Muhajir, could your wtie a letter to the editors damning all Islamic coutries for their inbred intolerance? You could start with Azerbajan and work your way through the alpahbet all the way to Yemen. Don’t leave out Saudi Arabia, though, because it such a beacon of light to all mankind.

Don’t worry, Mujarhead, I won’t hold my breath.

You’re like all Muslims, pointing fingers at anyone and everyone with condemnation while ignoring the real sinners in the world — the Muslims and their godforskaen countries where freedoms are trampled on like so much desert sand.

In any case, thanks for your comments here, Sari.

I see: An endless ocean of Muslims willing to kill themselves along with innocent women and children in the name of Allah. Every single day I read about more and more Muslims who freely choose to do this.

I read: Koranic verses and Hadiths encouraging Muslims to kill in the name of Allah. Promising martyrs 72 virgins in Paradise for following Mohammed’s teachings and for following in his footsteps.

I understand: Islam is unique among all world religions in that its founder, Mohammed, was a man of violence and lust and a supremacist. Christ was not this way, Buddha was no this way and to the best of my understanding none of the prophets of any other religion encouraged their followers to kill in the name of God (or Allah as the case may be). ************************************************************

I see: Muslim nations spanning the globe killing gays, stoning women, killing Jews, torturing Christians, killing Buddhists in the name of Allah.

I read: Daily articles about Muslims spreading their faith through violence in Nigeria, Sudan, Somalia, southern Russia, NW China, Israel, Kashmir, Pakistan, Afghanistan, India, Kashmir, Thailand, Indonesia, etc…

I understand: When it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck it’s a duck. And when it walks like Mohammed and kills like Mohammed it is a Muslim. ************************************************************

I hate to sound so extreme, but when compared to what I see, read and understand about Islam on a daily basis I feel like I’m not extreme so much as simply being honest.

Coming back to modern times, there are Jews killing Muslims as well as the other way around. In Islamic theocracies, there are probably at least as many people who object as strongly to their government as some Americans do to ours — and the more repressive the government, the less likely you are to hear of them.

The letter these comments respond to isn’t talking about Islamic theocracies, though; it’s talking about American Muslims. Do you really think they should be responsible for governments they have no connection to?

You mention sections in the Old Testament where violence is demanded. I do not argue that this is, indeed, the case. But there is a very profound difference between the violence found in the Old Testament and the violence of the Koran and Hadiths.

The violence found in the Old Testament is specific to a specific time and a specific people. When G-d commands the Jews to kill the Canaanites he specifically directs them to kill only the Canaanites. G-d does not command them to kill any other people.

In the Koran and Hadiths there are many, many verses encouraging true followers of Islam to kill all non-Muslims. The verses are open ended and not specific to a particular people, but only to ALL people who are not Muslims.
As to your suggestion that American Muslims should not be held responsible for the hatred, repression and violence of the Islamic governments found throughout the world, I have no beef. You are right, but that begs the question. Why is it all of these Islamic countries condone some level of repression, hatred and ciolence? And – more to your point – why are American Muslims not speaking loudly and clearly against the violence? Instead what we read or hear from these America Muslims is disgust with Israel, or American policies, but never a peep about the Islamic genocide in Sudan, the hatred of women throughout the Muslim world, the hatred of gays and Jews throughout the Muslim world, the lack of freedoms allowed throughout the Muslim world, etc…

Maybe you can explain why, you as a Jew, can find the compassion to defend America Muslims, when all they can do in return (or so it seems to me) is condemn Israel, the west, and our freedoms…particularly our freedom of speech?

The Crusades are vastly misunderstood. Linked below is a brief timeline of the Crusades which clearly shows they are a long overdue reaction to Islamic aggression. In short, the Crusades were forced on the West by the typical Islamic lust for world domination.

