Perhaps the people that use the "one is as bad as, or worse, than the other" excuse to downplay islamic terror should consider simple facts:
1. Regarding the Bible. Most, but not all, of the evil is condemned. The acts of kings (David, Solomon, etc), prophets (Abraham, Jacob, stc...) and others are criticized.
2. Regarding the evil that Christians do. Yes, its condemned too. The vile actions and murders done by Christians or so-called Christians, is condemned in all Western societies. I condemn them.
3. Now let us look at Islams dear prophet. According to Muslim traditions, Mohammud murdered, plundered, tortured, raped, enslaved and beat his wife.

Where is the Condemnation for these vile actions? It is not to be found in the Quran, ahadith and writings; it is not done by modern Muslims.

Much to the contrary, Muslims write/ say "Praise be unto him" after the name of this evil man. They consider him to be a great moral example.

No Christian or Jew says "Praise be unto him" after the name of King David, Abraham, Adam or Isaiah. We know that Peter and Paul had moral failings.

That, Steel, FH and Irf, is the difference. You love and respect a man that murdered, raped, enslaved, robbed and tortured. You consider him a "Mercy for all mankind".
Tell that to this pregnant lady split open for criticing him
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/abudawud/038.sat.html#038.4348

Would some Muslim please indicate a link to an Islamic site discussing the morality of that incident. Please, I would really like to see it. Please.

For Muslims, murder, torture, rape and slavery aren't always bad, because, after all, dear old MOhammad did them too. That is why Muslims have no credibility with this old man. That is why the terror doesn't end.

That is why we read things like this: "A 27-year-old Queensland doctor was arrested at Brisbane Airport last night in connection with Britain’s foiled car bomb terror plot".

Muslims, ask yourselves why violence and terror come so easily to Islam. Where does the hate and violence come from? Oh me oh my, what could it be....

Kactuz

As I mentioned, I took 3months to read the Quran, ahadith and biographies. They are full of hate and violence.

That is bad, but the lack of honesty about these by Muslims is worse.

An example:

An article "Leave The Quran Out Of This"
http://www.altmuslim.com/perm.php?id=1889_0_25_0_C
about using the Quran to justify violence (Irfan writes at AltMuslim. I am banned!)

I am not the smartest person or greatest expert on Islam, but even a simple article like this, by a seemingly knowledgable moderate, is full of errors and distortions.

Mohammad beat his wife
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/muslim/004.smt.html#004.2127

"Could any of you beat his wife as he would beat a slave"
Consider the statement... One can have slaves, one can beat them. Morals?

Consider the "Never beat God's handmaidens" statement. That is a wonderful verse, but continue...
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/abudawud/011.sat.html#011.2141
(It was this verse that I learned to check everything a Muslim says!)

The article states: "Prophet said: 'I wanted one thing, but God has willed another'" yet continues to say Allah didnt mean what he said. Logic?

The article discusses translations of Quran4:34, but fails to note that many of the most common ones use the word "scourge". There may be a slight difference between "scourge" and "beat lightly." The translators often add adverbs (then, after, if) to Allahs words to make them nicer.

I could go on, but it is always the same. The experts lie, writers twist things, Muslims omit details. I wrote to Hassabella 2years ago about this, so he cannot claim ignorance.

These writers are more honest about these things:
http://islamqa.com/index.php?ref=482&ln=eng
and
http://www.nnseek.com/e/alt.comp.malaysia/great_virtues_of_apostle_of_god_79060025t.html
Click "see full article" and read the whole thing "Apostle was a very
compassionate man and prohibited muslims to have sex
with wives on the day of flogging" (because it was painful!). Notice the references to Islamic texts to support this vile but honest essay.

To understand Islam, one must read Muslim texts and visit Islamic sites. People in the West have no idea of the evil and twisted logic we are dealing with. This is why Muslims cannot end terror. To renounce terror is to denounce Islam.

Kactuz

FH. I'd be glad to see some excerpts from the speeches of Pope Urban on justifying the Crusades.

We had a lady leave our Bible study recently because she simply could not cope with the issues raised (which included radical Islam) She was the 'warmth and love only' type. Well intentioned but naive.

So..I'll happily await your reference to Urbans speech :)

As for Hitler, I keep on coming back to the clear misinterpretation he made of the 'Cleansing of the Temple' incident.
-Jesus drove the "Jews" out of the temple.
-We must do likewise.
Forgets that Jesus WAS a Jew, and also neglects many other aspects of the incident.
We can always read 'into' texts what we want. (Unlike Quran 9:30 where it is as clear as the broad side of a barn)

This decisively alters the security landscape: it is not so much a question of recruitment any longer, but of voluntary subscription. These people are recruiting themselves.

Walid Ali in that article.

"The implications are clear: a terror threat that is self-perpetuating, and too random to be dismantled systematically."

Tanveer Ahmad

[But the question is impossible to avoid and I believe that theology is central and not peripheral to the problem. It is grounded in history, but the sparks have been generated by the information age.]

Let me repeat that :) THEOLOGY IS CENTRAL. gee.. *scratches head*...where..where have I heard that before ?

Hmmmm OH THATS RIGHT.. its what I've been babbling and ranting about 100s of times. (if you believe FH its 3500 times.. as in EVERY post I've ever done is to promote hatred of muslims..... duh.. no mate. probably only 50% are on the subject of "Islamic Radicalism" and their theological basis for world domination.

