other religions are just as subject to "misinterpretation" as is their “perfect” one, but the reality speaks of something far worse. The first Crusade began in 1095… 460 years after the first Christian city was overrun by Muslim armies, 457 years after Jerusalem was conquered by Muslim armies, 453 years after Egypt was taken by Muslim armies, 443 after Muslims first plundered Italy, 427 years after Muslim armies first laid siege to the Christian capital of Constantinople, 380 years after Spain was conquered by Muslim armies, Cont...

david f,
...Cont. 363 years after France was first attacked by Muslim armies, 249 years after Rome itself was sacked by a Muslim army, and only after centuries of church burnings, killings, enslavement and forced conversions of Christians. By the time the Crusades finally began, Muslim armies had conquered two-thirds of the Christian world. Europe had been harassed by Muslims since the first few years following Muhammad’s death. As early as 652, Muhammad’s followers launched raids on the island of Sicily, waging a full-scale occupation 200 years later that lasted almost a century and was punctuated by massacres, such as that at the town of Castrogiovanni, in which 8,000 Christians were put to death. In 1084, ten years before the first crusade, Muslims staged another devastating Sicilian raid, burning churches in Reggio, enslaving monks and raping an abbey of nuns before carrying them into captivity. The Crusades were provoked by the harassment of Christian pilgrims from Europe to the Holy Land, in which many were kidnapped, molested, forcibly converted to Islam or even killed. (Compare this to Islam’s justification for slaughter on the basis of Muslims being denied access to the Meccan pilgrimage in Muhammad’s time). The Crusaders only invaded lands that were Christian. They never attacked Saudi Arabia or sacked Mecca as the Muslims had done (and continued doing) to Italy and Constantinople. The period of Crusader “occupation” (of its own former land) was stretched over less than two centuries. The Muslim occupation is in its 1,374th year."

Themistocles, Kactuz

There is a certain kind of self-righteous pundit who, on finding himself at the losing end of an argument, declares a moral victory and then retreats behind a barrage of ad hominem attacks. Rather than engage with the substantive issues – in this case the outlandish claim that Islam has nothing to do with terrorism – he repeats the same empty pieties over and over.

There is no point in getting upset with someone of that ilk. They are what they are.

In the case of a professed atheist like CJ Morgan the arguments he advances are especially egregious. He asks us to give Muslims a free pass in cases where he would be leading the charge were Christians to make analogous claims.

David f

I am no admirer of Christianity. But your description of relationships between Muslims and non-Muslims is a-historical. Yes there were times and places when relatively enlightened Muslim rulers in Dar ul Islam allowed a reasonable amount of diversity. Those times and places were the exception rather than the rule. Most of the time "kafirs" did it tough under Islam. By and large they still do.

For a run down on the fate of "kafirs" under Muslim rule I recommend Andrew Bostom's "The Legacy of Jihad: Islamic Holy War and the Fate of Non-Muslims".

See: http://www.amazon.com/Legacy-Jihad-Islamic-Holy-Non-Muslims/dp/1591026024/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1249999724&sr=1-2

For a more specifically Jewish angle try Robert Wistrich's "Anti-Semitism: The Longest Hatred". It has a long chapter on Muslim Jew-hatred.

http://www.amazon.com/Antisemitism-Longest-Robert-Solomon-Wistrich/dp/0805210148/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1249999828&sr=1-3

The best that can be said about Jew hatred in Dar ul Islam, as opposed to Christian Jew hatred, is that Muslims weren't as efficient in organising pogroms as Christians. On average they killed fewer Jews per pogrom.

The other saving grace was that Muslim rulers often appointed Jewish viziers – sort of Prime Ministers. The reason was entirely practical. A Muslim vizier might overthrow the ruler. A Jew couldn't.

For Jews secular democracy is always the best option. Theocracies, be they Muslim or Christian or anything else, always turn out to be bad news.

Well, as far as I am concerned, this posting has run its course.

Thanks to all of you - or at least those of you - that care about liberty and human rights enough to speak up for them and not accept the idea that we must be silent so that others can feel good about themselves and/or a religion.

Notice that Cicek has not responded. Note that he twisted and misquoted both the Quran and ahadith to make them sound better. Note that he doesn't want to talk about the vile actions of the man he considers to be a great moral example. This should tell you all you need to know about "moderate" Muslims.

Thank you, Constance, for the great summary of history. Note that our apologist friends here would have a hard time finding an example (at least in the last few hundred years) of Christians chanting "Jesus saves" while killing men women and children. Now think Beslan. Think of bombings. Think Darfur. Think Pakistan. It will get worse.

Stop making excuses for Islam. Appeasement will only bring greater sorrow and suffering. I wonder if I will live to see a major political leader in the West (other than Wilder) stand up and national TV and tell an Imam the truth about Islam. All we need is one brave person to get a guy like Cecik on TV and ask him "Listen here, I want you to explain your love for a god that enjoys torture. I want you to explain why you say PBUH after the name of a man that lets his men split open the bellies of pregnant women. I want you to explain the apostasy laws and discrimination in Islamic countries. Oh yes, I don't want to hear stupid excuses and I don't want you to blame others, as Muslims always do." At that point, we can begin to have a dialogue.

Kactuz

PS: I am still looking for a "moderate" Muslim to explain that verse about Muslims being put on earth to kill and be killed (9:111)