1994 to 2010: The rise in Islamophobia: hate speech & violence against Muslims
I
Muslims
...
"Jim Jones, David Koresh and Meir Kahane do not typify Christianity and
Judaism in the eyes of the civilized West, but those same eyes are prone to
see Osama bin Laden and Mullah Muhammad Omar as typifying Islam," Richard
Bulliet.
....
Overview:
We define "Islamophobia" as
"Fear and/or hatred of Muslims, or of the religion of Islam, and/or a desire
to limit the civil liberties of Muslims.
In our glossary of religious and spiritual terms, we note that Islamophobia:
"... is often exhibited by a person attributing the actions of a few
extreme, violent, fundamentalist Muslim terrorists to the entire population
of Muslims or to the religion of Islam."
...
b.. 1994 to 2001: Hate crimes against mosques and individual Muslims
c.. 2000 and 2006: Attacks on Islam by Pope Benedict XVI
d.. 2001: Verbal attacks on Islam by conservative Protestants after 9/11
e.. 2001 to 2002: American public opinion about Islam before and shortly
after 9/11
f.. 2006: Religious intolerance in Florida against Muslims
g.. 2010: Opposition to building a Islamic community center a 6 blocks
away from 9/11's "ground zero
...
from http://www.religioustolerance.org/islphob.htm
jwshe...@satx.rr.com
for negative perceptions of Islam Jihadwatch
Aslan: Obsessed, desperate, flailing
Reza Aslan is an increasingly comic figure as he races around the
country slandering freedom-fighters and trying to pretend that people
have a negative view of Islam because of "Islamophobes" rather than
Islamic jihad terrorism. It's rather surprising that this diminutive
Islamic supremacist snake-oil merchant still finds willing audiences
of dupes, but such is the abysmal state of the public discourse today.
"Aslan discusses causes, dangers of anti-Islam sentiment," by Caitlin
O'Donnell in The Pendulum, Elon University's student newspaper,
November 10:
A year following Sept. 11, a Washington Post poll found that 40
percent of Americans had a negative view of Islam - nine years later,
that number has jumped by nine percent to almost half of the
population of the United States.
Any rational and honest person will know that that is because Islamic
jihadists just recently sent bombs via UPS to synagogues in Chicago
and stormed a church in Baghdad, murdering 58 people. Then there was
the Fort Hood jihad shooting, the Arkansas recruiting center jihad
shooting, the Christmas underwear bomb jihad attempt, the Times Square
jihad car bomb attempt, the Fort Dix jihad plot, the North Carolina
jihad plot, the Seattle jihad shooting, the JFK Airport jihad plot,
and on and on. But Reza Aslan is not an honest man, and so he doesn't
mention any of that, but rather blames "Islamophobes":
Based on this and other statistics, author and scholar Reza Aslan
discussed the apparent "Islamaphobia" prevalent throughout the United
States Wednesday night, citing the dangers to security and national
identity that results, as well as what can be done to end the trend.
"Dangers to security and national identity" -- note the sleight of
hand. Aslan is trying to get his hapless audience to think that it is
those who are fighting against Sharia and Islamization, and in defense
of the freedom of speech and equality of rights for women and non-
Muslims that are denied by Sharia, who are the security threat -- not
the people sending letter bombs, shooting up military recruiting
centers and military bases, plotting to blow up airplanes, etc.
"A lot of these anti-Muslim zealots have always been around, but for
many years have been in the shadows," he said. "What's strange is that
this kind of rhetoric, a year ago would have had no place in rational
discussion, but has now become so commonplace that even mainstream
politicians have adopted it."
Translation: "I am fooling fewer people than ever, and I am getting
desperate."
Aslan noted Pam Gellar [sic] and Robert Spencer, who are some of the
major proponents of an anti-Muslim movement with their organization
"Stop Islamization of America", as well as members of the mainstream
media, such as Bill O'Reilly, who has associated all Muslims with
terrorism.
SIOA is not anti-Muslim, of course, it is pro-human rights and against
Sharia. For Aslan, that's the same thing. He would abandon to their
fate the Muslim women who suffer under the institutionalized
oppression of Sharia, and who long to be free. We, in contrast, stand
up for the rights of such people. So which one of is the bigot and
hater? The answer is clear to anyone who can cut through the fog of
Aslan's disinformation and see the truth.
But how did the nation get to this point? According to Aslan, it's
nothing new.
"Everything being said about Islam in this country, that they're
foreign, un-American, that they don't belong here was said about
Catholics, Jews, Quakers, Mormons," he said.
At this point I would have expected Aslan to produce some shells and
ask me to guess which one the pea was under. Once again, the
difference between Islam on the one hand and Catholics, Jews, Quakers,
Mormons is that Islam is frequently, repeatedly invoked by Muslims as
the motivation and justification for violence and supremacism.
Catholics, Jews, Quakers, Mormons were not plotting to bring down
airliners, shooting up military bases, or demanding special rights
that other citizens did not enjoy.
Aslan might respond, if he weren't so hopelessly intellectually bereft
and afraid of honest discussion, that all Muslims are not terrorists
or even Islamic supremacists (although he himself is obviously the
latter), and that is manifestly, obviously true. He would claim that
working to stop "Islamization" -- i.e., the imposition of elements of
Sharia in the U.S. -- somehow demonizes all Muslims. That is, of
course, false. Any Muslim who truly values U.S. Constitutional
principles and freedoms, and doesn't want Sharia here, should stand
with us instead of making ridiculous comparisons with Nativism. The
Nativists were genuinely prejudiced. To equate that with a
determination to defend the U.S. against a radically intolerant and
supremacist ideology manifests an immense moral myopia, or a craven
dishonesty. Or both.
While Aslan said Americans are using Muslims as scapegoats for
political and economic anxieties, the foundation of this sentiment
goes deeper, based on another poll that found the more one disagrees
with President Barack Obama's domestic policies, the more likely they
are to believe he's a Muslim.
"Islam in this country has become 'otherized', become a kind of
receptacle into which Americans are dumping all of their fears and
anxieties, not just about the uncertain economic situation, but about
the changing political landscape, changing racial makeup," he said.
"Whatever is foreign, exotic, unfamiliar, fearful is being tagged as
Islam."...
You mean like moo satay or feijoada, you dope?
"Do we want to live in an America in which we define ourselves as
against another group of Americans?" he said. "Or do we want a nation
that says 'as you accept us, we'll accept you.' That's the country I
hope we continue to work for."
Of course, if that were true, Aslan would not be a Board member of the
National Iranian American Council, a group that is widely regarded as
an apologetic vehicle for the Islamic Republic of Iran. He has also
called on the U.S. Government to negotiate not only with Ahmadinejad
but with Hamas -- that is, with some of the most barbaric and
genocidally-inclined adherents of Sharia. "As you accept us, we'll
accept you" indeed.
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2010/11/aslan-obsessed-desperate-flailing-reza.html
I
"Jim Jones, David Koresh and Meir Kahane do not typify Christianity and
Judaism in the eyes of the civilized West, but those same eyes are prone to
see Osama bin Laden and Mullah Muhammad Omar as typifying Islam," Richard
Bulliet.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Islamophobia consists of:
- attacking the entire religion of Islam as a problem for the world;
- condemning all of Islam and its history as extremist;
- denying the active existence, in the contemporary world, of a moderate
Muslim majority;
- insisting that Muslims accede to the demands of non-Muslims (based on
ignorance and arrogance) for various theological changes, in their religion;
- treating all conflicts involving Muslims (including, for example, that in
Bosnia-Hercegovina a decade ago), as the fault of Muslims themselves;
- inciting war against Islam as a whole.
from http://www.faithfreedom.org/oped/RobertSpencer50501.htm
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Fundamentalists seem aimed at making themselves feel better by placing all
negative and destructive emotions in people with different beliefs, and
enjoying the golden glow of self-justification that results. ... You know
that simile: 'As rare as a Fundamentalist who loves his enemy.' ... the
Inquisition did largely miss the point of 'Love Thy Neighbour', didn't they?
Wasn't burning heretics 'worse' than being tolerant towards them? ...
from "LIFE ...and how to survive it" - Robin Skinner & John Cleese (Methuen;
London:1993) p. 287
jwshe...@satx.rr.com
26 Aug 2010
Islam enjoys a large and influential ally among the non-Muslims: A new
generation of “Useful Idiots,” the sort of people Lenin identified
living in liberal democracies who furthered the work of communism.
This new generation of Useful Idiots also live in liberal democracies,
but serves the cause of Islamofascism—another virulent form of
totalitarian ideology.
Useful Idiots are naïve, they are foolish, they are ignorant of facts,
they are unrealistically idealistic, they are dreamers and they are
willfully in denial or deceptive. They hail from the ranks of the
chronically unhappy. They are anarchists, they are aspiring
revolutionaries, they are neurotics who are at war with life, the
disaffected alienated from government, corporations, and just about
any and all institutions of society. The Useful Idiot can be a
billionaire, a movie star, an academe of renown, a politician, or from
any other segment of the population. Arguably, the most dangerous
variant of the Useful Idiot is the “Politically Correct.” He is the
master practitioner of euphemism, hedging, doubletalk, and outright
deception.
The Useful Idiot derives satisfaction from being anti-establishment.
He finds perverse gratification in aiding the forces that aim to
dismantle an existing order, whatever it may be: an order he neither
approves of nor feels he belongs to.
The Useful Idiot is conflicted and dishonest. He fails to look inside
himself and discover the causes of his own problems and unhappiness
while he readily enlists himself in causes that validate his distorted
perception.
