Slashdot Mirror

It's the same as 'pre-Snowden' and 'pre-wikileaks' dump of diplomatic cables.
Everyone who is dealing with Saudi knows they are an open enemy of the US, but until Turkey called foul and claimed to have evidence the world could play pretend.

Before wikileaks dumped the diplomatic cables *everyone* know about CryptoAG and that the US was listening in.... but embassy's could pretend and hope that it wasn't as bad ... or perhaps the the leaks were overblown, or ... but the cable dump removed all doubt and nobody could pretend it away.

Before Snowden *everyone* knew the NSA was hoovering up data and recording phone calls all over the world, including us domestic calls of us citizens that were illegal according to their mandate, but Snowden's document dump with the help of some US frenemies was enough to remove all reasonable doubt that the NSA was in fact going far beyond it's mandate routinely illegally collecting data.

So post Kashoggi all doubt about the fate of people disappeared has been removed and there is no pretending that they voluntarily disappeared or went into hiding.

To be frank Islam as practiced throughout the middle east is a problem. Islam has many problems .. principally it is resistant to ideological reformation that would make it compatible with modern western civilization. In contract pre-1700 Christianity [after multiple reformations] was itself ill suited to modern western civilization. Core Islamic doctrine still presents a strict divide between 'Muslim' and 'Non-Muslim' where the 'Non-Muslim' is of strictly lesser value https://www.answering-islam.or...
In contract a Muslim living in a western society is still afforded fully equal status.

Except, have you read his holy book? He's doing exactly as commanded, that's why his imam finds it hard to protest. The whole idea that "jihad" might mean something else than murdering and subjugating non-believers is an invention of an 11th century scholar, with no basis in the Koran.

There's a large amount of people who self-identify as Muslims yet find jihad to be abhorrent. That doesn't make the Koran any better, though -- it just makes those people not evil, unlike what their holy book demands. You're confusing the Koran with the Bible -- the latter is a large collection of often unrelated works, with hardly any internal consistency. Try for example Psalms 82:1 which says "Jahveh sits on the court of the God of Gods, and passes judgmements to other gods in his name." -- it's really interesting how various translations try to wiggle this statement around towards the current religion. The Koran has no issues of this kind: it's a highly consistent work edited by one man (Uthman) (ok, ok, plus a bunch of scribes doing his bidding). It does deliver a consistent message -- and I really don't like what the message says.

More reading: Skeptic's Annotated Koran, an analysis of references to "jihad" in the Koran.

Muslims, once again, must fight other religions — in order to remain good Muslims. Because Koran — which they believe to be the word of God verbatim — says so.

Koran allows you to defend yourself, not actively start wars/fights to gain goods or force people to convert.

Somehow, it doesn't feel like that message has filtered down to the jihadis. Actually, in too many cases it would appear that this message has not gotten through to many who would deign to think of themselves as spiritual leaders within Islam.

Koran 2:256
There shall be no compulsion in [acceptance of] the religion

Are you familiar with the idea of abrogation?

Every religion has their nut-jobs once in a while, are we still holding all the crusades against christians?

Actually, considering the number of times the Crusades are brought up in these sorts of discussions, I would say the answer is yes.

I sympathise with this view entirely. If people are leaving you alone and harming nobody while behaving differently, then just leave them alone.

Like Muslims, you racist bastard?

Leaving you alone and harming nobody doesn't sound like a muslims to me

Grammar aside this is a very insightful post. In fact Islam teaches Orson Scott's views taken to the extreme:

Allah Most High says: "Do you approach the males of humanity, leaving the wives that Allah has created for you? But you are a people who transgress" Koran (26:165-66)

"The Prophet (saws) said: (1) "Kill the one who sodomizes and the one who lets if be done to him." (Tirmidhi, a sahih (authentic) hadith)

"May Allah curse him who does that Lot's people did." (Ibn Hibban, sahih (authentic))

"Lesbianism by women is adultery between them." (Tabarani, sahih)"

This in practice means that homosexuals are often killed in Muslim countries

Loki, you are confusing "claims" they have the same prophets and same god as being the same as "actually" having the same message and god. I've already posted a link that thoroughly debunks the Muslims claim that they worship the God of Abraham - and this debunking is done using Muslims sources. I'll repeat it here for your convenience:
http://www.answering-islam.org/Shamoun/god.htm

