You said, ‘I don’t tolerate fascism.’

There is no free expression under fascism or Islamofascism. No Islamic country has free speech. Do you think there is an underlying explanation or is it merely coincidence, in your opinion?

Muslims give no respect to anyone who disagrees with Mohammed, that includes you. How do you feel now?

I respect Muslims and I respect Europe. I even respect terrorists to some degree. But I don’t tolerate fascism. Respect is a courtesy, but not a requirement. If I don’t agree with another person’s belief or philosophy, I think its my right to speak against it or for it if I feel its the right thing to do.

Martin Luther King spoke against racism. Galileo spoke for science against religion. Antoine Condorcet and Olympe de Gouges spoke for women’s suffrage. All of these people and many more spoke against the majority. Does that make them wrong for not respecting others beliefs?

that’s a TON of comments. sheesh.

umm. i just have a simple opinion. everyone has the freedom of speech but as humans, we do have to respect another’s belief. That is, after all, how one gets respect. Also, just because we have freedom of speech doesn’t mean we should abuse it.

america’s constitution (if i am not wrong) has been based on an individual’s basic rights. however, in many cases, such as under the patriot act, these rights can be taken away by the government and therefore an absolute right (freedom of speech, religion, etc.) becomes a limited right. thus you cannot always use the freedom of speech as an excuse.

on the contrary, even if another person does something offensive, the offended party should not go crazy and RESPECT the first party’s freedom of speech.

but all i would say is it is better to not abuse your own right and make another feel uncomfortable. however, if you are offended by someone, try and look the other way.

i am a Muslim but I will not go into the details of my religion. Those who wish to seek the truth can: The Qur’an is not extensive (as the Torah) nor does it have many different versions (as the Bible). If you really are curious about Jihad and the true teachings of the Prophet and the religion, I would suggest you read the translation yourself.

Peace.

In the opinion of the respected tafsir writer, Ibn Kathir, the protection in the passage you quoted only applies to a “believing soul” of Islam or one protected by Allah…kufaar are ipso facto not protected.

The tafsir of Ibn Kathir (on this Koranic passage) makes it perfectly clear that only those who believe correctly (Moslems) are protected and those who are guilty of incorrect belief may be killed:

“(And if anyone saved a life…) means, he refrains from killing a soul. Al-`Awfi reported that Ibn `Abbas said that Allah’s statement,

“(It would be as if he killed all mankind. . .) means, “Whoever kills one soul that Allah has forbidden killing, is just like he who kills all mankind.” Sa`id bin Jubayr said, “He who allows himself to shed the blood of a Muslim, is like he who allows shedding the blood of all people. He who forbids shedding the blood of one Muslim, is like he who forbids shedding the blood of all people.” In addition, Ibn Jurayj said that Al-A`raj said that Mujahid commented on the Ayah,

“(It would be as if he killed all mankind,) “He who kills a believing soul intentionally, Allah makes the Fire of Hell his abode, He will become angry with him, and curse him, and has prepared a tremendous punishment for him, equal to if he had killed all people, his punishment will still be the same.” Ibn Jurayj said that Mujahid said that the Ayah,

“(and if anyone saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of all mankind.) means, “He who does not kill anyone, then the lives of people are safe from him.”

Further to the above tafsir, many passages clarify that killing disbelievers is not, in itself, a crime. This is confirmed in Tabari, e.g., “Killing disbelievers is a small matter to us…” Tabari IX:69. In fact, many verses in the Koran order the killing of various kinds of disbelievers (33:61, 4:76, 4:89-91, 8:12, 9:41, 9:5, 9:29, 61:11, etc.). Believers must honour their duty to Allah and fight the disbelievers in battle, or be punished in hell (2:216, 8:15-16, 9:39). Although the Koran explicitly forbids the murder of Muslims (4:93), the Koran does not contain a similar statement that forbids the killing or murder of non-Muslims.

The passage you proposed perfectly illustrates Islam’s idea of who is the enemy in jihad and how they should be treated. The idolaters (mushrikun) were clearly compelled to accept Islam — unless they preferred to let themselves be killed.

Key parts of 5:32, when included, change the meaning dramatically, actually recommending the killing of non-Muslims in a wide variety of circumstances. The passage actually counsels execution for the crime of disagreeing with Mohammed.

Therefore, this passage perfectly illustrates Islam’s core doctrines: dual sets of ethics and the submission of the kafir to the Moslem in the master/slave relationship. The imposition of the master/slave relationship on the kufaar through coercion is a complete rejection of the Golden Rule.

The key word in your argument is “guilty”. Those who are “guilty” are under a death sentence. The Koran never tires of explaining who is guilty and deserves the death penalty: the kufaar are “guilty of disbelief”(45:31, 83:29) and deserve the death penalty. The crime of incorrect belief (fitna) is worse than the crime of murder and thus all kufaar have automatically incurred a death sentence. Moslems who no longer believe in Islam should also be executed for this same crime of dissent. This thought-control aspect (through capital punishment) reveals that Islam supports its doctrine by force, rather than by rational argument. Depriving people of their freedom of thought through death in no way expresses the Golden Rule.

