Article

2004-05-02 Terror Networks

As far as the issue of violence, intolerance, and aggression against innocent civilians is concerned, the eminent Muslim scholar, Sheikh Yusuf Al-Qaradawi, states:

No doubt, aggression against innocent people is a grave sin and a heinous crime, irrespective of the victim's religion, country, or race. No one is permitted to commit such crime, for Allah, Most High, abhors aggression. Unlike Judaism, Islam does not hold a double-standard policy in safeguarding human rights.

That statement in itself is a misrepresentation. I'm not an expert in Judaism, but as far as I know, Judaism makes no distinction among religions when it comes to killing innocents. It was the prominent Saudi cleric Shaikh Saad Al-Buraik who demanded:

Muslim Brothers in Palestine, do not have any mercy neither compassion on the Jews, their blood, their money, their flesh. Their women are yours to take, legitimately. God made them yours. Why don't you enslave their women? Why don't you wage jihad? Why don't you pillage them?

Calls to plunder don't fit very well with the idea of mercy toward the defenseless.

Following, I would like to highlight some relevant Islamic principles based on the Glorious Quran and Sunnah:

1. Islam Forbids Aggression against Innocent People
Islam does not permit aggression against innocent people, whether the aggression is against life, property, or honor, and this ruling applies to everyone, regardless of post, status and prestige. In Islam, as the state's subject is addressed with Islamic teachings, so is the ruler or caliph; he is not allowed to violate people's rights, lives, honor, property, etc.

But who will tell the Caliph when he's done wrong? Lord Acton's dictum applies as well among Muslims as it does among Westerners: Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely...

In the Farewell Pilgrimage, the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, declared the principle that people's lives, property, and honor are inviolable until the Day of Judgment. This ruling is not restricted to Muslims; rather, it includes non-Muslims who are not fighting Muslims. Even in case of war, Islam does not permit killing those who are not involved in fighting, such as women, children, the aged, and the monks who confine themselves to worship only.

Yet this injunction is honored in the breach on a daily basis. Yesterday we reported on the Muslim governor of Zamfara province in Nigeria's intent to close down Christian churches. Today there was a report on the kidnapping of Afghan children, who're shipped to Saudi Arabia. Browse back a few days and you'll find more examples of cruelty, some of it culturally based, but most of it carried out in the name of Islam.

This shouldn't raise any wonder, for Islam is a religion that prohibits aggression even against animals. Ibn `Umar, may Allah be pleased with them both, quote the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, as saying: "A woman is qualified to enter (Hell) Fire because of a cat which she tied, neither giving it food nor setting it free to eat from the vermin of the earth." (Reported by Al-Bukhari) If such is Islamic ruling concerning aggressive acts against animals, in fortiori, the punishment is bond to be severe when human being happens to be the victim of aggression, torture and terrorism.

2. Individual Responsibility
In Islam, every one is held accountable for his own acts, not others'. No one bears the consequences of others' faults, even his close relatives.

How does that reconcile with honor killings? How does it reconcile with the killing of apostates? Where does Salman Rusdie fit? On what authority did the Ansar al-Islam tough guys dig up the bodies of Naqshabandi saints and reinter them because Sufis were venerating them at their tombs?

This is the ultimate form of justice, clarified in the Glorious Quran, as Allah, Most High, says, "Or hath he not had news of what is in the books of Moses and Abraham who paid his debt: That no laden one shall bear another's load." (An-Najm: 36-38) Therefore, it's very disgusting to see some people - who are Muslims by name - launching aggression against innocent people and taking them as scapegoats for any disagreement they have with the state's authority!! What is the crime of the common people then?! Murder is one of heinous crimes completely abhorred in Islam, to the extent that some Muslim scholars hold the opinion that the repentance of the murderer will not be accepted by Allah, Most High.

Yet murder is committed in the name of Islam on a daily basis. And the murderers are honored among Muslims. The reaction today to the killing of an Israeli mother and her three small children by the Popular Resistance in Gaza hasn't been to hunt down and punish those responsible, by any means.

In this context, we recall the Glorious Quranic verse that reads, "Whosoever killeth a human being for other than man slaughter or corruption in the earth, it shall be as if be had killed all mankind'" (Al-Maidah: 32)

So which was today's Mom and three kids? Manslaughter? Or corruption on the earth?

3. Ends Do not Justify Means
In Islam, the notion - End justifies the means - has no place at all. It is not allowed to attain good aims through evil means. By the same token, alms collected from unlawful avenues are not Halal (lawful). In this context, the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, said, "Surely, Allah is Good and never accepts but what is good." Thereby, in Shariah, with all its sources - the Glorious Quran, the Sunnah, consensus of Muslim jurists - aggression and violation of human rights are completely forbidden.

