17

As forensic scientists would say, the "chain of evidence" for all organized religions' scriptures is questionable. Any power structure has its struggles, and evidence supporting one ideological strain over others is often altered or manufactured (Revelations is likely of the latter type). Extremist beliefs are built on castles of sand.

number6 writes:
" the overwhelming majority (95%+) of Islamic believers are peaceful and believe in the peaceful teaching of the Koran NOT violent excerpts taken out of context by the radical nut cases. "

Five percent of 1.5 billion is 75 million, a number sufficient to justify concern even if the number turns out much lower.
The 95%+ There are many people who describe themselves as Muslims who are civilized, are they standing up to the fanatics? Yes, but such are very few. Fact is, unfortunately, they are irrelevant - see dbh earlier.

What do the 95%+ really believe? Perhaps all they are guilty of is following custom and family ties instead of thinking, a common sin, sometimes unknowingly giving money to charities that buy weapons. As said, they do not matter having no influence.
Why do they not emphasize the peaceful passages of the holy texts? This is the self imposed task of our mass media and political class who harangue us -ad nauseum- about the religion of peace.
The claim that the violent passages are taken out of context and the peaceful ones are the true intent is as valid in logic as the reverse.
However, there is a rule, where there is a contradiction the latter shall prevail. The violent passages predominate in the later verses, written when M was in charge and expanding, the peaceful passages were written when he had few followers and was in danger. The educated imans know the rule, and they know the sequence, it is not the same sequence of the Koran verses.

There are many violent and unwholesome passages in the Bible- quite so. This is not an argument about anything:
1. in the Bible the violence is descriptive- what happened, in the Koran it is proscriptive - this is what you must do. (there are one or two exceptions).
2. Christians and Jews, apart from fundamentalists who are socially insignificant, change opinions and customs reviewing against how they see the basics and indeed the values generally accepted around them. Islam cannot change- this is the seal of the prophet.

and a comment about ship design-
the ratio of length to width of ships is set to balance between speed, power needed to propel, and stability.

I am reading a book "Closing of the Western Mind" I believe is the title and it explains in detail the bitter fights in the early days of Christianity and there were multiple factions all who vied for support from the state so they could crush the other christian heretics.

Hi Kathy,

The same argument could have been made about the Japanese, the Christians of the middle ages, the Nazis. You can't change Hitler's mind, or the Popes's or Emperor but most people are followers and there are plenty of doubters who just need a lifeline. So yes, I think we can change their mind. Reagan actually did a great job of this in winning the cold war. The Irish problem looked to be totally intractable until they (Thatcher) introduced a more free market economy. Most people want to focus on their life and their families life. If Bush had demanded that Iraq (or Afghanistan) follow laws consistent with Natural Rights, the economy would have started to flourish and the average person would have become more interested in improving their life than Jihad. Instead, Bush put democracy first and ignored even the most basic values of the US, e.g., freedom of religion, freedom of the press, etc. Then we let them vote in an Islamic fundamentalist government. This is what you get under moral relativism.

Early Christianity went through some of the intrafamilal feuding similar to the Sunni/Shia battle going on now between Muslims. The Christian Literalists adopted features of Mithraism, a religion favored in the Roman army, and used the influence gained to attack the Christian Gnostics, a more mystical belief favored by Roman wealthy. Much of the so-called persecution of Christians was in reality "tribal warfare" among Christians.

Yes, that was a powerful statement and so true...

So, you really think that you can change people who have been raised to torturously kill infidels and that will buy them a ticket to heaven with 7 virgins waiting...OK..... Most people who come to America believe it is for the freedom to become a success in what you strive for, well, it used to be. Now it is to get the free lunch and take over...and get a vote without ID to continue that practice. I personally don't see how that can end well, feeding them ideas of earning instead of stealing when they are already compromised is not very likely going to work.

Thank you for the time for your response. I disagree with your premise that the "Bankster paid for media" presents a positive spin on Islam. I also think your fascination with conspiracy theories on EVERYTHING is a little wacko.
You have your opinion form living in A country during your service (thank you for that). My experience comes form dealing with many countries and individuals over the years. Mine totally differ from yours.
Since JC does not allow followers to "kill in his name", why do so many want to kill Muslims because of their beliefs? (Harem in the bible.) As you know there are many passages in the old Testament about violence and your $1000 means nothing to me.
Religious aggression and the killing of civilians is irjaf (not jihad as commonly quoted, which is defensive in nature ONLY) and condemns the perpetrator to hell in Islam.
Your interpretation of information comes from sources that are only negative to Islam. Thank you for your "warning".

No it had many excellent points and the formatting was not a big deal.

But there was a German constitution and they didn't stop it when they had guns and they didn't demand that their leaders live up to the constitution.

You're right khalling and what's amazing to me is that they convince even some women that they're right.

Thanks for taking the time to read the ugliness. I typed out the article on Word, & then cut/paste. The paragraphs I had neatly laid out in my word doc got all jammed together in the mess above. Awefull!

