Swiss Voters Overwhelmingly Approve Ban on Minaret Construction

Let's see what happens when Mohammedans complain about such things in my country. We Chinese know exactly what to do with them. Europe and America might be weak enough to capitulate to these swine, but China never will. Those Mohammedans in our northwest can do and say what they like, but they'll be exterminated as soon as we want to exterminate them. How many of them are there? 300 million? Is that all? What's wrong with you westerners? You need a Mao or a Chin. A Chinghiz Khan would do wonders.

Yes Odyssia I read an interesting article about the Uighurs in China!
It seems that Imams have to carry a state license to preach and furthermore have to submit a synopsis
of any sermon before they make it.
Not only that ;but the actual sermons are monitored at the point of delivery and may only be delivered at specified times.
Harsh??well it certainly informs the faithful that any sedition will attract the the most severe sanctions

I don't expect the call to prayer echoing around Beijing central anytime soon!

Nothing suprising there at all, the Chinese authorities require the same rules on Christian priests.

Personally, as a Muslim, I have absolutely no problem with such rules about sermons. For a start there is only one a week on the Friday mid-day prayer - called the Khudba. Two other times, Eid'l Adha and Eid'l Fitr have such sermons. So there are not that many to make.

The other point is that the Friday Khudba is supposed to be about faith, any special day that crops up and beign a part of local society (the part that is abused by radicals), thus it should relfect being part of the community at a whole. So, from this, the Chinese government should expect to not only have such Khudba sermons to support the society but also they should be allowed to tell the Imam of the mosque to pass on information to the people. That is what happens in the Muslim World, the Imam usually tells important local news and messages from the ministry of religous or cultural affairs and certainly most Imams are watched. Those Muslim countries that do not control it well are the ones that suffer these mad radicals - or in about 7 countries - the clerics have infiltrated that ministry.

So, for my part, good on China to have the balls that the west does not have - I may disagree with some factors and the forced cultural change on the Urghers but for control of radicals and ensuring Sermons/Khudbars do what they should be doing - great!

Solkhar - I applaud your patience and your knowledge. May God give you more of both.

You guys are all idiots.

How appropriate it is that you term yourself "Retards". Curious that you choose the plural, though, but perhaps you do so because your recognise your failing to be somewhat more than singular. Go away, poor imbecile, if this is the best you can do.

Three cheers for Switzerland!!!!
Can you imagine living near one of those things, with that obnoxious call to prayer 5 times a day? They've got to be kidding!
I hope Australia is taking notice!

I missed your post as it was not a "reply". All I see is a xenophobic emotive rant which frankly speaking I do not blame you totally but your society and its falling down very human traps.

The world is by its very nature xenophobic, and that petty but typical rumour spreading, "I do not like them" that turns to "hate them" just grows and grows. It did so during and after every war, with an entire generation hating Germans even when they are just across the border, with anything Jap, then Korean, later Vietnamese and now Arab or Muslim. In fact that same xenophobia took the life of 6 to 9 million Jews, with countless lies, misinoformation campaigns etc, all really in human nature. History proves that give a system or anarchy and chaos that the most base of human behaviour comes out, it is a simple fact. Though it was a small minority of Germans that caused the attrocity of Hitler and the Jews, the fact is that WWII showed how brutal and ugly man can be and how the moderates just just there mouths and silently comply until another small group with actual morals and a conscience make enough noise and power for them to join in that to stop it. Thus, an entire European and mostly God-abiding German population let millions of Jews, Gypsies and Homosexuals go to the camps and gas-chambers. Similarly a most faithful Christian orthodox Russian population let millions of its own citizens be transported and worked to death in Gulags and other collectives. We can add what the population of Cambodia did or in fact China and simply go on. But more recently we know that Rawandans butchered themselves. For the sake of nationalistic pride, I remember and was there later to study how various groups but particularly Serbs spent an entire year in Sarajevo shooting women, children, the elderly and even cats, dogs, chickens and ducks indiscriminatly via sniiper and mortar fire, turning into the most base, viscious and ugly people.

If I use your language, then I would say that all Serbs were animals that do not love their children because they can blow the head of a 5month old child while it was being carried by its mother across the street in Smajila Sikala, near the railway lines.

The point I am making is that the world when it is in chaos takes advantage and you are seeing the chaos in some Muslim countries and the radicals are doing their worst to disgust us all for their purposes, this time. Who knows who will do it next time, Rednecks in Alabama?

I squirm not and I do not lie and your constant assumption without base or proof to the contrary is what is irksome and tiring, and that most of you are defending your cases based on jihad-watch is nothing but sad, but as I said, your suffering the above paranoia, bigotry and xenophobia that unfortunately is way to common amongsts those that do not bother to try.

An example of your garbage is this so called genocide against the Jews? The only genecidile attempt was the barbarity of the Nazis. The history if Judaism and Islam is, until the creation of the State of Israel one that IN FACT WAS MUCH BETTER and peaceful than the one betweene Christians and Jews. Most Jews lived a safer, better life in the Muslim world than the more regular pogroms and abuse held out by Christians. History is there for all the world to see, yes there were those pogroms as well in Muslim countries but at a frequency and barbarity much less than in Europe. We can even say that until the end of the 20th century, Jews were prefering their lives in North Africa over that of Europe and often came to escape abuse, alternatively they risked it in America, and it was only the wealth of the industrial revolution that kept them in Europe later on. We can also say that in southern Iberia, there were two Jewish Grand Viziers (Prime Ministers) and that level of cooperation never happened in Europe until 400 years later with one occurance in Britain under Queen Victoria. I suggest you get your facts correct before you start accussing someone of being a liar - a word you are throwing around so much that it will and now has bitten you back in the arse.

Slavery - do the maths, dear. Yes Arabs were slavers, that is pa

solkhar: "Jihad. I repeat what I said. The Jihad al Sghrir or Little Jihad of the struggle to defend was declared in the first years of Islam against the attacks of the Meccan Pagans - a battle of survival. The next Jihad was that in response to the declaration of a Holy Crusade by Pope Urban II in the early 11th century."

That is a lie.

Pope Urban II and the Christian Crusade was a response to un-Holy Islamic Jihad - a reaction to Muslim wars of conquest against Christian lands.

You are a lying bastard. I hate your evil, so go to Hell.

...... and you just like calling people insulting names because you do not like being pointed out as ....one of Bill Engvall's sign platforms.

As for your still failed lack of knowledge, "there's your sign!"

I do enjoy mocking you because you are a disgusting, lying, evil bastard. Your repeated lies qualify you for dismissal here; that is what I recommend to the management of this site - ban habitual liars. You don't have an excess of knowledge, but you have many lies.

"The Devil, the proud spirit, cannot endure to be mocked." Thomas More

solkhar: "Jihad. I repeat what I said. The Jihad al Sghrir or Little Jihad of the struggle to defend was declared in the first years of Islam against the attacks of the Meccan Pagans - a battle of survival. The next Jihad was that in response to the declaration of a Holy Crusade by Pope Urban II in the early 11th century."

This is a lie.

The Muslim war against Mecca was not a war of self-defense; it was a war of conquest; it was un-Holy Jihad.

"So we see how his following from among the people of Medina, was thus a political ploy of Medina, against Mecca, to add grist to the mill of an already existent rivalry. There was no lofty reason for which Mohammad got his first converts in Medina (Yathrib). Immediately on getting a following among a people who looked upon Mecca as a rival, Mohammad organized them to take his first revenge on the Meccans, and he started regularly raiding the caravans of the Meccans that passed by Medina. He organized 64 such raids from 622 to 630, of which he personally led 27 raids... The Meccans finally got fed up of Mohammad’s antics and attacked him in Medina. This led to the first major battle in Mohammad’s life - the battle of Badr... Mohammad had instructed his followers not to take prisoners and all the Meccans who fell off their camels were instantly beheaded... Mohammad spurred his followers with lust for booty and sex slaves. The captured womenfolk were distributed by Mohammad amongst his followers and so was the booty distributed. Thus his followers had greed to motivate them, while the Quraish were fighting a defensive war to protect their caravans from Mohammad 's predatory raids."

http://www.historyofjihad.org/

The hate-site historyofjihad is not a source, it is a joke. It is rather like trying to tell a teacher what your drunk Uncle Bob told you at the bar, it smells like trouble and problem from the start and an ever-constant smell of piss and vomit added for extra tang. The site, which is based in Germany, has all the usual elements that are typical of sites like jihad-watch, goes back to the same triangle of so-called logic of Spencer, Fitzgerald and Gellar and that in itself simply invalidates itself as anything close to academic.

Its link to the retarded hate-for-votes politician Geert Wilders is even more proof. Just to show the hypocrisy, he just the other day joined in votes with the Dutch SGP party - religous radicals of the fundamentalist Christian sort. This item is about banning minarets in Holland.

"The measure was proposed by the fundamentalist Christian party SGP, which does not allow women to run for office and regards homosexuality as a sin. The SGP has two seats in parliament.

The SGP was supported by Geert Wilders' anti Islam party PVV and populist MP Rita Verdonk. "


Now for the subject of the history that you have skewered....

The event is known by historians as the Muslim-Quraysh Wars. It is in fact a number of Battles, the Battle of Badr, which was the first, after constant attacking, the torturing of those Qurayshis of Mecca as punishment from their families and lastly the refusal of water for any Muslim by an Qurayshi - which is a condemnation of death.

The Battle of Uhud was an attempt by the Qurayshis to make punishment on the Muslims for their losses in the Badr confrontation, they attacked Medina but were spotted and faced a Muslim army before arrival. A force of Muslims disobeyed the council of Mohammed and thus the battle was a stalemate and not a victory.

The Battle of the Trenches or Azhab is by far the largest battle, under a pretext by disenfranchised Jews whom lost their monopoly previously in Medina, the Qurayshis assembled the largest army possible, including with other tribes that were not involved and did not even know the reasons of the battle and attacked Medina. The city was surrounded by moats (thus the trench) and the smaller Muslim army defeated the larger army significantly.

From this point that is most abused by anti-Islam bullsh*t and propoganda - Mohammed said that the barbarity, corruption and paganism must stop altogether and said that he will not start a war, never will, but will certainly not allow The Message to be stopped by anyone. Muslims believe the following:

"Can such a war be considered illegitimate and unjust? It goes without saying that such struggles are necessary and that no Prophet could avoid combating those who intend to bring ruin on human societies and cause corruption and social decay. No doubt any wise, humanitarian person accepts such combat and admires it because there is no other way to achieve the sacred ends of the Prophets. Jesus Christ, peace be upon him, had a short prophetic life and lived under conditions that did not permit war, so he did not attempt any wars. Otherwise, he too would have destroyed the weeds and troublemakers of human society. "

After the battle of the trenches, many groups signed treaties or converted. Mecca was not at that point taken or even accessed.