"E pur se muove."

Besides, it is the duty of the Muslim scholars to do their utmost to guide the perplexed people to the straight and upright path."

That's a part of the problem, isn't it? A thousand scholars generating a thousand fatwas for a thousand days results in anything being allowed and everything being forbidden. You can pick and choose which ones you want. But the fatwas that call for leaving people alone, to make their own mistakes, are the ones that are ignored.

Also, we'd like to quote the following Fatwa issued by Dr. Muzammil H. Siddiqi, former President of the Islamic Society of North America:

The Islamic position as regards non-Muslims is that they should recognize Allah's Oneness and Prophet Muhammad as Allah's Final Prophet. They should accept Islam to live happily and successfully in this world and to be saved in the Hereafter. It is Muslims' duty to give them this message clearly, but without any coercion or intolerance. If others accept this message it is good for them, but if they do not accept, Muslims should still treat them with kindness and gentleness and leave the final judgment to Allah.

That doesn't address the injunction not to take Christians and Jews as your friends, does it? In yesterday's Saudi shootout, the perpetrators worked alongside those they murdered. Kindness and gentleness didn't figure while they were dragging a corpse behind their car.
In our enthusiasm for Dawah, we should not be intolerant and aggressive towards others, but in our politeness and civility we should also not give up our mission and message. We should not be intimidated to become quiet and we should not feel shy to tell the truth. We must know that Islam is Allah's way to salvation. Islamic message is unique, authentic and divine. Islam is for the whole world and all people are invited to accept this message. It is our duty to convey this message in the most beautiful and effective manner. We should be the witnesses of Allah to the world by our words and our deeds to all human beings.

Christians assume their message is unique, authentic and divine, as well. All along Islam's bloody border we're presented with the picture of intolerance, with arrogance, and with bloodshed, from Nigeria's riots and murders to the mindless carnage that's Mindanao's lot. Al-Muhajiroun wants to impose Islam on Britain. Deep within the geographical boundaries of Islam we're presented with the same picture of arrogance and intolerance. There are no Christian churches in Saudi Arabia. In Pakistan, which is almost all Muslim, Sunnis kill not only Christians, but also Shiites. The Pandits have been chased out of their ancestral Kashmir homeland.

Sorry. I simply can't buy Islam as a religion of peace and justice. I've been watching the actions, not listening to the words.

Posted by Gentle 2004-05-02 10:15:03 AM|| || Front Page|| [11142 views since 2007-05-07] Top

I simply can't buy Islam as a religion of peace and justice. I've been watching the actions, not listening to the words.

You and thousands of others. Get in line and take a number.

Posted by Barbara Skolaut 2004-05-02 12:00:54 PM|| 2004-05-02 12:00:54 PM|| Front Page Top

#2 Barbara, ....ROFL!!! Bless you. This was too funny!

Posted by Jen 2004-05-02 12:02:54 PM|| [http://www.greatestjeneration.com] 2004-05-02 12:02:54 PM|| Front Page Top

#3 Q. 9: 123
Oh ye who believe! Murder those of the disbelievers and let them find harshness (qilzat) in you.

Posted by ed 2004-05-02 12:06:02 PM|| 2004-05-02 12:06:02 PM|| Front Page Top

#4 [Troll droppings deleted]

Posted by Man Bites Dog TROLL 2004-05-02 12:09:58 PM|| 2004-05-02 12:09:58 PM|| Front Page Top

#5 Sorry, but who on earth is the guy commenting on the article.
I'd like to know please

Posted by Gentle 2004-05-02 12:23:15 PM|| 2004-05-02 12:23:15 PM|| Front Page Top

#6 that'd be Fred - the owner of the site - abuse him and his comments with extreme care and better propaganda than you've done in the past, pinhead

Posted by Frank G 2004-05-02 12:27:00 PM|| 2004-05-02 12:27:00 PM|| Front Page Top

#7 Ah, but see, the key is, what the definition of 'innocent' is according to Islam.
The plain fact is, 'innocent' has a different definition in Islamic ideology that what most non-Muslims consider an innocent.
Muhammed himself established the definition of what an innocent is, and is not, when he had a woman murdered for writing poems against him and Islam. He did not consider her innocent, did he?
Those who damage Islam, in anyway, are no longer innocents, and that includes apostates.
So to be an 'innocent' means you accept submission, be it converting to Islam or being a dhimmi when your time comes, and to that I say NEVER!

Posted by TS(vice girl) 2004-05-02 12:27:25 PM|| 2004-05-02 12:27:25 PM|| Front Page Top

#8 "The reaction today to the killing of an Israeli mother and her three small children by the Popular Resistance in Gaza hasn't been to hunt down and punish those.."

