Demoting Islam’s Religion Status

by Infidelesto on April 1, 2009 · Comments

This is a guest post by Martel Sobiesky also cross-posted at FaithFreedom.Org

One thing is certain, Islam is not a religion by anything Americans believe one to be – not even close. In fact, Islam is the antithesis of what we deem to be religious. Above all, Islam is a totalitarian political machine of blood thirsty conquest which zealously advocates the downfall of the U.S. government. Jesus said, “My kingdom is not of this world…” because he was 100% non-political. In extreme contrast, Mohammed and the Koran bellicosely command YOUR KINGDOM IS MY KINGDOM, surrender or die! Let’s be to the point. It is sheer madness, exceedingly irresponsible, criminally negligent, and strategically suicidal to continue granting religion status to an absolutely aggressive and implacable ideology that demands the destruction of our government and all other religions.

It is well past time, the truthful facts be told about Islam. Our leadership and intelligence community have lied and lied again, referring to Islam as a religion of peace. If Islam is to be categorized as a religion – then it must be called what it truthfully is - A RELIGION OF WAR. Unfortunately our leadership has become so inept, they have chosen to be in denial of this obvious fact, and entertain fanciful notions – that by calling a “blood thirsty tiger” a “bunny rabbit” it will magically transform into one.

This means, we now have America’s Sugar Plum Fairy National Security Policy: All of the Islamofascists can be won over by simply labeling them “friends”. How dare we even utter the word enemy, that might upset them. We now have a national security mantra: Islam is perfect! Islam is perfect! Islam is perfect!

The purpose of this article is to introduce that Islam’s religion status is undeserving, that it should never have been granted in the first place, and that it’s religion status should be immediately rescinded.

Why? Because Islam whether you call it moderate, militant, main stream, traditional or radical is a relentless foe inherently programmed to conqueror its host nation. Fail to understand this point and Islam will continue “trashing” civil liberties, shedding bloody pandemonium, wreaking havoc, litigating as warfare, demanding special privileges, and instigating anarchy until its host country suffers irreparable harm if not outright defeat. Such is the virulent modus operandi being used by Islam in England, Spain, India, France, Thailand, Holland, Bali, Lebanon, Denmark, Sweden, Philippines, Russia, America and elsewhere.

Perhaps, this is why Dr. Paul Williams author of “The Dunes of Doomsday” so truthfully and valiantly states in Chapter 1 “Refusing to Identify the Enemy”:

“The enemy is Islam. Not a fringe group within the body of believers … Not radical Islam as if a faction can be separated from the “mainstream” Islam. But Islam itself, as expressed by the life and teachings of Muhammad …”

An Imposter Religion

To put it bluntly Islam’s religion status should be rescinded because it is a wolf in sheep’s clothing, a Trojan horse, an imposter religion that has arrived on our shore with malicious intent, deathly determined to replace our constitution with the Koran, and turn America into an Islamic nation controlled by Sharia law. Robert Spencer in his excellent book, “Stealth Jihad” (How Radical Islam Is Subverting America Without Guns or Bombs), explains how so-called moderate Islam is having greater success at invading America than its counterpart militant Islam. Shockingly, one may rightly conclude that America is now being conquered without Islam even having to fire a shot. Have we really become that docile, self complacent and pathetic? The answer is Yes!

The Sham of Moderate Islam

Does this mean that even so-called moderate Muslims are hostile to America? It certainly does. Moderate Muslims support the conquest of America with a fervor equal to that of the militant Muslims. They cunningly play the role of the “good cop” in their good cop, bad cop charade deceiving we gullible Americans. In fact, the “two hands” of Islam aspire to choke the life out of America. One hand is called militant Muslims, the other hand is called moderate Muslims. These “two hands” work together, in their Koranically mandated asphyxiation pogrom, of strangling America into submission. This point cannot be overemphasized.

In 1974 Algerian President Boumendienne made a prophetic statement to the United Nations General Assembly:

“One day millions of men will leave the southern hemisphere of this planet to burst into the northern one. But not as friends. Because they will burst in to conquer, and they will conquer by populating it with their children. Victory will come to us from the wombs of our women.”

How accurately prophetic he was. Today, one can see no assimilation by Muslims in their host nations and they frequently exhibit open hostility turning entire cities into Moslem enclaves which the police are reluctant to enter. In addition, their birthrate is four times the European average creating a large cash deficient within the social welfare system. It is hardly an exaggeration to say, the Moslem immigration is like a “swarm of invading locusts” devouring everything in their path.

Dutch Politician Geert Wilders, having suffered first hand the “devouring” of his nation by so-called moderate Islam, unflinchingly states in his article, “The Islamization of Europe”…“There is no Moderate Islam”. The United States, like all besieged western democracies, must heed Geert Wilders warning if they wish to protect themselves. Clearly, the safe harbor of religion status enables the “two hands” of Islam to launch clandestine raids upon their host nation, sapping at its vitals from within.

A Road To Hell

The severity of the moderate Islam invasion is thoroughly understood by Islamic experts like Amil Amani. In his article, “A Bridge To “Moderate” Islam Is In Fact a Road to Hell.”He emphatically warns there is no such thing as moderate Islam and to call it so is an oxymoron, a contradiction. Specifically he states:

“Since moderate Islam is oxymoronic, any moderacy in Islam is in fact incompatible and in conflict with essential Islam, its power structure and its controlling proponents . . . Islam is not personally or spiritually relevant. It is political, which is why it may never separate itself from government. Adherence is not a matter of voluntary devotion, but of the law, and violators are severely punished, including capital punishment . . .”

Another enlightened expert who has personally witnessed that moderate Islam is a road to hell is Brigitte Gabriel. In her book, “Because They Hate” she gives a clarion call describing how the ruse of moderate Islam turned her home country of Lebanon into a “living nightmare.” She states:

“We were renowned for our hospitality, good heartedness, and generosity, just as America is know for the same qualities today. Sadly, those same qualities were the cause of our destruction . . . We did not realize that the intolerant Islamic side of our culture was gaining strength on the back of our western openness and pride in diversity.”

Most likely, Brigitte Gabriel would agree that providing religion status to Islam, believing main stream Islam to be moderate, was a major contributor to the destruction of Lebanon. The key point is that so-called moderate Muslims are as fiercely intolerant as militant Muslims, but are more skillful at concealing their agenda and deceiving their host nation until the time is right for them to strike. Brigitte Gabriel tells how usually peaceful Muslim neighbors who had befriended them for decades all of a sudden rose up to kill non-Muslims.

Murderous Intolerance

Such murderous intolerance is fully entrenched within Islam. The so-called moderates fully support these murderous attacks in their “hidden hearts”, rarely paying even lip service to the contrary. Their silence has been “deafening.” Why? Because they dare not challenge the inviolate precedents set by their prophet which would be a capital offense. For example, in 623 A.D. Mohammed was infuriated with the female poet Asma Bint Marwan for criticizing him, and sent his henchman to kill her and her five children. They ripped the infant from her breast and hacked it to pieces before her very eyes. They then made her watch the murder of her other four children, before raping and stabbing her repeatedly to death. After the butchery Mohammed told his henchman, “You have done a service to Allah and his Messenger.”

The killing of persons who criticize Islam has never abated and perhaps is even more alive today than in the 7th century. A few years ago in the U.S. an Egyptian Christian, his wife and two children had their throats cut for challenging Islam, mistakenly believing our free speech laws would protect them. Nearly everyday one hears of some gruesome murder, decapitation, or other violent crime committed by contemporary Muslims who are emulating the example of their prophet.

The Heart War

99.9% of all Muslims have a deeply held secret agenda (wish) that Islam will conquer their host country and turn it into an Islamic nation such is their indelible religious conditioning. This obvious fact has been completely neglected, ignored, avoided and shunned by the leadership of western democracies to their great detriment, including America.

Fortunately we have one Islamic expert who is trying to awaken our leadership and his sleeping counterparts in the defense department and intelligence community. He is truly a “shinning star” and a person of insightful wisdom who should be promoted to the highest positions. Major Stephen Collins Coughlin has written a 333 page thesis entitled, “To Our Great Detriment”. On pages 171-175 he provides a quote that reveals the concealed heart of so-called moderate Muslims. The Caliph (Pope) of the Ottoman empire spelled out what has always been the irrefutable law for all Muslims without exception:

“The heart war - and that is the lowest form of the war. And it is that the Muslim should believe in his heart that the infidels are enemies to him and to his religion, and that he should desire their disappearance and the destruction of their power, And no Muslim can be imagined who is not under obligation to this degree of war. Verily, all the people of the faith are under obligation to this amount without any question whatever, in whatever place they may be . . . .”

Prediction

Permit me to make a grim prediction: Any country that continues to provide religion status to Islam believing that moderate Muslims will save the day has been “succor punched” and is guaranteed to suffer great havoc and disruptive chaos. The proof is undeniable, look at the mayhem Islam has inflicted upon all western democracies over the past 20 years. The self destructive formula is simple: provide religion status to the sham of moderate Islam and your country will suffer great devastation.

Never before in human history has a nation’s leadership and intelligence community been so easily duped, confounded, played for fools, infiltrated and manipulated by enemy propagandists and apologists. Our leadership has become so pusillanimous in the face of Islamic bullying and brow beating, they have become their lackeys, aiding and abetting the invasion of the very nation they are suppose to protect. The situation is critical. The demoting of Islam’s religion status will turn the tide and send a clear-cut message to Islam that the dust of Allah is no longer befogging our vision enabling them to conqueror us.

 


Related posts:

  1. CAIR loses tax status
  2. Ex-Muslim Tells the Pope That Islam is a Religion of war
  3. UN, OIC pass resolution criminalizing “defamation” of religion (mainly islam)
  4. Christianity or Islam: which is the real “religion of peace”?
  5. WSJ Op-Ed: Islam Needs to Prove It’s a Religion of Peace
  6. Can Islam be reformed?
  7. British cleric: Islam is a religion of terrorism
  8. Maldives President: “No room for any other religion other than Islam”
  9. Denmark: Priests Write Open Letter Denying Islam is a Religion of Peace
  10. Another Discussion With A Moderate Muslim
Want automatic updates?
4 choices: Twitter, Facebook, RSS feed or get daily email updates
  • Isa Ben Yusoff
    It is sad that Leaders in the west are not able to understand or comprehend the enormous problems taht are yet to come by their wilfully towing the line of the Islamists. Their wretched action or inaction will cause the doom of the free life that many nations now enjoy.
  • Beejj
    Sir Wilhelm, the notion that the length of God's day is very different from our day has always made me laugh, for it is a childish attempt to cover up the inadequacies of the nonsense written in Genesis. Who wrote all this stuff? People. People who were utterly clueless, no shame on them. Yet, there are those who try to claim it was all written by God. Strange, that. Why did God suddenly change the definition of day? Ah, of course: because he works in mysterious ways. Great line, that. Like a get out of gaol free card.

    If our planet ceased its rotation the earth's crust would immediately melt, and every loose thing on it, such as people, would be hurled into space. Not a single stalagmite and stalactite would remain intact. The notion that the stoppage of the rotation might have been caused by a passing massive body takes my breath away, putting me in mind of that idiot Velikovsky and his Worlds in Collision - or was it World in Confusion?! And then the uncomfortable question comes to mind: once the stray planet had zoomed off out of harm's way, what caused our planet to resume its normal rotation - conveniently to the same rate of turn?

    From that which you have written you seem to think that processes exist for babies to develop from conception in laboratory apparatus - the full term ex utero. This is news to me. You must tell me more.

    I take it you are referring to Jonah when you mention the submersible craft. Are you saying the whale that swallowed him was a submarine? Gosh, people were so advanced then, weren't they! Or is my scepticism about such things evidence of my having a closed mind? It seems to me that your definition of an open mind is what I would call terminal gullibility.

    What do you mean when you say you do not dismiss evolution completely? It's as daft as saying someone is a partial virgin. You accept evolution, or you do not. Fossil formation from animal life is an extremely rare and fortuitous even, so don't expect a complete fossil record ever to be achieved. The evidence all points to evolution, however. Couple this with, for example, moths being white, then black, then white again, and the idea of evolution becomes most persuasive.

    How did life begin? Ah, that's a tough one. As I have stated previously, molecules essential for life to have any chance of beginning have been produced under conditions believed to simulate those prevailing in the distant past, so this is encouraging. Work continues in this field. It is far better, surely, to use imagination and to press on down that road than to simply be moronic and say, "It's all in the Bible". What a cop-out!

    As far as gene modification is concerned, it is as "accidental" as the uneven heating of the surface of the earth that gives rise to winds and storms.
  • Alogon
    Read or go see a chilling drama from the early 1950s by the Swiss author Max Frisch: Biedermann und die Brandstifter, or Biedermann and the Firebugs. It is about a well-do-do businessman in a town beset by arsonists, who swears that he would never permit it or be taken in by them. Within minutes a stranger apparently down on his luck knocks on the door begging for hospitality, who inveigles the man into letting him stay in the attic for the night. Then not only doesn't he leave, but he brings a friend in to stay with him in the attic. Suddenly it is also filled with kegs of gasoline. It soon becomes clear to the host that these guests are the arsonists, in fact they even jokingly admit it. But he keeps letting them stay, hoping that if he is kind enough to them he will change their minds. Of course it doesn't work.

