Oslo Today, London Tomorrow : The Sharia is Unstoppable

gregster's picture
Submitted by gregster on Sat, 2011-08-13 09:49

This has to be seen to be believed, that is, if you are a Muslim appeaser. The immigration of the slime has gone on for too long as you will see.

hat tip HBL.

Update Aug 11th 2012. The above video was "removed by the user." So here's another:


Evil is impotent in the long run

Leonid's picture

Evil is impotent in the long run. It's parasitic by nature, it uses creators to survive. In regard to Islam you may observe the sore state of affairs in the Islamic world in all fields of human enterprise, material and spiritual. But, yes, it could succeed in the short run, not long enough to take over the Western civilization. Whatever short term success they may have, they only could achieve it as result of our sanction. This is the real problem with Islamists. We discuss immigration policy before. This is true that immigration from the Islamic countries to the West run amok-without any selection, control or reservations. UK Home Affair Office issues British passport every 5 minutes. The reason for this is that people of the West try to redeem the colonial "sins" of their forefathers. This is also why the West allows stealth Jihad, to the extend that Sharia becomes the law of the land. As in any other case the feelings of unearned guilt becomes the sanction of the victims. However I wouldn't halt the immigration completely. There are some people in the Islamic world who try to escape the evil. Immigration should be a long selective process. After all no one let total strangers inside of his or her house indiscriminately. And for the people like Imran there is only one solution-the one way ticket to Pakistan, on their own expense. If Sharia is that what they want-they may have plenty of it over there.

Yes Leonid

gregster's picture

All we need to do in order to prevent it is simply not to allow them.

I'd halt and reverse immigration until Islam could be seen to be near-benign. As for "not allowing them," the problem is, the west is allowing them.

Evil is impotent by its very nature.

I don't believe this strictly holds true. We will see serious collateral damage before evil is ultimately found out.

They are not the first

Leonid's picture

They are not the first and probably not the last. Communists for example also intended to take over-look what happened to them, their mighty Empire collapsed like a house of cards and they were much more stronger than Islamists. I'm not that easy scared. Brevic's type hysterical reaction also doesn't help. All we need to do in order to prevent it is simply not to allow them. Evil is impotent by its very nature.

Belgium Today, World Tomorrow

gregster's picture

Needs to be seen:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?f...!

The subhumans intend to take over. No doubt about it. You know what I'd do.

Yes, Islam as Judaism

Leonid's picture

Yes, Islam as Judaism considers dogs as unclear animals. However Muslims allowed to keep dogs for security and hunting.

"Ibn Mughaffal reported: The Messenger of Allah ordered killing of the dogs, and then said: What about them, i. e. about other dogs? and then granted concession (to keep) the dog for hunting and the dog for (the security) of the herd, and said: When the dog licks the utensil, wash it seven times, and rub it with earth the eighth time."

It is difficult to say what is a reason for this. My guess is that in Mohammad's time stray dogs were a source of diseases ( rabies etc...)

In any case the killing of dogs is not a religious obligation. According to Wikipedia"The majority of Muslim jurists consider dogs to be ritually unclean, though jurists from the Sunni Maliki school disagree.[24] However, outside their ritual uncleanness, Islamic fatāwā, or rulings, enjoin that dogs be treated kindly or else be freed...The historian William Montgomery Watt states that Muhammad's kindness to animals was remarkable for the social context of his upbringing. He cites an instance of Muhammed posting sentries to ensure that a female dog with newborn puppies was not disturbed by his army traveling to Mecca in the year 630.[30]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I...

See also http://www.scholarofthehouse.o...

Tipping point?

gregster's picture

Now it's getting serious; even your pooch isn't safe!

"Spanish authorities are investigating the recent deaths by poisoning of more than a dozen dogs in Lérida, a city in the northeastern region of Catalonia that has become ground zero in an intensifying debate over the role of Islam in Spain.
All of the dogs were poisoned in September in Lérida's working class neighbourhoods of Cappont and La Bordeta, districts that are heavily populated by Muslim immigrants and where many dogs have been killed in recent years.."

Reported by Judson Phillips, here.

And in America;

Hagerstown came awfully close to a possible ‘honor killing’ in the last week. But the stepdaughter who defied her “religious” father by owning a dog is alive and the dog is dead. Islam puts dogs in the same category as pigs, blood, feces, urine and dead bodies as reviled objects in some branches of the Islamic “faith.”

Perhaps dogs can smell the evil on Muslims?

"Yes, the potential is there

Leonid's picture

"Yes, the potential is there for it to become something better, which requires the injection of reason, but so far it hasn't happened, Leonid."

No, it hasn't happened on the large scale yet, but there is a potential for a change and in fact it start to happen. You may look into
http://www.muslimsforpeace.org/
http://www.theamericanmuslim.o...

You may reflect on the statement from the Canadian Council of Imams Declaration: "The sanctity of human life overrides the sanctity of religious laws. Islamic rulings do not—and should not—contradict natural laws."

http://www.theamericanmuslim.o...

or even on the position of some Muslim religious leaders in regard to Israel:

"Some Muslim clerics, such as Sheikh Prof. Abdul Hadi Palazzi, Director of the Cultural Institute of the Italian Islamic Community,[1][2] and Imam Dr Muhammad Al-Hussaini[3] believe that the return of the Jews to the Holy Land, and the establishment of the State of Israel, are in accordance with teachings of Islam.[4][5] Some Muslim supporters of Israel consider themselves 'Muslim Zionists'.[6][7][8]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M...

These all are facts, and because I prefer not to ignore them you think that I'm an Muslim apologist. I'd agree that one sparrow doesn't bring spring and mainstream Islam is as such as you describe it. But to ignore the fact that the Islam is starting to change would be an evasion. The lack of recognition and support of a process of reforms which Islam is currently undergoing in the West would be a recipe for a permanent war.

What I'm trying to tell you

Richard Wiig's picture

What I'm trying to tell you is that religious conduct mostly depends on the interpretation of scriptures,

I know that, and I have never disagreed with that.

which in turn depends on political situation

Chicken or the egg. Interpretation leads to the political situation. Politics isn't a base, metaphysics and epistemology forms the politics.

( whims of the leader for example).

The more pious the political leader is, the more he'll be inclined to take the clergy to heart. It is the clergy, the scholars, who determine what Islam is, not the whims of any leader. It's a mistake to equate the whims of a leader to Islam.


The simple fact is that there was a time when reason had been accepted by the Muslim society including its clergy and in the right political condition it could happen again

Correction. There once was a time when reason was accepted by some of muslim society (ideas that they faced in the course of conquering other societiess), and a theological battle ensued within Islam. The side who supported reason lost. Islam isn't what it might have been, or what it was for a brief point in time, or what some small sect practices. Islam is the mainstream as it was interpreted and codified by the scholars. That is what Islam is. Not some hoped for, wished for something-different. Yes, the potential is there for it to become something better, which requires the injection of reason, but so far it hasn't happened, Leonid. It will never happen if people like you deny that there is anything wrong with it in the first place. As Robert Spencer often says, before you can change it you have to properly and fully identify what's wrong with it. You can't fix a problem if you deny there is a problem. Your apologism serves to deny there is a problem and take away focus from the things that need to be changed.

"Tolerance isn't because of

Leonid's picture

"Tolerance isn't because of Islam, it's in spite of it. What are you trying to tell me? That Islam is a tolerant religion?"

What I'm trying to tell you is that religious conduct mostly depends on the interpretation of scriptures, which in turn depends on political situation ( whims of the leader for example). Islam is what the clergy creates in order to achieve certain political goals. For example, one always can present the scripture's stories as an allegory ( as atlascot does), or apply different meaning to the certain verses or what you have.

The simple fact is that there was a time when reason had been accepted by the Muslim society including its clergy and in the right political condition it could happen again.

What I consider to be Islam

Richard Wiig's picture

What I consider to be Islam is the laws that dominated, regardless of any sects who differ. Over 90% of the Islamic world today is Sunni. Of the four main schools of Sunni Islamic jurisprudence they all pretty much agree on what is fundamental to the religion. Whether someone like Averroes is tolerated or not isn't due to the religion,it's down the whims of the leader of the time and whether or not it's a particularly pious leader, and particularly pious times. Tolerance isn't because of Islam, it's in spite of it. What are you trying to tell me? That Islam is a tolerant religion? Get off the grass, Leonid.

As for fearing the response of christians to revelations, well, I'll start concerning myself once they start flying planes into buildings, or ritualistically beheading non-christians and that kind of thing. Till then I won't be losing any sleep.

Richard Goode: re-revelation

Leonid's picture

" And it was commanded them that they should not hurt the grass of the earth, neither any green thing, neither any tree; but only those men which have not the seal of God in their foreheads.
[5] And to them it was given that they should not kill them, but that they should be tormented five months: and their torment was as the torment of a scorpion, when he striketh a man.
[6] And in those days shall men seek death, and shall not find it; and shall desire to die, and death shall flee from them...17] And thus I saw the horses in the vision, and them that sat on them, having breastplates of fire, and of jacinth, and brimstone: and the heads of the horses were as the heads of lions; and out of their mouths issued fire and smoke and brimstone.
[18] By these three was [13] And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.
[14] And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.
[15] And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.
, by the fire, and by the smoke, and by the brimstone, which issued out of their mouths....[13] And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.
[14] And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.
[15] And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire."

Do you have the seal of God on your forehead? Are you written in the book of life? if not, you may find yourself amongst these who died forever ( about 30% of humankind) without any hope for resurrection. From other hand it maybe even better than to "seek death, and shall not find it; and shall desire to die, and death shall flee from them.."

Don't you think that all this a bit out of character of the sweet loving Jesus?

" It was non-Islamic

Leonid's picture

" It was non-Islamic influences that had that good effect and it was Islam that ultimately could not tolerate it, "

Which Islam? You are talking as like as there were only one kind of Islam which is factually wrong.

The work of Averroes and others Muslim thinkers of Islamic enlightenment was very well tolerated until the Almohad Dynasty took over Moorish Iberia . Almohad were in fact Berbers, savage Muslim fundamentalists. They could tolerate Aristotelian philosophy as much as it would be tolerated in the Bible belt, USA. However the very fact that once Islam was influenced by reason is a proof that it could happen again.