The Muslim Game:
Muslims love talking about the Crusades… and Christians love apologizing for them. To hear both parties tell the story, one would believe that Muslims were just peacefully minding their own business in lands that were legitimately Muslim when Christian armies decided to wage holy war and “kill millions.”
The Truth:
Every part of this myth is a lie. By the rules that Muslims claim for themselves, the Crusades were perfectly justified, and the excesses (though beneath Christian standards) pale in comparison with the historical treatment of conquered populations at the hands of Muslims.
Here are some quick facts…
The first Crusade began in 1095… 460 years after the first Christian city was overrun by Muslim armies, 457 years after Jerusalem was conquered by Muslim armies, 453 years after Egypt was taken by Muslim armies, 443 after Muslims first plundered Italy, 427 years after Muslim armies first laid siege to the Christian capital of Constantinople, 380 years after Spain was conquered by Muslim armies, 363 years after France was first attacked by Muslim armies, 249 years after Rome itself was sacked by a Muslim army, and only after centuries of church burnings, killings, enslavement and forced conversions of Christians.
By the time the Crusades finally began, Muslim armies had conquered two-thirds of the Christian world.
Europe had been harassed by Muslims since the first few years following Muhammad’s death. As early as 652, Muhammad’s followers launched raids on the island of Sicily, waging a full-scale occupation 200 years later that lasted almost a century and was punctuated by massacres, such as that at the town of Castrogiovanni, in which 8,000 Christians were put to death. In 1084, ten years before the first crusade, Muslims staged another devastating Sicilian raid, burning churches in Reggio, enslaving monks and raping an abbey of nuns before carrying them into captivity.
In 1095, Byzantine Emperor, Alexius I Comneus began begging the pope in Rome for help in turning back the Muslim armies which were overrunning what is now Turkey, grabbing property as they went and turning churches into mosques. Several hundred thousand Christians had been killed in Anatolia alone in the decades following 1050 by Seljuk invaders interested in ‘converting’ the survivors to Islam.
Not only were Christians losing their lives in their own lands to the Muslim advance but pilgrims to the Holy Land from other parts of Europe were being harassed, kidnapped, molested, forcibly converted to Islam and occasionally murdered. (Compare this to Islam’s justification for slaughter on the basis of Muslims being denied access to the Meccan pilgrimage in Muhammad’s time).
The Crusaders only invaded lands that were Christian. They did not attack Saudi Arabia (other than a half-hearted expedition by a minor figure) or sack Mecca as the Muslims had done (and continued doing) to Italy and Constantinople. Their primary goal was the recapture of Jerusalem and the security of safe passage for pilgrims. The toppling of the Muslim empire was not on the agenda.
The period of Crusader “occupation” (of its own former land) was stretched over less than two centuries. (The Arab occupation is in its 1,380th year).
Despite popular depiction, the Crusades were not a titanic battle between Christianity and Islam. Although originally dispatched by papal decree, the “occupiers” quickly became part of the political and economic fabric of the Middle East without much regard for religious differences. Their arrival was largely accepted by the local population as simply another change in authority. Muslim radicals even lamented the fact that many of their co-religionists preferred to live under Frankish (Christian) rule than migrate to Muslim lands.
The Islamic world was split into warring factions, many of which allied themselves with the Frankish princes against each other at one time or another. This even included Saladin, the Kurdish warrior who is credited with eventually ousting the “Crusaders.” Contrary to recent propaganda, however, Saladin had little interest in holy war until a rogue Frankish prince began disrupting his trade routes. Both before and after the taking of Jerusalem, his armies spent far more time and resources battling fellow Muslims.
For its part, the Byzantine (Eastern Christian) Empire preferred to have little to do with the Crusaders and went so far as to sign treaties with their rivals.
Another misconception is that the Crusader era was a time of constant war. In fact, very little of this overall period included significant hostilities. In response to Muslim expansion or aggression, there were only about 20 years of actual military campaigning, much of which was spent on organization and travel. (They were from 1098-1099, 1146-1148, 1188-1192, 1201-1204, 1218-1221, 1228-1229, and 1248-1250). By comparison, the Muslim Jihad against the island of Sicily alone lasted 75 grinding years.
Unlike Jihad, the Crusades were never justified on the basis of New Testament teachings. This is why they are an anomaly, the brief interruption of centuries of relentless Jihad against Christianity that began long before the Crusades and continued well after they were over.
The greatest crime of the Crusaders was the sacking of Jerusalem, in which 30,000 people were said to have been massacred. This number is dwarfed by the number of Jihad victims, from India to Constantinople, Africa and Narbonne, but Muslims have never apologized for their crimes and never will.
What is called ‘sin and excess’ by other religions, is what Islam refers to as the will of Allah.