Understandably, it is easier to blame others and the outside world
than to examine oneself with an eye to self-discovery and self-
improvement. Furthermore, criticizing and complaining—liberal
practices of the Useful Idiot—require little talent and energy. The
Useful Idiot is a great armchair philosopher and “Monday Morning
Quarterback.”
The Useful Idiot is not the same as a person who honestly has a
different point of view. A society without honest and open differences
of views is a dead society. Critical, different and fresh ideas are
the life blood of a living society—the very anathema of autocracies
where the official position is sacrosanct.
Even a “normal” person spends a great deal more energy aiming to fix
things out there than working to overcome his own flaws and
shortcomings, or contribute positively to the larger society. People
don’t like to take stock of what they are doing or not doing that is
responsible for the conditions of which they disapprove.
But the Useful Idiot takes things much farther. The Useful Idiot,
among other things, is a master practitioner of scapegoating. He
assigns blame to others while absolving himself of responsibility, has
a long handy list of candidates for blaming anything and everything,
and by living a distorted life, he contributes to the ills of
society.
The Useful Idiot may even engage in willful misinformation and
deception when it suits him. Terms such as “Political Islam,” or
“Radical Islam,” for instance, are contributions of the Useful Idiot.
These terms do not even exist in the native parlance of Islam, simply
because they are redundant. Islam, by its very nature and according to
its charter—the Quran—is a radical political movement. It is the
Useful Idiot who sanitizes Islam and misguides the populace by saying
that the “real Islam” constitutes the main body of the religion; and,
that this main body is non-political and moderate.
Regrettably, a large segment of the population goes along with these
nonsensical euphemisms depicting Islam because it prefers to believe
them. It is less threatening to believe that only a hijacked small
segment of Islam is radical or politically driven and that the main
body of Islam is indeed moderate and non-political.
But Islam is political to the core. In Islam the mosque and State are
one and the same—the mosque is the State. This arrangement goes back
to the days of Muhammad himself. Islam is also radical in the extreme.
Even the “moderate” Islam is radical in its beliefs as well as its
deeds. Muslims believe that all non-Muslims, bar none, are hellfire
bound and well-deserve being maltreated compared to believers.
No radical barbaric act of depravity is unthinkable for Muslims in
dealing with others. They have destroyed precious statues of Buddha,
leveled sacred monuments of other religions, and bulldozed the
cemeteries of non-Muslims—a few examples of their utter extreme
contempt toward others.
Muslims are radical even in their intrafaith dealings. Various sects
and sub-sects pronounce other sects and sub-sects as heretics worthy
of death; women are treated as chattel, deprived of many rights; hands
are chopped for stealing even a loaf of bread; sexual violation is
punished by stoning, and much much more. These are standard day-to-day
ways of the mainstream “moderate” Muslims living under the stone-age
laws of Sharia.
The “moderate” mainstream of Islam has been outright genocidal from
inception. Their own historians record that Ali, the first imam of the
Shiite and the son-in-law of Muhammad, with the help of another man,
beheaded 700 Jewish men in the presence of the Prophet himself. The
Prophet of Allah and his disciples took the murdered men’s women and
children in slavery. Muslims have been, and continue to be, the most
vicious and shameless practitioner of slavery. The slave trade, even
today, is a thriving business in some Islamic lands where wealthy,
perverted sheiks purchase children of the poor from traffickers for
their sadistic gratification.
Muslims are taught deception and lying in the Quran itself—something
that Muhammad practiced during his life whenever he found it
expedient. Successive Islamic rulers and leaders have done the same.
Khomeini, the founder of the 1979 Iranian Revolution, for instance,
rallied the people under the banner of democracy. All along his
support for democracy was not a commitment of an honest man, but a
ruse. As soon as he gathered the reins of power, Khomeini went after
the Useful Idiots of his time with vengeance. These best children of
Iran, having been thoroughly deceived and used by the crafty phony
populist-religionist, had to flee the country to avoid the fate of
tens of thousands who were imprisoned or executed by the double-
crossing imam.
Almost three decades after the tragic Islamic Revolution of 1979, the
suffocating rule of Islam casts its death-bearing pall over Iranians.
A proud people with enviable heritage is being systematically purged
of its sense of identity and forced to think and behave like the
barbaric and intolerant Muslims. Iranians who had always treated women
with equality, for instance, have seen them reduced by the stone-age
clergy to sub-human status of Islamic teaching. Any attempt by the
women of Iran to counter the misogynist rule of Muhammad’s mullahs is
mercilessly suppressed. Women are beaten, imprisoned, raped and killed
just as men are slaughtered without due process or mercy.
The lesson is clear. Beware of the Useful Idiots who live in liberal
democracies. Knowingly or unknowingly, they serve as the greatest
volunteer and effective soldiers of Islam. They pave the way for the
advancement of Islam and they will assuredly be among the very first
victims of Islam as soon as it assumes power.
Imani is the author of the smashing book “Obama Meets Ahmadinejad”.
Peter B.
>
Contrary to be contrary is not as attribute or wisdom.
You have evidently no historical perspective of the Muslim. Little
understanding of its laws and customs.
Would you be willing to grant them their right to marry your six year old
daughter? ( or grandchild in your case)
I
<Snippeth ignorant Islamophobia)
You have evidently no historical perspective of Islam. Little understanding
of its laws and customs.
Have you READ the Koran???? OF COURSE NOT!!! You speak in IGNORANCE of that
which you criticise!!!!
The God of Mohammed and the Quran IS the God of Abraham.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
... when the Qur'an speaks of God, it means the One Creator God of the
Bible, the God of Abraham, Ishmael, Isaac and Jacob (2:136). To the Jews and
Christians the Qur'an says, "We believe in the revelation that has come down
to us and that which came down to you; our God and your God are One, and it
is to Him that we bow" (29:46). Furthermore, it adopted the name for God
("Allah") that Arabic-speaking Christians and Jews used and still use.
from http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=3072
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`
Peter B.
> "Peter B." <p...@b.org> wrote:
<Snippeth ignorance>
Left behind to total of what you know about Islam.
I
<Snippeth ignorance>
I agan note that you have NEVER read the Qu'ran and are Islamophobic.
You speak in IGNORANCE of that
which you criticise!!!!
The God of Mohammed and the Quran IS the God of Abraham.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
... when the Qur'an speaks of God, it means the One Creator God of the
Bible, the God of Abraham, Ishmael, Isaac and Jacob (2:136). To the Jews and
Christians the Qur'an says, "We believe in the revelation that has come down
to us and that which came down to you; our God and your God are One, and it
is to Him that we bow" (29:46). Furthermore, it adopted the name for God
("Allah") that Arabic-speaking Christians and Jews used and still use.
from http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=3072
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
READ THE TEXT SLOWLY ........................
"We believe in the revelation that has come down o us and that which came
jwshe...@satx.rr.com
Author: Hussein Hajji Wario
Date: 29.09.2010
The idea of God in Islam is derived from the Qur’an and Prophet
Muhammad’s Sunnah (sayings and deeds). Both these sources show how
“God,” “Allah” in Arabic, differs from the Judeo-Christian God. There
is plenty of evidence in the Qur’an and the Hadith that the idea of
“God” in Islam is of Muhammad’s invention. Here are a few.
Allah in Islam who Muslims consider omniscient confuses Mary the
Mother of Jesus with Miriam the sister to Aaron and Moses in the
Bible. This doesn’t make sense when even Muslims know Mary and Aaron
cannot be siblings because they lived several centuries apart.
Muhammad
—Allah’s Apostle—confirmed in the Hadith that Mary, Aaron, and Moses
shared the same father. Apparently he believed it because Allah told
him so. The story even gained some traction among Muslims of
Muhammad’s days. The Hadith shows it only took a Christian to correct
Muhammad years later in Medina. Unfortunately the error is still in
the Qur’an because Allah—the all knowing—has not issued a correction
yet.
Muhammad invoked Allah’s name to get his desires and wishes. There
are
instances in the Qur’an, proven by narratives in the Hadith, where
when he had a desire for something he got it with a “revelation.” He
never failed to get his way, especially after he became a political
and military leader. Here are a few cases:
1. In Surah (chapter) 33 of the Qur’an, Prophet Muhammad admired
Zainab, the wife of his adopted son Zayd bin Haritha. The Hadith
shows
he went to Zainab’s house and saw her scantly clad. He desired her as
a wife. Then he got a “revelation” from Allah which forced Zayd to
divorce Zainab. Then Muhammad—who had at least five wives at that time
—
married her.
2. Muslim women only began wearing veils in Islam because Prophet
Muhammad was concerned men would seduce his new wife Zainab. The
Hadith shows how they were milling around Zainab’s new home and even
visiting her in Muhammad’s absence. He became quite concerned. One
day, he pulled a curtain and a new verse was revealed. Mark you; the
“revelation” came after he had already pulled the curtain. Shouldn’t
it be the other way around had God been speaking to Muhammad? “Allah”
also required that men should visit Muhammad’s home on invitation
only. Poor Zayd. He did not enjoy the same privilege. From that time
on, men had to talk to Muhammad’s wives behind a curtain. So much for
Muslims telling the world veiling is for modesty.
3. A typical Muslim man can marry up to four wives. How about
Muhammad? Allah “told” him via a “revelation” he could marry as many
as he wished. Those who rivaled him, Muhammad forced them to divorce
some of their wives to get to the "maximum" four.