    Frisch meant to show how people were fooled by the Nazis, but he seems prophetic, because it's happening again. As one of the villains said to the other, "The best and safest camouflage is still the plain and naked truth. Funnily enough, nobody will believe it."

    T-shirts worn by Islamists in Europe now read: 2030 we take over.
  • Beejj
    Shukri, you mentioned in a previous post that I should try Islam, your point being, I suspect, that I would find the experience beneficial or rewarding or uplifting, or whatever. I am reluctant to follow your advice. You see, if, having tried it, I decide I do not like it, I will be unable to turn from it: for me to do so would warrant my being subjected to a death sentence. Islam is the black hole of religions: there is no escape. Its adherents are prisoners. Little wonder there are so many Muslims in the world. True, my converting to Islam would bring me what many might consider to be benefits regarding my enjoyment of the "fair sex", but I have this nagging feeling that females are not for enjoyment. Silly of me, perhaps, but my Christian upbringing taught me that lesson. My subsequent atheism has done nothing to eradicate this tenet of the Christian faith from my thinking.

    I hope you will understand, then, my unwillingness to heed your advice.
  • Tonto
    Islam is not a religion at all....and has not been for centuries. It is a political entity that's purpose is the totalitarian governance of the people under it's rule. That is why, for the most part, islamicly dominated cultures are static and dying. What we are experiencing at the moment in this world, are the death throes of a dying culture that is trying to lash out in an attempt at a revival of the days when, at it's zenith, it actually had some vitality and purpose. This trend has been recognized by the islamic scholars that are at the nexus of the various terr movements. The inherent inertness of muslim society is incapable of keeping up with the modern world. Islam is perishing. The purpose of the terrorism is an attempt to revive some validity in islam and to deny the lie that islam is nothing but a dying culture.
  • straliangirl
    To me after reading the koran and the hadiths, it is really obvious that mohummad was not receiving divine messages. The evidence is pretty clear that he was making it up as he went along. Evolution perhaps? hahaha.
    Mohummad learned about judaism and christianity and liked the idea of one God, so started his own cult.
    Lets face it, judaism, judeo-christianity and judeo-islam are all middle eastern load of bullshit!
    Religion to the masses is regarded as true, the wise as false and the rulers as useful.
  • Tonto
    This guy has a lock on it alright.
  • Beejj
    Sir Wilhem, I hope you see this because it is another attempt to reply to a message you sent me. I am having weird modem problems.

    Science is the search for truth, a laudable endeavour, I think. A discovered truth might be used for evil purposes, but this does not besmirch the truth itself. Science is not concerned with morals. That's someone else's job. Do I "believe" in science? If you mean belief in the religious context, I do not. Science does not concern itself with belief in such terms.

    How much proof is needed before a theory is proved? A theory is based upon careful observation and will be supported until an observation refutes it. Science has learnt to be wary of induction. The history of science abounds with theories that held sway, only to be found wanting at a later time through the investigations of SCIENTISTS. The unearthing of such flaws delights the scientist. The formulation of a new theory, or the modification of an existing one, is an understandable source of joy to the discoverer, but he knows full well that the day might dawn when his theory, too, will suffer such a fate, and this delights him. Remember this, if a theory were to be 99.999% correct, IT IS WRONG! That's the nature of science. Science is a hard-hearted, unforgiving mistress. It's astonishing to consider that the law of conservation of energy upon which all science is built, although having been demonstrated to be correct on countless occasions, has not been PROVED to be correct. No-one expects it ever to be shown to be incorrect, and yet ............. How exciting it would be were it to be revealed as fallacious! Start all over again, guys. Yum! In the light of all this, can a theory EVER be fully proved? I doubt it, but to refuse to pay heed to a theory because it lacks 100% proof is lunacy. Look around you. You will see millions of examples of scientific theory at work. The screen you are reading owes its very existence to application of (imperfect) scientific theory. I hope this does not cause you to shut down your computer, though, given your stated unwillingness to be swayed by anything that is not water-tight.

    I am fascinated by your assertion that "earlier texts" tell about the formation of our solar system and explain much that science does not. If only Einstein had known about them! Please supply details, for I am agog with wonder.

    Of course quantum theory does not explain everything! No-one ever said it did. It concerns itself with the sub-microscopic and remains for the moment quite divorced from gravity. It means there are distressingly two physics. Not good. This is why our finest minds are busting the proverbial gut to find the unified field theory.

    I am puzzled by your seeming reticence to believe I do not have an open mind. I would claim that everything I have written about the workings of the universe demonstrates my open-mindedness. Perhaps other readers of this site will comment on this.

    You advise me not to argue with you. Actually, I do not feel I am arguing with you: I am simply trying to educate you about the nature of science.
  • SirWilhelm
    Here is a quote I think you will appreciate from Harry Collins (Cardiff University, UK):

    "The founding myth of the individual scientist using evidence to stand against the power of church or state - which has a central role in western societies - has been replaced with a model in which Machiavellian scientists engage in artful collboration with the powerful."

    I have seen many things related to this, apparantly you have not, which is why I have questioned the openess of your mind. Since we have been using gravity as an example, I wonder if you had heard about the 3 gravity detectors that were built around the world and linked by computer? They were supposed to be sensitive enough to detect a gravity wave from a super-nova. Fortuitously, a super-nova was seen shortly after their activation. Nothing was detected. So, what are they doing? Spending more money to make the dectectors 10 times more sensitive, nevermind they were supposed to be more than sensitive enough in the first place. But then, it's not their money, and they would be out of a job if they admitted the experiment proved there were no gravity waves, wouldn't they?

    I'm sorry I advised you not to argue with me. Actually, I feel we are on the same side, at least as far as being anti-Islamic. And I am trying to educate YOU to what is really going on in science in hope that we taxpayers can reform science and get even better results than we've gotten in the past.
  • hellosnackbar
    Failure to detect something does not mean that the hypothesis was wrong(although it may be.
    Scientists are not guided by ancient texts but by theoretical possibilities and then experioment.
    If experimental protocols were always accurate then scientific investigation would be an itellectual stroll.
    As one scientific commentater said "the wonder of science is discovering the depth of what we don't
    know";each negative result is the basis for new investigation and that's the fascination"
    BTW as I type I'm listening to a protest by muslim women against the already mentioned flogging of a young girl by Taliban morons.
    If only muslim women would organise,denounce Islam and apostecise.
    That would be fun.
    Come on girls kick 'em in the balls.
  • hellosnackbar
    I looked up Harry Collins and found that he is the sociology prof at Cardiff.
    He is in fact an epistemologists(with particular emphasis on science).
    He is well thought of in the scientific community insofar as he tells scientists to be very careful
    to think out their scientific protocols before "rushing headlong into experimental expense.
    He takes the view that civilised religionists are not all anti science and acts as a gobetween
    when science conflicts with the god squad.
    For example the negative influence of clergy in the stem cell debate.
    As someone who has had a close relative die of MND I have a dim view of stupid clerics who interfere(on so called moral grounds)with important medical research(like some scottish bishop dimwit did a few months ago).
    Sometimes what we know as religion is downright immoral or clergymen representing religious cults of all colours are.
  • Beejj
    Thank you for this, Hellosnackbar. You have saved me a job. Harry Collins, my arse!

    I might add to that which you wrote that science is not anti-religion, but anti-ignorance. Yet, religion wallows in ignorance, doesn't it, so ........!
  • SirWilhelm
    The original event I referred to occured Feb 7, 2007, since then there has been at least one other opportunity for the experiment to detect gravity waves. None were detected. They try to justify their failure by saying the non-detection was significant. The original investment in the US was $211 and at least 2 other countries spent similar amounts. They want to spend much more to increase the sensitvity 10 times rather than admit their hypothesis is wrong. It's our money they're spending, and you're still willing to go along with it? By the way, the failure to find gravity waves invalidates the Big Bang, Black Holes, Neutron stars, and General Relativity. Even more at stake eh? Do you think all those that support those theories want to admit they've been wrong? And what do they stand to loose? Do you begin to see what's at stake here?

    And it's not just the gravity wave experiment involved here. There is much other evidence that has been ignored, distorted, or misinterperted. But it seems you're prepared to continue to accept science at the face value it presents to the public.

    Scientists may not want to be guided by ancient texts, but I don't think they should dismiss them as casually as they do. But then they too contain evidence that contradicts their theories.

    As for Muslim women, I hope they can endure in their struggle for their rights, as women in this country did when they earned the right to vote.
  • Beejj
    You are not a scientist, are you?

    Tell us about the other evidence that has been ignored, distorted or misinterpreted. You cannot just say things like this without solid substantiation if you want people to pay you proper attention.

    Name the ancient texts you would have scientists follow.
  • SirWilhelm
    I am not a scientist. Nor do I belong to any relgion. I consider myself a diest, but I don't expect anyone to believe as I do, what you believe is your choice.

    I feel it's better if you find the evidence on your own. I don't care if people pay attention to me, it's the problems I've mentioned that need the attention.

    I don't expect scientists to "follow" the ancient texts, not sure what you mean by that. I think by ignoring them and dismissing them as myth, they are missing important scientific evidence. But I'll mention one you may find interesting, the "ennuma elish", hope I got that spelling right. Let's see what you make of that.
  • SirWilhelm
    Here's a quote you may appreciate for Harry Collins (Cardiff University, UK):

    "The founding myth of the individual scientist using evidence to stand against the power of church or state-which has a central role in western societies-has been replaced with a model in which Machiavelllian scientists engage in artful collaboration with the powerfull."

    In my readings, I have seen many examples of this. Apparantly you have not, which is why I have wondered about your open-mindedness. Yes, the many examples of advanced technology around us, blind us to how science is really working today and may be actually keeping us from making greater discoveries, such as the nature of gravity. Since we are using gravity as an example, are you aware of the 3 gravity wave detectors that were built around the world, then linked by computer? They were designed to be able to detect a gravity wave from a super nova. Fortuitously, a super-nova occured shortly after they were activated.
    No gravity wave was detected. So, what are they going to do? Spend more money to make the detectors 10 times more sensitive, despite their own claim they were more than sensitive enough to start with. Why worry, it's not their money, eh? Oh, and would they have jobs if they admitted this proved there was no such thing as a gravity wave?

    I'm sorry I advised you not to argue with me, I actually feel we are on the same side, at least as far as being anti-Islamic. And I am trying to educate YOU about the true nature of science today because I hope it can be reformed and brought back to a useful condition by we people that pay the bills with our taxes. I hope you'll look into these things yourself. I feel it's better people find things out their own way, rather than be lead.
  • Beejj
    Hello, Sir Wilhelm. Sorry, but I have never heard of Harry Collins, but I shall endeavour to find out about him. I have a suspicion he is not a scientist, however. I certainly take issue with that bit about science standing against the power of the church and his use of "machiavellian" for true scientists. Scientific endeavour simply proceeds under the steam of its practitioners, their only motive being to advance our understanding of how things work. They do not do it in order to confront the church or state. If their discoveries happen to conflict with a piece of biblical text it's the church that historically goes into attack mode, going so far as to burn people to death and to put them under house arrest. I have never heard of scientists behaving in such a manner. Machiavellian? I concede that there might be a few unscrupulous people engaged in science who might act immorally to feather their own nests, but I cannot think of a single superior scientist guilty of that crime. Indeed, the only "science criminal" that comes to mind is that dreadful Russian biologist, an enemy of evolution, who advised Stalin, to Russia's considerable cost. Galilieo, Newton, Lavoisier, Boyle, Faraday, JJ, Clerk Maxwell, Einstein, Rutherford, Moseley, Bohr, Born, Dirac, Schroedinger, Heisenberg, Fermi, Pauling, Crick, Watson, Feynman, Gell-Mann, Perutz, Meitner, Sanger and Pauli are some of the truly great ones who made our world what it is. These were/are big guns. (Collins is conspicuously absent). Name me just one of these who was/is Machiavellian. Demonstrate how their aim was to amass evidence to stand against the church or state, or how they used their discoveries to do so, or how they acted in collaboration with the powerful. (You might try to argue that some "collaborated" with Government in order to engage in the Manhattan Project, but such an argument is invalid.) It's nonsense. I really MUST investigate Mr Collins. Anyway, you claim to have seen "many examples" of this, so I hope you will quote them for me.

    What do you mean when you say that the many examples of advanced technology around us blind us to how science is really working to-day? I find this theory of yours fascinating. How might they be keeping us from making greater discoveries? Science and technology feed on themselves: the greater our expertise, the faster our progress. According to your thinking, if we could magically transform our world back several hundred years, freeing ourselves of our modern technology, we might suddenly make astonishing leaps forward to a condition of scientific awareness that far surpasses that which we presently enjoy. Strange! Perhaps this is why Muslims are so keen to return to the 7th century!

