Idiot Terrorist Strike in NY

Myths of ISLAM.

1. Islam is
Opposed to Slavery

The Myth:
Islam is intolerant of enslaving human beings. The religion eradicated the institution of slavery thanks to the principles set in motion by Muhammad, who was an abolitionist.

The Truth:
Muhammad captured, owned and sold slaves. The Quran explicitly gives slave-owners the freedom to sexually exploit their slaves – not just in one place, but in at least four separate Suras. Islamic law is littered with rules concerning the treatment of slaves, some of which are relatively humane, but none that prohibit the actual practice by any stretch.

The very presence of these rules condones and legitimizes the institution of slavery. Adding to this is the fact that Muhammad was an avid slave trader. After providing ample evidence of his activities according to the most reliable Muslim biographers, the Center of the Study of Political Islam summarizes its findings as such:

Muhammad captured slaves, sold slaves, bought slaves as gifts of pleasure, received slaves as gifts, and used slaves for work. The Sira is exquisitely clear on the issue of slavery. (Muhammad and the Unbelievers: a Political Life)

Even the very pulpit from which Muhammad preached Islam was built by slave labor at his directive!

The Quran tells Muslims to emulate the example of Muhammad, who has the most "exalted character". As such, the deeply dehumanizing horror of slavery has been a ubiquitous tradition of Islam for 14 centuries, including the modern plight of non-Muslim slaves in the Sudan, Mali, Niger, Mauritania, and other parts of the Muslim world.

There has never been an abolitionary movement within Islam (just as the religion produces no organized resistance to present-day enslavement). The abolition of slavery was imposed on the Islamic world by European countries, along with other political pressures that were entirely unrelated to Islamic law.

Although horrible abuses of slaves in the Muslim world were recorded, there has been little inclination toward the documentation and earnest contrition that one finds in the West. The absence of a guilty Muslim conscience often leads to the mistaken impression that slavery was not as bad under Islam - when it is actually indicative of the explicit tolerance the religion has for the practice

So narcissistic is the effect of Islam on the devoted, that to this day many Muslims believe in their hearts that the women and children carried off in battle, along with their surviving men folk, were actually done a favor by the Muslim warriors who, in fact, plucked them from their fields and homes and relegated them to lives of demeaning servitude.

Shame and apology, no matter how appropriate, are almost never to be found in Dar al-Islam. Caliphs, the religious equivalent of popes, maintained harems of hundreds, sometimes thousands of young girls and women captured from lands as far away as Europe and consigned to sexual slavery. Hungarians were hunted like animals by the Turks, who carried 3 million into slavery over a 150 year period in the 1500-1600's. In India, 200,000 Hindus were captured and transported to Iranian slave markets in just a two year span (1619-1620) by one of the kinder Muslim rulers.

African slaves were often castrated by their Muslim masters. Few survived to reproduce, which is why there are not many people of African descent living in the Middle East, even though more slaves were taken out of Africa in the 1300 years of Arab slave trading than in the 300 years of European slavery. The 400,000 slaves brought to America, for example, have now become a community of 30 million, with a much higher standard of living than their African peers.

There is no William Wilberforce or Bartoleme de las Casas in Islamic history as there is in Christianity. When asked to produce the name of a Muslim abolitionist, apologists sometimes meekly suggest Muhammad himself. But, if a slave owner and trader, who commanded the capture and sexual exploitation of slaves, and left a 13-century legacy of divinely-sanctioned slavery, is the best that Islam can offer in the way of an abolitionist, then no amount of sophistry will be enough to convince any but the most ignorant.

2. Islam Means 'Peace'

The Myth:
Muslim apologists sometimes claim that the root word of Islam is “al-Salaam,” which is "peace" in Arabic.


The Truth:
An Arabic word has only one root. The root word for Islam is “al-Silm,” which means “submission” or “surrender.” There is no disagreement about this among Arabic or Islamic scholars. al-Silm (submission) does not mean the same thing as al-Salaam (peace), otherwise they would be the same word.

Submission and peace can be very different concepts, even if a form of peace can be brought about by forcing others into submission. As the modern-day Islamic scholar, Ibrahim Sulaiman, puts it, "Jihad is not inhumane, despite its necessary violence and bloodshed, its ultimate desire is peace which is protected and enhanced by the rule of law."

In truth, the Quran not only calls Muslims to submit to Allah, it also orders them to subdue people of other religions until they are in a full state of submission to Islamic rule. This has inspired the aggressive history of Islam and its military and demographic success in conquering other cultures.

3. Islam Respects Women as Equals

The Myth:
The Quran places men and women on equal foundation before Allah and each other. Women have equal rights under Islamic law.

The Truth:
The Quran says that men and women will be judged by Allah. This does not mean that they have equal rights and roles, or that they are judged by the same standards.

There is no ambiguity in the Quran, the life of Muhammad, or Islamic law as to the inferiority of women to men despite the effort of modern-day apologists to salvage Western-style feminism from scraps and fragments of verses that have historically yielded no such progressive interpretation.

