Why Are We So Scared of Offending Muslims?

Front Page Magazine ^ | August 2, 2007 | Christopher Hitchens

[Ghayyour]

During the greater part of last week, Slate's sister site On Faith (it is jointly produced by Newsweek and washingtonpost.com, both owned by the Washington Post Co., which also owns Slate) gave itself over to a discussion about the religion of Islam. As usual in such cases, the search for "moderate" versions of this faith was under way before the true argument had even begun. If I were a Muslim myself, I think that this search would be the most "offensive" part of the business. Why must I prove that my deepest belief is compatible with moderation?

Unless I am wrong, a sincere Muslim need only affirm that there is one god, and only one, and that the Prophet Mohammed was his messenger, bringing thereby the final words of God to humanity. Certain practices are supposed to follow this affirmation, including a commitment to pray five times a day, a promise to pay a visit to Mecca if such a trip should be possible, fasting during Ramadan, and a pious vow to give alms to the needy. The existence of djinns, or devils, is hard to disavow because it was affirmed by the prophet. An obligation of jihad is sometimes mentioned, and some quite intelligent people argue about whether "holy war" is meant to mean a personal struggle or a political one. No real Islamic authority exists to decide this question, and those for whom the personal is highly political have recently become rather notorious.

Thus, Islamic belief, however simply or modestly it may be stated, is an extreme position to begin with. No human being can possibly claim to know that there is a God at all, or that there are, or were, any other gods to be repudiated. And when these ontological claims have collided, as they must, with their logical limits, it is even further beyond the cognitive capacity of any person to claim without embarrassment that the lord of creation spoke his ultimate words to an unlettered merchant in seventh-century Arabia. Those who utter such fantastic braggings, however many times a day they do so, can by definition have no idea what they are talking about. (I hasten to add that those who boast of knowing about Moses parting the Red Sea, or about a virgin with a huge tummy, are in exactly the same position.) Finally, it turns out to be impossible to determine whether jihad means more alms-giving or yet more zealous massacre of, say, Shiite Muslims.

Why, then, should we be commanded to "respect" those who insist that they alone know something that is both unknowable and unfalsifiable? Something, furthermore, that can turn in an instant into a license for murder and rape? As one who has occasionally challenged Islamic propaganda in public and been told that I have thereby "insulted 1.5 billion Muslims," I can say what I suspect—which is that there is an unmistakable note of menace behind that claim. No, I do not think for a moment that Mohammed took a "night journey" to Jerusalem on a winged horse. And I do not care if 10 billion people intone the contrary. Nor should I have to. But the plain fact is that the believable threat of violence undergirds the Muslim demand for "respect."

Before me is a recent report that a student at Pace University in New York City has been arrested for a hate crime in consequence of an alleged dumping of the Quran. Nothing repels me more than the burning or desecration of books, and if, for example, this was a volume from a public or university library, I would hope that its mistreatment would constitute a misdemeanor at the very least. But if I choose to spit on a copy of the writings of Ayn Rand or Karl Marx or James Joyce, that is entirely my business. When I check into a hotel room and send my free and unsolicited copy of the Gideon Bible or the Book of Mormon spinning out of the window, I infringe no law, except perhaps the one concerning litter. Why do we not make this distinction in the case of the Quran? We do so simply out of fear, and because the fanatical believers in that particular holy book have proved time and again that they mean business when it comes to intimidation. Surely that should be to their discredit rather than their credit. Should not the "moderate" imams of On Faith have been asked in direct terms whether they are, or are not, negotiating with a gun on the table?

The Pace University incident becomes even more ludicrous and sinister when it is recalled that Islamists are the current leaders in the global book-burning competition. After the rumor of a Quran down the toilet in Guantanamo was irresponsibly spread, a mob in Afghanistan burned down an ancient library that (as President Hamid Karzai pointed out dryly) contained several ancient copies of the same book. Not content with igniting copies of The Satanic Verses, Islamist lynch parties demanded the burning of its author as well. Many distinguished authors, Muslim and non-Muslim, are dead or in hiding because of the words they have put on pages concerning the unbelievable claims of Islam. And it is to appease such a spirit of persecution and intolerance that a student in New York City has been arrested for an expression, however vulgar, of an opinion.