" I really don't think that's anything I need to fear, Leonid."

Think again. Why you think, Christians went to the court in order to obtain an order to teach Armaggedon in school? Maybe some of them want to do the God's job by themselves?

http://www.theonion.com/video/...

Re Averroes

Doug Bandler's picture

Yes, they had some success, but the crucial point is that it was Islam that beat them back. It was non-Islamic influences that had that good effect and it was Islam that ultimately could not tolerate it, as has been the case right through the history of Islam. Averroes ended up in exile, others end up dead, and that hasn't changed to this day.

I have read this too and I agree with it. However, even Averroes himself was very traditional about some aspects of Islam:

"Averroes (d. 1198), the renowned philosopher and scholar of the natural sciences, who was also an important Maliki jurist, provided this typical Muslim legal opinion on the punishment for apostasy: “An apostate…is to be executed by agreement in the case of a man, because of the words of the Prophet, ‘Slay those who change their din [religion]’…Asking the apostate to repent was stipulated as a condition…prior to his execution.”"

From Andrew Bostom's site.

http://www.andrewbostom.org/bl...

Revelation 20:14-15 (KJV)

Richard Goode's picture

Of course, all the unbelievers are going to hell when god comes back on judgement day

And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire. (KJV)

it's going to be a very long wait.

My understanding is that all are resurrected at the Resurrection of the Dead prior to the Day of Judgment. On the Day of Judgment, God grants you either a "pass" or a "fail". If you did not achieve, you are promptly unresurrected. Being cast into the lake of fire is a metaphor for this "second death". The "blazing furnace" (Jesus never mentions a "lake of fire") is a metaphorical garbage incinerator, basically. It won't be a long wait. Just enough time to wail and gnash your teeth, then you go back to what you were doing before, i.e., rotting in the ground. The wages (punishment) of sin is death. Eternal punishment. Stone dead forever.

Of course, all the

Richard Wiig's picture

Of course, all the unbelievers are going to hell when god comes back on judgement day, so the kingdom of heaven on earth will only be populated by good christians. I really don't think that's anything I need to fear, Leonid. It's a vision of what gods going to do in the future, not what Christians are commanded to do today, and since there is no God, it's going to be a very long wait.

The Mu'tazilites existed in

Richard Wiig's picture

The Mu'tazilites existed in 8-10 centuries long before the Age of Enlightenment (18th century). They introduced the Greek philosophy into Islam and they hadn't been rejected. On the contrary, they had been widely accepted and that was the cause of the flourishing of Islamic civilization during Umayyad and Abassid period.( Islamic Golden Age).

Yes, they had some success, but the crucial point is that it was Islam that beat them back. It was non-Islamic influences that had that good effect and it was Islam that ultimately could not tolerate it, as has been the case right through the history of Islam. Averroes ended up in exile, others end up dead, and that hasn't changed to this day.

"As for the lords prayer,

Leonid's picture

"As for the lords prayer, believing that one day Jesus will return to rule the world bringing heaven on earth cannot be equated to the Islamic supremacist attitude that Islam must dominate and others must feel themselves subdued."

And what do you think would happen to all non-Christians or just unbelievers when " His kingdom come, His will be done,"?

The Mu'tazilites t existed in

Leonid's picture

The Mu'tazilites existed in 8-10 centuries long before the Age of Enlightenment (18th century). They introduced the Greek philosophy into Islam and they hadn't been rejected. On the contrary, they had been widely accepted and that was the cause of the flourishing of Islamic civilization during Umayyad and Abassid period.( Islamic Golden Age). That is true that Greek philosophy infusion into Islam wasn't always welcomed and occasionally persecuted. For example Abu'l-Walid Ibn Rushd, (Averroes) from Cordova for the short period fell out of the favor of Caliph Al-Mansôu, who ordered to burn his books. ( In the all Christian Europe of that time they probably would burn the philosopher himself). The same fate suffered works of Maimonid ( Rabbi Moshe ben Maimon) who also lived in Cordova, introduced the Aristotelian logic into Judaism and for that had been excommunicated by the Jewish community, his books had been burned. But all these were occasional glitches. The development of science, technology, trade , philosophy, art, the creation of wealth was unprecedented in the human history and could only be compared with the age of capitalism in Europe. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A...

It's all ended with Mongol invasion when Hulagu Khan sacked Baghdad on 10 February 1258. Been a savage he didn't give a damn about Aristotle. Islamic civilization never recovered from this blow.

Nevertheless Islamic civilization of the Abbasids managed to preserve Greek philosophy of reason for Europeans and thanks to it we had the age of Renaissance and Enlightenment.

But all that happened almost 700 hundred years ago. When I speak about enlightenment I refer to the 18th century European movement. The ideas of this enlightenment never been introduced to Islam, and by that time Islam already was so stagnated that it wouldn't be able to accept them.

Enlightenment ideas never

Richard Wiig's picture

Enlightenment ideas never been introduced to Islam.

Plenty of Islamic scholars have faced enlightenment ideas and rejected them. Plenty of muslims have tried to inject reason into Islam, but to no avail. The Mu'tazilite movement tried to inject reason into Islam, but was defeated by the orthodox. There are simply no texts that give an opening for it and make it welcome, unlike Christianity, which, fortunately for the world, does.

As for the lords prayer, believing that one day Jesus will return to rule the world bringing heaven on earth cannot be equated to the Islamic supremacist attitude that Islam must dominate and others must feel themselves subdued.

"Enlightenment ideas are not

Leonid's picture

"Enlightenment ideas are not so easily dismissed by Christianity as they are by Islam."

Enlightenment ideas never been introduced to Islam. The think they are the enlightenment! This is obviously that Christianity underwent a transformation if not in the fundamental ideology, then at least in its practice. However The Lords Prayer is an expression of a fundamental Christian belief that one day Christ will rule the whole world (" Your kingdom come, your will be done, on earth as it is in heaven.") exactly as Muslims believe that Islam one day will rule the whole world. Christianity changed the tactics to achieve this goal-unlike Islam they don't use the force anymore. (They not allowed to at present but will return to the old practice if they would have a half chance to do so). But Christianity never forfeited the goal itself-ask any Christian even on this site.

I fail to see how the Lords

Richard Wiig's picture

I fail to see how the Lords Prayer equates to Christian supremacism.

The difference between Christianity and Islam isn't simply that Christianity was forced to forfeit the state. Enlightenment ideas are not so easily dismissed by Christianity as they are by Islam. Islam has been forced many times to separate Church from State. It takes more than that. It takes something on a deeper level.

There are those amongst Al Qaida and other jihad groups who refer to Obama as the house nigger. There are those who do advocate his death. However, no one ever said that Jihadists aren't tactical, and it would be foolish to think they are tactless. The president of the United States is not an easy one to get, it's also probably not in their best interest to get him. One day maybe...

Beware of moderate Muslims bearing gifts

Richard Goode's picture

"The idea that Islam should

Leonid's picture

"The idea that Islam should reign supreme over all other religions comes from the teachings of Islam and nowhere else, "

Yes, for sure as an idea that Christianity should rule supreme comes from the Christian teachings. Just go over Lord's pray and pay attention to ""Our Father in heaven, hallowed be your name.Your kingdom come, your will be done, on earth as it is in heaven." ( Matthew 6:9–13)

The difference, however, between Christians and Muslims is that Christians had been forced to forfeit the use of the power of state to fulfill their aspirations and political Islam not. It seems that their time is also coming, at least in the West, as long as Western politicians don't provide political means to Islam. Moral licence alone , unsupported by the written code of Islam, that is-Qur'an, and political power will not do the job.

Here is an interesting question: Barak Hussein Obama is an apostate, according to any criteria of Islam. He is a born and bred Muslim who converted to Christianity. Why there is no death fatwa against him? Why he's visiting Muslim countries and gives public speeches without any fear? Why there is no one devoted American Muslim who would undertake the holy duty to kill him? Instead American Muslims who are mostly black, voted him into the office. To wit-political power can easy overrule a religious commandment, if conditions are right. That can work in both directions.

That all was true in the time

Richard Wiig's picture

That all was true in the time of Muhammad. His state was a true theocracy. But not Qur'an, nor Hadit endorses this status.

Well, Leonid, that's exactly from where todays jihadists, along with all the jihadists throughout the history of Islam, have been inspired in their statist collectivist outlook. The idea that Islam should reign supreme over all other religions comes from the teachings of Islam and nowhere else, and it in fact gives them a moral licence to do what they do.

That all was true in the time

Leonid's picture

That all was true in the time of Muhammad. His state was a true theocracy. But not Qur'an, nor Hadit endorses this status. As a matter of fact , after Muhammad often religious and secular powers in the Muslims states were separated and even in conflict - for example during the Umayyad dynasty. Today the only full theocracy is Iran. Even in the "second best" Islamist state-Saudi Arabia there is a separation between religious and secular power. The king is not a religious leader. Sharia court can sentence a woman to 10 lashes for driving and king cancels the sentence. In Yemen the pro-Sharia government cooperated with the born and bred Muslim Barak Hussein Obama in killing an American, Anwar al-Awlaki, Al-Qaeda terrorist. So Salafist ideology maybe based on Muhammad personal example, but not on the Islamic tradition as it presented in Qur'an and hadit, and this apparently the reason why salafists are not so popular in the Muslim world. Another reason- the current rulers are not so happy to release the power and to transfer it to Imams-they want to rule by themselves.

That they popularised a

Richard Wiig's picture

That they popularised a political slogan means nothing if it doesn't square with Muhammad. Remember, they love Muhammad more than their lives. Muhammad is the example of the perfect man, the moral exemplar. They can only have that slogan because it does square with Muhammad. Medinan period Islam was run as a state, with Muhammad at its head.