After military conquests, Muhammad would dole out captured women as war prizes to his men. In at least one case, he advocated that they be raped in front of their husbands. Captured women were made into sex slaves by the very men who killed their husbands and brothers. There are four Quranic verses in which "Allah" makes clear that a Muslim master has full sexual access to his female slaves, yet there is not one that prohibits rape.

The Quran gives Muslim men permission to beat their wives for disobedience, but nowhere does it order love in marriage (although it does say that "love" exists). The verses plainly say that husbands are “a degree above” their wives. The Hadith says that women are intellectually inferior, and that they comprise the majority of Hell’s occupants.

Under Islamic law, a man may divorce his wife at his choosing. If he does this twice, then wishes to remarry her, she must first have sex with another man. Men are exempt from such degradation.

Muslim women are not free to marry whom they please as Muslim men are. Their husband may also bring other wives (and slaves) into the marriage bed. And she must be sexually available to him at any time (as a field ready to be “tilled,” according to the holy book of Islam).

Neither do Muslim women inherit property in equal portion to males. (This is somewhat ironic given that Islam owes its existence to the wealth of Muhammad's first wife, which would not otherwise have been inherited by her given that she had two brothers and her first husband had three sons).

A woman's testimony in court is considered to be worth only half that of a man’s, according to the Quran. Unlike a man, she must also cover her head - and often her face.

If a woman wants to prove that she was raped, then she must have four male witnesses corroborate her account (according to strict Sharia). Otherwise she can be jailed or stoned to death for confessing to “adultery.”

Given all of this, it is quite a stretch to say that men and women have “equality under Islam” based on obscure theological analogies or comparisons. This is an entirely new ploy designed for modern tastes, and it disagrees sharply with the reality of Islamic law and history.

4. Jihad Means
'Inner Struggle'

The Myth:
Jihad simply means 'struggle' and really just refers to a peaceful striving against sin rather than a holy war to spread Islam.

The Truth:
In Arabic "jihad" means struggle. In Islam it means holy war.

The Quran specifically exempts the disabled and elderly from Jihad (4:95), which would make no sense if the word is being used within the context of spiritual struggle. It is also unclear why Muhammad and his Quran would use graphic language, such as smiting fingers and heads from the hands and necks of unbelievers if he were speaking of character development.

With this in mind, Muslim apologists generally admit that there are two meanings to the word, but sometimes claim that “inner struggle” is the “greater Jihad,” whereas “holy war” is the “lesser.” In fact, this misconception is based on a weak single hadith that Islamic scholars generally agree was fabricated.

By contrast, the most reliable of all Hadith collections is that of Bukhari. Jihad is mentioned over 50 times in reference to the words of Muhammad (in sahih verses). Each carries a clear connotation to holy war, with only a handful of possible exceptions (dealing with a woman's supporting role during a time of holy war, and a non-combatant's obligation to supply funding).

Neither the Shiite tradition nor any of the four schools of Sunni jurisprudence have much to say about Jihad in a context other than physical warfare against unbelievers and its funding. According to Reliance of the Traveler, "Jihad means to war against non-Muslims, and is etymologically derived from the word mujahada signifying warfare to establish the religion" (o9.0).

The association of 'Jihad' with spiritual struggle in the modern discourse is a rhetorical strategy to downplay the association of Islam with violence.


[Additional Note: Apologists try to minimize fear of Jihad and devalue its association with terrorism by claiming that Jihad can only be declared by a caliphate. There are two problems with this. The first is that a caliphate isn't mythical, but can be self-proclaimed at any time (as all caliphates are). This is the case with ISIS. The second problem is that this rule of declaring Jihad is found in the Sharia, and is thus as legitimate as anything else found there - including the execution of apostates, gays and adulterers. ]

5. Islam is a
Religion of Peace

The Myth:
Muhammad was a peaceful man who taught his followers to be the same. Muslims lived peacefully for centuries, fighting only in self-defense, and only when it was necessary. True Muslims would never act aggressively.

The Truth:
There shouldn't be any argument over who the "true Muslim" is because the Quran clearly distinguishes the true Muslim from the pretender in Sura 9 and elsewhere. This is one of the Quran's final chapters and it defines the true believer as one who "strives and fights with their wealth and person" while the hypocrites are those who "sit at home," refusing to join the jihad against unbelievers in foreign lands.

The reality is that Muhammad organized 65 military campaigns in the last ten years of his life and personally led 27 of them. The more power he attained the smaller the excuse needed to go to battle - until finally he was attacking tribes merely because they were not yet part of his growing empire.

Aside from the campaigns, Muhammad ordered the murder or execution of over 50 individuals during a ten-year span, and even the slaughter of several hundred tribesmen in one day. Some of these were elderly people, women and poets slain in their own homes. Apologists bend over backwards to try and dismiss most of the killing as cases of self-defense. In the real world, that defense falls apart after the second or third serial murder, not to mention the 50th.

