Steven.. and Steel....

'path to dhimmitude'.. indeed. This morning there was an interview with Geert Wilders. He is continually with 6 bodyguards and uses safe houses.

For what reason would he need to do this?

It was said that he will need to do this for the rest of his life, because even if in 35 yrs time he is old and doddering around in his garden, he will be in danger from.. u know who...

The more important question is..'why'.. well it gets back to the essential violence and evil and example of the founder of the faith he is criticizing.

If.... such security is needed in the West.. what does this say about the nature of the community in question? It says there is an extreme element, which see's its role as 'enforcer'... which is not found in any other religion to my knowledge.

This is the same as the Mafia operations.. they will find you or hunt you for the rest of your life if you break their code.

As far as I'm concerned.. 'no community.. no extreme end' it's really simple.
My solution is conversion and 'legal'...limiting migration and infringment of our law and constitution.. but we often have a legal fight to retain the freedom to proclaim the alternative and expose the falsehood. (see 'constitution and discrimination' thread)

As long as I say something Muslims like ("dont know if Mohammad was pedaphile") I am making sense. When I add an obvious sequence of logic, I am suddenly an ignorant fool.

I will explain it again.
1. Mohammad married Aisha
2. Ahadith say she was 9 (different writers including Muslim+Bukhari)
3. Quran says "in the Messenger of Allah you have a good example" (33:21).
4. In some Muslim societies/communities these facts are used as a justification for marrying young (pre-puberty) girls.

Here is another link:
http://yementimes.com/article.shtml?i=1145&p=front&a=2
Look at the face of the little girl married at age 8. Remember her.

5. Its not Mohammad's fault because "There is no fault in the Prophet in what Allah has decreed for him" (Quran 33:37) Allah made him do it.
6. So Allah, who is supposed to be allpowerful and allknowing (Sura 1) did as follows: (a) he let/made Mohammad bed a child (b) even if she was physically a woman Allah did not think it important to register this important fact (c) he let his inspired writers record the event knowing that everything Mohammad did would be considered example.
7. So Allah is partly responsible for the suffering of these children.

That is logic -- hard, sad facts.

Do not use the old 'out of context' excuse. I understand words. I know Islam. If you must make an excuse please be more creative (I collect excuses)
http://www.kactuzkid.com/blame.html

Why is it everytime one points out to a muslim or sympathizer the hate, discrimination and violence in Islam we get these insipid excuses? Isnt the fact that the so-called eternal Quran is full of privileges and exceptions for Mohammad, given to Mohammad, by Mohammad, to benefit Mohammad rather suspicious?
http://www.kactuzkid.com/suspicious.html

If a person refuses to condemn the hate/violence in Islam, or the vile actions of Mohammad, he/she accepts those things and are partners in evil. This is why the future will not be nice; this is why Muslims cannot be trusted.

Kactuz

PS: Aisha was childless (couldnt be impregnated?), so was she a child? Did the early marriage destroy her premature body?

You are so gullible, Boaz.

>>...an interview with Geert Wilders. He is continually with 6 bodyguards and uses safe houses. For what reason would he need to do this?<<

Quite simply, Boaz, because if he didn't, no-one would take any notice of him at all. Without people like you constantly asking "why do you need bodyguards, Geert?", he would long have faded into insignificance.

He is the Dutch answer to Mosley/Powell/Boaz.

Mosley claimed that he was not anti-Semitic. He just didn't like the way Jews ran the country.

Powell claimed that he was not a racialist. He just thought that blacks and Asians had no right to live in Britain.

Wilders/Boaz/Polycarp claim that it's not Muslims they hate, just Islam.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/feb/17/netherlands.islam

Despite all the hype about the man, his party occupies nine seats, out of a hundred and fifty, in parliament.

Despite all the "sky is falling" rhetoric, only 6% of the Dutch population are Muslim.

You and he, Boaz, also share the ridiculous view, that non-Muslims are permanently at risk of being bumped off by Muslims.