"Salafists didn't create

Leonid's picture

"Salafists didn't create political Islam. Muhammad did. You will never get it"

This is a ground for my position:

"The current Islamist idea " al-islam dinun was dawlatun"` (tr., Islam is a religion and a state) is neither a Koranic verse nor a quote from the hadith but a 19th century political Salafi slogan popularized in opposition to Western Egyptian influence ( Halliday, Fred, 100 Myths about the Middle East, Saqi Books, 2005. p.85-6)"

What is yours? If you can refute this with any textual evidence from Muhammad's book, please do it. I'm not in the habit to argue against facts. Beat Halliday's statement and I'll be the first to e-mail to him about how wrong he is.

Salafists didn't create

Richard Wiig's picture

Salafists didn't create political Islam. Muhammad did. You will never get it. Never. I'm feeling so exasperated. Thank gourd the feeling will pass quickly.

Salafists created political Islam

So fucking what? The point is

Leonid's picture

So fucking what?

The point is that Islam as any other religion could be used in politics. 2000 years of Christian wars and persecution of non-Christians is a result of the usage of Christianity by politicians whose ends had nothing in common with religion. The same applies to the militant Islam. Salafists created political Islam in order to achieve their political goals. The stoned suicide bombers maybe believe they die in the name of world domination by Islam, but their leaders have more practical agenda-to obtain the unchallenged control over the Muslim population and to collect as much money as possible in the process.

So fucking what? It's

Richard Wiig's picture

So fucking what?

It's entirely irrelevant to the problem, and subject, at hand.

The historical fact is that a persecution of religious minorities, infidels and apostates is not an exclusive privilege of Islam

FFS!!!I never claimed that.

Richard Wiig's picture

FFS!!!

What I said that genocide was predominantly politically motivated, Islam was used for political, nationalist goals of ethnic cleansing.

"your claim that Islam had no

Leonid's picture

"You can't read much into that 1925 date, Leonid. Right throughout the article 1922 is used, not 25"

You said "Most historians regard 1912 to 1925 as a time of massive Christian annihilation"

"your claim that Islam had no hand in it doesn't wash with me. "

I never claimed that. What I said that genocide was predominantly politically motivated, Islam was used for political, nationalist goals of ethnic cleansing. Although there were persecutions before and non-Muslims were treated as a second class citizens, there never has been a genocide on such a scale before the rise of Turkish nationalism. Throughout history of Islam the expansion always was in the first place a political affair-they fought for the land and in order to plunder. The spread of Islam was a bonus-they preferred to tax the non-Muslims and to allow them to live as a second class citizens rather than to convert them-at least the people of Book, Jews and Christians. Besides, "invasions by Muslim tribes (Arab or Turkish) never involved large numbers and were a much smaller cause of Islamization... The status of dhimmi was abolished only in the nineteenth century by the Ottomans and the Qajars...( In Russia only after Communist revolution in 1917 and only for the short period-Leonid)...Christians and Jews were no longer direct subjects of the Sultan. Instead they were now subject to an authority from their own religion, to whom Istanbul delegated power in matters pertaining to personal status...
By the time the Ottoman Empire collapsed in the First World War, the proportion of Christians had reached 20 percent in Turkey and the Fertile Crescent, even 33 percent in the Greater Syria of Lebanon, Syria, and Palestine...Currently about one hundred million non-Muslims are living in Muslim countries..."

http://www.pakdef.info/forum/s...

Ask yourself how many non-Christians are living in the countries conquered by Christianity -in Latin America, for example? The whole population of Russia had been converted by force as an ancient chronicle describes it " by the sword and fire".

The historical fact is that a persecution of religious minorities, infidels and apostates is not an exclusive privilege of Islam-enough to mention Spanish Inquisition or the St. Bartholomew's Day massacre when Catholics killed about 30000 Huguenots (French Calvinist Protestants) in 1572. The very Christian Bogdan Chmelnitzki and his Cossacks massacred 100,000 Jews in Poland in 1648. In the Christian Europe Jews were treated as a second class citizens who lived in ghettos and were prohibited to own land and to engage in any productive occupation. In Tzarist Russia the places of their settlements were strictly limited-most of them couldn't live in the large cities or own land. In Communist Russia they also have been treated as a second-class citizens-there was the 3% employment and high education quota for Jews, in spite that Communist government also used to have its own court Jews for the propaganda purposes, as Iranians do today. However I think that you'd agree that it's better to be a second class citizen then to be in the oven or on the Inquisition's burning stake.

Islam, been mystic irrational philosophy, therefore exhibits the same xenophobic traits as Christianity, Communism or Nazism. You may call it whitewhashing, but this is a simple historical true.

You can't read much into that

Richard Wiig's picture

You can't read much into that 1925 date, Leonid. Right throughout the article 1922 is used, not 25. All up, Leonid, there were 2.5 million murdered, and your claim that Islam had no hand in it doesn't wash with me. I just can't buy that the Ottoman empire, an Islamic empire, suddenly lost its Islamic culture and mindset. It's hard to imagine there being no crys of Allahu Akbar as individual Turks went about their slaughter, even if officially it wasn't done in the cause of Islam. It reminds me of the argument that the PLO was secular. Officially, perhaps, in reality, no. The actual breaking up of the Ottoman Empire gave birth to the Muslim Brotherhood, with the goal of bringing back the Caliphate, of which today we're seeing the product of their endeavours. And if there was no prevalent Islamic culture, then there'd have been nothing for Attaturk to suppress, but he worked hard to suppress Islam, which he did do, to the benefit of Turkey and the world.

So far as leniency of the non-muslim population goes, you're getting back into your whitewashing of Islam. There are scholars who whitewash, some to a great degree, some just a little, and there are others who don't at all. I'm not well enough read, or any kind of scholar, to know all of who is who, but I know enough to know that it's not a good idea to simply see what one man has to say. The whitewashing of Islam goes something like this. Those nazis would have put jews in the ovens, but over there in that Islamic land, that saved them for the ovens, they were so much better off, they could even choose their profession. Sounds good, doesn't it, but when you look closely it's really not so good at all. They are still persecuted. They are still classed as second class citizens. Their fate is still down the capriciousness of whoever is in power and the general current mood. There's a jewish population in Iran, and they're even allocated a seat in the Iranian parliament. It must mean that Islam, and the current Iranian regime, is cool bananas.

"Most historians regard 1912

Leonid's picture

"Most historians regard 1912 to 1925 as a time of massive Christian annihilation and relocation by the Muslim Ottoman Empire"

First, I'd like to correct the small historical mistake. As far as I know the Ottoman empire ceased to exist on 24 July 1923, under the Treaty of Lausanne. So in 1925 there was no Muslim Ottoman Empire but the Republic of Turkey founded by Mustafa Kemal Atatürk. About Atatürk one may say many things, but yet nobody called him an Islamist. Before Ottoman Empire was occupied by Allies ( 1918-1923) and hardly could engage in the massive Christian annihilation. The Armenian genocide you refer to in which between 100,000 to 300,000 Armenians living throughout the empire were killed and what became known as the Hamidian massacres happened in 1894-1896. Another genocide happened in 1915. The rise of Turkish nationalism in the end of 19th and beginning of 20th century was the main reason for Armenian Holocaust and persecution of the Christians. Since the foundation of the Ottoman Empire their rulers preferred negotiations with the non-Muslim population living under their jurisdiction rather confrontation or forcible conversion to Islam.

" After taking Constantinople, Mehmed met with the Orthodox patriarch, Gennadios and worked out an arrangement in which the Orthodox Church, in exchange for being able to maintain its autonomy and land, accepted Ottoman authority. Because of bad relations between the latter Byzantine Empire and the states of western Europe as epitomized by Loukas Notaras's famous remark "Better the Sultan's turban than the Cardinal's Hat", the majority of the Orthodox population accepted Ottoman rule as preferable to Venetian rule." ( Stone, Norman "Turkey in the Russian Mirror" pages 86–100 from Russia War, Peace and Diplomacy edited by Mark & Ljubica Erickson, Weidenfeld & Nicolson: London, 2004 page 94)

According to Thomas Walker Arnold, Islam was not spread by force in the areas under the control of the Ottoman Sultan. Rather, Arnold concludes by quoting a 17th century author:

"Meanwhile he (the Turk) wins (converts) by craft more than by force, and snatches away Christ by fraud out of the hearts of men. For the Turk, it is true, at the present time compels no country by violence to apostatise; but he uses other means whereby imperceptibly he roots out Christianity..."

The preaching of Islam: a history of the propagation of the Muslim faith By Sir Thomas Walker Arnold, pg. 135-144

"Under Ottoman rule, dhimmis (non-Muslim subjects) were allowed to "practice their religion, subject to certain conditions, and to enjoy a measure of communal autonomy, see: Millet" and guaranteed their personal safety and security of property, in return for paying tribute to Muslims and acknowledging Muslim supremacy.[6] While recognizing the inferior status of dhimmis under Islamic rule, Bernard Lewis, Professor Emeritus of Near Eastern Studies at Princeton University, states that, in most respects, their position was "was very much easier than that of non-Christians or even of heretical Christians in medieval Europe."[7] For example, dhimmis rarely faced martyrdom or exile, or forced compulsion to change their religion, and with certain exceptions, they were free in their choice of residence and profession.[8]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C...

The Ottoman fleet under command of admiral Barbarossa Hayreddin Pasha, evacuated the Muslims and Jews from Spain to the safety of Ottoman lands (particularly Salonica, Cyprus, and Constantinople) during the Spanish Inquisition. Large Jewish community was thriving in Salonikii till WWII when all Saloniki Jews ( about 120000) had been transferred to the concentration camps and killed.
t
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O...

The wars against European powers and confrontation with Russia were driven mainly by political, not religious motives. The Christian countries which had been under Ottoman rule for centuries-Hungry, Bulgaria, Romania ,Greece and part of Yugoslavia (Serbia, Croatia ) managed to preserve their Christian identity

The current Islamist idea " al-islam dinun was dawlatun"` (tr., Islam is a religion and a state) is neither a Koranic verse nor a quote from the hadith but a 19th century political Salafi slogan popularized in opposition to Western Egyptian influence ( Halliday, Fred, 100 Myths about the Middle East, Saqi Books, 2005. p.85-6)

The "Armenian Genocide" Most

Richard Wiig's picture

The "Armenian Genocide"

Most historians regard 1912 to 1925 as a time of massive Christian annihilation and relocation by the Muslim Ottoman Empire. Although commonly given the misnomer "Armenian Genocide," the atrocity was a carefully planned ethnic cleansing to rid Asia Minor of Armenians, Assyrians, Greeks and other minorities in order to establish an exclusively Muslim Turkish state. Some scholars date the first phase of the Christian genocide from the reign of Sultan Abdul Hamid and his Hamidian Massacres of 1895-1897 through the Istanbul Pogrom of 1955.

