Adequacy front page
Stories Diaries Polls Users
Google

Web Adequacy.org
Home About Topics Rejects Abortions
This is an archive site only. It is no longer maintained. You can not post comments. You can not make an account. Your email will not be read. Please read this page if you have questions.
 Islam: What is it?

 Author:  Topic:  Posted:
Oct 18, 2001
 Comments:
Islam, the fastest-growing religion on Earth, has become a "hot topic" due to its connection with the recent terrorist attacks in the United States. Although it is a topic that has been covered in the past by Adequacy.org, I think that it is time that we offer an objective overview of the Muslim religion (our technically-inclined readers may consider this in the same tradition as the "HOWTO" article or the "RFC").
religion

More stories about Religion
Holes
Is Catholicism to be tolerated?
Wicca - a scientific, Christian approach to the problem
Winning The Battle Against Pornography
Christianity isn't working in the USA; Is Islam the answer ?
The Scriptural Proof of Extraterrestrial Life
The Revival of the Ancient Ways
The Problem is You - Not Religion
We are all children of Adam and Eve
A Taliban Warlord answers YOUR questions.
Kill Yr Idols: God
Have a Right Halloween!
Religion: The Appendix of Modern Society
The Evil of Harry Potter
Islam is not the enemy
Happy Birthday Christ!
Bloody Sunday, Bloody Right!
What shall we give up for Lent?
Reclaiming St. Patrick's Day
The Proselytizing Atheist
Let us pray for the priests and victims of sexual abuse
The Incontrovertible Existence of God
Tolkien, Star Wars and Jesus Christ
World Youth Day: An Alarming Report

Ever since the events of September 11th, much has been written on Islam. As a personal witness to the tragedy, I remember wondering what form of twisted religious thinking would advocate the deaths of thousands of innocents? With some time spent in research, I believe I have come to an answer. I myself, am obviously not a follower of Mohammed, so this article, unlike almost all others on Islam, is not a preachy attempt to convert you to the "way of allah". Rather, the purpose is to offer an explanation of Islam that clearly defines what the religion means to a non-believer.

Early History of Islam

The beginnings of Islam can be traced back to 570 AD, when an Arab shephard, named Mohammed (which means "worthy of praise") was born near Mecca, in what is now Saudi Arabia. Mohammed was given to spending a great deal of his time holed up in caves, away from people, where he would pray and meditate to the pagan gods which his primitive people worshipped. At the age of forty, according to tradition, Mohammed recieved a message from the angel Gabriel, which he transcribed into what is now the Holy Koran (the question of whether an itinerant sheepherder could actually be literate is still debated in non-Islamic circles, although it is taken as blind dogma amongst believers). After achieving a few token converts, Mohammed and his followers were forced to flee to Ethiopia, where they were kindly recieved by the Christians already living in exile there.

After several years in Africa, Mohammed decided it was time to return to his homeland, so he gathered his followers, and captured the city of Yathrib, which they renamed to Medina. From this central location, the followers of "the Prophet" launched attacks on merchants headed to Mecca, with the intention of disrupting the economic power of their enemies (the parallels to the more recent activities of modern Muslims are, I think, obvious). Mohammed and his followers, through their tactic of attacking harmless businessmen, eventually weakened the city so greatly that in 630 Mecca fell to the invading Islamic hoardes. After brutally supressing the local Christian and Jewish communities, Mohammed died in 632, survived by his ten wives.

Muslim Beliefs

All Islamicists, no matter which splinter sect they belong to, believe in certain "irrefutable" tenets. These are collectively referred to as the "Pillars of Islam". There are seven of these, and I shall cover each individually.

  • 1. Shahada - the declaration of faith. This consists of repeating the phrase "There is no god but Allah, and Mohammed is his prophet". Even though this statement is demonstrably false, it is nonetheless effective. As the author of a report on similar activities writes, "The process of indoctrination by repetition rather than reason is frequently termed brainwashing". The end result of the shahada is a self-induced brainwashing, which completes the Muslim's "submittance" (the meaning of the word "Islam") to their god.
  • 2. Salat - the ritual prayer five times a day. As in the shahada covered above, repetition is key to the salat. The Mulsim recites a long prayer in Arabic (which is the only language accepted by believers) while kneeling in the direction of Mecca. The reason for that particular direction should be clear: it is to remind the Muslim that the middle east is Holy, and must remain under Islamic control. Although both Mecca and Medina themselves are under the rule of the Islamic sultans of Saudi Arabia, conquering Jerusalem, considered the third most holy city is Islam, remains the dream of the Muslim people.
  • 3. Zakat - the tithe. As one who fully "submits" to Allah, the Muslim is obliged to give a certain percentage of his income to his mosque. The historical roots of this practice come from the jizya, the tax levied by Mohammed against all non-Muslims under his rule. Eventually, this was expanded to cover Muslims as well, with the money going to fund Islamic wars against non-believers, such as the attack and invasion of Spain. Today, the tradition continues, with zakat monies going to unspecified "charities" in the middle east which are responsible for arming organizations such as the PLO and Osama Bin Laden's Al Qaeda.
  • 4. Fasting for Ramadan - Although a seemingly innocous tradition, the month-long period in which Muslims take no food during the day is a symbol of much more. Unlike the Jewish Passover, which is a rememberance of the past, the celebration of Ramadan is a preparation for the future. On the day when all Muslims are commanded to take arms against the infidels, they will be forced to leave their homes to wage holy war. When this occurs, they will be conditioned, by the fasting celebration, to not require food or sleep. Since Islamic countries have been historically low on food supplies, this can only be a benefit. Note that this should not be confused with the healthful, Christian practice of fasting.
  • 5. Hajj - the pilgrimage to Mecca is considered to be a neccesary part of every Muslim's life. Indeed, a Muslim's piety is measured by how many of these hajj he has made. The idea of the hajj was not "dictated by Allah" to Mohammed until after he conquered the city. After butchering the native merchants, it is clear that the Prophet needed some way to raise enough funds to maintain the city. What better way than to force, through threat of eternal damnation, millions of followers to visit a city you rule? Nowadays, Mecca is under the control of the Saudi regime, which continues this deceit. In fact, although the Saudi government justifies its high oil prices on the grounds of its supposed poverty, they take in excess of 12 billion dollars per year on hajj pilgrims alone. If only that money were doing some good for the poor rather than directly funding attacks on our nation.
  • 6. Jihad - the holy war. Ever since Mohammed called upon his followers to sack and pillage the cities of Yathrib and Mecca, Muslims have been leading wars against the "infidels". According to the Koran, Allah demands the blood of those who dare to fight back:
    The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His apostle, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution or crucifixion (Surah 5:33)
    Furthermore, the death of a non-Muslim is not considered a crime: No Muslim should be killed for killing a kafir (infidel). (Vol 9:50), and any Muslim killed in the jihad is guarenteed rewards, either in this life or the next:
    The person who participates in Jihad in Allah's cause and nothing compels him to do so except belief in Allah and His apostle, will be recompensed by Allah either with a reward or treasure (if he survives) or will be admitted to paradise (if he is killed). (Vol 1:35)
    It should be clear that the suicide bombers of Sept. 11th believed that they would be sent to paradise, their station in Heaven improved with each "American dog" they killed.
  • 7. Fatwa - the sacred edict. According to Islamicist laws, those who are higly educated in the Koran can issue edicts which all followers of the faith must obey. Osama bin Laden, terrorist Number One, and the "conscience of Islam", is one such cleric, and his fatwas are widely followed throughout the Arab world. A fatwa is to be followed by all Muslims, no matter who issues it. Thus a declaration of jihad against the "Great Satan" of the United States by some terrorist is every bit as binding as a statement from a true hero such as Malcom X.
  • Islam Today

    It is hard to ignore Islam today. With terrorism, anthrax scares, and war, this fast-growing faith will play a much larger role in the future of America. In spite of all this, let us not forget that there are some Islam sects which espouse peace over violence, which is in some ways similar to America's own ideals. With a better understanding of Islam, we can prepare ourselves better for the coming times of crisis.

           
    Tweet

    Not all Muslims are extremists. (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by Craig McPherson on Thu Oct 18th, 2001 at 06:08:44 PM PST
    In fact, many mainstream Muslims say that the "Muslims" who engage in terrorism are NOT Muslims at all, because they've perverted the teachings of the Koran to suit their own ends.

    You have to admit that much of the terrorists' philosophy is based on gross misinterpretation of scripture from the Koran. For example, one verse in the Koran states that for every infidel a Muslim man kills, he'll receive 77 virgins in Heaven: the extremists misinterpret this verse to mean that for every infidel a Muslim man kills, he'll receive 77 virgins in the afterlife. The verses in the Koran that say that Muslims should kill Jews whenever possible are often misinterprted to mean that Muslims should kill Jews whenever possible. Where the Koran states that Muslims who die in the process of murdering non-Muslims will get a free ticket to Heaven, the extremists misinterpret that to mean that Muslims who die in the process of murdering non-Muslims will get a free ticket to heaven.

    So, you see, the extremists are GROSSLY misinterpreting and twisting these scriptures and putting words in the mouth of the Prophet. They'll never hesitate to pervert the meaning of a verse of the Koran to make it suit their twisted agenda. For example, they take the verses that state that a woman who shows her face in public should be executed, and they somehow twist it around to mean that a woman who shows her face in public should be executed.

    The way they freely re-write the Koran, like in the above examples, can they realy be considered Muslims at all?


    --
    If you want to know why Lunix is so screwed up, just take a look at the people who use it. Idiocy.

    Yeah I noticed that too. (5.00 / 3) (#6)
    by Anonymous Reader on Thu Oct 18th, 2001 at 07:09:39 PM PST
    Those damned revisionist muslims. Introducing innovations to their religion all the time.

    When the Quraan says

    When your Lord revealed to the angels: I am with you, therefore make firm those who believe. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them.

    Some radical hotheads within the islamic community think that means that they should strike off the heads of those who disbelieve and strike off every fingertip of them.

    These desert-dwelling nomads need to read up on their Derrida, Barthes and Nietzche. Perhaps then they would interpret their holy texts in a different light.


    interpretation (none / 0) (#15)
    by Anonymous Reader on Fri Oct 19th, 2001 at 11:22:49 AM PST
    It's a matter of how you interpret that verse. Does non-blievers mean Christians, Hebrews, Hindus, etc. Or it can be taken as those who have strayed from the true path.

    I wish I could remember what it was called but there were a group of people that tried to spread a corrupted message of the Koran. Osama bin Laden is said to practice it.

