The reason why the Islamic terrorists percentage is small, some say 0.001% or so.

Hell of a theory. They're not violent because they're not Muslim enough.

1.6 billion Muslims don't understand the Qur'an. If they did, they'd all be bin Laden.

Wow. Just wow.

Eh Dennis, it's just another one of those type articles you can only smile and shake your head at.

Yeah, you're right. Anything more would be an exercise in futility.

Yes this argument is correct, and yes, it is true that Islam teaches violence, the percentage of terrorists should be much higher. But the reason behind the smaller percentage of terrorists is not that Islam is not teaching violence, there is a totally different reason that explains this percentage being small.

We all know that Islam's language is Arabic, the Qur'an was written in Arabic, Muhammad, and the early Islamic nation was speaking Arabic, the earliest, greatest, and most authentic Islamic scholars were Arabs, and wrote their books in Arabic. We also know that the Qur'an is not to be translated in any other language than Arabic, and for a Muslim to read the Qur'an, he should read it in Arabic. We know as well that the different translations of Qur'an into different languages are only translations of the meanings.

You said, right there, that people don't understand the Qur'an because of language difference, as a way of explaining why there are not more terrorists.

Your argument is that they don't get it, and if they did, they would be terrorists.

You're missing something completely obvious. They do get it. It's the terrorists who don't.

I find it strange that anyone would claim most Muslims can read Arabic. In Egypt over half the population is illiterate. Often the clerics who lead them, especially in small villages and cities, are next to illiterate also. Some have memorized a few verses of the Koran. All are are under control of the government.

There is a great deal made in Arab countries to memorize the Koran. This is done in many, if not most cases, without any attempt being made to understand the Koran. This rote learning is also found in the education system. Professors are not questioned. Information is memorized and no one teaches anyone how to apply knowledge to life's problems. I know of a student who can recite most rules of geometry, but he cannot solve a simple problem in geometry, It is often the same with religion, what is memorized has little or no effect on daily life in many instances.

I must add that it is life here and in many parts of the Middle East that creates terrorists - not Islam. The old saying that the Devil can quote scripture to his own ends applies to the Koran also. It is but a tool to get recruits. If I had to live in this part of the world, I could see me becoming a terrorist in spite of the fact I totally disagree with them. Any hope for any future is grasped; anything that gives life meaning is something to be desired.

It is not me who is missing something completely obvious, as I told you before how would you explain all the violence which is taught by the Qur''an and Muhammad

Oy. The Qur'an doesn't teach violence. It allows for violence to be used only in defense, and even then, specific conditions must be met.

"Examples' prove nothing. As I've told you over and over, context is key.

Read the Rules of War. The entire Sura.

Hell, just read the Qur'an.

Goes--

I'm impressed. Good on ya.

I've scanned through the Koran, not my cup of tea to say the least. However, truth be told I find much more value reading books and articles by former Muslims who risk life to even write such contributions.

It is a massive eye opener to what they have to say and it is quite scary people refuse to listen to what they have to say and don't want to acknowledge the truth about Islam.

I'm with you Kshark - Nice article .......Goes -

And I do the same exact thing as you, reading books and articles written by former Muslims that now have a death warrant ...but this is in addition to lifetime friendships where I get first hand accounts of many things.

wake

Wrong... every muslim is taught how to read Arabic for themselves

this statement is false. not all muslims can read, let alone read arabic. also, there are literally tens of thousands of people who have converted to islam, and can not read one word of arabic.

I converted to Islam. I'm learning how to read arabic. All the other brothers at the masjid I go to who are converts are also learning how to read the Qur'an.

So you might be right... there might be tens of thousands of people who cannot read the qur'an... but do the math... 50,000 out of 1.5 billion is only 0.003%. Still proving my point.

reading books and articles written by former Muslims that now have a death warrant

So would you learn about Christianity from reading a book about Christianity written by Charles Manson?

Why not read books about Islam that are written by Muslim Scholars instead? Wouldn't that make more sense?

And even still, while reading is important. It is not learning. Would you want to have for open heart surgery performed on you by someone who "read a book about it once from a guy who was banned from the medical industry for malpractice"? Come on... use common sense people.

An American cartoonist was forced into hiding for calling for a "draw Mohammed Day"

Islamic scholars are just going to blur the issue... not clarify it.

Sure, there are these relatively enlightened versions of Islam that don't require killing people for Allah... but the US seems like the only place in the world where this "True Islam" is practiced.

...or maybe Muslims are pulling our collective leg about these enlightened interpretations...