This has to stop, and it has to stop right now. There can be no concession to sharia in the United States. When will we see someone detained, or even cautioned, for advocating the burning of books in the name of God? If the police are honestly interested in this sort of "hate crime," I can help them identify those who spent much of last year uttering physical threats against the republication in this country of some Danish cartoons. In default of impartial prosecution, we have to insist that Muslims take their chance of being upset, just as we who do not subscribe to their arrogant certainties are revolted every day by the hideous behavior of the parties of God.

It is often said that resistance to jihadism only increases the recruitment to it. For all I know, this commonplace observation could be true. But, if so, it must cut both ways. How about reminding the Islamists that, by their mad policy in Kashmir and elsewhere, they have made deadly enemies of a billion Indian Hindus? Is there no danger that the massacre of Iraqi and Lebanese Christians, or the threatened murder of all Jews, will cause an equal and opposite response? Most important of all, what will be said and done by those of us who take no side in filthy religious wars? The enemies of intolerance cannot be tolerant, or neutral, without inviting their own suicide. And the advocates and apologists of bigotry and censorship and suicide-assassination cannot be permitted to take shelter any longer under the umbrella of a pluralism that they openly seek to destroy.

[stm]

Because liberals are still deluding themselves that appeasement of rogue wild animals is still the best approach to deal with them.

When you come upon a rogue wild animal that indescriminately kills people you KILL it, you don’t say “here kitty, kitty, I will give you a treat if you don’t kill me!”

[Toddsterpatriot]

Why Are We So Scared of Offending Muslims?

Because when they're offended, they kill people.

[EndWelfareToday]

Why Are We So Scared of Offending Muslims?

We?

I think someone has a mouse in his/her pocket. I really don't give a rat's rear how many or which Muslims I offend. If telling the truth about the religion of murder pisses them off then so be it.

[ClearBlueSky]

Why? Because the huge number absolutely terrifies most. They cannot- and WILL not- entertain the idea that our civilization has that many enemies. So ‘denial’ kicks in and ‘ most are our friends and good’ is the self-comforting mantra.
Of course you wouldn’t want to offend ‘friends’...especially when, deep down, you know that they will burst your fantasy bubble and retaliate for ANY offense.
Bottom line- deep down, we all know they are dangerous . Their death-cult, brainwashed from birth ‘religion’ is dangerous and the courage to face that- and DO something about it once it is faced- is seriously lacking.
Just like alcoholism- FIRST one must acknowledge the problem, then do something about it.
Too many are too afraid to acknowledge what they have no courage to deal with.
Too late will they learn that calling an enemy ‘friend’ will not make them so.

[RexBeach]

But with Allah you never really and truly know if you’re gonna get to heaven...unless maybe you “ace” some infidel or die trying. And even then you might not make it.

Pity.

[nuconvert]

Curious - if you don’t mind - Are you the Pakistani Muslim lawyer who converted from Islam to Christianity?

[xcamel]

Why Are We So Scared of Offending Muslims?

abject ignorance.

[Paperdoll]

Another interesting related read about what is happening in the UK:

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=56973

[dead]

No human being can possibly claim to know that there is a God at all

Hitchens should remind himself of this now and then.

[ovrtaxt]

Why Are We So Scared of Offending Muslims?

What you mean 'we'. Kemosabe?

They're perpetually offended. Welcome to Islamic theology 101.

[CarrotAndStick]