Also note that despite the claims of the Muslims that Allah is the God of Abraham, this claim must be false when scriptures are compared. See the following for such a comparison, which concludes based on Islamic sources that Allah and YHWH cannot be be same (in fact, Allah has the *opposite* attributes of YHWH, read into that what you will): http://www.answering-islam.org/Shamoun/god.htm [answering-islam.org]

Well, you can analyze it in any way you want, but since Islamic scriptures came much later, and built in the early Hebrew texts (especially the first 5 books of the OT), its pretty clear they started out as being the same deity. They just diverged.

You can say the same about Judaism and Christianity. Judaism doesn't accept the NT, so their god remains the old style god of rages and genocide whereas the Christians have their lovey dovey god who loves us all and forgives us (but still better pray otherwise your ass will fry in hell).

Its not so different to comparing Osiris with Jupiter with Zeus.

Thanks for the information. My understanding is that devout Jews will not say the name YHWH as they see it as being sacred and it is profane to use it. Hence they use terms like "Ha Shem" == The Name, Adonai == Lord, Melek Ha Olam == King of the World etc. Sorry, my Hebrew is very poor. The take-away is that the ancient Hebrews would use substitutes instead of invoking the personal name of God. In contrast, Islam uses the word "Allah", which comes from "il illah", "The (One) God", which is a title and not a personal name.

Also note that despite the claims of the Muslims that Allah is the God of Abraham, this claim must be false when scriptures are compared. See the following for such a comparison, which concludes based on Islamic sources that Allah and YHWH cannot be be same (in fact, Allah has the *opposite* attributes of YHWH, read into that what you will): http://www.answering-islam.org/Shamoun/god.htm
Similarly, when scripture is compared the Islamic "Mehdi" pretty much has the characteristics given of a Christian Anti-Christ (there is more than one, this one just happens to be the one most detailed in Revelations). I'm an atheist so "have no skin in the game", I'm just giving a comparison of mythologies since that comparison is not known even to most religious and educated people.

Thanks for your reply. When was there a large neonazi attack? When was there an actual Klan attack? Sure, these were indeed big problems in the past, but *today* the incidence is negligible as far as I can see. So perhaps you'll point me to the organized wave of Klan attacks (since the Klan was formed by Democratic party members, which most Democrats don't know, you would expect the Democratic party holding the Senate and White House would lead to an uptake in attacks if the threats you mention were anything other than strawmen, yeah?)

In other words, you really don't want to have a debate over whether the Koran is more anti-freedom then your Holy Book.

My Holy Book is "Principia Mathematica" and subsequent works. So let's not go up the soft ad-hominem route shall we?

I think in your defense of Islam you seem to think that the Abrahamic religions are all equally bad. As an atheist I think they are all bullshit from an enlightened scientific perspective. However there are two massive flaws in your attempt at making them morally equivalent:

• While Judaism and Christianity are barbaric in origin they are seen as mad-written by influence by God. They are susceptible to change and this is what has happened due to various reformations over the centuries. Hence it is a very long time since the Inquisition and stoning of adulterers and such. In short, these religions have moved on to be physically tolerant and fairly verbally tolerant too. These faiths also follow the law, "Vengeance is mine sayeth the Lord" (meaning, Christians and Jews are not to extract retribution from those outside their faith). Judaism and Christianity are "personal faiths" that do not mandate a form of government, hence Church and State are separated.
• Islam is *still* barbaric (eg. see the 20811 fatal Islamic attacks around the globe since 2001-09-11). The majority of Muslims (around 77% in a survey published recently) still want to impose the barbaric Sharia in the 21st Century. Muslims are commanded to exact retribution on Muslims and non-Muslims that don't follow Sharia. The Qur'an is claimed (falsely) to be the direct and unalterable word of Allah (clearly false since there are numerous versions, eg the Sa'ana Qur'an found in 1972) and attempting to change or challenge Islam is 'apostasy' and punishable by death (to be enacted by Muslims, *especially* family members). Islam is actually a *political idelogy* that mandates progression toward a particular form of Government (theocracy) with some superstitious stuff sprinkled on top - hence the any separation between Mosque and State is considered a temporary 'Milestone' stage on the way to theocracy.

