Wrestling With Mohammed
Is Islam a religion of peace or an imminent fascist threat? This may very well be one of the most crucial questions of our era.
Is there actually a definitive, clear-cut answer to this monumental question?
Yes, there is, but unfortunately it is buried in a miasma of misinformation and religious apologetics. Also, unfortunately for some, there is no shortcut to understanding the true nature of Islam, just as there is no shortcut to understanding the true nature of Christianity. You will not get your answers by reading your local newspaper or by listening to the evening news. Knowledge, like any other worthwhile goal, must be earned, you must work for it. In the case of Islam, the answers lie in the Qur’an and in the accompanying expository texts. The answers lie in that abundance of Islamic literature, and in the pronouncements of its leaders and in their actions. The answers are there for all to see. They are clearly stated and unequivocal. But you must take the time to read them and to listen.
However, given the reality of our hectic lives, few of us have the space, or even the inclination to devote precious hours of our free time to this laborious and relatively abstruse quest. For most of us, this means that we have to rely on others to help us form our opinions. Generally, we tend to gravitate toward those opinions which fit most neatly into our own personal worldview. Or, put another way, into the rhetoric of our particular political persuasions. Thus, we rely for the exposition of truth on those purported experts who, whether overtly or covertly, have a personal agenda of their own.
What, you might ask, is my personal agenda?
Did I suddenly wake up one morning and decide to devote the rest of my life to denigrating one of the world’s major religions?
Hardly.
Did I suddenly wake up one morning to find that our country had just been attacked and thousands killed by a group of young Middle Eastern hijackers who just happened to all be Muslim?
Yes. And I have devoted a major portion of my life since then trying to better understand the true nature of this religion and of this threat.
Opinions, In my opinion, unlike principles, are not sacred possessions to be protected, locked away and defended from all intruders. Rather, they are, or should be, living and evolving attitudes, constantly subjected to rigorous revision and adjustment — or, when neccessary, quickly abandoned for some more plausible or cojent truth.
Is there perhaps a better way to understand this debate, without having to rely on the questionable opinions of others, while avoiding that impracticable investment of time and energy?
I believe that there is. I believe that all it requires of us is the acceptance of the following simple and straight-forward premise: It is possible to understand the fundamental nature of a religion by judging the character of its founder. If one accepts the fairness of this premise, then our task becomes a little easier.
Fortunately, there is an abundance of literary evidence devoted to the lives of both Jesus Christ and Mohammed. The problem for us is that, while almost all of us have a comfortable familiarity with the narrative of the life of Christ, few of us could relate the life of Mohammed with the same confidence.
Therefore, when we are told that Islam is a religion of peace, we tend to accept this statement at face value; all that we can equate it to are those religions with which we are familiar, which, for most Christians is Christianity, which in its present form is basically peaceful.
The contrast between the lives of these two monumental figures could not be more striking or more enlightening. The basic facts of their lives are well-documented and attested.
There are, to the best of our knowledge, no surviving texts which document Christ either injuring or killing any living creature, let alone another human being.
Mohammed slaughtered dozens of his unfortunate enemies, personally decapitating his rival Abu Jahl.
Again, to the best of our knowledge, Jesus Christ never participated in any acts of piracy, rape, plunder, kidnapping or thievery.
Mohammed did.
It has never been substantiated that Jesus Christ had ever had any physical relationship with any contemporary female or participated in any form of pedophilia.
Mohammad had eleven wives, whom he sometimes enjoyed all at once — including nine year old Aisha. When Mohammed took the child Aisha to bed he was fifty-three years old. He also took the wife of his adopted son to bed for his amusement. Conveniently, for justification of these abomidable acts he invariably claimed to have recieved some form of special divine encouragement or dispensation in the form of a vision from Allah.
Since its inception, two thousand years ago, Christianity has evolved and refined itself through a whole series of reformations and readjustments. The episodic violence of its early years has given way to a generally peaceful coexistence with secular authority.
Islam has never changed — except for the negative effects of Wahhabism, which only succeeded in turning Islam further in on itself and away from the world of progress and enlightment.
Christianity has brought the world the message of kindness and charity. If the world has at times chosen to ignore this message, that is not the fault of Christianity but, rather, a testament to the weakness of human beings. Over the years, Christianity has unquestionably inspired untold numbers of artists, sculptors, writers and musicians to produce some of the most marvelous creations the world has ever known.
