Interreligious Dialogue: Snake Feces

The Pakistan Observer published an article by Muhammad Munir & Aftab Hussain about interreligious dialogue. One paragraph stands out from the rest as an exemplar of al-taqeyya. I present it here in block quote format with my comments running full column width.

The peaceful resolution of inter-confessional issues is possible only during an open and friendly dialogue.

Is Jesus Christ the son of God or not? Was he crucified; did he die on the cross? Was he resurrected? Answers from Christianity and Islam are polar opposites, no reconciliation is possible.

Reconquest of Israel, Spain, Greece & South Eastern Europe is another issue that can not be reconciled. Islam is intrinsically violent, mandated by Allah to conquer and subjugate the entire world.

Islam considers any assertion of Christ's deity to be blasphemy. Wherever Allah's writ runs, Christians are forbidden to build churches or repair existing churches.

In fact the religious, spiritual problems frequently are the catalyst of many negative political processes in the modern world. And here one can refer to both pure religious problems (as, for example, in the situation with caricatures of the Prophet Mohammed (PBUH) in the western press), and misinterpretation of religious norms by various confessions (for example, religious extremist misinterpret Islam in justification of terrorism).

Islamic law forbids any criticism of Allah and his Messenger. Refer to Reliance of the Traveller, O8.7 and O11.10. The cartoons depicted Moe as a terrorist, which he was by his own admission. [Bukhari 1.7.331, 4.52.220]

"Terrorism" is used by the writers as a shibboleth to distract us from the issue of Jihad. Jihad is ordained for Muslims, who are commanded to fight pagans until all resistance ceases and only Allah is worshiped. They are commanded to fight people with scriptural religions until they are subjugated & extorted. Jihad is the purpose of their relationship with Allah and a "commerce that will save them from a painful torment". Terrorism is a battle tactic sanctified by Allah in 3:151 & 8:12 and exemplified in 33:26 & 59:2. Moe bragged about being made victorious by casting terror.

Who misinterpreted the Qur'an? Moe said that he was "ordered to fight the people till they say: 'None has the right to be worshipped but Allah.'".

There are many hopes and aspirations attached to the third session of the congress. The international scenario is changing; people around the world have rejected fundamentalists and extremists. The elections held in different countries around the world have proven that fundamentalists and extremists have been defeated, may these be religious extremists or political fundamentalists. In such an environment it becomes very necessary for the religious leaders to play a role to fill the gap that was created by these extremists. The attempts by the president of Kazakhstan are highly appreciating and such steps should be taken around the world.

Are Hamas & Hezbollah "extremists" or "fundamentalists"? Which elected Islamic government rejects them and their program of reconquest? Which elected Islamic government denounces rocket & bomb attacks upon Israel and attempts to prevent their subjects from supporting those attacks financially?

Exposing Islam through Refutation of Lies

Go Burn With Muhammad does not draw many comments, so when a moderation notice is received, I take due notice. This blog post is my response to a comment by Carlisticeday. The post he commented on has been viewed 320 times since October 20, '07.

The post begins with a quotation from Reliance of the Traveller, Book O, Chapter 9. The post continues with a brief explanation of the quotes and an outline of the nature of Islam, with links to its foundation in scripture and tradition.

Carlisticeday's comment is reproduced here in block quote style & Ariel font; my responses to his points are interspersed in normal column width and Times Roman font. Unlike Akhter, Carlisticeday has written his own comment, I do not find any evidence of plagiarism in it.

What You Need to Know About Islam

Carlisticeday

Submitted on 2009/07/03 at 5:50pm

First of all, “Islam” doesn’t say or do anything – Muslims do. Ditto for Christianity.

Organized religions are fictional legal persons, governed by fallible men, who speak and act for them. Islam and Christianity have fundamental doctrines which define them and are codified in their respective canons of scripture. The doctrines of Islam, expressed in the Qur'an and exemplified in hadith are the subject of What You Need to Know About Islam.

