Geert Wilders: Time to Unmask Muhammad

[Richard Wiig]

Geert Wilders: Time to Unmask Muhammad

English translation of an op-ed piece that Geert Wilders published today in the Dutch magazine “HP/De Tijd.”

To know why Islam is a mortal danger one must not only consider the Koran but also the character of Muhammad, who conceived the Koran and the entirety of Islam.

The Koran is not just a book. Muslims believe that Allah himself wrote it and that it was dictated to Muhammad in the original version, the Umm al-Kitab, which is kept on a table in heaven. Consequently one cannot argue with the contents. Who would dare to disagree with what Allah himself has written? This explains much of Muhammadan behaviour, from the violence of jihad to the hatred and persecution of Jews, Christians and other non-Muslims and apostates. What we in the West regard as abnormal, is perfectly normal for Islam.

A second insuperable problem with Islam is the figure of Muhammad. He is not just anyone. He is al-insan al-kamil, the perfect man. To become a Muslim one must pronounce the Shahada (the Muslim creed). By pronouncing the Shahada one testifies that there is no god that can be worshipped except Allah, and one testifies that Muhammad is his servant and messenger.

The Koran, and hence Allah, lays down that Muhammad’s life must be imitated. The consequences of this are horrendous and can be witnessed on a daily basis.

There has been much analysis of Muhammad’s mental sanity. In spite of all the available research, it is rarely mentioned or debated. It is a taboo to discuss the true nature of the man whom one and a half billion Muslims around the world regard as a holy prophet and example to be followed. That taboo must be breached in the West, and here in the Netherlands.

Ali Sina is an Iranian ex-Muslim who established the organisation for apostates of Islam Faith Freedom International. In his latest book he posits that Muhammad is a narcissist, a paedophile, a mass murderer, a terrorist, a misogynist, a lecher, a cult leader, a madman, a rapist, a torturer, an assassin and a looter (*). Sina has offered 50,000 dollars for the one who can prove otherwise. Nobody has claimed the reward as yet. And no wonder, as the description is based on the Islamic texts themselves, such as the hadiths, the descriptions of Muhammad’s life from testimonies of contemporaries.

The historical Muhammad was the savage leader of a gang of robbers from Medina. Without scruples they looted, raped and murdered. The sources describe orgies of savagery where hundreds of people’s throats were cut, hands and feet chopped off, eyes cut out, entire tribes massacred. An example is the extinction of the jewish Kurayza tribe in Medina in 627. One of those who chopped off their heads was Muhammad. The women and children were sold as slaves. Confronted with the lunacy of Islamic terrorists today, it is not hard to find out where the lunacy comes from.

In Vienna the women’s rights activist Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff was recently sentenced to paying a fine for insulting a religion by calling Muhammad a paedophile. However, that is the truth. Numerous hadiths contain testimonies by Muhammad’s favourite wife, the child wife Aisha. Aisha literally says: “The prophet married me when I was six years old, and had intercourse with me when I was nine.”

According to the historian Theophanes (752-817) Muhammad was an epileptic. Epileptic crises are sometimes accompanied by hallucinations, perspiration form the forehead and foaming at the mouth, the very symptoms which Muhammad displayed during his visions.

In his book “The other Muhammad” (1992) the Flemish psychologist dr. Herman Somers concludes that in his forties the “prophet” began to suffer from acromegaly, a condition caused by a tumor in the pituitary gland, a small organ that is situated just below the brain. When the tumor in the pituitary gland causes too much pressure in the brain, people start to see and hear things that are not there. Somers’s psychopathological diagnosis of Muhammad’s condition is: organic hallucinatory affliction with paranoid characteristics.

The German medical historian Armin Geus speaks of a paranoid hallucinatory schizophrenia. A similar analysis can be found in the book “The Medical Case of Muhammad” by the physician Dede Korkut.