The way they're telling it, Muslims should be bowing towards the twin towers...which seems to be the source of this unique and civilized Islam... Whereas the Meccan Islam is some other religion.

but the US seems like the only place in the world where this "True Islam" is practiced.

how many muslim countries have you traveled to recently?

An American cartoonist was forced into hiding for calling for a "draw Mohammed Day"

Islamic scholars are just going to blur the issue... not clarify it.

For the record, no Islamic scholar has condemned Molly Norris. The only person who spoke out against her was Anwar Al-Awlaki... And while he is a "self-proclaimed" Islamic cleric. He is by no means accepted by the muslim educational institutions of the world as being an ulama in any way.

Just because I can proclaim on a blog or in a youtube video that I am a professor of physics, doesn't automatically mean the Institutions that teach physics will agree. Same thing with Awlaki. But hey, the news media gives him TONS of free publicity. All he has to do is post a guerilla youtube video and news media plaster it on every TV across the world. While real muslim scholars would have to pay 10's to 100's of millions of dollars for that kind of publicity... how much did Meg Whitman spend on her ad campaign again? You think real Muslim scholars have that kind of money?

how many muslim countries have you traveled to recently?

Fair enough... I understand that in Saudi Arabia women cannot drive, blasphemy is punishable by death, and they have those volunteer policemen.. uh...committee for the promotion of virtue ...whatever, who beat immodest women... with a stick that fits the hadith. (it has to be a certain size and you can't leave marks)

Have I been misinformed, and I need to go to Saudi Arabia to see it's actually a nice place?

I hear stories about Egypt, Yemen, Indonesia and Pakistan, Iran and Iraq too... not one, not ten, but dozens from such homophobic sources as the AP.

All rumors? Or is Islam a violent repressive racist sexist homophobic religion everywhere but the US?

I understand that in Saudi Arabia women cannot drive, blasphemy is punishable by death, and they have those volunteer policemen.. uh...committee for the promotion of virtue ...whatever, who beat immodest women... with a stick that fits the hadith. (it has to be a certain size and you can't leave marks)

Have I been misinformed, and I need to go to Saudi Arabia to see it's actually a nice place?

There is a lot about Saudi Arabia that we don't hear about. It's a dictatorship (technically an oligarchy) no different than Cuba or North Korea. And because of that, the rules are enforced to an extreme on those who are not friends with the royal family, but are non-existent for those who are friends with the royal family. Case in point...

http://www.newsvine.com/_news/2010/12/08/5612229-partying-saudi-style-elite-boozy-and-secret

The royal family breaks all of its own laws every day. They are complete hypocrites. Hypocrisy if rife throughout their entire system of government and their interpretation of Islamic law has nothing to do with Islamic law, and everything to do with what the royal family wants to impose on it's people. The clerics are paid by the royal family to say whatever the royal family wants and to try and find ways of "interpreting" the Qur'an and Hadith to validate the Royal family's demands. There is nothing about the Saudi Arabian government that is Islamic. I could go on and on about all the islamic laws the Saudi laws violate.

Iran is the same way. Iran is the facade of a republic, but it is actually a dictatorship run by the Ayatolla. So the same things happen in Iran.

Eqypt, Yemen, Indonesia, Pakistan and Iran only have problems in their really rural areas where government imposed laws can't be enforced. And in all cases you will see the government stepping in to try and stop these haram acts by the locals. Just like in Indonesia where some guy tried to marry a 12 year old. Indonesia has the largest population of muslims than any other country. Muslims arrested the guy (who lived in a very remote rural area) and sentenced him to prison for pedophilia.

The news media doesn't say "muslim authorities arrested a man for marrying a 12 year old". They say "Authorities arrested a muslim man for marrying a 12 year old" See how that paints a very different picture in your mind?

In the US and Mexico the majority of gang members are christians. Some gangs claim religious canon as a large part of their guidance in doing what they do. Yet, they are far from being christian, are they not? Our media doesn't focus on their religious aspects or beliefs like it does with muslims. But it could. I saw a show on National Geographic where it was talking to members of one big mexican cartels that were saying everything they do is based on the word of god in the bible. They were quoting scripture to justify kililng other rival gangs and police and government officials that were trying to stop them. All the members have to get tatoos of the virgin mary and the cross. Yet being christian, you know they are misguided. But since you aren't muslim, you don't know who is misguided and who isn't. So the media plays on that to increase ratings/viewership.