I hope you can now see the fundamental difference between Judaism, Christianity and Islam. One has a few barbaric commandments that are no longer listened to and claims no mandate over non-believers. Whereas Islam is a *political ideology* that claims political authority over Muslims and non-Muslims alike, has a great deal of violent and hateful beliefs as part of its mainstream *core* doctrine, and it actively carried out today (and historically has been directly responsible for at least 270 million deaths through personal and mass jihad).

Another interesting thing to note is that while Islam claims to be an Abrahamic faith, the reality is actually different. The attributes given to Allah (which is a title, not a personal name) in the Qur'an are *different* to the attributes given to YHWH/Jehovah by the Torah/Bible. For example, YHWH can never lie, yet the Qur'an states that Allah is the "Greatest of Deceivers". It is simply not possible for (the fictional) YHWH to be the same as the (equally fictional) Allah - despite what Islam claims. For a full analysis please see the following link:
http://www.answering-islam.org/Shamoun/god.htm

While drawing "moral equivalence" is a common tactic of apologists of Islam, the facts show that it is a fallacy - which I hope you can now see with the references and description I've given.

Your statement is a mistake. Given the person being held is a young Saudi man (as in a jihadi) we can give a probable guess as what his motivations are. These are the same motivations that jihadis have been using for 1400 years - long before drones, or the US, or (modern) Israel. The motivation can be summed up in the Qur'an, particularly Sura 9:5 "The Verse of the Sword" and associated commentaries:
http://www.answering-islam.org/Silas/swordverse.htm

Please also note Sura 9:29

Fight those who do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day and who do not consider unlawful what Allah and His Messenger have made unlawful and who do not adopt the religion of truth from those who were given the Scripture - [fight] until they give the jizyah willingly while they are humbled.

The non-Muslim world may not have been at war with Islam, but Islam has *always* felt it was at war with the non-Muslim world (as stated in their teachings if you ever care to read them). Islamic apologists will lie to you about this (using one of the disgusting doctrines that Islam uses to permit lying: taqiyya, kitman, muruna. and tawriya). But the truth is the vast majority of Muslims agree with the goal of Islam, to bring Islam to the whole world (through any means necessary - including jihad).

So stop putting the blame on the victim. It is disgusting and immoral. When the "Caliphate" is re-established it will get much much worse. Nothing the US can do can prevent the coming fight to the death between the evil political ideology called Islam and those who seek to defend Human Rights as we know them, Liberty and Free World. Choose your sides!

I think Burpmaster was referring to the fact that in the Qur'an, the earth is said to be flat.

Are you sure about that? The Earth was understood to be round before Islam. I don't know if that understanding was in the Arab world at the time.

Yes.

• The Islamic genocide against Assyrian Christians in Iraq. Most Assyrians have fled and the rest have been killed. Don't blame this on the US invasion of Iraq. It happened under Saddam. Now under democracy (as in, "mob rule") the pace has accelerated, but the motivation is the same. Sura 9:5 "The Verse of the Sword". See
  http://www.answering-islam.org/Silas/swordverse.htm
  Did you know this?
• The Sudanese Islamist genocide against animist and Christian Southern Sudanese. Jihadi raids still occur and non-Muslims are taken as *slaves* (as permitted under Sharia). This is happening *today*. See the testimony of Simon Deng (a former slave).
• The call for genocide against Jews, as commanded by the Qur'an. See the following article for all the reasons the Qur'an and Palestinians give for killing Jews based on *mainstream* Islamic doctrine: http://palwatch.org/main.aspx?fi=584
  Note that anyone who supports the Islamist cause against Israel is unwittingly supporting this genocidal agenda. The Israelis are not the aggressors (as the historically ignorant often believe). The Jews have been living in Palestine *continuously* for over 3000 years (the Roman expulsions were temporary, and only from Jerusalem). The modern State of Israel is trying to *defend* its citizens from the *aggression* and schemes of the 57 Muslim Majority countries in the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (although countries like Azerbaijan get on well with Israelis, and after many attempted genocides Jordan now has working relations). Anyone who thinks the Arabs are the victims simply doesn't know the genocidal agendas of Hamas and Hezbollah (hint, look for the hate speech in the Hamas Charter: http://www.thejerusalemfund.org/www.thejerusalemfund.org/carryover/documents/charter.html). When Hamas talks about "Occupied Territories" they mean killing, expelling, or enslaving all non-Muslims in *all of Israel*.
• The expulsion, killing, and denial of rights to Serbs in northern Kosovo by Albanian Muslims. This is happening today. Did you know that?
• The genocides between Sunni and Shia branches of Islam, and the Sunni+Shia attacks on more peaceful Sufis. This is happening *today* in Syria, Iraq, Iran, Turkey (against Kurds), Pakistan as Islamic sect battles Islamic sect (with the aim of expelling the "apostate" sects): See: http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/
  particularly http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/index.html#Attacks
• We won't even talk about the historical genocides of approximately one million Armenians by Turkish jihadis in 1915, or the hundreds of thousands slaughtered by the two Bosnian Muslim SS divisions in World War II (raised by the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin al-Husseini, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammad_Amin_al-Husayni - the bastard who told Hitler the idea of the "Final Solution", stating "Who remembers the Armenians").
• Then we have the genocides soon to come. The persecution and subjugation of Christian Copts in Egypt. Now that Obama installed the Muslim Brotherhod the life of Copts is going from bad (as dhimmis) to worse. Bad stuff is happening to the Copts *every day*. And the media and leftist "human rights" organizations are mostly silent (with a few exceptions). Did you know all the bad stuff happening to Copts today? http://www.amnes