In his book “Psychology of Mohammed: Inside the Brain of a Prophet” Dr. Masud Ansari calls Muhammad “the perfect personification of a psychopath in power.” Muhammad had a unhinged paranoid personality with an inferiority complex and megalomaniac tendencies. In his forties he starts having visions that lead him to believe he has a cosmic mission, and there is no stopping him.

The truth is not always pleasant or politically correct. On the basis of the research referred to above it can be argued that the Islamic creed obliges one and a half billion people around the world, including the one million living in the Netherlands, to take Muhammad as their example. There is no turning back once one has become a Muslim. For even though article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that every person has the right to “change his religion or belief,” in Islam there is a death penalty for leaving the faith.

Anyone who voices criticism of Islam and Muhammad is in grave personal danger – as I have experienced. And whoever attempts to escape from the influence of Islam and Muhammad risks death. We cannot continue to accept this state of affairs. A public debate about the true nature and character of Muhammad can provide insight and support to Muslims all over the world who wish to leave Islam.

Apostates are heroes and more than ever they deserve the support of freedom loving people all over the world. Party politics should not be at play in this matter. It is time for us to help these people by exposing Muhammad.

Geert Wilders is an MP in the Netherlands. He is the Chairman of the Party for Freedom (PVV)

This article was published in the Dutch weekly magazine “HP/De Tijd” of March 30, 2011

(*) http://www.jpost.com/Home/Article.aspx?id=104835

[9thdoctor]

The Koran is not just a book. Muslims believe that Allah himself wrote it and that it was dictated to Muhammad in the original version, the Umm al-Kitab, which is kept on a table in heaven. Consequently one cannot argue with the contents. Who would dare to disagree with what Allah himself has written?

Uh-huh.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mu%27talizite

Maybe "Libertarian Muslim" will take the time to chime in here. I'd need to go back and review Joshua, Judges, and maybe a bit about Attila the Hun or Genghis Khan first, to get some perspective.

Are you (Infidel) going to start posting full length articles by Robert Spencer, Pamela Geller, and Mark Steyn next? Expecting to start a dialogue?

[Mikee]

I think Wafa Sultan is in perfect agreement with Mr. Wilders:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1296126090432829344#

[Richard Wiig]

Libertarian Muslim would do well to read Wafa Sultan's book "Cruel and Usual punishment".

[9thdoctor]

I think Wafa Sultan is in perfect agreement with Mr. Wilders:

Without Libertarian Muslim this will only devolve into a boring battle of YouTube videos and links, at least he knows his stuff to the point that it's interesting to follow.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V-bkZc7SWLQ

There are no Christian theocracies left (not counting the Vatican), and Israel hardly qualifies as a theocracy either, so the fact that there are some barbaric Islamic-ruled places in the world today doesn't prove that Islam is worse.

Wasn't St. Paul also epileptic? I forget where I read that, but what does it matter? Julius Caesar reportedly was as well.

Libertarian Muslim answered the pedophile charge on another thread (there have been many), he gave a link to some literature explaining that it is a lie.

[Richard Wiig]

Are you (Infidel) going to start posting full length articles by Robert Spencer, Pamela Geller, and Mark Steyn next? Expecting to start a dialogue?

I posted it because I think it's worth the read for anyone who values freedom and is interested in fighting the scourge of Islam. Comment on it or don't, I really don't mind either way.

[Richard Wiig]

Hugh Fitzgerald demolishes Karen Armstrong.

Fitzgerald: A tribute to Karen Armstrong, or The Coherence of Her IncoherenceJihad Watch Board Vice President Hugh Fitzgerald explains why no one should ever take Karen Armstrong seriously:

Karen Armstrong, long famous for her description of Muhammad as the consummate "peacemaker" who "brought together the warring tribes of Arabia," has assumed the mantle, yet again, not of the Prophet, but of the Prophet's defender. In an article in The Guardian she retells in her inimitable fashion the story of European Christendom's relations with Islam and with Muslims. In her retelling, the Muslims are innocent victims, and more than innocent victims, likened again and again to the Jews. They are also the only people who provided, in that bright shining moment of European history known as Islamic Spain, the only real tolerance and humanity to be found anywhere in Europe before the modern era. It is a tough job, but Karen Armstrong proves equal to the task. And her real theme is not history, but that Europeans should feel ashamed themselves for showing any signs of wariness or suspicion about the millions of Muslims who now live in Europe, having come among the indigenous Infidels to settle, but not to settle down.