Try reading Al Jazeera for a couple weeks instead of watching US news. You'll start to see the world a little differently. Granted Al Jazeera isn't perfect either. But they tend to have less of a "anti-muslim" slant on things. It's sometimes interesting to compare the same stories on Al Jazeera and CNN. Same story, same facts...but the wording can be completely different.

http://english.aljazeera.net/

every muslim is taught how to read Arabic for themselves. My in-laws, all from india can read and speak the dialect of arabic used in the qur'an. As well as most muslims I know... And I myself am learning.

Do you honestly think that's a representative sample of 1.66 billion people? Many of the world's Muslims cannot read in any language.

I've been arguing those points for years, samenslow. Unfortunately, some people just won't listen.

FR sent.

Even those who claim the Koran was written by an Aryan priest (against the Trinity) say the Koran was used to unify the Arabs. Wars of conquest are not limited to Muslims. Look at Gengis Khan and Alexander the Great. Add to this the European conquest of the New World. It is not unusual for God to be used as a justification for conquest and/or the killing of innocents.

samenslow--

Has anyone noticed that Islam became a violent religion only after 9/11? Before then they were portrayed as a rather noble group of people tinged with a little Eastern mysticism and exotic eroticism?

It is because 9/11 happened that this country was exposed to the outside world. The US is very insular and quite sheltered when it comes to countries outside our borders.

I will rightfully admit I was given the fluffy bunny education in high school that did not go into real depth about Islam, and then I actually never thought about it after that because there was never a massive exposure to Islam until that day. After that day I then did start researching, and learned a hell of a lot.

It is rather like the out of sight, out of mind syndrome.

Islam became violent the day Mohammed personally beheaded 600-900 (accounts vary) Jewish prisoners in a single afternoon. That's prisoners... subjugated men.

He had a trench dug, then the prisoners were brought out to him in groups.. and he cut their heads off... it had to be one every few seconds. This is a story told to children all over the world.

Then Mo took one of the women as his wife...prompting Muslim boasts to this day that Mo had a Jewish wife... you know..to show he wasn't racist.

9/11 didn't change anything.

yearning

it is actually disputed whether or not that actually happened. you can base judgments on your personal feelings, but i would have had to have been there to know what actually happened.

actually that never happened at all. It was Alexander who murdered 800 jews, in the story told by Josephus.

The Bani Qurayza superimposed Muhammad onto the already existing story to try and villify Muhammad. The story of the seige of the Bani Qurayza wasn't written down until 145 years AFTER the Prophet's (pbuh) death. Read for yourself if you don't believe me...

http://www.jews-for-allah.org/jewish-mythson-islam/muhammad_900_jews_notkilled.htm

On examination, details of the story can he challenged. It can be demonstrated that the assertion that 600 or 800 or 900 men of Banu Qurayza were put to death in cold blood can not be true; that it is a later invention; and that it has its source in Jewish traditions. Indeed the source of the details in earlier Jewish history can be pointed out with surprising accuracy.

and also married a woman whom he killed her father, and husband few days, if not on the same day of the killing.

Mohammad raped her on the night of her husband's murder. I linked one hadith ,on another article of yours, here are more, linked directly from the University of Southern California .

there is also a link to the encyclopedia of Islam. But some people insist on playing their little Al-taqyyia game

Ibn Ishaq's "Sirat rasul allah" records the murder and torture of her husband, before the "marriage"

Narrated Anas: The Prophet offered the Fajr Prayer near Khaibar when it was still dark and then said, "Allahu-Akbar! Khaibar is destroyed,for whenever we approach a (hostile) nation (to fight), then evil will be the morning for those who have beenwarned." Thenthe inhabitants of Khaibar came out running on the roads. The Prophet had their warriors killed, their offspring and woman taken as captives. Safiya was amongst the captives, She first came in the share of Dahya Alkali but later on she belonged to the Prophet .The Prophet made her manumission as her 'Mahr'. Sahih Bukhari 5:59:512

Narrated 'Abdul'Aziz:

Anas said, 'When Allah's Apostle invaded Khaibar, we offered the Fajr prayer there early in the morning) when it was still dark. The Prophet rode and AbuTalha rode too and I was riding behind AbuTalha. The Prophet passed through the lane of Khaibar quickly and my knee was touching the thigh of the Prophet. He uncovered his thigh and I saw the whiteness of the thigh of the Prophet. When he entered the town, he said, 'Allahu Akbar! Khaibar is ruined. Whenever we approach near a (hostile) nation (to fight) then evil will be the morning of those who have been warned.' He repeated this thrice. The people came out for their jobs and some of them said, 'Muhammad (has come).' (Some of our companions added, "With his army.") We conquered Khaibar, took the captives, and the booty was collected. Dihya came and said, 'O Allah's Prophet! Give me a slave girl from the captives.' The Prophet said, 'Go and take any slave girl.' He took Safiya bint Huyai. A man came to the Prophet and said, 'O Allah's Apostles! You gave SafiyabintHuyai to Dihyaand she is the chief mistress of the tribes of Quraiza and An-Nadir and she befits none but you.' So the Prophet said, 'Bring him along with her.'So Dihya came with her and when the Prophet saw her, he said to Dihya, 'Take any slave girl other than her from the captives.' Anas added: The Prophet then manumitted her and married her."