Tolerating Islamist intolerance     A great deal has been written on the 'cartoon controversy', but it is far from enough. The current storm of orchestrated violence and intimidatory protests across the world is symbolic of a deep and sustained intolerance among Muslims, and of rising levels of tolerance of Muslim intolerance, that jointly undermine the possibility of freedom in large parts of the world.   Crucially, it is precisely this tolerance of intolerance that has allowed vocal and violent radicalised Islamist minorities to silence Muslim majorities and to transform the global image of Islam into the grotesque parody of the faith that the Danish cartoons sought - perhaps indelicately - to reflect. Offensive though these cartoons may have been - and they were not offensive to at least some Muslims, who saw in them, not an insult to the Prophet or the faith, but rather a critique of the unrelenting violence that has become the defining character of much of the Muslim world - the criminal incitement and calls to 'butcher/kill/behead those who insult Islam' have only reinforced the images the cartoons reflected, "allowing mass hysteria to define Islam's message". What dishonours Islam more? A few irreverent cartoons? Or the acts of remorseless murder, of relentless violence against people of other faiths, of the intimidation and abuse of all other faiths and communities, which the Islamists - including states adhering to the Islamist ideology, such as Pakistan - routinely engage in? Why, then, does the Muslim world not rise up in rage against these fanatics and political opportunists who are bringing disgrace and disrepute to their faith? Why are the voices of criticism against extremist Islam and Islamist terrorism so muted? Indeed, why is it that all occasional and invariably qualified criticism of these terrorists is accompanied by vague justifications of the need to 'understand root causes' and the 'hurt' caused to the 'Muslim psyche'? Is the 'Muslim psyche' uniquely susceptible to injury? Venomous characterisations of Hindus, Jews, Christians and, generally, all kafirs, are the stock-in-trade of the discourse in some Muslim countries, often communicated through official media, such as national television channels. The ideologies of hatred against other faiths are systematically propagated in so many Muslim states - we in India are familiar with the Pakistani case, where school curricula routinely demonise non-Muslims. And do the words or pictures or caricatures by non-Muslims do more injury to the 'Islamic world' than the hideous acts of terrorism that Islamists have been inflicting on non-Muslims - and, indeed, on so many Muslims - all over the world? Worse, after so many Muslim-majority states have simply wiped out their own minorities, or are, even today, in the process of doing so, these very states go shrieking around about 'hurting the sentiments of minorities' when something is said against Muslims or Islam. Indeed, 'Islamic' states oppress even their own sectarian minorities - be they non-Wahabbi Sunnis in some cases, or Shia, Ismaili, Ahmadiya, or Sufi, in others - not only through systematic denial of elementary religious rights to these sects, but, as in the case of Pakistan, through state sponsored terrorist movements against such minorities - recall that the Sipah-e-Sahaba Pakistan was set up by General Zia-ul-Haq to target Shias in the wake of the Iranian revolution, and continued to enjoy the support of the state under successor regimes, till it got mixed up with the Al Qaeda and anti-US terrorism, and lost its status as a sarkari (state supported) jihadi organisation. Many 'Islamic' countries have institutionalised this intolerance, outlawing the public practice of any other Faith, and made the possession of any religious icon, other than Muslim, a punishable offence. Non-Muslim minorities live in abject terror of blasphemy laws in Pakistan, as in many other Muslim countries. The truth is, the state lies behind much of the Islamist extremism and frenzy that we are witnessing today. To return to the case of the Danish cartoons, there was no 'spontaneous outburst' of popular sentiment; it was only after the Organisation of Islamic Countries decided to whip up emotions around the issue, and states like Syria, Lebanon, Egypt and Saudi Arabia began to incite the rabble through official statements and actions, or statements by religious leaders tied to the regimes there, disseminated through official media, that the violent street protests commenced. In Pakistan, the protests and the violence have principally been led by the Jamaat-ud-Dawa - the reincarnation of the purportedly 'banned' Lashkar-e-Toiba - which has flourished under state patronage, and that was cast by the Musharraf administration into a 'leadership' role recently in the relief operations after the earthquake that devastated parts of Pakistan occupied Kashmir. But the 'cartoon crisis' is not unique. Even while this controversy was raging across the world, Shia minorities were being attacked by Sunni terrorists in Pakistan; in the Indian State of Jammu and Kashmir, a case was registered against the local chapter of the Bible Society of India for the 'grievous crime' of distributing "gas cylinders, three water bottles, audio cassettes and a copy of the New Testament in Urdu" to earthquake victims in a village in Uri. In Ladakh, riots were engineered between Muslims and Buddhists because some torn pages of the Quran were recovered, leading to allegations of sacrilege. In the Aligarh Muslim University, a young girl was being threatened with collective rape for daring to protest against a diktat against wearing jeans and a T-shirt. These are only a few current and proximate examples of a remorseless oppression over the decades. Such thuggeries are, of course, not unique to Islam. There are extremist groups drawing dubious 'inspiration' from other faiths who ape such conduct as well, and Valentines Day this year - as in the past few years - attracted the ire and violence of Hindu extremist hooligans. But these remain - fortunately - aberrations in the larger context of conduct among adherents of other faiths. They have increasingly become the dominant form of public articulation in the Muslim community. There is an American Indian saying: 'it takes an entire village to raise a single child'. Similarly, it takes a very large community, often entire nations, to raise a single suicide bomber. For far too long, extremist Muslim discourse has been tolerated - to the point of incitement to murder - in the belief that acts of terrorism are distinct from such ideologies of hatred. But it is the wide acceptance within large sections of Muslim communities in many countries of these ideologies of hatred that produce the environment within which groups can mobilise, recruit motivate, train and deploy terrorists and suicide bombers. Muslim liberals have long advocated 'understanding and tolerance' when dealing with Muslim sensibilities, but have seldom been known to aggressively argue for greater 'understanding and tolerance' for other faiths in 'Islamic' countries, where the record of intolerance towards and oppression of religious minorities is utterly revolting. There is a great 'Muslim exceptionalism' at work here. The 'Muslim world' demands an absolute freedom without limits, but confers no freedom whatsoever, either on other faiths, or on dissent within its own faith. The 'tolerance' advocated by certain passages in the Quran is only something to parade at inter-faith conferences, and constitutes no part of the practice of most Muslim majority states - no doubt with occasional exceptions. The demand, today, to impose a selective censorship in Europe on speech that is insulting to Muslims - when similar speech against other faiths enjoys full freedom - is an effort by Muslim minorities to impose, through mass violence and intimidation, their belief systems within the larger systems they have come to inhabit. Europe would be, not only foolish, but suicidal, if it succumbs to this terrorism and coercion to invent new curbs on the media and on the freedom of speech. The democratic world must remain committed to its enlightenment values and ideals, and to the rough-and-tumble of free discourse in the 'marketplace of ideas'. All communal thuggeries, whatever faith they may claim to 'represent', must be brought to an end, and every available means must be bent to this purpose. Personally, I think, the more fun we make of our own religions, the better it will be for the whole world, and, indeed, for our respective Faiths. I am immensely proud of being a Sikh, and am confident that no jokes or cartoons can ever undermine the eternal verities of my religion.   http://www.satp.org/satporgtp/kpsgill/governance/06_Feb18Pio.htm   (Published in The Pioneer Newspaper, India.  February 18, 2006)