After Muhammad’s death, his successor immediately went to war with former allied tribes which wanted to go their own way. Abu Bakr called them 'apostates' and slaughtered anyone who did not want to remain Muslim. Eventually, he was successful in holding the empire together through blood and violence.

The prophet of Islam's most faithful followers and even his own family quickly turned on each other as well. There were four caliphs (leaders) in the first twenty-five years, each of which was a trusted companion of his. Three of these four were murdered. The third caliph was murdered by those allied with the son of the first caliph. The fourth caliph was murdered in the midst of a conflict with the fifth caliph, who began a 100-year dynasty of excess and debauchery that was truncated in a gruesome, widespread bloodbath by descendants of Muhammad’s uncle.

Muhammad’s own daughter, Fatima, and his son-in-law, Ali, who both survived the pagan hardship during the Meccan years safe and sound, did not survive Islam after the death of Muhammad. Fatima died of stress from persecution within six months, and Ali was later assassinated by Muslim rivals. Their son (Muhammad’s grandson) was killed in battle with the faction that became today’s Sunnis. His people became Shias. The relatives and personal friends of Muhammad were mixed into both warring groups, which then fractured further into hostile sub-divisions as Islam expanded.

Muslim apologists, who like to say that is impossible for today's terrorists to be Muslim when they kill fellow Muslims, would have a very tough time explaining the war between Fatima's followers and Aisha to a knowledgeable audience. Muhammad explicitly held both his favorite daughter and his favorite wife as model Muslim women, yet they were invoked respectively by each side in the violent civil war that followed his death. Which one was the "prophet of God" so horribly wrong about?

Muhammad left his men with instructions to take the battle against Christians, Persians, Jews and polytheists (which came to include millions of unfortunate Hindus). For the next four centuries, Muslim armies steamrolled unsuspecting neighbors, plundering them of loot and slaves, and forcing the survivors to either convert or pay tribute at the point of a sword.

Some companions of Muhammad lived to see Islam declare war on every major religion in the world in just the first few decades following his death - pressing the Jihad against Hindus, Christians, Jews, Zoroastrians, and Buddhists. There is no record of their objection.

By the time of the Crusades (when the Europeans began fighting back), the "Religion of Peace" had conquered two-thirds of the Christian world by sword, from Syria to Spain, and across North Africa. Millions of Christians were enslaved by Muslims, and tens of millions of Africans. The Arab slave-trading routes would stay open for 1300 years until pressure from Christian-based countries forced Islamic nations to declare the practice illegal (in theory). To this day, the Muslim world has never apologized for the victims of Jihad and slavery.

There is not another religion in the world that consistently produces terrorism in the name of God as does Islam. The most dangerous Muslims are nearly always those who interpret the Quran most transparently. They are the fundamentalists or purists of the faith, and believe in Muhammad’s mandate to spread Islamic rule by the sword, putting to death those who will not submit. In the absence of true infidels, they will even turn on each other.

The holy texts of Islam are saturated with verses of violence and hatred toward those outside the faith, as well as the aforementioned "hypocrites" (Muslims who don't act like religious Muslims should). In sharp contrast to the Bible, which generally moves from relatively violent episodes to far more peaceful mandates, the Quran travels the exact opposite path (violence is first forbidden, then permitted, then mandatory). The handful of earlier verses that speak of tolerance are overwhelmed by an avalanche of later ones that carry a much different message. While Old Testament verses of blood and guts are generally bound by historical context within the text itself, Quranic imperatives to violence usually appear open-ended and subject to personal interpretation.

From the history of the faith to its most sacred writings, those who want to believe in "peaceful Islam" have a lot more to ignore than do the terrorists. By any objective measure, the "Religion of Peace" has been the harshest, bloodiest religion the world has ever known. In Islam there is no peace unless Muslims have power - and even then...

6. Muslims Believe in Jesus

The Myth:
In keeping with the tolerant religion of Islam, Muslims have great respect for the Jesus found in the Bible.

The Truth:
The Jesus of the Quran is the same character, but not the same person. He doesn't say the same things, nor does he do much except refute Christian beliefs and affirm Muhammad's claims about himself. He is a character of convenience.

The Quran agrees with the Bible about the virgin birth of Jesus (and his return), but not his resurrection. In fact, it even denies that he was crucified, which runs counter to all historical evidence. In the Islamic version, Jesus was taken to heaven and will return to "destroy the cross" (according to the Hadith) and all religions other than Islam.

While Jesus of the New Testament says things like "Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you" the Quran's Jesus says "blessed was I on the day I was born" (supposedly saying this from the crib as an infant). It is an unrealistic portrait devoid of human depth.

The Quran was narrated by Muhammad and conveniently asserts his role as a prophet of Allah with mind-numbing redundancy. Any mention of previous Biblical figures, such as Moses and Jesus, is almost always within the context of association with Muhammad. These 'fellow prophets' speak superficially, making the same claim that Muhammad makes about himself and castigating anyone who doesn't believe.