Thabit asked Anas, "O AbuHamza! What did the Prophet pay her (as Mahr)?" He said, "Her self was her Mahr for he manumitted her and then married her." Anas added, "While on the way, Um Sulaim dressed her for marriage (ceremony) and at night she sent her as a bride to the Prophet. So the Prophet was a bridegroom and he said, 'Whoever has anything (food) should bring it.' He spread out a leather sheet (for the food) and some brought dates and others cooking butter. (I think he (Anas) mentioned As-Sawiq). So they prepared a dish of Hais (a kind of meal). And that was Walrma (the marriage banquet) of Allah's Apostle." (Sahih Al-Bukhari, Volume 1, Book 8 Number 367)

Narrated Anas bin Malik:
We arrived at Khaibar, and when Allah helped His Apostle to open the fort, the beauty of Safiya bint Huyai bin Akhtaq whose husband had been killed while she was a bride, was mentioned to Allah's Apostle. The Prophet selected her for himself, and set out with her, and when we reached a place called Sidd-as-Sahba,' Safiya became clean from her menses then Allah's Apostle married her. Hais (i.e. an 'Arabian dish) was prepared on a small leather mat. Then the Prophet said to me, "I invite the people around you." So that was the marriage banquet of the Prophet and Safiya. Then we proceeded towards Medina, and I saw the Prophet, making for her a kind of cushion with his cloak behind him (on his camel). He then sat beside his camel and put his knee for Safiya to put her foot on, in order to ride (on the camel). (Sahih Al-Bukhari, Volume 5, Book 59, Number 522)

if you scroll-down in the , Encyclopaedia of Islam you will find Hadrat Safia. the Jewish woman, Mohammad raped ,after seeing to the murder of her entire family.

Marriage

in this instance,(marriage) can properly be called ( unwilling "submission" )to an inverted reality.

It's rape

only in Mohammad's, (fully submmited) inverted reality,is it a marriage

with the Holy Prophet: After the Muslims victory in the battle of Khyber all the prisoners of war were assembled. A companion of the Holy Prophet, Hadrat Dehia Kalbi, requested him for a maid. The Holy Prophet allowed him to select one. Accordingly, he picked up Hadrat Safiyah. But another companion brought to the notice of the Holy Prophet that Dehia had chosen the leading lady of the Bany Nuzair and Quraiza tribes, who should have gone to the lot of the Holy Prophet. He meant that the leading woman of an Arab tribe should not be treated as an ordinary woman.

The Holy Prophet therefore, allotted another woman prisoner to Hadrat Dehia as his maid. He freed Hadrat Safiyah and married her. (Bukhari)

According to another story when Hadrat Safiyah had been assigned to Hadrat Dehia, the Holy Prophet went round the camp inspecting the prisoners. Hadrat Safiyah represented her case to the Holy Prophet stating that she being the daughter of the chief of her tribe, deserved better treatment than accorded to her. The Holy Prophet who was moved by the implorings of Hadrat Safiya, secured her freedom from Hadrat Dehia on consideration of seven heads of cattle. Thereafter was invited to accept the true faith of Islam. Hadrat Safiyah was already inclined towards Islam and hence she readily accepted the same. The Holy Prophet then married her. (Usudul Ghaba)

On his way to Medina the Holy Prophet halted at a place called Sahba where he held the Walima feast. While starting from Sahba, the holy Prophet got Hadrat Safiyah mounted on his own camel and covered her with his robe indicating that she had now become his wife.

In happiness Hadrat Safiya forgot the tragedy that had befallen her family,

instantly, after seeing the murder and or enslavement of everyone she knew,and loved,she found true contetmentment with the killer ? "submission" to an inverted reality

thinking that now she was the most fortunate lady after marriage with the Holy Prophet of Islam.

can we really call this poor woman's tragedies fortunate, can any human, ever be "fortunate" to be raped by the killer of your family ?

Reality is often a bitter pill there Wake, but if you swallow real hard, you'll get it down.

I asked you. By any chance, are you Zionist?

Okay. You are not a Zionist. But you think Arabic translations of the Koran demonstrate its evil.