    The bible can be interpretted the same way. That's why people like Pat Roberston fluorish. They claim everything thing they do is sanctioned in the bible. People stop believing this about Protestantism (Christianity is divided into to main sector Catholicism and Protestantism) a long time ago. Might be why he's being invetigated by teh Attorney General, the IRS and countless orther organizations.


     
    More informational links on Islam. (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by Craig McPherson on Thu Oct 18th, 2001 at 10:34:01 PM PST
    Information on Islam

    Islam was created by Catholics

    What Muslims experience after death

    The connection between Islam and Freemasonry

    The connecton between Islam and Catholicism

    Why Muslims, Catholics, and Atheists hate Jesus

    Quotes from the Koran and Muslims

    Selected quotes from the last link:

    "A man can have sexual pleasure from a child as young as a baby. However, he should not penetrate; sodomising the child is OK."

    "It is better for a girl to marry in such a time when she would begin menstruation at her husband's house rather than her father's home. Any father marrying his daughter so young will have a permanent place in heaven."

    "A man can have sex with animals such as sheeps, cows, camels and so on. However, he should kill the animal after he has his orgasm."

    "Eleven things are impure: urine, excrement, sperm...non-Moslem men and women...and the sweat of an excrement-eating camel."

    Yikes!


    --
    If you want to know why Lunix is so screwed up, just take a look at the people who use it. Idiocy.

    Don't be misled by Jack Chick (none / 0) (#10)
    by Adam Rightmann on Fri Oct 19th, 2001 at 06:20:08 AM PST
    Someone who has obviously never read the Gospels (cf. Upon this Rock I biuld my church) can hardly be trusted to declaim upon them.


    A. Rightmann

     
    hold on a second. (none / 0) (#41)
    by Anonymous Reader on Sat Oct 20th, 2001 at 09:48:00 PM PST
    A favorite point of discussion by Chick and other fundamentalists is the Eucharist (the "death cookie" etc). According to them it is nothing short of unholy cannibalism. But at the last supper, Christ clearly held up bread and said 'this is my body'. Given that fundamentalists claim to interpret the bible literally, how is this apparent contradiction explained?


    Don't be embarrassed.. (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by Mint Waltman on Sun Oct 21st, 2001 at 03:36:38 PM PST
    as many people confuse Catholicism with Christianity. At the last supper Jesus clearly said, "this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in rememberance of me." He was clearly speaking in symbolic terms. The idea that a priest with magical powers turns an ordinary waffer into the actual body of Christ would be laughable if it weren't so darn heretical!


    hrmph. (none / 0) (#56)
    by Anonymous Reader on Sun Oct 21st, 2001 at 08:45:36 PM PST
    >At the last supper Jesus clearly said, "this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in rememberance of me."

    ... and at a Roman Catholic mass I hear precisely the same thing, except maybe 'memory' instead of 'remembrance', depending on the priest. Or does the Roman Catholic church preach differently to what it implies in its Mass? Or have I stumbled upon a wack splinter sect of the RCC that doesn't identify itself differently?

    ('this do'. Hah. I hope Christ was more eloquent than that.)


    >He was clearly speaking in symbolic terms.

    Well duh. The RCC has a Council of Sciences so they would be more aware of the results of a chemical analysis of a communion wafer than your average anti-catholic fundy (who doesn't know any science, particularly evolution of the species).



    Are you denying (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by Mint Waltman on Mon Oct 22nd, 2001 at 01:03:25 PM PST
    ...the Roman Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation where by the communion waffers and wine become the body and blood of Christ through the incantations of a priest? The Catholic 'church' fails to explain the mechanism of the Eucharist, though they do not let this prevent them from believing it! If you find this hard to swallow perhaps you should come to my church on Sunday morn!


    (i am a different AR) (none / 0) (#79)
    by Anonymous Reader on Mon Oct 22nd, 2001 at 11:17:55 PM PST
    >...the Roman Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation where by the communion waffers and wine become the body and blood of Christ through the incantations of a priest?

    I disagree with both you and the initial AR. If that's what Christ really said ('this is my body'), then why does it need explanation?

    >The Catholic 'church' fails to explain the mechanism of the Eucharist,

    See above.

    >though they do not let this prevent them from believing it!

    So when christ said 'this is my body' then no-one should believe it?


    > If you find this hard to swallow

    Not funny.

    >perhaps you should come to my church on Sunday morn!

    Hardly.


    To me it looks like christ took bread and said said 'this is my body'. Christ never lied. (therefore) the bread is his body. So what precisely do the Catholics have to explain here?

    (disclaimer: i am not christian, although I have been strongly inclined toward converting to one branch or another of christianity)


    This is not... (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by Mint Waltman on Tue Oct 23rd, 2001 at 12:07:14 PM PST
    I disagree with both you and the initial AR. If that's what Christ really said ('this is my body'), then why does it need explanation? ... So when christ said 'this is my body' then no-one should believe it? ... To me it looks like christ took bread and said said 'this is my body'. Christ never lied. (therefore) the bread is his body. So what precisely do the Catholics have to explain here?

    ...about what Christ said. This is about what the Catholic church's interpretation of Christ's words. They are, as you may be aware, quite separate and distinct entities. Some believe in magical priests who can alter the substance and essence of waffers and wine without being told how this occurs. Did Chirst turn water into wine? Most certainly he did. For a priest to claim the same ability is heresy! Refer to the earlier post in this thread about the 'this is my body' statement...


    Hmm... (none / 0) (#94)
    by Anonymous Reader on Tue Oct 23rd, 2001 at 11:18:45 PM PST
    >Did Chirst turn water into wine? Most certainly he did. For a priest to claim the same ability is heresy!

    But didn't Jesus say 'do this in memory of me?' Surely the Catholics _are_ doing the bread-thing in memory of him?

    (IOW, Jesus said 'do this in memory of me', so the Catholics are doing precisely what he said, doing 'this' in memory of [Jesus]. Jesus said bread == my body, now do this in memory of me, so to me, it looks like the catholics are doing the exact same thing, i.e. they are agreeing with Jesus in saying that bread == his body, and they are doing it in memory of Jesus, at mass, as he said).


    You would make a (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by Mint Waltman on Wed Oct 24th, 2001 at 09:11:36 AM PST
    ...poor Catholic indeed. You are clearly a logical person, and would find yourself starving for want of reason were you to become a Catholic. You see, the Sacrament of communion in the Protestant churches that partake is symbolic. Contrast this with the Catholic Eucharist where the bread and wine are claimed to actually become the body and blood of Christ. It's quite simple, Protestants are doing what Christ said. Catholics have added this idea of 'transubstantiation' in order to legitimize the priesthood. Clearly this is falling away from the teachings of Christ toward darkness.


     
    You'll have to forgive me (none / 0) (#66)
    by Anonymous Reader on Mon Oct 22nd, 2001 at 01:12:22 PM PST
    The RCC has a Council of Sciences so they would be more aware of the results of a chemical analysis of a communion wafer than your average anti-catholic fundy (who doesn't know any science, particularly evolution of the species).

    for not putting much faith in any 'science' espoused by the Vatican... When did they finally admit Galileo was correct after all? 1992?


    ermph. (none / 0) (#76)
    by Anonymous Reader on Mon Oct 22nd, 2001 at 10:58:10 PM PST
    >for not putting much faith in any 'science' espoused by the Vatican...

    Meanwhile, they're probably superior scholars than everyone here, you included.

    >When did they finally admit Galileo was correct after all? 1992?

    That's when the church dropped the ball regarding galileo; the church has for a long time now not cared what its followers believe about the sun -> earth etc.

    (if it helps, the Pope is a big-bang believer, since 1980 at least; at least that's what hawking recounted after meeting JP II)


    humph (none / 0) (#86)
    by Anonymous Reader on Tue Oct 23rd, 2001 at 11:49:05 AM PST
    Meanwhile, they're probably superior scholars than everyone here, you included.

    Superior at what? Carefully wording concessions that science does provide insight into the world that religion cannot? In the face of more and more research the church is finding that it has to give an increasing amount of ground to keep from becoming a complete laughing stock in the face of reality. Where you see enlightened scholarship, I see clutching at the last straws of relavance... When it comes to scientific inquiry I'll rely on the secular world...


     
    We only want to help (3.66 / 3) (#8)
    by Anonymous Reader on Fri Oct 19th, 2001 at 12:57:31 AM PST
    Have you ever stopped to think that there might be a reason why a dozen men would hijack four airliners and fly them into buildings filled with people? Did it ever occur to you that maybe, just maybe, these men would perform acts of such enormity out of... love? Yes.

    Try to imagine something so valuable that handsome, virile young men, would be willing to give their lives, and the lives of as many other people as they could take with them, to save it Such a thing exists, I assure you. Something more precious than than any jewel, any work of art, any portfolio of internet stocks, any Suburban Utility Vehicle With Full Luxury Entertainment Package, Custom Aluminum Wheels, And Anti-Ultraviolet Paint Treatment. Even as I sit here typing, I can hear you scoff. I can see you snort with derision, fingerlets of contemptuous mucous darting out onto your sneering lip. Yet against your scorn, I persist.

    There does, as surely as you sit on your complacent ass reading these words of fierce truth, exist an object of such infinite value, that a man like Usama bin Laden is willing to defy the mightiest nation on earth to rescue it from the darkness and squalor in which it currently festers. That something is your eternal soul. Yours and those of billions of people like you. What is your World Trade Center, your Pentagon, your Bilbao Guggenheim, your Luxor Hotel-and-Casino, without the infinite love of all-powerful Allah, He who cast the cosmos across the heavens as effortlessly as you sprinkle Love-My-Carpet over the living room rug? How can you measure the tears of a few thousand families against the infinity-fold pain, sorrow beyond imagining, that gentle God feels over a single human being wallowing in sin? We only want you to open your hearts to the tendeness of Allah's infinite mystery. And we will do so with any and all means at our disposal. Because what lies in the balance, your soul, and his, and hers, and that guy's over there, and yes even the soul of that other gal waaay over on that side of the room, is too precious to lose. ISLAM. Live it. Love it. Be it.


    Whoa dude... (none / 0) (#9)
    by hauntedattics on Fri Oct 19th, 2001 at 06:11:24 AM PST
    You've convinced me. Where do I sign up? Or can I just declare that I follow Islam and believe in Allah, and then proceed to off the people I perceive are 'wallowing in sin'? As if I were someone to judge?

    How about letting people live their lives as they see fit, with, yes, their WTCs and their Pentagons and their SUVs. Then at the end of their *natural* lives, we'll see what happens.