It is curious to see how often in this article Karen Armstrong makes references to examples of historic mistreatment of the Jews. For in her previous books she has exhibited a palpable distaste for Israel, and has attempted on every occasion to pretend that the claims of the "three abrahamic faiths" to Jerusalem are identical in the importance that each attaches to the city (but as a city Jerusalem is not holy in Islam, and never was), and she is fond, in her discussion of "fundamentalisms"--always presented in the plural - to make reference to the one or two examples of what she calls "Jewish terrorism." She fails to consider whether or not the assassination of Rabin by a Jewish political opponent, or the mental collapse of Dr. Baruch Goldstein which led him, acting entirely alone and on impulse, to wreak his solitary revenge on those whose victims Goldstein treated every day as a doctor, until he could no longer stand it, really can be compared to the thousands of planned acts, many of them fortunately foiled, and others not, that are part of the world-wide Jihad against completely innocent Infidels, within Muslim lands, and without.

Here is how she begins:

"In 1492, the year that is often said to inaugurate the modern era, three very important events happened in Spain...

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2005/04/fitzgerald-a-tribute-to-karen-armstrong-or-the-coherence-of-her-incoherence.html

[9thdoctor]

Are you (Infidel) going to start posting full length articles by Robert Spencer, Pamela Geller, and Mark Steyn next? Expecting to start a dialogue?

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2005/04/fitzgerald-a-tribute-to-karen-armstrong-or-the-coherence-of-her-incoherence.html

There you go, quoting Jihadwatch, Robert Spencer’s site. I think I’ve done enough by way of registering disagreement, some one new comes along every couple months and posts a bunch of bigoted crap about Muslims on OL, there’s no use trying to rebut every one, every time. I think there's a good piece out there where Dinesh D'Souza "demolishes" Robert Spencer. I have other things to do.

[Richard Wiig]

If you don't have an interest then I'm unsure why you even looked in here. What I posted was a devastating critique of Karen Armstrong's scholarship by Hugh Fitzgerald. Since you used Karen Armstrong as a source of authority I'd have thought it would interest you, and that you'd at least read the message and deal with that rather than shooting the messenger. But then perhaps it's just that she says what you want to hear, so that's where you'd sooner stop? I'd be interested in reading any article by Dinesh D'souza that exposes Robert Spencers falacies, so if you know of one, please post it. If Mr Spencer is dealing in falsehoods then I'd sooner know about it than not. There's been nothing that I've read yet by Mr D'Souza that has shown that though. In fact, so far, it has always been the other way around.

[Jerry Biggers]

I'm not sure that I want to step into this discussion about Islam, but from reviewing posts on threads here that dealt with Islam, I get the impression that criticism of the doctrines and practices of Moslems, its origins, and the nature of past and current societies under Islamic rule, is viewed by some as "Moslem bashing" and or some type of "hate-motivated" speech. I do not see why examination of these topics evokes that kind of response, especially from those who are of an Objectivist (or atheist/skeptic/secular humanist) orientation.

Criticism of Islam and its applications in practice, is not confined to fundamentalist "born-again" Christians. An examination of the literature on this subject shows a wide divergence of opinion, ranging from fanatical hatred of Moslems to fanatical defense of their doctrines and practices. Between these extremes, there are many reasoned critiques from a non-religious perspective. For example, the books and essays by Ibn Warraq, a former Moslem and now a "secular humanist" (the name is a non de plume for a professor, necessary for his safety. Some radical Moslems have demonstrated that it is "open season" on their critics, especially former Moslems, since they view leaving the faith as grounds for a fatwa against the apostates).