Wait. I think that second sentence is damning.

You know, it would have been better if you were Zionist, because that I can respect, them Zionists being proud of being Zionist.

It's amazing how you can disagree with me then agree with me at the same time. You really have an itch for rhetoric, don't you? Read up on Socrates and his mangling of the Sophists, then you'll have an idea of how rhetoric is nothing moe than rhetoric. It doesn't make you smarter. Or right.

rhetoric is nothing more than rhetoric

Now THAT is rhetoric. Hilarious. I had to look up Sophists, and the description I found sounds a lot like your post magz. Just sayin'.

Anyway, I think that there is plenty of evidence to support that the Qur'an is full of very clear calls for violence and intolerance. What isn't supported, is the opposite claim. I think the rhetoric and or Sophist label more easily fits those claiming the Qur'an teaches peace.

What isn't supported, is the opposite claim

only if you are deaf, dumb and blind and live under a rock.

Just because you refuse to listen to it, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

I think the rhetoric and or Sophist label more easily fits those claiming the Qur'an teaches peace.

I believe the "lynch mob" or "witch hunt" label describes those who claim the Qur'an teaches violence and hatred.

is it time to break out your white cape and white pointy hat yet? Maybe go grab a pitch fork and a torch while you are at it...

Now THAT is rhetoric

I'm glad you caught that, since that is what the author of this article believes logical debate to be, as in managing to agree and disagree with me at the same time. Kinda like the Sophists. Right?

Just sayin.

I believe the "lynch mob" or "witch hunt" label describes those who claim the Qur'an teaches violence and hatred.

is it time to break out your white cape and white pointy hat yet? Maybe go grab a pitch fork and a torch while you are at it...

Sounds to me like you have already conceded defeat in this discussion-you have resorted to name calling before it even starts. I imagine it would make it easier for you to assume the moral high ground by pretending everyone who disagrees with you is a racist hate filled ogre, but unfortunately for you, that isn't the case.
First of all, Islam is a religion based on the Qur'an, not a race.
Secondly, I have no desire to chase down Muslims with a pitchfork as like most sensible people, I realize most Muslims are peaceful, hard working folks like me.
That said, I am free to criticize the Qur'an without PC apologists calling me a hater and an Islamaphobe, and I'm willing to back up what I say. Are you?

Please stop throwing accusations at people, and calling names. The discussion should be in a more respective manner, if you want to be heard, and make some point.

Right back atcha. You should follow your own ROC. Look a that, accusations AND name calling, right in your own post!

I don't think, I believe. Arabic is not a translation, it is the original language of the Qur'an. Yes the Qur'an id evil, for more information follow this link, prophet of doom.

I'm willing to back up what I say. Are you?

When have I not? Case in point this speculative opinion piece Goes wrote was in response to an article I wrote based on gallup polls, information from the CIA and information from the CDI.

But the bigger point is... if I can find a rebuttle to any argument you pose, and my rebuttle basically proves your assumptions about the Qur'an wrong... then who is right? Me or you? You will say you are right because you want the Qur'an to be violent and evil. I will say I'm right because I study Islam, practice it, and I am speaking from experience.

So who knows islam better? A non-muslim who buys a book and reads a couple translations? A non-muslim who can only read a different arabic dialect yet claims he can translate the qur'an...but then says he can't, but then says he can...but then says he can't... or muslims who study and live Islam every day?

So who knows islam better? A non-muslim who buys a book and reads a couple translations? A non-muslim who can only read a different arabic dialect yet claims he can translate the qur'an...but then says he can't, but then says he can...but then says he can't... or muslims who study and live Islam every day?

You mean like Osama bib Ladin, Anwar al-Awlaki, Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, Imam Anjem Choudary...

Thanks for proving my point so well.

Why not like Rumi, Omar Khayyam, and Nashurdin or any of the modern Sufi? Wahabbists are not the only Muslims.

Why not like Rumi, Omar Khayyam, and Nashurdin or any of the modern Sufi? Wahabbists are not the only Muslims.

I have never stated that there are not peaceful Muslims. My point is that the Qur'an is violent and intolerant in it's message. It is not up to me by whom or how that message is acted upon. I'm grateful that many Muslims choose to ignore many commands in the Qur'an like many Christians choose to ignore the same in the Bible. Unfortunately, with 1.6 billion Muslims, it doesn't take more than a few percent who don't, to violently and permanently impact the world.

If there are peaceful Muslims, then they must not be following the violent Quran, which means that the only true Muslims are terrorists, at least, according to you and those who you agree with.