     
    The most important question is... (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by iat on Fri Oct 19th, 2001 at 07:20:12 AM PST
    He who cast the cosmos across the heavens as effortlessly as you sprinkle Love-My-Carpet over the living room rug?

    Is "Love-My-Carpet" anything like Shake'n'Vac? I am researching domestic cleaning products from around the world for a forthcoming book (provisionally titled "The Exciting World of Domestic Cleaning Products") and an answer to this question would be most helpful. Thanks in advance.


    Adequacy.org - love it or leave it.

     
    You're wrong. (none / 0) (#12)
    by tkatchev on Fri Oct 19th, 2001 at 09:08:29 AM PST
    What you said is completely correct, except for one thing: Muslims don't believe in a loving God. They also have no concept of a soul, or of salvation.

    In fact, Islam's "Allah" is Christianity's Satan. This is not a slur -- this is a definition. Read Christian and Islamic theology, then compare the definition of "Satan" in Christianity, and the definition of "Allah" in Islam. I am betting that you'll find some striking similarities.


    --
    Peace and much love...




    Fool (none / 0) (#13)
    by Anonymous Reader on Fri Oct 19th, 2001 at 09:21:31 AM PST
    They are all aspects of the demiurge. Return to the true gnostic revelation of Christ and you may escape the vile circles ruled by this so-called God wether his name be Allah, Yahweh, Jehova, or Ahura-Mazda.


    If there is a God... (none / 0) (#17)
    by tkatchev on Fri Oct 19th, 2001 at 11:44:20 AM PST
    ...that God is a loving God. That much, at least, is obvious to me. Otherwise, it is indeed not a God, but a "demiurge"[1] -- "demiurge" meaning a talented and powerful creator, but not a supreme all-powerful being.

    [1] Indeed, in Christianity, the "demiurge" is none other than Satan.

    P.S. If I've been horribly mistaken, and Muslims indeed believe in a loving God, please forgive me. My Islamic theology is lacking, sadly.


    --
    Peace and much love...




    If Allah is a loving God... (none / 0) (#19)
    by hauntedattics on Fri Oct 19th, 2001 at 01:30:52 PM PST
    ...then the A.R. who posted the above is not Muslim, and is quoting some perverted version of Islam. In my book, "loving" does not equate to "demanding that believers kill others they perceive as sinful." But then again, my Islamic theology is also sadly lacking, and I don't make any guarantees for my vocabulary either.



    You obviously need a new book... (none / 0) (#27)
    by Anonymous Reader on Sat Oct 20th, 2001 at 01:36:46 AM PST
    I recommend the Koran.

    ISLAM. Live it. Love it. Be it.


    A better book (5.00 / 2) (#31)
    by Anonymous Reader on Sat Oct 20th, 2001 at 07:32:36 AM PST
    Which will leave you without need of the Koran, Bible, Torah, or whatever ancient babblings you base your life on, is Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand.

    The philosophy of Ayn Rand provides a complete, rational overview of life, based on the simple premise that "A = A". It is, quite frankly, the only logical way to live.


    A better book (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by Anonymous Reader on Sat Oct 20th, 2001 at 08:45:43 AM PST
    >based on the simple premise that "A = A".

    Which is a totally and utterly vacuous statement.


    So refute it (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by Anonymous Reader on Sat Oct 20th, 2001 at 09:10:17 AM PST
    Prove that it is not so. I don't see how you could possibly hold any other belief and not be a lunatic.

    If you knew anything about formal logic, you would understand that the truth of an argument's propositions determines the truth of the conclusion. In this case, the propositions are unassailable.


    you've missed the point. (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by Anonymous Reader on Sun Oct 21st, 2001 at 05:13:56 AM PST
    >Prove that it is not so.

    Why? I didn't say that A != A.


    >If you knew anything about formal logic, you would understand that the truth of an argument's propositions determines the truth of the conclusion. In this case, the propositions are unassailable.

    Which is a load of total and utter pseudo-intellectual wank. Why? Simple. A = A does not tell us anything we don't already know.


     
    If you knew anything about formal logic (5.00 / 2) (#48)
    by Anonymous Reader on Sun Oct 21st, 2001 at 07:14:40 AM PST
    You would know that the truth of an arguments premises do not determine the truth of it's conclusion. Example:

    I am not a goat.
    Bill Gates is rich
    Therefore, I am married to Jesus Christ.

    As for A is A, I'd like to see you derive a non-ludicrous argument from that.


     
    logic (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by Anonymous Reader on Fri Oct 26th, 2001 at 04:38:44 AM PST
    True propositions
    + Valid logic
    = True conclusion

    True propositions
    + Invalid logic
    = undertermined conclusion

    False propositions
    + Valid logic
    = False conclusions

    False propositions
    + Invalid logic
    = undertermined conclusion



    What a basic mistake. (none / 0) (#111)
    by dmg on Fri Oct 26th, 2001 at 05:09:09 AM PST
    The objective truth of the axioms has no bearing on the validity of the arguments. An axiom is simply an assertion we assume to be locically 'true' so we can prove some theorum or other. A lot of students of logic have trouble with this.

    time to give a Newtonian demonstration - of a bullet, its mass and its acceleration.
    -- MC Hawking

     
    I plan on reading the Koran... (none / 0) (#68)
    by hauntedattics on Mon Oct 22nd, 2001 at 01:55:02 PM PST
    ...but if it tells me to kill all the "sinners" I see, I don't plan on following its advice. I'm really not someone qualified to judge who deserves to live or die. And neither are you, my friend.




     
    *yawn* (none / 0) (#25)
    by Anonymous Reader on Sat Oct 20th, 2001 at 12:36:01 AM PST
    Your puerile attempts at provocation are obviously motivated by poor self image brought on by the knowledge that the glorious face of God is turned away from your sinful person. Still, I am a patient servant of the Lord and will take the time to refute your "arguments".

    First, just because All-Powerful Allah does not go aroung kissing puppies on the nose or jumping up and down singing inane songs like Barney the Purple Dinosaur does not mean He is not a loving God. Second, as I am more interested in sharing the word of God's love than in splitting metaphysical hairs, I used the term "soul" as a rough approximation of the subtler Islamic concept of the afterlife, the easier for the clumsy-minded to grasp what I was getting at. Finally, whether Allah is Christianity's Satan, or Judaism's, Baal, or Shakespeare's Modo, or Milton's Beelzebub, or Lovecraft's Yog-Sothoth, or "Dog's Dick", the Nun-afflicting demon of Loudon, is entirely beside the point.

    What is not beside the pont is that he or she who rejects sin and with honesty and humility accepts Allah into his or her life will feel the glory of the Lord shining forth from within their "soul" like the warm rays of the sun drying the waters from the flood-washed world after Noah's deluge.


     
    T k a c h e v (none / 0) (#115)
    by Anonymous Reader on Mon Dec 10th, 2001 at 01:48:02 PM PST
    "In fact, Islam's "Allah" is Christianity's Satan"

    You are a total idiot.

    Im glad Chechnyas "raped" all the russians in Chechnya....I think because of people like you, you deserve it!

    You bombed Chechnya 2nd time because you knew you would all be massacred by Chechens if you put troops inside again...

    because when 5 chechens attack and scream "Allah Akbar" the whole russian army battalion shits in their pants and runs for their life...




     
    Food for thought (none / 0) (#22)
    by auntfloyd on Fri Oct 19th, 2001 at 05:38:39 PM PST
    A friend of mine recommended the following book to me, which was a great comfort when my faith was weak: Why I am not a Muslim by Ibn Warraq.

    It was written by a former Muslim who is now highly critical of Islam and Islamicist regimes such as the Taliban. It contains, quite literally, all you ever need to know about the falsehoods of Islam.

    --
    auntfloyd

    I am dumbstruck with horror (none / 0) (#26)
    by Anonymous Reader on Sat Oct 20th, 2001 at 01:23:07 AM PST
    A friend of mine recommended the following book to me, which was a great comfort when my faith was weak: Why I am not a Muslim by Ibn Warraq. It was written by a former Muslim who is now highly critical of Islam and Islamicist regimes such as the Taliban. It contains, quite literally, all you ever need to know about the falsehoods of Islam.

    If I posted a comment stating that pederasty and murder are wrong, would you recommend I run out and read John Wayne Gacy's memoirs as a source of "great comfort"? If I posted a comment condemning the inhuman practice of racism, would you recomment I join the Most Radiant Knights of the Order of the Ku Klux Klan?

    Friend, you are mad. Please, please, stop what you are doing, run, don't walk to the nearest mosque, and ask the Imam to immediately counsel you in the true teachings of the Prophet Mohammed. I beg of you. Go, Now. I apologixe in asvance for anyt ypographical error s in thid sentence, as i am toucjing my head to the fkoor as I typf, humbly imploring ypu to take heed of thexe worfs. It's oyur inly hope.


    How can that be true... (none / 0) (#28)
    by Anonymous Reader on Sat Oct 20th, 2001 at 02:40:22 AM PST
    ...when Allah is actually a pagan moon god?


    uh ... (none / 0) (#30)
    by Anonymous Reader on Sat Oct 20th, 2001 at 06:59:31 AM PST
    I'm not a religious person at all ... but I really hope that those of you who are throwing that webpage around are joking. Somebody ought to tell the guy in that comic that Jesus didn't call himself the son of God and "the Christian God" comes from quite a large pool of "pagan gods." Guess what sort of god Yahweh was!


    Blasphemy is not cool, man (none / 0) (#46)
    by T Reginald Gibbons on Sun Oct 21st, 2001 at 07:08:49 AM PST
    Find some other way to spread your hatred. Telling lies about the Lord God is really uncool. I do not seek to judge you, brother, for that is reserved for Jesus. I implore you to put aside your apostasy. Return to the fold, for the sake of your eternal soul. You can join us and live for ever in Jesus. Only He can fill the hole that you feel within you.

    By the way, Yahweh is not the Christian God. Yahweh is a false idol worshipped by the jews. Do your research next time you decide to blaspheme.


    Hey stupid... (none / 0) (#113)
    by Anonymous Reader on Sun Dec 2nd, 2001 at 05:45:06 PM PST
    Why don't you take that book-of-lies and shove it up your anus? Then kill yourself.


     
    commin home (none / 0) (#114)
    by Anonymous Reader on Sun Dec 9th, 2001 at 02:05:56 PM PST
    I wish I knew where you lived so I could get you....