The New Testament provides rich historical and biographical detail about Jesus, detailing episodes that relate kindness, compassion and profound moral character. The Quran's version of Jesus says little more than that he was Muhammad's predecessor. He offers no great life lessons and speaks in only about six places:

Quran 61:6 - Jesus said, "O Children of Israel! I am the messenger of Allah (sent) to you, confirming the Law (which came) before me, and giving Glad Tidings of a Messenger to come after me, whose name shall be Ahmad."

Quran 5:116 - Allah will say: "O Jesus the son of Mary! Didst thou say unto men, worship me and my mother as gods in derogation of Allah'?" He will say: "Glory to Thee! never could I say what I had no right (to say). Had I said such a thing, thou wouldst indeed have known it. Thou knowest what is in my heart."

See (3:49-50, 5:112, 5:114, 19:30-33, 43:63) for others.

Notice that in 5:116, Muhammad conjures up a future conversation in which Allah will ask Jesus if he told people to worship him (and his mother, Mary) as gods, and Jesus denies that he could ever say such a thing. This is sophomoric - almost like playing with sock-puppets. It is also significant that Muhammad confuses Mary as a member of the Trinity (he also mistakenly thought she was the sister of Aaron).

Muslims who say that Islam is respectful of Jesus and Christianity are taking the 40,000 foot view. What they really mean is that the character of Jesus is mentioned in the Quran as a prophet... which isn't too meaningful. In truth, Islam does not respect the Jesus of the Bible, the Christian faith or even Christians. It is hostile to all three.

What Muslim apologists won't tell you is that the Quran specifically labels Christians as blasphemers (5:17 , 5:72) who invent a lie about Allah (10:68-69) - the worst of crimes - and will thus suffer in Hell. While they are in Hell, good Muslims, presumably including Jesus, will mock them while they are being tortured and ask where "their Lord" is (22:19-22).

Imagine how "respected" Muslims would feel by the portrayal of Muhammad as a simple character who denies the central claim of Islam (his status as a prophet) and instead says, "Lo, I am not a messenger, but just one who worships Jesus" Say the account goes on to teach that Muslims are horrible people who are going to Hell where they will be mocked by Christians and Muhammad himself...

Would Muslims feel respected by this? Neither would they claim that anyone propagating the story "believes" in Muhammad. Neither do they believe in the real Jesus.

Holding on to anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha

Damn Gypsy bringing the truth to light, is dangerous. Many countries will put you in prison for criticism of Islam. You are a brave soul.I am glad someone around here will speak the truth.

8. Islam Facilitated
the Golden Age of
Scientific Discovery

The Myth:
Muslims often claim that Islam fostered a rich heritage of scientific discovery, “paving the way” for modern advances in technology and medicine.

On this subject, they usually cite the period between the 7th and 13th centuries, when Europe was experiencing its “Dark Ages” and the Muslim world was acquiring new populations and culture through violent conquest.

The Truth:
Although there is no arguing that the Muslim world was relatively more advanced during this Middle Age period than the Christian world, the reasons for this have absolutely nothing to do with the Islamic religion (other than its mandate for military expansion). In fact, the religion tends to discourage knowledge outside of itself (Quran 5:101-102), which is why the most prolific Muslim scholars are mostly students of religion rather than science.

[Note that the country of Spain alone translates more learning material and literature into Spanish each year than the entire Arab world has translated into Arabic since the 9th century. As the Saudi Grand Mufti bluntly put it in 2010, "The Quran with its stories and knowledge are sufficient for us... we don't need the Torah, or Gospels, or any other book"].

The many fundamentalists and other devotees who dress as Muhammad did and adopt 7th century lifestyles to some degree underscore the importance of tradition in Islam. The religion is highly conservative and resistant to change, which is viewed with suspicion. As scholar Bernard Lewis points out: in Islam, an innovation is presumed to be bad unless it can be proven to be good.

Beyond this, there are four basic reasons why Islam has little true claim to scientific achievement:

First, the Muslim world benefited greatly from the Greek sciences, which were translated for them by dhimmi Christians and Jews. To their credit, Muslims did a better job of preserving Greek text than did the Europeans of the time, and this became the foundation for their own knowledge. (Although one large reason is that access by Christians to this part of their world was cut off by Muslim slave ships and coastal raids that dominated the Mediterranean during this period).

Secondly, many of the scientific advances credited to Islam were actually “borrowed” from other cultures conquered by the Muslims. The algebraic concept of “zero”, for example, is erroneously attributed to Islam when it was, in fact, a Hindu discovery that was merely introduced to the West by Muslims.

In truth, conquered populations contributed greatly to the history of “Muslim" science until gradually being decimated by conversion to Islam (under the pressures of dhimmitude). As Mark Steyn puts it, "When admirers talk up Islam and the great innovations and rich culture of its heyday, they forget that even at its height Muslims were never more than a minority in the Muslim world, and they were in large part living off the energy of others."