I have never stated that there are not peaceful Muslims. My point is that the Qur'an is violent and intolerant in it's message.

then what Qur'an are the peaceful ones reading and following?

it doesn't take more than a few percent who don't, to violently and permanently impact the world.

correction...it's actually less than a few percent. It's actually less than 1%. It's actually less than 0.1%. It's actually less than 0.01%... the correct number is 0.001%.

And when you start dealing with numbers that small... it really shows that the 0.001% have it wrong, not the other 99.998%.

And I'm not disagreeing with you when you say it only takes 0.001% to impact the world. But that still doesn't mean that the Qur'an condones and teaches random violence. Statistically speaking, it is impossible for that to be true based on the numbers.

If there are peaceful Muslims, then they must not be following the violent Quran, which means that the only true Muslims are terrorists, at least, according to you and those who you agree with.

I don't respond to circular logic. Got anything real?

then what Qur'an are the peaceful ones reading and following?

I would imagine that like many followers of religion, none at all, or just the parts they want to follow.

correction...it's actually less than a few percent. It's actually less than 1%.

...who are actively involved in violent jihad. Add the millions who support them and enable them and we can see the result in the news. Remember that only 3% of Germans were Nazis in 1925 and a very small percentage of those were actively violent. Yet they managed to kill tens of millions of people. Same goes for communists, 3%. Not all of those 3% participated in the Stalinist purges that killed tens of millions, but that didn't make them free from blame.
It only takes the silence or willful ignorance of the majority to allow the minority to commit evil.

...that still doesn't mean that the Qur'an condones and teaches random violence. Statistically speaking, it is impossible for that to be true based on the numbers.

Try to sell that ridiculous logic to the families of the Fort Hood victims, or thousands of others killed in the name of Allah.

Try to sell that ridiculous logic to the families of the Fort Hood victims, or thousands of others killed in the name of Allah.

just pointing out the fort hood tragedy was not done in the name of allah. The shooter was/is mentally unstable.

...who are actively involved in violent jihad. Add the millions who support them and enable them and we can see the result in the news. Remember that only 3% of Germans were Nazis in 1925 and a very small percentage of those were actively violent. Yet they managed to kill tens of millions of people. Same goes for communists, 3%. Not all of those 3% participated in the Stalinist purges that killed tens of millions, but that didn't make them free from blame.

Really? the "millions" that support them? How many millions? If you have data showing how many people financially support the terrorist organizations I'd love to see it! Because, you do realize, when our own government started to investigate that, they stopped talking about it and dropped the investigation.

just pointing out the fort hood tragedy was not done in the name of allah. The shooter was/is mentally unstable.

As are most terrorists, and Muhammad if you ask me. But that doesn't change the fact that the Qur'an and Islam was the justification for their violence.

And I don't buy that shameful excuse in the slightest. Just another shining example of self delusion and an inability to confront a painful reality on the part of Muslims.

Really? the "millions" that support them? How many millions? If you have data showing how many people financially support the terrorist organizations I'd love to see it!

http://www.prophetofdoom.net/article.aspx?g=41111

http://www.fontcraft.com/broadside/?p=12608

43% of Nigerian Muslims polled believed Suicide Bombings against the West were Justified

54% of Nigerian Muslims polled said they were supportive of Osama bin Laden

35% in Pakistan support Osama bin Ladin. Was 75% until they started killing other Muslims.

Here is an article trying to defend Islam claiming most don't support violence, but the numbers 'Pro vioilence' are scary.

http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1338/declining-muslim-support-for-bin-laden-suicide-bombing

Because, you do realize, when our own government started to investigate that, they stopped talking about it and dropped the investigation.

Sorry, tin foil hat territory. You have anything to back this up?

please try to post some reliable research... "prophetofdoom.net" is not a reliable source.

And the CNN/Pew claim is doctored. Go to the Pew Research Center site and see for yourself.

http://pewglobal.org/database/?indicator=20&country=160&response=Confidence

http://pewglobal.org/database/about/

And now look at the sample size for nigeria. 1000 people surveyed in 2008, 2009, and 2010 (doesn't specify how many out of them were muslim). So out of a country with 149,229,090 people (http://www.factbook.net/muslim_pop.php)... a survey of 1000 people (christians and muslims) is adequate to list what the muslims of the country believe? Especially since they don't list how many muslims actually made it into the survey.

What's also interesting when looking at the study...