     
    Why? (none / 0) (#67)
    by hauntedattics on Mon Oct 22nd, 2001 at 01:51:19 PM PST
    Unless this Ibn Warraq person is randomly and wantonly attacking everything about Islam, its people, its heritage, etc., why not read his book? Because it criticizes his former religion? Plenty of people write books criticizing Christianity, Judaism, and other major world religions and don't get compared to serial killers and murdering bigots. The criticism, IMHO, offers a perfect opportunity for practitioners to point out weaknesses in the critiquers' arguments, and maybe even refresh their own thinking and remember why they believe what they do in the first place.



     
    arm the phalangists! (none / 0) (#29)
    by Anonymous Reader on Sat Oct 20th, 2001 at 04:03:52 AM PST
    death to palestinians! heil gemayel! (hey, that rhymes... unless i've mispronounced 'gemayel')

    (etc)


     
    me can no read (none / 0) (#14)
    by Anonymous Reader on Fri Oct 19th, 2001 at 11:16:59 AM PST
    <<At the age of forty, according to tradition, Mohammed recieved a message from the angel Gabriel, which he transcribed into what is now the Holy Koran (the question of whether an itinerant sheepherder could actually be literate is still debated in non-Islamic circles, although it is taken as blind dogma amongst believers).>>

    So what about Moses? He was a sheep herder. You know Moses? The 10 Commandements"?


    Moses was royalty, not a shepherd (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by auntfloyd on Fri Oct 19th, 2001 at 11:30:49 AM PST
    I don't know whether you truly believe what you wrote, but Moses was the Prince of Egypt. He would have been educated by tutors and scribes in the Pharoh's court, and was most likely fluent in many languages.

    Besides, I don't think the Old Testament or the Gospels are really up to debate.

    --
    auntfloyd

    right ... (0.00 / 1) (#32)
    by Anonymous Reader on Sat Oct 20th, 2001 at 07:34:39 AM PST
    ... because all of those idiotic religious texts are bullshit.


     
    Re: Islam - What is it? (none / 0) (#38)
    by Anonymous Reader on Sat Oct 20th, 2001 at 12:59:46 PM PST
    This is the most unprofessional journalistic article I have ever read in my life - and yet this site has the gall to criticise the BBC.

    Here are some facts for the "journalist" who wrote this shoddy rubbish:

    1) The Koran was revealed over several decades, not all at once.

    2) Mohammed never visited Ethiopia in his life.

    3) Medina is in Saudi Arabia, not Ethiopia.

    4) Mohammed was persecuted for his beliefs by pagans, not the other way around.

    5) Christians and Jews were never persecuted in any way - the prophet himself forbade it. Muslims respected Jews and Christians, through whom they were introduced to Greek mathematics and geometry.

    6) Followers of Islam are called Muslims, not Islamicists.

    7) There are five pillars of Islam. Jihad and Fatwa are not pillars of Islam. Even the most cursory research by the "journalist" responsible would have confirmed this.

    8) A Fatwa is not a 'sacred edict'. Fawa means legal opinion. Any Muslim in the world is free to issue a fatwa on any subject they wish to, and every other Muslim in the world is free to ignore it if they want to. Fatwa's were used as a medieval version of USENET, to let scholars on varying continents around the Muslim world debate on jurisprudence.


    The author of this article is the worst kind of journalist - not only is he/she biased, but lazy too. We have our fair share of journalists who do not like the Muslim world at the BBC, but they at least - at least! - are honest, and report the facts objectively.

    This article amounts to incitement of racial hatred. The person responsible is either stupid and lazy, or an odious racist.


    critical thinking (none / 0) (#39)
    by nathan on Sat Oct 20th, 2001 at 02:02:33 PM PST
    You have thoughtlessly accepted a lot of myths about the origins of Islam. Which ones is an exercise left to the researcher.

    Nathan
    --
    Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

     
    hrmph. (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by Anonymous Reader on Sun Oct 21st, 2001 at 07:22:42 AM PST
    >Christians and Jews were never persecuted in any way

    ottoman empire?


    Re: hrmph (3.00 / 1) (#52)
    by Anonymous Reader on Sun Oct 21st, 2001 at 09:36:11 AM PST
    >Christians and Jews were never persecuted in any way

    >ottoman empire?


    That's hundreds of years after Mohammed died.
    And by the way, Jerusalem was under Islamic control for almost a thousand years. There was no religious persecution in that time - Christians and Jews practised their religions freely. In europe at that time, persecution of Jews was commonplace.


    No Persecution, Again?? (none / 0) (#102)
    by Anonymous Reader on Wed Oct 24th, 2001 at 08:44:43 PM PST
    Yeah, right. Jews couldn't ride horses, had to wear identifying garments and were subjected to numerous laws that 'protected' them. Sure, they weren't butchered after the Muslims conquered the region (just while they were conquering..), but the Jews and Christians were second class citizens.

    Now, compared to Christians, the Muslims were angels, but that's not saying much.


    erm. (none / 0) (#104)
    by Anonymous Reader on Thu Oct 25th, 2001 at 01:29:49 AM PST
    >Now, compared to Christians, the Muslims were angels,

    Hardly. The Ottoman empire reduced the world's christian population by half. The Crusades could hardly claim the same of the Muslim communities of the day.


     
    medina (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by Anonymous Reader on Sun Oct 21st, 2001 at 07:40:58 AM PST
    >3) Medina is in Saudi Arabia, not Ethiopia.

    Try learning to read:

    >>> it was time to return to his homeland, so he gathered his followers, and captured the city of Yathrib, which they renamed to Medina <<<




    medina (none / 0) (#53)
    by Anonymous Reader on Sun Oct 21st, 2001 at 09:41:48 AM PST
    OK, so he/she made 1 error .... but his/her overall point is still valid ... the "journalist" repsonsible for this was not even sligtly interested in representing the Muslim religion as it is, but rather to drag its name thru the dirt by inventing bullshit about it, to fit peoples preconceptions.

    THere are 1.2 BILLION Mulsims on this planet ... to misrepresent their religion as shamelessly as this is unacceptable. This site could be sued in a class action by US Muslims for inciting racial hatred!!!


    Medina (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by Anonymous Reader on Sun Oct 21st, 2001 at 11:00:21 AM PST
    >THere are 1.2 BILLION Mulsims on this planet ... >to misrepresent their religion as shamelessly as >this is unacceptable. This site could be sued in >a class action by US Muslims for inciting racial >hatred!!!

    don't you mean religious hatred?



    hrmph. (none / 0) (#63)
    by Anonymous Reader on Mon Oct 22nd, 2001 at 05:18:22 AM PST
    >don't you mean religious hatred?

    probably not. a racial hatred trial would 'inspire all of america to their defence... blah blah [more cliched phrases here]' whereas in a religious-hatred deal any christian judge would (should) tell them to fuck off (insert standard ottoman-empire-persecuted-jews-and-christians tract here).


     
    slightly ot: what is interesting is... (none / 0) (#58)
    by Anonymous Reader on Sun Oct 21st, 2001 at 08:55:03 PM PST
    ... whenever the popular peace-love-n-tolerance image of Islam is shattered by anti-christian verses like those about 'disbelievers' who believe that god 'is the third of three' etc. Then someone steps up to the plate with something else in the koran 'blah blah... but it says here that... yada yada'. I'm thinking, well, now you're in even _more_ shit, because not only have you not rebutted the apparent (ly bigoted) meaning of the first phrase mentioned, you've also opened up an apparently contradictory hole in the Koran.


    Re: slightly OT (1.00 / 1) (#71)
    by Anonymous Reader on Mon Oct 22nd, 2001 at 04:54:03 PM PST
    What????

    Does anyone actually understand what that meant? I know the American education system is bad, but that was unintelligible. You need to get off that prozac, man.

    Try explaining yourself more clearly, then I might think about educating you with a demonstration of why you're wrong and stupid.


    hrmph. (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by Anonymous Reader on Mon Oct 22nd, 2001 at 11:09:22 PM PST
    >What????

    >Does anyone actually understand what that meant?

    The ones that can read probably can.

    > I know the American education system

    I fail to see what the American educational system has to do with me given that I have never set foot in north america.

    >is bad, but that was unintelligible. You need to get off that prozac, man.

    Let me copy and paste it, and i'll add paragraphs.


    >Try explaining yourself more clearly, then I might think about educating you with a demonstration of why you're wrong and stupid.

    No you won't, since you can't. The Koran is full of holes. Islamic scholars can't explain them, so what makes you think that you can?


    so again:

    It is quite amusing to me, whenever the popular image of Islam being a peaceful, loving and tolerant religion is shattered by anti-Christian verse in the Muslim holy books.

    An example of this is the verses regarding 'disbelievers' who believe that God 'is the third of three' etc. Such arguments incite a muslim to quote some passage of some other muslim holy book which appears to contradict the original passage.

    This, however, is an unsatisfactory solution because not only has the phrase given in defense not rebutted at all the apparently bigoted meaning of the first phrase mentioned, it has also opened up an apparently contradictory hole in the Koran.


    Cretin (0.10 / 0) (#88)
    by Anonymous Reader on Tue Oct 23rd, 2001 at 03:32:12 PM PST
    >No you won't, since you can't. The Koran is full >of holes. Islamic scholars can't explain them, >so what makes you think that you can?

    Why should I believe you when you say the Koran is full of holes? Or when you say Islamic scholars can't explain them? Don't insult my intelligence you cockroach. Provide some edivence for your claims, or have them ignored as rabid gibberish.

    >An example of this is the verses >regarding 'disbelievers' who believe that >God 'is the third of three' etc. Such arguments >incite a muslim to quote some passage of some >other muslim holy book which appears to >contradict the original passage.

    You can't expect anyone to be swayed by this amateurish drivel. Provide clear evidence or references, or shut up.





     
    invent? (none / 0) (#59)
    by Anonymous Reader on Sun Oct 21st, 2001 at 09:00:47 PM PST
    >inventing bullshit about it

    So let's hear where all this invented 'bullshit' is.


    Duh (none / 0) (#69)
    by Anonymous Reader on Mon Oct 22nd, 2001 at 04:02:25 PM PST
    Its right there in that post the BBC journalist wrote, dumbass.


    POINT for POINT. (none / 0) (#78)
    by Anonymous Reader on Mon Oct 22nd, 2001 at 11:11:18 PM PST
    So where is it? YOU point out for me what's fuxored in the article, genius.


     
    reply (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by auntfloyd on Mon Oct 22nd, 2001 at 07:04:10 PM PST
    1) The Koran was revealed over several decades, not all at once.

    This ignores the fact that not only did were the ancient ploytheistic Arabs not advanced enough to have a written language (the Jewish and Christian Arabs, who were decimated by the Muslims, used Hebrew), but that a man as simple and uneducated as Mohammed was unlikely to know how to write. Further more, this proves the Koran's inferiority to both the Old Testament (the 10 Commandments were recieved by Moses in less than a day) and the New Testament (Jesus tought for less than a decade).