4. A Muslim cannot interrupt another Muslim’s prayer. Muhammad broke
that rule. Even a Muslim asked him why he did it, he said, “Didn’t
Allah say “Give your response to Allah (by obeying Him) and to His
Apostle when he calls you.”” He was above the rule. How convenient!
Just another case of “Allah” in Islam is of Muhammad’s invention.
There are many other references in the Qur’an where a Muslim must
obey
Allah and Muhammad. Surprisingly, none of these verses was from the
period when Islam was its nascent stage, Muhammad was powerless. The
Hadith shows Muhammad concocted them to cater to his own desires.
(Absolutes are rare in Islam. The only absolute with certainty is
Islam’s opposition to the Trinity—a concept even “Allah” did not
understand and falsely accused Christians of worshipping god the
father, mother and son. Many Muslim still believe Christians
worshipped these three gods even when it is patently false.)
It is obvious in the Qur’an and the Hadith “Allah” catered to Prophet
Muhammad’s desires. Why can’t some Muslims discern it? Is it because
Allah forbade them from asking questions? He said in the Qur’an, “O
you who believe! Do not put questions about things which if declared
to you may trouble you, and if you question about them when the Quran
is being revealed, they shall be declared to you; Allah pardons this,
and Allah is Forgiving, Forbearing.” This “revelation” was yet
another
convenient revelation for Muhammad. This time he declined to answer a
question on pilgrimage to Mecca. Pagans observed annual Hajj to Mecca
before Muhammad instituted and made it compulsory for Muslims just
before death. Prior to that, Muslims observed various pilgrimages
(umrah) throughout the year. A Muslim had asked how often Hajj in a
year should be observed. Apparently, both Muhammad and “Allah” did
not
want to tackle that controversy.
There are many more examples that show the Qur’an was an invention of
Muhammad to live a convenient life. He dubbed it a “revelation” from
“Allah” to dupe his followers. The Islamic deity Muhammad preached
couldn’t be the same as the Judeo-Christian God because the “Allah”
Muhammad preached pandered to Muhammad. Even Muslims in Malaysia who
abide by the Sharia agree the deity in Islam is not the same as the
Judeo-Christian God. The New York Times reports they burned Catholic
churches over Malay Christians’ use of “Allah” in publications.
Muslims know better who their “God” is. He is not the same as the
Judeo-Christian God!
http://conversation.lausanne.org/en/conversations/detail/11049#articl...
Peter B.
This is such a joke. You wallow in your own folly.
According to all you post Islam is a fundamentalist org, yet here you are
defending them and your ignorance. Cherry pick all you want but you would
be better off following the truth.
ccc31807
wrote:
> The God of Mohammed and the Quran IS the God of Abraham.
If that's the case, why don't those who follow the God of Abraham
honor God's promise to Abraham that God would give to the descendants
of Issac the land of the promise?
Gen 12: 1-7
Gen 13:14-17
Gen 15:5-21
Gen 17:2-8
Gen 22:17-18
Gen 24:7
Gen 48:4
Seems like Muslims don't actually worship God after all.
CC.
I
>> I agan note that you have NEVER read the Qu'ran and are Islamophobic.
>> You speak in IGNORANCE of that which you criticise!!!!
>> The God of Mohammed and the Quran IS the God of Abraham.
....
>> "We believe in the revelation that has come down to us and that which
>> came
>> down to you; our God and your God are One, and it is to Him that we bow"
>> (29:46).
>
> This is such a joke.
It is a quote from the Qu'ran whicfh you have never read.
> According to all you post Islam is a fundamentalist org
Ignorant nonsense! Islam is made up of MANY factions and has it's liberal
and fundamentalist wings also.
You speak out of ignorance of that which you have never read or studied.
jwshe...@satx.rr.com
Jihadwatch
Rioting over rumors is getting to be rather commonplace in the Islamic
world -- cf. the riots over the Qur'an-burning that never happened. In
any case, this story also shows that the old laws of dhimmitude are
still very much a cultural hangover in the ostensibly secular "Arab
Republic" -- not "Islamic Republic" -- of Egypt. "Muslims torch
Christian homes in southern Egypt," by Salah Nasrawi for Associated
Press, November 16 (thanks to Maxwell):
CAIRO - Muslims set fire overnight to at least 10 houses belonging to
Coptic Christians in a village in southern Egypt over rumors that a
Christian resident had an affair with a Muslim girl, security
officials said Tuesday.
The officials said security forces have sealed off the village of al-
Nawahid, in Qena province some 290 miles (465 kilometers) south of
Cairo, to prevent the violence from spreading to neighboring towns.
They said several people were arrested.
The attacks started after locals spotted a young Copt and a Muslim
girl together at night inside the village cemetery, the officials
said. They added that both were put under police custody as
authorities investigate....
Islamic law forbids Muslim women to marry non-Muslim men. Muslim men
may marry non-Muslim women, however; then, since the woman becomes
part of the man's household, these laws ensure that the non-Muslim
community is always declining at the expense of the Muslim community.
Clashes between Christians and Muslims occasionally occur in southern
Egypt, mostly over land or disputes over church construction....
The traditional laws of dhimmitude forbid Christians to build new
churches or repair old ones.
Human rights groups say attacks on Copts are on the rise, underscoring
the government's failure to address chronic sectarian strains in a
society where religious radicalism is gaining ground.
The government insists Christians enjoy the same rights as Muslims.
They have a very nice bridge to sell you, too.
Matt
You can't even be safe in a Islamic country if your a Christian
Death for 'blasphemy' to Pakistani Christian woman sparks outrage
Asia Bibi’s case dates back to June 2009, when a complaint of
blasphemy was filed against her by an Islamic cleric shortly after she
was involved in a row with a group of Muslim women.
So much for the religion of peace.
Sensii
Sensi:
Study the inquisition.
At the dawn of the second millennium Europe
was slowly emerging from the blackness and ignorance
of the Dark Ages. There were no nations and the people
were loyal only to their immediate community and to God.
**The keeper of God's word was the Catholic Church,
the only religion in all of Christendom.**
The supreme religious leader, the Pope in Rome,
crowned the Kings who became rulers of the Holy Roman Empire
stretching from Sicily north to Poland. The Emperor was ruler
of the temporal world while the Pope and his Bishops reigned
supreme over the Spiritual world.
[Cracks Begin Appearing]
By the 12th and 13th century, cracks began appearing
in this ordered world. Emperors no longer submitted to
being crowned by the Pope and across Europe Kings
demanded the right to select their own Bishops.
But for the Pope the most terrifying threat came from upstart
Christian sects who challenged church doctrine and the absolute
power of the Roman Pope. To preserve the purity of the faith
and the unquestioned authority of the Pope, the Church began
to crack down on all dissenting with a new weapon: the Inquisition.
For over half a millennium a system of mass terror reigned.
Thousands were subject to secret courts, torture and punishment.
>
> http://www.pbs.org/inquisition/
Sensi:
It's a shame that people have to harm and kill each other to keep a
religion intact. There is no telling how many people were killed during
the Christian inquisition as well. The outcome though has taught us many
valuable lessons. We don't kill people, we help *change* their thoughts
and ideas. Killing off the old ideas one by one can only raise awareness
that God doesn't need people to fight for or against life. Perhaps a 100
years from now peace will reign on earth.But it will be hell getting
there. One by one...
Never lose an opportunity of seeing anything that
is beautiful, for beauty is God's handwriting--
a wayside sacrament. Welcome it in every fair face,
in every fair sky, in every fair flower,
and thank God for it as a cup of blessing.
- Ralph Waldo Emerson
jwshe...@satx.rr.com
I noticed in the story Marisol posted here about a toy pig being
pulled from a farm set that someone remarked, "This is political
correctness gone loopy."
That sounded familiar, so I searched the site and found eighteen
stories posted here over the years that contained some variation on
the idea of "political correctness gone mad," and six more containing
the phrase "political correctness run amok." It seems as if political
correctness has a general tendency to go mad, to exceed the boundaries
of reason, and to outrage common sense and common decency.
And it's true: banning toy pigs and piggy banks, building huge mosques
in prisons, renaming pubs -- all this and more done in order to avoid
offending Muslims -- it is madness embodied, and yet it is
simultaneously the very embodiment of political correctness and
multiculturalism: the myth that Muslims are perpetual victims, and
that the West is the perpetual aggressor, and that placating Muslims
in this way is rational and worthwhile.
In other words, political correctness gone loopy, political
correctness gone mad, political correctness run amok, is the natural
state of political correctness itself. It in itself is a form of
madness, an inversion of truth and reality, and a rewriting of
history.
Consequently free people must reject it in all its forms. Above all
that means never accepting the Leftist/Islamic supremacist narrative
in any detail -- the charges of "racism" and "fascism" against decent
people, the characterization of freedom defense initiatives as
manifestations of "hatred," etc. Freedom fighters can all too easily
allow themselves to be put on the defensive. Don't let that happen to
you. Remember that yours is the side of truth, and the politically
correct side is the party of madness. Point out their contradictions,
lies, and travesties of logic. Always be ready with the facts. And
never, ever, give up.
Posted by Robert on November 16, 2010 9:52 AM | 32 Comments
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2010/11/political-correctness-gone-loopy.html
Matt
wrote:
In the above you say we should not fight for life. What do you mean
by that? Should we say allow our kids to be killed rather than
defending them?
AS far as because of a person religion I agree. We should harm none
for what they choose to believe as long as they do not try to force
said belief.