I think it is quite obvious that all three of these religions have different prophets and theories about the one true God, but it is hard to deny that they all share the exact same one true God.

One one level you are true, on another your statement is not true. The Muslims will talk about the "God of Abraham". This is intended to give Christians and Jews warm fuzzies and hoping some of them will jump on the "bridge between faiths" (which only goes one way, you will notice). So, at first glance your statement seems true. However, one more learned in the Qur'an will understand that they also consider the Christian Trinitarian God to be a heresy that does not describe Allah. Hence they consider Christians as heretics worshiping a false god. The false god cannot be the same as the true god, so Muslims believe (and are in fact taught) that the Christians do not worship the same god. Although strangely, Moses and Jesus were Muslims (it's bad enough when countries claim rockstars, but claiming prophets is going a bit far :) ).

However, despite claiming the "God of Abraham" the Muslims then proceed to lay out and even more evil deity that has attributes that are against attributes defined by Abraham/Judaism. Just because a claim is made does not make the claim true, claiming Allah is YHWH does not make it true. Similarly, "calling SplashMyBandit a bigot because calls Islam evil does not make the claim of bigotry true" [or even sensible, given the formal definition of what constitutes bigotry].

Consider the which starts the prayer said five times a day by Muslims, Sura. So what seems a relatively innocuous phrase is dissing both Jews and Christians - five times a day. All this is explained for you in depth, here:
http://www.islam-watch.org/authors/139-louis-palme/1082-behind-the-muslim-prayers.html
My point is that Islam conforms to Shrek's definition of an ogre. It has layers. Unfortunately the layers do not get nicer the more and more you peel back. Underneath the grandiose facade of Islam is a basement with a terrible stink. Most people know the stink instinctively but don't know or care to open the door to find out why. Once you open the door you understand where the stink is coming from - the evil ideology that has already claimed 270 million lives and would gladly claim the life of every single living thing on this planet if it was thought to please Allah. Regrettably, there are people already working toward making exactly that happen (I'm looking at you Iran, who have within the last week launched and even more evil and inhuman wave of oppression - for those that have been taking notes).

Still think Allah is the same as God and YHWH/Elohim/HaShem/Melech HaOlam? Check these out:
http://www.danielpipes.org/comments/58626
http://www.answering-islam.org/Shamoun/god.htm

In fact, the more you delve into it you will find that the characteristics that Islam attributes to their deity are almost exactly opposite to the characteristics of the God of Abraham. However, the God of Islam prides himself as the "greatest deceiver" numerous times in the Qur'an - so it is no surprise that he would produce the deceit that he was the same as the God of Abraham. The reality is that the attributes of both (fictional) deities are different. Therefore, logic dictates that the deities are different. ISLAM MAY CLAIM TO HAVE THE GOD OF ABRAHAM, BUT THEIR SCRIPTURE DEFINES A DIFFERENT BEING (a deceptive anti-God, if you will).