The Bani Mustalaq War

This is were a group of the Khaza'ah tribe planned raids and prepared to attack the Muslims. "The Holy Prophet of Islam came to know their plots and proceeded against them with his combatants to repel their brutal assault, fought them in a place called Marisa, and defeated them. This war occurred in 6 A. H. [143] "

The Khayber War

It was decided that the supporting of pagansims both logistically, financially and militarily by the large Khayber Jewish community that the security of the Muslims was constantly threatened by those anti­ Islamic Jews. They were attacked and forced into being rununder the power of Medina (as people of the book - no conversions were attempted at all)..

The Mutah War

Hajj Umar was sent by Mohammed to the Sultan of Basra to devliver a letter, an offer of friendship and a Message that Islam had come. The Sultan had him killed. An army was sent to take revenge but near that city a Roman Army was encounted and a battle took place. The Muslims had to withdraw and three of the most famous generals of the Muslim armies died in the battle.

The Battle for Mecca

The existing peace treaty with the Qurayshi that committed them to not harassing, oppressing nor attack those tribes allied with the Muslims. They broke the treaty by supporting arms, transport and water to the Bani Bakr trible whom attacked the Khaza'ahans, a Muslim confederate group.

To stop all the game-play, Mohammed entered the city, even though the city was guarded and in the middle of the day stood on the Kabbah and made a famous quote:

`You should beware that you have been bad neighbours for God's Prophet. You refuted us, tormented us, expelled us from our homeland, and yet did not content yourselves with so much torture and troublemaking; you even did not let us have peace in Medina and attempted to fight us. But in spite of all this, I set you all free and let you go unpunished'. [147]

He took Mecca with his words, not by the swords. He instructed his army, whom had also snick into the city to not attack or harm anyone unless they attacked first. No bloodshed was made except for eight men and four women whom attempted to start a revolt. [148]

The battles of Hunayn and Taif

This was an attack by the Havazins. They were defeated and took control over. The Saghifins whom had helped them were attacked and seiged but it came to nothign.

.....

These were the battles of Mohammed, in all instances there was no unprovoked aggression and in all cases it justified the term Jihad. The basic BS that you have shown is just that,

Sources - John Glubb, The Life and Times of Muhammad, Lanham 1998, Britannica CD 2008 collection, Qur'an, Chapter 17: Al-Isra, all-experts.com,

solkhar: "These were the battles of Mohammed, in all instances there was no unprovoked aggression and in all cases it justified the term Jihad."

"After Muhammad had migrated to Medina in 622, the Quraish confiscated the belongings they had left behind. Muhammad's followers suffered from poverty, and beginning in January 623 some of them resorted to the tradition of raiding the caravans that traveled along the eastern coast of the Red Sea from Mecca to Syria. Seeing himself as their leader, Muhammad put himself at the head of these raids, excusing them on the grounds of the injustice of poverty and describing the raids as part of a holy war (Jihad) against the rulers of Mecca for their having rejected his teaching, and sometimes civilian non-combatants were attacked also as part of the raids… Muhammad entrusted a party of sixty (or eighty) Mujahideen led by Ubaydah b. al-Harith (a cousin of him) to conduct another operation at a Quraysh caravan that was returning from Syria and protected by two hundred armed men. The leader of this caravan was either Abu Sufyan ibn Harb. The Muslim party went as far as Thanyatul-Murra, a watering place in Hejaz. No fighting took place, as the Quraysh were quite far from the place where Muslims were in the offing to attack the caravan. Nevertheless, Sa'd b. Abi Waqqas, an ardent Jihadist, shot an arrow at the Quraysh. This was the 'first arrow of Islam.' The arrows thrown at them by the Medina party surprised the Quraysh. It was completely an unprovoked attack on the Quraysh that sent the strong message to them about what they could expect next… From Medina, the Muslims attacked several of the Quraish's caravans coming from Syria to Mecca. In 624, Abu Sufyan was the leader of such a caravan and as a Muslim force moved to intercept him, he called for help from the Quraish. This resulted in the Battle of Badr... Muhammad initially condemned the killing of the non-combatant. But then a new verse was revealed to him in which it was said: Persecution is worse than killing. Reffering to how muslims were persecuted in Mecca, suggesting that the persecution of the muslims is worse than the killing of the non combatant..."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caravan_raids

Muhammad was a bloodthirsty, child-raping bandit and murderer who killed for power and plunder without justifiable provocation; he was the Prince of Darkness.

The only reason some Jews did well under Totalitarian Islam is because they made themselves useful to their rulers; once no longer useful, the Jews can be discarded. Other non-Muslim minorities are treated the same, but are often less useful to the Totalitarian Islamic State from the outset; they are usually only useful as labor or sex slaves, or as entertainment in the form of public or private beheadings.

You wish! The reason Jews did "ok" was that they did better than under the yoke of Christian clergy and their followers. Their life basically sucked in most cases other than three strong periods in Al Andalous,in Damascus.and in Morocco.

Jews were considered, as Christians, People of the Book and thus were not considered less than human, which is basically how the Europeans had treated them.

Labour - not at all, they were mostly merchants or labourers to their own people. Sex-slaves - you dream. Public beheadings - your now fantasising to try and score some accusory point which is laughable like your continued use of hate-sites as history sources.

I'm not making any excuses for anti-Semitic European Christianity. American Christianity in general has been Judeo-Christian, i.e.: Judeo-philic in orientation, not Judeo-phobic or Judeo-hostile.

Islamists such as yourself are hate-filled hate-sites; hatred of the individual's sacred equality before law and his/her God-given unalienable rights to life, liberty and creative pursuit of happiness (including private property honestly earned through labor). Hatred of this goodness is evil; hatred of evil is good - there is evil hatred and good hatred.

The labor/sex slavery of Islam was and is mostly for the non-Muslim non-Jews (Christian, Hindu, Aboriginal, etc.) who were in general less useful to the Islamic rulers than the Jews. You misread my writing in your fevered rush to retort.

Xenophobia is an irrational fear of that which is different, but not necessarily bad or evil - just different. Fear of Totalitarian Islam is not xenophobia; it is rational fear of an oligarchic political system of government with its associated coercing, murdering and mass-murdering police/military arm. Fear of Islam is no different than fear of Nazism or fear of Communism.

connection problem here is the rest....


Slavery - do the maths, dear. Yes Arabs were slavers, that is part of their history, but if you want to go by sheer numbers and factory-like production - it is Europe that takes the prize. Oh, your complete blindness and embarassing line to say that European Slavers were humanitarians in contrast is even more a joke - European slavers would kill entire stock (remember they are humans) if the price per head was dropped sufficiently to not make it worth it and would throw babies overboard as the cost of keeping them alive was too high. I suggest you go read some real books, I find your BS on this to be overwhelming. As for the preeminant slavers, if you are talking about human-traficking - no, Asians and the Africans themselves are the leaders now.

Jihad. I repeat what I said. The Jihad al Sghrir or Little Jihad of the struggle to defend was declared in the first years of Islam against the attacks of the Meccan Pagans - a battle of survival. The next Jihad was that in response to the declaration of a Holy Crusade by Pope Urban II in the early 11th century. There was a declaration of Jihad each and every time to the end of the 6th Crusade. Since then, there has been no formal Jihad. There are now radicals claiming it but that is not a Jihad sanctioned and none of the Five Schools of Islamic Jurispudence which are the only authorities that technically could declare one has done so, even though there were demands for it from various sources. The Palestinians demanded it on the creation of Israel and even that galvanizing event of pan-Arab nationalism did not get it. Saddam Hussein tried it and failed and as we know Osama Bin Laden did not bother even to ask, he just claimed it - even though he is not even an Imam.

So there is no squirming at all under that name Jihad, the average Muslim knows only that name from history books and watching the news, and the main user of the word is by far from westerners like you. Just like the other words that were picked and chosen out of old texts by Spencer like taqiyya - go to the average Muslim in the street in the Muslim world, Arab or not - they have never even heard it, maybe a theology student.

Dissent in Islam - All through history there has been changes and dissent, from the schizism that created Shi'ism, Sufism and Ismailis all the way until the last conference in 1922 when the first signs of modern political radicalism emerged with the Brotherhood. By this time, colonialism was such a political issue that religous debate took a fourth place behind political nationalism, economics and survival. I am what is called a Sinast, that comes from a term that means I follow the theories and style of the famous Muslim Philosopher Ibn Sina whom lived mostly in Cordoba which was for 800 years the Andalousi capital. He is considered the grand-father of modern medicine. He rejected the haddiths outright and said they were only interesting versions of history. He had a huge following and was never persecuted or considered a heretic or apostate for it. During the four Islamic Golden Ages, the Muslim world was considered THE PLACE for religous and philosphical debate and everything was questioned. It is only in rural tribal areas and now in this last century that such talk will get you into trouble - with the zealots or hard-liners only. I never denied that much of the Muslim World has stepped quite a few paces backwards - it certainly has done so!

Thus, your rather bad attempt at ugly smears on Islam in the Prophet simply do not stick. I give no value whatsoever to Bhukari whom, like most people of those ages was a tribalist leader, iliterate himself and like most 7th century Arabs had no concept of a calander and dates. Evidence is clear enough from real recorded events that simply make the age of Aisha being 6 and 9 (betrothal and consumation) as being absolutely impossible. Aisha herself told a number of people that she had no idea what her age was. Radicals will shout otherwise as there is some tradition to the blind accepting of haddiths, but the average Muslim simply does not know better or care about it. Factual historical events that have clear dates show that she was more than likely promissed at 12 or 13 and then married at 15 to 16 which makes sense considering that was the practice at that time. I am not going to go into arguments, if you want a study about it, ask and I will give you a reference or post the studies on here. Up to you, you will ignore it anyhow.

Your other arguments, like that of paedophilia and Jews is all as someone put it is based obviously on the rantings in blogs like Jihad-watch. Texts about the after-life are graphic and should be taken as much as how you take similar in the Old Testiment, which is pretty much on par with the Qur'an. Why do you view one book in a certain fashion but assume something different from another? Double-standards are abounding here.

So to summarize - your full of it.

Genocide is not a matter of opinion.The murder and rape of women and little boys, the enslavement of thousands that was perpetrated by Mohammad cannot be subsumed under the name leader. The moral evil of your leader should be an issue of concern for you. I know that Muslims have accepted Mohammad's recasting of Jesus. You state that I am ignorant and sweep under the rug all of the Moslem scholars who attest to every charge leveled at Mohammad by me. Do you think that Bukhari was mistaken. He is quite emphatic about Mohammad's marriage with a 9 year old. THe Koran is explicit about the little boys available for sex in Paradise. The fistula and psychological destruction of litte Mujslim girls is because of the imitation of Mohammad. The stupefying statistics of the destruction wreaked by Muslim slave traders in imitation of your Mohammad have been verified by the painstaking efforts of Muslim historians of our own day. European slave traders were humanitarians in contrast. Muslims typically lost over 90 per cent of their human cargo. Muslims are still the world's preeminent slave traders. We have touched on Mohammads' pedophilia and pederasty, his genocide of the Jews, his psychopathic misogyny. You want me to say that holiness comes from this sorry life as a matter of politeness? No , then I would be a liar too. .