Who in history made it a policy, indeed, a religious requirement to force people to believe as they believed or die horrible deaths by burning at the stake, torture, drowning, disembowelment and so on? Not Muslims, Christians.

Religions should be judged by their orthodox doctrines & practices, not by deviations therefrom. The Inquisition was a deviation from fundamental Christianity, not the standard.

In fact, the Qur’an explicitly forbids forced conversion, and it has been understood as such for centuries. Where is that in the Bible?

Moe revealed the Qur'an piece by piece between 610 and 622. It contains obvious situational scripture and conflicting ayat which are resolved by the science of naskh. Later revelations abrogate[2:102,16:101] earlier revelations with which they conflict. Al-Baqarah was #87 in sequence of revelation.

2:256. There is no compulsion in religion. Verily, the Right Path has become distinct from the wrong path. Whoever disbelieves in Tâghût and believes in Allâh, then he has grasped the most trustworthy handhold that will never break. And Allâh is All-Hearer, All-Knower.

Surah Yunus was #51 in sequence of revelation.

10:99. And had your Lord willed, those on earth would have believed, all of them together. So, will you (O Muhammad ) then compel mankind, until they become believers.

Surah Al-Anfal was #88 in sequence of revelation, therefore it is nasikh and 2:256 & 10:99 are mansukh: the more tolerant ayat have been abrogated.

8:39. And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and polytheism: i.e. worshipping others besides Allâh) and the religion (worship) will all be for Allâh Alone [in the whole of the world ]. But if they cease (worshipping others besides Allâh), then certainly, Allâh is All-Seer of what they do.

Fight them until...and the religion (worship) will all be for Allâh Alone.... Allah told Moe to fight pagans until all resistance ceased and only Allah was worshiped. How did Moe interpret that?

Sahih Bukhari Volume 1, Book 8, Number 387:
Narrated Anas bin Malik:
Allah's Apostle said, "I have been ordered to fight the people till they say: 'None has the right to be worshipped but Allah.' And if they say so, pray like our prayers, face our Qibla and slaughter as we slaughter, then their blood and property will be sacred to us and we will not interfere with them except legally and their reckoning will be with Allah." Narrated Maimun ibn Siyah that he asked Anas bin Malik, "O Abu Hamza! What makes the life and property of a person sacred?" He replied, "Whoever says, 'None has the right to be worshipped but Allah', faces our Qibla during the prayers, prays like us and eats our slaughtered animal, then he is a Muslim, and has got the same rights and obligations as other Muslims have."

Ordered to fight until...then he is a Muslim... Got a clue yet? For the interminably recalcitrant, I offer confirmation from Shari'ah: Reliance of the Traveller, Book O, Chapter 9, Paragraph 9.

O9.9

The caliph fights all other peoples until they become Muslim (O: because they are not a people with a Book, nor honored as such, and are not permitted to settle with paying the poll tax (jizya) ) (n: though according to the Hanafi school, peoples of all other religions, even idol worshippers, are permitted to live under the protection of the Islamic state if they either become Muslim or agree to pay the poll tax, the sole exceptions to which are apostates from Islam and idol worshippers who are Arabs, neither of whom has any choice but becoming Muslim (al-Hidaya sharh Bidaya al-mubtadi' (y21), 6.48-49) ).

Islamic scripture, tradition & jurisprudence form a congruent pattern; they confirm and reinforce each other. Unfortunately, the terminally recalcitrant are blind to that pattern. Can you perceive it? Unlike Moe, Jesus did neither preached nor practiced warfare. Instead, he taught his disciples to use persuasion.

9:1 Then he called his twelve disciples together, and gave them power and authority over all devils, and to cure diseases.

9:2 And he sent them to preach the kingdom of God, and to heal the sick.

9:3 And he said unto them, Take nothing for your journey, neither staves, nor scrip, neither bread, neither money; neither have two coats apiece.

9:4 And whatsoever house ye enter into, there abide, and thence depart.