So, “Arafat” is allowed to make racist (and inaccurate) smears against all muslims. But the real issue is his motivation, and what might that be?

Perhaps that he is a Zionist?

To a non-religious person like myself, all religions are equally stupid and equally evil. How anyone can believe any of that crap is utterly beyond me. An extremist is an extremist, whether they’re Muslim, Jew, Christian, Hindu, Scientologist or whatever – and the world would be a much better place without them. That includes you, ARAFAT.

One doesn’t have to belong to ANY RELIGION to have deeply spiritual beliefs (and live by them every day). I just wonder what evil, spiteful God it is you actually worship. Do tell.

People un-evolved enough to believe in organized religions need a middle man (priest, imam, rabbi, whatever) to feel closer to God, but those of us who realize that all religions are basically the highest form of mind control slavery understand that God speaks directly to us and through each of us every day, and that the one true God is WITHIN all of us, and all living things. He’s not some white haired dude sitting on a throne judging us in Heaven. Only a spiritually crippled being would believe that childish fantasy – which is most people in the world, unfortunately.

Religious dogma serves only to separate us from our true essence as highly advanced spiritual beings, and it prevents us from ever reaching our true human potential. You are a perfect case in point.

You’re certainly free to remain as ignorant, intolerant and as hateful as you want, ARAFAT, but you are only hurting yourself in the long run. Good luck with that.

It’s easy to criticize the messenger, but try to at least support your criticism with some factual information.

G-d’s commandment was not limited to Canaanites, and it continued as long as the kingdoms of Israel lasted. Arguably, it continues now, though not explicitly in G-d’s name.

The Koran explicitly exempts People of the Book — Jews and Christians.

Not all Islamic governments have been oppressive. Science, math, education, culture — all flourished in Islamic empires while Christian Europe was in the Dark Ages. Jews were also treated a great deal better by Muslim rulers than by Christian kingdoms. I don’t condemn all Christianity for pogroms any more than I would condemn all Muslims.

Some Muslims do speak against violence by other Muslims. You’ll read/hear more about Muslims blowing things up because violence sells better than compassion.

The Crusades may not have been tied to a specific verse, but they were conducted in the name of G-d.

There were no Christian lands until the Roman Empire converted, and that empire was also created by war. Playing the who-did-it-first game always comes down to when you start the clock.

Christians and others made rape, pillaging and slavery part of war before Islam existed.

I can defend Muslims because I think dehumanizing anyone dehumanizes everyone. Declaring all members of a religion to be violent denies their individuality, and that is dehumanizing. Besides, not a single Muslim I’ve ever known fits your assumptions.

TheReligionofPeace.com Presents:

Flying Hijacked Planes into Glass Houses

A response to the American Muslim article:
Throwing Stones at the Qur’an from a Glass House

In an article entitled, “Throwing Stones at the Qur’an from a Glass House”, The American Muslim claims that the verses of violence and war in the Bible can be misread in “exactly the same way as some verses in the Qur’an” (emphasis ours). In other words, the on-line magazine alleges that, like the Qur’an, there are Biblical verses with open-ended commands to violence that are not bound by historical context within the passage itself.

Our first clue that this probably isn’t true is the scarcity of Christian terrorist groups. Not too many people are losing their heads to fanatics screaming praises to Jesus (or Moses, Buddha or the many Hindu gods either) as they are to shouts of “Allah Akbar!” That there are so many Islamic terrorist groups composed of fundamentalists (or purists) of the Muslim faith is enough to impress any reasonable person that there is something far more dangerous about Islam.

Nevertheless, to support their claim, The American Muslim quotes sixteen of the worst passages that the Bible has to offer in the way of violence. Others are alluded to as well, but delving into these particular verses should be a large enough sample to expose whatever sophistry might be at play.