I believe it was a pregnant mother and 4 children, but who's counting.
Maybe only "Get in line and take a number."

Posted by Cynic 2004-05-02 1:09:24 PM|| 2004-05-02 1:09:24 PM|| Front Page Top

#9 Who the HELL told you that rubbish about a woman killed for writing poems?
The prothet never even killed those who attempted to kill him.

Posted by Gentle 2004-05-02 1:18:32 PM|| 2004-05-02 1:18:32 PM|| Front Page Top

#10 TS: Do you have any idea what a dhimmi means?

Posted by Gentle 2004-05-02 1:19:40 PM|| 2004-05-02 1:19:40 PM|| Front Page Top

#11 Gentle, look it up won't you?

There were known assassinations of adversaries during the Prophet's time, that took place at his behest. Among them there was a 120 year old man, Abu 'Afak whose only crime was to compose a lyric satirical of the Prophet. (Kitab al Tabaqat al Kabir, Volume 2, by Bin Sa'd, page 32) Then when a poetess, a mother of 5 small children, 'Asma' Bint Marwan, wrote a poetry cursing the Arabs for letting Muhammad assassinate an old man, our Holy Prophet ordered her to be assassinated too in the middle of the night, which was carried out while her youngest child was suckling from her breast. (Sirat Rasul Allah (A. Guilaume's translation "The Life of Muhammad") page 675, 676).

Posted by TS(vice girl) 2004-05-02 1:23:04 PM|| 2004-05-02 1:23:04 PM|| Front Page Top

#12 Gentle, yes I know what a dhimmi is. I'm glad you asked.

Dhimmitude is the status that Islamic law, the Sharia, mandates for non-Muslims, primarily Jews and Christians. Dhimmis, "protected people," are free to practice their religion in a Sharia regime, but are made subject to a number of humiliating regulations designed to enforce the Qur'an's command that they "feel themselves subdued" (Sura 9:29). This denial of equality of rights and dignity remains part of the Sharia, and, as such, are part of the legal superstructure that global jihadists are laboring to restore everywhere in the Islamic world, and wish ultimately to impose on the entire human race.

If dhimmis complained about their inferior status, institutionalized humiliation, or poverty, their masters voided their contract and regarded them as enemies of Islam, fair game as objects of violence. Consequently, dhimmis were generally cowed into silence and worse. It was almost unheard-of to find dhimmis speaking out against their oppressors; to do so would have been suicide. For centuries dhimmi communities in the Islamic world learned to live in peace with their Muslim overlords by acquiescing to their subservience.

Here is the text of the Pact of Umar, which spelled out exactly the "tolerance" granted (note the term "granted") to Christians (and Jews) in Muslim lands, and was the guideline for dhimmitude, the "pact of protection" Jews and Christians were bound to live under, or face death.
http://www.domini.org/openbook/umar.htm

Though in many Islamic countries today the status of non-Muslims is not quite as dim as it was in the past, that is due to the adoption of Western codes of law including equal citizenship for those of all religions. And even so, the position of non-Muslims is often quite unhappy, such as with the Copts in Egypt, who are discriminated against and treated poorly by the government, the Armenians who were massacred by the Turks during WWI, the Jews run out of Arab countries after the foundation of Israel, many with nothing but the clothes on their backs, the precarious situation of Christians in Lebanon, the special rights given to the 52% of Malaysians who are Muslim and denied to non-Muslims, and so on. Many Muslim countries have no problem with religious minorities because said minorities no longer exist--Turkey is now 99% Muslim, Pakistan is close to it, North Africa has hardly any Jews or Christians left, and so on.

Posted by TS(vice girl) 2004-05-02 1:33:03 PM|| 2004-05-02 1:33:03 PM|| Front Page Top

#13 This dicussion is getting silly again, both gentle and antiwar are Left-wingers trying to disrupt the debate here, same thing is going on over at the Commandpost.

Posted by Evert V. in NL 2004-05-02 1:33:19 PM|| [http://srv.fotopages.com/?o=935389&t=2] 2004-05-02 1:33:19 PM|| Front Page Top

#14 The first Dhimmis and jizya:
In Keibar he (Muhammed) exacted 50% of all the crops produced by the Jews from their own lands that he confiscated to be given to him.

Posted by ed 2004-05-02 1:40:19 PM|| 2004-05-02 1:40:19 PM|| Front Page Top

#15 Oh and Gentle, what about the sex slaves Muhammed made legal to himself during Jihad, were they classified as innocents or no?