    Mohammed never visited Ethiopia in his life.

    See my other reply. There is simply no evidence to substantiate this bit of Muslim lore.

    Medina is in Saudi Arabia, not Ethiopia.

    Someone else corrected you so I won't.

    Mohammed was persecuted for his beliefs by pagans, not the other way around.

    Apparently you're not familiar with your own religion. Muslims hate polytheists -- it was the major reason for the break up of India and Pakistan, and the World War III-like nuclear situation that exists between them.

    Christians and Jews were never persecuted in any way - the prophet himself forbade it. Muslims respected Jews and Christians

    So explain A) the Arab world's War Against Israel and B) the Arab world's War Against America in light of the fact that Muslims supposedly can't hate Jews or Christians.

    Followers of Islam are called Muslims, not Islamicists.

    Technically, they're "submitters" becuase they've submitted everything, up to and including they're lives, to their dogma. Terminolgy is not important, facts are.

    There are five pillars of Islam. Jihad and Fatwa are not pillars of Islam.

    This is false. The "pillars" of Islam do not exist in any concrete form in the Koran. They are a creation of the modern Muslim scholar, who would like to pass off his religion as one of tolerance be conveniently ignoring half of his sacred book. Real faith rests on the Commandments, which were laid down by God in stone, not on the words on men.

    A Fatwa is not a 'sacred edict'. Fawa means legal opinion. Any Muslim in the world is free to issue a fatwa on any subject they wish to, and every other Muslim in the world is free to ignore it if they want to.

    Tell that to Salman Rushdie. Islamicists take the fatwas with grave severity. How else could Osama bin Laden, respected Muslim, have convinced the Arabs to unite in sacrificial slaughter against America?

    --
    auntfloyd

     
    No persecution? (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by Anonymous Reader on Wed Oct 24th, 2001 at 08:39:41 PM PST
    "5) Christians and Jews were never persecuted in any way - the prophet himself forbade it. Muslims respected Jews and Christians, through whom they were introduced to Greek mathematics and geometry. "

    Yet another example of muslim propaganda. There is one sentence that can describe the spread of Islam through the Middle East:

    "Convert or die!"

    Just because it's written that Muhammed forbade the slaughter of Jews and Christians doesn't mean it didn't happen. According to the soviet constitution circa 1935, Stalin was the head of a democratically elected government...




     
    Bullshit. (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by nx01 on Thu Oct 25th, 2001 at 09:57:13 AM PST
    3) Medina is in Saudi Arabia, not Ethiopia.

    Any USian school student worth his salt knows that Medina is in Ohio. Frankly, I doubt Mohammed could have got there, even with the advanced camel transportation system of the day.


    "Every time I look at the X window system, it's so fucking stupid; and part of me feels responsible for the worst parts of it."
    -- James Gosling

     
    No contradiction here. (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by tkatchev on Fri Oct 19th, 2001 at 11:48:19 AM PST
    Muslims believe that Gabriel (the angel) dictated the Quran, literally, to Mohammed. In other words, Mohammed just copied the angel's words, letter-for-letter, without adding anything original.

    That is wholly consistent with the "illitarate goatherder" theory in the original article.


    --
    Peace and much love...




     
    Is this for real?? (none / 0) (#20)
    by Anonymous Reader on Fri Oct 19th, 2001 at 01:56:07 PM PST
    I am Christian myself but I do not understand how citing biased Christian cites any different than things that are a "preachy attempt to convert you?"
    I know that Adequacy.org is supposed to be controversial but this is just pure lunacy...


     
    Cool (none / 0) (#21)
    by Anonymous Reader on Fri Oct 19th, 2001 at 05:24:50 PM PST
    a Muslim's piety is measured by how many of these hajj he has made.

    I like the way you just slipped that one in. I also like contemplating that you knew that noone will pick up on it, since all of adequacy's readers are hopelessly ignorant about Islam. Well done, sir.


     
    Islam: What do you know about? (none / 0) (#23)
    by Gamagold on Fri Oct 19th, 2001 at 07:56:21 PM PST
    With all due respect to your research and reasoning, as well as your readers', and even fans', most of your words reflect nothing, I'm afraid, but total ignorance of what Islam could be really. In fact, answers like yours today are what make the question of Islam turn instead tougher as days pass, as more people simply go instead further and further from the truth of this religion, still the fastest-growing one on earth, ironically.

    By this, it should be clear, I never mean to introduce or imply a beautiful face of Islam and just hide another. Rather, I merely mean you, and whoever like you, to instead be a bit more objective and scientific, at least, and to further pursue this knowledge and that research you've once started, but obviously, never completed.

    Finally, I'd like to only add that Muslims, by now, are already accustomed to read and to hear words of pure hate wherever they go. By now, they no longer consider them. But, because your words today don't yet sound as hateful and blind, disguised as deep and in-depth, I'd manage to find some time for such a comment now, I'd urge you, fellow human, to simply correct at least those clear, and funny, mistakes in your article above, and finally, I'd assure you that you are immensely wrong, too far from Islam and what Islam is, even too far from all traditional weaknesses of Islam as observed and publicized by its critics throughout history.

    May you in the end turn any closer to the truth, whatever it is, or even to justice and honesty, and to the morals such words still maintains and inspires; and may at least your readers today, some of whom have already taken their hats off so quickly, be any smarter, any more respectful, responsible and sincere--to their own minds, not to the hundreds of millions of Muslims' all over the globe!

    Regards!




    In that case... (none / 0) (#62)
    by Anonymous Reader on Mon Oct 22nd, 2001 at 02:17:53 AM PST
    ... put the smack down on the author's arguments, right here, right now.


    Re: In that case... (none / 0) (#70)
    by Gamagold on Mon Oct 22nd, 2001 at 04:45:10 PM PST
    I'm afraid I'm not sure exactly what you mean by this put-the-smack-down-on-the-author's-arguments invitation. But, if you simply mean refuting them, so I'm afraid I don't need to. (Who does? Do you?) I certainly have some better plans for my free time--in case there's any.

    Besides, it's his homework now. He doesn't need corrections or directions. He rather needs to start all over again. Even his titles, let alone explanations replete with mistakes, are inaccurate and biased, dripping with ignorance and preconception. For example, the Pillars of Islam, even Muslim kids know this introductory fact, are only five, not seven.

    Thus, if that was the case with the very first and basic information one should first gain before ever daring to explore these murky waters, how about the deeper historical, cultural and political facts and viewpoints involved then? Or, worse still, how about the already-controversial issues a real researcher in Islam rarely has the luxury of remaining neutral towards?

    For example, just for example, how about these "pagan gods" which Muhammad "would mediate and pray to," and which his "primitive people worshipped?" In one word, "Nonsense."

    How about the fact that Muhammad had never been to Ethiopia, or anywhere else in Africa, as this genius just released?

    How about this "capturing" of the city of Yathrib, which Muhammad actually escaped to once, on foot, rather as a refugee, with only one man in his company, both exhausted and unarmed?

    And, how about this "conquering Jerusalem" that remains "the dream of Muslim people," if the whole trouble is actually historical and political between Arab, not Muslims, and Israel? How about it if even the modern Israelis, suspected to be the sons of the Khazar pagan tribe, not of Prophet Jacob, finds it too difficult to historically prove this land is theirs from the beginning?

    Etc, etc, etc.

    Have time?

    Have fun!


    I'd do it for sure, however. I just have to. But neither here, excuse me, nor now.




    hi, troll. (none / 0) (#72)
    by nathan on Mon Oct 22nd, 2001 at 05:52:11 PM PST
    Regarding the Israelis, you wrote:

    How about it if even the modern Israelis, suspected to be the sons of the Khazar pagan tribe

    Thanks for playing. Go back to alt.holocaust.revisionism. Next you'll be busting out the Elders of Zion.

    Burn in hell. Cordially yours,

    Nathan
    --
    Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

    Zionist propaganda. (none / 0) (#81)
    by tkatchev on Tue Oct 23rd, 2001 at 12:02:41 AM PST
    Do you have serious arguments with his statement?

    Because he makes a compelling point.

    For those who are lacking in history knowledge, the Khazars were a nation in north-central-asia; they were also the only nation ever to convert whole-sale into Judaism. Considering that the population of Khazaria at the time was probably several times the remaning Judaic population, you could make a strong point that the modern Jews are the really descendants of the Khazars. As such, they wouldn't really be Semitic, and would have no claim to Israel.

    P.S. Little known historical tidbit: when creating the state of Israel, there was a competing proposition to create it in southern Russia. (A little bit west of where the original Khazars lived.) The proposal didn't go through, probably because Stalin was against it. Just as well, I guess, because the area has been recently been found to be incredibly rich in oil.


    --
    Peace and much love...




    Arabist Propaganda (none / 0) (#100)
    by Anonymous Reader on Wed Oct 24th, 2001 at 08:35:33 PM PST
    The Khazars were destroyed by the Mongols. Sure, there may have been many who survived, and ended up in Eastern Europe, but that doesn't account for the Jews of Western Europe, North Africa, the Middle East (there was a continuous Jewish presence in Babylon (present day Iraq) until 1948, when the Jews were expelled, for example.), Ethiopia, Cochin (in India), and China until the end of the 19th century.

    And even the Jews who are decended from the Khazars have been treated just like all the other Jews since then. Oh, yeah, that means that every other culture in history has butchered them when they felt like it. I guess the State of Israel does still have a good reason to exist.

    It's the arab revisionists who put forward this Khazar/Jewish argument, no one else. Do ya think they have an agenda?


     
    Author's reply (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by auntfloyd on Mon Oct 22nd, 2001 at 06:41:57 PM PST
    For example, just for example, how about these "pagan gods" which Muhammad "would mediate and pray to," and which his "primitive people worshipped?" In one word, "Nonsense."

    Then who did his people pray to? It was certainly not the Christian God. If it was, then Mohammed was not the founder of Islam, which contradicts Islam dogma (further proving its falsehood). If Mohammed's people worshipped the True God, why was he needed? And why did they persecute His chosen people (the Jews), and why do they continue to? All historical evidence refutes what you say. If they were not polytheistic, then they were perhaps followers of Zoroaster (Zarathushtra), though this is unlikely. Although Zoroaster may have been influenced by God (Yahweh), it is not likely that he preached His word, leaving the ancient Arabs little more than Savages.

    How about the fact that Muhammad had never been to Ethiopia, or anywhere else in Africa, as this genius just released?