Full question wording: Now I'm going to read a list of political leaders. For each, tell me how much confidence you have in each leader to do the right thing regarding world affairs - a lot of confidence, some confidence, not too much confidence, or no confidence at all. Osama bin Laden

Notes: Figures based on Muslim responses only. Confidence combines "a lot of confidence" and "some confidence" responses. No Confidence combines "not too much confidence" and "no confidence at all."

48% are on the "Bin Laden" side. 40% are not on the "bin Laden" side. What happened to the other 12%? How accurate can this poll be when 12% of the people polled aren't even accounted for in the results of the question?

And here is some more information about Muslims in Nigeria for you...

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jGPUTPBEF19znr_i3MVbIqk0ARhA?docId=1b143c9647584aa7bf7a6e0a64aaa191

Hey, wadda ya know... moderate muslims fighting back against the extremists!!! And also, notice how there is an underground extremist sect in nigeria that has ties to Al Qaeda?? With only 1000 people polled, could it be that some of the people in the extremist sect made it into the polling group and are skewing the numbers?

As for your other question...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2506581.stm

http://news.pacificnews.org/news/view_article.html?article_id=c400b3d93ea2dc34c5a6418bf8a79b6c

http://articles.cnn.com/2001-11-08/us/inv.carbonara_1_bin-money-trail-paper-trails?_s=PM:COMMUNITY

http://articles.cnn.com/2001-10-21/us/inv.investigation.facts_1_terror-attacks-qaeda-aggressive-criminal-investigation?_s=PM:US

http://articles.cnn.com/2005-06-07/world/schuster.column_1_qaeda-terrorist-financier-taqwa?_s=PM:WORLD

http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/country,,IRBC,,YEM,4562d8cf2,3df4bec8c,0.html

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-31727_162-20004916-10391695.html

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=17&ved=0CCUQFjAGOAo&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.law.umaryland.edu%2Fmarshall%2Fcrsreports%2Fcrsdocuments%2FRL31658_12062002.pdf&ei=VLbQTLajMoa8lQf8_e3ABg&usg=AFQjCNF16-u_nFSGHagO_j41tmemnsQHfg

These are more of a conspiracy theory but still interesting if you start looking up some of the things mentioned...

http://www.gregpalast.com/september-11-what-you-%25E2%2580%259Cought-not-to-know%25E2%2580%259D/

http://www.heartson.com/Politics/insider_trading.html

Sample sizes, bla, bla, bla. 20% 30% 40% of Pakistanis, Nigerians, Iranians, Iraqis, Somalians, Egyptians - what's the difference? The number is still many MILLIONS!!! You are just trying to derail the point by arguing over EXACT numbers. Bottom line, there are tens of MILLIONS of fundamental Muslims who support a violent reading of the Qur'an and you have given me NOTHING that can be used to convince them they are wrong.

Sample from above links:

"Any Muslim that goes against the establishment of Sharia (law) will be attacked and killed," the message read.

How does this support your claim?! Hilarious. These links are absolute rubbish. Most don't even deal with the issue we are debating! I guess you figure if you post enough links, people will believe there must be something worthwhile in them...wrong!

Same ol. same ol. Very loud opinions based on nothing. Moving on now.

I don't respond to circular logic.

Curious, since its your logic I'm using. Which must mean that what you have isn't real.

Just sayin'.

Curious, since its your logic I'm using. Which must mean that what you have isn't real.

From wikipedia:

Circular reasoning is a formal logical fallacy in which the proposition to be proved is assumed implicitly or explicitly in one of the premises. For example:

"Only an untrustworthy person would run for office. The fact that politicians are untrustworthy is proof of this."

Such an argument is fallacious, because it relies upon its own proposition — "politicians are untrustworthy" — in order to support its central premise. Essentially, the argument assumes that its central point is already proven, and uses this in support of itself.

BifI have never stated that there are not peaceful Muslims. My point is that the Quran is violent and intolerant...

You do not find that argument circular? Not even contradictory?

Admit it Bif. You are a Sophist. An expert on specious logic. Go ahead. Go research the Sophists on Wikipedia. Again. I learned about them and Socrates in high school, BTW.

Blah. The editing went haywire. But you get the gist, right Bif?

Just sayin'.

You do not find that argument circular? Not even contradictory?

Qur'an: Book

Muslim: Person

You still don't get circular logic? Oh, well.

I learned about them and Socrates in high school, BTW.

Hilarious that you don't see the speciousness of your statement.

Good Philosophy 11!

Quran: Book

Muslim: Person

That's a synopsis of an argument? How about this?

Hershey Chocolate Bar: Candy

10 year old: Child

Yes, I learned speciousness and Sophists in high school, while you Bif, the expert in logic and philosophy, particularly the history of, had to look up Sophists and specious on Wikipedia after reading my post. Of course I believe your superior genius. Wait. Let me look up genius in Wikipedia.

