*I would also avoid living in a country where they have a form of religious observance that would make me extremely uncomfortable*

Ah Pericles, but that is exactly what the Swiss want to avoid
and what political Islam has made clear, they plan to make
Europe's destiny.

Let's say you hired a guy in one of your businesses and after
a short time there, he'd make it plain that in future he would
run things on his terms, not your terms, because you were a dill.

Your level of tolerance might well change.

Personally these days I am intolerant of the intolerant and
if we look at the reality of Islamic countries, intolerance
is the name of the game.

If you think I'm wrong, name me the list of Islamic countries
where people have free speech as we do.

Grateful, in response to your list, I remind you that old
Mohammed was indeed a smart fellow, but he also thought that
the end justified the means. So what was agreed and offered
today, might all change tomorrow, once Islam dominates.

Mohammed did indeed start his army/religion in Medina,
by raiding camel trains and it spread from there.

Ali Dashti is amongst the better of the scholars that I rely
on, for my information about Islam. For one, he was never
bankrolled by the Saudis.

His "23 Years" is about Mohammed's life and makes for
interesting reading, he was Iranian but eventually died
in Kohmeini's jails in his 80s.

"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...

.../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."

Yes massive death toll. To the west though only the causes that get you into the local desired club is all that matters.

If justice and truth were core values we would live in a better world.

Constance < "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".

Oh fair enough then! So it is ok for Christians to knock off each other then? Is that not murder anyway? Thou shalt not kill?

Do you really think you can hold up the Christian religions as pillars of society over the ages?

I would hazard a guess that their histories show just as much, if not more, violence and bloodshed as any Muslim religions.

A few examples:
The African slave trade, the Colonial Conquests of America, Australia, Ireland, and many others- all in the name of Christian countries like England.

In the 20th century, Rwanda, 1994 saw the killing of hundreds of thousands of Rwandans by each other, in a mostly Christian country.

1992-1995 Bosnia where hundreds of thousands of Muslims were killed by Christian Serbs.

People in glass houses Constance.

yabby,
Constance,
Way to go!

Suzeonline,

Your linking Christianity to the African slave trade in the context of Islam almost made me spill my cup of tea.
Here’s Part A of the true story:
http://islammonitor.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2724:islams-genocidal-slavery-part-a&catid=170&Itemid=67
And here are links to parts B to F
http://islammonitor.org/index.php?searchword=genocidal+slavery&ordering=&searchphrase=all&Itemid=1&option=com_search
Yeah, I know you’ll never read them but that can’t be helped.

grateful,

Koran 9:1 “A declaration of immunity by Allah and His Messenger towards those of the idolaters with whom you made an agreement.”

The treaty, if genuine, that you refer to is of no relevance excepting insofar as it gives insight into the nefarious nature of Islam.
As you should know, Koran 9:1-7 gives all the reasons why Muslims need not honour their treaties with “idolaters/pagans” (ie non-Muslims).
Treaties are simply to be used as a strategy to defeat the infidels.
That’s not me saying that, it’s in the Koran, as you should know.

Yes, Koran 9:4 might be cherry-picked by the apologist, but look what immediately follows it:
The infamous verse of the sword!
“Slay the idolaters wherever you find them”

The fact that you try to prove a point by using Mohammed’s “charter to the monks of St. Catherine Monastery in Mt. Sinai" demonstrates either that you are ignorant of Koran 9:1-7 or that you are being disingenuous.

Other OLO readers might like to speculate on the implications of Koran 9:1-7 in relation to peace negotiations in the Middle East.
Did you ever wonder why Hamas et al never seem to abide by their treaties?
It’s all in the Koran. Allah doesn’t require them to honour treaties with infidels.
Puts a different perspective on peace deals, doesn’t it?

I also note that grateful does not/cannot refute Koranic evidence of Mohammed’s lack of integrity (as we in the West would understand it) as referenced in my previous post.

salami,

Herman

Holy Moh!
I nearly forgot to answer your question:
<How long has it taken the West to come close to guaranteeing the freedom of religion and human rights embodied in this Charter?>
Not much of a “guarantee” after all, is it grateful?