So you see, one can read the Qur'an but there are layers there. It is something else to understand what the words are trying to convey. Like I said, Osama bin Laden agrees on the meaning of Islam with Al Azhar (as you know, the foremost authority for Sunnis) and the Muslim Brotherhood etc etc. They

I have provided you a link with a thorough analysis of the positions for and against 9:5. I can't help you read if you don't want to. The conclusion of the analysis is basically that it says what everything things it says - a commandment for aggression and subjugation of non-Muslims. Here, for your convenience I'll provide the link again
http://answering-islam.org/Silas/swordverse.htm

Now perhaps you don't think 9:5 is evil for a simple reason that I have not yet mention - you are a closet Islamist. I cannot discount that fact. An evil person would never see evil no matter how evil something was. A rational person would read the linked argument I've given, consider the numerous aspects (as the analysis does - it is balanced) and then come to the same conclusion what it says - slaughter and subjugate non-Muslims (which is an evil).

Now for all your talk you still have not a single skerrick of counter evidence for the supposition that Islam is not evil. All you have is a claim about some research and a statement that your Muslim friends are good people: which I don't doubt in the least, they are people after all, and most people are intrinsicly good by nature - it requires religion/ideology to make them do bad things against that nature.

However, we are not talking about people, we are talking about the dictates of an ideology.

Since you have thus far failed to grok a fundamental of the argument, that people and ideologies are different (even if they influence each other), the consider the following:
"With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion."
Steven Weinberg [Physicist], quoted in The New York Times, April 20, 1999

Grok the point now? See how many Muslims can be good but that does not excuse the evil of the ideology of Islam itself? defending such an evil ideology necessarily makes one evil too. Don't be evil, be a force for Truth, Goodness and Compassion in this world. Oppose evil and do not tolerate the intolerant.

Cool. To begin do you understand the principle of abrogration? This is critical.

Let us look at Sura 9. It has many evil ideas in it and is used daily to justify evil acts (eg. to a devout Muslim, jihad against unbelievers is legal and in fact mandatory; that's why what we call terrorism is not illegal under Islamic jurisprudence; they consider it "terrorism" when we defend ourselves from it). Note that there is no verse that abgrogates Sura 9 and Sura 9 abrogates all the other nice verses of the Qur'an (eg. the oft-quoted, "Let there be no compulsion is religion" is abrogated - it simply does not apply; some claim that this verse has not been abrogated but they are negating the rules about abrogation to do so. Sura 9 is among the last This is false. You can't just change the principles of Islam to suit your argument). My understanding of Sura 9 is the same as Osama bin Laden's and Quradhawi's and Qtub's and Al Azhar's. We agree it all means the same thing and abrogates the other verses. It is you that has a differing interpretation of the Qur'an than the four Sunni and single Shia school of jurisprudence. Here's an analysis of the verse, easy to digest and covers both the historicity and supporting evidence:
http://answering-islam.org/Silas/swordverse.htm

Can you counter this and still follow the Islamic rules of interpretation? no you can't. This verse stands. This verse is evil. Hence, Islam is evil - and this is why millions of people are oppressed and the Islamic schools of jurisprudence support this. Stop supporting evil. Even better, fight this evil through word and deed (at least stop hassling people on slashdot who do understand the Islamicists interpretation of Islam, which is the *mainstream* interpretation).

It would be nice if Islam was a religion of peace but it simply isn't. All the Islamic schools and a majority of Muslims (who, incidentally, live in South-East Asia, not the Middle East) agree with the interpretations I've given.

The one reference there which in English comes across appearing to be rape* is punished much more harshly than we do today - not just a bit of jailtime, but a lifetime of marriage as well as a dowry. Further, it actually provided for the woman: if it was known she had been raped, in that time period it would have kept her from being married later on. This way she is provided for, and the man could never leave / divorce her.

* There is a lot of evidence that this is somewhat misinterpreted today as well. See this link for a discussion of the original language, which indicates it may not have been forced sexual activity as we generally think of the term today: http://www.answering-islam.org/Shamoun/ot_and_rape.htm

The Exodus passage you cite is actually giving a lot of rights and protections to women that didn't exist in most societies at that time. The Deuteronomy passages also assign a greater level of respect to those captured in war than was common at the time.