We could go on forever like this, Bif.

Yes, I learned speciousness and Sophists in high school, while you Bif, the expert in logic and philosophy, particularly the history of, had to look up Sophists and specious on Wikipedia after reading my post.

I'm not afraid to admit I don't know everything. You?

We could go on forever like this, Bif.

Let's not. You haven't provided a shed of ANYTHING other than smug claims to superior intellect, and I'm afraid that doesn't do much to promote your opinion, just your ego.

Peace.

Bif, anybody who comes up to you and tells you he knows everything is probably insane or is trying to sell you the Brooklyn Bridge.

On the other hand, don't come up to me and tell me that you know more about Sophistry, Socrates, circular arguments or how to frame a logical debating point than I, or millions of others, when you plainly just picked up these terms fairly recently.

I do not derive pleasure from encounters of this sort, and I can only hope that you trust me on that, but my only motivation is that I sincerely disagree with this article's premise, which you passionately defend and that, in and of itself, does not constitute any lack of due consideration on my part of the value of your opinions.

Shalom.

Sample from above links:

"Any Muslim that goes against the establishment of Sharia (law) will be attacked and killed," the message read.

How does this support your claim?! Hilarious.

Read the article and it will make sense. for example, what's the police commissioner's name?

...the delusion of Islam being of anything, but a man made doctrine, and totalitarian ideology, which is war with everyone till it dominates the land.

That's pretty crazy, if you don't mind my saying G.

who with no matter how many evidence you gave him, he has his eyes , and mind closed

one can say the same thing about you too. And yet you aren't even muslim, but claim to be an expert in Islam. And just above you claim that the teachings of Islam aren't violent. But that is only because people can't read the Qur'an. If they could then they would be violent. So the 99.998% of the muslim world is ignorant and can't read the qur'an... Nice one... but comedy isn't your forte, don't quit your day job.

I dunno. You and I travel to a predominantly Muslim country with both us professing our beliefs, I figure I'll make out ok. And before you come out blathering about how the US is threatened by Muslims, just think about how many Muslims our armed forces kill on a daily basis.

Which is the point you see. While you pontificate about how evil Islam is, our soldiers are doing the actual killing, and dying. People like you only make their struggle to separate the bad guys from the good more difficult, and dangerous.

And in the entire time since God created Man, how many wars have there been perpetrated by idol worshipers, Philistines, Jews, Christians, Muslims, Communists, Fascists, Americans, Germans ad nauseam and people given to slander of the Other? Looks like God really @!$%#ed up, didn't He?

Interesting-- thanks for that information! :-)

If I am add, one of the ready apparent examples of Islamic translation is The Reliance of the Travveler (the accepted documented book in Shariah Law.) On each page left side one finds an English translation. (the softer version) on the right one will find the Arabic (the real version). They sure read different. Thanks Goes for the information. And Krishna for the inquiry. Both have a good day.

English translation of " The Reliance of the Traveler"

http://www.nku.edu/~kenneyr/Islam/Reliance.html

Good link Kpt, thanks

Over time Wakeup has claimed many things. In one of his diatribes he stated he was a Muslim, which I expected. There seem to be a good understanding and use of taqiyya and kitman and well as using all the skills of a troll. I have expressed these conclusions directly with him in the past. Now I just try not to feed trolls.

But how does that work in relation to your contention that islamic terrorists are a small group. While there terrorists themselves might be few and far between they seem to have much broader support than many would admit. In my mind, the 60,000 that turned out to support the assassin are all terrorists at heart.

May I, Under Sharaih there is no freedom of religion, of speech, of though, of artistic expression not freedom of press. No equality of peoples - a Kafir is never equal to a Muslim. There is no equal protection undr Shariah for different classes of people. Justice is dualistic, there is one set of rules for Muslim men and another set of rules for Muslim women and a diferent setn for dhimmis and kafirs.

Now when the Governor committed Blasphemy he was then considered an apostate. And according to Islam: Killing false Muslims is rewarded by Allah. So the person who killed the Governor (now an apostate) is consider as a hero by all Muslims. And he is considered a true Muslim not an assassin. There are no Terrorist in Islam it is an obligation of Jihad. A terrorist of Islam is only doing what the Qur'an, the Sunnah and Shariah impose upon all Muslims. That is Islam. It is impossible to apply Western values and religious thought to Islam. Islam is Islam. Islam is a complete political system including religion, and it is a complete way of life. Which can not be changed. I hope that is helpful Naftel.