See, for example, the Amazon.com page of Ibn Warraq and his many books on Islam:

http://www.amazon.com/Ibn-Warraq/e/B001JPADHK/ref=ntt_athr_dp_pel_1

(In particular, I would suggest his book, Why I Am Not A Muslim [Prometheus, 2003]).

If you go to each page on Amazon devoted to his specific books, you will find, not surprisingly, reader comments ranging from condemning to endorsing him. But as we all know (wearily) from similar discussions of Ayn Rand, it is much more profitable to read what the author in question actually wrote, than to rely on what others say/interpret/distort that that author wrote.

Of course, the same is true for examining any set of beliefs, doctrines, ideologies, philosophies, or religions. That naturally includes Islam and Objectivism.

Edited March 31, 2011 by Jerry Biggers

[9thdoctor]

Since you used Karen Armstrong as a source of authority I'd have thought it would interest you, and that you'd at least read the message and deal with that rather than shooting the messenger.

Just to be clear, I think Karen Armstrong’s view of Islam and its history is filtered through rose-colored glasses, she’s too selectively positive (this isn't an issue in the clip I posted). Meanwhile Spencer’s view is even more distorted, with a negative bias. They’ve both written books on the subject, and putting them side by side it’s hard to believe they’re writing about the same thing.

After reading the Koran and the Bible, and studying history, my conclusion is that the Abrahamic religions are about equally bad, and theocracies based on any of them are no place to live. Is bigotry against one of them the answer? The one that happens to still have theocratic regimes in power?

I’ve worked with Muslim immigrants, young second generation types who have comparatively conservative parents, but who are so well assimilated you wouldn’t know their religion unless they told you. Hell, they’re so secularized, they only pay lip service on holidays, presumably to please their parents. What effect does the rhetoric of a Geert Wilders have on people like this? People with relatives that would like to come here, or who otherwise exert pressure to modernize their home countries? It’s comparable to a Klansman calling for more Jim Crow laws.

Edited March 31, 2011 by Ninth Doctor

[caroljane]

Since you used Karen Armstrong as a source of authority I'd have thought it would interest you, and that you'd at least read the message and deal with that rather than shooting the messenger.

Just to be clear, I think Karen Armstrong’s view of Islam and its history is filtered through rose-colored glasses, she’s too selectively positive. Meanwhile Spencer’s view is even more distorted, with a negative bias. They’ve both written books on the subject, and putting them side by side it’s hard to believe they’re writing about the same thing.

After reading the Koran and the Bible, and studying history, my conclusion is that the Abrahamic religions are about equally bad, and theocracies based on any of them are no place to live. Is bigotry against one of them the answer? The one that happens to still have theocratic regimes in power?

I’ve worked with Muslim immigrants, young second generation types who have comparatively conservative parents, but who are so well assimilated you wouldn’t know their religion unless they told you. Hell, they’re so secularized, they only pay lip service on holidays, presumably to please their parents. What effect does the rhetoric of a Geert Wilders have on people like this? People with relatives that would like to come here, or who otherwise exert pressure to modernize their home countries? It’s comparable to a Klansman calling for more Jim Crow laws.

Well said. As someone who has worked with and come to know at least a thousand Muslims over 13 years, I entirely agree.

[kiaer.ts]

After reading the Koran and the Bible, and studying history, my conclusion is that the Abrahamic religions are about equally bad, and theocracies based on any of them are no place to live. Is bigotry against one of them the answer? a Klansman calling for more Jim Crow laws.

How does recognizing the essential difference between a religion whose founder says "he who lives by the sword shall die by the sword", "my kingdom is not of this earth" and "render unto Caesar that which is Casear's" and a militant who demands war and murder to establish a religious dictatorship amount to "bigotry"? The accusation is superficial, baseless, and offensive.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

The father of Christianity said a lot of badass stuff, too.

His Son was a bit milder, but Pops was outright mean when he wanted to be. Animal sacrifices, genocide, torture, the whole nine yards.