Finally, none of these things is to govern life today. Every example you found is specifically pertaining to the way the people of Israel in the ancient world were to be governed and ruled. These are no more applicable today than laws created by the British to govern the American Colonies before the Revolution. I believe you will find no such permissions in the New Testament.

I wish people would do some research that goes beyond sound bites and headlines. You do realize that all the things shown in the film are from Muslim histories, right?

If someone wants to study the issue of child sex, here is a site discussing the issue with a lot of links to the original materials: http://answering-islam.org/Silas/childbrides.htm

If you want to know whether or not muslims would really do this, why not read a story from the quran : http://www.answering-islam.org/Authors/Arlandson/jews.htm [answering-islam.org]

That's not a story from the Quran, that is an opinion piece make a biased argument. At least link to the Quran.

True, just like there's plenty of palestinian law against terrorism ...

http://dailycaller.com/2012/05/14/iranian-defectors-khamenei-said-anti-nuke-fatwa-wont-matter/

If you want to know whether or not muslims would really do this, why not read a story from the quran :

http://www.answering-islam.org/Authors/Arlandson/jews.htm

The Quran itself is sexist and is the underlying basis for much anti-women discrimination. See these examples.

That "authoritative Dictionary of Islam" would be A DICTIONARY OF ISLAM Being A CYCLOPAEDIA OF THE DOCTRINES, RITES, CEREMONIES, AND CUSTOMS, TOGETHER WITH THE TECHNICAL AND THEOLOGICAL TERMS, OF THE MUHAMMADAN RELIGION BY THOMAS PATRICK HUGHES, B.D., M.R.A.S., published 1895. Obviously the last word in islamic scholarship.

(BD = Bachelor of Divinity, MRAS = Member of the Royal Asiatic Society).

Sura Al-Kahf (18:86), Sura Az-Zukhruf (43:10, 43:38) and so on. Look at http://answering-islam.org/Quran/Science/earth_flat.html and other commentaries.

And yeah, there are actually people in the Muslim world who think that the Earth is flat.

Basically, the pig pedophile "prophet" Mohammad didn't want anybody to make pictures of him to reduce the chances of him being assassinated. Mainly due to his constant ordering of genocide, rape and murder. Thus he made this pronouncement within his pathetic "religion" not for pictures to be made of him. The unthinking morons who follow this idiot still follow this pronouncement, despite it being impossible for the great dogshit Mohammad to be assassinated anymore. People just need to start laughing more at the idiots. There are few things more silly than Islam. And there are few people who are more bone-headed insecurely serious. Mod me up, so the truth can be spoken freely. Despite their terrorist tactics. Lets' try to get a fatwa against CmdrTaco!

Fear of pedos vs. fear of terrorists.

They're both the same.

http://www.answering-islam.org/Quran/Contra/marriage_age.html

That's what they get for making testable predictions.

...you mean, like the Mormons saying that god would come by 1891? Or the Christians saying that Armageddon would occur in 1000, 2000 (and also during the reformation, because, they reasoned, surely everything that could be known, already was.) Or the Islamics? They've made some failed, testable predictions as well.

That's also why they're not a religion.

Well, then both Christianity and Islam are not religions, either.

So we should deal harshly with all of them. Is that your position?

older adults with ten year olds is very obviously wrong.

You disgusting racist filth. How dare you insult The Religion of Peace (tm) in that way. Stoning and beheading for you, infidel scum!

http://www.answering-islam.org/Shamoun/prepubescent.htm

Also, do muslims regard Obama as a muslim?

This is entirely irrelevant unless you yourself allow religious people to rule over your life. The catholic church claims that everyone who is baptized cannot "really" leave the church. Well, I was baptized, I left the church, and I am not a christian whatever the pope may think.

Muslims claim that [...] if you leave the muslim faith, sharia law demands your execution.

Some muslims believe that apostasy must be punished. Admittedly, they are currently in some powerful positions, but the situation would be better if the US governments hadn't put them into power all the time.

I can't say he raped and murdered thousands, but the historical record generally indicates that he was not the nicest guy in the world who loved puppy dogs.