Their first try is a passage from Deuteronomy that might appear to command present-day believers to take a city by force and slaughter the inhabitants on order from God:

“When you approach a city to fight against it, you shall offer it terms of peace. If it agrees to make peace with you and opens to you, then all the people who are found in it shall become your forced labor and shall serve you. However, if it does not make peace with you, but makes war against you, then you shall besiege it. When the LORD your God gives it into your hand, you shall strike all the men in it with the edge of the sword. Only the women and the children and the animals and all that is in the city, all its spoil, you shall take as booty for yourself; and you shall use the spoil of your enemies which the LORD your God has given you. Only in the cities of these peoples that the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance, you shall not leave alive anything that breathes” (Deuteronomy 20:10-17 – As quoted by The American Muslim
Except for the part about sparing women and children, this sounds similar to a verse from the Qur’an:

And when We would destroy a township We send commandment to its folk who live at ease, and afterward they commit abomination therein, and so the Word (of doom) hath effect for it, and we annihilate it with complete annihilation. (Qur’an 17:16)

But, in fact, the Biblical passage is not an open-ended command, but instead, a story of history bound within the text. Having trouble seeing this? That’s because the author of The American Muslim piece cleverly left out this part of the passage:

“Completely destroy them—the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites—as the LORD your God has commanded you”

Yes, it turns out that this was a specific command, given at a specific time to the tribe of Israel concerning a discrete target. This is why Christians and Jews do not treat these verses as present-day imperatives.

Strategic omission is just one way that Muslim apologists manipulate Biblical passages. (In this case, The American Muslim editors did not even include an ellipsis in place of the omission, since it may have raised the suspicions of the reader).

The next passage that The American Muslim claims promotes violence is from the apostle Paul, who writes:

“Hymenaeus and Alexander I have delivered to Satan that they may learn not to blaspheme.” (1Timothy 1:20)

The violence in the passage is not exactly evident from this reading. In the context of the previous verse, these two men “suffered shipwreck with regard to the faith,” but there is nothing to indicate that they were physically harmed as a result. It was the practice of the early Church to excommunicate apostates, and there is every reason to believe that this was the “fate” of these two individuals. They were expelled from the Church by Paul. The Christian Church does not advocate killing apostates.

Contrast this with the words of Muhammad:

“Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him.’” (Bukhari 84:57)

Not much ambiguity there. Abu Bakr, the first caliph and several other Muslims testified that Muhammad had indeed put Muslim apostates to death. For this reason, the practice is coded in Islamic law.

The next passage that is supposed to inspire Christians to violence is the recounting of David’s victory against the Philistines:

“This day the LORD will deliver you into my hand, and I will strike you down, and cut off your head; and I will give the dead bodies of the host of the Philistines this day to the birds of the air and to the wild beasts of the earth; that all the earth may know that there is a God in Israel, Then David ran and stood over the Philistine, and took his sword and drew it out of its sheath, and killed him, and cut off his head with it…. And David took the head of the Philistine and brought it to Jerusalem; but he put his armor in his tent. And as David returned from the slaughter of the Philistine, Abner took him, and brought him before Saul with the head of the Philistine in his hand.” (1 Samuel 17:46 – As Quoted by The American Muslim)

This is actually parts of verse 46 through 54. We won’t waste much time here, because it is apparent that this is a recounting of an historical event. The omitted passages from within the text make it even more obvious.

Compare this to the word of Allah in the Qur’an:

“I will instill terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers: smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them.” (Qur’an 8:12)

There is no historical context to mitigate this Qur’anic exhortation either in the verse or in those that surround it. (The American Muslim actually makes a monumental effort to bring historical context to the verse from sources external to the Qur’an in this article, which contains several inaccuracies regarding the timing of the “revelation” of the verse, the justification for attacking caravans, and the fate of hostages taken in battle, some of whom were actually put to death).