9:5 And whosoever will not receive you, when ye go out of that city, shake off the very dust from your feet for a testimony against them.

(King James Bible, Luke)

Contrast that with the orders Moe gave to his generals in the field: Sahih Muslim Book 019, Number 4294.

Prior to 1900, did Muslims living under Christian rule enjoy anything like the freedoms and protections of life and property that Christians did under Islamic rule in the Middle Ages? No, not by a long shot.

Let us examine Shari'ah to discover the freedoms and protections enjoyed by Christians under Islamic rule.

O11.5

Such non-Muslim subjects are obliged to comply with Islamic rules that pertain to the safety and indemnity of life, reputation, and property. In addition, they:

-1- are penalized for committing adultery or theft, thought not for drunkenness;

-2- are distinguished from Muslims in dress, wearing a wide cloth belt (zunnar);

-3- are not greeted with "as-Salamu 'alaykum";

-4- must keep to the side of the street;

-5- may not build higher than or as high as the Muslims' buildings, though if they acquire a tall house, it is not razed;

-6- are forbidden to openly display wine or pork, (A: to ring church bells or display crosses,) recite the Torah or Evangel aloud, or make public display of their funerals and feastdays;

-7- and are forbidden to build new churches.

Do the Christian (or Jewish) scriptures provide in any way for these protections? No, on the contrary. Does the Qur’an? Yes, in fact it does.

At-Taubah 29 commands Muslims to make war upon Jews, Christians & Zoroastrians until they are subjugated and submit to annual extortion.

9:29. Fight against those who (1) believe not in Allâh, (2) nor in the Last Day, (3) nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allâh and His Messenger (4) and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth (i.e. Islâm) among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians), until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.

At-Taubah 123 commands Muslims to fight the nearby Christians and treat them harshly.

9:123. O you who believe! Fight those of the disbelievers who are close to you, and let them find harshness in you, and know that Allâh is with those who are the Al-Muttaqûn (the pious - see V.2:2).

Furthermore, if “Islam” is such a violent religion, tell me, who has been responsible for the most death, mayhem, oppression, suffering and injustice in history, Muslims or Christians? There is simply no comparison: all the deaths in wars by Islamic states don’t come close to the deaths in WWII alone – a war essentially precipitated by and led on both sides by Christians…and we haven’t even begun to talk about the colonial period.

The wars of the 20^th century were political and economic, not religious. Islam has a 1400 year track record, with 270 million victims.

Who depopulated North America so that they could own it all themselves? Not Muslims, Christians. Who enslaved millions in Central and South America for profit, and forced them to convert, to boot? Same answer.

Were the Conquistadors acting in accord with the teaching and example of Jesus Christ? Show me the Book, Chapter & Verse citations for Christ's commands to engage in conquest.

Who went around the world gobbling up everyone else’s resources and labor in the name of God and country? Who now refuses to take responsibility for any of the chaos, injustice and political unrest that has resulted from that?

Islam! These maps illustrate Islam's spread by the sword.

• first 25 years
• 750
• various Caliphates
  

Who supports the colonizer Zionist state at all costs and at the expense of the people who were displaced by it, and who refuses even to acknowledge the daily humiliation that state pours on those displaced people? Not Muslims, Christians.

That assertion inverts history, justice & morality in excellent form. Jews & Christians were living in the Roman Province of Syria in the 7^th century. Surah At-Taubah deals with the ghazwat against Tabuk, complaining of those Muslims who refused to join it. When asked which campaign a Muslim should join, Moe had a very significant answer.

Abu Dawud 14.2477
Narrated Ibn Hawalah:

The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: It will turn out that you will be armed troops, one is Syria, one in the Yemen and one in Iraq. Ibn Hawalah said: Choose for me, Apostle of Allah, if I reach that time. He replied: Go to Syria, for it is Allah's chosen land, to which his best servants will be gathered but if you are unwilling, go to your Yemen, and draw water from your tanks, for Allah has on my account taken special charge of Syria and its people.