I don't see the people who denigrate Mohammad going out of their way to say God is disgusting, a butcher, evil, etc., to good peaceful Christians.

They know that to do that would be akin to spitting on the person. Why? Because a good peaceful Christian does not utilize that part of the religion.

Likewise, you can't spit on the Qu'ran or Mohammad in front of good peaceful Muslims without spitting on them. The same reasoning applies. And who spits on good peaceful Muslims are bigots.

Historical discussions/disagreements and outright spitting are different, but bigots like to blur that line when called out.

Michael

[Richard Wiig]

she’s too selectively positive (this isn't an issue in the clip I posted).

Actually, she's very selective in the clip you posted and she makes a numbere of omissions and misleads people in her first few breaths.

[Richard Wiig]

After reading the Koran and the Bible, and studying history, my conclusion is that the Abrahamic religions are about equally bad, and theocracies based on any of them are no place to live. Is bigotry against one of them the answer? a Klansman calling for more Jim Crow laws.

How does recognizing the essential difference between a religion whose founder says "he who lives by the sword shall die by the sword", "my kingdom is not of this earth" and "render unto Caesar that which is Casear's" and a militant who demands war and murder to establish a religious dictatorship amount to "bigotry"? The accusation is superficial, baseless, and offensive.

It's very offensive. It's also very destructive and acts against a proper identification and defense of the truth.

[Richard Wiig]

I don't see the people who denigrate Mohammad going out of their way to say God is disgusting, a butcher, evil, etc., to good peaceful Christians.

Actually, personally I make some very strong criticism of Christianity and Gourd at times, and it's very likely that others do to, it's just that you don't have all seeing eyes. Christianity is a bane on mankind, but it's not actually the focus when the focus is on Islam and its jihad imperative. Whenever someone introduces Christianity into the subject, and it doesn't have any constuctive purpose in furthering the understanding of the subject at hand, then it's usually about destroying the focus on the subject at hand. When the likes of you cry bigot and suggest motivations of hatred, what you're actually aiming at is the focus and intensity (the taking seriously of the issue)by those you criticise.

[caroljane]

After reading the Koran and the Bible, and studying history, my conclusion is that the Abrahamic religions are about equally bad, and theocracies based on any of them are no place to live. Is bigotry against one of them the answer? a Klansman calling for more Jim Crow laws.

How does recognizing the essential difference between a religion whose founder says "he who lives by the sword shall die by the sword", "my kingdom is not of this earth" and "render unto Caesar that which is Casear's" and a militant who demands war and murder to establish a religious dictatorship amount to "bigotry"? The accusation is superficial, baseless, and offensive.

"I come to bring not peace but a sword"... the New Testament like the Koran has a saying of Jesus or Mohammed to support any theory or course of action the follower wants to take.

[Richard Wiig]

After reading the Koran and the Bible, and studying history, my conclusion is that the Abrahamic religions are about equally bad, and theocracies based on any of them are no place to live. Is bigotry against one of them the answer? a Klansman calling for more Jim Crow laws.

How does recognizing the essential difference between a religion whose founder says "he who lives by the sword shall die by the sword", "my kingdom is not of this earth" and "render unto Caesar that which is Casear's" and a militant who demands war and murder to establish a religious dictatorship amount to "bigotry"? The accusation is superficial, baseless, and offensive.

"I come to bring not peace but a sword"... the New Testament like the Koran has a saying of Jesus or Mohammed to support any theory or course of action the follower wants to take.

No it doesn't, because if you put it in its wider context it's taken as metaphorical, not literal. When Muhammad personally beheaded people though, and had his goons do it for him, it was literal. What is your purpose in trying to equate Christianity and Islam as one and the same, as opposed to just looking at each for what they are?

[9thdoctor]

How does recognizing the essential difference between a religion whose founder says "he who lives by the sword shall die by the sword", "my kingdom is not of this earth" and "render unto Caesar that which is Casear's" and a militant who demands war and murder to establish a religious dictatorship amount to "bigotry"? The accusation is superficial, baseless, and offensive.