    Yes, I know about the search for gravity waves and the null results of experiments conducted to date. Notice those final two words? There are parallels with Michelson and Morley's search for the ether, although on that occasion the null result brought forth Relativity. Gravity waves have been postulated in an attempt to describe how gravity works. Its a clever idea - clever enough to warrant appropriate experimentation. It may be correct, or it might not. Only experimentation can decipher the truth of the matter. Such experiments, like the hunt for the Higgs particle, are hideously expensive because Nature keeps her most intimate secrets well hidden, if I might be forgiven a moment of fanciful poetry. You seem to think that scientists dream up such experiments in order to remain in employment; to keep the money coming in. Your cynicism is breathtaking. And what's that about scientists claiming that the 3-detector apparatus was "more than sensitive enough" for the task? Utter nonsense. How could any intelligent scientist make such a claim about waves he knows nothing about and which he does even know exist?

    Gravity is a diabolical affair. Our advances in the field of electrical phenomena far, far outstrip any progress we have made in the world of gravity (have we really made ANY?). Why is this? Well, for one thing, the "electric force" is approximately 1 followed by 40 zeroes times stronger than the gravitational force. Think about that.

    You tell me you are trying to educate me about the true nature of science. What is the nature of your scientific training and experience? Do you honestly, truly believe I do not look into things for myself?

    Yes, the day of the back-yard scientist is over, alas, although some clever boffin might yet pull a rabbit out of his hat as he toils in the shed. Society pays heavily for its scientific discoveries, but society is invariably the winner: think only of the medical world to see the truth of this. Would you have it otherwise?
  • SirWilhelm
    I mean that while we are surrounded by fantastic technology that functions so well we take it for granted every day, we take for granted that the scientists that created it and use it understand the principles behind them. Electricity is an excellent example. I'm well aware that the "electric force" is stronger than gravity. I'm also aware that even though science knows how it works, it really doesn't know what electricity is, much as with gravity. Even advocates of Plasma and Electric Universe are not sure what electricity is, but they are much more aware of what it is,or may be, doing. And they suspect that gravity may be another function of electricity at the sub-atomic level. Do you see the implications if they are right? Keep in mind that if you accept the reults of the LIGO experiement as disproving gravity waves, it disproves a key element of general relativity.

    Try going to www.ligo.caltech.edu, see what they have to say about their own experiment. Going to "LIGO sheds light on cosmic event.." may save some time

    In the meantime, I'd like to see you answer your own question: "How could any intelligent scientist make claims about waves he knows nothing about and which he does even know exist?" Remember, he, and others like him, are spending your money.
  • hellosnackbar
    I've just been struggling with a book called "the trouble with physics"by Lee Smolin.
    If you've read it Beej then I would like to ask you some questions since I don't have access to the obviously gifted author.
    Sir W if you are reading this there are no great revelations in ancient texts except about the life and times of the authors.
    Every time I hear the name Nostradamus I want to throw up.
    That does not mean that the ancients were thick(one guy 2500yrs ago calculated the circumference of the earth by observing the angle subtended by a stick of the sun's raysat the same time as the sun was overhead some kilometers away.It was never expl;ained how they made the measurement at the same time.
  • SirWilhelm
    I disagree that there are no great revelations in ancient texts. Why do you believe there are not? Many of the things we take for granted today, our sytem for keeping time based on 60 secs, and minutes, and our music scales, originated in ancient Sumeria, for example. And they knew of Uranus, Neptune, and Pluto. Are you one of those that's settled on how the Great Pyramid was built, or how old the Sphinx is? Can you explain why so many peoples all around the world built pryamids, with more being found all the time? Many of the things you take for granted have their roots in ancient times, doesn't that make you wonder?

    I did not, and would not, mention Nostradamus in this context.

    The example you use about the circumference of the Earth is just one of many things the ancients knew about the Earth and the Solar System that are hard to explain today. Not only that they knew, but how they knew.
  • Beejj
    I have heard of the book, but have not read it, Hellosnackbar. I am not surprised you find Smolin a struggle. I read one book by him and swore never to read another. He writes about excruciatingly difficult topics, but makes matters worse by deliberately using language that causes one to lose patience. Feynman never did this, and Smolin is no Feynman. Let me guess: does he go into string theory? This is something that my soul rebels against - I'm probably far too dense to see any beauty in it. There is something deeply wrong about a physics that does not (cannot?) lend itself to experimental verification. Rather like religion! Faraday, Kelvin and Rutherford would have a fit. Of course, my opinion ranks as nothing in this matter because the mathematics of string theory reduces me to a gibbering wreck. (I wish religious non-scientists would display similar honesty instead of grabbing the odd line from here and there and trying to use them as props for debate. Did you read Shukri's astonishing bit about Hoyle's jumbo jet? I didn't know whether to laugh or cry.)

    Yes, some of those ancient guys were brilliant. Some of the slightly more recent ones were Muslim, giving us algebra and alchemy and doing wondrous things in astronomy. Where did it all go wrong ....?

    Just now, my computer is on the blink. It might be the modem that's the criminal: I know sweet FA about these things. Anyway, this might not get to you.
  • SirWilhelm
    I let myself get sidetracked here. The point of this article is that Islam is a cult, not a religion. I agree. The question is how do we get the word out and get the rest of the world to agree? And will that make a difference? What other strategies and tactics can we devise to fight this cult? How can we defeat Islam?
  • hellosnackbar
    Winston Churchill, now he was a real Prophet!
    The accusation that scientists are behind political correctness is not strictly true
    Sadly the morons of sociology have named themselves "social scientists".

    Their baleful influence is a disease in the modern western world; supporting the myth of cultural equivalence.
    They've a lot to answer for when someone of common sense achieves power.
    In the meantime every little bit helps(as this worthy blog demonstrates.Thanks John ,Kal and everybody for all the hard work).
    Keeping the abomination that is Islam in collective consciousness is a small effort to avoid dangerous complacency.
  • Beejj
    Remember Rutherford's words, Hellosnackbar? "All science is physics or stamp collecting." Isn't that brilliant?
  • GeorgeOfTheJungle
    Shukri: stop trying to draw a veil of Taqqiya over people's eyes about islam. islam is NOT a religion, and NOT even a faith. Churchill, one of the great men of our era, put it in much better words many, many years ago. here is what he said in 1899, almost 100 years ago... boy, did he have it nailed down:


    WINSTON CHURCHILL ON ISLAM - IN 1899!

    "How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries!

    Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live.

    A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity.

    The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property, either as a child, a wife, or a concubine, must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has
    ceased to be a great power among men.

    Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities - but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it.

    No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it had vainly struggled, the civilization of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilization of ancient Rome."

    -Sir Winston Churchill (The River War, first edition, Vol. II, pages 248-50 (London: Longmans, Green & Co., 1899).


    and it still holds true for the islamic countried of today, despite all the oil money being spent on huge malls, high hotels, and glittering brassy rubbish. "Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live." It is still prevalent in many, if not all, islamic countries today. islam has contributed nothing to the world except ignorance, barbarism, and terror.
  • Shukri
    Churchill is specifically talking about rebel Mahdiists in Sudan, and not Muslims in general.

    His allegation about women and slavery is also wrong, as slavery has ceased to exist in Muslim countries, while Islam flourishes.

    http://tinyurl.com/3xwh23
  • Beejj
    I take it from this, Shukri, that if in future you wish to write critically or disparagingly about Christians or Jews you will specify their country. Right?
  • Shukri
    To critique is ok. To disparage is derogatory, and not ok.

    Anyway, the Jews and Christians are People of the Book, and from the community of Prophetic messengers.
  • hellosnackbar
    Slavery has ceased to exist in muslim countries Shukri!!!
    In Mali it still exists; whilst the treatment of Philipino servant girls in many Arab countries is slavery in all but name.(Oh! I'd forgotten muslim women)
    Take off your muslim distortion spectacles and try to read the news without your cognitively dissonated
    comprehension.
  • Shukri
    Err, slavery is illegal in Mali, as it is in all Muslim countries.

    The treatment of some domestic workers in the Arab world is definitely despicable. However, these is not an "Arab" or "Muslim" phenomenon. The majority of human trafficking, for instance, occurs in Europe and America.

    The point is to not be blinded into hating people from another country, because the reasons for hating may very well occur in ones own country.
  • Kal_El
    That there is a crock of lies. I have lived in more than one muslim country
    over the past 5 years and have personally witnessed the slavery islam has
    brought into the 20th century. Men and women from poorer muslim countries
    are brought in as laborers, crammed, 12 into a two bedroom apartment, their
    passports taken and held, and paid 75 dollars a month to work 14 hour days 7
    days a week. The lucky ones get to go home on vacation once a year.
    Everywhere islam flourishes I have seen this. Maids are raped and beaten,
    and often not paid for months at a time, unable to leave because their
    sponsor (usually the one beating them) is holding on to their passport so
    they cannot pack a bag and flee. How is that not slavery?
  • Shukri
    Slavery is illegal in all Muslim countries.

    If there is forced labor, and there is, then this is a crime for the country's legal system to correct, and to enforce the law with.
  • SirWilhelm
    I wonder how Churchill would feel today about "the strong arms of science". It appears to me that they no longer shelter Christianity, but strive to bring it and all religions down. Not necessarily a bad thing considering the strife between the 3 major religions today. On the other hand, has not science become a religion itself? Science demands tremendous amounts of money to reseach and promote it's theories to the point if one questions their necessesity one risks scorn and ridicule from the scientific establishment, witness those that question global warming for example. It also seems to me that science is behind political correctness and multiculturism as part of the inevtilism of evolution of society. As a result, we welcome those that practice a "militant and proselytinzing faith" into our borders.
  • Beejj
    Science does not exist to shelter any religious nonsense, although the more enlightened religions might take refuge behind its triumphs, as did that pope (I cannot recall which one - one of the Pius guys, I think - the Nazi-loving one, I seem to recall) some years ago when he embraced Big Bang theory. Get it into your head, will you, that science does not try to bring down religion. Science ignores religion, although religion does its damnedest to stultify the efforts of scientists. Witness Galileo. Pissing against the wind, they are. With every passing day, reason gains strength and religion retreats. Imbecilic minds might regard this as an attack upon religion, but we must excuse them, poor devils.

    What's that about global warming? What are you trying to say? Say it.

    What's that about scorn and ridicule? True, some aspects of scientific advancement have become fearfully expensive, but that's because of the almost unimaginably complex nature of the experimentation needed to take us another step along the path to truth. So what if a scientist, on the possible threshold of an abiding truth, calls a mere politician who controls the purse strings and who denies the outlay of the cost of a few aircraft carriers to allow that step to be taken, the blind fool he is. The man is worthy of more than ridicule: he stands in the way of human progress. He is a betrayer of the human race.

    What's this about science and so-called political correctness and multiculturalism? Please elucidate.

    You welcome "militant and proselytising faith"? You need help, my friend.
  • SirWilhelm
    Science has tried to replace religion. The Big Bang is a good example. The Big Bang created the universe, no need for god, end of story. Ironically enough, the Big Bang theory came from a Catholic priest trying to reconcile science with his religion. By the way, there's a competing theory to the Big Bang, it's called Electric Universe theory, ever hear of it?

    Global warming is controversial, not proven to be caused by man.

    If have seen many cases where a scientists has contradicted a prevailing theory and been scorned and ridiculed for it, such as those that disagree that global warming is manmade.

    I believe many ideas of politcal correctness are based on "scientific" ideas, it's PC to agree with man causing global warming, for example.

    It's against reason to object to a culture even if it's based on a "militant and proselytising faith".

    The "we" refered to the society we belong to that has welcomed Muslim immigrants without reservation despite their militance and proselytising which threatens our freedoms and our lives.
  • Beejj
    Science has NEVER tried to replace religion. Science is not the slightest bit interested in religion. Can you please try to get that into your head? How can Reason ever be concerned with superstition????

    The Big Bang idea ( you have no need to tell me about its historical development: there is no irony in the fact that the first chap to conceive of it happened to be a Catholic, so don't feebly try to think of his moment of imagination as a triumph of the Church - he was simply considering the outcome of Hubble's work) in no way destroys or disproves the existence of God, and no scientist will ever claim it does. Science is unconcerned about God, no matter what Paul Davies writes, the pitiful fool.

    I have investigated the "Electric Universe" idea since you wrote your words. Forgive me while I turn on The Simpsons .........