Moe sent an extortion letter to Heracleus, it is informative. It is in Sahih Muslim Book 019, Number 4380 and LETTER TO HERACLES CAESAR.

Islam's attitude is that all land they conquer is Islamic forever. Allah will not allow Kuffar to reconquer it and rule over Muslims. He promised victory to the Muslims, but they fought on the losing side of WW1 and lost the Levant, which Caliph Umar had conquered in 638. Israel regained a tiny fragment of her ancient patrimony, and Muslims immediately attacked with genocidal intent. They attacked again in 1967 and lost the Gaza Strip & West Bank which they seized in 1948. Every condition the Falestinians complain about is a consequence of their attempted genocide & policide.

I could go on, but please note that

a) none of this is meant to justify violence in the name of religion – merely to provide perspective, and

b) nowhere have I said “Christianity” here. The Bible is full of blood, injustice and crimes of all sorts, all justified by religion. Even Christ said, “I come with the sword…”, and as a result his heirs gave us the “Christian soldiers” of European fame.

The point: it’s very easy to pick out sections from text, present them out of context and then make sweeping claims about “Islam” while ignoring what Muslims actually do. Likewise it’s easy to grab legal text books and assume that they necessarily reflect actual practice, rather than an abstract ideal.

Everything must be seen in context, and you have to see these texts as Muslims have understood them at different times and in different circumstances. That’s called being fair and reasonable.

But of course, you’re not interested in THAT, are you?

Allah's word mandates and sanctifies Jihad. 2:216 tells Muslims that Jihad is ordained for them. 8:39 commands Muslims to make perpetual war upon pagans. 9:29 commands Muslims to make perpetual war upon "people of the book". 61:10-13 describe participation in Jihad as a "commerce" that saves Muslims from "painful torment". Those mandates find confirmation in hadith & Shari'ah.

How Muslims have understood those texts is illustrated by Fiqh: rulings by scholars of Islamic law. I direct doubters & dissenters to download FOMIJihad.chm and read the Jihad in Fiqh chapter. How Moe understood those texts is illustrated by the oral traditions of his excellent companions. You can read them at USC-MSI.

• Fighting for the Cause of Allah (Jihaad)
• One-fifth of Booty to the Cause of Allah (Khumus)
• Military Expeditions led by the Prophet (pbuh) (Al-Maghaazi)
• The Book of Jihad and Expedition (Kitab Al-Jihad wa'l-Siyar)
• Jihad (Kitab Al-Jihad)
• Jihad

Sotomayor's Empathy on Display

Image by Jay Tamboli via Flickr

Sotomayor Achilles' heel? Wrongly imprisoned man

Jeff Deskovic served 16 years of a 15-life sentence for rape and murder. One of his appeals, six years before his innocence was proved, was rejected by Sonia Sotomayor on a technicality.

In nominating her to succeed Justice Souter, President Obama cited her empathy. This quote from the World Net Daily article [linked above] says it all.

According to reports, his lawyer asked a court clerk about the deadline and was told it had to be mailed by that date. Wrong. The court rules required delivery by that date.

When the paperwork arrived late it was dismissed. Eventually Sotomayor and other appellate judge found that such a mistake didn't "rise to the level of an extraordinary circumstance" and dismissed it.

"The district court correctly dismissed Deskovic's petition as untimely," the appeals court decision from Sotomayor concluded. A subsequent appeal was dismissed with the terse: "It is ordered that said petition for rehearing is denied."

In light of the fact that a subsequent search discovered a dna match to the murderer, who confessed to the crime, we can only conclude that Judge Sotomayor's empathy only extends to members of her own ethnicity. Her lack of empathy for a wrongly convicted man cost him six years in prison.

What if Deskovic had been sentenced to death for a crime he did not commit? She'd have sent an innocent man to the gallows. Lets point this fact out to our Senators prior to her confirmation hearing.