The Hamidian massacres attempted to assert Muslim supremacy and advance the cause of Turkification. French ambassador Pierre Paul Cambon described Turkey at the time as "literally in flames" with "massacres everywhere" and Christians murdered "without distinction." Marauding Kurdish chieftains in the region were encouraged to join in and channel their aggression into the killing, pillaging and raping of non-Muslim populations. Estimates of the number of Christians who perished during the reign of Sultan Hamid range from 100,000 to 300,000.
From the 1900's to 1922, the Christian population declined from 25% to less than 5% within Anatolia. Under Islam, Christians had few rights, paid exorbitantly high taxes - the jizya - and enjoyed limited political representation and access to government services. Their testimony was inadmissible, no provision existed for their legal protection, they were prohibited from owning firearms, and their property, wives and children were vulnerable to spontaneous attacks.

Approximately 2.5 million Armenians[1], Assyrians[2] and Greek Christians[3] were massacred during this period. Kurds were encouraged to settle in Christian territory, demand the payment of tributes and illegally seize land. They were given free rein against local Christians in exchange for their loyal service to the Ottoman government.

http://www.seyfocenter.com/ind...

"Whether there were major

Leonid's picture

"Whether there were major advances or not really doesn't matter, Leonid. Was 9/11 a major advance? Was 7/7 a major advance? Was Madrid a major advance?"

Obviously it is major advance. But if you were paying attention you'd notice that I referred to the period from the mid 16th to the beginning of 20th century. In this period of time there weren't any major advance. Armenian genocide (1915) was committed by Young Turks who were driven mainly by ultranationalistic, not religious ideas-like Hitler's Holocaust.
http://www.armenian-genocide.o...

The obvious question is why during 450 years Islam never made any attempts to dominate or even to threat the West and returned to this policy only now? Was it because the West was technologically much more advanced than the East? But the same situation exists today. In my opinion the only difference is that the West in the past used to have strong ideological foundations. Their erosion is the sole factor which allowed Islam to become a threat.

http://www.newswithviews.com/S...

Whether there were major

Richard Wiig's picture

Whether there were major advances or not really doesn't matter, Leonid. Was 9/11 a major advance? Was 7/7 a major advance? Was Madrid a major advance? Was the Armenian genocide a major advance? Probably not, but that's little comfort to anyone. Throughout the history of Islam there has been many caliphs, and would-be caliphs, who have been more concerned with power than religion, but the religion provides them a vehicle to power. Major advance or not, Islam has still consistently delivered instability and trouble, and it quite clearly has continued doing that well after 1453 right through to the present day. Any lulls are only because of weakness in the Ummah.

Thanks for that link. As you

Leonid's picture

Thanks for that link. As you can see the only major victory of Islam after 1453 was that of Uzbecki king Baboor in India. ( they called him
Mogol by mistake). King Baboor was far from being an Jihadist. He was almost secular, used to drink alcohol, was a poet, a linguist who created the original Uzbeck alfa-bet. In his kingdom he developed science and art. When he lost his kingdom in Uzbekistan he first tried to restore it with the help of Persian army and when he failed, he turned to India. Again his motivation wasn't religious but rather political-he simply wanted to be a king. The same applies to the Turkish victory in Azov-that was a political, not Jihadist compain. Azov had been taking back soon by Peter the Great. Besides these two events according to the chronology table there weren't any major advances of Islam over almost 5 centuries.
T

I dont know why you say it

Richard Wiig's picture

I dont know why you say it stopped in 1453, Leonid. Here's a chronological history from faithfreedom.org:

http://www.faithfreedom.org/fo...

"So long as Islam hasn't been

Leonid's picture

"So long as Islam hasn't been defanged, as you put it, it will bring Jihad with it. Islam creates jihadis,"

Islam definitely militant and can create Jihad as long as political conditions are right . However, throughout history predominantly politics, that is-the interests of certain groups of power which used Islam, created Jihad. Otherwise, how you can explain the fact that after the fall of Constantinople in 1453 and until 20th century there was a huge Islamic Empire and no Jihad whatsoever? How do you explain that many Muslim countries don't do Jihad even today? Defanging of Islam means creation of such political condition which will prevent Jihad. Obviously, the first comes first and Jihadists must pay. But second-the West should restore its original system of values-and I don't mean the Objectivist Utopia-that would be too much to ask- but old good 18th century classical liberalism. That alone could stop Jihad, at least in the West.

What I mean is that Christianity and Islam didn't create their original God, like Judaism or Hinduism for example. They just borrowed God from Judaism.

"Be sure I'll add them to the

Leonid's picture

"Be sure I'll add them to the hitlist when they start flying planes into skyscrapers."

Not so fast. This game is over. They busy to kill each other right now and will do so for the very long time.

Leonid

Richard Goode's picture

Jihad

They don't actually define

Richard Wiig's picture

They don't actually define the rules of the game, Leonid. They follow the rules that are laid out for them, in fact, laid out for all muslims. Muslims in the West are here to bring Islam to you, and that's exactly what they're going to do. So long as Islam hasn't been defanged, as you put it, it will bring Jihad with it. Islam creates jihadis, and it stop creating them just because its sitting on one side of a border as opposed to another.

In regards to there being no Christian god, that isn't the way I see it. Each religion ascribes different qualities to what they call Allah and God. If they have different qualities from each other, then, aside from the fact they don't even exist, they must be different things. A Christian non-entity thing, and an Islamic non-entity thing.

Interesting, Leonid

gregster's picture

"In this piece I found a striking similarity of Salafi Islam with the Orthodox Judaism." Be sure I'll add them to the hitlist when they start flying planes into skyscrapers.

Kufr and al fikr

Leonid's picture

In this piece I found a striking similarity of Salafi Islam with the Orthodox Judaism. The observing Jew is also prohibited to listen to a women's singing voice and women obviously prohibited to sing in public. The prohibition to draw is from OT 10 commandments:
"'You shall not make for yourself a carved image--any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the eartth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth"

I couldn't find the origin of the word "al-fikr" in any dictionary but I suspect that this word as Hebrew Epikores derived from the name of Greec philosopher Epicurus who didn't believe in God. Therefore it is only natural that Al-fikr ( a thinker who doubts) becomes a kufr ( kofer in Hebrew), the unbeliever. However that doesn't mean that in Islam there is no place for thinking-as long as one believes in Allah . For example the top of thinking in the classification of hadith called nukhbat al-Fikr.
The word " Kaffir"-which is a derogatory name for the black people in South Africa coined by Muslim slave traders, derived from the "kufr" . Its meaning rather a pagan, unbeliever, not infidel.

Richard

Leonid's picture

Of course, there is only one Islam. I meant Islamists in the West and in the East. In the East they can define the rules of the game, in the West not just yet, as long as we don't allow that.

" the Christian God is bound by natural laws, but the Islamic God is not."

There is no such a thing as a Christian God. Instead, Christianity has the very confused concept of Trinity. Two components of trinity are taken from OT: God-father is the God of Abraham Isaac and Jacob. Holy Spirit is also featuring in the very beginning of Genesis. Christianity just added God-son (whatever it means). Both father and son violated natural laws many times over. Islamic God is a version of OT God, since Qur'an is an adapted and corroded version of OT. But most importantly, religion, any religion is based on faith, this is unconditional non-justified blind belief and as such religion doesn't have anything in common with reason.

The Development of a Jihadi’s Mind

gregster's picture

Essay 2 from this pdf CURRENT TRENDS IN ISLAMIST IDEOLOGY Edited by
Hillel Fradkin, Husain Haqqani, Eric Brown.

In addition to its severe prohibitions governing sexual conduct, Salafi Islam also strictly limits most artistic expression, which it considers to be satanic. Music involving string instruments is haram (forbidden). Songs, especially romantic ones, are prohibited as well. It is haram to listen to a woman’s singing voice. Even drawing is restricted. Such harsh pro- hibitions suppressed my ability to appreciate beauty and prepared my mind to accept the inhuman elements in Salafi doctrine. By way of contrast, it is interesting to note that Sufi Muslims enjoy music, singing and dancing, and they rarely, if ever, engage in terrorism.

[..]

During my first year of medical school, a Jamaah member named Muchtar Muchtar invited me to join the organization. Muchtar was in his fourth year, and Jamaah had given him the title amir (prince or caliph)—a designation taken from early Islamic writings that is associated with the Islamic Caliphate or Amir al-Momenin (Prince of the Believers).

I accepted his invitation, and we walked together to Jamaah’s mosque for noon prayers. On the way there Muchtar emphasized the central importance in Islam of the concept of al-fikr kufr, the idea that the very act of thinking (fikr) makes one become an infidel (kufr).

(In Arabic both words are derived from the same three root letters but have different meanings.)

He told me, “Your brain is just like a donkey (a symbol of inferiority in the Arab culture) that can get you only to the palace door of the king (Allah). To enter the palace once you have reached the door, you should leave the donkey (your inferior mind) outside.”

By this parable, Muchtar meant that a truly dedicated Muslim no longer thinks but automatically obeys the teachings of Islam.

[..]

When confronted by outsiders, however, these same Muslims insist that such stories are misinterpreted because they are taken out of context—though they rarely, if ever, provide the context. This self-protective denial effectively paralyzes further criticism by the West. Meanwhile, these texts are taught and understood in a very literal way by both the young members of Jamaah and many other Muslims.

There is on "Islam in the

Richard Wiig's picture

There is no "Islam in the East, and Islam in the West", Leonid. There is only Islam.