 

 

From Wiki:

Kanwar Pal Singh Gill

 

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

Kanwar Pal Gill, was born in Ludhiana, Punjab, India. He began his career as a police officer in the north-eastern state of Assam, quickly earning a reputation as a tough officer. He became a household name across the country as Punjab police chief in the early 1990s, when he was credited with crushing a separatist revolt in the Sikh-majority state.

Widely given credit for addressing the terrorism in Punjab, Mr Gill was dubbed “Super Cop” after his success in Punjab. He publishes the Faultlines journal and runs the Institute for Conflict Management, as well as advising governments and institutions on security related issues. He was asked by the government of Sri Lanka last year for similar advice. Mr Gill has also written a book, “The Knights of Falsehood”, which explores the abuse of religious institutions by the politics of freedom struggle in Punjab.

He got involved in sports administration after retirement and is currently the IHF ( Indian Hockey Federation) president.

He has also been appointed as a consultant by the Chattisgarh government to help tackle the Naxalite movement in the state.

Quotes

“Democracy and liberalism are not a sufficient defence and this is a fact that the ideologues of ‘freedom’ need, equally, to comprehend. There is a fatal flaw in the liberal mind. Having established, in structure and form [though seldom in substance], a system of governance that corresponds to its conception of democracy, it feels that nothing more needs to be done. The ‘Truths’ of the liberal ideology are, as the American Declaration on the Rights of Man expresses it, ‘Self Evident’. They require no proof, no reiteration, and no defence - certainly no defence by force of arms. Once democracy [or even the ritual of quinquinneal elections] is established, according to liberal mythology, the mystical ‘invisible hand’ keeps everything in place; the ‘superior wisdom of the masses’ ensures order and justice...”. This is just so much rubbish. As we should know after living with falsehoods for fifty years now. Truth does not triumph; unless it has champions to propound it, unless it has armies to defend it.”

From his book, ‘Punjab: The Knights of Falsehood’

Criticism

For some critics his success is a part of the story started by predecessor Julio Francis Ribeiro who started the “Bullet for Bullet” campaign of hitting back at militants and the strong hand in dealing with militancy adopted by Chief minister Beant Singh.
 

[Billthedrill]

Except for the obligatory billboard-sized brush with which Hitchens tends to paint all religion, his conclusions are sound enough - this is, in essence, extortion, and it is of a political and not theological nature. Militant atheists who vandalize and despoil religous institutions and artifacts are in precisely the same category. I do not place Hitchens in that.