    This is entirely false. Mohammed and his followers left Arabia due to persecution by polytheists (who Muslims hate to this day), and took refuge in Africa. There, they converted the continent to Islam, which it remains faithful to.

    How about this "capturing" of the city of Yathrib, which Muhammad actually escaped to once, on foot, rather as a refugee, with only one man in his company, both exhausted and unarmed?

    Pure propaganda. How do you explain the Islamic takeover of Medina? Do you really believe that two old (by that time Mohammed was past his prime) men were able to subvert such an economically important city? Your Islamicist views have ruined your objective reasoning ability. The Muslims ruined Medina's importance as a center of trade so that they could rule the city. They accomplised this by massacring, en masse, the Christian and Jewish merchants among the Arabs. You cannot prove otherwise.

    And, how about this "conquering Jerusalem" that remains "the dream of Muslim people," if the whole trouble is actually historical and political between Arab, not Muslims, and Israel?

    Arabs are Muslims. The two are interchangeable ever since the Muslims butchered (see my preceding paragraph) the Christians in Arabia. The Muslims hate the Jews because the Jews are the chosen people, and the Muslims worship a false god, Mohammed.

    How about it if even the modern Israelis, suspected to be the sons of the Khazar pagan tribe, not of Prophet Jacob

    Are you not aware that Jacob took the name Israel after wrestling with the Angel because he was the "champion of God" (Yisrael)? It is obvious that the Israelis are God's chosen people, which is why, despite not being Christian, it is the duty of every beliver to support them.

    I do not know how you hold such beliefs, which fall before the briefest of analysis.

    --
    auntfloyd

    Re: Author's reply (none / 0) (#80)
    by Gamagold on Mon Oct 22nd, 2001 at 11:27:28 PM PST
    Actually, I'm the one who wonders how you hold such beliefs. That "Israelis are God's Chosen People," just for example, is first a questionable premise itself, let alone a chauvinistic and racist disgusting tenet. However, it should be clear, here I'm interested neither in religion nor in politics. I'm not concerned about your beliefs, no matter how barbaric or mythical, as I am about you research and how scientific, and honest, it is.

    If you are but another fanatic who just came today to only add a few touches to that heritage of hatred and distrust between people, so I, certainly, have nothing to do with you now. In such a case, all you need is but another blind fanatic; and you both would just put the truth aside then, actually forget all about, and instead end up fighting, abusing and insulting each other. A very boring scene, already running right now all over the world.

    But, if you claim you are scientific, please consider only the following.

    First, your research is, obviously, historical, and religious. For such a research, whatever you present could be only a "hypothesis," dear, but never a "fact" unless first proven and supported by 4 different measures--for each single hypothesis. Ever heard about that?

    Second, "entirely false," or "pure propaganda," unfortunately, isn't a scientific valid expression to defend what a researcher presents. And obviously, one can't prove Einstein wrong, just for example, by only barking, "I do not know how you hold such beliefs."

    Your language, in this short reply as well as in the original article, I'm afraid, has no connection with any philosophical approach or scientific method. But since your visions are that limited, fanatic and biased, no wonder should be there when your language sounds so as well.

    Third, you must realize, I don't only question what you just put here and, sarcastically, believe true. I even question your authenticity itself. Is this what your grandpa, for example, once told you in bed? Or, perhaps this is what you've concluded yourself after a lot of research and investigation with other VIPs, like you, just among God's chosen people?

    *** *** ***

    Well, in the end, I only have one example now for you to consider, or rather to reconsider:

    I said, "... Yathrib, which Muhammad actually escaped to once, on foot, rather as a refugee, with only one man in his company, both exhausted and unarmed?"

    Now, I'd pick up *ANY* major reference to consult. For example, how about Britannica Encyclopedia? Fair enough?

    You said, pure propaganda.
    Fine... But would you please send me your authentic references?

    Well, don't bother, my friend. I won't probably be able to communicate with you anymore, as it's by now only a waste of time as clear--unless you could prove otherwise, which I frankly doubt. I only had a message, for you in particular, and it's by now received. If your pride now is all you care to defend in public, so go ahead. But first learn that I never mean to hurt you or your mentality, rather to help you, to help purify your mind and heart, exceptionally replete with ignorance and full of hatred and racism.

    Ever wonder what Muslims really have today in front of people like you?
    In fact, people like you are what makes everyone else in this world suffer.
    That's probably why you're God's chosen people, really--simply to punish us for our sins momentarily, thank God, and right here in this world, so that we can peacefully enjoy the next.


    I'll follow your works, however.



    this is a load of wank. (none / 0) (#84)
    by Anonymous Reader on Tue Oct 23rd, 2001 at 01:45:28 AM PST
    >First, your research is, obviously, historical, and religious. For such a research, whatever you present could be only a "hypothesis," dear, but never a "fact" unless first proven and supported by 4 different measures--for each single hypothesis. Ever heard about that?

    >Second, "entirely false," or "pure propaganda," unfortunately, isn't a scientific valid expression to defend what a researcher presents. And obviously, one can't prove Einstein wrong, just for example, by only barking, "I do not know how you hold such beliefs."


    You've never usenetted before in your entire life, have you? If one wants to rebut someone else's arguments one does not dribble on about what a 'fact' is. You > what he said and you rebut it below. Simple. You didn't do that.


     
    Props. (none / 0) (#83)
    by Anonymous Reader on Tue Oct 23rd, 2001 at 01:41:35 AM PST
    >Arabs are Muslims. The two are interchangeable ever since the Muslims butchered (see my preceding paragraph) the Christians in Arabia

    Hear hear. Even Israel's getting in on the game now (insert recent news of x arab christians [the ones that are left, anyway] being killed off by israeli forces).


     
    auntfloyd (1.50 / 2) (#89)
    by Anonymous Reader on Tue Oct 23rd, 2001 at 03:49:52 PM PST
    >Are you not aware that Jacob took the name >Israel after wrestling with the Angel because he >was the "champion of God" (Yisrael)? It is >obvious that the Israelis are God's chosen >people, which is why, despite not being >Christian, it is the duty of every beliver to >support them.

    It becomes obvious now. The author is Jewish, probably a supporter of the globally condemned Israeli Government, indicted for its policy of apartheid against Palestinians at the UN Racism Conference. Did you know Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon is wanted by the UN to stand trial for war crimes, including the massacre of hundreds of Muslim and Christian civilians at the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps? Sharon is also directly responsible for the new Palestinian intifada, which he provoked into existence, and the architect of the Israeli assassination policy which was carried out against Palestinians over the summer, resulting in the retaliatory assassination of the an Israeli cabinet minister last week.

    Israeli's are the KKK of the Middle East. No wonder the author of this article has such a rabid, pathological hatred of Muslims. I suggest a double lobotomy and padded wallpaper.


     
    Oh please... (none / 0) (#98)
    by Anonymous Reader on Wed Oct 24th, 2001 at 05:03:23 PM PST
    The main author of the article is wrong! First of all, the pagans of Mohammad's day all believed in one main god. The main difference is that they used their idols as proxies. Mohammad NEVER prayed to the pagan gods, but rather, to the one true god, the same god Abraham prayed to.

    Also, among other facts you have wrong, Mohammed himself never travelled to Ethiopia. Some of his followers sought refuge there, but he and other followers went to Medina, which he made home for the rest of his life.

    And yeah, you're right, Jews are gods chosen people and we should all follow and support them. They happened to be the same people that couldn't hold faith for just FORTY damn days while Moses was getting his revelations, and had to resort to getting faith from a cow.


    You crazy muslims ! (5.00 / 2) (#106)
    by dmg on Thu Oct 25th, 2001 at 04:04:51 AM PST
    Did it ever occur to you that Allah himself created the Infidels and Jews ? That perhaps your treatment of them is some kind of test ?

    Allah in his infinite wisdom is also responsible for the current situation in Israel and Afghanistan. Perhaps when the Ummah wakes up and realises that they will be judged the same way as they judge others they will cut the kaffirs some slack. (After all its not their fault they don't believe it 'Allah has set a seal on their hearts'.

    Think about it. If you were not a muslim, and you looked at the antics of Bin-laden, Hussain, and the criminal Saudi royal family, would you willingly convert ?

    time to give a Newtonian demonstration - of a bullet, its mass and its acceleration.
    -- MC Hawking

     
    5 pillars? (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by philipm on Tue Oct 23rd, 2001 at 03:59:09 PM PST
    5 pillars? Have you ever picked up the Quorian?

    Islam has 10 pillars. The reason the author says 7 is because 4 of the 10 pillars are exaclty the same.

    BTW, the reason there are 10 pillars is because there are 10 commandments.




    --philipm

    That's quite some bullshit. (none / 0) (#97)
    by Anonymous Reader on Wed Oct 24th, 2001 at 04:56:35 PM PST
    Islam has 5 and only 5 pillars. They are in no way related to the 10 commandments, although if you can prove me wrong, go for it.


    Not quite 5 (none / 0) (#105)
    by Anonymous Reader on Thu Oct 25th, 2001 at 04:00:23 AM PST
    Only four of the pillars are actually compulsory. So you could say that Hajj is not a pillar as such. If someone is too ill to travel, or unable to attend a pilgrimage for one reason or another, they do not have to go. Allah will probably not be cross with them.

    Also, Islam allows for the fact that the Ka'baa itself may be destroyed (for example by an Infidel nation unleashing several tomahawk cruise missiles on it), and so in the event that it is impossible to reach Makkah, the pilgrim is allowed instead to circumambulate the Prophet's mosque instead.

    Now we can argue till we are blue in the face about whether I am correct or not, but what is not in dispute is that there are at least four pillars of Islam, and possibly five, depending on how you interpret the Quraan.

    That is why we have the system of Hadeeth and Sunnah. Otherwise the Quraan might not be relavent to today.

    For example, what does the Quraan have to say about programming a video recorder ? Since the position adopted is highly similar to that of performing Salaat - does this mean we are actually 'worshipping' the video recorder ? Some scholars (especially the more pious ones) believe that the video recorder should always be placed in such a position that we do not need to bow down to it. Other scholars disagree.

    One of the beauties of Islam is that it is adaptable to almost any situation, because it is not tied down to a strict text. There is always room for scholars to interpret things.

    The 'mutah' marriage practiced by the Shia is another great example of Islams accomodation of mankind.


     
    Khazar Pagan Tribe, huh? (none / 0) (#99)
    by Anonymous Reader on Wed Oct 24th, 2001 at 08:25:01 PM PST
    Only the Arabs cling to the argument that the Jews of europe are decended from the Khazars of Russia who converted in the 10th Century to Judaism (before being overrun by the Mongols). The Arabs put forth such a ludicrous claim in order to deny the jews their rightful claim to Israel.