Regarding the Nazi's and German's. I think you may have forgot; the German public were DISARMED. There was nothing they could do to stop it.

well that too. but what I really meant was islam and women do NOT go together

You make many excellent points.

"No, instead, let’s talk about Nazi Germany. Do you believe that every single German citizen was full of evil and wanted to kill? I’ll bet you don’t. I don’t believe they were like that either. But why then, could they NOT stop Hitler and his army of destruction? Were they not the MAJORITY? I’ll tell you why: because they were IRRELEVANT. My point here is: DID THEY HAVE A LEGAL PRECEDENT IN WHICH TO REIN IN THE MINORITY NAZI REGIME? Answer: NOPE." In the case of Islam I agree, but I think the Germans had legal standing but stood aside.

Christianity was a perversion. It was the christians that were intolerant of other forms of thought and they were the one's that led much of the brutal attack on other people in Rome.

Many christians in the US argue the same thing. We have to win the war of ideas.

You can't reason with those who don't put any stock in reason. However, we still have to win the battle of ideas.

I don't believe anyone was supporting Islam or faith in any manner. It was about their immediate threat.

Kicking them out will not work, we have to win the battle of ideas. By that standard we should have kicked out Obama, but if the election results are to be believed, most of the voting people thought he was just fine.

Point to me where the 'moderates' have a legal ground (Sharia) to denounce what mohammed commanded his followers to do?

Islam can never be reformed. Why? Because Mohammed cannot be reformed.

What about just plain old common sense and respect of the individual?