But he answers his own rhetorical question - we fear offending people who resort to violence in reply. They do not fear those who do not. Where this is the case the very fabric of polite society has already failed and any attempt on the part of the state to patch it by excusing the violence will inevitably fail. As it has.

[rawcatslyentist]

>"But with Allah you never really and truly know if you’re gonna get to heaven...unless maybe you “ace” some infidel or die trying. And even then you might not make it."

You forgot the tourist path to islamicheaven. Just kiss the black rock in a silver vagina, and you "might" get into heaven.

I pity the poor deceived souls lost to satanallah, their time is short.

[GalaxieFiveHundred]

Becuase they're psychotic.

[Rummyfan]

Unless I am wrong, a sincere Muslim need only affirm that there is one god, and only one, and that the Prophet Mohammed was his messenger, bringing thereby the final words of God to humanity.

Hitchens writing on religion, any religion, is like a mammal writing on life as a vegetable. CH might also mention that islam is a once-in never-out deal, where leaving the one true faith is a capital crime. That muslims are supposed to activelyproselytize. And also the rampant misogyny throughout the muslim world.....

[nuconvert]

“The truth is, the state lies behind much of the Islamist extremism and frenzy that we are witnessing today. To return to the case of the Danish cartoons, there was no ‘spontaneous outburst’ of popular sentiment; it was only after the Organisation of Islamic Countries decided to whip up emotions around the issue, and states like Syria, Lebanon, Egypt and Saudi Arabia began to incite the rabble through official statements and actions, or statements by religious leaders tied to the regimes there, disseminated through official media, that the violent street protests commenced. “

Good point

[GalaxieFiveHundred]

Better yet, "Because"...

[Pyncho]

Many here may well not embrace Hitch’s atheism, but here as in so many other matters he nails it. This reminds me of Mark Steyn’s point about Marines at Gitmo having to hand the Quran with gloves. Why? Sharia folks may well think this is necessary, but nonMuslim Marines need not think about it at all. Just give them a Quran as you would hand them any other item. Similary, stop taking seriously Muslims’ crocadile tears over every matter that concerns them. They have every right to be concerned about whatever they they, but we don’t have to tag along.

[pacelvi]

When Mr Bigglesworth gets upset, PEOPLE DIE.

[Horatio Gates]

Personally I don’t give a ROP’s ass if they’re offended

[Mind-numbed Robot]

And the advocates and apologists of bigotry and censorship and suicide-assassination cannot be permitted to take shelter any longer under the umbrella of a pluralism that they openly seek to destroy.

Although it is at the very end, at last he finally got around to describing the media and the Democrat Party.

[Toddsterpatriot]

[ari-freedom]

the Maoists and stalinists who killed hundreds of millions of people were atheists but that doesn’t exactly fit Hitchen’s story. instead, he’d have us believe that the sweet little church lady has something in common with osama.

Look, there are evil people in this world. Some will use their religion as justification. Some will use some other ideology. Some will just kill people without any reason simply because they think it’s fun. In all cases the evil comes first and everything else is just an excuse.

[Uncle Miltie]

Not me!

[Ghayyour]

Whats name of this dangerous man?

[Little Ray]

‘Cause they kill people and blow things up when they’re offended.

That said, I think we should offend ‘em more, kill the Muslims in mass quantities when they violent about being offended, and lynch their lawyers when they sue.

[Little Ray]

‘Cause they kill people and blow things up when they’re offended.

That said, I think we should offend ‘em more, kill the Muslims in mass quantities when they violent about being offended, and lynch their lawyers when they sue.

[nathanbedford]

I really don't give a rat's rear how many or which Muslims I offend.

Please believe me I'm more supportive than you might know of your disdain for the sensibilities of Muslims. But in my case, I hold that disdain not because of something intrinsic in the character of Muslims (although I would agree the a bunch of them as a group are pretty egregiously nasty lot-but when it comes to killing souls by the tens of millions they cannot hold a patch to, for example, Communists) but because I treasure our right to offend.