If it’s just a matter of pulling out quotes, it’s doable:

Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.

Jesus,

Gospel according to Matthew,

10:34

There’s another quote, from one of the parables, I’m drawing a blank on it though. This isn’t going to convince anyone, however. Since you didn’t include any Koran quotes I won’t either.

There’s a fundamental problem in comparing Christianity and Islam, and that’s the fact that their “founders” had very different careers. In effect, Christianity has a “get out of jail free” card its apologists can produce at any time, since Jesus was never a political leader. If, in 622 AD, when as Gibbon put it “the lance of an Arab might have changed the history of the world”, Muhammad had been killed, his creed, if it survived him through his followers, would have been comparable to that of Jesus in terms of explicitly pacifistic content. Later, as a besieged and/or aggressive military leader, he had to make decisions (or, ahem, receive revelations) on problems Jesus never had to deal with.

So, how to balance the scales? Christians didn’t become rulers until 300 years after the death of Jesus, but once they did, they took to acting like despots like fish to water. And they did this with ecclesiastic support, in fact the violence began within their ranks in the 340’s, when, again according to Gibbon, more Christians were killed at each other’s hands than in all the Roman persecutions combined. The climax was the Battle of the Frigidus in 394, which was the end of religious toleration in the West for about 1200 years (using the Edict of Nantes as a convenient milestone for it’s rebirth).

I say we have to compare theocracy to theocracy, so if you’re willing to compare the 1st century of Islam (600-700 AD to use round figures) with the 4th century of Christianity (300-400 AD), I’m game, let’s marshal the facts. Or we can just agree that theocracy sucks, more or less equally among the Abrahamic faiths, that’ll take less work. There’s no way to correct for such factors as body count, given that the west is more densely populated than the Arabian desert, plus, no one’s figures are very reliable, especially once you add the Jews (e.g. the book of Joshua) to the mix.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Whenever someone introduces Christianity into the subject, and it doesn't have any constuctive purpose in furthering the understanding of the subject at hand, then it's usually about destroying the focus on the subject at hand. When the likes of you cry bigot and suggest motivations of hatred, what you're actually aiming at is the focus and intensity (the taking seriously of the issue)by those you criticise.

This is wrong.

I happen to understand the issue at hand.

The constructive purpose of making statements like I did is to identify propaganda and, thus, neutralize it.

Truth doesn't have an agenda. Propaganda needs you to silence ideas, mock revered icons, burn books, scapegoat and so forth.

All truth requires is that you look at all sides and think for yourself.

I'm allowing this bigotry stuff to unfold a bit because, so far, it is at the discussion level, not the preaching level. (Preaching in this context means trying to persuade through gimmicks, intimidation and scapegoating rather than reason.)

If I end up silencing it, it will not be because I don't want readers to examine the ideas. On the contrary, I believe they should (and God knows I've provided enough links here on OL--to the good and bad). It will be because the preaching of hatred and scapegoating by this poster or that went into overdrive and I don't want that kind of behavior on this board. OL is not a hate stie. Those who like this stuff can get it elsewhere.

Michael

[caroljane]

After reading the Koran and the Bible, and studying history, my conclusion is that the Abrahamic religions are about equally bad, and theocracies based on any of them are no place to live. Is bigotry against one of them the answer? a Klansman calling for more Jim Crow laws.

How does recognizing the essential difference between a religion whose founder says "he who lives by the sword shall die by the sword", "my kingdom is not of this earth" and "render unto Caesar that which is Casear's" and a militant who demands war and murder to establish a religious dictatorship amount to "bigotry"? The accusation is superficial, baseless, and offensive.

"I come to bring not peace but a sword"... the New Testament like the Koran has a saying of Jesus or Mohammed to support any theory or course of action the follower wants to take.