    Global warming. Highly speculative, yes, as every scientist knows. The atmosphere is a dauntingly complex affair that does not lend itself to simple laboratory investigation. You cannot name me a single scientist of merit who claims human activity is the single cause of that which is befalling us. Scientists, more than anyone else, have an appreciation of the ghastly complexities that bedevil all attempts to unravel the factors that imperil our planetary climate, so they are hesitant to pontificate (interesting word, that!). All measurements, however, suggest that our combustion of carboniferous materials are causing lasting damage. What should we do? Wait until it is too late? Wait until we can say with certainty that our use of fossil fuels definitely resulted in the hell that enfolds? Or should we accept the possibility that current scientific indicators suggest that we should curtail our consumption of carbon-based fuels JUST IN CASE? What is your view, oh mighty scientist?
  • SirWilhelm
    I'm surprised you've dismissed the EU so quickly. But then, how much investigating could you have done? I came across it about 2 years ago, and I still haven't caught up on the background reading, mostly because there is so much new evidence coming out every day. Why do you dismiss it so quickly?

    Much of what I find wrong with global warming has to do with EU theory. If you reject it outright, there's not much left for me to argue with. Altho I see no harm in cutting our consumption of carbon based fuels, as long as we do it in such a way it does not disrupt our economies.

    Along those lines, I question the motives of politicians that want to replace fossil fuel industries that own interests in the companies that they want to replace them with. Then there is the study that shows that for every job created by green industries, 2 jobs will be lost in the fossil fuel industries. Then there's cap and trade. I heard last night that there are industries in Europe that have shut down in order to collect cap and trade payments which pay them better than it does to operate. If global warming being caused by man were a certainty, and mankinds survival in question, you may be able to justify these kinds of things, but I find them questionable even then, and, as we seem to agree, the cause of global warming is highly speculative.
  • Beejj
    I am presently dismissive of it because there is nothing I have read about it that suggests it has any value comparable with other other models.
  • Beejj
    Thank you for this, George. Brilliant!
  • SirWilhelm
    Shukri, you must not be very familiar with your own "religion", and the point of this article was that Islam is not a religion but a cult. But then, you wouldn't be alone. Most Muslims don't bother researching their own religion, or they would find that the name Allah can be traced back to an ancient idolic moon god that existed long before Mohammed came along. Aside from that, there are clear differences between Allah and the Christian God. Allah has no son, and therefore there is no trinity. Jesus taught forgiveness of sins, Allah teaches good deeds replace evil. And on and on. Instead of lecturing here, Shurkri, why don't you lecture those that do violence in Allah's name? If most Muslims are peaceful, why can't you weed out or condemn those that aren't? The US govt went after those that attacked abortion clinics in this country, mostly Christians, and most Christians condemend the violence, what radical Muslims are doing is much worse, why aren't you doing something about it?
    And Mel, again, the Crusades and Inquisition are long over, only the Muslims use things like that to justify their "jihad" today, does that work for you? Don't you as a Christian believe in forgiveness? If you are a Christian, pray for the sins of the Crusaders and Inquisitors, but don't put their sins on their descendents, they have enough of their own to worry about.
    And relatively speaking, you're talking about a difference of 700 years out of 2,000, when does Islam stop being young?
  • Shukri
    God is the lord of the moon and all that exists:

    "Allah is He, who created the sun, the moon, and the stars (all) governed by laws under His commandment." (Koran - 7:54).

    Also, you assume that the only reason terrorists operate is because the majority allows them to. This is nonsense. If you visit a church every week, and another Church member murders somebody, how can the entire church be responsible?

    One person is not responsible for the sins of another, it says so in the Bible, in the Koran and in all the books of justice that exist on earth.
  • SirWilhelm
    Quoting the Koran does not confirm or deny that Allah was once one of hundreds of pagan gods worshipped by people in the area where Islam originated.
    If Muslims know some of their people commit terroirst acts in the name of Islam and do or say nothing against it, then they do allow it.
    Shukri, the church is not responsible if a member murders someone, but there is something wrong with the church if they know a member is a murderer and does nothing about it, such as turning the murderer in to the law. Or are you saying it depends on who they murder, that it's ok to murder infidels? And who defines what is a sin, do you go by all those books, or just the Koran? Is terrorism a sin in your eyes?
  • Shukri
    If the Muslim holy book says that God is the Lord of the moon, how can anyone claim that Muslims worship the moon, instead of God?

    Also, mosques are not like Churches. They do not have "membership" lists, so the mosque goer can be very anonymous. Their business is with God and not human beings, after all...

    A sin is something that we are informed by God is harmful to the human being.

    Terrorism is an obvious sin.
  • SirWilhelm
    I'm not claiming Muslims worship the moon, Allah was the name of a pagan moon god in Saudi Arabia, look it up. I can't help if you don't like the implication.

    Maybe they should have memberships lists if not having them leads to giving havens to terrorists.
  • Shukri
    I'm sorry, but the moon god theory offered by Morey is laughable, as are his scholarly credentials on Islam. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Morey.

    it is He who has created the night and the day and the sun and the moon - all of them floating through space! - Koran - 21:33

    Dealing terrorism a death blow is very easy. I.e: end the invasion and occupation of Muslim countries. Terrorism happens when invasion and occupation happens. Look at Iraq, Palestine, Afghanistan, Chechnya etc.
  • Kal_El
    Then please explain Lebanon, Iran, Saudi, Jordan, Pakistan, Indonesia, and
    India? Who is occupying those countries? And what of islamic armies
    attacking Europe in the 8th century, and again in 1683? What occupation were
    the Ottomans fighting? Oh wait, they occupied all of what is now the middle
    east. Nice try though, your taqqiya is improving. It was islam that struck
    the first blow against the United States in the 1780's. The US had NO
    FOREIGN POLICY to speak of back then. Nor did we have anything to do with
    the muslim world, until we crushed the Berbers like cockroaches.
  • Shukri
    Lebanon has been invaded, bombed and occupied by Israel. Pakistan is allowing occupation troops in Afghanistan to resupply through their land. India occupies Kashmir.

    The rest are offshoots. For example, Australians were targeted by the murderers in Bali because of their country assisting the occupation of Iraq.
  • Kal_El
    Kashmir has always been Hindu. Like Iran (Persia) and many other countries,
    muslims invaded, occupied and now want to remove the infidels.

    I like how you completely ignore the Berber attacks, and the invasions and
    occupations of Europe. Lebanon was occupied by Syria until 2005, but I guess
    that was ok since the occupiers were muslim, right? Lebanon has also been
    bombed by Syria, and shot up by Hizbullah. I've been there many times while
    these things were going on.

    Let me bring yet another muslim invasion and occupation into it, which you
    will probably ignore, as you did the Berbers. What about the muslim
    caliphate invading North African countries and establishing the Maghreb?

    You act like the United States is the first country to invade another. We
    did not invade for the sake of colonization. You lie through your teeth
    saying that terrorism will stop if we leave muslim countries. Right. We left
    Iraq after 1991, and Saddam continued using terror to control Iraq, and to
    assassinate dissidents abroad.
  • Shukri
    From wikipedia:

    In the 13th century, Islam became the dominant religion in Kashmir. The Muslims and Hindus of Kashmir lived in harmony, since the Sufi-Islamic way of life that ordinary Muslims followed in Kashmir complemented the Rishi tradition of Kashmiri Pandits. This led to a syncretic culture where Hindus and Muslims revered the same local saints and prayed at the same shrines. The Sufi saint Bulbul Shah persuaded King Rinchan Shah, ruler of Kashgar Ladakh, to adopt Islamic way of life. The foundation of Sufiana composite culture was laid when Muslims, Hindus and Buddhists were co-existing in the atmosphere of love and brotherhood.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kashmiri_Muslim_tr...
  • SirWilhelm
    Aren't the Sufis a sect within Islam? But not one of the dominant sects, Sunni or Shia. I asked you once and you never answered, Shukri, are you Sunni or Shia? Or, since you posted this link, are you Sufi? What's the difference? Which one is the "right" version of Islam? Or are you afraid to admit there is no more unity of belief within Islam than there is in any other religion of the Book? It sounds like Sufi differs greatly from other Muslim sects, in it's ability to get along, at least in the 13th century, maybe all Muslims should become Sufi?
  • Shukri
    How is my being a Sunni or Shia relevant to the discussion?

    Both Sunni and Shi'a are Muslims.

    Sufism is Islamic spirituality. See http://tinyurl.com/chryfd

    Hence, the Sufi's concentrate much more on Islamic spirituality than the average Muslim. This is easily seen by the mp3's in the above link.
  • SirWilhelm
    It's like asking a Christian if he's Catholic or Protestant. It's no big deal, why don't you want to answer? I just wanted to see if I could get a straight answer to a simple question, because you don't, it seems you are hiding something, which Muslims usually are.

    ----------
    Sent from my Verizon Wireless mobile phone
  • Kal_El
    And what was Kashmir BEFORE the 13th century? And how did islam come to be
    dominant in the region? Same way it became dominant in Arabia, Iran, Iraq,
    the Magrheb, Pakistan and Afghanistan. Violent jihad.
  • Shukri
    The largest Muslim population is in Indonesia with 200m+. Tell me, how did Indonesia convert? Through "violent jihad(sic)"?
  • Beejj
    The only reason so many Hindus embraced Islam is because it freed them from the caste system, Shukri, so cut the shit, please.
  • Shukri
    They also believed because Islam has reasonable beliefs that they were comfortable following as rational human beings.
  • Beejj
    Very comfortable when compared with being Untouchables, yes.
  • SirWilhelm
    Do you question his scholary credentials because he's a Christian? Unfortunately for Islam, you can't dispute your own symbols. Do you not have the crescent moon on your flags and on standards over your mosques and on your ambulances?

    And your statements after the links show how hard core you are, there's no talking to the likes of you.

    Arguing who's the terrorist the way you do is like arguing who started the fued, the Hatfields or the McCoys. But history shows that Muslims have rejected all efforts by all involved to resolve the conflict peacefully. As long as you insist on the destruction of Israel, conflict will continue.
  • Shukri
    I actually question his credentials because he is a quack whose theories are not supported by any recognized scholar.

    Also, unfortunately, you cannot resolve a conflict peacefully when the other side is dropping bombs on your head, and foreign troops are occupying your land.
  • hellosnackbar
    I've not been in a church for 25 years but as far as I recall there was no membership.
    And I had my appendix removed about the same time.
    Honestly Shukri how can you believe that this Allah entity chose an illiterate desert itinerate
    as his last messenger?That's about as plausible as a flying pig.
    And if Allah is omnipotent omnisicient and omnipresent ;logic would dictate that he'd put in an appearance from time to time.(instead of relying on the questionable suitability of some illiterate murdering nomad}.
    The problem is that muslims lack a sense of humour when this implausibility is brought to their attention and the more extreme believers murder innocents with the ridiculous belief that Allah is on their side.
    This is mental illness provides reasonable justification for the proscription of Islam in civilised countries as its very presence and influence represents a constant threat .
    You don't appear to have read the GOD DELUSION my friend ;you should!
    You don't live in a barbaric country like KSA or Iran .Have a little sympathy for the poor sods that do.
    And please see some Pat Condell videos and let us know what you think.
    Remember that primitive unsubstatiated dogma always trumps reason when it involves
    religion and that can be no part of an advanced society.
    To put it crudely religion {especially Islam)is reviled as BULLSHIT.
    It seeks to shackle freedom ;and that I will always oppose by whatever means possible,
    We in the free world do NOT need advice from halfwits anchored with their idiotic ideology
    in the 7th century.
  • Beejj
    Omniscience and omnipotence are mutually exclusive, my Celtic brother.
  • hellosnackbar
    I know that Beej I was hoping that old Shukri would rise to the bait.
    Clearly he needs to widen his reading and stop wasting his time with that septic tome he holds so dear.
  • Shukri
    God chose a human being to be his messenger, because then human beings would have no excuse to claim that they couldn't follow him, as would be the case if an angel was sent as a messenger instead.

    Belief in God is not in principle impossible, my friend, and neither is belief in the messenger of God.

    Believers are healthier and happier than disbelievers, as numerous polls show.
  • Beejj
    You astonish me, Shukri. I can quite understand and sympathise with your impressive ignorance of science, but your willingness to believe the words of a guy who comes out a cave to tell everyone that he had just been visited by an angel or something and that he has been given a divine revelation and that this is how we must do things from now on and that I'm the last prophet and anyone who tries to upstage me at a later date is not to be believed ......... and all the rest of it ........ AMAZING! Well, if it keeps you happy, carry on. I remember being happy to believe that Santa Claus existed, too. It was GREAT.