The Muslim concentration within a population is proportional to the decline of scientific achievement. It is no accident that the Muslim world has had little to show for itself in the last 800 years or so, since running out of new civilizations to cannibalize.

Third, the accomplished scientists and cultural icons who were Muslim were often considered heretics in their day, sometimes with good reason. One of the greatest achievers to come out of the Muslim world was the Persian scientist and philosopher, al-Razi. His impressive works are often held up as 'proof' of Muslim accomplishment. But what apologists often leave out is that al-Razi was denounced as a blasphemer, since he followed his own religious beliefs – which were in obvious contradiction to traditional Islam.

Fourth, even the contributions that are attributed to Islam (often inaccurately) are not terribly dramatic. There is the 'invention' of certain words, such as alchemy and elixir (and assassin, by the way) but not much else that survives in modern technology which is of practical significance. Neither is there any reason to believe that such discoveries would not have easily been made by the West following the cultural awakening triggered by the Reformation.

As an example, consider that Muslims claim credit for coffee - in the sense that they popularized existing knowledge of Africans who were caught up in the Arab slave trade. However, consider also that the red dye used in many food products, from cranberry juice to candy, comes from the abdomen of a particular female beetle found in South America. It is extremely unlikely that Western science would not have stumbled across coffee by now.

In fact, the litany of “Muslim” achievement often takes the form of rhapsody, in which the true origins of these discoveries are omitted - along with their comparative significance to Western achievement. One usually doesn't hear about the dismal fate of original accomplishments either. Those who brag about the great observatory of Taqi al-Din in [freshly conquered] Istanbul, for example, often neglect to mention that it was quickly destroyed by the caliphate.

At the end of the day, the record of scientific, medical and technological accomplishment is not something over which Muslim apologists want to get into a contest with the Christian and Jewish world. Today’s Islamic innovators are better known for turning Western technology, such as cell phones and airplanes, into instruments of mass murder.

To sum up, although the Islamic religion is not entirely hostile to science, neither should it be confused as a facilitator. The great achievements that are said to have come out of the Islamic world were made either by non-Muslims who happened to be under Islamic rule, or by heretics who usually had little interest in Islam. Scientific discovery tapers off dramatically as Islam asserts dominance, until it eventually peters out altogether.

[Note: The Organization of Islamic States (OIC) is composed of the 57 Muslim countries with 1.6 billion people. It contains 550 universities, while the United States, with less than one fifth the population, has 10 times as many. In 2005, Harvard University produced more scientific papers than 17 Arab countries combined]

9. Islam is Completely
Incompatible with Terror

The Myth:
It is against Islam to kill innocent people. Islam is completely incompatible with acts of terrorism.

The Truth:
Islam does prohibit killing innocent people. Unfortunately, you don't qualify.

Although many Muslims earnestly believe that their religion prohibits the killing of innocent people by acts of terrorism, the truth is certainly more complicated. This is why Muslims on both sides of the terror debate insist that they are the true believers and accuse the other of hijacking Islam. It is also why organizations that commit horrible atrocities in the name of Allah, such as Hamas and Hezbollah, receive a significant amount of moral and financial support from the mainstream.

In fact, the definition of "terrorism" in Islam is ambiguous at best. And the definition of an “innocent person” in Islam isn't something that Muslim apologists advertise when they say that such persons aren't to be harmed. The reason for this is that anyone who rejects Islam by refusing to convert is not considered to be innocent according to Islamic teaching.

Consider that a great deal of the Quran is devoted to describing the horrible punishment that awaits those who refuse to believe Muhammad. How then can Muslims say that the subjects of divine wrath are innocent people?

The most protected and respected of all non-Muslims are the dhimma, the “people of the book.” Specifically , these would be Jews and Christians who agree to Islamic rule and pay the jizya (tribute to Muslims). Yet, the word “dhimmi” is derived from an Arabic root that means “guilt” or "blame." ["...the dhimmi parent and sister words mean both 'to blame' as well as safeguards that can be extended to protect the blameworthy" Amitav Ghosh, "In an Antique Land"].

So, if even the dhimma have a measure of guilt attached to their status (by virtue of having rejected Allah’s full truth), how can non-Muslims who oppose Islamic rule or refuse to pay the jizya be considered “innocent?”

Even within the Islamic community there is a category of Muslims who are also said to bear guilt – greater, even, than the average non-believer. These are the hypocrites, or “Munafiqin,” whom Muhammad referred to in the most derogatory terms. A hypocrite is considered to be a Muslim in name only. They are distinguished from true Muslims, according to the 9th Sura, by an unwillingness to wage (v.9:81 , 9:86) or fund (v.9:121) holy war. The Quran says that true believers fight and are harsh to unbelievers (v.9:123).

The Muslim terrorists who frequently kill "other Muslims" in the name of Allah do so believing that their victims are Munafiqin or kafir (unbelievers). This is a part of Sharia known as takfir, in which a Muslim can be declared an apostate and then executed for their role in hindering the expansion of Islamic authority. (A true Muslim would go to paradise anyway, in which case he or she could hardly be expected to nurse a grudge amidst the orgy of sex and wine).