Christianity doesn't

Richard Wiig's picture

Christianity doesn't discredit reason, but Islam does. It's because of the fundamental differences in what they consider to be the nature of God. In a nutshell, the Christian God is bound by natural laws, but the Islamic God is not. People often treat them as if they worship the same god, but they don't.

Cheers for that, Gregster. I

Richard Wiig's picture

Cheers for that, Gregster. I think I'll get that book.

As I said, Leonid, I haven't

Richard Wiig's picture

As I said, Leonid, I haven't denied the violence in Christian history. I'm not an expert on Christianity, but I'd hazard that Christians have been violent because of the violence in the OT and because of the times, a time lacking in reason. It wasn't just Christians who were brutal. Brutality was the order of the day across all social strata, Christian and non-Christian alike. The point under the spotlight here though is that there is no open-ended command for Christians to eternally war against non-Christians. There is no "fight them [militantly if need be] until the world is all for Allah". There is no end to that. It is applicable for all times. The world will never ever be all for Allah, because there will always be people who don't believe in and who resist Islam. There is absolutely no equivalent to that in Christianity. For various reasons, reasons that are not present in Islam, Christianity has risen above its violent past and become something different. Wouldn't know it though to listen to you.

"It is not subject to

Leonid's picture

"It is not subject to critical examination because the principal theological school of Sunni Islam discredited reason."

Of course Islam discredited reason, all religions do. However it's important to distingiushe between Islam and Muslims. Nobody can practice Islam in full and live. Therefore in their daily life Muslims do employ reason. They are doctors and lawyers, physicists and businessmen etc...For the most of them Islam is dietary requirements, ethical teaching-like charity, holidays , prayers and maybe Hajj. In other words, Islam for them became a cultural trend. As most of the religious people they live by mixed premises-reason and faith.

"Islam doesn't allow the

Leonid's picture

"Islam doesn't allow the separation."

Remember, we discuss Islam in the West, since about Islam in the East we cannot do much today. But to whom and how in the West Islam can allow or not allow anything? Unless Islam totally infiltrated all structures of legislature and power, it doesn't have such an ability. That means that in the absence of political support in order to exist in the West Islam will have to reform itself and the reformers have to be leading Muslims who realize that such a reformation is an existential need. Some of them already appeared, although they are a minority. However if Islam in the West will carry on to enjoy the support of the state, if Sharia becomes the law of the land-like in UK, if state prosecutes those who criticize Islam, if state's educational system accommodates Islam, if Madison Avenue is closed for traffic by NYPD officers in order to allow Muslims' prayers-then there is no pressure on Islam to reform and Sharia is unstoppable.

The Closing of the Muslim Mind

gregster's picture

"Robert Reilly, author of the superb and essential book The Closing of the Muslim Mind, was kind enough to grant Jihad Watch an exclusive interview:

"In your fascinating new book The Closing of the Muslim Mind, you expand in important ways on the insight Pope Benedict XVI expressed in his famous Regensburg address--that Islam, as it currently exists in all "orthodox" forms, is fundamentally at odds with reason. Surely, you don't mean that Muslims don't employ reason in their daily lives or even their political conduct. So what do you mean?

I mean what the Pope meant when he spoke of the dehellenization of Islam - its loss of philosophy and reason. I mean that the premise from which many Muslims start is unreasonable in the sense that it is not subject to critical examination. It is not subject to critical examination because the principal theological school of Sunni Islam discredited reason."

A book I will have to get hold of for bigger ammunition against certain appeasers.

"Keep trying, Leonid. None of

Leonid's picture

"Keep trying, Leonid. None of those verses you just picked out are open-ended commands to war against non-Christians."

  In such a case you maybe should explain why the 90% of the history of Christianity is a bloody inbridled carnage?

We know that you are for the

Richard Wiig's picture

We know that you are for the separation of church and state, Leonid, however that does not in any way defang Islam. Islam doesn't allow the separation. To defame Islam you have to actually deal with and reform Islam itself.

"It is a politics enshrined

Leonid's picture

"It is a politics enshrined in a religion so the politics is, in fact, religion"

 The foundation of politics is a power, that is-the physical force of state. Only with the support of state a politics enshrined in a religion. These are the fangs I'm talking about and without them a religion is simply a system of beliefs  which cannot be enforced on  infidels.  This is applicable to Christianity, Islam and any other religion. Islam should be severed from the support of the state. Ubfortunately in the West we observe the opposite process. When in many Muslim countries Islam is separated from state, in the West-especially in UK and France, it became part and parcel of political system. Islam, however could be hardly blamed for that. This is result of the philosophy of multiculturism  

It is a politics enshrined in

Richard Wiig's picture

It is a politics enshrined in a religion so the politics is, in fact, religion. There's no equivalent in Christianity. If there was, we'd still be having as many problems with Christianity today as we're having with Islam. On top of that very few are even willing to identify the fangs, including yourself. Islam wont change until its been severed of its politics, but its politics is Gods law, not mans, and muslims aren't commanded to follow man.

Militant Islam is a politics

Leonid's picture

 Militant Islam is a politics and therefore a problem. Militant Christianity also used to be mostly a politics before detoxification.  I don't understand why you maintain that Islam cannot be detoxificated as well, at least in the West. After all most of the Muslims don't practice the militant political version of Islam, no matter what they believe. Many Christians also believe in the second coming and the terrible war of Gog and Magog.I have no problem with this as long as they don't try to practice it.

 

Why is it that previously,

Richard Wiig's picture

Why is it that previously, when someone says the problem is Islam, you've been saying it's not Islam, it's politics, and now here you are agreeing that it is Islam? I suspect that what you're actually agreeing to here is the idea that Islam and Christianity are the same but you have to carry a contradiction in order to do it. On the other hand, perhaps you've changed your tune?

 

<i>Yes, it is, as Christianity was not so long time ago.</i>

"Islam appears to be a

Leonid's picture

"Islam appears to be a gigantic version of a crazed christian sect from which you’re not allowed to escape, with a malevolent lust for more members "

 Yes, it is, as Christianity was not so long time ago. The modernization of Christianity is  a result of secularization of the Western society during the age of enlightenment, not Christianity's merit. Its fangs had been removed. The same process could happen in Islam, at least among the   Muslims who live in the West. Their fangs should be removed. Non-militant version of  Islam as non-militant Christianity could be tolerated.

Not even jesus with the sword

Richard Wiig's picture

Not even jesus with the sword in his mouth.

If the Bible does have

gregster's picture

If the Bible does have passages that command war against non-christians, it isn't being taken literally in our modern context. I wouldn't be surprised at all if it did, it and the koran are worthless. I know of the western component to the origins of Al Quaeda. It's still a product of Islam.

The difference; the islamic death cult does not appear to be able to modernise, the christian one on the whole has.

Islam appears to be a gigantic version of a crazed christian sect from which you’re not allowed to escape, with a malevolent lust for more members. It wasn’t long ago that a christian theocracy was taken to be the graver danger to America than the Democrats by some Objectivists. Multiply that threat if we’re talking of a muslim theocracy.

"None of those verses you

Leonid's picture

"None of those verses you just picked out are open-ended commands to war against non-Christians.

 What? Not even  Jesus with the sword in his mouth?

" Osama is a product of

Leonid's picture

" Osama is a product of Islam"-Islam provided the ideology, America-the money and ammunition.

The Islamic "jihad" was supported by the United States and Saudi Arabia with a significant part of the funding generated from the Golden Crescent drug trade:

In March 1985, President Reagan signed National Security Decision Directive 166,...[which] authorize[d] stepped-up covert military aid to the mujahideen, and it made clear that the secret Afghan war had a new goal: to defeat Soviet troops in Afghanistan through covert action and encourage a Soviet withdrawal. The new covert U.S. assistance began with a dramatic increase in arms supplies -- a steady rise to 65,000 tons annually by 1987, ... as well as a "ceaseless stream" of CIA and Pentagon specialists who traveled to the secret headquarters of Pakistan's ISI on the main road near Rawalpindi, Pakistan. There the CIA specialists met with Pakistani intelligence officers to help plan operations for the Afghan rebels. (Steve Coll, Washington Post, July 19, 1992.)

 

The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) using Pakistan's military Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) played a key role in training the Mujahideen. In turn, the CIA sponsored guerrilla training was integrated with the teachings of Islam:

"Predominant themes were that Islam was a complete socio-political ideology, that holy Islam was being violated by the atheistic Soviet troops, and that the Islamic people of Afghanistan should reassert their independence by overthrowing the leftist Afghan regime propped up by Moscow." 

Dilip Hiro, Fallout from the Afghan Jihad, Inter Press Services, 21 November 1995.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=CHO20110907&articleId=26444

 

National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski visited Afganistan in 1979 and met with Bin Laden and even took a picture with him. Brzezinski would tell the mujahideen

We know of their deep belief in God, and we are confident their struggle will succeed. That land over there is yours, you’ll go back to it one day because your fight will prevail, and you’ll have your homes and your mosques back again. Because your cause is right and God is on your side."

http://newsone.com/newsone-original/casey-gane-mccalla/cia-osama-bin-laden-al-qaeda/

As you can see, America or at least its leaders supported Islam as 

"socio-political ideology, that holy Islam was being violated by the atheistic Soviet troops," and a   good Catholic Zbigniew Brzezinski supported their struggle so they may have their mosques back. But it is Leonid who undermines America. You've been ridiculous. 

 "Islam is not a threat to

Leonid's picture

 "Islam is not a threat to Russia"- it maybe a threat but Russians do know how to deal with it properly. The West doesn't.

Yes, of course America didn't

Richard Wiig's picture

Yes, of course America didn't create Osama. Osama is a product of Islam, not of America. It seems that Leonid likes to undermine America.

Apologist

gregster's picture

"Americans, BTW, also aided Islamists in Afghanistan and created Usama bin Laden."

The bloody Americans huh? Created that Osama too? Ron Paul would get your vote Leonid.

"Impossible to prove" I can't make the case for that. An error.

"but I doubt they do it now. "

Richard Wiig's picture

The most prominent example is the aid and political support they give to Iran. It's foolish to say that Islam is not a threat to Russia. It's a threat to the entire bloody world.