Islam has brought the world polygamy, forced female genital mutilation (an estimated 135 million to date, with 2 million young girls presently at risk), forced marriages, pedophilia, officially-sanctioned rape (804 documented cases in the year 2000 in Pakistan alone), along with those wonderful family values, such as honor killings and the total brutal subjagation of all of its second-class females, and has infected the world with it’s most virulent form of anti-Semitism.
And let us not forget those unquestionable benefits of global terrorism (between the years 1960 and 2000, 95% of all terrorist attacks were the result of Islam).
Here, my friends, is the holy voice of Allah: “I will terrorize the unbelievers. Therefore smite them on their necks and every joint and incapacitate them. Strike off their heads and cut off each of their fingers and toes.” (Qur’an 8:12)
In the immortal words of Edward Gibbon, from his monumental “The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire”, long before this cowardly age of Political Correctness: “His [Mohammed’s] voice invited the Arabs to freedom and victory, to arms and rapine, to the indulgence of their darling passions in this world and the other…”
Perhaps the most illustrative example of the character of Mohammed in our current age would be a cross between Pol Pot and John Gotti — although, to his credit, John Gotti never had any incestuous or pedophilic relationships that I am aware of. The deadly Fatwas issued in Mohammed’s name, or in the name of one of his mullahs, are morally identical to a mob-sanctioned contract, and should be treated with the same contempt.
If my characterization of this “peaceful religion” appears to some as harsh and brutal, it is because this terrible “religion” is harsh and brutal. However, everything that has been stated above can be readily substantiated with their own writings and in their own words.
But what, then, of those “Moderate Muslims”? What of those decent Muslims who claim that they are fighting back against those particularly violent precepts of Islam?
To these valiant apostates I can only answer, if you are truly willing to disassociate yourselves completely from the divinely perfect words of the Prophet, if you are truly willing to turn your backs on the entire force of the argument of his criminal life, if you are truly willing to accept without qualification the natural equality of women, and the right to the existence of a viable Jewish state, then I welcome your rebellion and bow to your courage.
And, might I suggest, that we honor this great internal theological jihad of yours by allowing those munificent Saudis to erect a Grand Mosque in New York City, as they still plan to do in London. I propose that the construction of this Great Monument to Islam coincide with the ground-breaking ceremony for that first great synogogue in Riyadh or with the innauguration of that first magnificent Roman Catholic Cathedral in Cairo.
Further, I support the opening of innumerable Islamic Madrasses throughout the United States, immediately after our own Pastor Ed is allowed to conduct his first Christian History classes in Damascus.
I also believe that it is only fair and right that we provide those Muslims in our midst with their religious footbaths in our universities and our airports, right after that first Christian Science Reading Room opens its doors in Yemen.
And, to be completely fair, we should allow full native Muslim dress in all of our schools and universities, just as soon as those Iranian women are allowed to wear short skirts and uncovered hair to the University of Tehran.
Lastly, to the question of whether Islam is or is not a fascistic threat, consider this: according to my dictionary’s definition, fascism is “a governmental system (remember, there exists no distinction in Islam between religion and government) led by a dictator (Mohammed or his imams) having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism.”
Could there be any more precise description of our current threat?
I rest my case and patiently await those inevitable cries of prejudice and racism. And perhaps a stray fatwa.
Did you enjoy this post? Why not leave a comment below and continue the conversation, or subscribe to my feed and get articles like this delivered automatically each day to your feed reader. If you don't have a feed reader, you can always have these articles delivered to your email inbox every day. Click here to sign up.
Trackbacks & Pingbacks
Comments
Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
Roger, your article is going to spur a lot of debate - that's for sure. I have a couple, problems with the article. Judging the "founder" of a religion is inherrently flawed for two very important reasons. First, the founders did not write anything down and thus we rely on "eye witness" accounts from third parties, which are without a doubt innacurate in many ways as seen by differences in the gospels. Second, and more importantly, the religion is made up, or, a creation of man and thus inherently flawed and fallible. So why follow the teachings at all? With all due respect, there is no evidence to prove that much of it is not make believe. Of course, that's not to say teachings such as, treat others how you would like to be treated, do not have a place in our society, but we could probably stop there and cut out just about everything else. Especially, the convoluted dogma and inexplicable other worldy acts. My other problem is that you say Islam itself has wrought violence and pain throughout history, but a religion in itself is an idea and manuscripts and thus cannot in itself ring violence. Rather, the sheep that follow each religion to the "T" bring the violence. Finally, judging the practices of someone outside the social norms and beliefs of its culture is foolish. Although you may find polygamy dispicable does not make it wrong. Although genital mutilation and fornication with a nine year old are ghastly we must remember that the writings are from a different time, place, and therefore must view them as such. Educated, and worldly peoples who still follow those practices obviously have no excuse. Everything must be put in the proper frame. Science and education: Huzzah.