The next five passages quoted by The American Muslim, in trying to make the case that the Bible can be used to command violence, all suffer from the same problems as above:

“Then Abishai the son of Zeruiah said to the king, “Why should this dead dog curse my lord the king? Let me go over and take off his head.”… And there is also with you Shimei the son of Gera, the Benjaminite from Bahurim, who cursed me with a grievous curse on the day when I went to Mahanaim; but when he came down to meet me at the Jordan, I swore to him by the LORD, saying, I will not put you to death with the sword.’ Now therefore hold him not guiltless, for you are a wise man; you will know what you ought to do to him, and you shall bring his gray head down with blood to Sheol.” (2 Samuel 16:9, 1 Kings 2:8)

“ When they came into the house, as he lay on his bed in his bedchamber, they smote him, and slew him, and beheaded him. They took his head, and went by the way of the Arabah all night, and brought the head of Ishbosheth to David at Hebron. And they said to the king, “Here is the head of Ishbosheth, the son of Saul, your enemy, who sought your life; the LORD has avenged my lord the king this day on Saul and on his offspring.” (2 Samuel 4:7)

“That is not true. But a man of the hill country of Ephraim, called Sheba the son of Bichri, has lifted up his hand against King David; give up him alone, and I will withdraw from the city.” And the woman said to Joab, “Behold, his head shall be thrown to you over the wall.” Then the woman went to all the people in her wisdom. And they cut off the head of Sheba the son of Bichri, and threw it out to Joab.” (2 Samuel 20:21)

“at Jezreel by this time tommorrow…And when the letter came to them, they took the king’s sons, and slew them, seventy persons, and put their heads in baskets, and sent them to him at Jezreel. When the messenger came and told him, “They have brought the heads of the king’s sons,” he said, “Lay them in two heaps at the entrance of the gate until the morning.”. (2 Kings Chapter 10 verse 6) “God has now fulfilled the prophecy of the prophet Elijah. So Jehu put to death all who were left of the house of Ahab in Jezreel, as well as all of his close friends and priests, until he had left not one single survivor.” (2 Kings Chapter 10 verse 10) “He put to death all of Ahab’s house, who were left there and so blotted it out, in fulfillment of the word which YAHWEH had spoken to Elijah.” (2 Kings Chapter 10 verse 7)

“When the LORD your God brings you into the land where you are entering to possess it, and clears away many nations before you, the Hittites and the Girgashites and the Amorites and the Canaanites and the Perizzites and the Hivites and the Jebusites, seven nations greater and stronger than you. And when the LORD your God delivers them before you and you defeat them, then you shall utterly destroy them. You shall make no covenant with them and show no favor to them.” (Deuteronomy 7:1-2)

No doubt these were bad days to be particular individuals by the name of Shimei, Ishbosheth, Sheba or Ahab, but they obviously aren’t around anymore to complain. Same with the tribes mentioned in the passage from Deuteronomy. This is history, of course, not some open-ended instruction like:

“Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, and those who are with him are ruthless to the Unbelievers, but merciful to each other.” (Qur’an 48:29)

At this point, The American Muslim pulls two verses out of the New Testament Gospels. The first is quoted as if they are the words of Jesus:

“I tell you that to everyone who has, more shall be given, but from the one who does not have, even what he does have shall be taken away. But these enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here and slay them in my presence.”(Luke 19:26-27)

But, in fact, this is the tail end of a parable being told by Jesus. The words actually belong to one of the characters in his story.

Again, contrast this with the actual words of Muhammad:

[Allah’s Apostle said] “The Hour will not be established until you fight with the Jews, and the stone behind which a Jew will be hiding will say. “O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, so kill him.” (Bukhari 52:256)

We don’t have to play the same games here that The American Muslim does to try and convince Christians that they should kill based on the words of a parable. Not only are these Muhammad’s own words, but there are many Muslims at this very moment who are trying to kill Jews in Israel. Their religious leaders quote this passage to inspire them.

Moving along to the second New Testament verse that supposedly advocates violence:

“Do not think that I have come to send peace on earth. I did not come to send peace, but a sword. I am sent to set a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law” (Matthew 10:34-35)

Though not quoted in the article, the passage actually goes on to say, “Your enemies will be the members of your own household. Anyone who loves their father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves a son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. Whoever does not take up their cross and follow me is not worthy of me. Whoever finds their life will lose it, and whoever loses their life for my sake will find it. “

Obviously, Jesus is speaking of the coming hardships that will be suffered by Christians (ironically, the worst abusers eventually turned out to be Muslims). The “sword” is a metaphor for the persecution against believers, not an admonition for them to take up arms. In fact, elsewhere Jesus prevented one of his disciples from fighting on his behalf and rebuked him for doing so. In confirmation of this, none of his immediate followers formed an armed militia of any sort. There were no armies claiming to be “Christian” for many centuries.