So I wonder is your disdain for Muslim sensibilities peculiar to Muslims or would you support offensiveness to African Americans, Jews, high church Episcopalians, Scientologists or undocumented Latino immigrants as I would? Early this morning European time a post came along in which it described the suspension of a teacher because she characterized an African-American child's hair as, "nappy." Here is what I posted this morning:

It is noteworthy that are beleaguered teacher pled not justification in her defense, but ignorance. It is noteworthy because it reveals how far into the swamps of subjectivism that political correctness has led us. This is a major concession. It says that it matters not what the plain meaning of the English language is but what matters is only the subjective reaction of a favored class. The teacher did not say, "I stand here upon my rights and be damned" she said in effect, "I have no rights, I am too unworthy to have rights, I can only plead ignorance."

I recall vaguely that a city official of Washington, DC was forced out of a position of responsibility because the African-American "community" was ignorant of the plain meaning of the English-language word, "niggardly." Now we see the same kangaroo court applied for the use of the word, "nappy."

Subjectivism is a deadly disease made more virolent by political correctness when it invests in favored groups the power arbitrarily to exercise mind control over groups (like whites) who are unfavored because they do not qualify as victims. Maybe we need a little bit of the fairness doctrine in real life.

So should we offend Muslims because they are unworthy or because it is vital to a healthy democracy that we be permitted to exercise our rights to free speech, or both if you like? Even Hitchens in his article took pains to demonstrate that Muslims are unworthy of our solicitude. I agree. Muslims seek to it achieve mind control through intimidation and minority groups in America pursue the same goal by claiming victim status.

I thought Hitchens was I pub crawling, brawling, polemicist. Why does he find it necessary to tell us that Muslims have it coming?

[Eastbound]

BTTT!

[Lurker]

mohamet (may rivers of pi** be upon his rotten pedophile soul...)

L

[OldSmaj]

Why Are We So Scared of Offending Muslims?

Speak for yourself.

I never miss a chance to offend them.

[Doomonyou]

The enemies of intolerance cannot be tolerant, or neutral, without inviting their own suicide.

Hello Democrats.

[chadwimc]

I’m not afraid to offend moslems.

Piss on islam and it’s prophet(may pig shit be upon his head).

[OldSmaj]

So should we offend Muslims because they are unworthy...?

Yes, most definitely.

In fact, give me any reason to do so.

[stm]

We should take the varmint hunting approach. Do something to get them to stick their heads out of their hole and then put a bullet through it.

Works for me

[prairiebreeze]

It’s unclear to me how an atheist is qualified to address the subject of belief.

[Steve_Seattle]

I think Hitchens is taking precisely the correct approach, i.e., confront Muslims point-black with the question about their religion: Prove it, or shut up. If that same question can also be applied to any other religion, so be it.

This question puts Muslims on the defensive because they are so unaccustomed to anyone asking them that question. They are used to pandering and apologies and deference and cowardice, and straight-talk might be just what they - and we - need.

[kalee]

ping

[MeekMom]

I’m not afraid of offending evil.

[nathanbedford]

Great! Can I count on your support in combating attempts to ban the Confederate flag? will you stand with Pat Buchanan against charges of anti-Semitism when he attacks the neocons for their support of Israel? How do you feel about the secular Jews who infest Hollywood, academia, the media, and giant charitable institutions? may we attack them as Jews, or at least secular Jews? how about bashing my fellow Baptists with equal fervor when we go about legislating morality?

Yesterday we had a bit of self-examination occasioned by that ridiculous pseudo-exposé by Bill O'Reilly of allegedly hate speech on Free Republic. What are the bounds? Is it okay so long as it's employed only against Muslims?

[ladiesview61]

Because they’re scary lunatics.

[EndWelfareToday]

We should not set out to "offend" anyone but if the truth hurts them then to friggin bad. The truth is the truth.

As for "African Americans." Can you or anyone show me one single person, (if Africa is indeed the "cradle of civilization") that is not a descendant of African ancestors? And if my contention is true which of you American citizens, regardless your skin color, isn't an "African American?"

I think it's time we grow up and start to recognize people for what they do and identify them accordingly. If they don't like being identified in a particular manner then let them change their behavior because I have to tell you, I am not ashamed of my behavior and I will not apologize to some whiny arse whiner-baby simply because I choose to condemn their choices and life-styles.

Muslims as a whole do not have any problems with their more fanatical sects killing innocent men women and children. Until they do begin to have problems with the image given them by their Jihadists (soldiers) and begin to condemn them then in my tiny little mind there is no difference between them and their Jihadists.
After all... isn't that how they see Jews and Americans? According to them we are all soldiers in the war against their terrorism whether or not we sport a military uniform or a diaper. Their mission is to see to it that each and every non-Muslim die. They have no interest in living in peace with the rest of the world and they will do whatever they can to force us to live according to their tenets or they will kill us.