I know many people that follow Islam there is a Islamic school in
Gainesville, Fl. They for the most part are good people it is only a
extremist element that is the problem. Part of the problem is that
the moderate muslims live in more fear of the radicals than we do. If
they were to speak out to loudly and it got back it could place family
members in danger.
After 9/11 some were really scared of what we would do and what the
radicals would do next.
I often wonder what happened to Islam it at one time had a great
culture and now it seems most of it has fallen to dust.
OK enough of my rant
God Bless
Matt
Sensii
Sensi:
I mean that no religion is worth taking or trying to ruin the lives of
others. It's time to say God shows no favoritism of mans religions.
We have to teach others that God loves them whether they have a religion
or not. He loves people all the same without pushing religious efforts.
What do you mean
> by that? Should we say allow our kids to be killed rather than
> defending them?
>
Sensi:
The *defense* is also where problems exist. You don't go in and wipe out
people just because they're Islamic or Christian or whatever.
We need to teach people how to live together and not act like everyone
is the enemy of God. *Educate* through example not by killing.
Defend your child but teach your child not to be unruly with words that
only cause more problems. Create solutions that work for everyone. That
may be wishful thinking but by golly it's the *Way to go."
> AS far as because of a person religion I agree. We should harm none
> for what they choose to believe as long as they do not try to force
> said belief.
Sensi:
That is also a problem. Christians should not force their *beliefs*
either. LIVING Examples are far better than words.
>
> I know many people that follow Islam there is a Islamic school in
> Gainesville, Fl. They for the most part are good people it is only a
> extremist element that is the problem. Part of the problem is that
> the moderate muslims live in more fear of the radicals than we do. If
> they were to speak out to loudly and it got back it could place family
> members in danger.
>
Sensi:
The US army I'm sure has many good Muslims as well as Christians.
Sometimes the religion is a mask as people who have a tendency to be
violent, boastful, revengeful find a religious reason to justify that
kind of behavior and unfortunately we have extremist on both sides of
the camp.
> After 9/11 some were really scared of what we would do and what the
> radicals would do next.
Sensi:
It's sad that people have to live in fear due to religious zealots.
>
> I often wonder what happened to Islam it at one time had a great
> culture and now it seems most of it has fallen to dust.
Sensi:
I don't think I'd put it that way. You're classifying the Islamic
culture as fallen to dust. They would take offense at the statement the
same as Christians would take offense if the same was said about them.
>
> OK enough of my rant
>
> God Bless
>
> Matt
--
Matt
wrote:
I agree with that 100%
>>
>> I know many people that follow Islam there is a Islamic school in
>> Gainesville, Fl. They for the most part are good people it is only a
>> extremist element that is the problem. Part of the problem is that
>> the moderate muslims live in more fear of the radicals than we do. If
>> they were to speak out to loudly and it got back it could place family
>> members in danger.
>>
>
>Sensi:
>The US army I'm sure has many good Muslims as well as Christians.
>Sometimes the religion is a mask as people who have a tendency to be
>violent, boastful, revengeful find a religious reason to justify that
>kind of behavior and unfortunately we have extremist on both sides of
>the camp.
Well unfortunately we do. Yet that bad part is we see Islamic
terrorist attacks in the news on almost a daily basis. Peoples
opinions are based on what they see today.
There is no excuse for anyone no matter the religion to kill and to
kill children with bombs.
>
>
>
>
>> After 9/11 some were really scared of what we would do and what the
>> radicals would do next.
>
>Sensi:
>
>It's sad that people have to live in fear due to religious zealots.
Yes it is. Taken a plane lately it is sad all that is because of a
few nutcases.
>>
>> I often wonder what happened to Islam it at one time had a great
>> culture and now it seems most of it has fallen to dust.
>
>
>Sensi:
>I don't think I'd put it that way. You're classifying the Islamic
>culture as fallen to dust. They would take offense at the statement the
>same as Christians would take offense if the same was said about them.
Islam at one time was ahead of Christians in Art and medicine that is
no longer the case.
This is a historical fact and not politically correct I know.
It is a fact that the majority of murder done by terrorist is done by
Islamic
Sensii
> Islam at one time was ahead of Christians in Art and medicine that is
> no longer the case.
>
> This is a historical fact and not politically correct I know.
>
> It is a fact that the majority of murder done by terrorist is done by
> Islamic
>
Sensi:
Be careful how you word that or you're setting a bad example for the
ones that don't murder cause harm or injury.
>>>
>>> OK enough of my rant
>>>
>>> God Bless
>>>
>>> Matt
>
Matt
wrote:
>On 11/17/2010 4:09 PM, Matt wrote:
>
>> Islam at one time was ahead of Christians in Art and medicine that is
>> no longer the case.
>>
>> This is a historical fact and not politically correct I know.
>>
>> It is a fact that the majority of murder done by terrorist is done by
>> Islamic
>>
>
>Sensi:
>
>Be careful how you word that or you're setting a bad example for the
>ones that don't murder cause harm or injury.
I did by using the word "Majority" If you forget being politically
correct and just use facts it is accurate. If you want to be a liar
(not saying you personally are) then you say something else like that
comment was "Islamophobia" which it is not.
If a fact is offensive to some do we then lie?
The Muslims I know are good people. It is a extreme small minority
that are the problem.
Violence is wrong no matter which religion does it. No matter if it
is a Christian Bombing a gay bar or a Muslim bombing a bus stop.
Facts are facts though and the majority of bombing are being done
today by Islamic terrorist. What happened 100 years ago does not
justify what is being done today.
No religion is perfect Christian have the likes of Fred Phelps, Pat
Robertson and Benny Hinn. Muslims have thier Clerics that give
directives to kill. "fatwa"
What I say is we must face facts, yet never judge a whole religion on
the actions of a few.
Can you imagine if people judged Christianity by the action of a few
here on ACC and what they do?
Unless I have missed a report there is more violence being done to
non-muslims that to muslims at this time. Egypt, Iraq and Pakistan
just to name a few places.
God Bless
Matt
ThomMadura
> On Wed, 17 Nov 2010 17:33:44 -0600, Sensii<sensi...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 11/17/2010 4:09 PM, Matt wrote:
>>
>>> Islam at one time was ahead of Christians in Art and medicine that is
>>> no longer the case.
>>>
>>> This is a historical fact and not politically correct I know.
>>>
>>> It is a fact that the majority of murder done by terrorist is done by
>>> Islamic
Sorry - but that is NOT a fact - it ignores Africa entirely
>>>
>>
>> Sensi:
>>
>> Be careful how you word that or you're setting a bad example for the
>> ones that don't murder cause harm or injury.
>
> I did by using the word "Majority" If you forget being politically
> correct and just use facts it is accurate. If you want to be a liar
> (not saying you personally are) then you say something else like that
> comment was "Islamophobia" which it is not.
>
> If a fact is offensive to some do we then lie?
>
> The Muslims I know are good people. It is a extreme small minority
> that are the problem.
>
> Violence is wrong no matter which religion does it. No matter if it
> is a Christian Bombing a gay bar or a Muslim bombing a bus stop.
>
> Facts are facts though and the majority of bombing are being done
> today by Islamic terrorist. What happened 100 years ago does not
> justify what is being done today.
Nor does it excuse what WAS done 100 years ago - or 1000 years ago
TO claim that christianity is the religion of peace is simply a JOKE
based on its history
And one need not go back 100 years - simply go back to Northern IRELAND
50 years ago - where it was christians fighting christians.
Imagine killing people over a FORM of a MYTH
And that is what different Muslim sects do to each other too!
>
> No religion is perfect Christian have the likes of Fred Phelps, Pat
> Robertson and Benny Hinn. Muslims have thier Clerics that give
> directives to kill. "fatwa"
>
> What I say is we must face facts, yet never judge a whole religion on
> the actions of a few.
>
> Can you imagine if people judged Christianity by the action of a few
> here on ACC and what they do?
THAT is because the audience here is largely christian
And we do JUDGE christianity by the people here - like Andrew CHung -
and Michael Christ - and Gladys the deluded -
THe problem is that christianity is NOT a single unified religion - it
is a cafeteria religion - as proven by the people here.
THere are now over 40,000 different christian sect according to the
Jesuit University - and that does not include nut cases -who simply
reject parts of the religion without any real provable reason.
The bible - a product of the Catholic church - is simply a compilation
of belief - contains MULTITUDES of provable errors and contradictions -
so much so - that when ONE christian makes a point by quoting the bible
babel - you can almost always directly contradict that point by quoting
from the bible again.
Either the bible is the inspired word of a god - and has no errors - or
it is NOT. Claiming something is Metaphor or Allegory is the same as
saying something is Physically wrong. WHy would a god who supposedly
KNEW how he again SUPPOSEDLY created the universe make up ANOTHER stupid
story like genesis - with all of its provable errors. And then why would
that same god - REPEAT those errors - throughout the book?
WHy would a god even imply that he left ALL SEED BEARING PLANTS for
humans to be used as food. AS written in the bible - it is NOT
metaphorical or allegorical - it is simply WRONG. THERE are hundreds of
seed bearing plants that are dangerous poisons to humans.
THe statement that there is a place that one could climb to and see ALL
THE KINGDOMS of the earth = is in the NT.
THAT could ONLY be true if the earth were flat or close to flat (The
ancient jews actually thought the earth was a slightly concave circle -
almost flat)
However - the earth is NOT flat - and THAT was known to many cultures at
the time the bible was written. WHY did they include those statements in
the bible - certainly no because they were true!
jwshe...@satx.rr.com
'Nor does it excuse what WAS done 100 years ago "
Such as the killings by atheists, like Stalin, Mao,
Pol Pot, and the dear leader of North Korea. People
need to listen to the God of Sinai.