    Your final sentence actually made me laugh out loud, the best bit being, "as numerous polls show". Reminds of those silly TV ads for headache pills which are more effective than others "as university tests show". Great stuff. Keep it coming.
  • Shukri
    What exactly is it about the words of Muhammad pbuh that you find unbelievable?

    http://tinyurl.com/8g787q
  • Beejj
    There you have me, Shukri, old fellow: defenceless and without hope of ever mustering a defence. You see, I have tried to read the Koran, but the effort defeats me. It makes me feel ill. I judge Islam not by what was written by some guys long after Mohammed's death, but by the deeds of his followers. To me, the act far surpasses the message in importance. Religious texts are open to interpretations, are they not, but your Koran is clearly open to interpretation that reduces women, in particular, to serfdom and the rest of you to intellectual slavery. Please don't waste your time trying to claim women under Islam have equal rights with men. Even Muslims would not believe you. I find this insufferable. Women are the intellectual equal of men, even if they do not have similar musculature. The mind is all. Your book might say nice things about Jews, but what is the reality? You have madmen in charge of your countries who desire the annihilation of a people on the east coast of the Mediterranean. I cannot accept that. A billion people follow your faith, many of them possessed of rare intellect, but what do they contribute to the glittering triumphs of human achievement? Nothing. Why is this? Because their minds have been put in chains. As an educator, I find this intolerable. Just think: there might be a child in Saudi or Iran, or wherever, on a par with Newton at this very moment, but the sad little bugger will never have the opportunity to give it wing. The poor sod will pray 5 (?) times a day and his intellectual brilliance will be channelled into study of an iron-age book. It makes me weep. This is the boy or girl who might give us the unified field theory, that Einstein strove to find. Can you not see that the living actions of your religion kill human endeavour, despite (or because of) that which is written in your book? Islam's enslavement of the human mind is what makes me the eternal enemy of your religion.
  • Shukri
    It's unfortunate that you feel this way.

    Islam is meant to address the need that human beings have for God, and the prevention of ills in society. It's a necessary component of human life that does not deny the study of science or the advancement of knowledge.

    It was the Muslims who set the stage for centuries. Won't you also credit the religion for Algebra and the hundreds of medical and scientific discoveries that Muslims contributed to the world in every field imaginable? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_science

    You say that Islam mistreats women, but it in fact ennobles them. You can find practicing Muslim women in all of the leading universities around the world.

    You say that Muslims mistreat Jews, but it was in fact not Muslims who perpetrated the Holocaust or other pogroms that were significant sources of suffering for Jews. The only beef that Muslims have with Jews is the hundreds of thousands of Muslim refugees who were made homeless by the state of Israel.

    Even in Iran, you can find world-class institutions such as the Sharif University of Technology, and even in Saudi, institutions such as KAUST are being built.

    Islam does not prevent people from being the best they can be in any field.
  • Beejj
    You render me breathless, Shukri. Not quite speechless, though. "The need human beings have for God." This perplexes me. I agree that people have long felt and continue to feel such need, although I am damned if I can see why. But I now have to say something that will bring me condemnation. Those who feel the need for God are mentally deficient. I do not feel such need because I am mentally superior. Don't say, though, that it is a necessary component of human life. In the absence of religion, and even under its yoke, science and advancement of human knowledge are guaranteed. The human mind will always triumph over dark-age superstition.

    I will not credit the religion with algebra and much more. Algebra did not spring forth from Islamic thinking, but from those of the faith who were allowed the luxury of thinking outside the square. If Islam was responsible for algebra why did it suddenly dry up?

    In every field imaginable? Tell me of the intellectual marvels of those of the Islamic faith over the past 500 years. The poor victims of Islam, minds enchained, have wallowed while the non-Islamic world has forged ahead. Oh, what a tragic waste of talent!

    Did I say Muslims mistreat women? Silly me! What a fool I am! I saw a video the other day of a Muslim girl being ennobled in front of an audience as she was being flogged. Everywhere I look I see Muslim women wearing whatever they wish. God, those bikini-clad Muslim girls on the Australian beaches drive us all mad! And, of course, Muslim women are allowed several husbands, aren't they? I just adore Islam's enlightened view of women.

    Who said the holocaust was the action of Muslims? Who said Hitler was a Muslim? While it was going on, though, Muslim leaders were allying themselves with Nazi Germany. Hindus weren't. (The Catholic Church, however ........!)

    Read the history of the birth of Israel. The Arabs WERE NOT driven out by the Jews. They chose to leave, but were betrayed by their Muslim brothers.The activities of the Irgun were roundly condemned by Ben Gurion.

    "Islam does not prevent people from being the best they can in any field." Try telling that to the girls who are prevented from attending school by the Taliban or the female serfs in Saudi Arabia.
  • Shukri
    I am glad that you are against superstition because Islam is also against it.

    Algebra did in fact originate with Islam because the Muslims are obligated to give charity to the poor and in order to calculate how much is due, you need Algebra.

    Single instances of abuse are not representative of the whole. Do you think that no atheist has ever abused a woman? If you acknowledge that even a single atheist has possibly done so, does that mean that all atheists are abusive? Of course not. So why apply different standards to Muslims, and claim that Islam is abusive, when a few misguided people act against Islamic teachings?

    The Prophet said in a hadith: "The best of you are those who are best to their womenfolk"
  • Beejj
    Islam, like all other religions IS superstition, Shukri.

    True, single instances are not representative of the whole, but Islam abounds with violations of female abuse to an extent , even on a national scale, that causes me to view it with distaste and disgust. If I could similarly point the finger to Judaism and Christianity I would be the first to do so, believe me. I loathe, for example, the Papist view of contraception. Just think ... the Vatican that so abhors contraception is the owner of most of the pharmacies in Italy which SELL CONDOMS! I detest the Catholic church almost as much as I despise Islam, but I do not feel it threatens my very existence, as does your religion.

    Have atheists abused women? Hell, yes! The finest examples might be Mao and Beria. But this does not mean that atheism stands for abuse of women. Islam DOES stand for abuse of women. God, you can be so stupid, Shukri.

    The prophet said all kinds of things, but his actions betrayed his words. The prophet can go and shove his head into a bucket of ripe pig shit.
  • Shukri
    Islam is a knowledge-based religion and has no place for superstition.

    http://tinyurl.com/8g787q
  • Beejj
    The word "knowledge" comes from TO KNOW., which means to be certain of. Tell me about the KNOWLEDGE that is the basis for your, or any other, religion.
  • Shukri
    The knowledge that the universe didn't create itself.

    The knowledge that God has sent Prophets to inform us about who He is, and what will benefit us, and what will harm us.

    The knowledge that none of the above is in principle unreasonable.

    Islam works, my friend. Try it with sincerity and see for yourself.
  • Kal_El
    Tell that to every mother/daughter/sister killed or horrbily disfigured by
    her own family to protect the tribe's "honor". Tell that to the civilians
    beheaded in Iraq as muslims exhalted allah. Tell it to the millions enslaved
    by the Berbers, in the name of islam.
  • Beejj
    You are scientifically ignorant, philosophically derelict and morally bankrupt, Shukri.
  • Shukri
    Yet Islam has given me more than what atheism seems to have given you.

    http://tinyurl.com/cygtkr
  • Beejj
    Would you care to amplify that, Shukri?
  • Shukri
    Ampify what, Beejj?
  • SirWilhelm
    Islam, like any religion, has it's good and bad points. It's bad points far outwiegh it's good. It's militance being the main bad point.

    The image of enlightenment that Islam likes to emphasize, come from it's intitial conquests where it embraced the knowledge of the inhabitants of the counties it occupied. Since then, Islam has stagnated because of it's focus of teaching only the Koran at the lower levels of education. Those that go on to higher levels are the exception.

    The Muslim refugees, the Palestinians, got that way because they refused to integrate with the Israeli state, and their Muslim brothers in Lebanon, Jordan and Egypt refused to take them in. Now they are pawns their "brothers" use to keep the conflict with Israel alive, refusing to let them even have the seperate state that has been offered to them.

    Despte the few world-class institutions, the majority of Muslims live in ignorance and poverty.

    If Islam does not prevent people from being the best they can be, why are so many immigrating? I'd like to think it's to better themselves, but I fear it's a subtle invasion to take over all non-Islam countries.
  • Shukri
    Islam's "militance" is not a bad thing because there is in fact such a thing as a just war, To defend the nation is warranted and to give in, because the enemy wants "peace" while bombing and occupying you, is reprehensible.

    You say that the Muslims have stagnated because they only study the Quran, yet the Muslim nation with the greatest numbers of madrassa students (i.e: Pakistan) has produced world-class scientists and entrepreneurs. You can even just look at the number of Pakistani doctors and entrepreneurs in the United States as an example (http://opensiliconvalley.org/ and http://www.appna.org/).

    The thing that's holding Muslims back is not religion, but a lack of opportunity.

    Regarding Israel, if I occupied your house and told you to go live with your neighbors, is that acceptable? Yet, this is what you seem to be saying that the Palestinians should do--they should just give up the land they have lived in for centuries and go live in a neighboring country. This is wrong and unjust.
  • hellosnackbar
    Muslims, Allah and good deeds?is this more mythology from the "religion of peace?"
  • Robert B.
    "Shockingly, one may rightly conclude that America is now being conquered without Islam even having to fire a shot. Have we really become that docile, self complacent and pathetic? The answer is Yes!"

    Yes, we as a nation have been brow-beaten into submission by the "PC Police." Speak out against anyone other than a white male (usually Southern) and you will be labelled a racist, homophobe, islamophobe, etc.

    Somewhat like the boy who cried "Wolf," the dhiminis amounst us will find out too late what they have brought to our shores. God help us then.

    Note: Over 10% of my adult life has been spent in islamic dominated countries.
  • Kal_El
    Robert B.

    Rest assured that while it looks like B Hussein Obama and friends are ready to bend us over for islam, that We The People will NEVER SUBMIT TO TYRANNY. We sent the Brits packing during the American Revolution, the muslim Berbers during the Barbary Wars, the Nazi's during WWII, the Communist Soviet Empire during the Cold War. The difference between us and Europe is that we are guaranteed the right to defend ourselves, thanks to the foresight of the Founding Fathers. It is called the Second Amendment. It is the one thing that so far has kept jihadis from acting out like they do in the Untied Kingdumb, France, etc...
  • Snake_Oil_Baron
    I am not a Christian and I have many criticisms of all "revelation" based theology but the biggest problems in Christian interpretations of the Bible came when the fewest people were allowed to even read the Bible. You can see how misguided medieval clerics were by referring to the scriptures they quote.

    In Islam though, the problem is that the extremists and terrorists actually read the scriptures (especially the Hadith which are needed to make any sense of the Koran and its context and history) and understand them. The least frightening of Muslims seem to be those who memorize a few Koran verses and know nothing of the Hadith. Those Islamic scriptures are highly disturbing. They don't need anyone to misinterpret them to cause chaos.
  • Shukri
    The people who know the Quran and Hadith the most are the ones who condemn terrorism the strongest.

    http://tinyurl.com/dxestd
  • Beejj
    Thank you for this, John. It's a beauty.
  • Martel Sobiesky as usual hits the nail on the head. Islam is not a religion of peace because its founder was a murderous pedophile. Let's be honest about this. This is not a war on terror. We are not fighting terror. We are fighting the people that use terror as mohammed did. For those Muslims that agree with using terror as a tool to murder and subjugate non Muslims and other Muslims they will be destroyed.

    I WILL NOT SUBMIT.
  • Shukri
    Actually, most Muslims are immensely peaceful. Consider all the major wars of the 20th century, World War 1 and 2, Vietnam, Korea, the Chinese civil war and all the other wars in which millions of people died. Very few involve Muslims, and in fact the vast majority of them involve Christians and atheists.
  • Beejj
    "Muslims are immensely peaceful." Try telling that to the people of the Philippines, Somalia, Sudan, Israel, Pakistan, Afghanistan, the Balkans, Iraq, Iran, Kuwait, Spain, America, Britain, India, Sri Lanka, Russia and probably a few other countries that do not spring to mind at the moment.
  • Shukri
    You seem to confuse politics with religion. Muslims are not attacking South America, for example. Why? Because South America has generally not spearheaded the bombing, invasion and occupation of Muslim countries.
  • Kal_El
    Shukri,

    You are a LIAR! Muslims HAVE attacked South America. Hizbullah blew up a Jewish community center in1994, in Argentina. The only continent that has thus far been spared jihad is Antarctica. Why oh why do you persist in telling lies?

    Beej,

    You left out Morocco, Tunisia, Algeria, Egypt, Indonesia, France, Belgium, Denmark, Germany, Turkey, Sweden, Argentina, Kenya, Armenia and I am sure there are many others.
  • Shukri
    Nonsense, I'm talking about South American targets. The vile attack on the synagogue was a targeting against Israel.
  • Kal_El
    Hey imbecile, the Synagogue is on South American land. Regardless of intent,
    it was an attack on South American Jews. Your line of thinking thus
    justifies the US bombing Pakistan, since the target is the Taliban and Al
    Qaeda.
  • Shukri
    In general, Muslim terrorists do not target nations that have not sponsored the invasion and occupation of Muslim countries.

    Iraq, Afghanistan, Chechnya, the list continues on...
  • Necrowulf
    What about ARgentina? There was a terrorist attack there in the 90's

    What about the terrorist safe heavens there with the triple border with Uruguay, Brazil and Argentina
  • Shukri
    The vile attack in Argentina targeted Israeli's.