And since you will probably deny this happened as well, I'll go ahead and resource this now.
Quran 33:50
O Prophet! We have made lawful to thee thy wives to whom thou hast paid their dowers;and those whom thy right hand possesses out of the prisoners of war whom Allah has assigned to thee; and daughters of thy paternal uncles and aunts, and daughters of thy maternal uncles and aunts, who migrated (from Makka) with thee; and any believing woman who dedicates her soul to the Prophet if the Prophet wishes to wed her;- this only for thee, and not for the Believers (at large); We know what We have appointed for them as to their wives and the captives whom their right hands possess;- in order that there should be no difficulty for thee. And Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.

Posted by TS(vice girl) 2004-05-02 1:42:02 PM|| 2004-05-02 1:42:02 PM|| Front Page Top

#16 Dhimmi:
A person (non-muslim) is under the protection of a mulim government.
If he is well and has land he pays a certain price every year. Never more than a small % of what he makes.
That money goes to defending the country.
If a person is unable to paybecause of poverty, he will be given money from the Zakat to spend on himself and his family.
The people are to be treated as equels to muslims, but they may not fight or marry muslim girls.
That is what Dhimmi means.

Posted by Gentle 2004-05-02 1:50:12 PM|| 2004-05-02 1:50:12 PM|| Front Page Top

#17 There were no sex slaves dear. The prophet married those who had no one to take care of them. It was done by their consent.
Most of these were widows & divorced women.
Only one was a virgin.
AND yes. There were women who said NO. and later got married to someone else.

Posted by Gentle 2004-05-02 1:53:37 PM|| 2004-05-02 1:53:37 PM|| Front Page Top

#18 Slave Girls and Their Rights in Islam

Posted by ed 2004-05-02 1:55:03 PM|| 2004-05-02 1:55:03 PM|| Front Page Top

#19 Dhimmi:
A person (non-muslim) is under the protection of a mulim government.
If he is well and has land he pays a certain price every year. Never more than a small % of what he makes.
That money goes to defending the country.
If a person is unable to paybecause of poverty, he will be given money from the Zakat to spend on himself and his family.
The people are to be treated as equels to muslims, but they may not fight or marry muslim girls.
That is what Dhimmi means.

And I take it that sounds just fine to you.

I repeat TS's: NEVER!

Posted by Parabellum 2004-05-02 1:55:23 PM|| 2004-05-02 1:55:23 PM|| Front Page Top

#20 You sent me a link to a blocked site.

Posted by Gentle 2004-05-02 1:58:33 PM|| 2004-05-02 1:58:33 PM|| Front Page Top

#21 Gentle (NOT): Re dhimmitude - WHEN HELL FREEZES OVER.

Posted by Barbara Skolaut 2004-05-02 2:00:05 PM|| 2004-05-02 2:00:05 PM|| Front Page Top

#22 From the pact of dhimmitude:

"We shall not build, in our cities or in their neighborhood, new monasteries, churches, convents, or monks' cells, nor shall we repair, by day or by night, such of them as fall in ruins or are situated in the quarters of the Muslims. We shall keep our gates wide open for passersby and travelers. We shall give board and lodging to all Muslims who pass our way for three days. We shall not give shelter in our churches or in our dwellings to any spy, nor hide him from the Muslims. We shall not teach the Qur'an to our children. We shall not manifest our religion publicly nor convert anyone to it. We shall not prevent any of our kin from entering Islam if they wish it. We shall show respect toward the Muslims, and we shall rise from our seats when they wish to sit. We shall not seek to resemble the Muslims by imitating any of their garments, the qalansuwa, the turban, footwear, or the parting of the hair. We shall not speak as they do, nor shall we adopt their kunyas [i.e. names starting with Abu ("father") or Umm ("mother")]. We shall not mount on saddles, nor shall we gird swords nor bear any kind of arms nor carry them on our persons. We shall not engrave Arabic inscriptions on our seals. We shall not sell fermented drinks. We shall clip the fronts of our heads. We shall always dress in the same way wherever we may be, and we shall bind the zunar round our waists. We shall not display our crosses or our books in the roads or markets of the Muslims. We shall use only clappers in our churches very softly. We shall not raise our voices when following our dead. We shall not show lights on any of the roads of the Muslims or in their markets. We shall not bury our dead near the Muslims. We shall not take slaves who have been allotted to Muslims. We shall not build houses taller than the houses of the Muslims. (When I brought the letter to Umar, may God be pleased with him, he added, "We shall not strike a Muslim.") We accept these conditions for ourselves and for the people of our community, and in return we receive safe-conduct. If we in any way violate these undertakings for which we ourselves stand surety, we forfeit our covenant [dhimma], and we become liable to the penalties for contumacy and sedition. Umar ibn al-Khittab replied: Sign what they ask, but add two clauses and impose them in addition to those which they have undertaken. They are: "They shall not buy anyone made prisoner by the Muslims," and "Whoever strikes a Muslim with deliberate intent shall forfeit the protection of this pact.""