    They also forget that it was in 1948 that muslim countries expelled their jews. These exiles now make up 60% of the population of Israel.


    Re: Khazar Pagan Tribe, huh? (none / 0) (#103)
    by Gamagold on Thu Oct 25th, 2001 at 01:04:36 AM PST
    This is worthy of some reply. In fact, it's quite significant that such an off-topic one line in my message got such attention, isn't it?

    Well, first, the Arabs, unlike you claim, still with all due respect, actually have nothing to do with this Khazar question--or they'd have invested it much more efficiently, at least these days. Instead, it's an army of researchers, historians and anthropologists, from everywhere in the world, including Israel, working on this most controversial, and obscure, history, which is in fact always the case, I wonder, whenever Jews are involved.

    Second, I usually, and humbly, care to be scientific and objective, even in my off-topic innuendoes, and I therefore first said only "suspected," as science and history didn't yet determine any truth in this regard. Yet, it's not at all, excuse me, a mere "ludicrous claim." On the contrary, an increasing number of Jews do trace back their origins and simply announce themselves, with no sense of guilt or shame, they could be originally Khazarians. Ehud Ya'ari, for example, a top Israeli journalist who produced the 1997 documentary Memlekhet ha-Kuzarim, is simply one of them. Please consider his following words as quoted by Michael Ajzenstadt in The Jerusalem Post:

    "As a child I heard that our family has some Khazarian blood and for 30 years now I have been trying to find information about this exciting subject.... [I am] a soldier in the last battle of the Khazar kingdom, a battle for the right to be remembered.... And finally I would like to secure funds to continue excavations in several places, which looked quite promising. My sexiest dream is to find the actual tomb of one of the Khazar kings. I believe that if we achieve that it will be as important at least as the discovery of Troy or of the treasures of the Pharaohs in the Pyramids."

    [Michael Ajzenstadt, "An Incredible Journey to the Lost Empire of the Khazars," The Jerusalem Post, March 17, 1997, page 5]

    In fact, I don't think I'm qualified to further discuss this issue in details. Still, I'd like to have a look with you on some scholarly research at this point.

    First, and in reply to, "... it was in 1948 that muslim countries expelled their Jews. These exiles now make up 60% of the population of Israel."

    Those were the Jews of the Mediterranean cost, especially of Egypt and Morocco. But those in particular, 60% of the population of Israel, are likely to be Khazarians, according to Richard Haase:

    "The Khazar Jewish kingdom was a fascinating episode in Russian Jewish History.... The Jews dispersed into Russia, Armenia, Byzantium, and *the Mediterranean coast*. It is likely that many of the Jews of these regions are descended from Khazar refugees."

    [Richard Haase, Jewish Regional Cooking (Secaucus, NJ: Chartwell Books, 1985), page 56]

    Thus, you only confirm my "ludicrous claim" by this 60% information. However, your information aside, they are still "suspected" to be Khazarians, as we read clear in Arthur Koestle's The Thirteenth Tribe:

    "The numerical ratio of the Khazar to the Semitic and other contributions is impossible to establish. But the cumulative evidence makes one inclined to agree with the consensus of Polish historians that 'in earlier times the main bulk originated from the Khazar country'; and that, accordingly, the Khazar contribution to the genetic make-up of the Jews must be substantial, and in all likelihood dominant."

    [Arthur Koestler, The Thirteenth Tribe: The Khazar Empire and Its Heritage (London: Hutchinson, 1976 and New York, NY: Random House, 1976), page 180]

    In a slight note, Judaism in general sounds to be Khazarian now in some other location:

    "There is little reason to doubt that Jews had lived in Poland from the earliest times, and that Judaism, *as preserved by the descendants of the ancient Chazar kingdom in the southeast*, had actually antedated Christianity."

    [Norman Davies, in God's Playground: A History of Poland, (New York, NY: Columbia University Press, 1982), volume 1, page 79]

    Finally, Benjamin Blech once found no problem to simply ask:

    "... What happened to all the Khazar Jews, both the descendants of the converts and the settlers, is shrouded in mystery. They were certainly dispersed in many of the neighboring lands. ... Who knows? If your ancestors came from these lands, you may have the blood of kings in you - not David and Solomon, but kings who voluntarily chose to join the fate of a people whose religion they acknowledged as true."

    [Benjamin Blech, The Complete Idiot's Guide to Jewish History and Culture (Alpha Books, 1999), pages 161-162]

    Thus, the attitude isn't hostile, nor is the mind haunted by every consiperacy illusion when it comes to the real scholars and sane sages. Only paranoid fanatics and disordered racists, by now almost everywhere, are who first plant such evil in this world and in advance assume it in every stranger. Still, regretfully, no matter how much we write and explain, they're always there, certain of themselves, sure about their sick, and sickening, beliefs, for truly, as Bertrand Russell brilliantly put it once:

    "The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts."

    Thank you for your contribution, however. I of course don't yet believe you're but a hateful racist. Just don't be one, please, and don't listen, ever, to any of them. Keep honest, and free, if i may advise you. Your language is relatively respectable, and your content suggests that you are, hopefully, still capable of truth, and of love. Regards.



    A fair reply to your fair reply (none / 0) (#109)
    by Anonymous Reader on Thu Oct 25th, 2001 at 11:08:08 PM PST
    While I do appreciate your respectful tone, you are unscientific in two regards. The first, is that you use a number of quotations by Israeli/Jewish authors. The fact that one of these authors happens to have written a cook book doesn't deter you.

    Secondly, just because I referred to 60% of jews coming from Arab lands, and that happens to coincide with your figure of 60% doesn't mean that I'm supporting your argument. 60% of Israeli Jews are Sephardic, meaning they are from everywhere BUT Europe (excluding Spain and Portugal). You excluded a huge portion of jews from Iraq and Iran, Syria and Yemen, Egypt and Morroco (there was a Jewish community in Alexandria since its founding) who had been in those places since long before the Khazars converted to Judaism.

    The problem with dismissing Jewish claims to Israel simply because they are the descendants of the Khazars is to ignore the reality that the Jews are a tribe, not just a religious group. They are entitled to the land as much as a Jew who can trace his or her heritage to the hebrews of Israel. To deny the jewish claim to Israel is to be anti-jewish, and racist. Just as it is to deny Palestinians the right to a state.




    Thanks (none / 0) (#112)
    by Gamagold on Fri Oct 26th, 2001 at 05:47:04 PM PST
    Thanks for your reply, and your appreciation. Here follows my comments.

    First, I believe deciding whether one is scientific, strictly scientific, first depends on one's introductory premise and main hypothesis in question. I'm totally unscientific, by the way, in my life, in my bedroom for example--in case there is any. But right here, I assure you, I am, at least, objective.

    Last time, I didn't at all mean to determine, or even discuss, the origin of the Jews, whether it's the kingdom of Khazaria or the planet Pluto; but to only emphasize the fact that your earlier claims against the Arabs in this regard were invalid, and to prove it wasn't a mere "ludicrous claim" as you graciously stated.

    In such a context, as clear, what first matters is the fact that my quotes all came from non-Arabs, rather from Israeli and Jews. And in this context, you, certainly, should have paid more attention to their words, thoughts and attitudes, than to whether they, in their life, for living or for fun, smilingly serve excellent pizza, or unsmilingly pose sniffy doctorates.

    As for the origin of today's Jews and how valid their claims to the land of Israel-Palestine are, I'm afraid this is, first, still off-topic; second, as I've already stated before, was never the topic I'm personally qualified to discuss or even maintain a final stance about. Scholars and specialists in this field, you must know, are in a terrible maze, so terrible they themselves usually avoid such an endless discussion. And scientifically speaking, this research actually deals with every shred of evidence from the very beginning, usually starts in the land of Kan'aan, not of Khazaria, before Moses was even born, even before Abraham himself once settled there, thousands of years ago.

    However, my stance and attitude, if you're concerned, are definitely clear, constant and consistent when it comes to the present situation. Inarguably, the people of Israel had made their historical mistake--just a new one--when they once allowed a gang of criminal soldiers, supported by disordered rabbis, to lead their nation today and to seal their, and their kids', fate. For this claim, I wish I could deal now with the rest of your message, somehow influenced by the confusion dominant in the public opinion and the media, on both sides. But unfortunately, this is still so irrelevant now and here, let alone controversial. Besides, we certainly don't have enough time, I wish we had, to discuss every controversy in the world.

    However, fair as you are now, objective as I think, and deep as you should always be, now please consider only one question, speaking of racism: how about a doctrine, any doctrine, that begins with the tenet that its members are God's Chosen People?

    *** *** ***

    Well... Thank you, once again. I've certainly enjoyed reading your challenging, and courageous, words. I'm accessible at Gamagold@hotmail.com, so let me please hear from you, and get a bit closer, as I might gratefully need your opinion on some stuff in the next few months. Take care and good night.





     
    You mean ... (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by Anonymous Reader on Mon Oct 22nd, 2001 at 05:25:47 AM PST
    >taken their hats off

    ... their fez, nice and red after being soaked in the blood of ~35000 dead moroccan christians.




     
    Give Peace and Libertarian Socialism A Chance (4.00 / 4) (#24)
    by Richard C Suquer on Fri Oct 19th, 2001 at 10:01:59 PM PST
    It is obvious to me that like so many of the world's minorities, Arabs are victims of American imperialism and oppression. They cannot be blamed for their actions on September 11th -- it was an action taken in self-defense. As victims, the terrorists need to be treated with respect and honor.

    Instead of war, what we need is peace. To implement this I suggest we make what is called a "peace offering." We should erect two enormous skyscrapers in downtown Kabul and name them the World Peace Center. Of course we will also pay for and construct the new "twin towers" ourselves. Along with this, as a sign of good faith, we should destroy our entire military. Every battleship, every helicopter, every tank, etc. disassembled and destroyed. Even our assault rifles should be destroyed.

    Once our military is destroyed, the world will understand that we are serious about peace. Terrorists will stop attacking us because they will see the overflowing love in our hearts. Jew and Arab will embrace each other with tears of joy, rather than fear. Crime will fall, and no longer will we need to lock our doors at night.

    As the famous pacifist/genius Albert Einstein said, "All we need is love."

    --
    Revolution from Below! GPL the Constitution!

    "All we need is love" (5.00 / 2) (#36)
    by Anonymous Reader on Sat Oct 20th, 2001 at 09:57:49 AM PST
    I love you :)


    erm. (1.00 / 1) (#42)
    by Anonymous Reader on Sat Oct 20th, 2001 at 09:57:13 PM PST
    hrmm. it would appear that you can't smell the dripping sarcasm as well as i can.

    never mind, just don't ever get into a position of authority, ever.