The Koranic doctrine of jihad begins with the justification of disallowing anyone from disagreeing with Mohammed. Kafirs are “the vilest of animals” because they do not agree with Mohammed, they are “guilty” of disbelief (45:31, 83:29) – the worst crime, on the side of the Satan and are fighting for him (4:76-77); “evil” (16:27, 2:91, 2:99); the “wrong-doers” (2:254, 5:45); the “enemy” and “perverted” (63:4); “wicked” (80:42, 9:125); hypocrites (4:61); “unclean” (9:28). As for whether non-Muslims are civilians, the Koran is not even clear that non-Muslims are fully human. Instead, the disbelievers are the “worst of created beings” (98:6); “miscreants” (2:99, 24:55); “the worst beasts in Allah’s sight” (8:55), “apes” and/or “pigs” (2:65-66, 5:58-60, 7:166), and so on. Verse 60:4 says followers of Allah will hate the disbelievers forever, unless the disbelievers come to believe in Allah only. This is a thorough demonization of disbelievers, together with the conception of disbelief as the worst possible crime. Pious Muslims easily grasp that the kufaar are guilty of wrong belief and corruption on earth and war against Allah and that jihad is required to correct the situation. The first duty of the pious Moslem is to remove the kafir’s freedom of expression and the second is to use all means to eradicate kafir culture. To reject jihad, is to reject Islam.

The dualistic doctrines of the “kafir” and of “jihad” entirely bar the application of the unitary Golden Rule by Moslems. To apply the Golden Rule, Moslems will need to remove 61% of the ayas in the Koran. Both the letter and spirit of Islam entirely exclude the Golden Rule.

But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, an seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practise regular charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.

6. If one amongst the Pagans ask thee for asylum, grant it to him, so that he may hear the word of Allah. and then escort him to where he can be secure. That is because they are men without knowledge.

You just take out the clauses which you please and leave the rest . This chapter was revealed when the muslims were going to fight with the kuffar in Mecca after the disrespected the peace agreement between them and the muslims .

and in chapter 5 verse 32

On that account: We ordained for the Children of Israel that if any one slew a person – unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land – it would be as if he slew the whole people: and if any one saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of the whole people. Then although there came to them Our apostles with clear signs, yet, even after that, many of them continued to commit excesses in the land.

it did not say that if you killed a pious muslim it is as if you killed the whole of humanity, it says if you slew a person regardless of his faith .

It is now my turn to be amused. Anticipating your lazy approach to knowledge, I initially gave no references, so you would not have to work (four-letter word). When you asked for evidence from the Hadiths, I provided only some of the texts available (some of the most evil ones) referring to the authentic Islamic method of thought control: murder. Assassination and murder of those who disagree is the Sunna of Allah’s Messenger. The Hadiths and Sira describe a figure with the ethics of a mafia godfather. Your response was exactly what I expected: laziness. Too much work, too many references, blah, blah, “whatever”. Touch the channel changer. You didn’t bother to read these texts and you certainly didn’t think about them. Why bother learning or thinking, when emptiness and laziness are instantaneous? This is the typical Islamic “spoon-fed” approach of taqlid where the teacher has all the answers and the pupil behaves as “a dead body”, the mind entirely in neutral. In your case, you have incorporated the post-modern sneer with this lethargic self-distraction.

Your debating technique boils down to “yes-it-is-no-it-isn’t”, plus a sneer. The lazy man’s approach. Maybe it works with your friends; maybe they are just being polite.

You seem to want me to make it easy for you to win the debate by boiling down a presentation of irrefutable and very complex forensic analysis. Your response is: Ah, c’mon, just let me win, because I’m cute. You cannot win through sloth or through the search for “entertainment”. Logical argument is hard work and obviously it is too exhausting for you. Go watch some cartoons on television, but not ones about your terrorist idol. Pretend you didn’t see the proof of Islam’s core terrorism and dream on.
Mohammed said, “I have been made victorious through terror”, not “I have won through loving my neighbour as myself.”

Whatever you are doing in your private life, it is not “real”, dualistic Islam. It is “cafeteria” post-modern spirituality. You are a living example that Islam’s dual ethics and call for the world to submit to Moslems and be their slaves do not work in the Global Village. Islam is a total failure as a political philosophy and all Islamic states have quietly recognized this, except for the Talibans in Afghanistan. The world reacted with horror to their real-Islam atrocities. Ordinary Moslems recognize that the Golden Rule is the only answer for getting along in a nuclear age. But the Golden Rule was left out of Allah’s perfect book. How could this be? Ordinary Moslems know in their heart that the Golden Rule is the right way to treat the kufaar. They break the Islamic rule against “innovation” and bring the Golden Rule into a subjective, personalized Islam of their own invention. This is what you have done. It is very, very dishonest.

You should use gmail, its spam filter is amazing.