    The root of terrorism is occupation and invasion. Because when there is occupation, there is daily degradation and humiliation that will cause somebody to crack sooner or later.

    For examples, see the prisoner abuse, and the regular shootings of civilians at Occupation checkpoints in Iraq.

    Also, some examples in Israel: http://tinyurl.com/cqu6nk
  • Necrowulf
    Cool, so it is ok to kill Argentinians because they were close to the Israelis...
    Cool, cool... Nice to know you support the terrorist attacks, even nicer to know that MExicans, Guatemalans, Bolivians, all who worked in the WTC died because they were close to the "vile" americans...

    Yeah, I guess this gives reason to target civilians, whilst the west and Israel makes so much effort on not to target civilians and avoid the human shields that muslims love to use, the muslims keeps targeting civilians.

    Nice to know that.... Realllllyyy nice.

    I think Israel shouyld stop offering Hospitals, energy food and everything to the Gaza and West Bank, and if a foreigner should cross its borders, he would be deported and require visa.

    It is time muslims accept responsability of its wrong doings, especially the use of the Palestinians "refugees" as escape goat for Israeli invasion.
  • SirWilhelm
    Shukri, yes, they see Jesus as a prophet, but, Allah sees himself as superior to Jehovah, and that his teachings and policies are superior to Jehovah's. So, anyone that does not follow Allah's teachings is an infidel, and must convert or die. Allah's laws, sharia, control all aspects of his follower's lives. Breaking his laws is punished severley, usually by death, beheading and stoning most often. So it's not just a few Muslims that are violent, it is their way of life. You missed the point, it's not about sin, but about being told how to live every minute of your life. Mel, did you even read the article? If you did, how did you miss his point that Islam has nothing to do with faith? But you do make one good point, Christianity has come a long way from the middle-ages, while Islam has remained there while trying to drag the rest of the world back to the 7th century.
  • hellosnackbar
    The appendix is vestigial because it has little use(this is not Lamarckism)due pobably due to diet and natural selection(in herbivorous monkeys it's much bigger).
    I'm one of those nutters who believe man would be better served by teaching science in church (with the slow marginalisation of belief in the supernatural).
    Evolution is classified as a theory.(a theory in science is not just a possibility but idea(s) that have a very high degree of probability as fact).Gravity is such a theory.
    I implore everyone ,who has the intelligence ;to investigate all science,so that they can give opinions based on logic and reasoned observation.
    To draw a game contest metaphor ;religion versus science is like comparing American wrestling to Chess.
    Read Richard Dawkins(for evolution)and then Stephen Hawking (A brief history of time);the latter will require your undivided concentration.
    And then compare the intellects of these two gents with that of professional clergy.
    Let's hear it for science in churches and mosques.
  • SirWilhelm
    So you would have science replace religion by the slow marginalisation of belief in the supernatural? Is it scientific to impose your belief on others? Isn't that what the Muslims are trying to do? Most other religions invite you to decide if you want to believe for yourself, it seems to me that science is trying to take that choice away sometimes by their insistance only science can know the truth of all things.
    Gravity is a good example of that. There are several scientific theories of gravity. Newton's theory explains how it works, and we still use his formulas to compute orbits in our space program, but he was not able to formulate a hypothesis to what it was. Einstien and quantom mechanics have their theories, but observation has not entirely confirmed them. No graviton or gravity waves have been observed despite many attempts. But when they speak of gravity to the public, they speak as if there are no questions.
    I encourage everyone that can read to investigate everything and make your own decisions.
    If comparing religon vs science is like comparing wrestling to chess, then how do you compare Dawkins or Hawkings to clergy? Read them if you can by all means, and talk to clergy if you need answers there, but don't expect one to supply answers for the other, altho anything is possible.
  • Beejj
    I might be mistaken, but you seem to have the idea that scientists wish to impose their ideas upon others. What nonsense! You also said that science has become a religion. More nonsense. How can science, in which scepticism reigns supreme, be likened to religion, which is dogmatic from beginning to end? They are polar opposites. The sad truth is that while anyone can be told that God exists - no proof required - and choose to believe this - again, without evidence - it takes a fine intellect to come to grips with science. Few people have what it takes to succeed in science, but the merest child is willing to accept the statements, disguised as truth, by its parents. Try explaining to a 3 year-old the simple inverse square law.

    Newton never explained gravity: he described how it worked, brilliantly yet imperfectly since he was unaware of the constancy of the velocity of light. (You are self-contradictory when you claim in the same sentence that Newton explains it, and that he was not able to formulate a hypothesis to "what it was".) It was not until 1915 that his formulae received slight modification. Gravity has yet to be explained, as every scientist knows, so they do NOT "speak as though there are no questions". Don't invent such lies, please. The last thing a scientist can be is certain and boastful in such certainty. There is no room for vanity in science. We leave that for our religious brethren, and gosh, aren't they good at it! Gravity is an astonishingly challenging phenomenon, as SCIENTISTS have discovered, and the finest minds have wrestled with it and continue to do so. In order to burrow into its hidden secrets people have tried several lines of imaginative attack, including the concepts of gravitons (which would be rather pretty were they found to exist because a beautiful link would be established with the quantum world) and gravity waves, which, as you say, have not yet been detected, which is not to say the do not exist. Scientists are the first to admit this. They are the only ones who can admit it: Popes and Mullahs and Reverends of the world certainly could not have an opinion either way. The vital point, however, is that scientists - the great sceptics - will always wrestle with these gigantic problems and never say, "it is because it is and that's good enough for us". If a scientist comes forth with a clever theory, what is the very first thing other scientists will do? They will test its truth by trying to prove it wrong. That's the nature of science for you, so I repeat: don't say that scientists believe they know it all, or that there are "no questions" about gravity. You make yourself look silly by writing such rubbish. A scientist's worst nightmare is the dawn of the day when everything will be known. Compare that with the religious mind. What a Kafkaesque world the religious must inhabit!
  • SirWilhelm
    I could continue to discuss this with you getting into greater detail, but we've sidetracked ourselves from the original topic of this article. I think we agree that Islam is a cult not a religion, that's enough for now.
  • hellosnackbar
    In answer to your first question the answer is no.
    I was merely suggesting that impressionable minds be given a balanced view of what is real(Islam being the best possible example of polluition of young minds with egregious nonsense).
    Any decisions ,people can make when they have reached an age, when they can reason for themselves.

    If this were to ever take place then religion would atrophy as a result of the application of reason.
    I'm sure this was the thinking of Thomas Jefferson when formulating the constitution.
    I speak from experience; when as a young catholic, I went around telling Protestant neighbours that they wouldn't go to Heaven.
    Good job there were no muslims around at the time or I might not be writing here.
    But in the main I'm a libertarian and would oppose any movement suppressing religion as long as the latter did not support violent sedition.
    On gravity you've misunderstood I was simply pointing out its reality.(like evolution)
    The fact that its true nature is not yet fully understood is ongoing work.(the LHC).
    I talk to clergy often; some (the more intelligent )agree with almost everything I say and are man enough not to be offended when I say they've their own career to protect.
    It's a free world for some and I desire that it continues.
    BTW the Bishop of Oxford (Richard Harris) is a Dawkins fan.
    He's my kind of Christian insofar as he 's excited by truth as scientific discovery.
  • Shukri
    I see what you mean, but in fact there is only one God, whether you call him Jehovah or Allah or Yahweh.

    I'm a Muslim, and violence is not my way of life nor that of any Muslim I've ever met. The only time I see violent Muslims is when I open a newspaper or turn on the TV. It's the same for Christian Americans. The only violent one you might see is the one on TV who sends mail bombs, or blows up abortion clinics, or goes on a school shooting rampage.

    The thing is to not judge all people by what you see on TV or hear on the news, because most people are in fact peaceful.
  • hellosnackbar
    The existense of God,Yahweh,Odin ,Zeus,Posiedon is Not fact; it's far fetched conjecture, promoted by
    idiots whose intellectual developement has become arrested.
  • Shukri
    If that is so, then how was the world created? Did it create itself from nothing?
  • Beejj
    Oh dear, here we go again! The very existence of the universe is the most delicious question that faces the human mind, and one which occupies the time of the greatest physicists of our day. It is entirely possible that the answer might take centuries to discover, or that it might elude us forever, but to resort to the "answer" that there must be a creator lurking behind the scenes is both cowardly and juvenile. People of this ilk argue that something cannot come from nothing, yet they are happy in the very next breath to claim that God was not created; that God has always been. Intellectual twaddle. Shukri, if you truly wish to have your eyes opened a little you must dive into the stormy, murky and bewilderingly crazy waters of quantum theory, but if you are to stay afloat for any length of time you had better be armed to the teeth with mathematics. You will discover that the quantum laws allow many seemingly ridiculous (to use Feynman's word) events, one of which is the the creation of "something from nothing". Try to learn something about the Dirac sea. People such as yourself, brainwashed by brainless, ignorant parents into regarding the failure of physics to have yet produced an answer to the deep mystery have a nasty habit of thinking that physics will continue to be bamboozled, and that your idiotic "theory" of God's existence is superior and lasting, but physics is still in its infancy: just consider the huge strides it has made over the past 100 years. You might point out that scientists of the past have made mistakes and have had their ideas overturned; that they are fallible. Of course they are fallible! Yet, true scientists are seekers of truth and eternal sceptics to boot. They LOVE being proved wrong because the proof opens doors to continued intellectual activity and deeper truths. That is something you religious people can never and will never understand, for you cannot abide the discomfort of uncertainty. You must have your unshakable belief, based on not a shred of evidence, if you are to maintain your pathetic equilibrium. You are little better than vegetables. A favourite line of believers is that science cannot prove that God does not exist (just as you cannot prove he does exist). How is one to prove the non-existence of the non-existent? Oh dear, here I go again ..... apologies to those who have read my previous posts ......... try to find out about Bertrand Russell's Teapot. There's your God! It must be quite frightening to those indoctrinated from birth into "belief" in God to open themselves to the challenges of reason, but the rewards for the brave are beyond measure. They must feel somewhat like newly-freed slaves, never again to be victims of oppression. You should try it. My final word on this is a piece of advice. Don't dare argue with physics if you know nothing about it.
  • Shukri
    Again, what originated the universe? Did things just start moving by themselves?
  • Beejj
    What originated the universe, Shukri? We are steadily and remorselessly trying to find the answer to that, as I pointed out in a previous message to you. Astonishing progress has been made, but there is still a long way to go. One thing is already certain, though, and that is the account given in Genesis is strictly for mentally-retarded children ....... and you, perhaps.

    You ask about moving bodies: motion. Motion relative to what? Surely even you have heard of Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity - haven't you?
  • Necrowulf
    Again, a bit late, but there are recent research about the string theory where it shows that our universe is one of many and a crash between our universe and another created the mass necessary for the big bang.

    it is not "hard-proof" like the evidence that we have the tendency to find when we use infrared and other telescopes, but it is quite a nice explanation as it ties itself with other theories. In my view, we must way to see what else is discovered


    Shukri: Yes we atheists indeed need to catch up, the best of all is that we always doubt, question and answer... We look for answers.
    But at least we are not like you, who still believe that Zeus produces lightning from mount Olympus
  • Beejj
    My concern about string theory, Necrowulf, is that it does not lend itself to experimentation, and that to me is not good science. This, however, does not mean it must therefore be wrong. But if a scientific theory cannot be tested it's not science. The research you mention is entirely theoretical. As you point out, the day might arrive when string theory AND ITS PREDICTIONS will be testable, but until then I'll just twiddle my thumbs.

    It's all so damned difficult. How much simpler everything becomes if we, like Shukri and many others, say "God did it"? Poor devils! Pavlov's dogs.
  • Necrowulf
    That is exactly my thoughts, although I misspelled the word "wait" with "way" :P

    I find it nice that we have people who still look at this stuff and try to solve its problems, and not some fat dude wit lice in its beard saying "god did it" (as mentioned in your post). i think that we still have a good while before we know if the "string theory" is right or wrong. but until then, I'll keep my eye on it :)
  • Beejj
    I can think of a few people they should string up with those strings!
  • Necrowulf
    haha I agree with you, but in my view I believe its much more than a "few"

    I was thinking on one of those days about how everything started this time, and i thought t myself... if islam wasn't so barbaric we wouldn't have all this problems, and we would still have WTC... We would still have the poor inocent people islam murdered.

    and I wouldn't have nearly as much problems as i'm having now...
  • Shukri
    We already know that God created the universe. Atheists need to catch up with the times.
  • Kal_El
    "One thing is already certain, though, and that is the account given in Genesis is strictly for mentally-retarded children ....... and you, perhaps."