Solkhar you have much to answer for. Your dodging and fibbing, irksome in the beginning now stinks to high heaven. I watched you squirm and lie to Storm Rider that the term jihad was used to refer to defensive struggles. You did not mind telling me that there were many periods of dissent in Islam. Name them. You call Mohammad's bloody excesses the necessities of a leader. Now you are obscene.Was pederasty necessary for the greatness of his soul? WIll you offer up your own little boy to these" necessities"? I realize that I am conversing with a man of no moral imperatives, blithely unconcerned with the sufferings of others except, perhaps as an aesthetic matter. Genocide is as nothing to you. You are a true believer.

"It seems too hypocritical that Muslims demand building minarets in Europe but deny many non-Muslims in the Muslim world their basic and fundamental religious rights to build churches, or even carry their holy book with them. The more important problem for Muslims in Switzerland to address is the Muslim world's not giving basic religious rights to its non-Muslim minorities, not building these unneeded minarets."
Tawfik Hamid

http://www.newsmax.com/tawfik_hamid/Swiss_minar...

"The Swiss people who rejected building minarets may be sending a message that their tolerance did not change the Muslim world. For several decades, Muslims have been allowed to build mosques in Europe, wear their religious symbols such as the hijab, and preach Islam to non-Muslims. Despite such high levels of tolerance toward Muslims in the West, non-Muslims are not permitted to practice similar rights in several parts of the Muslim world. Preaching Christianity is criminalized in a number of Muslim countries. Furthermore, non-Muslims are not permitted to have their holy books or to build their religious temples is many shariah controlled areas. This lack of reciprocity of the Western tolerance will naturally make many Westerners feel that showing tolerance to Muslims is not effective." Tawfik Hamid

http://www.newsmax.com/tawfik_hamid/Swiss_minar...

"Can Muslims blame the Swiss people for being afraid of Islamization in their country? No, especially while the entire world sees the inhumane applications of Islamic law wherever it is implemented? It should not be unexpected that the Swiss people would not want a system that even today practices discrimination against women, gays, and minorities in the name of religion. The vivid images of stoning women and hanging gays in the Muslim world should make any sane individual inclined not to allow such an intolerant system to grow anywhere under the banner of freedom of religion." Tawfik Hamid

http://www.newsmax.com/tawfik_hamid/Swiss_minar...

Ever sensible those Swiss.
This is the You Tube video they are running at the Freethinker as an attachment to this story.
It would be hilarious if there weren't so many of these intellectual giants(clerics) polluting the minds of the young and the dirigible:
The old "2+2=5" analogy is inspired.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=plyS8sIUjmQ

Thanks for that funky!
Dr Zakir Naik is feted as an intellectual;if he is? then ordinary Muslims must be below the Huxleyan epsilon semi moron level.
But then we knew that already.
Islamic dirigism is why we laugh at them.
They are of course too dim to understand that!
May Allah be poisoned by his own constipation!

A lot more illogical trash talk againg folks, it would be nice to see some reality postings.

I have no problem with the Swiss ban at all, because Switzerland wishes to keep an identity, they are not closing down mosques and religous freedoms. The minaret is just an architectual custom attached to a mosque and if I was a local non-muslim resident and a mosque was built near my house and thus my tranquilty was disturbed by a call-to-prayer from a faith I do not recognise four or five times a day I would be pissed-off no end.

The reference in the item above and comments about Shari'a Law, though is simply a joke based on ignorance and obvious a bit of "agenda-pushing" to make sure the reality is not understood correctly.

As I have put in another post, Shari'a Law is in fact a minority in the Muslim world, the majority of countries in fact have Secular Legal Systems mostly based on either the British or French systems, depending on which country they had the closer link to or were subjected to their colonial power. Of that minority of countries that does have Shari'a Law, the majority of them only have Shari'a Family Courts only and they are subject to secular supreme or appellant courts. Thus, so you all now have the facts - the majority of the Muslim world has rejected the instillation of theologically run Shari'a Law.

The other fact, that is avoided or unknown to most of you, is that there is a very different breed of radicalised Muslim in the West that does not exist in the real Muslim World. Thus, when you hear about western Muslims demanding Shari'a or a Caliphate, they are in fact a radical minority that are demanding things that the real and existing Muslim World mostly rejects. I have mentioned the Shari'a issue above, the Caliphate issue is even more ludicrous. For those of you whom are fearing or taunting such nonesense, let me put it ithis way - if it was the goal of every Muslim to join together under one Caliphe, why is the existing Muslim world 56 plus independant countries that in fact cannot even politically unite to support basic shared and common issues? Add to that, if there was a Caliphate, which sort? Sunni or Shi'ite? If Sunni, would not the Iranians and other shi'ite communities object and call it heretic? Certainly Sunnis would say so if it was Shi'ite! Say it is Sunni, would Wahhabists and Salafist radicals accept one that was not of thier grouping? Be sure those western Muslim radicals calling for a Caliphate are assuming it is going to be them that lead it! Go figure.

The reality on the ground is that in the Cafés, street-corners and sheesha-shops around the Middle-East and here in North Africa, most Muslims are laughing themselves stupid and in shock at the tolerence given to western Muslim radicals whom by the way are almost totally not-welcome back over here in the real and existing Muslim world.

So now all take a deep breadth and consider the above before you continue...... I am happy to answer questions, with all due respect to the blog-owner.

Sharia Law has nothing to do with Western law, values or culture, except for that of the Fascists and Communists. It does not matter that only a small percentage of Muslims are actively seeking a Worldwide Totalitarian Islamic Caliphate; only a relatively small number is required. This was also true in Nazi Germany and in the Communist Soviet Union; the core of true believers (the Inner Party as George Orwell referred to them) are able to take totalitarian control of a society by controlling its legal, police and military systems. The ordinary Muslim majority today is in the same position as the ordinary German majority in 1933; they are simply waiting for their violent totalitarian leaders to take control, and they will then fall in line. The history of World War II proves that majorities are essentially irrelevant in the face of a demented minority hell-bent on totalitarian rule.

http://fora.tv/2007/11/30/Norman_Podhoretz#chap...

" ...they are not closing down mosques"

But they should.


"if I was a local non-muslim resident and a mosque was built near my house and thus my tranquilty was disturbed by a call-to-prayer from a faith I do not recognise four or five times a day I would be pissed-off no end."

You betcha.


Muslims should LEAVE.

As you've kindly mentioned, there are 57 islamic countries.

Pick one of them, sell your stuff and L E A V E.

Muslims are NOT welcomed in the west.

Storm_Rider you got that 100% right, death to our government in the US as well we need to start over from scratch - we need a new building permit. Get this!
" I just applied for a permit to the planning commission for a new-build house. It was going to be 100ft tall and 400ft wide with nine turrets at various heights and windows all over the place. It would have parking for 200 cars and I was going to paint it snot green. The council old me to get lost. So I sent in the application again, but this time I called it a Mosque."

Building work starts on Monday. GRRRR

Pisser!

That really cracked me up! Thank you!!!

I couldn’t agree more with the Swiss. Islam is intolerant and restricts freedom of religious expression in every country to a varying degree. Persecution of Christians is common in EVERY Muslim country, though the form and intensity may vary. And, this is the tolerant age of Islam. A mere 150 years ago, non-Muslims in Muslim countries paid higher taxes, were forced to wear special clothes, in short they were second-class citizens constantly in fear of life and limb. Unable to take a Muslim to court!!! I think the only way to “tame” the dragon of Islam is to give it a taste of its own medicine. Reciprocity must become the norm. If Saudis don’t allow Bibles, churches, etc. We should not allow them to bring in Kuran’s, build schools or mosques. When they stop using religion as a political and social-engineering tool, then maybe there can be freedom of religion for them. Not until!

Saudi Arabia was a construct of the Cold War, a useful ally of the West against godless bolshevism. It more than Israel was propped up by Western oil and security interests. But like many things useful, Saudi's usefulness came to an end, by 1990 at the latest, perhaps the mid-1980s. We should have abandoned Saudi Arabia to Saddam's (fascist but secular) Iraq and not bothered sending protective troops at all in the First Gulf War (and bankrupting our own economies). They deserved each other.

"Saudi Arabia" , " Dubai", "Jordan" were INVENTED inside
Whitehall in London in the 1920's and 1930's.

Those countries have no history.
Those countries have no legitimacy.

Lawrence of Arabia and Kim Philby, both MI-6' men, are the founding fathers
of those british inventions.

The Klingon Empire has a lot more legitimacy than "Saudi Arabia", "jordan"
and the "emirates".

How right you are.

The whole idea of countries and nations is foreign to the Arab mind, who thinks in terms of tribes, clans, and families. The British and French, like in Africa, took possession of Middle Eastern lands as colonies; and the modern nations have the same names and boundaries. Although, the the case of the Middle East, the British didn't need to do much of the dirty work; the Ottomans did it first, in carving vast swaths of desert into administrative provinces such as "Jordan", "Palestine", "Syria", and (pre-Saudi) "Arabia".

Referendums are something that characterises Swiss democracy.
For any issue 100,000 signatures means that it will be subjected to a national plebiscite!
When in doubt ask the electorate!!!
Quite wisely they rejected minarets(does not gel to well with chalets and cuckoo clocks)
Would that this little aid to democracy be empoyed by other European countries to ameliorate the poison of political correctness

Banning the minarets was an excellent decision.

Now the muslims who INFEST Europe should also be banned.

KICK THEM OUT.

NOW.

Minarets are symbols, and as symbols of islam (a foreign religion, long the sworn enemy of Christendom) just naturally pisses off a lot of Christians. Mooselems have a tendency to do just that....piss off Christians. Europe has been infested with muz scum for several years now. People are finally getting fed up with their filth and anti-Christian/anti-western attitudes. You will start seeing "purges" and later, ethnic cleansing that will make what the Serbs did look like a girl scout camp sing-a-long.

Albiet allowing everyone's opinion has a right to be heard, the illogical included, it should be pointed out that most of what was said here is factually incorrect, over-simplifying and generalising to a point of absurdity. We can only be very thankful that most people on this small planet of ours does not follow such lines.

"most of what was said here is factually incorrect"
Proof?

The comment was not directed at one poster but a mix of many.

Rather rediculous items like Christendom is responsible for over 90 per cent of inventions, but yet the basis, texts and their own learning comes from the theories and posturings of ancient Greeks, Romans, Indians and Chinese, then codified and expanded on by Muslims, Byzantiums, Thai, Chinese and others. Thus it is factually and logically incorrect.

Statements about Minarets and Mosques being there to show that some "Islamic God" is better than "your God" is totally wrong as it is the same Abrahamic God of Jews and Chrsitians.

Statements that Muslims were never in the Balkans before the Ottomans is beign tauted as fact when it is historically incorrect, with Muslims being there from the early 11th century and more than likely through historical events and archeological evidence as being there since the 9th century.