Honduras Defending Democracy and Constitution

by Maggie at Maggie's Notebook

In researching the events taking place in Honduras, I see President Obama immediately cited the outster of President Manuel Zeyala as "not legal." Another "gird your loins" moment for the American President. The question is: was this a coup d'etat or a constitutional succession?

Roberto Micheletti

Why did the Supreme Court rule that ousted President Manuel Zelaya was subverting the rule of law in Honduras? Why did Congress rule the same?

Zelaya's term of office ends in 2010. He called for a "controversial referendum" to take place on June 28th. The referendum, if approved, would have made changes to the Honduran Constitution to allow Zelaya to run for office for another term, an action the Supreme Court says is not lawful.

While Honduran law allows for a constitutional rewrite, the power to open that door does not lie with the president. A constituent assembly can only be called through a national referendum approved by its Congress.

But Mr. Zelaya declared the vote on his own and had Mr. Chávez ship him the necessary ballots from Venezuela. The Supreme Court ruled his referendum unconstitutional, and it instructed the military not to carry out the logistics of the vote as it normally would do.

After the Supreme Court declared the referendum not lawful, Zelaya vowed to hold a vote on the referendum anyway. Zelaya dismissed "the military chief," Romeo Vasquez, who opposed Zelaya's position on the referendum. The Supreme Court asked that Vazquez be reinstated. Zelaya refused.

So on Thursday he [Zelaya] led a mob that broke into the military installation where the ballots from Venezuela were being stored and then had his supporters distribute them in defiance of the Supreme Court's order.

The attorney general had already made clear that the referendum was illegal, and he further announced that he would prosecute anyone involved in carrying it out. Yesterday, Mr. Zelaya was arrested by the military and is now in exile in Costa Rica.

The Supreme Court voted to remove Zelaya "to defend the rule of law."

The Honduran Congress later swore in its leader, Roberto Micheletti, as the new head of state after voting to remove Mr. Zelaya for "manifest irreuglar conduct" and "putting in present danger the state of the law."

Micheletti said that the orders carried out as issued by the Supreme Court and the Congress "was not a coup d'etat, but a constitutional succession."

The new government's foreign minister, Enrique Otez Colindres said the new government looks forward to meeting with OAS officials:

...so they can realize that this is a government that respects all laws and the only thing it did was to remove a president for systematically violating the constitution.

Manuel Zelaya was elected as a conservative. He has progressively moved away from that position and cemented relationships with Cuba's Castros, Venezuela's Chavez and Bolivia's Morales. As Wall Street Journal writer, O'Grady said, it is not "about left-right politics."

It is about defending the independence of institutions that keep presidents from becoming dictators.

So how do the Honduran people feel about the ouster? The Latin Business Chronicle says that Honduran business support the Supreme Court and Micheletti's new government:

It is extremely popular,” says Jacqueline Foglia Sandoval, former president of the American Chamber of Commerce in Honduras. “I don’t know of any one who isn’t celebrating."

[The attempted referendum] followed three years of Zelaya policies that were seen as arbitrary and often hurting business, Foglia Sandoval says.

Over the last three years, our ex president had created political and social chaos,” she says. “He [was] very unpredictable and many times [imposed] arbitrary actions that …affected the business climate.

The Latin Business Chronical reports that wage hikes smacked of socialism and resulted in the loss of 150,000 jobs.

[Zeyala] in December to raise the minimum wage by 60 percent despite that unions had demanded 20 to 30 percent and employers had countered with zero to 10 percent.

Not only did he exceed the union demands, but also imposed the new laws as companies already had their 2009 budgets ready, Foglia Sandoval points out. As a results some 150,000 jobs were lost during the past six months, she says.