    That last part "........ and you, perhaps." had me laughing so hard my ribs are sore! :D
  • hellosnackbar
    Thanks Beej you demonstrate time and again the virtue of good common sense.
    There's some rugby on the telly so I'm going to leave you with two quotes from H L
    Mencken.(read him he's a master of the "bon mot"and covered the"Scopes Monkey trial":Civilised man is characterised not by men who believe;but by men who question belief"
    On religion:"An attempt by the rational to believe the impossible"
  • hellosnackbar
    Shukri dear chap your cortical neurones have been poisoned by religious twaddle from equally retarded teaching.
    I'm not going to give you a cosmology lesson just aquaint yourself with science.
    You know things like physics,chemistry astronomy etc.if you don't then your life will be useless (the world the planets the sun and the stars were all formed due to gravitational condensation.)
    All this stuff can be found on the web if you make the effort to look.
    God as you'll see is an irrelevance.
    The same process is being continued (birth of stars in dust nebulae) to this present day.
    Start with the assumption that God doesn't exist and investigate the magnificence and mystery of the universe discovering ;what we do know and what we don't(with tangible evidence.
    Set aside the silly superstitions you have branded on your brain and keep an open mind.
    Scepticism(again with evidence) is healthy blind faith is ridiculous.
    Bon voyage and much fun!
    BTW after that you can study evolution(now more than obvious) and then abiogenesis(a lot trickier).science is forward and ongoing whereas religion is (as in your case )petrified in the 7th century.
  • Shukri
  • Shukri
    Do you really believe that the world happened by accident? Accidents always have something wrong with them. Look at when two cars crash into each other. Is life created? Or is there destruction and chaos?

    How come the natural world functions so perfectly? How come the human body functions so perfectly? Why are there no extraneous parts?

    The human body has no unnecessary parts the same reason a car has no unnecessary parts: they were both designed by someone who knew what they were doing.
  • Apostate
    Yes we do have extraneous parts. These are known as vestigial parts. The appendix, tail bone are few I can name.

    Science is a lot better at explaining things and finding truth.

    And tell me, isn't it true that Jews were transformed to rat according to your religion ? The problem is not with Muslims but with Islam. It is an insult to freedom and peace.
  • Shukri
    The story mentioned in the Koran is also in Jewish texts.

    i,e: A group of Jews were cursed by God because they violated the Sabbath.

    I'm not sure how you translate that historical narration as an "insult to freedom and peace".
  • Beejj
    Hell's teeth! More twaddle, Shukri. This is becoming embarrassing. Your ignorance of science passeth all belief. You talk about things crashing into each other to cause "destruction and chaos". Out there in the far reaches of the cosmos an awful lot of crashing is going on all the time. Hydrogen atoms are bashing into each other as a result of gravitational attraction. The scale is mind-boggling and results in the birth of stars, the central regions of which are nuclear fusion reactors. This gives birth to other atoms, but only up to iron or thereabouts (our Sun cannot go that far in stellar nucleogenesis). Later, if the star is sufficiently massive, it explodes as a supernova to create all the remaining elements in the neutron storm that ensues. The building blocks of life have thus been created. Every atom in your body came out of a star. Thus, the original gravitational "accident" provided the materials necessary for life.

    You ask about the "perfect" functioning of the natural world. Brilliant, isn't it? Others have pondered this question, too, but unlike you they have sought answers, using their gigantic intellects to guide them rather than idiotically claiming that some shady character behind the scenes designed the whole thing. (Don't you feel embarrassed by your own ghastly ignorance?) Well, the story begins with Mendel, Wallace and Darwin, and was given tremendous impetus by Francis Crick and James Watson. Yes, I am talking about Evolution, something so brilliantly, prettily SIMPLE that fettered minds cannot accept it. Why is this? What's illogical about evolution? Nothing. Evolution is NOT ACCIDENTAL. I sometimes wonder if people's inability to comprehend evolution is because they cannot grasp the enormous time scale involved. A human lifetime is about 80 years, and all our thinking is structured on such a concept of time, but if you are to get onto the wavelength of biological evolution you must start thinking in rather longer time periods than that! This is not the place for a lesson in Evolution, so I recommend you buy a book by Richard Dawkins. Read about his "Climbing Mount Improbable". Do so and you will be filled with joy at the SIMPLE beauty of it all. Yes, Shukri, there is a designer: it's called Natural Selection. Please do yourself a favour and never argue against it until you have studied it and understood it. Once you have done so we can discuss it. One thing's for certain, though: you will fail to find a single weakness in it.

    There remains one other matter to discuss, albeit briefly: the formation of what I'll refer to as "life molecules", for until these come into existence there can be no life; no evolution. I refer, of course, to amino acids and nucleic acids and key carbohydrates, etc. How did such clever little chaps get produced from the very simple molecular species such as water and methane, etc? Well, work is proceeding along these lines. Already, conditions simulated to resemble those in the far distant past have yielded amino acids under laboratory conditions, and there can be little doubt that with continued experimentation progress will be made. We are inching our way forward, unlike religious "minds" that are forever closed books.

    I feel sorry for people who are unwilling face such enormous intellectual challenges, but I have an abiding hatred for those of them who, blinded by dogma, engage in the monstrous crime of brainwashing their children to be as blind as they. To paraphrase Michael Palin, "You are a Muslim and have been so since before you were born."
  • Shukri
    Dude, when a tornado hits a junkyard, it doesn't create a Boeing 747 with its engine running in perfect condition..

    Guess what? The chances of the above happening are MORE likely than the creation of life in an "accident".

    http://bit.ly/18lUu7
  • Beejj
    Ah, Shukri, you silly goose, you have been reading Fred Hoyle's embarrassing argument, haven't you. Odd that Hoyle, who should have been a recipient of a Nobel Prize, demonstrated such deeply flawed thinking. His idea has been thoroughly bebunked. Where did Hoyle go wrong? It should be obvious, even to the most rabid anti-evolutionist. Do you want me to tell you, or shall leave you to try to work it out? Shukri, old dude, improve your reading matter if you wish to be considered other than a fool.
  • Shukri
    The more people study and accept science, the more they believe in God.
  • Beejj
    Is that supposed to be a reply to my message re. Fred Hoyle's blooper, Shukri? Smacks of capitulation to me. (Have you elucidated Hoyle's error, yet?)

    "The more people study and accept science, the more they believe in God." Was Hoyle responsible for this rubbish, too, or is it a pearl of wisdom from your own enfeebled mind?
  • Shukri
    It's the truth, my friend. The more people study nature, the more they realize that such immense complexity doesn't happen by accident.
  • Beejj
    Ah, Shukri, my friend, when they behold the unending marvels of nature they have the choice of believing the childish notions of primitives or they can unchain their minds and set forth on a journey of discovery. The old farts interpreted the rainbow as some God-given sign of something or other, and there are those who continue to believe such balderdash, but science has explained the phenomenon to perfection. Such revelations cause us to view the universe in a light that far outshines anything that comes from any religious text.

    Accident? No. It's called physics.
  • Shukri
    Science doesn't preclude God from being the Creator.

    God created the sciences themselves. This is why those who study science are directed towards God, if they look objectively at the evidence, and are not stubborn.
  • Beejj
    Dear Christ, Shukri, give me just ONE piece of evidence to suggest the existence of God. Do you understand what EVIDENCE means?

    What's all this bullshit about those who study science being directed towards God? Name just ONE leading 20th or 21st century scientist who would agree with you, and give me supporting evidence.
  • Shukri
  • Necrowulf
    Oh dear... no evidence so far! I'm disappointed, I was looking forward for the evidence of Allah's proof...

    instead we get nothing... Shukri, please...
  • Shukri
    If there was indisputable evidence, then there wouldn't be any need for faith, or heaven or the hellfire.

    Rather, God is all-wise and He has informed us that we do need faith and that there will be a judgement day, where good deeds are rewarded and evil deeds are punished.

    It's very simple and straightforward. I'm not sure why you have such a big problem with it. Belief in God is perfectly rational, and it does not contradict the human intellect.
  • Necrowulf
    Wait... So, your evidence of gods existance is that Hell and Heaven exists? Dear Hot curry on my plate!

    Have you ever tried to study a bit of human history, evolution and how we became to be how we "are" today? Well, this is a stupid question because I already know the answers, which is a blatant and BIG No...

    Faith was or is the "need" of the human brain to explain the "unexplainable" were we didnt know WHY there were thunders, why we have tides or why there is night and day...

    To try to explain why stuff goes bump in the night.

    This is the reason why we have faith, because back then we didnt know what we do today.

    Also, what gives you the right to proclaim that your religion is the only right one? What about the Buddhists? The Pagans? The Spiritualists?
    Even the twsited Scientologists?

    With which evidence did you arrive to this conclusion? Because with the evidence that you have at hand right now you can't conclude islam is right and the only option.

    This is one more thing that separates "us" from "you" we draw conclusions and analyze the data provided we understand our limitations and try to improve ourselves.
  • hellosnackbar
    Shukri you are being obtuse!who designed God? and who designed the god who designed god(ad nauseum).
    Logic dear boy not blind unsubstantiated belief?
    The tosh you are scribbling is called intelligent design/efficient causation it's arguement that children apply not grown ups.
    God can not be tested as a scientific theory nor is there any evidence that he she
    or it exists.
    What makes me smile is that the faithful believe he is male.
    Sex presupposes that gendered god can reproduce and if so with whom or what ?and there appear to be no children.
    Or is god a wanker?(he's useless in all aspects of the metaphor)
  • Shukri
    No one designed God. Rather God designed everything. God is not male or female. "He" is just a reference word, since you wouldn't call god "It".

    See the Islamic tenets of creed: http://tinyurl.com/d75uce
  • SirWilhelm
    It just so happens I don't believe the world happened by accident. But I don't claim to know the name of the being that did create it. Allah isn't the only "god" to make that claim, and only came along in the 7th century, where was he when Jehovah was dictating the Torah to the Jews thousands of years before Mohammed was born? And they aren't the only "gods" claiming to be the Creator of All Things.

    I guess you consider floods, droughts, hurricanes, tornadoes, volcanoes, etc as parts of the worlds natural functions that are perfect?

    I believe the appendix is considered an unnecessary human part, unless you know something about the design we don't.
  • Shukri
    There is only one God. He is called different names by different people, however His reality is one.

    Disasters that we perceive as "evil" are in fact divine wisdom. We would not know happiness without sadness, evil without goodness, heat without cold etc.

    Everything has a purpose.
  • SirWilhelm
    It may be just a matter of semantics, but why do Mulsims say there is only one god and his name is Allah, if they believe names don't matter? And does not "Allahu Akbar" mean "God is Greater"? That begs another question, greater than who? If Allah is the only god, who is he greater than?

    The nature of disasters is a matter of debate. I believe they are random occurences that are part of the nature of the universe that gives us free choice, feel free to disagree.
  • Shukri
    There *is* only one God and His name *is* Allah, meaning that his proper name is Allah.

    Allah is greater than all that exists. Why? Because He is the Creator, and the creator is always greater than his creation.

    A forest fire can be viewed as a disaster. Yet there is wisdom in this because, in a forest fire, brush and dead trees are cleared away, and new growth flourishes. "Disasters" are in fact a necessary component of life itself.

    We only know that God is the Creator from Revelation. If we had no revelation, we would not be responsible for knowing it and testifying the truth of it.
  • hellosnackbar
    If there is a God Shukri then he's a bit of a lazy bastard isn't he?(the sine qua non for under performers given her
    alledged power).
    But that's it isn't it Shukri God exists because someone told you he did(does).
    Your belief is based on no evidence whatsoever and yet you continue to parrot this fairy story(why not mother goose instead?)
    BTW if you can get the history channel there's a series on the universe currently showing(Allah mercifully isn't mentioned).
    Look' listen and learn and if you free your mind ;you might
    find release from the mind numbing balderdash that is
    Islam.
    Does the last statement amount to disparagement or thoughtful criticism?
    I think we should be told!
    Failure to answer that"criticism"will be interpreted as submission.
    But that's what Islam is supposed to mean.
  • Shukri
    I know that God exists because I pray and my prayers are answered.

    Islam makes sense where other religions don't. It is a knowledge based religion that does not conflict with science or the human intellect.

    The only way it doesn't make sense is if you use the mass media as your source about Islam, instead of Islam itself.
  • wtf? How the hell does Islam make sense? Islam makes ABSOLUTELY NO SENSE WHATSOVER. Look at your prophet, look at his life, look at his examples (murder, rape, dicatorship, genocide, pedophelia), look at the Hadiths, Look at what he TAUGHT. Gosh you Muslims are like Fu**ing Drones!

    WAKE UP! Islam is anything BUT sensible!
  • Shukri
    Like I said:

    "The only way [Islam] doesn't make sense is if you use the mass media as your source about Islam, instead of Islam itself."
  • hellosnackbar
    Tell you what Shukri if you pray to Allah and he answers your prayers;and as a proclaimed man of peace.
    Then with your direct line ask Allah to tell the Taliban to throw down their arms and whilst you're at it Hezbollah too.
    Go to it lad and if during the night this comes to pass then I'll convert to Islam
    and never doubt your sagacity again.
  • Shukri
    I will not presume to dictate to God what he should do.