Posted by TS(vice girl) 2004-05-02 2:00:44 PM|| 2004-05-02 2:00:44 PM|| Front Page Top

#23 Barbara, TS vice girl, guys, doncha love it?
That paragon of modern progress and religious and intellectual freedom (UAE) has blocked sites on the web that tell the truth about Islam!
Fancy!

Posted by Jen 2004-05-02 2:03:13 PM|| [http://www.greatestjeneration.com] 2004-05-02 2:03:13 PM|| Front Page Top

#24 This is *------*
Clip the fronts of our heads?!
Not show lights?!
Always dress the same way?!
Rise from our seats when they wish to sit?!
Not build houses taller than the houses of the Muslims?!

TS, dear, where did you get these lies?

Posted by Gentle 2004-05-02 2:07:50 PM|| 2004-05-02 2:07:50 PM|| Front Page Top

#25 This is *------*
Clip the fronts of our heads?!
Not show lights?!
Always dress the same way?!
Rise from our seats when they wish to sit?!
Not build houses taller than the houses of the Muslims?!

TS, dear, where did you get these lies?

Posted by Gentle 2004-05-02 2:08:06 PM|| 2004-05-02 2:08:06 PM|| Front Page Top

#26 How about SHUT UP?
Does your version of Islam still have that rule for women?

Posted by Jen 2004-05-02 2:09:20 PM|| [http://www.greatestjeneration.com] 2004-05-02 2:09:20 PM|| Front Page Top

#27 It never did have it.

Posted by Gentle 2004-05-02 2:10:47 PM|| 2004-05-02 2:10:47 PM|| Front Page Top

#28 It never did have it.

Posted by Gentle 2004-05-02 2:14:07 PM|| 2004-05-02 2:14:07 PM|| Front Page Top

#29 Gentle...this is the 'Pact of Umar', it is commonly attributed to the second caliph, Umar ibn al-Khattab (reigned 634-644).
Do a search and see if you can find a site that isnt blocked.

Oh and Gentle, if they werent slaves, the what exactly does "your right hand possesses out of the prisoners or war" mean?

Posted by TS(vice girl) 2004-05-02 2:16:15 PM|| 2004-05-02 2:16:15 PM|| Front Page Top

#30 Gentle,

That site is written by an ex-Muslim female and the article documents historical sex slavery with Quran and Shura verses that justify it. Go to google.com and search for "Islam Sudan sex slavery" or other such terms.

Some verses from the article:
âIt is not lawful for you (to marry other) women after this, nor to change them for other wives even though their beauty attracts you, except those (captives or slaves) whom your right hand possesses. And Allah is Ever a Watcher over all things.â Surah 33:52

And those who guard their chastity (i.e. private parts from illegal sexual acts). Except with their wives and the (women slaves and captives) whom their right hand possess,--for (then) they are not to be blamed.â Surah 70:29-30

âExcept from their wives or (the captives and slaves) that their right hands possess,--for then, they are free from blame;â Surah 23:6

âAlso (forbidden are) women already married, except those (captives and slaves) whom your hands possess. Thus has Allah ordained for youâ¦..â Surah 4:24

Some current sex slavery (girls, women, and boys):
UN Commision on Human Rights report
Slavery and Rape of Women and Girls in Sudan
Requires Acrobat reader plugin

Arab masters raping boy slaves

Former captives recount the crime of boy rape

Posted by ed 2004-05-02 2:22:20 PM|| 2004-05-02 2:22:20 PM|| Front Page Top

#31 There were no sex slaves dear. The prophet married those who had no one to take care of them. It was done by their consent.

Ibn Sa'd's "Tabaqat", gives a clear description of Muhammad having "relations" with at least one of his slave girls. Muhammad had sexual relations with Mariyah, his Coptic slave. Mariyah and her sister, Sirin were slaves given as gifts to Muhammad. Muhammad gave Sirin to Hasan Thabit, the poet. Ibn Sa'd says that Muhammad "liked Mariyah, who was of white complexion, with curly hair and pretty." [Taken from Ibn Sa'd's "Kitab al-Tabaqat al-Kabir" (Book of the Major Classes), p151].

Ibn Sa'd also writes that Mariyah bore Muhammad a son named Ibrahim. He died 18 months later. Sa'd writes: "If he had lived, no maternal uncle of his would have remained in bondage", p164. This shows that there were other Coptic slaves owned by the Muslims.