Another concern was his talk about implementing socialism of the 21^st century, modeled on Venezuela. “People associate socialism with ration cards, with lines, with the things we do not want,” Foglia Sandoval says. “It’s a poor country, but we don’t have rationing, or lack of mobility, or have to ask permission for moving.” Further issues raised by the business community is the lack of security, which Sandoval said Zelaya completely ignored. Drug trafficking is growing and people fear for their personal safety. Foreign investment has diminished, and Zelaya's treatment of foreign oil companies was considered "hostile."

In January 2007, Zelaya announced plans to temporarily assume control of oil terminals and restrict imports of oil to one company in an effort to reduce fuel prices. However, after the US Embassy in Honduras warned that the takeover would have serious consequences, the government reversed its position on the terminals.

Fogliz Sandoval said relations with the U.S. were "worsening."

The people of Honduras are standing to protect their Constitution. This is a hallelujah moment for Democracy.

President Obama has said that the ouster of Manuel Zelaya was "not legal." Obama has said the U.S. will "stand on the side of democracy." He has said nothing about the legality of Zelaya subverting the Honduran Constitution. That is the issue. If a democratic election is held, and then the one democratically elected attempts to take over the government illegally - then why are we not talking about that?

Rudi Stettner at Rant Rave looked at the differences in Obama's handling of the Iranian election and the Honduran succession and summed it up this way:

One thing that was established in the Honduran coup. When there is a "progressive" consensus, Obama will quickly find his voice. Since Islamic radicals are the fascists that liberals love, a blind eye will be turned to their sins.

Iran: Liberal Thought, Liberal Democracy Ends

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said the June 12th elections were "the end of liberal democracy and liberal thoughts."

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

In other words, the next time "Western states" meddle in Iran's affairs, the President has a plan.

President Ahmadinejad said, “From now on, we will bring you to justice at any international meeting.”

He excoriates the West and cannot understand how the U.S., Germany, France and the U.K. can talk about human rights when our own hands are "stained with the blood of innocent people," and then there's our rotten and satanic attempts to "damage Iran's Islamic system...."

Ahmadinejad had something to say about Obama's outreach to Iran - you remember that offer to "talk." After Obama's comments during the Iranian street protests, Ahmadinejad said the U.S. didn't follow "international rules and norms," and besides that, we were just downright "impolite." He advises us to "correct" our "behavior."

You can read the article here or here at Judeopundit who also has some commentary worth reading.

Open Execration to the G.O.P.

Gutless Old Party: go to Hell! It was bad enough that you abandoned principles and spent the federal treasury like a drunken sailor. It was bad enough that you nominated a pusillanimous RINO in '08, ceding the White House to the Communists. But allowing eight anal orifices to join the 'crats in passing Waxman-Markey is absolutely unacceptable.

I don't care about their liberal constituencies, or their liberal seats. I can't afford a doubled gas bill! My natural gas bill was twice my income last year! Go to Hell! I can't afford the current prices of electricity and food; the carbon tax will increase them drastically. Go to Hell!! Waxman-Markey will prolong the recession and convert it into a depression. Go to Hell!!!

Henceforth, I will not vote for any Republican nominee for any local, state or federal office. I will support the Loyalist Party. I urge Conservatives, particularly those who are aware of the threat posed by Islamic aggression, military, legal & demographic, to turn away from the Gutless Old Party which has abandoned us and join the Loyalist Party.

Ban Islam

One of my Google Alerts returned a link to a discussion thread at alt.religion.islam. The post was by kangarooistan, who titled it "There's a group called " BAN ISLAM " help us to delete it". Kangarooistan's post is intended to initiate a movement to pressure Face Book to delete a discussion board titled "Ban Islam."

I will not reproduce the complete drivel here, instead I will refute a few key deceptions which need to be addressed directly.

This group is created because there has been a breach of contract by the creator of the Group "Ban Islam" and Face book needs to address this issue as a group demoralizing any religion is disrespectful and encourages religious hatred among people...

The group began with an obscenity in its name, Face Book objected and the organizers changed the name.