Attempting to limit the slave trade to the Europeans for all those centuries is just counterproductive to your argument. While some African slaves were bought from tribes who sold them after capturing them in warfare, the vast majority were taken by Muslims.

No compulsion in religion? What about apotasy? What about jizya? Etc.

I believe that the list of main problems you listed with islam today are actually at its core and until the overwhelmingly majority mainstream Muslims repudiate them, as has happened in other Abrahamic religions, they will remain problems.

For instance your point a. Islam, to my understanding, means submission. In fact in paradise (as stated in 23:101), there is no "neither will they question one another". So if you're taught that the most enjoyable existence that you can expect is filled with gently accepting what is taught to you, why would you strive to improve your education level? Furthermore, to try and assert that only the poor ignorant people commit the terrorist acts ignores the fact that . And while I don't consider all Muslims to be terrorists, I do believe that it is enshrined in their religion. The G.P. who cared for my brother, sister, and myself when I was a child was an Indian immigrant who happened to be Muslim. If I was still living in the same area, he would still be my doctor; especially considering his considerable skill at suturing.

Your point b is interesting because of the fact of abrogation, as permitted in Surahs 16:101 and 2:106. So, without being a full-time Qurinic scholar, how is the average lay-person to know which Surah is correct and which has been overturned?

I also strongly disagree with your assertion about the Quran being a good set of rules in the 6th Century and ALSO being a good set of rules today. It's taught my Islamic jurisprudence that there is no other law that Allah's law, which has been interpreted, and withstood the test of time/inquiry, as Sharia. A harsh and brutal system that leaves little room for innovation or critical thinking.

What business is that?

http://www.answering-islam.org/Index/S/suicide_bomber.html/

no?

Suicide is forbidden in Islam. http://www.answering-islam.org/Index/S/suicide.html

So, go tell that to the motherfuckers who are blowing themselves up. That aside, I find the first bullet in your link to be a unique and unexpected insight, that could never have been fully understood before the 1940's.

Pong is forbidden by Islamic law. You cannot make images of things, however ugly those images are.

To my understanding, the issue of forbidden images is complex and varied. Islamic law is not a unified monolithic concept -- it has evolved over centuries.

I'm no Islamic scholar. But plenty of information is available on the web. Here's one example:

"It is clear that the hadiths prohibit pictures of animals or people, especially in homes. There is no focus on pictures of Muhammad per se. All pictures of people and animals are forbidden." Link.

Since pong represents neither people nor animals, it should be okay.

Jesus pointed out several things that the Old Testament laws allowed, but that shouldn't be followed by Christians. For example, the law allowing divorce Jesus said "He wrote this commandment only as a concession to your hard hearts" (Mark 10:5) and narrowed the acceptable situations for divorce. Also, the "eye for an eye" law was converted into "love your enemies" (see Matt 5:38-48). So I'd say the New Testament is a better guide for Christian behavior, and most doctrine follows from that. E.g., the Old Testament has laws regarding animal sacrifice, but I don't think any Christians follow those laws. Even so, I'd say the Quran is orders of magnitude more a proponent of violence than the entire Bible.

Tying this back to my Christian vs Muslim point... If Moses prescribed "eye for an eye", and Jesus said "love your enemy", then why does Mohammed (1) affirm Jesus as a prophet of God, (2) reverse Jesus' statement to go back to Moses' "eye for an eye", and (3) go even further by equating belief in God with violence against unbelievers (i.e., jihad)? Does it make sense if God says: "Ya know, Mohammed, what I told Jesus just isn't working out. I mean there's way too much peace in the world as it is. All this 'love your enemy' nonsense. So let's say we change the rules and go back to this 'eye for an eye' thing. It was working much better before." Also, if it was God that was instructing Mohammed (allegedly via the angel Gabriel), then how is it that the message became more violent over time? (see http://www.answering-islam.org/Bailey/jihad.html) I would think an omniscient and omnipresent Deity would be consistent in His view on violence. Perhaps Mohammed wasn't being given instruction by the angel Gabriel, but by the "angel of light", Satan, the deceiver, ...

On the birth control issue, I did get your point as it related to Catholics. It's just that as a non-Catholic myself, I didn't equate what the Pope says to doctrine that I should follow as a Christian. I attach more importance to what Jesus says in the New Testament. Sorry for being unclear.