Roger, you continue to produce outstanding articles that are timely and needed! Give me a little heads up if I am going to need to pack for Damascus, as I will need to raise the necessary funds for my trip (most pastors are not rich as some would have you to believe). However, I think the time needed to raise the funds will far exceed the total amount needed, as I would probably have until "hell freezes over" to get that done! Also, I am not going to say much about aaron's "typical" remarks from those Christian skeptics other than this. There is a book called "The Case for Christ" by Lee Strobel. He was a non-believer who wanted to prove to his wife (a Christian) that same type comments made by aaron were true and accurate. What happened was that when he did his research - which was very in-depth, he found that the "evidence" was overwhelming that the Bible is accurate and the "case for Christ" was more than provable - he became a believer. Way to Go Roger on another great post - and get ready. When you speak up for Christ, the onslaught normally begins and can get very nasty!
Good piece, guaranteed to make people think.
Huzzah. I never did understand the problem with polygamy, as long as it was 'safe': over 18, etc.
Roger this is an excellent article and I know it took great courage to write! I hope that you can send the article link to Christians Against Leftist Heresy so that this article can be included on the side bar. I noted the leftist idiot who make the first comment fell back to cultural/ moral relativism with this :“Finally, judging the practices of someone outside the social norms and beliefs of its culture is foolish. Although you may find polygamy dispicable does not make it wrong. . .” First the idiot misspelled “despicable” and more importantly he’s dead wrong. Morality is not relative!!! It’s because of these Leftists that we are not fighting world-wide Islamofascism! I also suggest reading “The Enemy at Home by Dinesh D’Souza.
Roger that has to be the best one yet! Keep them coming! The Truth Shall Set Us Free!!! Robert…
Aaron, Moe did not fornicate with a 9 year old, he consummated their marriage. From her third year, until their marriage, he was thighing her. Google it, I ain't gonna explain it here. When Khomeini took over Iran, he changed the age of consent to 9 following Moe's Sunnah. Polygamy & fgm, while transmitted by Islam's sword, did not originate with Islam, they are carryovers from Arabian culture. Moe's razzia & ghazwat were motivated by greed. Islam is based on his kutbah, which were rabble rousing rants urging his companions to pillage & plunder for his profit. He promised them Paradise in the next world, with Houris to sport with & rivers of wine. He promised rich spoils in this world and threatened non-participants with Hellfire. The bottom line: Islam is a control mechanism designed to foment war for Moe's empowerment & emolument. It is not a religion. To see the documentation of this fatal fact, go to http://crusadersarmory.blogspot.com/2006/03/roots...you will find the evidence linked to source for verification & further exploration.
Aaron - Roger is judging the founder of a religion using the information the founder's followers gave us! Whether you believe the information is accurate matters little - they believe it to be accurate. Likewise, whether you believe religion is believable has no bearing on the "problems" you have with the article - Roger's not looking for followers. (Atheists - why is it always about them?) Then you say that a religion itself cannot bring violence, except if it is followed "to the "T"". Huh? I'm thinking you just wanted to fit in "sheep" somewhere. (what is it with atheists and sheep?) Finally - this gem: "judging the practices of someone outside the social norms and beliefs of its culture is foolish." So it follows from your pretzel logic that "genital mutilation and fornication with a nine year old are ghastly" but that "does not make it wrong." How did we go from critiquing a post about the poisonous heart of a religion to cultural relativism? You spend your whole meandering rebuttal backhanding religionists, then you tell us we shouldn't be judging those who choose to live by seventh century standards and moral practices? What would this world look like if we never stood up to render judgment against the practices before us? I'll tell you - it would look like the Middle East, and people like you would be stoned to death for blasphemy! Don't you have the slightest understanding that if Western civilization had not rendered judgment on the "social norms" and "beliefs" of the cultures before and around them, you wouldn't have the freedoms you enjoy today? Christianity and Western civilization go hand in hand - you can thank the church for much of the knowledge you might insist undermine her. A little time spent at the library will cure you of your reactionary arrogance. Science and religion: Huzzah.