Basic propoganda that there is a Shari'a Law threat on the West and Europe on particular, when the majority of Muslim nations neither use it and by choice have rejected it.

The list goes on but it is 1am and I am still recovering from having my gall-bladder removed last wednesday and my wife (a doctor) is pissed off with my not getting enough sleep so if you will excuse me, I will not go on.

What in the hell were Arab Muslims doing in the Balkans before the Ottoman Muslims finally conquered by the sword?

Rhetorical question. They were trying to conquer the Balkans with the sword back then as well. Conquest followed by subjugation of non-Muslims has been the unbroken pattern of Muslim history since its beginning. The sad truth is that Muslims are also victims of Totalitarian Islamic government (Sharia); the ordinary Muslim is a serf as well, but a higher serf than the non-Muslim serf.

" ethnic cleansing that will make what the Serbs did look like a girl scout camp sing-a-long "

I support 100% of what the Serbians did. That land belongs to them and I will never recognize
any muslim territorial claim in Europe.

I do not recognize Kosovo as an independent state, but a legitimate part of Serbia.

I will HATE to see a non-Christian Europe.

The birth of the Werstern Culture being besmirched by muslims is a very
tough scenario to witness. It is simply unbearable.

Ironic coming from someone whom, assuming from the name, comes from a non-Christian grouping and one that was almost totally ethnically cleansed.

Having been to Srebrenica as part of the first investigating delegation after the massacre, and being a Muslim, you can imagine my reaction to such a bigoted and ugly posting as has just been made, let alone that it is based on some strange and illogical concepts.

The Bosnian Conflict and the massacres was based on the concept of Serbian Nationalism and dominance by a strong nationalist movement. The sort that reflected closely the German Nationalism of the early 1930s that lead to - well we know it.

Though all individuals from all groups were involved in crimes against humanity, the bulk of and the only evidence of collective and planned murder of a community - now known as Ethnic Cleansing, was done by the original perpertrators of the conflict - the Serbs, both in Pale and in Belgrade.

Ironically, the land does not belong to them and never did. History is full of the movements of peoples and at least a third of the Bosnian Muslims were there as long as the "serbian" identity was really created. The argument that they all came on the back of the Ottomans is pure historical fiction. Ironically, it should be pointed out that the local Serbs under the Ottomans - Muslim and non-Muslims (as there were both and half of all Bosniak Muslims are ethnic "serbians anyhow" benefitted financially and socially under the Ottomans more than any other community. At least 5 Grand Pashas of the Ottoman Empire were ethnic Serbs.

We can assume that the above poster has some agenda to strike at anything with the word Muslim on it, even to the point of destorting basic facts.

solkhar: "Ironically, the land does not belong to them (Serbs) and never did. History is full of the movements of peoples and at least a third of the Bosnian Muslims were there as long as the "serbian" identity was really created. The argument that they all came on the back of the Ottomans is pure historical fiction."

No, that is a lie.

There were no Muslims in the Balkans prior to the Ottoman conquest of Byzantium (present day Turkey). The land does not belong to them (Muslims) and never did.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decline_of_the_Byz...

http://www.worldviewtimes.com/article.php/artic...

No, history does not lie.

Apart from not putting full faith in wiki, I suggest you look at more sources.

Do not mistake the creation of a Bosnian region that was named as such by the Ottomans in 1463. In fact there were Muslims in the region of the Balkans since the 11th century which is 200 years before the creation of the Ottomans in 1280, let alone the expansions much later.

A history of Islamic societies By Ira Marvin Lapidus talks about the the early 13th century almost a century before the first inclings of a future Ottomans that Hajj Bakhtas a travelling cleric spreading the word of Islam came to what is a region that is close to Belgrade and came accross a number of Muslim villages. It is believed that they were the decendents of an earlier Muslim expansion in the region of Budva, Kotor, Rosi, and Rijeka in the first decades fo the 11th century. The number of Muslims in the area then increased as part of the first migration of refugees of various peoples and faiths escaping the various Mongol evasions. The reality is that the much of the serbs and other groups in that region, including Muslim, are mostly a melting pot of such refugees. Certainly later on the Ottomans changed a great deal.

Using the phrase that the "land belongs to them" is rather a wasted term when you start studying history - from the first recorded movement of man in that region - whom were they? Orthodox Christian Serbians? And why should the changes of history stop in the 13th century? There was certainly a Serb identity from the 8th and 9th century, that is a fact, but how much of the world of then is still the world of now?

If anything, within Bosnia, the Serb enclave of Bosnia-Herzegovina as an entity was created in the year 1458 as one community of Christians that was not either targetted, volunteered or chose to not become Muslim. Remembering that many communities chose to become Muslims so they could get wealthy (from your wiki reference).

More confirmation of the earlier than the Ottoman time presence of Muslims comes from a number of events that are clearly defined in history. "During 840-841, the Muslims conquered Taranto, Italy, and undertook incursions into the Balkan Peninsula, conquering Budva, Kotor, Rosi, and Rijeka. They even surrounded Dubrovnik for fifteen years, but without any success. This was the time when the Illyro-Albanians had their first contacts with the Muslim armies. They kept trying to take over the Balkan Peninsula until 1023 when they lost control of the Southern Italy."

"This variety of military relations was extended to the politics, too. The Muslim countries had cordial relationship with their Balkan counterparts. In 856, the Serb king, Mikhail III, sent his envoy to the Caliph Al-Mutawakkil Ibn Ar-Rasheed of the Abbasid dynasty to arrange a form of debate on religious matters".

"In 922, moved by the Islamic teachings, the Bulgarian king sent an envoy to Caliph Al-Muqtadir of the Abbasid dynasty to convey his family’s decision to embrace Islam."

The point of making the above quotes wa that the presence was simply there. Historians know it and so should you.

No lies here!

References: "Islam", The New Encyclopedia Britannica (2005) , Berkshire Encyclopedia of World History, vol.4, The new Cambridge medieval history. Cambridge University Press, islamweb.com - balkan history.

History does not lie? What about historians?

Yes, historians absolutely can and have lied, that is why what they are say are theories until they are contested, discussed and confirmed by enough sources to be considered a rea "history". It is that "history" that I am refering to.

Indeed,Odyssia.
Herodotus has often been referred to as The Father of Lies.
Absolutely invaluable nevertheless.

Muslims are USURPERS and INVADERS throughout their grisly and bloodthirsty
history.
This hideous pattern continues, therefore I've got no reason whatsoever to give credibility to any pseudo-intellectual muslim that tries to WHITEWASH the bloody trail left by the muslim onslaught.

Muslims (AND CHRISTIANS AND HINDUS AND BUDDHISTS are all) INVADERS throughout their grisly and bloodthirsty history.

Got to get your facts right, just helping you not embarass yourself again when you get these basic things wrong!

The very fact you're a damn muslim is enough to have you embarassed.

Are you PROUD of being a follower of the most dastardly sect ever created by men ?
Islam is a TERRORISM FACTORY.
Islam is a DISGRACE, a PLAGUE that just causes trouble and death around the world. You,Sir, are just one of its murderous lackeys.

JEWHAWK: How good is this: "Muslims are USURPERS and INVADERS throughout their grisly and bloodthirsty history." you said it, have a happy day thinking of the fact that they will burn. hahahaha for God Laughs @ the wicked knowing their day is coming.
GRRRRR

"...the fact that they will burn"

You mean in HELL ?

Would the Devil allow 1,6 Billion muslims there?
Of course he would. The 72 virgins are already
there very "busy" entertaining the whole slew of
demons who call Hell their home.

Funny: JEWHAWK - HOT HOT HOT!

Yes, the land did indeed belong to the Balkan Christians before murderous Muslim conquest; this was also true in the remainder of the Christian Eastern and Western Roman Empire including most of what is now Turkey, Syria, Palestine, Egypt and North Africa.

Neither Serbia nor Bosnia was created in 1458; they both date back to Medieval Christian times and were under the Roman Empire prior to that - another of your lies.

Missing the point, posting tiraids based on that missed point is rather embarassing to read, I really pitty those that do that. Sad.

So I guess I will have to go back to history 101 and give lessons? No chance, my time is to important to waste on someone whom goes on emotive rants.

But to summarise, the Roman Empire became Christian (thus the claim of originally being Christian is already moot unless as history does not give a cut-off point.

The Holy Roman Empire eventually was split into two, that ultimately became the Church of Rome and the Orthodox Church based in Byzantium/Constantinople/Istanbul.

Islam came and on the back of soldiers, clerics and traders spread Islam and like the Christians did before, certainly spread it by force based on the assumption that they were right and they wanted control and power. History takes no sides.......

As for the Balkans, yes it was predominantly Christian and it was a battle-field for the Western and Eastern Christian faiths for centuries, with countless blood spilt in the name of Christ - but of course, in the name of power and cultural dominance.

Muslims were there since the 8th century, when Arab armies had a short hold control of souther Italy and what is now the Macedonian and Croatian areas. When the armies left, villages that had become Muslim remained as such, though certainly many were forced to change or volunteered to become whichever version of Christianity was dominating the area.

In the 11th century Muslim clerics and traders travelled the area and discovered these villages, but these clerics and traders were not Arab but mostly Turkic. Trade started with them to what two centuries later would become othe Ottoman Empire, thus the connection with the old-Arab villages become more Turk dominated.

Befor the Ottomans, the Mongols started the great raids and devastation that caused entire populations to shift. Much of what is Albania and additions to Serbia were changed and added to by these movements, that also included Muslims.

When the Ottomans eventually did conquer the area, the Muslim communities were still there and thus they prospered more as well as with other Muslims immigrating and the conversions. That date I gave of 1458 was the date that a Christian Serb Enclave was created in the Muslim dominated area that later was to be called Bosnia. I suggest you read my words before jumping to conclusion (does nobody actually read anymore on this blog?).

The entire point of this backward and forward discussion is three points only and that is what you should stick to and I will make the short and simple so even you can read it correctly.

1) There is no "this was Christian or whatever land", history has a habit of changing things.
2) My comment was that "there were Muslims living there before the Ottomans came, in fact 400 years prior.
3) Statements saying this group or that group should not be there is a moot point as history will either have them there or not, so historically speaking, that community failed to nationalise or monopolise there culture.

Got it? History is easy when one starts to actually read and study!

solkhar: "There is no "this was Christian or whatever land", history has a habit of changing things."

The history you speak of is the history of Islamic Tyranny - un-holy Islamic Jihad whose purpose is the establishment of un-holy Totalitarian Political Islam (Sharia Law).

Your lies never stop regarding the Christian civilizations of the Balkans.