Exodus 20
13 Thou shalt not kill.
Atheists and Muslims should also, be judged
by that.
Jim
Ge 4:9 -And the LORD said unto Cain,
Where is Abel thy brother?
And he said, I know not:
Am I my brother's keeper?
jwshe...@satx.rr.com
"blasphemy" against Islam
Asia News is leading an effort to deliver as many messages as
possible, whether through their site or directly to Pakistani
President Zardari, demanding not only the release of Asia Bibi, but
also lasting and meaningful reforms that remove Pakistan's laws
against blasphemy and insulting Islam as the scourge that they are on
minority rights and freedom of conscience. They write:
Rome (AsiaNews) - At our reader's request, AsiaNews has decided to
launch an international petition to be sent to President Asif Zardari
to save the life of Asia Bibi, who was sentenced to hanging for
blasphemy. AsiaNews is also asking President Zardari to cancel or
change the unjust blasphemy law, which kills many innocent victims and
destroys coexistence in the country. We are asking you o support this
initiative by sending a message to the following email:
salviamo...@asianews.it
Or you can send a message directly to the Pakistani President:
publi...@president.gov.pk
This is particularly important. Note the role of pressure from the mob
outside the courtroom in the second story posted below. The major
question at the heart of this case is: who is in control of Pakistan?
By doing nothing, Zardari would acknowledge that he is not in control.
Our campaign is one of many being launched in Italy (with Tv2000),
Pakistan, India and the United States.
Asia Bibi, a Christian woman of 45, mother of five children, was
sentenced to death for blasphemy on November 7 last. A Punjab court in
ruled that the woman, a farm worker, offended the Prophet Mohammed.
But in reality, Asia Bibi was first insulted as "impure" (because not-
Islamic), then forced to defend her Christian faith in the face of
pressure from other Muslim labourers. The husband of one of them, the
local imam, decided to launch charges and denounce the woman, who was
first beaten, then imprisoned and finally, after one year, sentenced
to death.
Asia Bibi and her husband Ashiq Masih have decided to appeal to
overturn the ruling. Meanwhile, the mother now faces months of
imprisonment at the mercy of prison guards or some fanatic who could
kill her under the misguided belief that he is giving glory to Allah.
Up until now, the blasphemy law had not led to an execution of any
accused or convicted. But 33 people charged with blasphemy were killed
in prison by guards, or in the vicinity of the court. The latest such
case involved two Protestant Christians, Pastor Emmanuel and his
brother Rashid Sajjad, shot at point blank range as they left the
court in Faisalabad on 19 July. However we can group these deaths with
those killed in the massacres of entire villages, in Gojra, Korian,
Kasur, Sangla Hill, where hundreds of houses belonging to Christians
were burned and where women and children were killed or burned alive,
just because one member of the village had been accused of blasphemy.
It is now startlingly clear that this law has become a tool in the
hands of fundamentalists that pit Muslims against Christians in order
to measure the extent of their power over Pakistani society. It is
also clear that almost all the accusations of blasphemy are born from
envy, revenge, competition, and that the arrest of the accused is but
the first step to allow the expropriation of land, looting and
theft....
Indeed. Again, the spirit as well as the letter of absurd and
inherently abusive laws (of which Sharia has so many) lend themselves
to further abuse.
Here, also, Bibi's own account -- she is named here as Asia Noreen --
of how the case came about in the first place. Even with the deck so
stacked against her, she never got to defend herself in court at any
time during her detention and trial -- not even as a formality.
"Pakistani Mother Condemned for 'Blasphemy' Stunned, Shattered," from
Compass Direct, November 18:
... "I don't know why - when I walked into court that day, I just
knew," she said, tears returning to her eyes and her voice shaking.
"And when the judge announced my death sentence, I broke down crying
and screaming. In the entire year that I have spent in this jail, I
have not been asked even once for my statement in court. Not by the
lawyers and not by the judge. After this, I have lost hope in any kind
of justice being given to me."
In an interview with Compass at the jail northwest of Lahore, Punjab
Province, Noreen said the triggering incident resulted from a "planned
conspiracy" to "teach her a lesson," as villagers in Ittanwali, near
Nankana Sahib about 75 kilometers (47 miles) from Lahore, resented her
and her family because of a few mishaps.
"What my village people have accused me of is a complete lie," she
said. "I had previously had a row over a trivial issue of water
running out of my house onto the street, and a man called Tufail
verbally abused me. On June 14, when I was out picking falsas [a type
of berry] with about 30 women, they again asked me to convert to
Islam."
Noreen said the women of the village frequently asked her to renounce
Christianity while they worked in the fields, and that she refused
each time.
"This time, too, I said that I saw no reason why I should leave my own
religion," she said. "They then asked me about Jesus Christ, and I
told them to go and ask the local mullah and not to bother me with
those questions."
Meantime, one of the women asked her for water, she said. After she
had fetched it, the others told the woman not to drink water brought
by an "untouchable" and "dirty woman," Noreen said.
"I asked them if Christians were not human ...why the discrimination?"
she said. "This annoyed them, and they started verbally abusing me. We
were soon engaged in a heated argument."
She said that five days later, a mob led by Qari (one who has
memorized the Quran) Muhammad Saalim burst upon her after some of the
women told him about the incident in the fields. The mob pressured her
to admit that she had blasphemed.
"They have been saying that I confessed to my crime, but the fact is
that I said I was sorry for any word that I may have said during the
argument that may have hurt their feelings," she said.
Police arrived as they were beating her and took Noreen into custody,
where they registered a case under Section 295-C of the blasphemy laws
against her based on the complaint of the imam.
"They [police] registered a false complaint, because the complainant
[Saalim] was never present at the scene," she said. [...]
"How can an innocent person be accused, have a case in court after a
false FIR [First Information Report], and then be given the death
sentence, without even once taking into consideration what he or she
has to say?"
A pastor from Sharing Life Ministry who has been ministering to Noreen
during her confinement and was present at all hearings told Compass
that the judge had retired to his chambers three times before
announcing the verdict.
"He was visibly tense," the pastor said. "The presence of a mob
outside the courtroom was instrumental in the delivery of this harsh
verdict."
jwshe...@satx.rr.com
Islamic apologists in the U.S. routinely deny that Islamic law
mandates that apostates from Islam be murdered. Unfortunately for the
apostates, the facts are otherwise.
Muhammad, the prophet of Islam and supreme example of conduct for the
Muslim (cf. Qur'an 33:21), said: "Whoever changes his Islamic
religion, then kill him." (Bukhari 9.84.57)
The Tafsir al-Qurtubi, a classic and thoroughly mainstream exegesis of
the Qur'an, says this about Qur'an 2:217: "Scholars disagree about
whether or not apostates are asked to repent. One group say that they
are asked to repent and, if they do not, they are killed. Some say
they are given an hour and others a month. Others say that they are
asked to repent three times, and that is the view of Malik. Al-Hasan
said they are asked a hundred times. It is also said that they are
killed without being asked to repent."
All the schools of Islamic jurisprudence all teach that a sane adult
male who leaves Islam must be killed. They have some disagreements
about what must he done with other types of people who leave Islam,
but they have no disagreement on that.
The internationally renowned Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, who has been
praised as a "reformist" by pseudo-academic John Esposito, has said
this about Islamic apostasy law: "That is why the Muslim jurists are
unanimous that apostates must be punished, yet they differ as to
determining the kind of punishment to be inflicted upon them. The
majority of them, including the four main schools of jurisprudence
(Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi`i, and Hanbali) as well as the other four
schools of jurisprudence (the four Shiite schools of Az-Zaidiyyah, Al-
Ithna-`ashriyyah, Al-Ja`fariyyah, and Az-Zaheriyyah) agree that
apostates must be executed."
"Iranian Pastor Accused of 'Thought Crimes' to Die by Hanging," by
Michael Ireland for Assist News Service, November 13 (thanks to Dos):
TEHRAN, IRAN (ANS) -- An Iranian court has passed down a death
sentence on a Christian pastor, who was found guilty of so-called
"thought crimes."
According to www.presenttruthmn.com, the official verdict has now been
delivered in writing to Pastor Youcef Nadarkhani, stating that he is
to be hung for the crime of apostasy....
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2010/11/iran-christian-pastor-accused-of-apostasy-to-die-by-hanging.html
Peter B.
What blatant ignorance they show. It this revised liberal history or
something? I am surprised that even you would repeat such misinformation.
While partly true, there was more Christendom then what they would like to
admit.
> Sensi:
>
> It's a shame that people have to harm and kill each other to keep a
> religion intact. There is no telling how many people were killed during
> the Christian inquisition as well. The outcome though has taught us many
> valuable lessons. We don't kill people, we help *change* their thoughts
> and ideas. Killing off the old ideas one by one can only raise awareness
> that God doesn't need people to fight for or against life. Perhaps a 100
> years from now peace will reign on earth.But it will be hell getting
> there. One by one...
>
The RCC was as falsely led as is Islam.
The Muslim have not learned your lesson and never will.
Peter B.
> Nor does it excuse what WAS done 100 years ago - or 1000 years ago
> TO claim that christianity is the religion of peace is simply a JOKE
> based on its history
>
> And one need not go back 100 years - simply go back to Northern IRELAND
> 50 years ago - where it was christians fighting christians.
>
> Imagine killing people over a FORM of a MYTH
>
Here is an excellent example of what the perception of christianity is by
most of the world. Not Christ, Not God, Not Love, Not walking in the spirit
believers, not the teachings of the Bible. Nothing to do with salvation.