Keep trying, Leonid. None of

Richard Wiig's picture

Keep trying, Leonid. None of those verses you just picked out are open-ended commands to war against non-Christians.

"Russia does in fact have

Leonid's picture

"Russia does in fact have many problems with hardcore Islam."

This is also true, Russia has been attacked by hardcore Islamists and responded as any nation which respects itself should response- Russian Army simply demolished the Islamists' stronghold and killed many of them. However the peaceful and law obeying Muslims can practice their religion freely in Russia. Russians used to aid Islamists before, during the Communism , but I doubt they do it now. Americans, BTW, also aided Islamists in Afghanistan and created Usama bin Laden.

"nobody in Russia advocates

Leonid's picture

"nobody in Russia advocates to blow up mosques" Impossible to prove."

At least nobody as big as Peikoff. Nobody who is an intellectual leader. That is quite easy to prove.

In any case the Russians are confident about their values and their cultural heritage, so Islam is not a threat for them.

"I got halfway through before

Leonid's picture

"I got halfway through before giving up. I didn't find any such verse in the first half, and I'd stake money on it that there's no such verse in the second half. "

How much did you stake? Can I e-mail to you my bank account?

"Peter claims that Deuteronomy 18:18-19 refers to Jesus, saying that those who refuse to follow him (all non-Christians) must be killed. 3:23"

" Jesus makes war." Revelations 19:11

" With eyes aflame, many crowns on his head, clothes dripping with blood, a sword sticking out of his mouth, and a secret name, Jesus leads the faithful in heaven into holy war on earth." Revelations 19:14-15

"Repent -- or else Jesus will fight you with the sword that sticks out of his mouth. 2:16
"I [Jesus] will kill her children with death." 2:23 Jude

" Those who disobeyed the Old Testament law were killed without mercy. It will be much worse for those who displease Jesus." 10:28-29 Hebrews.

"All liars, as well as those who are fearful or unbelieving, will be cast into “the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone.” Revelations 21:8

There is much more

It's pity you have no patience, but never mind. Just read Revelations-pure Christian production. You'll find in it more bloodshed of non-believers then in all Hollywood movies, not to mention Qur'an.

The pillars of Christianity-OT and NT are full of violence and yet Christianity today is a peaceful religion. In Qur'an one can find many verses which teach peace and love and mercy yet Islam today is militant. This is a proof that scriptures have nothing to do with the religious practices, which are driven mainly by political goals. For the non-fundamentalists ( which are the most of religious people) religion is simply a custom, a cultural trend. There is no emulation in religion, otherwise every Muslim would marry 6 years old girl and everyChristian would put himself on the cross ( as very few of them actually do).

Round up the Atheists.

Richard Wiig's picture

I don't know that it's worth much, Mr Maurone.

Time to round up the Atheists?

Jmaurone's picture

For what it's worth:

Florida Pastor Doesn’t Get Why Atheists Aren’t Registered Like Sex Offenders

From the article:

"Stahl has proposed the creation of a national registry for atheists, much like the ones in existence for sex offenders. It's almost self-evident why this is a good idea, but let's have Stahl explain it himself:

'Now, many (especially the atheists), may ask "Why do this, what's the purpose?" Duhhh, Mr. Atheist for the same purpose many States put the names and photos of convicted sex offenders and other ex-felons on the I-Net — to INFORM the public! I mean, in the City of Miramar, Florida, where I live, the population is approx. 109,000. My family and I would sure like to know how many of those 109,000 are ADMITTED atheists! Perhaps we may actually know some. In which case we could begin to witness to them and warn them of the dangers of atheism. Or perhaps they are radical atheists, whose hearts are as hard as Pharaoh's, in that case, if they are business owners, we would encourage all our Christian friends, as well as the various churches and their congregations NOT to patronize them as we would only be "feeding' Satan."

'Frankly, I don't see why anyone would oppose this idea — including the atheists themselves (unless of course, they're actually ashamed of their atheist religion, and would prefer to stay in the "closet.").'

Whoever has ears to hear, let them hear

Richard Goode's picture

Mark 4:1-20 is the Parable of the Sower.

Jesus explains why he speaks in parables: to confuse people so they will go to hell. 4:11-12

Wrong. Jesus doesn't explain that he speaks in parables in order to confuse people so that they will go to hell. He doesn't mention the fate of the confused at all. Jesus (mis)quotes Isaiah 6:9-10. So, what exactly was Jesus doing?

It's really quite simple. He was being facetious. He was poking fun at his disciples! That's right, Jesus is joking. He has a sense of humour!

Imagine the frustration Jesus must have felt, when his own disciples failed to grasp the meaning of his parables, the meaning of which, in many cases at least, is immediately apparent to all but complete dullards. Gah!

There's another thing about the Parable of the Sower, a small but remarkable detail mentioned in passing.

The crowd that gathered around him was so large that he got into a boat and sat in it out on the lake, while all the people were along the shore at the water’s edge.

Imagine the situation. Jesus gets to speak where all can hear, and at the same time puts a safe distance between himself and his merely human audience. What an inspired idea! (If that isn't genius, what the hell is?) Now, if the existence of the historical Jesus is a myth, and the Gospel stories are fabrications, do you really suppose that this inessential detail would have found its way into the story? I don't. It shouts authenticity. Mark 4:1-20 describes events which actually took place.

Mark 4:1-20

Richard Goode's picture

Again Jesus began to teach by the lake. The crowd that gathered around him was so large that he got into a boat and sat in it out on the lake, while all the people were along the shore at the water’s edge. He taught them many things by parables, and in his teaching said: “Listen! A farmer went out to sow his seed. As he was scattering the seed, some fell along the path, and the birds came and ate it up. Some fell on rocky places, where it did not have much soil. It sprang up quickly, because the soil was shallow. But when the sun came up, the plants were scorched, and they withered because they had no root. Other seed fell among thorns, which grew up and choked the plants, so that they did not bear grain. Still other seed fell on good soil. It came up, grew and produced a crop, some multiplying thirty, some sixty, some a hundred times.”

Then Jesus said, “Whoever has ears to hear, let them hear.”

When he was alone, the Twelve and the others around him asked him about the parables. He told them, “The secret of the kingdom of God has been given to you. But to those on the outside everything is said in parables so that,

“‘they may be ever seeing but never perceiving,
and ever hearing but never understanding;
otherwise they might turn and be forgiven!’”

Then Jesus said to them, “Don’t you understand this parable? How then will you understand any parable? The farmer sows the word. Some people are like seed along the path, where the word is sown. As soon as they hear it, Satan comes and takes away the word that was sown in them. Others, like seed sown on rocky places, hear the word and at once receive it with joy. But since they have no root, they last only a short time. When trouble or persecution comes because of the word, they quickly fall away. Still others, like seed sown among thorns, hear the word; but the worries of this life, the deceitfulness of wealth and the desires for other things come in and choke the word, making it unfruitful. Others, like seed sown on good soil, hear the word, accept it, and produce a crop—some thirty, some sixty, some a hundred times what was sown.”

"nobody in Russia advocates

Richard Wiig's picture

"nobody in Russia advocates to blow up mosques" Impossible to prove.

Not only is it a baseless claim, but a quick google will show that Russia does in fact have many problems with hardcore Islam. (On the other hand, they are also aiding and abetting Islamists where they think it suits their geo-political goals.)

Leonid

Richard Goode's picture

Your "solid basis" is the The Skeptic's Annotated Bible. Copied, pasted and unattributed.

As it happens, last month Berend de Boer (well-known denizen of the NZ blogosphere) finished a labour of love that he'd started seven years earlier.

The author of the SAB answered
An exhaustive examination of the claims made by the author of the Skeptic's Annotated Bible (SAB). Do the alleged absurdities and contradictions stack up?

Good news, good timing. Thanks, Berend!

Jesus explains why he speaks in parables: to confuse people so they will go to hell. [Mark] 4:11-12

I'll comment on this.

I asked you for evidence of

Richard Wiig's picture

I asked you for evidence of an open-ended command for Christians to wage war against non-believers, but rather than produce a verse that fits the bill, you cut and paste screeds. I got halfway through before giving up. I didn't find any such verse in the first half, and I'd stake money on it that there's no such verse in the second half. If there was, it would be world famous by now.

Arbitrary

gregster's picture

"nobody in Russia advocates to blow up mosques" Impossible to prove.

Muslims praying in Moscow

Leonid's picture

And yet, there is no slightest threat of Islamic domination in Russia, there is no stealth Jihad. I wonder why? Maybe, it is because the Russians respect their values and their culture? The militant Jihad in Russia has been met with the full military power of the state-Jihadists' stronghold, Grozni city has been bombed to the dust. Yet the Muslims who practice their religion peacefully can do it without any oppression and limitation as one can see on the video. Russia also experienced Islamic terrorism, but nobody in Russia advocates to blow up mosques. Some Muslims in Russian Federation have their own autonomic republics and regions ( Tatars, Bashkirs, Abkhazians etc...)

"I challenge you to produce

Leonid's picture

"I challenge you to produce the open-ended calls to violence in Christianity that equates to what we see in Islam."