They deserve no treatment less than that they dole out.
IMHO!

[M Kehoe]

Let me see...offending Muslim? Everything offends Muslims. Then again, my 'give a damn meter' is broke.

5.56mm

[dead]

[Nathan Zachary]

"Certain practices are supposed to follow this affirmation, including a commitment to pray five times a day, a promise to pay a visit to Mecca if such a trip should be possible, fasting during Ramadan, and a pious vow to give alms to the needy.

That last one is NOT true. It's to pay "zakat" tax. Then the Mullah Mafia supposedly takes care of the needy- themselves.

"An obligation of jihad is sometimes mentioned"

SOMETIMES? It, only after belief in Allah and Mohammad is his messenger, it the second most important thing in Islam.

Bukhari:V1B2N25 "Allah's Apostle was asked, ‘What is the best deed?' He replied, ‘To believe in Allah and His Apostle Muhammad.' The questioner then asked, ‘What is the next best in goodness?' He replied, ‘To participate in Jihad, religious fighting in Allah's Cause.'"

and some quite intelligent people argue about whether "holy war" is meant to mean a personal struggle or a political one. No real Islamic authority exists to decide this question, and those for whom the personal is highly political have recently become rather notorious.

Talk about being afraid to talk about! Hypocrite! How about using the Koran itself to answer this question?

Noble Qur'an:2:190 Footnote: "Jihad is holy fighting in Allah's Cause with full force of numbers and weaponry. It is given the utmost importance in Islam and is one of its pillars. By Jihad Islam is established, Allah's Word is made superior (which means only Allah has the right to be worshiped), and Islam is propagated. By abandoning Jihad Islam is destroyed and Muslims fall into an inferior position; their honor is lost, their lands are stolen, their rule and authority vanish. Jihad is an obligatory duty in Islam on every Muslim. He who tries to escape from this duty, or does not fulfill this duty, dies as a hypocrite."

"Personal struggle" indeed.

[Tarantulas]

This was posted on Monday.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1873931/posts

[Nathan Zachary]

"But with Allah you never really and truly know if you’re gonna get to heaven...unless maybe you “ace” some infidel or die trying. And even then you might not make it.

It's called predestination. Whether you go to allah's whore house or not is already decided for muslims before they are hatched.

Bukhari:V6B60N473 "Every created soul has his place written for him either in Paradise or in the Hell Fire. His happy or miserable fate is predetermined for him."

Tabari I:306 "The Messenger said, "Allah created Adam and then rubbed Adam's back with his right hand and brought forth his progeny. Then He said, ‘I have created these as the inhabitants of Paradise.' Then he rubbed his back with His left hand and said, ‘I have created those for the Fire, and they will act as the inhabitants of the Fire.' A man asked, ‘O Messenger, how is that?' Muhammad replied, ‘When Allah creates a human being for Paradise, He employs him to act as the inhabitants of Paradise, and he will enter Paradise. And when Allah creates a human being for the Fire, He will employ him to act as the inhabitants of the Fire, and will thus make him enter the Fire.'"

Bukhari:V4B54N430 "Allah's Apostle, the true and truly inspired said, ‘Regarding the matter of the creation of a human being: humans are put together in the womb of the mother in forty days. Then he becomes a clot of thick blood for a similar period. He becomes a piece of flesh for forty days. Then Allah sends an angel who is ordered to write four things: the new creature's deeds, livelihood, date of death, and whether he will be blessed or wretched. He will do whatever is written for him.'"

Kinda makes the whole cult of Islam, praying 5 times a day, going on a pilgramge and running between two mountains, tossing pebbles at Satan, "circumnabulating the Ka'ba (rock god house) and kissing a black rock rather pointless.

[Nathan Zachary]

Also take note in Bukhari:V4B54N430 that muslim women are only pregnant for 3 months and 3 weeks.

It must be so because Mohammad inspired by allah said it. Any muslim who dares argue this will be beheaded.

No wonder they breed like rabbits.

[ZULU]

A few generations ago, our (appropriate) response was to then kill more of THEM.

Guess we degenerated over time. We are turning into Euroweenies.