Would I feel proud to be part of that thinking? Nope.
One does not have to go far to see the current day examples of this very
same conduct. Look on the surface and look deeply too. Quote the scripture
all you want and yet still be divisive as hell itself. Even "show" your
"correct spirituality" and continue on in your lust of the flesh feeling
all sanctified because you "know" the truth. Look at these NG's. Feel all
the love. Oh, you don't? Neither do they see it, you are just like all the
other nominal christian in name only groups.
Learn the difference between personal attacks and the disagreement with
spiritual errors.
Christ died on the cross, was whipped, beaten and stabbed for you. You
can't suffer a little unpleasantness for Him? Allow their sins to be on
their heads don't partake of them and make them yours as well.
Yes this is a side note, off topic, due to Madura pointing out what people
see and chose to believe so that they are justified in dismissing God
because of "christians".
I
>> Nor does it excuse what WAS done 100 years ago - or 1000 years ago
>> TO claim that christianity is the religion of peace is simply a JOKE
>> based on its history
>>
>> And one need not go back 100 years - simply go back to Northern IRELAND
>> 50 years ago - where it was christians fighting christians.
>>
>> Imagine killing people over a FORM of a MYTH
>
> Here is an excellent example of what the perception of christianity is by
> most of the world. Not Christ, Not God, Not Love, Not walking in the
> spirit
> believers, not the teachings of the Bible. Nothing to do with salvation.
That was an excellent perception by a fundamentalist who IGNORES THE
CRUSADES, THE INQUISTION and THE WITCH HUNTS and wants to REWRITE HISTORY.
CHRISTIANITY has been as VIOLENT as FUNDAMENTALIST ISLAM in the past.
Do you not bother to read HISTORY books????????????
Fundamentalists still gleefully advertise the apocalyptic end of the world
as a good thing even when it promotes killing on a grand scale. Read "Have a
nice doomsday!" by Nicholaus Guyatt.
Fundamentalists say that the HATE TEXTS of Joshua and Revelation are "God's
Word" thus promoting hatred, violence and murder.
Fundamentalist Cheristians now have ISLAMOPHOBIA as Islam is their new found
enemy. They thus distort Islam as though all Moslems were crazy
fundamentalists like themselves.
ISLAMOPHOBIA is a form of HATRED based upon FEAR of the Other / unknown and
IGNORANCE.
There is no fear in love. But perfect love drives out fear, because fear has
to do with punishment. The one who fears is not made perfect in love. - 1
John 4:18
Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love.1 John 4:8
> Look at these NG's. Feel all the love.
Interact with ANY fundamentalist and feel the lack of love. It is
legendary!!!
--
Peter B.
> "Peter B." <p...@b.org> wrote:
>
>>> Nor does it excuse what WAS done 100 years ago - or 1000 years ago
>>> TO claim that christianity is the religion of peace is simply a JOKE
>>> based on its history
>>>
>>> And one need not go back 100 years - simply go back to Northern IRELAND
>>> 50 years ago - where it was christians fighting christians.
>>>
>>> Imagine killing people over a FORM of a MYTH
>>
>> Here is an excellent example of what the perception of christianity is by
>> most of the world. Not Christ, Not God, Not Love, Not walking in the
>> spirit
>> believers, not the teachings of the Bible. Nothing to do with salvation.
> > Here is an excellent example of what the perception of christianity is by
> > most of the world. Not Christ, Not God, Not Love, Not walking in the spirit
> > believers, not the teachings of the Bible. Nothing to do with salvation.
> >
> > Would I feel proud to be part of that thinking? Nope.
> >
> > One does not have to go far to see the current day examples of this very
> > same conduct. Look on the surface and look deeply too. Quote the scripture
> > all you want and yet still be divisive as hell itself. Even "show" your
> > "correct spirituality" and continue on in your lust of the flesh feeling
> > all sanctified because you "know" the truth. Look at these NG's. Feel all
> > the love. Oh, you don't? Neither do they see it, you are just like all the
> > other nominal christian in name only groups.
>
> That was an excellent perception by a fundamentalist who IGNORES THE
> CRUSADES, THE INQUISTION and THE WITCH HUNTS and wants to REWRITE HISTORY.
>
> CHRISTIANITY has been as VIOLENT as FUNDAMENTALIST ISLAM in the past.
>
As usual you didn't bother to read what I wrote or have extremely poor
reading comprehension. Allow me to put this in a term you might understand.
Take a bloke and have him teach idiots idioms so they can pretend to be
something they are not, like genuwine aussie's. The the bloke with 'is
chest puffed out struts around calling 'imself and English teacher or
professor. No one protests 'is claims 'cause the don't wann 'urt 'is
feewings. After a while he believes himself and takes up jobs tutoring
High School students for English. The student knows no better and after all
he properly respects his elders and figures that is the way it is.
The bloke with little education has created idiots through no fault of
their own, and thus becomes generations of dumbed down english. So now the
aussies are too ignorant to know better and they argue with the rest of the
world about the proper use of English.
So you now have aussies speaking English in name only like you had
crusadors and other violent "christians" in name only. Today they think
themselves lovers and Christian but deny the power of Christ and seek a
different path. The christians then are about as christian as the liberal
christian today. Powerless, weak, and ineffective, todays liberal versions
consider themselves educated, lovers of all and "peaceful men" yet they sow
seeds of discord wherever they go and have no real knowledge of Christ. The
warrior in his day felt superior and the "educated" in this day thinks
themselves superior over all.
> Do you not bother to read HISTORY books????????????
>
Oh I read them, and as a kid enjoyed them immensely, but that was because I
was a kid. When I grew up many years later I put away the childish things,
seeking meat, not pablum. I suppose your next statement will be somethin
like, "they were the first true fundies" or similar.
> Fundamentalists still gleefully advertise the apocalyptic end of the world
> as a good thing even when it promotes killing on a grand scale. Read "Have a
> nice doomsday!" by Nicholaus Guyatt.
>
Gleefully, I suppose some are, but since I am not a fundie it obviously
does not apply. Do you think for one moment I would be jumping for joy in
heaven if you were to have to go through that? I'm not relishing that fact
even for a moment at this time. At that time I will be gone, in heaven
enjoying the marriage feast. Do you think I would even be mindful in the
least up there regarding what's happening here? Nope. OTH I have no doubts
that their might be some baby believers that would feel like that, but you
would be hard pressed to support your position.
> Fundamentalists say that the HATE TEXTS of Joshua and Revelation are "God's
> Word" thus promoting hatred, violence and murder.
>
Since you don't reference them I am clueless about what you mean.
> Fundamentalist Cheristians now have ISLAMOPHOBIA as Islam is their new found
> enemy. They thus distort Islam as though all Moslems were crazy
> fundamentalists like themselves.
>
That statement is as ridiculous as homophobia. Each a word used by liberals
to justify their hateful and despicable actions against all else.
> ISLAMOPHOBIA is a form of HATRED based upon FEAR of the Other / unknown and
> IGNORANCE.
>
There is nothing to fear. How you come up with such things says a whole lot
more about your heart than mine. Your ignorance of their religion is
painfully obvious based on your responses to Jim, myself, and others.
> There is no fear in love. But perfect love drives out fear, because fear has
> to do with punishment. The one who fears is not made perfect in love. - 1
> John 4:18
>
Then establish a relationship with The Christ your fear will be gone.
> Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love.1 John 4:8
>
Wow, you really love to misapply as much as you can, don't you. Too bad you
cannot see the expression on my face right now. :)
>> Look at these NG's. Feel all the love.
>
> Interact with ANY fundamentalist and feel the lack of love. It is
> legendary!!!
Again you take a phrase and distort it. If anyone wants my full text look
at the presious post to see what he snipped of my words.
ThomM
> On Thu, 18 Nov 2010 03:39:27 -0500, ThomMadura wrote:
> > Nor does it excuse what WAS done 100 years ago - or 1000 years ago
> > TO claim that christianity is the religion of peace is simply a JOKE
> > based on its history
>
> > And one need not go back 100 years - simply go back to Northern IRELAND
> > 50 years ago - where it was christians fighting christians.
>
> > Imagine killing people over a FORM of a MYTH
>
> Here is an excellent example of what the perception of christianity is by
> most of the world. Not Christ, Not God, Not Love, Not walking in the spirit
> believers, not the teachings of the Bible. Nothing to do with salvation.
INDEED - christianity is NOT proven to be involved in ANY of those
things and the BIBLE is a fairy tale.
WE have NOTHING to be saved FROM =-Peter - except maybe from the
stupidity of religion
>
> Would I feel proud to be part of that thinking? Nope.
>
Accepting reality is something that all humans should aspire to
THAT you remain a deluded theist is NOTHING to be proud of
> One does not have to go far to see the current day examples of this very
> same conduct. Look on the surface and look deeply too. Quote the scripture
> all you want and yet still be divisive as hell itself. Even "show" your
> "correct spirituality" and continue on in your lust of the flesh feeling
> all sanctified because you "know" the truth. Look at these NG's. Feel all
> the love. Oh, you don't? Neither do they see it, you are just like all the
> other nominal christian in name only groups.
>
> Learn the difference between personal attacks and the disagreement with
> spiritual errors.
Learn the difference between REALITY and FAIRY TALES
The word "Spritual" has NO proven meaning
>
> Christ died on the cross, was whipped, beaten and stabbed for you. You
> can't suffer a little unpleasantness for Him? Allow their sins to be on
> their heads don't partake of them and make them yours as well.