By contrast, Muhammad was a military leader who killed people in battle, executed captives and enslaved women and children. When he said that “Jihad in the way of Allah elevates the position of a man in paradise” (Sahih Muslim 20:4645), his followers knew what he meant. They engaged in warfare following his death, which continues to this day.

The American Muslim then moves back to the Old Testament:

“I will send my fear before thee, and will destroy all the people to whom thou shalt come, and I will make all thine enemies turn their backs unto thee.” (Exodus 23:27)

Is this an open-ended imperative for present-day Christians and Jews? Hardly. Here’s the next verse:

“I will send the hornet ahead of you to drive the Hivites, Canaanites and Hittites out of your way”

Again, not a good time to be a Hivate, Hittite, or a Canaanite… but who is these days?

By contrast, the Qur’an speaks ill of Christians, Jews, “unbelievers” and “pagans,” and commands its readers to “slay the infidel wherever ye find him.” The historical context of the verse is apparently not all that conspicuous, judging by the fact that so many Muslims are trying so hard to kill these people in the name of Allah.

The American Muslim tries again:

And the LORD our God delivered him before us; and we smote him, and his sons, and all his people. At God’s instructions, the Israelites “utterly destroyed the men, women, and the little ones” leaving “none to remain.” And we took all his cities at that time, and utterly destroyed the men, and the women, and the little ones, of every city, we left none to remain. (Deuteronomy 2:33-36)

At this point, you can probably guess that there is something being left out. If you look at the original passage, you’ll find that it refers to the Battle of Jahaz and even says “at that time” (emphasizing that this is history – not edict).

Next is this passage from Joshua:

Joshua said to the people of Israel, “The Lord has given you the city of the all silver, and gold, and vessels of brass and iron, are consecrated unto the Lord: They shall come into the treasury of the Lord. The people utterly destroyed all that was in the city, both man and woman, young and old, and ox and sheep, and ass, with the edge of the sword. (Joshua 6:21-23 as Quoted by the American Muslim)

The manipulation of the original passage is so extensive that the verse is barely recognizable. The author employs both omission and juxtaposition to try and emphasize that the city in question was destroyed. In fact, the original does say that not everyone within the city was killed. Even so, this is still a violent passage… but it is not open-ended instruction.

The city in question was Jericho, and the verses tell of the battle between the ancient Israelites and the inhabitants therein – and the subsequent massacre. It is obviously a historical passage, and it no more inspires violence than reading an account of the Japanese slaughter of the people of Nanjing in 1937.

The American Muslim then pulls a verse from the Old Testament that it says can be interpreted to mean that apostates should be stoned:

“And he should go and worship other gods and bow down to them or to the sun or the moon or all the army of the heavens, …and you must stone such one with stones and such one must die.” (Deuteronomy 17:3-5, as quoted by the American Muslim)

What does the ellipsis leave out, you may be wondering? Well, it turns out that this was yet another specific command handed down to a specific people at a specific time:

“If a man or woman living among you in one of the towns the LORD gives you is found doing evil in the eyes of the LORD your God in violation of his covenant, and contrary to my command has worshiped other gods, bowing down to them or to the sun or the moon or the stars in the sky, and this has been brought to your attention, then you must investigate it thoroughly. If it is true and it has been proved that this detestable thing has been done in Israel, take the man or woman who has done this evil deed to your city gate and stone that person to death” (Actual text)

No Christian in their right mind would kill someone for worshipping a different god based on this passage. While it’s true that Christian apostates have been killed in sporadic and rare historical incidents, it was not the example of Jesus, nor is it a part of Christian teaching.

As we have already pointed out, however, Islam’s most reliable Hadith mandates the execution of apostates from Islam. It is firmly established in Islamic law, since it is the example set forth by Muhammad himself.