"Sure, but that isn't eternal doctrine designed to shape Christian behaviour till the end days"

Isn't it? And what about revelation? And in regard to the Christian behaviour-the history speaks for itself. The atrocities and bloodshed in the name of Jesus Christ throughout the history were as bad as those of Muslims if not worse. And here is the solid basis for it:

Matthew

Those who bear bad fruit will be cut down and burned "with unquenchable fire." 3:10, 12
Jesus strongly approves of the law and the prophets. He hasn't the slightest objection to the cruelties of the Old Testament. 5:17
Jesus recommends that to avoid sin we cut off our hands and pluck out our eyes. This advice is given immediately after he says that anyone who looks with lust at any women commits adultery. 5:29-30
Jesus says that most people will go to hell. 7:13-14
Those who fail to bear "good fruit" will be "hewn down, and cast into the fire." 7:19
"The children of the kingdom [the Jews] shall be cast out into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth." 8:12
Jesus tells a man who had just lost his father: "Let the dead bury the dead." 8:21
Jesus sends some devils into a herd of pigs, causing them to run off a cliff and drown in the waters below. 8:32
Cities that neither "receive" the disciples nor "hear" their words will be destroyed by God. It will be worse for them than for Sodom and Gomorrah. And you know what God supposedly did to those poor folks (see Gen.19:24). 10:14-15
Families will be torn apart because of Jesus (this is one of the few "prophecies" in the Bible that has actually come true). "Brother shall deliver up the brother to death, and the father the child: and the children shall rise up against their parents, and cause them to be put to death." 10:21
Jesus says that we should fear God who is willing and "able to destroy both soul and body in hell." 10:28
Jesus says that he has come to destroy families by making family members hate each other. He has "come not to send peace, but a sword." 10:34-36
Jesus condemns entire cities to dreadful deaths and to the eternal torment of hell because they didn't care for his preaching. 11:20-24
Jesus will send his angels to gather up "all that offend" and they "shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth." 13:41-42, 50
Jesus is criticized by the Pharisees for not washing his hands before eating. He defends himself by attacking them for not killing disobedient children according to the commandment: "He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death." (See Ex.21:15, Lev.20:9, Dt.21:18-21) So, does Jesus think that children who curse their parents should be killed? It sure sounds like it. 15:4-7
Jesus advises his followers to mutilate themselves by cutting off their hands and plucking out their eyes. He says it's better to be "maimed" than to suffer "everlasting fire." 18:8-9
In the parable of the unforgiving servant, the king threatens to enslave a man and his entire family to pay for a debt. This practice, which was common at the time, seems not to have bothered Jesus very much. The parable ends with this: "So likewise shall my heavenly Father do also unto you." If you are cruel to others, God will be cruel to you. 18:23-35
"And his lord was wroth, and delivered him to the tormentors." 18:34
God is like a rich man who owns a vineyard and rents it to poor farmers. When he sends servants to collect the rent, the tenants beat or kill them. So he sent his son to collect the rent, and they kill him too. Then the owner comes and kills the farmers and rents the vineyard to others. 21:33-41
"Whosoever shall fall on this stone shall be broken: but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder." Whoever falls on "this stone" (Jesus) will be broken, and whomever the stone falls on will be ground into powder. 21:44
In the parable of the marriage feast, the king sends his servants to gather everyone they can find, both bad and good, to come to the wedding feast. One guest didn't have on his wedding garment, so the king tied him up and "cast him into the outer darkness" where "there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth." 22:12-13
Jesus had no problem with the idea of drowning everyone on earth in the flood. It'll be just like that when he returns. 24:37
God will come when people least expect him and then he'll "cut them asunder." And "there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth." 24:50-51
The servant who kept and returned his master's talent was cast into the "outer darkness" where there will be "weeping and gnashing of teeth." 25:30
Jesus tells us what he has planned for those that he dislikes. They will be cast into an "everlasting fire." 25:41
Jesus says the damned will be tormented forever. 25:46
Mark

Jesus explains why he speaks in parables: to confuse people so they will go to hell. 4:11-12
Jesus sends devils into 2000 pigs, causing them to jump off a cliff and be drowned in the sea. When the people hear about it, they beg Jesus to leave. 5:12-13
Any city that doesn't "receive" the followers of Jesus will be destroyed in a manner even more savage than that of Sodom and Gomorrah. 6:11
Jesus criticizes the Jews for not killing their disobedient children as required by Old Testament law. (See Ex.21:15, Lev.20:9, Dt.21:18-21) 7:9-10
Jesus tells us to cut off our hands and feet, and pluck out our eyes to avoid going to hell. 9:43-49
God is like a rich man who owns a vineyard and rents it to poor farmers. When he sends servants to collect the rent, the tenants beat or kill them. So he sent his son to collect the rent, and they kill him too. Then the owner comes and kills the farmers and gives the vineyard to others. 12:1-9
Jesus tells his disciples to eat his body and drink his blood. 14:22-24
Jesus says that those that believe and are baptized will be saved, while those who don't will be damned. 16:16
Luke

God strikes Zacharias dumb for doubting the angel Gabriel's words. 1:20
Those who fail to bear "good fruit" will be "hewn down, and cast into the fire." 3:9
John the Baptist says that Christ will burn the damned "with fire unquenchable." 3:17
Jesus heals a naked man who was possessed by many devils by sending the devils into a herd of pigs, causing them to run off a cliff and drown in the sea. This messy, cruel, and expensive (for the owners of the pigs) treatment did not favorably impress the local residents, and Jesus was asked to leave. 8:27-37
Jesus says that entire cities will be violently destroyed and the inhabitants "thrust down to hell" for not "receiving" his disciples. 10:10-15
Jesus says that we should fear God since he has the power to kill us and then torture us forever in hell. 12:5
Jesus says that God is like a slave-owner who beats his slaves "with many stripes." 12:46-47
"Except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish." 13:3, 5
According to Jesus, only a few will be saved; the vast majority will suffer eternally in hell where "there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth." 13:23-30
In the parable of the rich man and Lazarus, the rich man goes to hell, because as Abraham explains, he had a good life on earth and so now he will be tormented. Whereas Lazarus, who was miserable on earth, is now in heaven. This seems fair to Jesus. 16:19-31
Jesus believed the story of Noah's ark. He thought it really happened and had no problem with the idea of God drowning everything and everybody. 17:26-27
Jesus also believes the story about Sodom's destruction. He says, "even thus shall it be in the day the son of man is revealed ... Remember Lot's wife." This tells us about Jesus' knowledge of science and history, and his sense of justice. 17:29-32
In the parable of the talents, Jesus says that God takes what is not rightly his, and reaps what he didn't sow. The parable ends with the words: "bring them [those who preferred not to be ruled by him] hither, and slay them before me." 19:22-27
Jesus tells his disciples to eat his body and drink his blood. 22:19-20
John

Jesus believed the stupid and vicious story from Numbers 21. (God sent snakes to bite the people for complaining about the lack of food and water. Then God told Moses to make a brass snake to cure them from the bites.) 3:14
"God so loved the world, that he gave his His only begotten Son."
As an example to parents everywhere and to save the world (from himself), God had his own son tortured and killed. 3:16
People are damned or saved depending only on what they believe. 3:18, 36
The "wrath of God" is on all unbelievers. 3:36
Jesus believes people are crippled by God as a punishment for sin. He tells a crippled man, after healing him, to "sin no more, lest a worse thing come unto thee." 5:14
Those who do not believe in Jesus will be cast into a fire to be burned. 15:6
Jesus says we must eat his flesh and drink his blood if we want to have eternal life. This idea was just too gross for "many of his disciples" and "walked no more with him." 6:53-66
Acts

Peter claims that Deuteronomy 18:18-19 refers to Jesus, saying that those who refuse to follow him (all non-Christians) must be killed. 3:23
Peter and God scare Ananias and his wife to death for not forking over all of the money that they made when selling their land. 5:1-10
Peter has a dream in which God show him "wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls." The voice (God's?) says, "Rise, Peter: kill and eat." 10:10-13
Peter describes the vision that he had in the last chapter (10:10-13). All kinds of beasts, creeping things, and fowls drop down from the sky in a big sheet, and a voice (God's, Satan's?) tells him to "Arise, Peter; slay and eat." 11:5-10
The "angel of the Lord" killed Herod by having him "eaten of worms" because "he gave not God the glory." 12:23
David was "a man after [God's] own heart." 13:22
The author of Acts talks about the "sure mercies of David." But David was anything but merciful. For an example of his behavior see 2 Sam.12:31 and 1 Chr.20:3, where he saws, hacks, and burns to death the inhabitants of several cities. 13:34
Paul and the Holy Ghost conspire together to make Elymas (the sorcerer) blind. 13:8-11
Romans

Homosexuals (those "without natural affection") and their supporters (those "that have pleasure in them") are "worthy of death." 1:31-32
The guilty are "justified" and "saved from wrath" by the blood of an innocent victim. 5:9
God punishes everyone for someone else's sin; then he saves them by killing an innocent victim. 5:12
"If ... we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son", then God is truly a monster. 5:10
1 Corinthians

If you defile the temple of God, God will destroy you. 3:17
Paul claims that God killed 23,000 in a plague for "committing whoredom with the daughters of Moab 10:8
If you tempt Christ (How could you tempt Christ?), you'll will die from snake bites. 10:9
If you murmur, you'll be destroyed by the destroyer (God). 10:10
2 Corinthians

The terror of the Lord 5:11
Galatians

Ephesians

We are predestined by God to go to either heaven or hell. None of our thoughts, words, or actions can affect the final outcome. 1:4-5, 11
God had his son murdered to keep himself from hurting others for things they didn't do. 1:7
The bloody death of Jesus smelled good to God. 5:2
Those who refuse to obey will face the wrath of God. 5:6
Philippians

Colossians

God bought us with someone else's blood. 1:14
God makes peace through blood. 1:19-20
1 Thessalonians

God is planning a messy, mass murder in "the wrath to come" and only Jesus can save you from it. 1:10
Christians shouldn't mourn the death of their fellow believers. They'll be OK and you'll see them later in heaven. The people you should mourn are dead nonbelievers. They have no hope (because they're going to hell). 4:13
2 Thessalonians

Jesus will take "vengeance on them that know not God" by burning them forever "in flaming fire." 1:7-9
Jesus will "consume" the wicked "with the spirit of his mouth." 2:8
God will cause us to believe lies so that he can damn our souls to hell. 2:11-12
1 Timothy