    Prayer is made in need. You need God to guide you? Pray sincerely and He will do so. You need money? Pray, and you will get it. The only condition being that your prayer is sincerely needy.

    God says in a prophetic tradition: ""I am as My servant thinks of Me."

    If you think good of God, this is how He will appear to you. And if you think of Him other than that, then this is how He will appear to you.
  • Beejj
    Oh, Great Teapot, please accept the grovellings of your unworthy worshippers. Pour the reality of your tea leaves and tannic wisdom upon your lowly vessels. Refresh us with your divine caffeine so that we might boil kettles of water to the furtherance of your eternal truth. Bring pestilence upon coffee drinkers and visit plagues upon consumers of other beverages. For thou art The Teapot, the alpha and omega, the first and the last, tea without end. Amen.
  • Shukri
    huh?

    lol...
  • Beejj
    Went over your head, did it? I'm not surprised.
  • Kal_El
    You worship the great teapot too? I thought I was the only one!!!! Just remember to honor the great pumpkin once a year as well, or else... :P
  • Necrowulf
    You infidel I worship the great Spaghetti monster! I'll cut your head off, and rape you women and steal you goats and camels! hahahahahaha

    I know I'm posting a bit late, but I want to say that there various defects in the human body. where our own immune system attacks our organs, were we have problems with our hormones and other chemicals that goes inside of our body, which is a constant patch, launch a hormone to correct X stuff and release another hormone to correct the hormone who did the X thing.

    Our knees can't carry a lot of weight, when we are being formed inside the uterus there are tons of stuff that can go wrong, DNA modifications that can cause problems...

    Also, we have evolution, some of us dont have the last molars(wisdom teeth) which is a proof of humans evolving. I dont have them, they were never formed.

    There are other stuff too, the hiccups, are actually vestigial "instinct" from our ancestors when they used to be "fish".
  • Shukri
    "updated 1:39 p.m. PT, Fri., Oct. 5, 2007
    WASHINGTON - Some scientists think they have figured out the real job of the troublesome and seemingly useless appendix: It produces and protects good germs for your gut.

    That’s the theory from surgeons and immunologists at Duke University Medical School, published online in a scientific journal this week."

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21153898/
  • Beejj
    Correct, Shukri. This does not torpedo the idea that diminution of the appendix has occurred over time, however. It simply suggests that such atrophying is consonant with the idea that with the decline of some necessary function, the organ gradually changed into what it now is - large enough to fulfil one function, but no longer able to carry out its former job. How very efficient!
  • Shukri
    Sorry, I have no idea what you just said.

    What I do know is that human beings are too well designed to be a mere accident.
  • Beejj
    Hello, Sir Wilhelm. I am not biologically trained, but there is a strong belief that the appendix is a vestigial organ that once played an important role in the digestion of leaves, but has diminished during the time our diets have improved. Evolution at work!
  • SirWilhelm
    Yeah? And how does that disagree with the fact that it is uneccesary now? And it was just an example that the design is not as perfect as Shukri believes it is. Which probably means HE doesn't believe in evolution. But, if life is an accident of evolution, lets see you create something living from scratch, should be easy.

    ----------
    Sent from my Verizon Wireless mobile phone
  • Beejj
    Who said it disagrees with the fact it is unnecessary now? Shukri's use of the word "perfect" is a nonsense. Your final sentence takes my breath away. An ACCIDENT of evolution? ACCIDENT? Evolution is not accidental. Create something living from scratch? OK. Just give me a billion years or so and I'll oblige.
  • SirWilhelm
    I think you make the point for me, evolution theory says it took billions of years to get life started by somehow taking that long to come up with the right combination of chemicals. If that "somehow" wasn't an accident, what was it? And, isn't the reason it takes billions of years is because the odds are so long against it happening that way?
    ----------
  • Beejj
    No, I have not made the point for you. You will have to give a tight definition of what you mean by "accident". One might argue that the combination of appropriate compounds under appropriate conditions to produce the molecules necessary for life was accidental, but in the restless universe (to use Born's phrase) such events, however unlikely, are yet likely given a sufficient time span. Time is the essential ingredient. The odds are indeed long, but the probability is not zero. The event has only to happen once. It's easy for me to say this, I know, but the day will surely dawn when a living entity will be created under laboratory conditions. Idle speculation? Perhaps, but perhaps not.

    The point is this, though: once life begins evolution proceeds under prevailing environmental pressures, and the process is anything but accidental.

    When I dwell on the simple beauty of evolutionary processes the single factor that causes me distressing sleeplessness is the creation of membranes, for without them there is no life. I long for the day - and it will surely come - when an explanation of biological membranes is revealed. I shan't bother reading the Bible or that Muslim rag for enlightenment.......
  • SirWilhelm
    The definition for accident most suitable for the theory of evolution would probably be "a fortuitous circumstance, quality, or characteristic". Now, I think it's up to you to prove the process is anything but accidental considering the environmental pressures you mention include several near extinctions of all life on Earth. There are large gaps in the evidence supporting the theory of evolution making the THEORY no more reliable than the "Bible or that Muslim rag for enlightenment...". imo evolution has become dogma as has most of science, just like most religions. We all need to keep an open mind in all areas of life.


    ----------
    Sent from my Verizon Wireless mobile phone
  • Beejj
    Gene modifications are perfectly natural, explicable occurrences, which is why identical twins are not identical, but if you want to call them accidents that's your choice. When you say that evolutionary theory and most of science have become dogma you reveal total ignorance of science. I see you are a "gap" man. There is no shortage of such people. The trouble with the gappers is that if a piece of fossil evidence appears to fill a gap you say there are now two gaps! What on earth do you mean when you quote the "reliabilty" of the Bible? You believe in the 6-day creation and Adam and rib-derived Eve and Jonah being swallowed by a whale and people rising from the dead and a guy walking on water and our planet suddenly ceasing its revolution? You put this on a par with scientific theory? Um .... did Adam have a belly button?
  • SirWilhelm
    If you consider the possibliity that the Creator's day had a different lenght than Earth's day, then the Creator's day would have been as long as needed. The Bible is not the only ancient text with stories of resurrection. And there are corresponding stories on the opposite side of the world of extended darkness on the day the planet's revolution may have been temporarily retarded, scientifically possible if a large enough celestial body passed close enough. I don't know if Adam had a belly button, but men can create test tube babies today. So the stories in the Bible can be relied on to point to the possiblity there are more to the stories that meet the eye. You can't expect people that lacked the terms to describe events scientificly. How would a man that's never seen one describe a man being taken into a submersible craft? If you really have an open mind, you should try to consider these kinds of possibilities.

    And I am a "gap" man as far as evolution goes in that there are gaps in all the evidence evolution claims to support it. But I do not dismiss evolution completely, But it does not answer the biggest question. How did life begin. Maybe it will answer that question someday, until it does, I'll keep an open mind, I would anyway.
    I believe it's evolution that says gene modification occurs by accident, it would be creation that says they happen by design.
  • Beejj
    Sir Wilhelm, the typing field is becoming irritatingly narrow, so I'll go to the top of the page to answer this, OK?
  • SirWilhelm
    Do you have a problem with my definition of accident? Not all changes in genes are fortuitous or we would not have so many genetically related diseases. And I said the theory of evolution is no more reliable than the Bible, both have much that can't be proven. I believe the Bible is a condensed and edited version of more ancient texts. And much of those have been lost in time. You obviously are well read, but no human can know everything. I encourage you to continue to read and question with an open mind.

    ----------
    Sent from my Verizon Wireless mobile phone
  • Beejj
    Who said all gene modifications are fortuitous? I certainly didn't. That's why many extinctions have occurred. It's good, though, that you recognise the fact of such changes because that's evolution at work! Evolution cannot be proved??? How much proof do you need? Are you saying the Bible as we know it is a kind of condensed version of an earlier text or texts? I wonder if the original talked about stellar nucleogenesis and quantum theory, etc. Correct, no human can know everything, which is why science advances while religious dogma remains static. My mind is ever open, and has been encouraged to remain so by virtue of my scientific training. If only everyone were as open-minded!
  • SirWilhelm
    You need to think out your replies a little more. You questioned my definition of accident, it included fortuitous.
    You're the believer in science. How much proof is needed before a theory is proven? Is a theory ever fully proven? How does science answer these questions? I need more proof than has been found so far. Acutually the earler texts do contain stories of how the solar system was formed that explains much that science doesn't, but they are dismissed by myth by main stream scholars.
    Quantum theory doesn't explain everything either, gravity for instance. I'm saying what it is, not how it works, Newton explained how it works. If you have an open mind, maybe you'll find out what I'm talking about rather than arguing with me.

    ----------
    Sent from my Verizon Wireless mobile phone
  • Beejj
    I have replied.Please check.
  • Beejj
    I just replied to your message, but something seems to be amiss with my modem. I'll try again, later.
  • SirWilhelm
    bump
  • Shukri
    Islam is one of the Abrahamic religions that believes in Jesus, Moses, Noah and all the other Prophets sent by God to guide humanity.

    Yes, there are Muslims who murderous, but is any other religious community free of sin?

    "Let him who is without sin cast the first stone"
  • JEWHAWK
    SHUKRI:

    Nobody in here will be fooled by your TAQYIA.
    Let's face the truth:ISLAM IS A DEATH CULT...
    and 90% of ALL TERRORIST acts perpetrated
    since 1980 was commited by MUSLIMS.

    "JEWS ARE SONS OF PIGS AND APES" (Koran)
    Thank you,noble gentleman for your kind compliment
    to my people!!
  • Shukri
    Actually, the Koran says about people of the Jewish faith:

    [2.47] O children of Israel! call to mind My favor which I bestowed on you and that I made you excel the nations.

    [2.62] Surely those who believe, and those who are Jews, and the Christians, and the Sabians, whoever believes in God and the Last day and does good, they shall have their reward from their Lord, and there is no fear for them, nor shall they grieve.
  • hellosnackbar
    Dear Mr Shukri,
    Along with all the brain damaged who espouse the death cult(aka Islam)you have the temerity
    to believe that
    even infidels have a respect(possibly predicated by fear of Islam)
    You are labouring under an illusion.
    Most of the contributors here regard Islam as an abomination.
    Like fellow islamic robots you imagine that the tripe quoted in the koran(is there a sillier more venal book in the world?)has some pacifying influence on anybody who readsthemind numbing tosh contained within.
    Islam is about supression and murder of all people who in anyway disagree with its asinine message of obedience to the rantings of a 7th century psychopath who's only motive in creating
    the angry monster known as Allah was to to pursue his personal profit(geddit!).
    We now have (via the UN) motions that demand Islam be respected.
    This is a clear demonstration of insanity by thecriminalsof the third world who have the temerity to demand of civilised people that they respect an ideology that seeksto enslave them to the rules and laws of barbarians(as promulgated by Islamic idiots.
    Tell me why my life might be in danger if,I stood on top of the Kabaa and denounced that old fleabag Mohammed as a rapist ,a murderer and a fraud.
    And that Allah wasa figment of his diseased mind.
    You might accuse me of defaming Islam but without my help Islam discredits itself everyday.
    You know,daily murder blessed by allah(the angry).
    People who believe in freedom and by extension freedom of speech take a little time off to
    mock and ridicule this asinine death cult and by extension brainwashed halfwits like yourself.
    (not an ad hominem because I could write evidence till I die substantiating this view point)
    Islam is ridiculous and it can only be memetic transfer that any sane person saying" I am a muslim"without being considered mad.
    Get a life read AliSina, dump Islam; and join the human race!
    And don't feel hurt; what you are reading is a freely expressed opinion from a free person who was fortunate enough to be brought up in the west as opposedto some backward Islamic hell hole.
    Incidently why not recommend to one of your mullah pals that freedom of speech be introducedinto the madrassa curriculum.(I know pigs might fly)
  • JEWHAWK
    To Mr.Shukri:
    Hey,pal...why don't you spread your LIES elsewhere?
    Do you honestly think that someone in this website is
    that stupid to buy what you write??

    I HATE the thing you call Islam,the pedophile called Mohammad
    and EVERY LITTLE detail that happen to be part of it.
    As you've noticed,I'm not a politically correct guy,so let me be
    blunt again:GET LOST.
  • Ram
    You will admit that historically Jews in Muslim countries faired far better than in Western ones, won't you?
  • Necrowulf
    [as punishment] God has hurled us into the midst of this people, the Arabs, who have persecuted us severely, and passed baneful and discriminatory legislation against us... Never did a nation molest, degrade, debase, and hate us as much as they.

    by Maimonides
  • I've been a Christian for many years but even so, I am unable to deny that the interpretation of many Christians in the middle-ages was far from the truth and love that Jesus proclaimed. The Crusades and the Inquisition were barbaric.

    Islam is a relatively young faith by comparison with Christianity. Why should we expect it not to display the same middle-ages error and warmongering? With God's grace, his kingdom WILL come - in his good time.
blog comments powered by Disqus