"The beginning of the Serbian state starts with the White Serbs settling the Balkans led by the Unknown Archont, who was asked to defend the frontiers from invading Avars. Emperor Heraclius granted the Serbs a permanent dominion in the Sclavinias of Western Balkans upon completing their task. At first heavily dependent on the Byzantine Empire as its vassal, Raška gained independence by expulsion of the Byzantine troops and heavy defeat of the Bulgarian army. The last and full Christianization of Serbia took place in 867-869 when Byzantine Emperor Basil I sent priests after Knez Mutimir had acknowledged Byzantine suzerainty... Around 1040 AD an uprising in the medieval state of Duklja overthrew Byzantine rule. Duklja then assumed domination over the Serbian lands between the 11–12th centuries. In 1077 A.D. Duklja became the first Serb Kingdom [8] following the establishment of the Catholic Bishopric of Bar... The Serbian Empire was proclaimed in 1346 under Stefan Dušan. During Dušan's rule, Serbia reached its territorial peak, becoming one of the larger states in Europe... The Houses of Mrnjavčević, Lazarević and Branković ruled the Serbian lands in the 15th and 16th centuries. Constant struggles took place between various Serbian kingdoms and the Ottoman Empire. After the fall of Constantinople to the Turks and the Siege of Belgrade, the Serbian Despotate fell in 1459 following the siege of the provisional capital of Smederevo. After repelling Ottoman attacks for over 70 years, Belgrade finally fell in 1521. Forceful conversion to Islam became imminent, especially in the southwest (Raška, Kosovo and Bosnia)."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serbia

solkhar: "As for the Balkans, yes it was predominantly Christian and it was a battle-field for the Western and Eastern Christian faiths for centuries, with countless blood spilt in the name of Christ..."

No, blood was not shed in the name of Christ; it was no doubt shed for political power. Christians constantly fall short of the glory of God, but our spiritual leader is God incarnate; the Prince of Peace. Muhammad on the other hand was a pedophile mass-murder; the Prince of Darkness.

solkhar: "The Holy Roman Empire eventually was split into two, that ultimately became the Church of Rome and the Orthodox Church based in Byzantium/Constantinople/Istanbul."

Wrong. The Holy Roman Empire was centered on present day Austria and had nothing to do with Byzantium or Constantinople. Not only are you a liar, you are a fool pretending to be some kind of scholar.

"The Holy Roman Empire (HRE; German: Heiliges Römisches Reich (HRR), Latin: Imperium Romanum Sacrum (IRS)) was a union of territories in Central Europe during the Middle Ages and the Early Modern period under a Holy Roman Emperor. The first emperor of the Holy Roman Empire was Otto I, crowned in 962.[4] The last was Francis II, who abdicated and dissolved the Empire in 1806 during the Napoleonic Wars."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_roman_empire

Yes, I noticed I said "Holy" roman empire after I put it and noted the error. It happens, the points though are still correct.

Your bulk postings is not going to allow me to respond to each so I will do it here and simple.

I have not, never denied Serbian history of the predominance of Christianity there, I refer back to the three points I made and I stick by them. Go search for them and respond if you like to that posting.

As for your very lame excuse that no blood has been shed in the name of Christ but it was political is, which I am sure you know, complte BS. Of course it was political and power seeking - just like in Islam. The rest of your nonsense comments about Islam just shows the fuitility of discussing the topic with you.

The Balkans certainly had wars and conflicts; Christian vs. Christian prior to the arrival of Muslims, and blood was shed, but not in the name of Christ. This evil did occur in other places in history, but that represented a perversion of Christ's teachings, not an adherence to Jesus Christ. Yes, blood has been shed in the name of Christ; but not by the instruction or example of Christ. Muhammad was no Jesus Christ; he was not God incarnate. Muhammad, by instruction and by example, set the future course of mass-murdering, enslaving, Totalitarian Islam.

Wikepedia is a good source for historical information, as opposed to your lies and propaganda; but I don't rely on Wikepedia as my sole source. The entire Balkan region was Christian prior to Muslim conquest; it was part of the Byzantine Eastern Roman Empire.

“Almost all of Byzantine energy over the next centuries would be focused on Islam. The Muslims very quickly conquered Byzantine territory in Syria and Egypt largely because of disaffected populations of Christians and Jews who had been persecuted since the time of Justinian. The patriarchal caliphs and later the Umayyad caliphs, however, really had their sights on Byzantine territory—in fact, the conquest of Byzantium itself. They easily conquered all the Persian territories, but they could never quite conquer the heart of Byzantium itself. In 670, they attempted this conquest with a large fleet; in 717, they tried again with a land and sea operation against the city. This operation, however, turned the tide away from the Muslims. Under the emperor Leo the Isaurian (717-741), the Muslim invasion was turned back and the Byzantines began to hold their own against Islamic incursions… In 1071, however, the Seljuk Turks conquered the Byzantine army at Manzikert in Asia Minor—after this victory, the Seljuks quickly overran all of Byzantine territory in the east… In 1453, the city was finally and permanently conquered by the Ottoman Turks and renamed Istanbul. Byzantine culture, law, and administration came to its final end.”

http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~dee/MA/BYZ.HTM

"The Ottoman Turks had been steadily marching through Asia Minor and the Balkans since the early 1300s. Winning a decisive victory over the Serbs in Kosovo in 1389 and conquering most of the Bulgarian lands as well as its capital Veliko Turnovo by about 1393, the Turks captured the last Bulgarian stronghold of Vidin in the northwest in 1396. Several rebellions against the Turks were put down, and when Constantinople itself fell in 1453, regional hope of continued resistance vanished and five centuries of "The Turkish Yoke" began... A more severe system of feudalism was established, whereby Bulgarians who had survived the initial massacres and enslavement were forced to live as serfs of the Spahis, the Turkish knights who were landowners. The government as well as the feudal lords imposed harsh taxes, and the most hated was the devshirme, or "blood tax," where families were stripped of their oldest boys, who were taken away to be trained as janissaries in the Ottoman military... Centuries of rule by the Turks took a huge toll on the Bulgarian population, who were robbed, raped, kidnapped and worse, yet they were generally left without recourse in the Ottoman court system."

http://sofiaecho.com/2009/02/01/679436_bulgaria...

You write well, Storm_Rider. You teach us. Start giving "likes" to people and I'll start giving "likes" to you.

History is often a lie when controlled by totalitarians like you. Once you are in full control of the present, with the aid of totalitarian Sharia Law, you lying Islamist bastards (in alliance with your lying Marxist friends) can finish re-creating the past to your liking, thereby controlling a dystopian future devoid of individual's sacred rights to life, liberty and creative pursuit of happiness.

"Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past." George Orwell, 1984

Go to Hell, solkhar.

Many thanks SR for your most illuminating history of the Balkans.
I fear you might have added to the post operative pain currently experienced by Solkhar after his cholecystectomy.

Storm_Rider ditto: GRRRR, not to worry the Muzies are going to Hell along with their leader. LOL

I hate muslims.
I do honestly hope you'd realize that by now.


You didn't mention the crimes against Serbs commited by muslims.

The very EXISTENCE of muslims in this part of the world is offensive,
because they are descendent of Christians forced to convert to Islam
by the Turks in the last 750 years.

Your self-confessed bigotry only confirms my above comments. Imagine the condemnation if someone said "I hate Jews........with a similar load of BS to back it up".

As for your imaginary version of history - as I mentioned, there were Muslims there that arrived long before the Ottomans did.

What gets me is we have all our rights to believe stuff, but to base it on BS and imagination, or perhaps in this case local social-political agendas is nothing short of ....... sad!

"I will HATE to see a non-Christian Europe."

Do you really mean that, or do you mean "I will hate to see a Muslim Europe." So would I.

Would you really hate to see a Jewish Europe, for example?

And Christianity was a newcomer to the block of Western Culture. How Christian were the classical Greeks with their philosophy, art, science, mathematics, and democracy? Some people find western culture besmirched by anything Middle Eastern to also be unbearable. Take Varg Vikernes for example. He and the Serbs were doing essentially the same thing, destroying what they believed to be alien temples on sacred European soil. So what makes one of them wrong and the other right?

The Muslims did not force their way into Switzerland, Germany, Sweden, etc. They were invited, out of stupidity and laziness more than anything. The Swiss etc. nationals needed someone to clean their toilets, and thought that Arabs and Albanians would assimilate, and behave in responsible ways similar to the natives. They did not. What has been invited can always be evicted, political correctness be damned - and unowned / unused mosques can always be demolished or converted into something else.

" Would you really hate to see a Jewish Europe, for example? "

There was NEVER such a thing called " Jewish Europe".

We were always been a minority, even in Poland.
As Jews don't proselytize as muslims do, their
numbers dwindled throughout the time, with the "help"
of massacres and expulsions.
The ONLY country I wish to see as Jewish is ISRAEL. Period.

CHRISTIAN EUROPE:

Christendom is responsible for 90 % of ALL scientific and
technological endeavour made by men.It's a FACT, and I
don't feel ashamed to admit that Jews jumped into this
bandwagon and became scientists, artists, politicians
and many other things they otherwise wouldn't be.

" (The muslims) They were invited"

Yes. It was a grave mistake.The Europeans underestimated the muslim
capability to multiply like locusts and behave as such.

Excuse my ignorance but ... what is the problem with minarets, as opposed to mosques themselves? Is it noise pollution from the calls to prayer?

Right wing politician Ulrich Schluer from the Swiss People's Party told the Swiss website swissinfo.ch that minarets symbolize a political-religious claim to power.

“We do not forbid Islam -- we forbid the political symbol of Islamization, and this is the minaret,” Schluer said. “The minaret has nothing to do with religion; the minaret is a symbol of political victory [of Islam]. The first thing the Turks did when they conquered Constinople -- they installed a minaret on the top of the most important church.”

http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/199744.php

Schluer is, of course, wrong and he knows it but avoids it for his political agenda. The vote "just" made it based on the fact that the conservative Christian Swiss do not want to see the image of the skyline change and fear that their tranquility will be disturbed by the "call to prayer" of a faith that is not their own . I support the last two points, by the way.

yeah you can't handle it when the WEST plays you the way Muslims play them
too bad isn't it??

that's right we can make statements that we know are nt really true to hide behind- taste of your own medicine - bitter?
good

things like -Islam means peace yeah sure it does
words like justice- that to you mean conquer all thatis not ISLAMIC
you know statements like oh we love Jews we just hate Zionists

HAHAHHHAHHHHA HA

"Schluer is of course wrong"????
Why wrong? he just expressed opposition to having some ME style monstrosity built amongst the picturesque fertile valleys of his homeland and furthermore organised a referendum to oppose the same.
Democracy at work Solkhar what could be fairer than that?
The Catholic Church in a disgusting display of obsequious brown nosing has declared that the native Swiss are out of order.
They should mind their own business!

That is a bit bigotted don't you think to consider Islamic architicture to be monstrous?

I agree that there is a right to those cities in Europe with strong singular archetectual styles to not want Minarets because it breaks that tradition of style, no problem there. That is fine by me and I already said that I support the ban if that and the fear of being disturbed by "calls to prayer" are justified. Need to read my postings, as one commentor clearly said on a thread.