Mohammad had two concubines Mariyah the Coptic, and Raihanah bint Zaid An-Nadriyah or Quraziyah.

Posted by ed 2004-05-02 2:40:08 PM|| 2004-05-02 2:40:08 PM|| Front Page Top

#32 Are you a Muslim, Gentle? I'm curious where you got your instruction. No, I'm not being sarcastic--I'm interested in finding out where peaceful Muslims are these days. I hear a lot from the jihadists, and a lot of "we hate terrorism but" from the CAIR-types and foreign dictators; but newspaper bias (if it bleeds it leads) means I hear very little from peaceful sorts. I can't tell whether that means they can't be heard or whether there aren't many of them.

Posted by James 2004-05-02 3:14:44 PM|| [http://www.idontknowbut.blogspot.com] 2004-05-02 3:14:44 PM|| Front Page Top

#33 LOL,you folks sure took her to school.
Come-on,Gentle.Lets see you refute these accusations using chapter and verse from your own Religion and history.
LOL,LOL

Posted by raptor 2004-05-02 4:18:16 PM|| 2004-05-02 4:18:16 PM|| Front Page Top

#34 Wow - the master race is hopped up on denial and ignorance pills today

Posted by Frank G 2004-05-02 4:22:59 PM|| 2004-05-02 4:22:59 PM|| Front Page Top

#35 Gentle, if you're going to post on Islam don't you think you should know more about it than the non-muslims you're preaching to?

Posted by Scott 2004-05-02 4:46:19 PM|| [tacoflavoredkises.com/tfkblog/] 2004-05-02 4:46:19 PM|| Front Page Top

#36 Hats off to all! (Except
~~Gentle~~ Mental, and ~~Antiwar~~ AntiSense, of course)

From the original post, today on Rantburg: that started this excellent educational forum on the evils of Islamofacism, I reitereate my submission (slightly edited for length):

Gentle and Antiwar: No one will take you seriously unless you OPENLY CONDEMN what should be condemned by your false cult-religion, such as the above and:

Lest we forget: Courtesy of the Religion of "Peace"â¢.

The moslem lady in the following photos was treated very "gently," courtesy of the Religion of "Peace"â¢ as described in Thousands of Women Killed for Family "Honor" Her husband cut out her tongue, gouged out her eyes and cut off her nose and ears. No Islamic Fundamentalism here, folks.

Zahida before her husband's kind "makeover."

Or how about this "kindness and correction" of these women by religious police. (I dunno, they all look kind of "Moslem" to me.)

These photos are caught from a video film that has been filmed by RAWA on August 26, 2001 in Kabul using a hidden camera. It shows two Taliban from department of Amro bil mahroof (Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice, Taliban religious police) beating a woman in public because she has dared to remove her burqa in public.

If that's not enough, we can always review the unprovoked killing of Christians in Indonesia, just because they are Christians, courtesy of the Religion of "Peace"â¢. This little 9 month-old baby girl was murdered by Islamic Fundamentalists (i.e. Islamofascists) along with burning down the oldest church in the region.

And while you're at it, Gentle and Antiwar, please also comment on why your Islamofascist mullahs tell your young men that they will be given 72 virgins to f-ck for all eternity, if they commit suicide and blow innocent people to bits, and why, if a muslim woman does the same thing, she gets to be "married" to one man in Islam-ick "paradise." And I still want to know where all those "paradise" virgins and marriageable young men come from. Are they created especially for the purpose by (spit) your god, the Islamic "Allah," god of war? Are the virgins, and husbands-in-reserve, automatons? Or do they enter into these "sex-for-suicide-" jihad pacts willingly?

Gentle? Antiwar?

(crickets chirping . . . )

Posted by ex-lib 2004-05-02 6:01:49 PM|| 2004-05-02 6:01:49 PM|| Front Page Top

#37 ex-lib - That's beautiful! *wipes away tears* Kudos!

Posted by .com 2004-05-02 6:23:56 PM|| 2004-05-02 6:23:56 PM|| Front Page Top

#38 Well since we're dog piling on Gentle and Anti-war lets do it in style! Whatcha mean Jihad aint in the Quran?

Posted by Valentine 2004-05-02 7:09:26 PM|| 2004-05-02 7:09:26 PM|| Front Page Top

#39 Just a little assist here. Ex-lib writes "If that's not enough, we can always review the unprovoked killing of Christians in Indonesia, just because they are Christians, courtesy of the Religion of "Peace"â¢. This little 9 month-old baby girl was murdered by Islamic Fundamentalists (i.e. Islamofascists) along with burning down the oldest church in the region." I think the server to the pictures on that site may be overloaded. Hereâs an alternate picture of the church from a different server:

And you can see Googleâs cached page with the sad picture of the murdered baby here.