No it doesn't, because if you put it in its wider context it's taken as metaphorical, not literal. When Muhammad personally beheaded people though, and had his goons do it for him, it was literal. What is your purpose in trying to equate Christianity and Islam as one and the same, as opposed to just looking at each for what they are?

Yes it does, because when you put anything in its wider context, which in this case is 1300 years, it becomes metaphorical, and only literal to those who wish to regress literally .

You are saying that the recorded actions and words of the founders of a religion are more important than the actions and words of all the followers of that religion, who number in the billions, 1300 years later. You are saying this because a fraction of those followers have become homicidal maniacs who could harm us in terrible ways. To prevent that harm, you would take action against any portion of those billions which you would consider applicable and effective.

Joseph Smith was an oversexed plagiarist, and polygamy is an oppressive doctrine, and there could be a group of rogue Mormons right now plotting to blow up the Parliament Hill and kill all the men to create a fundamentalist Mormon Canada. But I'm not going to round up the teenage missionaries who appear regularly in pairs to enlighten godless Toronto, or besiege Bountiful. The moral price of such preventive measures is too high, and I don't think I could pay it.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

"I come to bring not peace but a sword"... the New Testament like the Koran has a saying of Jesus or Mohammed to support any theory or course of action the follower wants to take.

Carol,

This is absolutely true. The function of religious literature is not to be logical, but, in part, to provide a set of stories you can use to examine your morals and principles and mysteries of life from different angles. (There are other functions, too, but I'll save them for another discussion.)

Depending on who is teaching and preaching, any religious book--any one at all--can be used as an instruction manual to lead a life of virtue, or a brainwashing manual inducing people to do all kinds of evil things. Hell, the Bible was used not too long ago to get city people to move to a jungle and ultimately feed poisoned Kool-Aid to their children and then drink it themselves.

Haters don't see this, though, like they don't see many things.

The haters especially don't realize that the modern-day nonviolent version of mainstream Christianity didn't evolve because people burned the Bible and talked about Jesus being a monster. It evolved because certain ideas were highlighted over time by Christianity's own preachers, other ideas (like freedom, etc.) were added to the teachings from the outside (the general culture and politics), and Christians in general naturally started to ignore the passages in the literature that lead to violence and spite, while they focused on the ones that lead to trying to be good.

This is the way you do it, the way it's been done throughout history. If you want to influence Muslims, go speak to the religious leaders and try to get them to frame violent fanaticism in the same manner Christians have done. The rest will follow. That's not rocket science. (In fact, I have heard and read from a lot of different sources that many Imams already do this.)

Yet the haters think the way to eradicate violent fundamentalism in Islam is to burn the Qu'ran and call Mohammad a monster. And don't expect them to do anything but belittle Imams who preach nonviolence, usually by calling them liars, as I've seen over and over.

I'll let readers decide on the efficiency and effectiveness of that approach.

Michael

[Richard Wiig]

Yes it does, because when you put anything in its wider context, which in this case is 1300 years, it becomes metaphorical, and only literal to those who wish to regress literally .

The context is not "1300 years" but just the context in which it is needed to get an informed understanding of that verse. That's given by the texts themselves, not 1300 years of history. I don't know what that textual context is, but I do know that Christians haven't taken that verse literally to run around with swords wantonly attacking people. Do you have even one instance of that verse being taken literally, as opposed to metaphorically? If there is an instance of it, is it mainstream, or an aberration, like the lone individuals who blow up abortion clinics? Is it set into Christian law that Christians should attack unbelieves with swords, or whatever other weapons they might have at hand? I don't think it is, is it?

[Richard Wiig]

This is wrong.

Well it seems to do a good job of shifting the focus everytime, so for being wrong, it's certainly not for lack of observing the outcome. If the purpose of the interjecters was not to shift focus, and they actually had a genuine interest in the similarities and differences between Islam and Christianity, then I'd expect to see them starting up their own threads on the subject, but they never do. They always step into to destroy the focus in threads on Islam. What's happening here is another prime example of it.