• demoralizing any religion is disrespectful and encourages religious hatred among people

While some posters swing the heavy hammers of condemnation & execration, others post relevant factual evidence to support their conclusions. We tell the truth about Islam and they interpret it as demonization. Yes, kangarooistan chose the wrong word. Islam is immoral and demonic, by design.

• .encourages religious hatred among people

That is what the Qur'an does, but it goes further, inciting genocidal violence. The Skeptic's Annotated Qur'an lists 527 ayat which incite religious hatred.

Of course there is a freedom of speech.. BUT, There is no freedom of abusing, spamming, swearing or disrespecting!

Kangarooistan is a clever liar, the sentence quoted above is an exemplar of kitman: lying by commission or concealment. We can discover the truth of this matter by examining Islam's all purpose handbook of Shari'ah: Reliance of the Traveller.

• O11.10-5 or mentions something impermissible about Allah, the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace), or Islam

Any negative remark about Islam breaks the covenant of dhimmitude and forfeits the dhimmi's life.

• O8.7: Acts that Entail Leaving Islam

• -4- to revile Allah or His messenger (Allah bless him and give him peace);

• -5- to deny the existence of Allah, His beginingless eternality, His endless eternality, or to deny any of His attributes which the consensus of Muslims ascribes to Him (dis: v1);

• -6- to be sarcastic about Allah's name, His command, His interdiction, His promise, or His threat;

• -7- to deny any verse of the Koran or anything which by scholarly consensus (def: b7) belongs to it, or to add a verse that does belong to it;

• -15- to hold that any of Allah's messengers or prophets are liars, or to deny their being sent;

• -16- to revile the religion of Islam;

Remember the penalty for apostasy!

• O8.1

  When a person who has reached puberty and is sane voluntarily apostatizes from Islam, he deserves to be killed.

• O8.2

  In such a case, it is obligatory for the caliph (A: or his representive) to ask him to repent and return to Islam. If he does, it is accepted from him, but if he refuses, he is immediately killed.

Every one has a right to oppose & criticize others' belief but in a positive and gentle way..

If you oppose or criticize Islam in any place where Allah's writ runs, they'll kill you for it!

Earth is sweltering with the heat of tyrant and brutality.. Let's transform it into an oasis of peace and love!.. Let's say no to hate!
Let's stand against the racism.. We all are created equal... Let's respect the differences!.. Neither any religion nor any philosophy preach hate... So let's join hand and walk together to make the earth a wonderful planet...

• Let's transform it into an oasis of peace and love!

Translation: convert the entire world to Islam, by force or deception, then it'll all be peachy keen.

• Neither any religion nor any philosophy preach hate

Islam is neither a religion nor a philosophy; it is a way of life: predation! It preaches hate and genocidal violence. 8:37 mandates perpetual war against pagans until only Allah is worshiped. 9:29 mandates perpetual war against Jews, Christians & Zoroastrians until they are subjugated and submit to annual extortion. 8:67 sets "great slaughter" as Moe's price of admission to Paradise. 47:4 commands killing and wounding "many of them". One Jewish settlement surrendered after a long siege. Moe decapitated the men, then he examined the boys, and decapitated any who had reached adolescence. Genocide, anyone? The historical record is here: Sunan Abu Dawud 38.4390. See also Sahih Bukhari 4.52.280.

Islam is aggressive, offensive, predatory, genocidal and mercenary. I have presented much of the evidence in this post. Click the links and see for yourself. If any doubt remains, read What's Wrong with Islam/Muslims and follow the links therein contained.

If you are ready to take action, here are some things you can do to advance the cause of human life and liberty against Islam's genocidal aggression. Please sign and promote the following on line petitions. Send their urls to your Congressman & Senators. Copy these petitions and paste them into emails, urging the recipients to forward them. Learn as much as you can about Islam and share your knowledge with others; each one teach two!

• Congress Debate Qur'an Petition
• Outlaw Islam!
• Ban Islam
• Citizens' Declaration of Threat & Plea for Relief