You apply the word bigot somewhat flippantly Solkhar in fact almost malpropistically.
Architecture is de facto an expression of culture.
If you visit some northern British towns such as Bolton you will see silly domed buildings with minarets
amongst traditional terraced houses.
This is due to the supine nature of cultural equivalentists allowing such ridiculous edifices in what was once an homogenous society.
In addition strange people with long white shirts, sawn off trousers and beards are on parade and are offended when little children laugh at them.(not to mention women in their personal tents).
The towns have become a collection of ghettos;due to the apartheid attitude of Muslims and their holy cult.
It is also of no surprise that the majority of these interlopers are ill educated and are responsible for a disproportionate level of criminality(the peddling of narcotics being the most prominent of their crimes).
In addition rape of native females has increased by some 500%such that Muslim areas are effectively no go areas at night.
The economic load on the social services is also a factor which characterises the parasitic nature of these most unpoular people.
Strange that one never hears anybody complaining of Hindhus,Chinese,Sikhs,and other cultures who seem to do their best to fit in and live their lives productively.
It's only the Muslims who whine and whinge for unearned respect and are the focus for surveillance by antiterrorist organisations such as "special branch" and MI5.
The idea of dumping Islam and joining the human race seems to be something that they can't accept
as they are always ready to hurl the epithet "bigot" when the suggestion is made.
They are truly the authors of their own misfortune(and to some extent ours too).
The only knowlege that they consistenly display is the location of the benefits office.
Yes I believe in live and let live;but not to any self declared fifth column.
Most of these

I only use the word BIGOT when the text-book version comes out - which means the targetting of a specific group for malicious attack. Your comment about minarets was possibly one such comment and so I questioned it.

As for the comments about aesthetics of architecture, a subject that I am actually fond of, I have very strong opinions. As you will have noticed, I support the ban of minarets by communities with a solid architectual history and plan - ie it either fits in or it does not.

Now having said all that, your apprent slight digs at Islamic architecture is something else. As an architecture, minarets, domes and other styles that are used can either be masterpieces, of which I have seen many, as well as total disasters. I abhore pathetic looking minarets in squallid old british suburbs as much as well designed minarets and Mosques in similar locations - it simply makes it a shameful waste of good-design. Certainly pathetic minarets in a good quality and well designed suburb is just as shameful but of course a nice and appropriate mosque with or without an apparent minaret in a nice looking place is a great way of placing an eddiface for the worship of God.

It is interesting if you think temples of other faiths are not criticized, that is certainly because you are concentrating on one subject and the blogs that you read - as well as the love of scandal and Islam by the MSM. Large Hindu and Buddhist temples are also issues for local communities and the last time I visited my brother who now lives in Australia, two large Hindu temples recieved a great deal of attention, criticism and unwarrented concern. In those cases, as I remember the location - it did not bother the local architecture which was mostly eucolyptus trees and sheep.

Schluer is right, and the political agenda is one of sacred human liberty which is threatened by Totalitarian Sharia Law, i.e.: Political Islam.

Schluer's reference to the Byzantines is worth a look.

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2008/05/the-nakba-may...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decline_of_the_Byz...

Death to Political Islam! Death to Totalitarian Islamic Sharia Law!

Apart from Schluer's basis only being politically motivated hate, his comments are illogical and baseless, as is using Robert Spencer's blog as a source.

Apart from the fact that there is no structure, basis or support for Shari'a Law to threaten the liberty of the Swiss - which says enough, the comparison of Byzantium is simply over-the-top with it being a differing situation, era, population nor mentality. Shari'a Law was not even a factor, not that it is a factor at all anyow, with the conflict with the Ottomans let alone the spreading and movement of Islam. Propogandists, profiteers and the MSM have all but disgregarded actualy history, which the internet is in fact destorying slowly, and have forgotten the Byzantine's attempts of spreading Christianity and its own form of totalitarian control over lands far and wide - and quite successfully for a while.

If you read my postings in other comments, you will note that there is only a small vocal and radical minority that are even tauting Shari'a Law in the West or anywhere. Does it not rather make your arument a bit moot considering that Shari'a is not even in the majority of Muslim countries but Secular legal systems? Does not that tell you that the majority of Muslim countries on this planet have already shown their rejection for puttin the law into the hands of obviously ultra-conservative clerics and theologians?

Reality check please.

Yes, down with the concept of Shari'a legal systems and politicized Muslims.

Some political motivation is good, i.e.: sacred human liberty; and some political motivation is evil, i.e.: Totalitarian Political Islam (Sharia Law).

Robert Spencer tells the truth; you are a liar.

Totalitarian Islamic Sharia law threatens human liberty everywhere, including Switzerland.

Totalitarian Islamic Sharia law is practiced in all Islamic majority nations whether they are called secular or religious; it is practiced in the background of the former and in the open of the latter; in both cases Sharia Law trumps secular law.

No, Robert Spencer sells hate to make profit from the gullable, pushing fears, confusion and ignorance. The only good thing about Spencer is that he robs money by selling books to other radical far-right hate mongers. Proof of his lack of value is that he is shunned by the academic world and yet even then when he is invited by a student union body in a hall at some university, he then puts it in his website and bio that he spoke at that university as if he was invited by its establishment.

As for his quote, what he states is in fact almost impossible. The concept of Shari'a Courts is based on it being run by theologans. Also, the majority of those with Shari'a systems have only family courts that are Shari'a based and then under the control of a secular supreme court or appealant court. That is simply facts, go the CIA or another factual source and do the maths! Having some connection to courts here in North Africa, I am fully aware that they are in fact in most cases identical carbon-copies of British and French secular legal systems.

What Spencer is carefully skirting is the fact that in the end, all legal systems are based on the laws of the lands that are passed by its leaders or parliaments, thus moral codes are introduced that reflect the morals, standards and identity of that nation. In that case, Islam being the main faith of such countries, there will certainly be laws representing standards that are based on Islamic values. That is not Shari'a by far, not even remotely, but to a degree shows that the values that come from the Qur'an can be dealt with, put in place and represent Islamic values in a secular environment without introducing a theolgoically run Shari'a Legal System.

I suggest you stop throwing that rather melodramatic word "you are a liar" until you first learn the subject your trying to, and currently failing, to understand. It simply is embarassing to see someone make a fool of themselves and spout illogical propoganda from bad sources as a truth.

You tell an outrageous lie. You contend that most sharia courts are copies of British and French legal systems. Your comparative law is way off, as you surely know. You want me to believe that sharia, with its draconian decrees based on despotic defense of Muslim supremacy, is similar to the Napoleonic codes which aim to assure freedom from ecclesial domination and freedom of all citizens. YOu assert that sharia is similar at the same time to the vastly different common law of the British. Sharia's purpose is to codify the Koran, the Hadiths and the demonic life of Mohammad and to apply these diseased principles to every area of life.
Spencer's credentials are impeccable. Muslim apologists refuse to debate him because they cannot defeat him. The Muslim student propagandists who whip up misguided liberal empathy among the gullible and ill-informed, do not care for truth. Like you they seek to protect the reputation of Islam against the onslaught of the truth.. They are often the proteges of CAIR, which is linked to the Muslim Brotherhood, an organization dedicated to Muslim supremacy achieved by terror and all other means. They dare not have Spencer speak because he will reveal the truth.

Your pet delusion is that the Koran is holy while the hadiths are full of untruths. The entire foundation of Islam is based on appeals to sexual lust and bloodlust.Spencer impeccably reveals the insane hatred of the Jews and Christians which permeate this work of Mohammad's devilish imagination. The Koran manipulates the historic and present day lust of the Arabic tribes for young boys. The widespread suffering and rape of these devastated little boys continues to this day. The Koran pimps to this twisted desire by promising that little boys will be available for the sexual pleasure of the man who makes it to Paradise. The only sure way is jihad. Your demented Allah who is certainly not YHWH, He ushers violent blood murderers and rapists into the bowels of the Muslim paradise where rampant sex can be enjoyed. The Koran is available for all to see and judge. Spencer is excellent in revealing the truth that you wish to hide. The Koran is a stench propping up much of the world's misery. Spencer is to be congratulated for his indefatigable quest to have the truth more widely known.

For you, telling the revolting truth about Islam is hate. Consider, religion is due no special exemption from truth. In the name of what value do you hold loyalty to a lie higher than truth?Your deliberate lies are a fundamental and culpable error. The Holy Bible points out that hell is reserved for all those who love and practice a lie. There is no higher value than truth.

Yes there is no higher value than the truth, I try to stick to it.

English may not be my first language but I am certain what I said was clear enough and if you have hte incapacity to read all that I have said and thus accuse, name-call and worse based on your making up things other than I said, then this conversation is a complete waste of time.

I did not say at all that "most sharia courts are copies of British and French legal systems", far from it I said the opposite. I said that most Muslim countries DO NOT HAVE shari'a legal systems but Secular Courts based on and in some cases carbon copies of British and French legal systems. Get the facts correct before you respond and you will not look embarassing which is the only thing "outrageous" here along with your entire sentance and attack.

Spencer's credentials are NOT impeccable, in fact he has none except for a university degree. He is a smart book seller to targetted audience based on the fear, misinformation and exagerations that happen after an event. He is clever that he does not cross the line of fact-giving but half-quotes and then makes assumptions on those half-quotes and if you try and point it out - he says that his quotes are real, which is certainly true - his half-quotes are exactly that - half a quote. He is valueless and that is proven by the fact that he is not part of any authoritive apparatus, he is only approached by the far-right of politics and that the academic world shuns him. Pathetic excuses like the multitude from one reader below who then blames the academic world of being wrong, or in this case marxist, simply does not stick. The other clear example of Spencer and Fitzgerald and a select few others is that they are not accepted in the main-stream of media, politics, academia and thus stick together in the same triangle of hate and use only each-other's writings to back themselves up - again a classic academic failure.

Truth bites both ways, that is simple enough. Half-truths or showing only those bits that you like does not make either for commen sense or dignity. I hide nothing, the history of every religion and the people that ran it or believed in it are full of the good, bad and very ugly. Islam was certainly spread along the backs of soldier and invasion. Invasion, either culturally or militarily (almost the same in history) was also the cause for the spread of Christianity, Budhism and Hinduism. There is no denying it, as a double-major in history in University so many years ago, I committed myself to accepting "all the truths" that history gave.

. Muslim apologists refuse to debate him because they cannot defeat him. The Muslim student propagandists who whip up misguided liberal empathy among the gullible and ill-informed, do not care for truth. Like you they seek to protect the reputation of Islam against the onslaught of the truth.. They are often the proteges of CAIR, which is linked to the Muslim Brotherhood, an organization dedicated to Muslim supremacy achieved by terror and all other means. They dare not have Spencer speak because he will reveal the truth. But, as Winston Churchill said, "if you look hard enough for something eventually you will find it, even if it is not there", something Spencer obviously learnt.

Your wonderous diatribe about the Qur'an is pure Spencer which tells me that your basing your sources on a known would-be-academic with an agenda and thus I only pitty your capacity to understand facts and truths based on logical study and understanding. I just hope you do not watch also as much television series and thus start totally misunderstanding life altogether.