Life under Taliban cuts two ways Consider the following list of edicts issued by Taliban religious scholars in Kabul in December 1996:

"To prevent music.... In shops, hotels, vehicles, and rickshaws, cassettes and music are prohibited."

"To prevent beard shaving and its cutting. After one and a half months, if anyone [is] observed who has shaved and or cut his beard, they should be arrested and imprisoned until their beard is bushy."

"To prevent kite-flying."

"To prevent idolatry. In vehicles, shops, hotels, rooms, and any other place, pictures [and] portraits should be abolished."

"To prevent washing cloth by young ladies along the water streams in the city. Violator ladies should be picked up with respectful Islamic manner, taken to their houses, and their husbands severely punished."

The struggle over sharia Is sharia harsh?
Followed literally, it can be medieval. Sharia divides all human actions into five categories: obligatory, meritorious, permissible, reprehensible, and forbidden. Among the reprehensible and forbidden acts are drinking alcohol, eating pork, theft, slander, highway robbery, murder, adultery, and losing one's faith. Traditional punishments include whipping and the amputation of limbs. For the most severe crimes, the penalty can be decapitation, crucifixion, or death by stoning. In Saudi Arabia, where sharia governs civil society, these harsh penalties are still meted out. Women are shrouded and segregated from men; suggestive Western photographs censored; and criminals punished harshly. In the capital city of Riyadh, beheadings are carried out on a brick-and-marble plaza that some have dubbed "Chop-Chop Square."

And more about Sharia here and here.

Some of us are slaves to fashion.
They want to make us slaves to them, or at the very least, dhimmis.

Our guys and their guys have very different ideas about what to love.

Dealing in Death

Another chapter from early Islamic history -- serving as a lesson for today's Muslims at war against the West -- is the concept of the love of death. This originated at the Battle of Qadisiyya in the year 636, when the commander of the Muslim forces, Khalid ibn Al-Walid, sent an emissary with a message from Caliph Abu Bakr to the Persian commander, Khosru. The message stated: "You [Khosru and his people] should convert to Islam, and then you will be safe, for if you don't, you should know that I have come to you with an army of men that love death, as you love life." This account is recited in today's Muslim sermon

Here is my basic problem with Islam.

http://www.geocities.com/scimah/idols.htm#TAQIYYA

The claim that 'Islam encourages the development of science and technology', is a classical example of Taqiyya , ie a statement which is known to be the opposite of the truth. (The taqiyya dispensation allows, and indeed encourages Muslims to lie to Unbelievers)

TAQIYYA (sometimes spelled TAQQIYYA or TAQIYA) is the duty of Muslims to lie about the beliefs, methods and objectives of Islam to non-Muslims. [TAQIYYA_1, TAQIYYA_2, TAQIYYA_3, TAQQIYA_4 , TAQIYA_5, TAQIYYA_6].

Taqiyya (bad faith, deceit, contempt for the truth, false promises, evasion, deceptive moderation and crocodile tears for terrorist victims) negates any attempt at interfaith dialogue between Islam and other belief systems, because we infidels never know whether we're being told a pack of lies.

In Islam it's OK to lie and deceive Kafirs (infidels) because Islam is in a permanent state of war with all non-Muslims and deception is a legitimate tactic. The word or promise of a Muslim to a Kafir counts for nothing in the eyes of Allah.

So taqiyya means that the only time you can be sure that a Mullah is telling the truth is when he says he's lying! ...
http://answering-islam.org/Terrorism/agenda.html

There goes a saying of the prophet of Islam that 'to lie is one of the major sins and Allah will hold you accountable, with the exception of these three' (in other words, in these three situations you can lie as much as you need to and Allah will not even blink): '(1) with your women; (2) in espionage jihad when you are a minority; and (3) in maintaining peace.' Thus the end justifies the means. (References)

There are many references to this- it's not a secret.
---

So HOW can I trust ANYTHING an islamic person says? It's okay for them to lie to me.

I don't believe in the existence of gods- but I do believe christians who follow their bible feel bad and shameful to lie to other people of any belief system. I trust christians in a way I can never trust islamic followers.

Hell as many posts here have revealed- there are NUMEROUS examples of mohammad artwork- including BY islamic artists and OF his face.