2 Timothy

Titus

Philemon

Hebrews

"That which beareth thorns and briers is rejected, and is nigh unto cursing; whose end is to be burned."
Apostates will burn in hell with the other non-believers. 6:8
"Melchisedec ... met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings, and blessed him."
God showed his approval of "the slaughter of the kings" with Melchisedec's blessing of Abraham. (Genesis 14:17-18) 7:1
God will not forgive anyone unless something is killed for him in a bloody manner. 9:13-22
"A certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries."
God will soon destroy non-believers in a fiery hell. 10:27
Those who disobeyed the Old Testament law were killed without mercy. It will be much worse for those who displease Jesus. 10:28-29
"Vengeance belongeth unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord." 10:30
"It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God." 10:31
"Abraham ... offered up Isaac ... his only begotten son." (And this was a good thing? How fucked up is that?) 11:17
The Israelites kept the passover and sprinkled blood on doorposts so that God wouldn't kill their firstborn children (like he did the Egyptians in Exodus 12:29). 11:28
God saved Rahab because she believed. (He killed all the non-believers in Jericho.) 11:31
"Time would fail me to tell of Gideon, and of Barak, and of Samson, and of Jephthah; of David also, and Samuel, and of the prophets."
The heroes of faith: Gideon, Samson, Jephthah, David, and Samuel. It would be hard to find a more monstrous group than these guys. 11:32
"Others were tortured ... that they might obtain a better resurrection." 11:35
God ordered animals to be "stoned, or thrust through with a dart" if they "so much as ... touch the mountain." 12:20
"Ye are come ... to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things that that of Abel." 12:22-24
James

James says Abraham was justified by works (for being willing to kill his son for God); Paul (Rom.4:2-3) says he was justified by faith (for believing that God would order him to do such an evil act). 2:21
1 Peter

We are all, according to Peter, predestined to be saved or damned. We have no say in the matter. It was all determined by "the sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ."1:2
"The precious blood of Christ ... was foreordained before the foundation of the world."
God planned to kill Jesus from the get-go. 1:19-20
God drowned everyone on earth except for Noah and his family. 3:20
2 Peter

God drowned everyone else on earth except for Noah and his family. 2:5, 3:6
"Turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrha into ashes" 2:6
God will set the entire earth on fire so that he can burn non-believers to death. 3:7
When Jesus returns, he'll burn up the whole earth and everything on it. 3:10
1 John

Jesus' blood washes away human sin. 1:7
2 John

3 John

Jude

"The Lord destroyed them that believed not." 5
God sent "eternal fire" on the people of Sodom and Gomorrah for "going after strange flesh." 7-8
Revelation

Jesus "washed us ... with his own blood." 1:5
Everyone on earth will wail because of Jesus. 1:7
Jesus has "the keys of hell and death." 1:18
Repent -- or else Jesus will fight you with the sword that sticks out of his mouth. (Like the limbless knight in Monty Python's "Holy Grail.") 2:16
"I [Jesus] will kill her children with death." 2:23
"Thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created." God created parasites, pathogens, and predators for his very own pleasure. One of his favorite species is guinea worms. 4:11
"Thou art worthy ... for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood." 5:9
God gives someone on a white horse a bow and sends him out to conquer people. 6:2
God gave power to someone on a red horse "to take from the earth ... that they should kill one another." 6:4
God tells Death and Hell to kill one quarter of the earth's population with the sword, starvation, and "with the beasts of the earth." 6:8
The martyrs just can't wait until everyone else is slaughtered. God gives them a white robe and tells them to wait until he's done with his killing spree. 6:10-11
God tells his murderous angels to "hurt not the earth, neither the sea, nor the trees, till we have sealed the servants of your God on their foreheads." This verse is one that Christians like to use to show God's loving concern for the environment. But the previous verse (7:2) makes it clear that it was their God-given job to "hurt the earth and the sea" just as soon as they finished their forehead marking job. 7:3
144,000 Jews will be going to heaven; everyone else is going to hell. 7:4
Those that survive the great tribulation will get to wash their clothes in the blood of the lamb. 7:14
God sends his angels to destroy a third part of all the trees, grass, sea creature, mountains, sun, moon, starts, and water. 8:7-13
"Many men died of the waters, because they were made bitter." 8:11
The angels are instructed not to "hurt the grass [how could they? He already had all the grass killed in 8:7] ... but only those men which have not the seal of God on their foreheads." God tells his angels not to kill them, but rather torment them with scorpions for five months. Those tormented will want to die, but God won't let them. 9:4-6
God makes some horse-like locusts with human heads, women's hair, lion's teeth, and scorpion's tails. They sting people and hurt them for five months. 9:7-10
Four angels, with an army of 200 million, killed a third of the earth's population. 9:15-19
Anyone that messes with God's two olive trees and two candlesticks (God's witnesses) will be burned to death by fire that comes out of their mouths. 11:3-5
God's witnesses have special powers. They can shut up heaven so that it cannot rain, turn rivers into blood, and smite the earth with plagues "as often as they will." 11:6
After God's witnesses "have finished their testimony," they are killed in a war with a beast from a bottomless pit. 11:7
Their dead bodies lie unburied for three and a half days. People will "rejoice over them and make merry, and shall send gifts to one another." After another three and half days God brings his witnesses back to life and they ascend into heaven. 11:8-12
When the witnesses ascend into heaven, an earthquake kills 7000 men. This was the second woe. "The third woe cometh quickly." 11:13-14
"The Lamb slain from the foundation of the world"
God planned to kill Jesus before he created the world. 13:8
Those who receive the mark of the beast will "drink of the wine of the wrath of God ... and shall be tormented with fire and brimstone ... and the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever." 14:10-11
Jesus sits on a white cloud with a sharp sickle in his hand. When the angel tells him to reap, he kills all the people with his sickle. 14:14-18
"The great winepress of the wrath of God ... was trodden ... and the blood cam out of the winepress, even unto the horses bridles." 14:19-20
Seven angels with seven plagues are filled with the wrath of God. 15:1, 15:7
The seven vials of wrath: 1) sores, 2) sea turned to blood, 3) rivers turned to blood, 4) people scorched with fire, 5) people gnaw their tongues in pain, 6) Euphrates dries up, 7) thunder, lightning, earthquake, and hail. 16:1
"There fell a noisome and grievous sore upon the men which had the mark of the beast." 16:2
"The second angel poured out his vial upon the sea; and it became as the blood of a dead man: and every living soul died in the sea." 16:3
"The third angel poured out his vial upon the rivers and fountains of waters; and they became blood." 16:4
God gave the saints and prophets blood to drink. 16:6
An angel tells God how righteous he is because he gives saints blood to drink. 16:7
"Power was given unto him [the fourth angel] to scorch men with fire." 16:8
Those who were being burned to death by God didn't repent "to give him glory." 16:9
"The fifth angel poured out his vial ... and they gnawed their tongues for pain." 16:10
Even after being burned alive, those nasty people wouldn't repent! 16:11
Christians will fight in the war between Jesus and those allied with the beast. 17:14
"They shall eat her flesh and burn her with fire." (Are they going to eat her first and then burn her?) 17:16-17
To punish her God will send plagues and famine, and "she will be utterly burned with fire." 18:8
God will send plagues, death, and famine on Babylon, and the kings "who have committed fornication with her" will be sad to see her burn. 18:8-9
Jesus makes war. 19:11
Jesus's clothes are dipped in blood and his secret name ("that no man knew") is "The Word of God". (I bet you thought it was Jesus!) 19:13
With eyes aflame, many crowns on his head, clothes dripping with blood, a sword sticking out of his mouth, and a secret name, Jesus leads the faithful in heaven into holy war on earth. 19:14-15
"Come ... unto the supper of the great God." An angel calls all the fowls to feast upon the flesh of dead horses and human bodies, "both free and bond, both small and great." 19:17-18
The beast and the false prophet are cast alive into a lake of fire. The rest were killed with the sword of Jesus. "And all the fowls were filled with their flesh." 19:20-21
God will send fire from heaven to devour people. And the devil will be tormented "day and night for ever and ever." 20:9-10
Whoever isn't found listed in the book of life will be cast into the lake of fire. 20:15
All liars, as well as those who are fearful or unbelieving, will be cast into "the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone." 21:8

Tommy Robinson

Richard Wiig's picture

"We will never surrender our rights to Islamists".

Bomb the Mosque?

gregster's picture

I've looked again at Peikoff's opinion on the Ground Zero mosque, for which he took much criticism.

He said then that as part of a proper government's foreign policy action, it is legitimate, that if the owners decided to build the mosque, the government had the right to, once evacuated, bomb it.

Transcript of the Peikoff Q&A here [complete with minor errors].

He's correct. I say that the destruction of any mosque is legitimate.

John David Lewis interview

gregster's picture

"Scott Holleran: We now know that the Soviets had infiltrated the United States government and U.S. industries, including motion pictures, and society. Is jihadist Moslem infiltration—including takeover—of the U.S. government possible?

John David Lewis: I don’t think takeover was the kind of thing the Communists were after. What they were going to do is [try to] elect people who would be sympathetic to the Soviet cause. I think that, in a certain sense, there’s a strong parallel, because those who want a radical Islamic war culminating in a one-world government are just as overt in pursuing their goals as were the Communists. But the Soviets were less interested in a one-world government [than jihadists]. The Iranians may be less focused on one-world government than the Saudis. The Iranians act more like the Soviets—they want to have nukes to play like the big boys, whereas the Saudis are more like the Trotskyites. They want this worldwide evolution [toward Islamic statism] and are more patient about infiltrating [Western civilization]. The Saudis have built thousands of mosques and [radical Islamic group] CAIR has directly said that Sharia law imposed over the United States will come. To actually take over the U.S. government in the sense that they impose Sharia law? We’re a long way from that. But if you mean creating sympathies and bringing about a radical Islamic-influenced government…"

..

gregster's picture

It only takes one nail to hang a picture.

Greg

Richard Goode's picture

Can I call you Richard?

You can. And you can buy me a beer at Galbraith's next time I'm in Auckland. Smiling

Here's a riddle for you: What's the difference between Jesus and a picture of Jesus?

Well done No Goode

gregster's picture

"The West is at war with Islam, yet Leonid stubbornly refuses to follow the first rule of the Art of War: Know your enemy."

Can I call you Richard?

Leonid skinned

gregster's picture

"It proves beyond any doubt that the advance of Islam in the West became possible only because West forfeited and betrayed its core values."

Again you put the cart before the horse. The advance of Islam is the primary threat - Islam is the threat.

The West's problem of eroded core values is another issue. How many times must I duck your head under water to extract this plain confession?

"Only restoration of such a values can stop Islam."

The local Imam will be pleased with your work.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.