Now, since you have called me a liar on a number of times on this blog, point one out and back it up.

I do not mind your insults, the problem is that they are not arguments and you present no facts. What field are you in that you think that you can proceed without them? These so called secular courts that you wrongly claim are carbon copies of the Britiish and French systems do administer sharia law, bow to sharia law and the effort to obfuscate that is funny. You are funny too. While striking an elegant pose, you do not mind turning tail and running from the mess you have got yourself in.
Well my Taqiyya speaking friend, your failure to battle for the Koran speaks for itself. You say that you will not stoop to argue. You have stooped so low that you have made statements contrary to fact.

By the way the first three hundred years of Christianity were completely non-violent.For the first three hundred years, following Jesus was universally understood to require the renunciation of violence. The spread of Christianity at that point was unstoppable.Roman, Jewish and Greek nobility, soldiers,slaves, peasants faced certain death to follow Jesus. The spectacle of Christians singing before lions in the arenas and on the cross, forgiving enemies and courageously demonstrating a love that despised death was overpowering.Those Christians refused to shed a drop of blood to advance the cause of Christ. The doctrine of love of enemies,forgiveness of sins, turning the other cheek and the unforgettable example of Jesus death and resurrection spread throughout the Roman world. The spread of Christianity slowed as it was attached to conquering Roman armies. The advent of Constantinian Christianity and the just war war theories of Augustine saw a rise in justified violence and then the abuses that the world has come to know- the long and ruthless, persecution of the Jews and others. Dastardly deeds were done by Christians who perverted the words and deeds of Jesus. However, in our own era it would be tough to claim that Christianity has made its inroads into the Muslim worldl by force of arms. We actually see a return to Christianity's beginning. Iranian, Nigerian and other persecuted Christians defy Islam and valiantly preach the gospel with their deeds, their generosity and their lives, These are the pride and joy of the whole church.They kill no one. They prefer death to denying Jesus. Though they are brutally tortured by every Muslim country on earth. Christianity continues to rise in every Muslim country on earth. Every single one. I personally know of a former Muslim who became so powerful a believer in Jesus that he preached to his captor who was assigned to watch him. Tiberi was so tender and loving to his torturer that the man was overcome by the love of Christ and they both made their escape together.

I don't want to kid you. Some of the meanest people I have ever met are Christians, but they are not the rule. I have never met a single one who has advocated killing and torture to force the world to submit to Jesus. Faith in Jesus is a product of a heart that is free. You take it or leave it.

You have obviously met the right type of Christians that I admire. I have grown up with the wrong kind, those that do condemn you for not being like them etc, etc, let alone those that go out and sell their faith and in the same breadth condemn your own as from hell.

Have you noticed you have generalized and assumed one thing for your faith and not for mine? I would say the same thing, most Muslims have no interest in seeking conversions and condemning other faiths at all. Yet, there are groups out there mostly in the least developed and economically depressed nations that are doing just that, because they can abuse the reality of anarchy and poor governance by that nation's leaders and authorities. You have, wrongly, assumed each Muslim is the same and each Muslim nation is the same.

If that was the case, would it not be possible for the 100's of thousands of French and other nationals whom are moving here to Morocco? Would not even more abusurd and difficult conditions be set upon them here and in the UAE and elsewhere? It does not take much of an effort to actually do a bit of study, intell work and learn about how the reality of life is and how real and average Muslims live in these places. I am certain it would be a surprise.

Yes the first few century or two of Christianity was that of peace, love and sacrifice which I am sure Issa/Jesus would have certainly been proud of. But, like with all religions and Islam as well, man gets hold of its leadership and the rest is ugly history. If you go and actually read historical references to the numbers of wars, destruction and deaths under the banner of faith, you will note that Christianity take the first prize, whilst when it comes to land conquest and forced conversions it is Islam that takes over. Both out history is riddled with war and profiteering under our religion's names. That is the basic fact and just as much is it false to claim that either had it as part of their key scriptural teachings.

I think I perceive your problem. You observe rightly that Christians have fallen and often outrageously failed in our great task of loving humanity for which Jesus died. Hypocrites and liars and violent men are legion in our history. Then you conclude that Islam and Christianity are therefore no different.You wonder that I do not perceive it.
Islam and Christianity are different. The difference is Jesus. You can never successfully make the argument that Jesus urged men to contend for earthly kingdoms. Jesus miracles demonstrated his absolute mastery over creation. He despised earthly kingdoms and would not contend for earthly power.Jesus promised those who followed him would suffer a similar fate to His own.The scriptures say quite clearly - All those who follow Christ shall suffer persecution". Jesus told his followers to take up their cross and follow Him. As you know the cross was the means of the death He suffered. We who follow Him expect the same. Jesus last commandment to his disciples was his greatest. He said" love one another as I have loved you. Greater love has no man than this, that he lay down his life for his friends."

Does the profound difference between Jesus and Mohammad , Jesus and Islam occur to you yet? Jesus the Messiah is not the Issa of the Muslims. Jesus would never endorse a murdering rapist, pedophile, pederast desert bandit. Jesus was and is sinless, the paragon of God's impeccable purity. He will not announce the arrival of an inferior who in fact represents another god, WHO IS NOT YHWH. Jesus the Son of YHWH is in fact YHWH with us. His words are consistent with His character. Therefore though you can rightly accuse Christians of infamous deeds, you cannot accuse Jesus of these.We rebelled against our Lord and horror followed. The same cannot be said for Islam and Mohammad. Mohammad was a scoundrel. His doctrine was violent, rapacious, death dealing. His followers are the same or endorse the same. There is no holiness in Islam and none in Mohammad. This is the difference. Muslims are reasonabaly following the words of the koran when they torture kill and dstroy without pity, after all they are following Mohammad. No hypocrisy there.

The issue then comes down to still the same basic point. Your knowledge of what Islam is about is incorrect. There are examples of other points in your words, your faith in Christianity is there, no doubt and should be comended but I take it also from my perspective as a weakness when combined with the rest of your arguments. Some of the problem comes from arguing against someone with a faith other than your own. It simply will have serious problems if the other is not respected.

So, speaking from my own and basic Islamic faith, I put it this way. We believe that the Prophet Issa (you know as Jesus) was "sent down" (in fact we say created, something unique only to Jesus and Adam) because there was a need to show the world peace and sacrifice. He, obviously did the job He was supposed to do. But Muslims see that as beign necessary but not the end of the story. We believe that Mohammed came to show the reality and the need for change and order and most of all to eliminate hypocrissy. If anything, rather like a combination of both Moses and Abraham's roles.

I say your knowledge is poor or unknown, that is clear based on your incorrect assumption that the doctrine of Islam is volent, that he was a scoundrel etc, No matter how much insulting you will put, the fact remains your information is incorrect. He was a leader and he showed leadership of His people and it smacks if anything, of reality. Add to that, that Muslims believe the Bible to be a tainted book with all good intentions but changed, altered and over-translated to the point of losing much of its message. Muslims believe that much of the "reality" in the NT was either cut out or altered, thus giving a view that seems more placid, peaceful and in fact unreal.

I simply wonder if you are going through all this argument and verbal attacks simply because you cannot accept that there are those whom are not Christian. I do not begrudge your Christianity at all, I applaud it. That you do not accept the divnity of Islam nor the Prophethood of Mohammed is, for my part, your issue and your faith is something between only you and God. Thus, that you do not see and claim that there is "no holiness in Islam" is simply your problem, I and 1.6 billion others obviously disagree.

A last note, and to be honest I think with the direction some of you are heading on this thread that I will avoid it and concentrate on others if and when they come, a little about evil and the problems within the Muslim World.

You may incorrectly think that I am not condemning evilness, radicalism and some how deffending the acts of Muslims past and present - I assure you I do not and never will.

As mentioned a few times, the evilness that has been spouted in the name of God/Allah/Jehovah is well recorded and none actually represent the faith itself. Right now, it is happening more frequently and overtly in the name of Islam. That is a simple fact that cannot be denied.

I do condemn totally that radicalism and the inability of nations to combat it, because in the end, with all the verbal diarehea that is spouted both ways, it is in the end a problem that Muslims must overcome. For those of us who have worked in the international field, studied history and know the poltics of nations understand easily enough all the factors that have and are the caue of such an explosion of radicalism, extremism and terror. But still, it is going to be the Muslim world that must clean up its own act and its tarnished image. There is no denying that.

With all that condemnation, disgust and real dispare that many of us feel, there is only one issue that can transfer the concentration on that issue - responding to the equally radical, incorrect and divisive reaction to it. Because the subject is the core faith of people that is so strong, attacking it will automatically produce a defenciveness. Thus moderate Muslims such as myself whom condemn the hatred, radical extremism and terrorism that Muslims are espousing or enacting, will still first of all defend Islam itself as a priority above that condemnation. To put it another way, I could be spending my time on this blog telling you all the horrible things I have seen, how stupid or evil it is, support condemnation of regimes and idiot Imams etc, but instead I am simply being forced to condemn the attacks on my faith first.

" The term Jihad was for defence (actually struggle in defence of ....) and thus conquest is not Jihad"

Damn liar.


" Thus moderate Muslims such as myself "

And I'm Santa Claus.


" But still, it is going to be the Muslim world that must clean up its own act and its tarnished image"

TARNISHED ?
HAHAHAHA !!!!


"more frequently and overtly in the name of Islam. That is a simple fact that cannot be denied."

Yes.Islam is responsible for 99 % of ALL terrorist attacks in the world. Muslims call them as
" MARTYRDOM OPERATIONS"... SHAHADA.

I call COLD-BLOODED MURDER OF INNOCENTS.


" that is clear based on your incorrect assumption that the doctrine of Islam is volent "

It's not an "incorrect assumption", but a FACT.
Don't whitewash the sheer brutality of the beheadings of Kenneth Bigley and Daniel Pearl
among many others, MADE IN THE NAME OF ALLAH.
There's no use to deny it.


"...claim that there is "no holiness in Islam"

It's not a "claim",but another FACT. Islam is LEWD and BLOODTHIRSTY.


TAQYIAH. That's what you eat, drink and breath on a daily basis.
Solkhar, you are just a WALKING FRAUD.

solkhar,
I'm happy for you to worship God in the Islamic fashion, but I'm at war with Political Islam and Islamic Jihad; those forces are the enemy of my equality before law which secures my God-given, unalienable rights to life, liberty and private property honestly earned through labor (pursuit of happiness).

Then, do not bash Islam itself but bash radicalism and the radical politics that certain Muslims put to it. That is the entire point. As I said, I can tell you all day of the worst examples of radicals, extremists, ultra-conservative idiots and small 'i' islamists.

One of the big issues that is right now a large debating point is the subject and condemnation of the use of the word Jihad, which is used only by terrorists, radicals and western bloggers.