Well finally at least Tanveer is 'getting' it. Walid is not far behind... FH and IRFY are the only tortoises here :)
*catch up guys*

Regarding the 'information age' at least we can actively counter the paranoid, doctrinally evil, deluded views of some Muslims on YouTube, MySpace etc with our own vids :)

KACTUZ..I Followed the Abu Dawood link. I could not believe my eyes !

Here it is: THIS MATERIAL IS A MUST READ! for all.

Book 11, Number 2141:
Narrated Abdullah ibn AbuDhubab:

Iyas ibn Abdullah ibn AbuDhubab reported the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) as saying: Do not beat Allah's handmaidens, but when Umar came to the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) and said: Women have become emboldened towards their husbands, he (the Prophet) gave permission to beat them. Then many women came round the family of the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) complaining against their husbands. So the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) said: Many women have gone round Muhammad's family complaining against their husbands. They are not the best among you.

Book 11, Number 2142:
Narrated Umar ibn al-Khattab:

The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: A man will not be asked as to why he beat his wife.

Book 11, Number 2144:
Narrated Buraydah ibn al-Hasib:

The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: to Ali: Do not give a second look, Ali, (because) while you are not to blame for the first, you have no right to the second.

Book 11, Number 2153:
Narrated Ruwayfi' ibn Thabit al-Ansari:

Should I tell you what I heard the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) say on the day of Hunayn: It is not lawful for a man who believes in Allah and the last day to water what another has sown with his water (meaning intercourse with women who are pregnant); it is not lawful for a man who believes in Allah and the Last Day to have intercourse with a captive woman till she is free from a menstrual course; and it is not lawful for a man who believes in Allah and the Last Day to sell spoil till it is divided

AMAZING The women who have now been BEATEN (on Mohammads permissions) complain about domestic violence, and he MOCKS/CONDEMNS them!

Steven,

Your comment below contradicts history.

Below are two impeccable resources (Stanford education and the APF Organisation).

- and

http://www.aliciapatterson.org/APF001974/Rubin/Rubin04/Rubin04.html

Every Egyptian Jew I met, without exception, assured me that the Jews had led a good life before 1948.

http://www.stanford.edu/group/SHR/5-1/text/beinin.html

“Several Egyptian Jews did participate in both national movements. Léon Castro conducted propaganda for the Wafd party in Europe after the 1919 nationalist uprising and founded and edited a pro-Wafd French language newspaper, La Liberté, after returning to Egypt. He was simultaneously the head of the Zionist Organization of Cairo and the representative of the Jewish Agency for Palestine in Egypt. Félix Benzakein was a member of the Wafd, a deputy in parliament, a member of the Alexandria rabbinical court, and president of the Zionist Organization of Alexandria. Despite his Zionist commitments, Benzakein remained in Egypt until 1960, when he emigrated to the United States. The intensification of the Arab-Zionist conflict in Palestine during the Arab revolt of 1936-39 strained such dual commitments, and they became virtually impossible after the 1948 Arab-Israeli war. Yet as late as 1965 Shlomo Kohen-Tzidon, a native of Alexandria who emigrated to Israel in 1949 and eventually became a member of the Knesset, published a book memorializing Shmu'el Azar -- one of the two Egyptian Jews executed for their role in Operation Susannah -- whose central argument, in contrast to prevailing opinion in Israel, was that an accommodation and understanding between the Egyptian and Israeli national movements was possible and desirable. For Zionist historiography, the creation of the state of Israel and the 1948 war signal the end of the Egyptian Jewish community”
In addition to above historian, the fact all large retail, transport and manufacturing were owned by Egyptian Jews (Sidnaoui, Cicurel, etc..) supports my argument.

For the 'fellowship of the ring'

youtube have ots of English videos for Deedat explaining what Islam is and isn't. www.youtube.com and put 'deedat' in the the search.

Peace,

F_H

In both Christendom and Dar-ul-Islam there were times when Jews were allowed to prosper and there were times when they were subject to persecution.

What is called the emancipation of the Jews occurred in Europe starting in about the seventeenth century. This also coincides with the emergence of secularism in Europe.

The influence of secularism spread to the lands of the former Ottoman Empire. Egypt, for example, became de facto, if not de jure, secular during the nineteenth century. This spread of secular thought allowed ALL minority religions, not just Jews, to live peaceably in Egypt and other parts of Dar-ul-Islam.

At other times persecution of Jews and Christians in Dar-ul-Islam was severe. If you would like a brief introduction to the history of anti-Semitism including Muslim anti-Semitism, I suggest Robert Wistrich's "The Longest Hatred."

That should help dispel some of your illusions.

Interestingly the degree of persecution of Jews and other minorities could vary from place to place throughout Dar-ul-Islam. The great 12th century Jewish scholar, Maimonides, fled Muslim persecution in Cordoba and settled in Cairo where the ruler was somewhat more benign. Egypt has long been more tolerant of Jews and other religious minorities than the rest of Arab Dar-ul-Islam.

Bottom line is this F_H. The Muslim treatment of Jews was not worse than the Christian treatment of Jews throughout much of history. On balance it may even have been a bit better. But the notion that Jews and Muslims lived happily side by side for centuries is pure illusion. At some times in some places in Dar-ul-Islam they did.

Mostly they did not.