     
    All we need is love (none / 0) (#47)
    by jayc33 on Sun Oct 21st, 2001 at 07:12:27 AM PST
    >All we need is love

    Yeah, we don't need ACTION, or right and wrong, or laws, or...


     
    America is a minority (2.00 / 1) (#37)
    by Husaria on Sat Oct 20th, 2001 at 12:18:11 PM PST
    There are 300 million Americans, the Chinese are the most numerically in the world at 1.2 billion. So America is a minority. Destroying two buildings, and five planes is not a act of self-defense, it is an attack. Killing 5,000 innocent people, is no self defense. You want to destroy every tank? What are you, Chamberlain? Appeasing terrorists will do nothing, but increase demands to a point where life is not livable. It is better to die than to live under the hands of criminals and cowards. The terrorists won't see the love in our hearts, they'll see mushroom clouds as they place nukes in our cities, buildings falling, millions killed. Its exactly liberal trash like you that I look forward to meeting on campus and I can't wait.
    Sig sigger

    Oh really ? (none / 0) (#40)
    by Anonymous Reader on Sat Oct 20th, 2001 at 02:46:52 PM PST
    It is better to die than to live under the hands of criminals and cowards

    Can we expect to see a mass suicide of United States citizens real soon then ?


     
    Excellent (none / 0) (#117)
    by Anonymous Reader on Tue Sep 3rd, 2002 at 10:45:09 AM PST
    Liberals seem to want to destroy the very things that protect them, let some of this hit them where it hurts and they will sing a different song, they always do.


     
    Do you have any more acid? (none / 0) (#116)
    by Anonymous Reader on Tue Sep 3rd, 2002 at 10:43:07 AM PST
    Unfortunately, man is inherently bad and peace will never come until the prince of peace arrives. Disarming ourselves?? Pass me a hit of that acid you are taking.


     
    Hmm... (none / 0) (#44)
    by Anonymous Reader on Sun Oct 21st, 2001 at 05:26:45 AM PST
    Ignorance is bliss aint it?

    Some of you dont have the faintest Idea what Islam stands for, or encourages...

    Yet you seem to have alot to say......tsk tsk tsk

    How many Americans have read the Koran?

    AT LEAST MUSLIMS DONT FIGHT WITHIN EACH OTHER

    ie PROTESTANTS fighting CATHOLICS (IRELAND)




    Don't they? (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by Anonymous Reader on Sun Oct 21st, 2001 at 07:02:24 AM PST
    Shi'i have waged war on Sunni. Iraq fought no more than three decades ago. Iran. Have YOU read any muslim history? Even recent history would do.


     
    erm. (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by Anonymous Reader on Sun Oct 21st, 2001 at 07:17:28 AM PST
    >AT LEAST MUSLIMS DONT FIGHT WITHIN EACH OTHER

    um, yes they do you spastic.


     
    erm. (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by Anonymous Reader on Mon Oct 22nd, 2001 at 01:43:58 AM PST
    you must be under a rock if you've not heard that the taliban is fighting the northern alliance (like they have been for the past ~5 years).


     
    Islam (none / 0) (#57)
    by Anonymous Reader on Sun Oct 21st, 2001 at 08:50:30 PM PST
    Islam does not allow the killing of innocents. Period.


    erm. (none / 0) (#61)
    by Anonymous Reader on Mon Oct 22nd, 2001 at 02:13:21 AM PST
    >Islam does not allow the killing of innocents.

    Of course not. Just draft the innocents (i.e. the local christians) into your army and when you order them to attack someone else [presumably a non-muslim empire's territory, that is certainly part of Allah's Great Plan For The Islamic Universe etc] then the non-muslims of the evil heretic empire will kill them, simple.

    Or, are these 'islamic' empires not really 'islamic'? it's possible (probable, actually); to parallel, the USA isn't very 'christian' despite being run by fundamentalists (e.g. palestine; palestine, tinpot dictators in central/south america; palestine etc), although that's probably my catholic side damning fundamentalists to hell.

    (now that's not very catholic of me, is it. hrmph.




     
    Of Islam all religons... (none / 0) (#75)
    by Anonymous Reader on Mon Oct 22nd, 2001 at 10:17:02 PM PST
    All theologies are lies.

    Religon is a personal thing, a subjective, spiritual thing. As unique as every one of us, meeting the needs of everyone in their own way.

    When someone speaks for a divine being, they are lying. When someone reads the lies of another, who in the past who spoke for a divine being, they too are lying. Because a lie has antiquity and was successful in killing hundreds of thousands of people doesn't make that lie a truth.

    And someday, when humanity wakes up, and stops needing to be lied to, we will make artful works that will surpass the dreams of any lie which has come before then. We will have become gods, and the universe and time itself will judge us worthy to exist as such.




    Yeah. (none / 0) (#82)
    by tkatchev on Tue Oct 23rd, 2001 at 12:06:57 AM PST
    Right before we proceed to massively slaughter each other because we break each other's toys.


    --
    Peace and much love...




     
    exactly (none / 0) (#90)
    by philipm on Tue Oct 23rd, 2001 at 03:50:30 PM PST
    exactly, i can't see why people have trouble with this concept of not killing innocents.

    Now some misguided people may ask why the Koran says its OK to kill and eat jewish babies?
    The point is that jewish babies are guilty merely by being born. Their parents renounced allah, and so have they. Feel free to
    kill 77 jewish babies. Trust me, it helps.

    Also there is a very modern joke in the Koran that is widely respected among islamic scholars:

    How is a Jew like a Pita?
    A pita doesn't scream when you put it in the oven.




    --philipm

     
    Could someone please explain this to me? (3.00 / 2) (#85)
    by Anonymous Reader on Tue Oct 23rd, 2001 at 01:59:59 AM PST
    (from http://www.iad.org/Islam/poly.html)

    "They (Jews and Christians) took their rabbis and their monks to be their lords besides Allah (by obeying them in things which they made lawful or unlawful according to their own desires without being ordered by Allah), and (they also took as their lord) Messiah, son of Maryam (Mary), while they (Jews and Christians) were commanded (in the Torah and the Gospel) to worship none but One Ilah (God i.e., Allah), La ilaha illa Huwa (none has the right to be worshiped but He). Praise and Glory is to Him (far above is He) from having the partners they associate (with Him)."
    (Qur'an: Translation of the meaning, 9:31)


    what the hell? like how many times do the morons that write these articles need to be told that christians are monotheistic?

    i am a catholic btw. to all muslims, jews, fundys etc: we have fatima, medjugorje etc. You Don't. You Lose.

    (although if one wants to follow an alternate religion i don't care, fine by me; just don't tell me that i'm doing anything wrong, because i'm not. i don't tell muslims how they should be praying, do i?)


     
    Religion? (none / 0) (#92)
    by Anonymous Reader on Tue Oct 23rd, 2001 at 06:53:37 PM PST
    I read this article in the hope of finding a piece of literature written in complete objectivity. Now obviously that can be difficult and it shows. I am a non-muslim non christian living in a muslim country. This has provided me a different perspective on the religion everyone is discussing about. The author's article is laden (SORRY FOR THE PUN!)arrogance and superiority of christianity over Islam - refer Fasting for Ramadan: .....Note that this should not be confused with the HEALTHFUL, Christian practice of fasting. You're making a value judgment that what you practise is good and what another person praticising his or her faith is wrong or below you. I find that disappointing. Amidst all these tragic events of the past 2 months, I am beginning to inclined to think religion is a cruel affliction made by God (if there is one) to see how many of his creation stray from his peaceful teachings. We have Christians fighting against Catholics about Jesus and what he said about bread over the last supper. I mean, come on, Stop bickering about all these details and practise the true purpose of religion. Islam, Christianity, Catholicism, Judaism ... notice how these 4 religions have always created conflict and wars between its people, even sometimes WITHIN its people. How sad is that! With the way things are going, our planet seems damned because of religion rather than being saved by it.


    Talk about being objective (none / 0) (#96)
    by Anonymous Reader on Wed Oct 24th, 2001 at 02:35:46 PM PST
    Your statement "I mean, come on, Stop bickering about all these details and practise the true purpose of religion. Islam, Christianity, Catholicism, Judaism ... notice how these 4 religions have always created conflict and wars between its people, even sometimes WITHIN its people" is not very objective. Lets look at secularism: World War 1 & 2, Pol Pot, Stalin oppressing his people, Saddam Hussien (a bai'thist) the British Raj, the IRA (not a religious movement, a political one). I mean come on be objective


     
    Into the paper shredder this goes (none / 0) (#93)
    by Anonymous Reader on Tue Oct 23rd, 2001 at 07:04:35 PM PST
    To Auntfloyd:
    just one quick question: Do you hate the Islamic religion. From how I see it in your article, you potray Islam as the devil's teachings. "Islamicists" may be inclined to think your teachings are devilish in nature too. Your arrogance about Christianity being far superior than Islam is, lack of a better word, sickening. Try to be more OBJECTIVE next time you write an article. I don't care about you spewing facts to support your position. Facts can be manipulated and interpreted to suit your position, as have religious extremists who twist Islam into something hedious. I'm sorry but your article is rubbish(and I am a non muslim and non- christian commenting on this -I hope this will provide some objectivity into my comments).


     
    improve the world - kill a fundamentalist (none / 0) (#107)
    by Anonymous Reader on Thu Oct 25th, 2001 at 09:03:56 AM PST
    The Koran, Bible, and Torah all contain a mixture of wisdom and bullshit.

    Depending on what bits of these texts you choose, you can be a moderate tolerant nice guy or a frothing raving evil bastard.

    Now, for a whole shitload of reasons, at this particular point in history*, the ratio of frothing bastards to nice guys is worse in Islam than in Christianity or Judaism. (In medieval times, the Islamic world was more rational and tolerant than Christendom).

    However, using this ratio to argue that the Koran and Islam is inherently inferior is simply ignorant and does no good in the struggle to change the ratio for the better.

    Thank you.



     

    All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest ® 2001, 2002, 2003 Adequacy.org. The Adequacy.org name, logo, symbol, and taglines "News for Grown-Ups", "Most Controversial Site on the Internet", "Linux Zealot", and "He just loves Open Source Software", and the RGB color value: D7D7D7 are trademarks of Adequacy.org. No part of this site may be republished or reproduced in whatever form without prior written permission by Adequacy.org and, if and when applicable, prior written permission by the contributing author(s), artist(s), or user(s). Any inquiries are directed to legal@adequacy.org.