[Dqban22]

Hussein bin Mahmoud invokes Qur’an 47:4: “When you meet the unbelievers, strike the necks…” It would be refreshing if Barack Obama or the Archbishop of Brisbane or one of the many other non-Muslim authorities who have insisted that the Islamic State has nothing to do with Islam would explain how he is misunderstanding that verse. But it is doubtful that they even know that such a verse exists in the Qur’an. “Jihadi Cleric Justifies IS Beheadings: ‘Islam Is A Religion Of Beheading,’” MEMRI, August 26, 2014 (thanks to Pamela Geller): In a recent article, jihadi cleric Hussein bin Mahmoud, a prominent writer on jihadi forums, expressed support for the beheading of American journalist James Foley by a member of the Islamic State (IS). Bin Mahmoud wrote that beheading was an effective way to terrorize the enemies of Islam, and stressed that, under Islamic law, Foley was a harbi, i.e. a non-Muslim whose life was not protected by an agreement of protection. He argued further that Islam allows and encourages such acts, since it is a religion of war and fighting.

[dontreadthis]

The Plain Truth About Islam By Peter Salemi
http://www.british-israel.ca/Islam.htm#.VLcscNLF-So

[sagar]

Islam is not the problem. If nobody follows it, the unholy koran is not going to kill anyone.

There problem is the follower of Islam. Muslims that are willing to behead and subjugate you in the name of their religion are the problem.

[Gumdrop]

The date of this article puts it about 6 months after Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger became Pope Benedict XVI.

[Arthur McGowan]

Bergoglio was so angry after the Regensburg speech that he cancelled a visit to Rome. He also criticized Ratzinger savagely.

It is obvious that whatever the Left dictates, Bergoglio is on board. Islam good. Global Warming real. Etc.

[Arthur McGowan]

It is notable how many there are in FR who hold to an Islamic view of Christianity:

God dictated a book, which is not subject to interpretation.

There is to be no development, no deepening, no enrichment of anything found in the basic book. The book is absolutely final. It contains all truth. There is nothing outside the book.

Salvation comes through the repetition of a verbal formula.

[shibumi]

"He has understood that a Muslim is not offended by the crucifix, by religious symbols: this is actually a laicist polemic that strives to eliminate the religious from society. Muslims are not offended by religious symbols, but by secularized culture, by the fact that God and the values that they associate with God are absent from this civilization."

Bullhockey.

Moslems are perpetually and proufoundly offended by everything that is not *them*.

If it were not so, then why, praytell, do they insist on the total destruction of houses of worship and the forbidding of any Christian (or Jewish) symbols in lands where they live?

Try telling this little fairytale to the Christians who were butchered for living their very non-secular faith in the lands now controlled by ISIS.

Try and find an extant Christian symbol there - anywhere.

[Mr. Dough]

Wait - "civilizations??? I only saw one mentioned.

[TheMole]

I am not a Catholic but the learning and intelligence of Cardinal Ratzinger/Pope Benedict seriously impressed me.

Can't say the same for the latest Pope.

[RedHeeler]

They have necks. Perhaps, shorter than the greed of mohamet. Let us pursue, the physical test of greed by the islam neck. If your allah is correct, then test your incorrupt nature. Let us kill all of you, as martyrs. Any volunteers, of any caste/degreed or poor? How about you Ye-uy? Got anything to offer up, to your miserable moon god?

[Talisker]

Depends on how you define “religion.”

Western civilization generally, and the 1st Amendment specifically, protects religion so that people may explore their personal relationship with God in peace.

So allowing that personal exploration to include aggression, harm and murder towards people who think differently about the subject does not exactly support the reasoning behind the legal protection.

Especially when that alternate view of the subject also includes replacing that legal protection of religion with another law that mandates totalitarian murder for deviating from a single way of belief.

Therefore, all things considered, I would say that Islam does not meet the requirements of a 1st Amendment religion. Instead, I would call it a political movement antagonistic to the fundamental values of the American Constitution, that is innately, fundamentally and forever at war with it - by definition.