In addition to the murky definition of innocence, there is also the problem of distinguishing terrorism from holy war. Islamic terrorists rarely refer to themselves as terrorists but usually say that they are holy warriors (Mujahideen, Shahid, or Fedayeen). They consider their actions to be a form of Jihad.

Holy war is commanded in the Quran and Hadith. In verse 9:29, Muhammad establishes the principle that unbelievers should be fought until they either convert to Islam or accept a state of humiliation under Islamic subjugation. This is confirmed in the Hadith by both Sahih Muslim and Bukhari.

In many places, the prophet of Islam says that Jihad is the ideal path for a Muslim, and that believers should “fight in the way of Allah.” There are dozens of open-ended passages in the Quran that exhort killing and fighting – far more than there are of peace and tolerance. It is somewhat naïve to think that their inclusion in this "eternal discourse between God and Man" was of historical value only and not intended to be relevant to present-day believers, particularly when there is little to nothing within the text to distinguish these verses in such fashion.

The Quran's exhortation (and Muhammad's example) of establishing Islamic rule by force and the ambiguity of innocence form a monumental problem that isn't patched over by mere semantics. Not only is there a deep tolerance for violence in Islam but also a sharp disagreement and lack of clarity over the conditions that justify this violence - and whom the targets may be (verse 9:36 says that disbelievers should be fought "collectively") .

Bear in mind that rhetoric about Western forces "bombing and killing" civilian populations in Islamic countries isn't just a false quest for moral equivalence. Muhammad said that "whoever prepares a fighter" is just as responsible, which makes any taxpaying citizen a valid targets.

Many Muslims who claim to be against terrorism otherwise justify certain “insurgencies” and "resistance" movements that have deliberately targeted civilians. A great many entertain the allegation that there is a broader "war against Islam"; in fact hardly any Muslim puts much effort into publicly disputing it. What better rationale do terrorists need for Holy War than to be told that unbelievers are already waging it?

And what of the true innocents who suffer from the bombings and shootings? Even in Muhammad’s time they were unavoidable. The much-touted hadith in which Muhammad forbade the killing of women, for example, also indicates that there were such casualties in his attacks on other tribes.

If there is any doubt that he believed that "the forbidden is sometimes necessary", it should be put to rest by an incident in which Muhammad's men warned him that a planned night raid against an enemy camp would mean that women and children would be killed. He merely replied “they are of them,” meaning the men.

Islam is not intended to co-exist as an equal with other religions. It is to be the dominant religion with Sharia as the supreme law. Islamic rule is to be extended to the ends of the earth and resistance is to be dealt with by any means necessary.

Apologists in the West often shrug off the Quran's many verses of violence by saying that they are relevant only in a “time of war.”

To this, Islamic terrorists would agree. They are at war.

10. Islam is a Democracy

The Myth:
Islam is compatible with democratic principles. The religion itself is a democracy.

The Truth:
A democracy is a system in which all people are equal before the law, regardless of race, religion or gender. The vote of every individual counts as much as the vote of any other. The collective will of the people then determines the rules of society.

Under Islamic law, only Muslim males are entitled to full rights. The standing of women is often half that of men - sometimes even less. Non-Muslims have no equal standing with Muslims. In fact, a Muslim cannot be put to death for killing an unbeliever.

The Islamic state is guided by Islamic law, derived from the Quran and Sunnah. A body of clerics interprets the law and applies it to all circumstances social, cultural and political. The people are never to be placed above the Quran and Sunnah any more than man should be above Allah.

It is somewhat debatable as to whether there are any states in the Muslim world that qualify as actual democracies. There is no denying, however, that the tiny handful which are often held up as democratic nations are ones in which deep tension exists between the government and religious leaders, as the latter often complain that democracy is an idolatrous system imposed on them.

Islam is not a facilitater of democracy.

11. The Quran is Islamic Counterpart to the Bible

The Myth:
The Quran is to Muslims what the Bible is to Christians (and the Torah to Jews).

The Truth:
Muslims claim that the Quran contains the literal words of Allah - and only that. If Christians took the words of Jesus (the so-called red-letter verses), extracted them from all context and then randomly mixed them together... the product would be comparable to the Quran (which is arranged by size of chapter, with scant consistency).

By contrast, the Bible contains history and biographical detail. For example, there is nothing in the Quran that details Muhammad's life, whereas the Bible contains four books that present all that is known about the biography of Jesus. When verses in the Old Testament dictate a violent command, the intended target is explicitly defined within the passage, leaving little doubt that it is a recounting of history and not an open-ended directive for others to do the same.

Despite the rhapsody with which Muslims sing the Quran's praises, there is an obvious reason why few have actually bothered to delve deeply into it. The random arrangement of verses and near absence of context makes it difficult to understand. For this reason the Quran is rarely printed without voluminous commentary (that usually expresses the personal preferences of the translator).