The American Muslim then submits a rare New Testament verse as proof that Christians can interpret the Bible as a command to murder in the way that Jihadis wage holy war:

“Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.” (Romans 1:20-32, as quoted by the American Muslim)

It is unclear why the author cites verses 20-32 but quotes only the last verse. The full text of the passage actually contains a rebuke against killing and it assigns judgment to God alone. The next verses in sequence confirm this:

“You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge another, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things. Now we know that God’s judgment against those who do such things is based on truth. So when you, a mere human, pass judgment on them and yet do the same things, do you think you will escape God’s judgment?” (Romans 2:1)

God is the judge, and not man, according to the context of this passage. How anyone is supposed to interpret this to mean exactly the opposite – that they should kill another human being – is a leap of logic that escapes this writer (and generations of Christians as well, apparently).

Muhammad’s own words, however, contain no such cryptic message:

“Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not.” (Qur’an 2:216)

Now, at last, The American Muslim pulls out the grand finale – the famous passage from Numbers that is quoted so enthusiastically by the detractors of Western religion:

“Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known man intimately. But all the girls who have not known man intimately, spare for yourselves.” (Numbers 31:17-18)

From the way this is quoted, it sounds as if God is telling today’s Bible-thumpers to kill every man within reach and enslave their women and children. What a horrible world this would be if Christians took this fragment literally and killed the nearest person.

So why aren’t the Jews and Christians of today doing this?

Well, it’s most likely because there aren’t any Midianites around, since that was the unfortunate tribe on which this vengeance is specifically commanded – as it is obvious from the surrounding verses. Again, this is a historical narration that clearly refers to an obscure tribe, unlike many of the open-ended passages of violence against unbelievers, “idolaters,” polytheists, Jews and Christians found in the Qur’an.

Contemporary Islamic apologists, such as the author of this American Muslim piece, apparently borrowed this research from secular critics of Christianity, who use passages such as these to make dark insinuations about the character of the god of the Bible and thus bolster their rejection of all religion.

This certainly makes for some strange bedfellows, given that most atheists would concur that the god of Muhammad is far more violent than the god of the New Testament. (Those who may not agree are free to travel to a Muslim country and see how publicly denying Allah there compares to Christian “intolerance” at home, but they may want to make out a will beforehand).

We’ll leave it to the theologians to respond, since the character of God and the nature of progressive revelation falls outside the scope of this discussion. Our only interest here is in the argument that Muslims are trying to make by citing such passages.

Since Muslims do not argue the point that Muhammad commanded the slaughter and enslavement of others at various times in his last ten years (a practice that his followers have faithfully applied to this very day), their logic here is quite tenuous. At best, these apologists appear to be trying to bring other religions down to the level of Islam, particularly Christianity.

What makes this noteworthy is that Christians and others do not act as if they need to bring Islam down to their religion of choice. The reason is that no other religion regularly kills members of every other faith explicitly in the name its god. And, on the rare occasions when this does happen, the response is anger and denouncement rather than the general indifference that Muslims have for Islamic terror (aside from the 15% or so who openly endorse it).

Islamic terrorists wage holy war on a daily basis because it is the literal command of the Qur’an. Western Muslim apologists (concerned solely with the image of Islam) window-dress these violent passages through a complex series of appeals to a patchwork of external Muslim sources. Then, after delicately arranging the products of this Herculean charade in such a way as to convince the rest of us that these Qur’anic verses of violence are not what they appear, the apologist steps back, wipes the sweat from his brow and says, “See how clear it is? No Muslim could possibly interpret this command to kill as a command to kill.”

Well, why are these verses in the Qur’an at all, then? If they are supposed to be history, then why do they appear as imperative? Why isn’t the context right there in the text as it is in the Old Testament?

After all, this is supposed to be Allah’s perfect book. How is it that it is so vulnerable to the worst sort of “misinterpretation”?

Lacking a decent answer to these questions, Muslims attack the Bible instead.

Let me clarify my position. I think Muslims are no different than I when I was born. The difference comes after the birth.