Posted by cingold 2004-05-02 8:16:29 PM|| 2004-05-02 8:16:29 PM|| Front Page Top

#40 Nevermind, I think it is just a scripting error. Try this: If that's not enough, we can always review the unprovoked killing of Christians in Indonesia, just because they are Christians, courtesy of the Religion of "Peace"â¢. This little 9 month-old baby girl was murdered by Islamic Fundamentalists (i.e. Islamofascists) along with burning down the oldest church in the region.

Posted by cingold 2004-05-02 8:21:37 PM|| 2004-05-02 8:21:37 PM|| Front Page Top

#41 LOL. Odd Ducks taken down by logic net!

Posted by Shipman 2004-05-02 8:45:27 PM|| 2004-05-02 8:45:27 PM|| Front Page Top

#42
Summing up, I remind our participants that Gentle posted an article by a Moslem scholar who asserted these main arguments:

* Islam Forbids Aggression against Innocent People

* In Islam, every one is held accountable for his own acts, not others

* Ends Do not Justify Means

I think those are arguments that we should all support. Gentle did a good deed by posting the article.
.

Posted by Mike Sylwester 2004-05-02 9:27:25 PM|| 2004-05-02 9:27:25 PM|| Front Page Top

#43 Gentle and its allies can post the truth or whatever views they want. The truth is the truth.

The fact remains: bin Laden, and literally thousands of Muslim leaders worldwide have tainted Islam with a view of human behavior which is barbaric and absolutely unacceptable in any civilization I want defended.

Equally, leftists worldwide who support Islam and its leaders' right to press for this version of Islam have helped those leaders tain this religion, perhaps for centuries to come, maybe even for all time.

As a Christian and in view of 911, there is nothing either of those two groups can say that will ever change my view of Islam as a murder/enslavement cult.

BTW: Gentle and antiwar probably stopped posting to restoke the crack pipe.

Posted by badanov 2004-05-02 9:51:12 PM|| [http://www.rkka.org] 2004-05-02 9:51:12 PM|| Front Page Top

#44 Mike - It is lovely that Gentle and the scholar whose work she posts actually believe in Islam as a religion of peace. However, when she asserts that these beliefs are universal, or even particularly widespread, in Islam she engages in either deceit or delusion. The form of denial she asks us to join her in has already cost far too many lives, and has to be slapped down like the dangerous nonesense it is.

Posted by VAMark 2004-05-02 10:00:41 PM|| 2004-05-02 10:00:41 PM|| Front Page Top

#45 Since Islam is a religion of peace, Gentle will undoubtedly have no problem with GI's blowing away all of those apostates who claim to be Muslims but are in the business of killing Iraqis, GI's and American civilians, thereby blaspheming the name of Allah. In fact, Muslims should be cheering our GI's on in their slaughter of these terror-loving apostates.

Posted by Zhang Fei 2004-05-02 10:48:05 PM|| 2004-05-02 10:48:05 PM|| Front Page Top

#46 Mike, don't be fooled. A little on the author of this article, Sheikh Yusuf Al-Qaradawi:

Al-Qaradawi says some countries will fall to the armed Islamic jihad, but in others, such as the United States, victory will come through Da'awa - the teaching of Islam to non-Muslims - which will trigger Westerners to convert to Islam ``in droves.''
``We will conquer Europe, we will conquer America! Not through (the) sword, but through Da'awa,'' al-Qaradawi told members of the Muslim Arab Youth Association at the group's 1995 convention in Toledo, Ohio.
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/001104.php

Also the Sheikh approves of suicide bombings in Israel.
He says when speaking of 9/11:
"I have been asked several questions on TV programs and on public lectures about the martyr operations outside the Palestinian territories, and I always answer that I do agree with those who do not allow such martyr operations to be carried out outside the Palestinian territories.
"Instead we should concentrate on facing the occupying enemy directly. It is not permissible, as far as Islam is concerned, to shift confrontation outside the Palestinian territories. This is backed by the Qur'anic verse that reads: "Fight in the way of Allah against those who fight against you, but begin not hostilities. Lo! Allah loves not, aggressors," the renowned Muslim scholar concluded."
http://www.islam-online.net/English/News/2001-09/13/article25.shtml
Also see:
http://www.geocities.com/martinkramerorg/2002_11_13.htm

Here is some more preaching from the good Sheikh
"In conclusion, the imam prays to God: "O God, support our mujahidin brothers on the land of Palestine. O God, strengthen them, unite them, and help them score a victory. O God, turn against the arrogant, usurper, unjust, aggressor Jews and their wicked Crusader allies."
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/001150.php

How about what the Sheikh thinks of the jihad in Chechnya:
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/2004/04/001682print.html

Posted by TS(vice girl) 2004-05-02 11:15:29 PM|| 2004-05-02 11:15:29 PM|| Front Page Top

#47 Mike -- pull your head out and look around. Muslims talk about "peace" to keep people like you from seeing what they're really doing. Watch their actions, not their words.