I shouldn't be surprised if fatwa isn't in your future. Thanks for all the work you've done, and for distilling it in an interesting way
I'm glad you chose to not include when I said that people who are educated or have access to information have no excuse in practices of genital mutilation and such. My comment speaks to indigenous tribes and such who still live without or with little contactt with the general population of the world. There's no way a people like that can be judged outside of the norms of their tribe, community life, etc. However, the middle east is largely connected and therefore has no excuse for genital mutilation and similar practices. Poligamy is what it is and if practiced among people who are physically, intellectually, and emotionally mature seems acceptable. Christianity spurred wars, crusades, and ethnic cleansing yet its based on the teachings of Jesus never sponsored or called for violence. Thus, how does looking to the founders of a religion provide insight into the followers of a religion. Of course Christianity is based on Judeo teachings which suppossedly were passed to Abraham from the mouth of god…so once again you're dealing with a seemingly noble being. But wait, Islam is also based on Judeo-Christian beliefs so where does the blame really lie? Perhaps Muhammed twisted the cheating, but perhaps the real fault is in those following the religion. Furthermore, I stated the problem with depending on the writings of followers due to potential discrepencies, exaggerations, and fallacies which makes following the writings word for the word foolish. And yes, those who follow a religion to the "T" are sheep. Its ridiculous. Religion has its place as tradition, but I firmly believe it must be adapted as times change.
Aaron, It does not need to be true to cause trouble, only believed and acted upon. A sufficient number have believed and carried out Moe's commands so that large areas of the world were strewn with rubble and bones. Hindu Kush means place where the Hindus were slaughtered. The traditions of Moe's companions are called Sunnah: example. They guide the exegis of the Qur'an and are part of the basis of Islamic law. I suggest that you turn to Book 11 of Riyad-us-Saliheen and read Chapter 234 : Obligation of Jihad which you can find here: http://www.witness-pioneer.org/vil/hadeeth/riyad/....
Roger, you say, " … opinion, unlike principles, are not sacred possessions to be protected, locked away and defended from all intruders. Rather, they are, or should be, living and evolving attitudes, constantly subjected to rigorous revision and adjustment — or, when neccessary, quickly abandoned for some more plausible or cojent truth." That is a very important statement. As bloggers we most often write our "opinions", which are based on our knowledge and information at this given point in time. As we learn more we may change our minds about something. Concerning Mohammad, your commenter is correct when he says the followers of Mohammad believe what is written in Islam's sacred books, therefore they follow what is written. However there are groups who are straying from this and acknowledging that the religion needs to be changed. Muslims Against Sharia is an excellent example of this and you should check out their site if you are not familiar with it.
Wonder what will the "empty suits" at MSNBC ( Mika B. in particular who is having a hissy over Hilly's srew up) If they ver get their hands on your post…. You might be called out as bein PC incorrect and defore demonized by these illustrious fascists!!!
Nice work, Roger. Another thoughtful and provocative post. Any further thoughts on the potential for reform in Islam? Of course, your tone asserts a palpable pessimism. I suppose my question is: on a scale of 1-10 (ten being absolutely no chance whatsoever), how convinced are you that Islam cannot/will not grow into a more enlightened belief system?
Hi Faultline USA, I'm the "leftist idiot" who wrote the first comment. Perhaps I did spell despicable incorrectly, but I was not spell checking. Your comment features passive voice and you forgot to end your quotations around "The Enemy at Home." Personally, I rather debate the content of the article than one's grammar. Who defines morality? The Bible surely does not. Teachings from the Bible contain large amounts of violence and prejudice, while others are valuable as I noted. Should we use history, education, and science to understand which teachings are worthy and stand the test of time? I believe so. I recommend the article by Krugman regarding Islamofascism: "Fearing Fear Itself." http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/29/opinion/29krugm... With love (even for you "rightists"), aaron (idiot leftist)
Sorry about the extra posts. ID kept timing out, but apparently the posts were going through. Please delete the extras. I apologize.
Hey Aaron, sorry about that. We have been experiencing high volumes across our network the past few days since our launch. We are working out the issues. The good news is, ID is seeing great adoption and we expect to be sending more traffic to the publisher.