The Muslim counterpart to the Bible is the Quran, Hadith and Sira combined.

The Hadith is a collection of anecdotes and historical snippets of Muhammad's life based on the relayed narrations of those who lived with him. Authenticity varies, unfortunately. The most reliable collections are agreed to be Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim, followed by Abu Dawud. It is on the Hadith that Islamic law (Sharia) is based.

The Sira is the biography of Muhammad's life. Again, there are reliability issues which would appear somewhat bewildering to Christians, given that the gospels were well in place within the first few decades following the crucifixion - which preceded Muslim history by 600 years.

The most reliable biography of Muhammad was compiled by Ibn Ishaq, who wrote about 150 years after his death. His original work survives only in what was "edited" by a later translator (Ibn Hisham, who admitted that he filtered out several accounts that were of a distasteful nature). Another respected biographer is Ibn Kathir, who relied on Ibn Ishaq and Hadith.

Smh someone should spend as much time as Gypsy pointing out the violent, sexist, homophobic verses in the bible. Your intent to rally the troops against Islam is flailing but keep posting propaganda im sure you'll get one or two like minded individuals. It puts a smile on my face to see how many on here disagree with your rhetoric and have the courage to speak up.

You need to look into the historicity of Jesus if you think he was real.

Why the Gospels are myth:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=bQmMFQzrEsc

Christianity debunked by science and history :
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=EZ2kGJk4Jo4

packerfan79 said:

Damn Gypsy bringing the truth to light, is dangerous. Many countries will put you in prison for criticism of Islam. You are a brave soul.I am glad someone around here will speak the truth.

Click to expand...

The Truth Will Set You Free.

*Above are 11 Myths of Islam which many non-islamists are fooled into believing. I don't put these posts here to foment any hate what-so-ever. I put them here so that we can all be aware of exactly what this murderous ideology is precisely about, because so many of us have been fooled to believe that islam is a sort of regular peaceful religion that would do no one any harm, and that its just a tiny/few naughty boys that are waging war on everyone who is not islamic.

I have had the Koran and its Hadith translated and interpreted to me by Wahabbi muslims, over the course of many months and learned that islam is a murderous totalitarian fascistic ideology that we should all learn about and be aware of. Its not as if I actually enjoy telling you all about this. I just think that it should be widely known and even taught at schools and colleges so that anyone who is not islamic knows exactly what this poisonous religion is actually about because as it becomes more widespread and pervades throughout our western cultures it is something to be fully aware of.

Not all muslims are our enemies, they are just people/humans just like us who mostly have been indoctrinated/brainwashed at an early age to know nothing much other than the teachings of the Koran..... it is the ideology of Islam that is dangerous and could well be fatal to any of us one day.....so BE AWARE, BE VERY AWARE.

* And remember we are all one race THE HUMAN RACE.

Some day, Gypsy, maybe I'll share some more details of my intentional confrontations with Richard Butler's Aryan Nations Church of Jesus Christ than what's written below..

Their burning of crosses right up into the 1980s in the yards of mixed-race couples in that region, The Order (an off-shoot of his 'church') responsible for gunning down David Allen Berg in his driveway in Denver with two MAC-10 .45 sub-guns, while their target carried nothing but a cane. The blowing up of a church rectory in N. Coeur D'Alene Idaho where the minister preached a civil rights and love doctrine. And much more.

His church eloquently quoted biblical doctrine that justified their efforts to undo the 'mud people' and others they abhorred.

I once picked up a hitch-hiker from Seattle who was returning from one of Butler's cross-burnings. I questioned him, as he stared uncomfortably at the .44 in a shoulder rig on my dash. He was an SSI recipient, disabled (I suspect for psychological reasons), with proverbial oatmeal where intellect was involved. The very kind of fodder such folks like to recruit, looking for simple answers to life's hardships and seeking SOMEONE to blame. Anything but a good mirror. When I went out of my way to drop him at a safer on-ramp, I reminded him that a stout opponent of his friends had just delivered him safely on is way, and not because I had to.

We marched near Butler's compound on Hitler's B-day in 1989.. While surrounded by over 1,000 (mostly) pacifists from 5 states, my desire was to push the folks at Butler's camp into the Pacific Ocean, alarming my compatriots that day when I said, "What the fuck; we're here, we may as well do some good."

On that march, we had more surveillance from State, local and feds than the skin-heads celebrating Hitler did, with some of us being pulled from the line by UCs for shake-downs, sometimes for things as simple as a collapsible umbrella. I had taken advantage of the flyers being handed out at the gathering/staging point, and had rolled them into a baton for blunt force needs if called for, resting in my back pocket..

Skin-heads side-swiped a police car at Butler's driveway, and when searched, they'd been on their way to us with a trunk load of M-1 carbines.

A year earlier, I'd driven to the end of his driveway, where his plywood banner hung over his driveway off Rimrock Rd., sporting the contorted sword with the hilt that resembled a swastika made of lightning bolts, in gold, to reflect their 'purity,' I'm sure..