You have eveery right to protect and be afraid of the loss of your "God-given, unalienable rights to life, liberty and private property honestly earned through labor (pursuit of happiness).", I certainly would defend them, even with my life if necessary.

But get my point, everytime it is some lame, unwarrented and naive attack on my actual faith - I will defend it and tell you how wrong you are!

So, peace be upon you Storm_Rider and by the way, I love the username, a lot.

solkhar: "If you go and actually read historical references to the numbers of wars, destruction and deaths under the banner of faith, you will note that Christianity take the first prize, whilst when it comes to land conquest and forced conversions it is Islam that takes over."

That is another lie - you are a habitual liar.

The Islamic Jihad conquest of Christian lands in the Middle East, Byzantium, North Africa and temporarily in Spain, was the impetus for Christian Crusades in reaction. You have it ass backward again - more lies.

I can only recommend that you read history and not questionable sources that give non or part of a very large and well documented history.

When I refer to what man did under the banner of Islam and Christianity and what they did I was not talking about one aspect or period but all of it. Those of us who studied history learn first of all that if you refer to history then you refer to all of it.

Seriously, the constant "you are a liar" is really making you look embarrassing.

Thus I repeat, under the banner of Christianity, the wars of in Europe, the conquests and pogroms in the Middle-East, South America, Africa and Asia make the death toll huge. The number of forced conversions and territorial expansion under the banner, Islam wins it - go check it out, much better than blind denial.

Now, your own comments need to be looked at. First of all there was no Jihad until after Pope Urban II declared his Holy Crusade, thus your factually incorrect. It should be pointed out that only half of North Africa was conquered, the western part was by mutual settlement as it was impossible to conquer the Berbers of the Atlas. Also, the word temporarily in Spain is rather funny, since they were there for 800 years and what is now modern Spain has yet to reach that amount of time - isn't it funny how history changes perspective??

Another point, which I will find it incredibly funny if you deny, is that when in the first decade of the 11th century Pope Urban II declared his Holy Crusade, the assembled forces, of what was mostly Germanic Princes and Cheiftens spent the first year killing thousands of Jews before even stepping out of Eurpe!

History takes no sides and can bite back any argument that is baised or ill prepared. Only assumptions of "what if" can be discussed but briefly. Such as, what if the death of the Mother of one of the principle Berber Cheiftans during the invasion of southern Iberia (there was no "Spain" then) just after a victory in what was in fact central-southern France - how far the armies would have gone - Paris, Munich, Switerzerland from the western side? The Prince and his army returned home and thus the unstoppible army of Arabs, Berbers and Africans would have been possibly unstoppible. It is just a point about history to show that things happen and as a Muslim, if you do not know, the term and fretting over "what if" is considered not good style in Islam.

solkhar: "I can only recommend that you read history and not questionable sources that give non or part of a very large and well documented history."

You are certainly not a reliable source for historical information; you are in fact a liar about history. Muslim military conquest of Christian lands started long before Pope Urban II; it took several hundred years before the Christian Crusades finally reacted against Muslim aggression and military conquest. History is well documented, but no thanks to you.

"Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past." George Orwell, 1984

"The Muslim conquest of Syria occurred in the first half of the 7th century... Syria had been under Roman (Christian) rule for seven centuries prior to the Arab conquest..."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_conquest_of...

Now I get it! You claim I say things in my post that I did not (because you do not read them, I guess) and then you condemn me for them.

I did not say that wars between Muslims and Christians started then, I said nothing about it. I referred to the First Crusade for two reasons, about what happened from it and directly after it. History is there to be read by all, I have no need to repeat what people can find out easily.

There is no reason for attacks based on non-issues and non-facts. With all due respect, read my postings if your going to comment, accuse or condemn it, it is really poor showing on your part.

If you are considering that my statement "there was no Jihad until Pope Urban II declared...." as meaning there was no conflict or wars between Christians and Muslims, then think again. The term Jihad was for defence (actually struggle in defence of ....) and thus conquest is not Jihad. As I said, the first Jihad against Christians (because the only other jihad before that was the battles by the first Muslims with Mohammed against the attacks of the Pagan Meccans was the first) came at that response of the decleration of Urban II.

The use of Jihad now, is political extremism, is a new phenomena and frankly speaking is only used by radical extremists to gather support and to somehow justify themselves and also by western bloggers and hate-mongers. The media have now started using the term "jihadi" as well which is a pitty, it should be avoided thus showing the hypocrisy of the terrorists and bigots. The average Muslim simply does not use the word at all, unless talking about them.

solkhar: "Ironically, the land does not belong to them (Serbs) and never did. History is full of the movements of peoples and at least a third of the Bosnian Muslims were there as long as the "serbian" identity was really created. The argument that they all came on the back of the Ottomans is pure historical fiction."

That is a lie.

"The beginning of the Serbian state starts with the White Serbs settling the Balkans led by the Unknown Archont, who was asked to defend the frontiers from invading Avars. Emperor Heraclius granted the Serbs a permanent dominion in the Sclavinias of Western Balkans upon completing their task. At first heavily dependent on the Byzantine Empire as its vassal, Raška gained independence by expulsion of the Byzantine troops and heavy defeat of the Bulgarian army. The last and full Christianization of Serbia took place in 867-869 when Byzantine Emperor Basil I sent priests after Knez Mutimir had acknowledged Byzantine suzerainty... Around 1040 AD an uprising in the medieval state of Duklja overthrew Byzantine rule. Duklja then assumed domination over the Serbian lands between the 11–12th centuries. In 1077 A.D. Duklja became the first Serb Kingdom [8] following the establishment of the Catholic Bishopric of Bar... The Serbian Empire was proclaimed in 1346 under Stefan Dušan. During Dušan's rule, Serbia reached its territorial peak, becoming one of the larger states in Europe... The Houses of Mrnjavčević, Lazarević and Branković ruled the Serbian lands in the 15th and 16th centuries. Constant struggles took place between various Serbian kingdoms and the Ottoman Empire. After the fall of Constantinople to the Turks and the Siege of Belgrade, the Serbian Despotate fell in 1459 following the siege of the provisional capital of Smederevo. After repelling Ottoman attacks for over 70 years, Belgrade finally fell in 1521. Forceful conversion to Islam became imminent, especially in the southwest (Raška, Kosovo and Bosnia)."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serbia

solkhar: "Ironically, the land does not belong to them (Serbs) and never did. History is full of the movements of peoples and at least a third of the Bosnian Muslims were there as long as the "serbian" identity was really created. The argument that they all came on the back of the Ottomans is pure historical fiction."

That is a lie.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decline_of_the_Byz...

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2008/05/the-nakba-may...

http://sofiaecho.com/2009/02/01/679436_bulgaria...

Now, solkhar; give us a quotation from Robert Spencer - and prove that he is a liar like you. I'm for banning you from this site - because you are a liar - truthful information and comments are required here.

Your references included Jihad-watch which is already a failure.

I explained the history to another one of your countless rants, I explained how Spencer makes his pathetic case and how he is shunned, that is enough.

As for banning, I am all for banning you for ranting and raving and spamming - not to mention a poor knowledge of history and an inablilty to actually read posts before responding to them.

I think this part of the thread is now rather dead, because you will quote only Spencer and I will just laugh at it and it will repeat ad nauseum.

PS, if you wish to look a bit more credible, go to the legitimate sources that I gave.

Robert Spencer is a truth teller; you are a liar. Spencer is only shunned by Marxists and Islamists. I haven't yet figured out in which category you belong, but I suspect you are a lying Marxist pretending to be a lying Islamist.

Go to Hell you lying bastard - you are the enemy of the American Revolution.

I love those that make personal insults into part of their normal rhetoric.

How ironic that you mention the American Revolution - because the first country to recognise it was the then Sultanate of Morocco! That should make you tweek and puse in a few places eh?

I noticed your slave-like love for the wannabe-academic of which is, because you like him, obviously more smarter, more acceptable and better than all of academia that you have now shoved into the dirt as being marxist. Thus you obviously have not and are not interested in education at university level....... all commies to you.

You, and all adherents to Islamic Sharia Law, are enemies of the American Revolution - the same is true for Marxists. Your law does not treat all individuals as equals before the law - some are more equal than others. Your law is destructive of the individual's God-given rights to life, liberty and private property (pursuit of happiness). Your law does not derive from the consent of the governed; i.e.: your law is not from the majority - not from "We the People."

Your law is arbitrary; it derives from an elite oligarchic cadre of religious clerics (or an elite cadre of Marxist priests in that case). Sharia Law is no different from Nazi or Marxist Law - it is the law of the jungle.

Liars like you deserve insults and mockery; Goebbels and Tojo deserved insults and mockery as well. Truth-tellers like Robert Spencer deserve honor and respect; you are not fit to tie his shoes.

"The Devil, the proud spirit, cannot endure to be mocked." Thomas More

Your irrational hatred of Christians and the Christian religion borders on psychosis. Which religion do you adhere to? Is it Islam or Marxism?

Robert Spencer makes profit from telling the truth, and both profit and truth are good things; you however are a liar. Hatred of Political Islam (Islamic Sharia Law) is hatred of evil, and hatred of evil is good. You are pushing fear, confusion and ignorance - but we are not ignorant, confused or fearful here; nor have we failed to understand Totalitarian Political Islam – we’ve been studying the subject since September 11, 2001.

Many American Universities are run by American Marxists; and since they adhere to arbitrary (Totalitarian) Marxist law, the Marxists make for natural allies with Totalitarian, Sharia-loving Muslims. Sharia Law is incompletely implemented in some Western nations, but it is the full expression of Sharia Law in Muslim majority nations which is its true measure - the measure of arbitrary totalitarian law; i.e.; law of the jungle.

Yes, legal systems are based on moral codes; but the moral code expressed in our Declaration of Independence is good because it declares the individual to be infinitely valuable (made in God's image) with equal unalienable rights to life, liberty and private property honestly earned through labor (creative pursuit of happiness). Islam on the other hand holds to values and laws which lead to inequality before law - unholy law which sanctions murder, torture, coercion, genital mutilation, etc., i.e.: Political Islam is a culture of death, subjugation and destructive pursuit of misery.

You are more than an embarrassment; you are a liar and a propagandist for Totalitarian Political Islam. You said this, and it is a lie: "Ironically, the (Balkan) land does not belong to them (Serbs) and never did." As a liar who defends the Totalitarian Islamic legal system you are also an enemy of human liberty and therefore my enemy. This is no more melodramatic than my father calling Goebbels a liar and an enemy during World War II.

Although I DO wish the Swedes would have the guts to do the same thing!

You are mixing the Swedes with the Swiss!

Oops! Thanks for that correction. I've updated the post.

That's alright, everybody does it ;o) and I d o wish the Swedes would have the guts to do the same thing! But it's all in the name of PC..

Rock the casbah, Sharia don't like it? :)
http://go.to/islamhistory

Death to Political Islam (Sharia Law); it is the enemy of our American Declaration of Independence, Bill of Rights and Constitution.