Aaron, Please leave Krugman to his Insane hateful anti Bush sick ward. The lunatic needs all the Help in the quiet room that he can get. How about quoting Donad Duck instead.. at least it walks and talks like a duck and not pretend to belong to the rational human race. So if all you have to discuss rae Krugman's illusions.. well let's say that you ain't cutting it!
josh, Are you certain that "aaron" is really not just doing multi posts of same just to tie up your time and efforts. He reminds me of a certain "raoula' from another blog who used the same inane tactics since as a waste of intellectual capacity .. this is all he can do.. cut and paste nad waste time…
Thank you Waco. That is a good question. I can only answer that I remain an optimist, in that same spirit that I hopefully would have been an optimist about our chances of victory in that disheartening year of 1942, when things were looking pretty dismal. I have great faith in America and in Democracy.
Redhawk, Please do not sully the discussion on Political Grind with frivolous accusations. I am closely tied to Political Grind and have no desire to clog up discussion with multiple posts. There was a time out that caused the problem. My comments, although against the grain of many other comments on PG, are valuable to further discussion. My comments are never hateful and never personally attack other members of the PG community. Listening to all points of views and opinions is very important to creating proper and intelligent discourse. In addition, I am the editor and chief contributor to Enough Cowbell which is a blog that beta tested ID (and helped spot a couple bugs). I very much want to see Political Grind and ID succeed and do not appreciate your absolutely unguided comments.
Wow. That's pathetic. And I'm not talking about Aaron.
I second that article.
http://fpwatch.blogspot.com/2007/11/islamofascism... Great article arguing why it is a serious mistake to reference random passages in the Koran in order to paint Islam as inherently violent or oppressive.
You know what's funny about this debate? Muslims could be having the exact same conversation regarding Christianity or Judaism. And we know, of course, Christians and Jews aren't violent. Right?
Damn - It's hard not to lose respect for a person's thought process when they bring up tripe like this: "You know what's funny about this debate? Muslims could be having the exact same conversation regarding Christianity or Judaism. And we know, of course, Christians and Jews aren't violent. Right?" How can we be six years into this conversation and still be fielding intellectually juvenile questions like this? Has he given any deep thought to this issue at all? It is apparent he hasn't, and by now it's obvious he's not going to. One can argue with intelligence that Islam has been distorted by a minority. One could argue that moderates have no responsibility to defend their faith from those who murder in its name. But one has to have no sense of history to argue that there is no difference today between Christian and Jewish violence and the daily mayhem that erupts after the words "Allahu Akbar" are offered. We're not asking Muslims to stop being Muslims, we're asking them to confront those who distort passages in the Quran that call for murder in Allah's name. I'll apologize now for my disappointment here - but it is dispiriting. What is the point in arguing if we just repeat ourselves over and over again?
Oh boo hoo - here we go again with the poor little pastor doing God's work bashing Dems. What a crock!
Same troll as in above post. Leave cowchip for Big Mama and see if her conscience starts eating it…
No no no no It's 'The Truthiness shall set us free"
I'll admit my argument wasn't exactly clear, but you don't have to go on a rampage. My point was how pointless this conversation was. It's all based on your point of view.
Notice that my post mentions nothing about Democrats anywhere!
If all it took was to wrestle Mohammed to settle the problems between Islam, Christianity, and Judism then I would be all for it. Are we talking Greco-Roman rules here or what?
Haven't Judeo-Christian beliefs been subject to distortion by the minority? Once again the problem seems abundantly clear and that is literal and/or unwavering faith in a fallible text. Dogma, although hardly an outstanding movie, provides one very valuable insight - ideas are better than beliefs or faith because ideas are much easier and more subject to change. Islam is not the problem, nor is Judaism, Christianity, or any other religion, but; rather, dedicated and unshakable belief in a religion.
Here, here. I may not always agree with you Roger, but optimism and faith in democracy are nothing to scoff at.
Oh you are ferring to yourself then.. Ok I'll buy it.. Aaron is NOT posting Negatives.. Oh noooo .. and Simmons is calling itself Pathetic… What's next.. Drivers Licenses for them also??? ooops or Not .. or may be.. pehaps? Just ask her Hilly…
A 'waste of intellectual capacity'??? HA HA.. With people like YOU? LOL No intellect required when dealing with neocons - sorry.
AHH it just took you Three postings to reveal yourself in yet another Alias.. You widdle widdle Weird TROLL … try to raise above your normal amoebic intellectual capacity… Try it aaron..sommon.. Raoula all 3 in ONE troll.
Something I discovered long ago, if I want to learn something about a religion, I do not ask those of another religion about it. I go to those within the religion I wish to learn something about. For instance, I am not going to ask a Priest what the Jehovah's Witnesses believe. However, inquiring from those directly in said religion raises another dilemma. Can I always trust the replies? Only if I see their lifestyle, conduct and actions are in accord with their reply.