I continued to take photos of his mail box and banner even after running out of film, hoping it might inspire an 'exchange,' with a 12-gauge pump and a .44 mag in the vehicle, hoping to address the cowardly bastards more directly.

Only circumstance kept me from productive social cleaning that day.

A Nez Perce Indian & former Vietnam era Marine I knew from that area, but had met in Alaska, now deceased, did something much wiser one day. Butler and his crew of miscreants rolled their parade through Coeur D'Alene one day, and while the shoppers and pedestrians on the sidewalk turned and gawked, as the procession of Nazis approached, my friend purposefully turned his back, staring straight into the shop window behind him. Slowly others to his left and right caught on, and did the same. What ever energy Butler had hoped to cultivate that day turned to a soft breeze and went away. No punches thrown or shots fired. No stab wounds. No arrests. No emergency room visits. Just a metaphorical de-nutting of a glorified hoodlum hater who thought he carried a message from God..

I miss Mike. Not just because he grew some beautiful Indicas, but because, despite his chauvinism and other failings, there were times he was absolutely brilliant, in terms of understanding humanity.

People have taken well-intentioned doctrine since doctrine was written, and used it in all of its distortions to control or injure others. Choosing to take metaphor and use it as literal instruction, and vice versa. A primary reason why Marx criticized organized religions and their churches.

Broad brushes often lack much basis in reality.

I've lived next to immigrant Iranians, smoked hash with them, shot firearms with them, shared meals, talked politics, etc. Just people on a river bank in a huge rural place, sharing life.

I've a far greater chance in this country of being blown up by a Christian Caucasian male or having my door kicked in and life destroyed by the helpful civil servants in government for the crime of gardening, than I do of being derailed by someone from the East. The stats bear that out.

Water- said:

You need to look into the historicity of Jesus if you think he was real.

Why the Gospels are myth:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=bQmMFQzrEsc

Christianity debunked by science and history :
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=EZ2kGJk4Jo4

Click to expand...

I am not what you might call a Christian Water- although I was raised as a baptist and as soon as I was old enough managed to do my own research as I have done here with Islam to come to the conclusion that Christianity is a man made construct the same as islam that does have some good about it, far more good than islam, thats for sure.

I have already studied whether or not Jesus actually existed and can find no solid proof of it anywhere, either from archeologists or the records kept at the time of his supposed existance.

Right on,
What you posted claimed that Jesus was a historical figure and that Mohammed was not.
So I posted an alternate perspective for those interested that's all.

Aloha

cooterbrown420 said:

Smh someone should spend as much time as Gypsy pointing out the violent, sexist, homophobic verses in the bible. Your intent to rally the troops against Islam is flailing but keep posting propaganda im sure you'll get one or two like minded individuals. It puts a smile on my face to see how many on here disagree with your rhetoric and have the courage to speak up.

Click to expand...

I haven't yet got to exploring the violent, sexist, homophobic verses in the Koran yet cooter, and if anyone here wants to research those in the bible then most households in the West have a copy of the bible hanging around somewhere to be able to research for themselves if they have not already read the bible and noticed stuff like that, although you won't find much of that nature in the New Testament, its mostly in the Old Testament from what I can remember and most modern Christians follow the New one.

I have absolutely no want, need or desire to rally any 'troops' against islam, and think that there can be a much more peaceful way to stop the brainwashing of children into this homicidal/genocidal cult.

Keep smiling and keep shining cooter. I would rather make you smile than cry no matter what you might or might not believe to be the truth. In fact I am very happy to have you around. Please continue to play 'Devil's Advocaat' with me because I really appreciate it.

*'Go Easy, Step lightly, Stay Free'....'The Clash'.

cooterbrown420 said:

Smh someone should spend as much time as Gypsy pointing out the violent, sexist, homophobic verses in the bible. Your intent to rally the troops against Islam is flailing but keep posting propaganda im sure you'll get one or two like minded individuals. It puts a smile on my face to see how many on here disagree with your rhetoric and have the courage to speak up.

Click to expand...

I bet I could sit this whole community down and show them an interpretive perception of those texts they never considered

They have layers of meaning that elicit a certain response from certain mindsets

There is a huge deficit of critical thinking here and it gets worse when people get emotional.

I don't understand what gypsy is trying to accomplish but to throw the bible under the table in response is not reasonable.

Either you believe in the god of Abraham or you do not, gypsy does not, both Muslims Christians and Jews do. So here as he pushes the envelope and raises your ire you direct it at entities not involved.

This is what happens when you let emotion rule logic and it is the response we need to avoid because all it does is give these bullshit strawman augments weight in the mind of the ignorant

A good portion of this community cannot integrate to the mainstream so to think it would be less malignant is not a reasonable assumption

If gypsy's reality was the same ours he wouldn't be meetings so much critique and resistance and while he might not be yielding to reason it doesn't mean people who are reading this aren't being enlightened the to the dynamic upon which this thread is based