Sorry - but that is NONSENE
IT is a made up story - by humans
THe christ is a MYTH that cannot be proven to have lived - cannot be
proven to have any supernatural existence as well.
And sin is a creation of humans trying to CONTROL other humans -
nothing MORE
"How well we know ,
what profitable superstition this Fable of christ
has been for us."
Pope Leo X (1513-1521)
>
> Yes this is a side note, off topic, due to Madura pointing out what people
> see and chose to believe so that they are justified in dismissing God
> because of "christians".
Sorry - again you miss the mark
No god is proven to exist to dismiss
WE simply dismiss the incoherent impossible claims that humans who
made up religions have made over the centuries
As we have already noted - the god of christianity CANNOT exist as
defined by christianity. THey define their god (as does Islam and
Judaism) as ALmighty - without limits - which CANNOT be true. THey
define their god as all knowing - past,present and future - which is a
limit on Almighty as well. THey define their god as all just - all
fair - all good - etc - all of those things are ALSO a limit on
almighty.
The big problem for the two monotheism in the group - Islam and
Judaism is obvious - if there is ONLY one creator - IT must be the
source of everything - including all evil - since there is NO other
option.
However - christianity is even worse. NOT only can its god not exist
as defined - it even establishes itslelf to be false.
In the BIBLE - it says
ANd the word was GOD - and the WORD was made FLESH. NOTE - they do NOT
use the word "christ" - they use the word "god:" of which chirstianity
claims there is ONLY one. However - once the ONE GOD became Human - it
no longer had the power to go back to being a god - no humans have
that power. NOR do humans have the power to raise themselves from the
dead either. So - the incarnation ended the gods - if they ever
existed.
THe ancient people who made up these religions NEVER thought that
there would be a day when MOST people on earth would be educated - and
taught to question things - and ask for PROOF. ANd no proof exists
because it CANNOT exist.
jwshe...@satx.rr.com
In a story about the Asia Bibi blasphemy case in Pakistan, CNN goes
out of its way to say that the Qur'an and Hadith do not contain a
death penalty for blasphemy, thereby implying that Asia Bibi is in
danger of death because of cultural or political factors, not because
of anything that needs to be addressed within Islam. This is a
familiar mainstream media practice when it comes to stories about
honor killing or genital mutilation: the story will inevitably assure
the reader that the practice in question has nothing to do with Islam,
and give no hint of why it is so widely tolerated and practiced in
Islamic countries. This only assures that the human rights
establishment will never address these issues properly, and thus these
practices will continue.
"Family waits to see if mother, accused of blasphemy, will be hanged"
by Reza Sayah for CNN, November 18 (thanks to Slothy):
Neither the Koran nor the prophet Muhammad's teachings in the Hadith
call for the execution of blasphemers, but Islamic scholars and
jurists from generations past included the death sentence when
drafting Islamic law.
Islam QA disagrees, and uses both Qur'an and Hadith to make its
argument:
I heard on a tape that whoever insults the Prophet (peace and
blessings of Allaah be upon him) should be executed even if he shows
that he has repented. Should he be killed as a hadd punishment or
because of kufr? If his repentance is sincere, will Allaah forgive him
or will he go to Hell and his repentance will be of no avail?
Praise be to Allaah.
The answer to this question may be given by addressing the two
following issues:
1 - The ruling on one who insults the Prophet (peace and blessings of
Allaah be upon him)
The scholars are unanimously agreed that a Muslim who insults the
Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) becomes a kaafir
and an apostate who is to be executed. This consensus was narrated by
more than one of the scholars, such as Imaam Ishaaq ibn Raahawayh, Ibn
al-Mundhir, al-Qaadi 'Iyaad, al-Khattaabi and others. Al-Saarim al-
Maslool, 2/13-16
This ruling is indicated by the Qur'aan and Sunnah.
In the Qur'aan it says (interpretation of the meaning):
"The hypocrites fear lest a Soorah (chapter of the Qur'aan) should be
revealed about them, showing them what is in their hearts. Say: '(Go
ahead and) mock! But certainly Allaah will bring to light all that you
fear.'
If you ask them (about this), they declare: 'We were only talking idly
and joking.' Say: 'Was it at Allaah, and His Ayaat (proofs, evidences,
verses, lessons, signs, revelations, etc.) and His Messenger that you
were mocking?'
Make no excuse; you disbelieved after you had believed"
[al-Tawbah 9:64-66]
This verse clearly states that mocking Allaah, His verses and His
Messenger constitutes kufr, so that applies even more so to insulting.
The verse also indicates that whoever belittles the Messenger of
Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) is also a kaafir
[unbeliever], whether he was serious or joking.
With regard to the Sunnah, Abu Dawood (4362) narrated from 'Ali that a
Jewish woman used to insult the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah
be upon him) and say bad things about him, so a man strangled her
until she died, and the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon
him) ruled that no blood money was due in this case.
Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah said in al-Saarim al-Maslool (1/162):
This hadeeth is jayyid, and there is a corroborating report in the
hadeeth of Ibn 'Abbaas which we will quote below.
This hadeeth clearly indicates that it was permissible to kill that
woman because she used to insult the Prophet (peace and blessings of
Allaah be upon him).
Abu Dawood (4361) narrated from Ibn 'Abbaas that a blind man had a
freed concubine (umm walad) who used to insult the Prophet (peace and
blessings of Allaah be upon him) and say bad things about him. He told
her not to do that but she did not stop, and he rebuked her but she
did not heed him. One night, when she started to say bad things about
the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) and insult
him, he took a short sword or dagger, put it on her belly and pressed
it and killed her. The following morning that was mentioned to the
Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him). He
called the people together and said, "I adjure by Allah the man who
has done this action and I adjure him by my right over him that he
should stand up." The blind man stood up and said, "O Messenger of
Allaah, I am the one who did it; she used to insult you and say bad
things about you. I forbade her, but she did not stop, and I rebuked
her, but she did not give up her habit. I have two sons like pearls
from her, and she was kind to me. Last night she began to insult you
and say bad things about you. So I took a dagger, put it on her belly
and pressed it till I killed her." Thereupon the Prophet (peace and
blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: "Bear witness, there is no
blood money due for her."
(Classed as saheeh by al-Albaani in Saheeh Abi Dawood, 3655)
It seems that this woman was a kaafir, not a Muslim, for a Muslim
could never do such an evil action. If she was a Muslim she would have
become an apostate by this action, in which case it would not have
been permissible for her master to keep her; in that case it would not
have been good enough if he were to keep her and simply rebuke her.
Al-Nasaa'i narrated (4071) that Abu Barzah al-Aslami said: A man spoke
harshly to Abu Bakr al-Siddeeq and I said, 'Shall I kill him?' He
rebuked me and said, 'That is not for anyone after the Messenger of
Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) .'" (Saheeh al-
Nasaa'i, 3795)
It may be noted from this that the Prophet (peace and blessings of
Allaah be upon him) had the right to kill whoever insulted him and
spoke harshly to him, and that included both Muslims and kaafirs.
The second issue is: if a person who insulted the Prophet (peace and
blessings of Allaah be upon him) repents, should his repentance be
accepted or not?
The scholars are agreed that if such a person repents sincerely and
regrets what he has done, this repentance will benefit him on the Day
of Resurrection and Allaah will forgive him.
But they differed as to whether his repentance should be accepted in
this world and whether that means he is no longer subject to the
sentence of execution.
Maalik and Ahmad were of the view that it should not be accepted, and
that he should be killed even if he has repented.
They quoted as evidence the Sunnah and proper understanding of the
ahaadeeth:
In the Sunnah, Abu Dawood (2683) narrated that Sa'd ibn Abi Waqqaas
said: "On the Day of the Conquest of Makkah, the Messenger of Allaah
(peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) granted safety to the
people except for four men and two women, and he named them, and Ibn
Abi Sarh... As for Ibn Abi Sarh, he hid with 'Uthmaan ibn 'Affaan, and
when the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon
him) called the people to give their allegiance to him, he brought him
to stand before the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah
be upon him). He said, "O Prophet of Allaah, accept the allegiance of
'Abd-Allaah." He raised his head and looked at him three times,
refusing him, then he accepted his allegiance after the third time.
Then he turned to his companions and said: "Was there not among you
any smart man who could have got up and killed this person when he saw
me refusing to give him my hand and accept his allegiance?" They said,
"We do not know what is in your heart, O Messenger of Allaah. Why did
you not gesture to us with your eyes?" He said, "It is not befitting
for a Prophet to betray a person with a gesture of his eyes."
(Classed as saheeh by al-Albaani in Saheeh Abi Dawood, 2334)
This clearly indicates that in a case such as this apostate who had
insulted the Prophet (S), it is not obligatory to accept his
repentance, rather it is permissible to kill him even if he comes
repentant.
'Abd-Allaah ibn Sa'd was one of those who used to write down the
Revelation, then he apostatized and claimed that he used to add
whatever he wanted to the Revelation. This was a lie and a fabrication
against the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), and
it was a kind of insult. Then he became Muslim again and was a good
Muslim, may Allaah be pleased with him. Al-Saarim 115.