Sheik Khalid Mohammad, Ayman Al-Zawahiri & Usama bin Laden are highly educated yet fanatic followers of Islam, obedient to Allah and emulating his Messenger. Islam is not a religion, it is a war machine wearing a fabricated faith system as a troop motivator and camouflage.
Islam can not be reform, Right. Perfection can only be defiled, not improved. The Qur'an declares itself perfect and forbids changing itself. I have documented the details in a flier entitled "Can Islam Be Reformed?", available for free download at Crusader's Armory. While Muslims Against Sharia appear to be well motivated, their objective can not be obtained within the rules of Islam. If they could do it, the result would not be Islam, it would be a new and different entity.
Invalid argument, Simmons! Sharia, Islamic law is based on Allah's commands, which are contained in clear verses[3:7]. While Riyad-us-Saliheen lists four relevant ayat and about 40 ahadith in setting up the "Obligation of Jihad" [Book 11,CH. 234], there is plenty of redundancy in the citations. "Reliance of the Traveler" lists only 9:29 as a basis for attacking Christians & Jews in Volume O, CH.9 #8. It says "The Caliph Makes War…" Moe's commands & Sunna are law, which must be obeyed. Islamic history is a series of conquests pursuant to that law. "Intolerant, Hateful Bigot!! How Dare You Criticize Muslims?", posted at Miss Beth's Stomping Grounds, drew the attention of a pack of Libtards, resulting in hits spiking from 5…10 per day to 556 page views today. That post delves into the stereotyping argument; you can read it here: http://missbeth.wordpress.com/2007/10/29/intolera... In "What You Need To Know About Islam", at: http://totheulama.wordpress.com/2007/10/19/what-y... I quote and link to Reliance and list the relevant ayat & ahadith (links, not full citations). I invite you to read it and try to refute it. Many of my blog posts include the full citatations. You can also find them at Crusader's Armory (Bloger), in the Forum Wars threads.
Simmons, that's argumentum Tu quoque. "Yer one, too!" is a school yard taunt, not a valid logical defense. Islam has a series of clear, open ended, unlimited commands to conquest. Those commands have no direct equivalent in the Gospels & Acts. Moe commanded & exemplified conquest, terror & genocide, Jesus did not. The difference between compliance to Islam's demonic commands and deviation from Christianity's Gospel always escapes the Libtard's attention. Ample evidence is available in the Forum Wars threads at http://crusadersarmory.blogspot.com/ .
Simmons, that's argumentum Tu quoque. "Yer one, too!" is a school yard taunt, not a valid logical defense. Islam has a series of clear, open ended, unlimited commands to conquest. Those commands have no direct equivalent in the Gospels & Acts. Moe commanded & exemplified conquest, terror & genocide, Jesus did not. The difference between compliance to Islam's demonic commands and deviation from Christianity's Gospel always escapes the Libtard's attention. Ample evidence is available in the Forum Wars threads at http://crusadersarmory.blogspot.com/ .
Simmons, that's argumentum Tu quoque. "Yer one, too!" is a school yard taunt, not a valid logical defense. Islam has a series of clear, open ended, unlimited commands to conquest. Those commands have no direct equivalent in the Gospels & Acts. Moe commanded & exemplified conquest, terror & genocide, Jesus did not. The difference between compliance to Islam's demonic commands and deviation from Christianity's Gospel always escapes the Libtard's attention. Ample evidence is available in the Forum Wars threads at http://crusadersarmory.blogspot.com/ .
If you wish to assign blame regarding Christian skeptics please look in the mirror.
Hi Real Raoul. Say what? No intellect required to debate neocons? You'll never say that and my nom de guerre in the same breath. One requirement though - you've got to stay on topic. Oh and here's a tip - don't bother with any of that ancient PNAC jazz. It would mean you've already lost. Sincerely, Courtney.
Would you think it unfair to cite random passages in the Bible and Torah?
I'm not saying, "Oh yeah, well, you too!" as you suggest. As I explained to Evriglnt below, my point was how pointless this conversation can be. It's all based on your point of view.
"Haven't Judeo-Christian beliefs been subject to distortion by the minority? " That just about sums up what I've been attempting to say. I cannot put my thoughts into words the way I would like to be able to :\
Instead of 'revealing' us as 'trolls', fight our conversation logically. You're going no where and acting childish.
lol!