If you actually look carefully at the "evidence" for this, you will find that practically all Muslims share the same risk.

Go on. Look it up. It's right there, in Geert Wilder's March speech.

http://www.news.faithfreedom.org/index.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1810

You can safely ignore the editorialising, which is just the same old alarmist tripe.

Pericles.. you never fail to fascinate me... in particular how you can completely deny the obvious and allow prejudice to run your increasingly irrational mind.. seriously....

You charge at the red rag, but fail to see it is held by a matador...the real target worthy of attack.

Here are some salient facts which have bearing on the issue about which you seem to be in blissful denial.

-Critics of Islam are always targets of violent threats.
-Salman Rushdie, Theo Vang Gogh, Hirsi Ali, Nick Griffin etc etc.

Of them, Van Gogh, is dead, murdered by a Muslim.

-You know full well the level of hate displayed on the many signs in the various london protests such as "Butcher those who insult the prophet"

All this you know... yet.. you irrationally claim that the only reason Wilders has 6 bodyguards is to get attention?....

My goodness.. I though you were on a reasonable plane there with your Discimination comments, for goodness sake.. don't take your irrationality here into that thread...

When all the evidence points to either moderate Muslims seen as 'spiritual quizzlings' or.. non Muslims seen as 'enemies of Islam' and being threatened or killed...by normal, Quranic Muslims, then...it is utterly irrational and.. ludicrious for you to blame the bodyguards for the problem.. in fact it's probably not even what a sane observer would say, certainly not an educated one as you seem to imply about yourself.

Have a lay down old son, a cuppa ... relax.. do some reflecting on 'facts->Conclusions and clear thinking'

Pericles,

Let's consider the facts.

In 1988 Ayatollah Khomeini issued a death sentence on Salman Rushdie on account of his novel, The Satanic Verses. The "fatwa" remains in effect.

At the time of writing Rushdie remains unharmed. However:

--Hitoshi Igarashi who translated Satanic Verses into Japanese was assassinated in 1991

--Ettore Capriolo, the Italian translator, survived an attempt on his life in the same year.

--William Nygaard, the Norwegian publishers survived an attempt on his life in 1993.

In addition:

--Theo van Gogh, a fierce critic of Islam, was assassinated in 2004

--Kurt Westergaard, the cartoonist, was evicted from his hotel, where he lived under police protection, because the hotel management thought his presence posed an unacceptable risk to the hotel, the staff, and the guests. Westergaard drew the cartoon of Muhammad with a bomb in his turban. (See: http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/0,1518,536544,00.html)

--And now, in August 2008, a respected publisher pulps a book with an Islamic theme citing fears for the safety of its staff.

These are only the high profile cases. Attacks on Christians in eg Pakistan as well as attacks by Shia on Sunni and vice versa continue.

Consider also the case of Taslima Nareen.

Quote from The Times, 30 November 2007

"Taslima Nasreen, 45, a former doctor, said today that she hoped that the move would appease fundamentalist groups and end a controversy that forced her to leave Calcutta last week."

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article2978120.ece

There are probably many more unreported cases.

And now Pericles seems to think that Wilders doesn’t really need bodyguards. He's just grandstanding.

Truly there are none so blind as those who will not see.

Your last post tells us rather more about Pericles and his refusal to face reality than it does about Wilders

What a pathetic beat-up!

I agree with Steven to the extent that the publishers have been piss-weak. However, nobody's censored this novel except them - based on what appears to be nothing more than Islamophobic paranoia and projection. No threats were made.

Rather, one of their editors thought that somebody might threaten Random House and/or the author, so they claim to have pulped their print run - not to mention the $100K advance they apparently paid the author. It seems that the author is actually a journalist, and this is her first novel.

Sounds like a pretty good deal to me. There's something decidedly on the nose about this.

My take is that Random House might have shown more spine if the novel had literary merit like Rushdie's, but if it was merely a salacious page-turner it was probabky ultimately cheaper to pulp it in the face of their own paranoia.

In which case, it's no great loss, is it?