Posted by Robert Crawford 2004-05-02 11:51:32 PM|| [http://www.kloognome.com/] 2004-05-02 11:51:32 PM|| Front Page Top

#48 Since Islam is a religion of peace, Gentle will undoubtedly have no problem with GI's blowing away all of those apostates who claim to be Muslims but are in the business of killing Iraqis, GI's and American civilians, thereby blaspheming the name of Allah. In fact, Muslims should be cheering our GI's on in their slaughter of these terror-loving apostates.

Bravo, Zhang Fei!

You are one of the first to suggest what I have been considering during my last week of silence. Now that moderate Moslems are being threatened too, maybe it is time to assist all Islam in the vital and onerous task of ridding them of those apostates who would desecrate their sacred mosques.

If their "gentle" religion continues to be blasphemed in such vile fashion, it is our solemn duty as protectors of secular democratic society to overcome such an affront to one of our globe's preciously peaceful faiths.

Reject all terrorism and maybe we won't have to protect you from yourselves.

Posted by Zenster 2004-05-02 11:51:41 PM|| 2004-05-02 11:51:41 PM|| Front Page Top

#49 So, who you voting for in November Zipster--Nader, who's going to pull the troops out of Iraq is he's Prez or John F'in Ketchup, who will crawl on his knees to the UN to apologize for us doing our duty as "protectors of secular democratic society" under President "Shrub" (what you, Molly Evil and all the screeching yard monkeys at Smirking Chimp and DUH.com call our Commander in Chief)?

Posted by Jen 2004-05-02 11:56:39 PM|| [http://www.greatestjeneration.com] 2004-05-02 11:56:39 PM|| Front Page Top

#50
Re: #46 (TS(vice girl))
Your response is fair because you are holding Al-Qaradawi responsible for his own words and actions. Many participants in this thread respond to his article by holding him responsible for words and actions that he implicitly condemns in his article.

For example, he writes, "I always answer that I do agree with those who do not allow such martyr operations to be carried out outside the Palestinian territories," but then a photograph of the burning World Trade Center is posted, as if he has somehow justified this attack in New York.

If you read his article, you will see that he criticises Moslem excesses. He writes: "itâs very disgusting to see some people â who are Muslims by name â launching aggression against innocent people and taking them as scapegoats for any disagreement they have .... "

Really, this article here should not prompt the reflexive rage that characterized this thread.
.

Posted by Mike Sylwester 2004-05-03 5:50:53 AM|| 2004-05-03 5:50:53 AM|| Front Page Top

#51 [Troll droppings deleted]

Posted by Man Bites Dog TROLL 2004-05-02 12:09:58 PM|| 2004-05-02 12:09:58 PM|| Front Page Top

#52 Off-topic or abusive comments deleted]

Posted by Gentle 2004-05-02 1:52:54 PM|| 2004-05-02 1:52:54 PM|| Front Page Top

#53 Off-topic or abusive comments deleted]

Posted by Gentle 2004-05-02 1:52:54 PM|| 2004-05-02 1:52:54 PM|| Front Page Top

#54 Off-topic or abusive comments deleted]

Posted by Gentle 2004-05-02 1:58:20 PM|| 2004-05-02 1:58:20 PM|| Front Page Top

#55 Off-topic or abusive comments deleted]

Posted by Gentle 2004-05-02 1:58:20 PM|| 2004-05-02 1:58:20 PM|| Front Page Top

#56 Off-topic or abusive comments deleted]

Posted by Mike Sylwester TROLL 2004-05-02 12:09:58 PM|| 2004-05-02 12:09:58 PM|| Front Page Top

18:33 Frank G
18:33 badanov
18:26 Hellfish
18:23 Hellfish
17:40 swksvolFF
17:34 Ebbuger Whuque4103
17:30 Ebbuger Whuque4103
17:02 Melancholic
16:27 Gravilet Snanter4154
16:20 Chaise Speaking for Boskone7897
16:02 Skidmark
16:01 Skidmark
15:46 Skidmark
15:41 Skidmark
15:37 swksvolFF
15:36 Skidmark
15:34 Skidmark
15:27 Skidmark
14:48 NoMoreBS
14:31 NoMoreBS
14:16 NoMoreBS
14:15 NoMoreBS
14:04 swksvolFF
13:47 Regular joe