With regard to proper understanding of the ahaadeeth:
They said that insulting the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be
upon him) has to do with two rights, the right of Allaah and the right
of a human being. With regard to the right of Allaah, this is obvious,
because it is casting aspersions upon His Message, His Book and His
Religion. As for the right of a human being, this is also obvious,
because it is like trying to slander the Prophet (peace and blessings
of Allaah be upon him) by this insult. In a case which involves both
the rights of Allaah and the rights of a human being, the rights of
the human beings are not dropped when the person repents, as in the
case of the punishment for banditry, because if the bandit has killed
someone, that means that he must be executed and crucified. But if he
repents before he is caught, then the right of Allaah over him, that
he should be executed and crucified, no longer applies, but the rights
of other humans with regard to qisaas (retaliatory punishment) still
stand. The same applies in this case. If the one who insulted the
Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) repents, then the
rights of Allaah no longer apply, but there remains the right of the
Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), which
still stand despite his repentance.
If it is said, "Can we not forgive him, because during his lifetime
the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) forgave many
of those who had insulted him and he did not execute them?" The answer
is:
The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) sometimes
chose to forgive those who had insulted him, and sometimes he ordered
that they should be executed, if that served a greater purpose. But
now his forgiveness is impossible because he is dead, so the execution
of the one who insults him remains the right of Allaah, His Messenger
and the believers, and the one who deserves to be executed cannot be
let off, so the punishment must be carried out.
Al-Saarim al-Maslool, 2/438
Insulting the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) is
one of the worst of forbidden actions, and it constitutes kufr and
apostasy from Islam, according to scholarly consensus, whether done
seriously or in jest. The one who does that is to be executed even if
he repents and whether he is a Muslim or a kaafir. If he repents
sincerely and regrets what he has done, this repentance will benefit
him on the Day of Resurrection and Allaah will forgive him.
Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah (may Allaah have mercy on him) wrote a
valuable book on this matter, entitled al-Saarim al-Maslool 'ala
Shaatim al-Rasool which every believer should read, especially in
these times when a lot of hypocrites and heretics dare to insult the
Messenger (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) because they see
that the Muslims are careless and feel little protective jealousy
towards their religion and their Prophet, and they do not implement
the shar'i punishment which would deter these people and their ilk
from committing this act of blatant kufr [unbelief].
And Allaah knows best. May Allaah send blessings and peace upon our
Prophet Muhammad and all his family and companions.
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2010/11/cnn-whitewashes-islams-death-penalty-for-blasphemy.html
I
>>> http://www.pbs.org/inquisition/
>
> What blatant ignorance they show.
What blatant ignorance of history YOU show!
> It this revised liberal history or something?
It is verifiable history of people LIKE you who thought the bible was 100%
true and then TORTURED AND MURDERED others who did not believe the same way.
The most pronounced characteristics [of fundamentalists] are the following:
...
(b) a strong hostility to modern theology and to the methods, results and
implications of modern critical study of the Bible;
....
- James Barr "Fundamentalism" (SCM Press:1977) p.1
I
>> That was an excellent perception by a fundamentalist who IGNORES THE
>> CRUSADES, THE INQUISTION and THE WITCH HUNTS and wants to
>> REWRITE HISTORY.
>> CHRISTIANITY has been as VIOLENT as FUNDAMENTALIST ISLAM in the >> past.
>
> As usual you didn't bother to read what I wrote
I quote from your previous post:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
">> http://www.pbs.org/inquisition/
> What blatant ignorance they show. It this revised liberal history or
> something? I am surprised that even you would repeat such misinformation.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
It is YOU who are IGNORANT about history.
> The christians then are about as christian as the liberal
> christian today.
1. Displays ignorance of history.
2. Spoken like a true fundamentalist.
The most pronounced characteristics [of fundamentalists] are the following:
....
(c) an assurance that those who do not share their religious viewpoint are
not really 'true Christians' at all.
- James Barr "Fundamentalism" (SCM Press:1977) p.1
> Powerless, weak, and ineffective, todays liberal versions
... like the LIBERAL Christian Martin Luther King Jr who YOU say was "NOT A
TRUE CHRISTIAN" yet did more to help anyone than any of your fundamentalist
heroes in the 20th century.
>> Fundamentalists say that the HATE TEXTS of Joshua and Revelation are
>> "God's
>> Word" thus promoting hatred, violence and murder.
>
> Since you don't reference them I am clueless about what you mean.
Obviously you have not read the HATE TEXTS within Joshau and Revelation in
the bible.
>> Fundamentalist Cheristians now have ISLAMOPHOBIA as Islam is their new
>> found
>> enemy. They thus distort Islam as though all Moslems were crazy
>> fundamentalists like themselves.
>
> That statement is as ridiculous as homophobia.
Islamophobia and Homophobia are both found in your fundamentalism.
>> ISLAMOPHOBIA is a form of HATRED based upon FEAR of the Other / unknown
>> >> and IGNORANCE.
>
> There is nothing to fear.
Of course not! But every one of your posts relating to Islam demonstrates
Islamophobia and every one of your posts regarding homosexuality displays
homophobia. These are traits of fundamentaluist Christians.
Your ignorance of Islam is painfully obvious based on your LACK of ever
reading the Koran. Your Islamophobia is showing.
jwshe...@satx.rr.com
jail
"No Muslim tolerates a man who commits blasphemous acts."
"Man accused of blasphemy killed in Pakistan," from Indian Express,
November 18 (thanks to Weasel Zippers):
A man accused of blasphemy was shot and killed near his home in the
eastern Pakistani city of Lahore shortly after being granted bail by a
court, according to a media report.
Imran Latif, 22, was accused of burning pages of the Quran in a case
registered at Sherakot police station in Lahore and spent five months
in jail.
He was released on bail on November 3 after the man who filed the
complaint of blasphemy told the court he was not sure that Latif was
guilty.
Latif was shot by armed men near his home on November 11 but police
learnt only later that he had been accused of blasphemy, the Express
Tribune newspaper reported.
Inspector Rafique Ahmed, who is investigating the murder, said Latif's
killing was likely linked to the blasphemy case. "No Muslim tolerates
a man who commits blasphemous acts," he said.
Latif's family had not mentioned the blasphemy case when they reported
the murder, he said.
Latif's 60-year-old mother Sharifan said two men armed with pistols
had knocked at the door of their house near Pir Makki shrine on
November 11 and asked Latif to accompany them. Jihadwatch
"A few yards from the house, they suddenly opened fire," she said. She
said her son was shot five times and the attackers fled on a
motorcycle.
"There were policemen present in the street but no one tried to stop
them," she said....
"The blasphemy laws are being so widely exploited here. It seems that
the life of a person ends when (he is) accused of committing
blasphemy," said Mehdi Hasan, chairman of the Human Rights Commission
of Pakistan....
Yes.
jwshe...@satx.rr.com
official" defends stoning
Jihadwatch
Being "Iran's top human rights official" is like being Nazi Germany's
foremost Jewish rights advocate. "UN Moves to Censure Iran for Human
Rights," by Amy Kellogg for FoxNews.com, November 19 (thanks to all
who sent this in):
On Thursday a U.N. committee voted to censure Iran for its human
rights abuses, including its crackdown on regime opponents.
Despite Iran's efforts to block the move, the General Assembly's
committee responsible for social, humanitarian and human rights
adopted the resolution with a vote of 80 to 44, with 57 abstentions.
And just coincidentally, there are 57 members (56 nations plus the
Palestinians) of the Organization of the Islamic Conference. (I
haven't yet seen the list of the countries that abstained, but I do
suspect that there is considerable overlap between that list and the
OIC's member list.)
Iran's top human rights official Mohammad-Javad Larijani told the Wall
Street Journal the vote was part of a wider campaign of the U.S. and
its allies to get at Iran's nuclear program in any way....
The arrests of lawyers, student demonstrators and the stoning sentence
meted out to Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani are issues that have most
concerned many in the international community.
Larijani told the Wall Street Journal that there has been a moratorium
on stoning in Iran for some years now. But he defended the practice
saying: "Stoning means you should do a number of acts, by throwing the
stones in a limited number, in a special way, in the eyes of some
people, stoning is a lesser punishment than execution because there is
a chance you should survive."...
Oh, well, then! Stone away, Larijani!
jwshe...@satx.rr.com
far less than those against Jews Jihadwatch
The Hamas-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) has
claimed that "anti-Muslim hate crimes" have risen sharply in the U.S.
since 9/11. In fact, the rate of such crimes has actually dropped, and
as this new study shows, it is quite low compared to hate crimes
against other groups. CAIR exaggerates the number and seriousness of
hate crimes against Muslims because it knows that victimhood is big
business: insofar as it can claim protected victim status for Muslims
in the U.S., it can deflect unwanted scrutiny and any critical
examination of how jihadists use Islamic texts and teachings to
justify violence and supremacism.
That's most likely why CAIR and others have not hesitated to stoop
even to fabricating "hate crimes." They want and need hate crimes
against Muslims, because they can use them for political points and as
weapons to intimidate people into remaining silent about the jihad
threat.
Reality, however, is a consistent witness against CAIR.
"Blacks, Jews most likely victim of US hate crimes: FBI," from AFP,
November 22 (thanks to JCB):
WASHINGTON (AFP) - Blacks and Jews were the most likely victims of
hate crimes driven by racial or religious intolerance in the United
States last year, the FBI said Monday in an annual report.
Out of 6,604 hate crimes committed in the United States in 2009, some
4,000 were racially motivated and nearly 1,600 were driven by hatred
for a particular religion, the FBI said.
Blacks made up around three-quarters of victims of the racially
motivated hate crimes and Jews made up the same percentage of victims
of anti-religious hate crimes, the report said.
Anti-Muslim crimes were a distant second to crimes against Jews,
making up just eight percent of the hate crimes driven by religious
intolerance....