Indeed!! +1

Ok, I said I would address your views, so, let’s get this on.
I know exactly your point of view on islam, why? Because I once thought the exact same thing ~ in 1995. Then, in 1996, in a stunning example of arrogance and stupidity, I VOLUNTEERED to go and live in an Islamic country for two, hellish long years while I served in the USAF. Without the bankster, bought-and-paid-for American Main Stream Media to preserve my ignorance on islam, I got exposed to what islam is REALLY all about, on a daily basis: REPRESSION and SEXUAL DEVIANCY/IMMATURITY.
Now, what I going to tell you will piss you off most likely. Why? Because that’s how I felt once I started asking questions about what I was seeing versus what I was indoctrinated with in the U.S. about islam. I felt lied to, manipulated & basically was a fool. I realized I had to start educating myself on what islam is about. But before we go on any further, a few ground rules:
This “debate” or discussion is about islam/mohammed. In my experience debating people on islam, whenever the topic starts towards something that is obviously embarrassing or hard to ignore/cover up, the usual tactic of either a muslim or dhymmi is to spin the conversation back around about Christianity, usually OCD about what events occurred during the Crusades & thus avoiding the touchy subject with islam. You won’t get me to fall into that lame trap. If you want to talk about Christianity, we can do that in a SEPARATE post, but not on this one. We will stay on topic.
For the purpose of THIS discussion, we will be discussing ISLAM. I will however, have to bring up some things in the Bible, simply because EVERYTHING in the KORAN traces it’s way in some form or another BACK to the Bible, and the huge misconceptions and misunderstanding and in a few cases, outright false beliefs that mohammed had about certain events & people in the Old & New Testament. If you thought you could get away from the Bible when dealing with islam, you were wrong.
Next, before anyone can say ‘islam is the pure form, it is perfect, etc’, one must have knowledge of BOTH the Koran, Sura, & Haddiths AS WELL AS the Bible so as to compare one to the other. After all, mohammed claims to have been the last of the prophets, so if you believe mohammed, then you believe that he knew EVERYTHING in the Bible, since he was a ‘prophet’.
In an interesting twist, I love the reactions I get whenever I say mohammed was Jewish. Why? Well, he said he was the last prophet in a long line of prophets, and all the prophets of the Old Testament were? (drum roll?) Jewish. Getting dizzy yet? I’m taking mohammed at his word on this, so no one can point & say ‘hey, he claimed….’ No. I’m simply repeating what mohammed himself claims. If you have problem with it, then it really means you have a problem with mohammed. And that means you are putting your life in danger.
Now onto refuting your comments:
#6 said: “Not all Muslims are demanding Sharia law, the overwhelming majority (95%+) of Islamic believers are peaceful and believe in the peaceful teaching of the Koran NOT violent excerpts taken out of context by the radical nut cases.”
This first part of this sentence up to the comma, is hilarious, IMO. Why? Well, let’s talk about Sharia Law. But first, it is important for me to remind you of something I believe most people make the mistake of doing when thinking about islam ~ I made the same mistake back in ’95.
THERE IS NOTHING IN ISLAM THAT IS ‘OPTIONAL’. YOU (the muslim) WILL DO, WILL AGREE TO WHAT MOHAMMED DID AND SAID. IF YOU (the muslim) ARE STUPID ENOUGH TO DISAGREE WITH THE PROPHET, THAT MAKES YOU AN APOSTATE OF ISLAM AND THE PUNISHMENT IS DEATH. (unless you admit you are mistaken and acknowledge the OBLIGATORY requirement) ~ Reliance of the Traveller f1.3, page 109. Yes, number 6, I have the verifiable, THE Authoritative Manual on Sharia Law in my house and I’m using it as I type this. If you don’t have a copy, I suggest you get one so you know what you’re in for.
Sharia Law got its beginning by mohammed when he settled in Medina and started the 2nd phase (& bloodiest…the form that remains to this day) of islam. (The “peaceful” islam didn’t work out, as mohammed discovered, but violence & intimidation does & thus, Medina)
After he build a house for himself and mosque for his followers, he set about consolidating his power. He began by writing a charter which was to serve as the law of Medina ~ the law was based on TWO different sets of rules: one for muzzies and the other, for kaffirs or non-muslims or in another way: EVERYBODY, regardless of where they lived. Can you guess what these rules were to become known as? Yes, Sharia Law. (The Story of Mohammed. Islam Unveiled. By Harry Richardson, Chapter 5, page 13.)
You are implying that muzzies have an OPTION for implementing Sharia Law. Number 6, What other law do you think Islamic countries have besides Sharia? Seriously man.
Your comment on “peaceful muslims” is also somewhat entertaining. I could go about this in two ways: I could speak at length about the time-proven 1400-year history of how islam (starting in Mecca) starts out small (in a country where the opposing force is overwhelming & thus could easily wipe out the very small population of muzzies) & then over the course of several decades, (can’t remember the percentage of the population when they turn) they then suddenly turn course & become violent & take over the country. Actually, somebody can authoritatively speak on that, because SHE WITNESSED IT HAPPEN TO HER AND HER COUNTRY: They Must Be Stopped by Brigitte Gabriel.
No, instead, let’s talk about Nazi Germany. Do you believe that every single German citizen was full of evil and wanted to kill? I’ll bet you don’t. I don’t believe they were like that either. But why then, could they NOT stop Hitler and his army of destruction? Were they not the MAJORITY? I’ll tell you why: because they were IRRELEVANT. My point here is: DID THEY HAVE A LEGAL PRECEDENT IN WHICH TO REIN IN THE MINORITY NAZI REGIME? Answer: NOPE.
What does this have to do with the ‘peaceful’ muzzies? Does any of them have a (they are muslims, they HAVE to follow Sharia Law) Sharia Law legal authority to NOT SUPPORT the violent COMMANDS given to them by mohammed? What do you think, given what I have provided to you?
You need to find out what Civilization Jihad is all about. It is nothing new.
And now onto other things you said: “Some Christians and Jews kill others in the name of their religion or culture or other reasons YET we do not blame ALL Christians and Jews for those actions.”
Number 6, I’ll send you $1000 if you can tell me the Book & verse in the KJV of the New Testament WHERE Jesus Christ tells his followers that they can kill in His Name. No joke.
Finally, Number6 said: “Reading information about Islam,the Koran etc from Islamic scholars gives you a different viewpoint.” Did you do your research on Al-Taqiyya and Taqiyya Kitmon? If not, you need to, I’m not going to spoon feed you.
I don’t need to consult ANY muslim on islam. I only need to understand mohammed. Why? If you know mohammed, what he did and what he said, then you know islam.
Now for some other little interesting nuggets of information about what the Bible says versus what mohammed says about the same topic.
In the Old Testament, the Garden of Eden was on Earth. Mohammed says it was in heaven. Which one do YOU believe? If you’re an atheist, why then, are you even involved in this discussion? You would be an unbeliever, and according to muslim tradition YOU would be the FIRST to die. At least Christians are given a choice to submit.
In the Old Testament, the Ark was 300 cubits long, width was 50 cubits and the height was 30 cubits. Mohammed said the Ark was a little over 600 feet long, 200 feet wide and about 75 feet high AND it had SAILS. Ok, so before you answer this one, you need to consider one fact:
The dimensions of the Ark follow a specific ratio (no, I don’t know what it is) that all ships even today follow that make them float. Given the dimensions given by mohammed, do you believe such a ship would float? Anyways, who do you believe? The Bible or mohammed.
Finally, in the Old Testament, Cain killed Abel because he was jealous of God’s favor for Abel. Mohammed said it was because Cain wanted Abel’s wife (which was in fact Abel’s sister, yes, in islam incest is ok) because his wife was prettier than the wife Cain had. Now, who do you believe?
I could go on, but I think this is enough for now. Do your own research and if you don’t want to be lied to, don’t ask a muslim. You’ve been warned.

Recall the line from Galt's speech, "...they do not want to live; they want you to die..." This exactly their goal. I'm only surprised that this didn't happen sooner. Expect more.

I agree, there have been many who have spoken out, but the LSM doesn't cover it and prefers to perpetuate the myth that ALL Muslims are violent extremists.
Its about entertainment not facts on BOTH sides. The Islamists are destroying the image of the religion, just as the Inquisitors did and the Zionists.