Believe it or not I grew up in a very nurturing home. A home where we tried our best – not always successfully – to treat all people with respect and decency. When I would go to church the lessons I learned were also those of respect, decency and love for our fellow men and women. That’s not to say I always followed these lessons and certainly I know many fellow Christians and Jews who do not uphold these ideals particularly well either. But at least we were exposed to a choice that was decent and kind.

I have literally seen hundreds of videos and read hundreds of texts of speeches from Islamic Imams and Islamic leaders filled with most vile hatred imaginable; some of what I see and read makes Hitler look practically decent in comparison. I have rarely, if ever, seen this from Priests or Rabbis or Buddhist Monks.

It is obvious to me that the socialization process Muslims are exposed to is vastly different than what we in the West are exposed to, and to think this does not help form who we become, in my opinion, is to deny the nose on our faces.

And this is where the fork in the road exists between Muslims and me and you, too. For you to write what you did above shows an ability to empathize, to be compassionate that I have rarely seen in a Muslim.

What I hear from American Muslims, instead, is a denial of responsibility. Israel is at fault, or America is at fault, or imperialism is at fault, or colonialism is at fault. It reminds me of the Abba Eban saying, “When a light bulb burns out in Cairo, they blame the Jews.” They never blame themselves for their own problems and are obviously never going to learn or to change until they start doing so. But this appears to be a sin in Islam.

Never do I hear America Muslims blame fellow Muslims for the genocide in Darfur. Never do I read American Muslims call out for Turkey to acknowledge Muslim’s role in the Armenian genocide. Never do I hear American Muslims blame Hamas or Hezbollah, or Mohammed’s example for the problems –or at least some of the problems – in the Middle East. Never do I hear American Muslims voice compassion for the Jews of Israel and what their families lived through before they were allowed their homeland. Instead I hear about the poor, poor Palestinians. It’s a wonder to me that even though approximately the same number of Jewish refugees were created after the formation of Israel — refugees from countries like Yemen, Morocco, Algeria – we never hear about them. That is because they were welcomed with open arms into Israel. But what of the poor, poor Palestinian refugees? Where are their Muslim brothers? If these brothers are all that concerned about the Palestinian’s plight why don’t they open their countries up to them? Instead we get this:

{{At the end of the Gulf War, Kuwait expelled some 400,000 Palestinians after the Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat had aligned the PLO with Saddam Hussein, who had invaded Kuwait.[citation needed] The exodus took place during one week in March 1991, after Kuwait was liberated from Iraqi occupation.
The exodus has caused great strain on the Palestinian economy, since many Palestinians working in Kuwait have been an important source of income to the Palestinian economy.[citation needed]
Prior to the exodus, Palestinians made up about 30% of Kuwait’s population.[citation needed] By 2006 only a few had returned to Kuwait and today the number of Palestinians living in Kuwait is less than 40,000 (under 3% of the population).}}
You may accuse me of dehumanizing a people, and I readily admit I paint with too broad a brush, but I will not apologize for commenting on what I see, hear and understand to be the Islamic experience, the Muslim people, and how and why they differ from the compassion you illustrated so beautifully above. They are socialized no differently than the Nazi youth. And from what I can gather this has been happening since the days of Mohammed.

Who cares about the Mosque? Really.

I must’ve missed that part of your sniveling. Oh wait, here it is!

“A Muslim victim of 9/11: ‘Build your mosque somewhere else,’”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/06/AR2010080603006.html

“I do not like harboring resentment or anger, but I do not want the death of my mother — my best friend, my hero, my strength, my love — to become even more politicized than it already is. To the supporters of this new Islamic cultural center, I must ask: Build your ideological monument somewhere else, far from my mother’s grave, and let her rest.”

The latest poll? A super majority of Americans (70%) reject the mosque plan of Cordoba House Islamo-supremacists.

This Quisling demonization campaign should be accepted for what it is— silly, delusional and disconnected.

Support the will of the people, Mayor Bloomberg.

Yet when patriotic Americans object to jihadists opening a 9/11 snuff porn vendor emporium (and head-hacker recruitment center) on the hallowed graves of Ground Zero— Leftists shriek with indignation!

“Ye blind guides, that strain out the gnat, and swallow the camel!” [Matthew 23:24]