Monday, July 25, 2011

Silly Comment of the Week (By 1MoreMuslim)

Here's what 1MoreMuslim just said about the connection between (a) this blog, and (b) Anders Behring Breivik's terrorist attack in Norway:

David Wood provides the motives, Anders Behring Breivik takes the action.
Whenever a Muslim commits a terror act, his justification is that Muslim land is occupied by USA and its allies. But whenever a Christian commits terror his justification is I HATE MUSLIMS.

Let's have a little Q&A to bring out the absurdity of this comment.

Question (from me): "Is there any connection between (a) Muhammad's command to fight unbelievers (Qur'an 9:29) and (b) Muslims fighting unbelievers?"

Answer (from Muslim): "There is no connection whatsoever. Sheer coincidence."

Question (from me): "Is there any connection between (a) Muhammad having sex with a nine-year-old girl, and (b) child-marriage being so prevalent in the Muslim world?"

Answer (from Muslim): "There is no connection whatsoever. Sheer coincidence."

Question (from me): "Is there any connection between (a) Muhammad's command to beat rebellious wives (Qur'an 4:34), and (b) the prevalence of spousal abuse in the Muslim world?"

Answer (from Muslim): "There is no connection whatsoever. Sheer coincidence."

Question (from me): "Is there any connection between (a) Anders Behring Breivik shooting a bunch of blond-haired, blue-eyed teenagers, and (b) posts on this blog?

Answer (from Muslim): "Yes! There is a clear connection! Breivik shot those Norwegian, non-Muslim teenagers because of David's blog posts about Muslims!"

Sheesh.

And for two additional absurdities . . .

1MoreMuslim said: "Whenever a Muslim commits a terror act, his justification is that Muslim land is occupied by USA and its allies." Really? Did the U.S. and it's allies occupy China, Thailand, India, Nigeria, and all the other countries where Muslims are terrorizing the enemies of Allah? And did the U.S. and its allies occupy Muslim lands from the year 622 through 1776? Does 1MoreMuslim believe that the U.S. and its allies built a time machine to occupy Muslim lands, thus accounting for Muslim terrorism down through the centuries?

1MoreMuslim said: "But whenever a Christian commits terror his justification is I HATE MUSLIMS." How about giving a few examples of Christians committing acts of terrorism and justifying it by hating Muslims. I can't think of a single instance.

44 comments:

valentin said...

Point well made David, and kind of funny the way you put it lol. considering the consistent inconsistency of people such as 1moremuslim, no surprise there. I notice when you post about a terrorist act commited by Muslims you support it by citing the qur'an and Hadith. I wonder if Muslim blogs try to cite the bible and connect it with such acts of violence as we have seen recently. I'll be checking into that. I'm getting tired of hearing the argument from orthodoxy that Muslims, and surprise! Surprise! secular liberals also use. Such as Crusades were Christian blah blah blah etc...

My Two Sense said...

I ended up writing a huge response and I am sure not everyone wants to read the whole thing. So David if you care to read it, here it is.

http://my-two-sense-here.blogspot.com/2011/07/letter-to-david-and-nabeel-qureshi.html

PS: Watch the sarcasm or the "Ginger Sharia Police" will come after you. LOL

Letitia (The Damsel) said...

Aw, too much credit given to 1MoreMuslim for saying that there is a justification for Muslims that commit terrorism. 1MM, thank you for admitting to us that you are willing to justify murder if it is done in the name of Islam. Honesty really is the best policy.

The_Israelite said...

Well said David. By the way I just watched a program on the bbc about the life of muhammad. I saw you commenting on it David. What did you think of the program? I noticed it didnt comment on the hadiths much. I wonder why? oh I forgot the uk kisses islamic asses these days.

valentin said...

"If you have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ and God then you are a religious Christian. Myself and many more like me do not necessarily have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ and God. We do however believe in Christianity as a cultural, social, identity and moral platform. This makes us Christian.”  Anders Behring Breivik. Manifesto  page, 1307. Well straight from the terrorists mouth sort of.  by this standard Richard Dawkins is a Christian, a "cultural Christian" that is. He says as much in this interview. http://m.youtube.com/index?desktop_uri=%2F&gl=US#/watch?v=MwoMcN-YyVM Distinguishing  between a "cultural Christian" and a follower of Christ who has a relationship with the living lord and has given his life to him, is absolutely critical. It's not Christianity but rather a perversion of it masquerading as Christianity without Christ, Nuff said!

TAREK said...

Hello "1MillionlessMuslims"
Please tell everyone on this blog who for 2000 years kill another human being while shouting(or saying) IN JESUS' NAME

But we cannot count how many times and muslims kill thousand of people while shouting "Allah-hu-akbar". And when we see if there is any connection between action and muhammad message? Yes positive


Please "1MillionLessMuslims" Address this issue

Thank you Dr. David for the repply but i doubt if he'll understand your answer.
MAY YAWEH BLESS YOU

CristoTeAma said...

You also forgot about Sudan, and even Egypt, i didn't know the copts were US forces invading Egypt XD

Radical Moderate said...

The Muslims are all excited that this wasn't carried out by a Muslim.

1MoreMuslim said...

Wood, you should stop wasting your time on silly comments, or may my comment is not that silly.
In the real world , experience supersedes theory. Is there a tangible and reason motive for the native Americans to fight the new colonialist Europeans? The answer is yes: Occupation and displacement. Even if we find that the native Americans have a Holy Book that says kill the white Europeans, it would be completely irrelevant.

I believe the Muslim terrorists have their motives in the occupation and oppression of Muslims in their lands, I believe David wood's motive are wrong for 2 reasons:
1/ Terrorists themselves say that.
2/ No terrorist ever has said that he committed his terror act because he was commended to fight the unbelievers, just because the unbelievers.

My opinion is also the opinion of the expert on terrorism.
David Wood would never accept this view because he would have nothing to speak about on ABN. a big blow to his career.

John of Damascus fled his native Christian town and found refuge in Muslim controlled town, that gives an idea about the "terrorism" of Muslim conquests.

GreekAsianPanda said...

I have to disagree with you, 1MM, that Islamic terrorism is always due to the presence of an occupying force in Muslim lands. What about, for example, the 2011 New Year's attack on an Alexandria church that killed 23 people? That wasn't over any occupation. It was most likely over a stupid rumor that Kamilia Shehata had converted to Islam and was being held captive (which turned out to be false, by the way). The odd thing is that the Copts originally thought Muslims had captured her -- the other way around -- and they didn't engage in any deadly terrorism, as far as I know.

I know you're embittered that people originally thought Breivik's attack was due to Islamic terrorism, but blaming people who don't even advocate violence isn't going to help.

John Lollard said...

Valentin,

Your link didn't work - could you repost? It sounded like it would be a video of Dawkins claiming to be a "cultural Christian", but all I got was a youtube homepage. I'd be interested in seeing such a statement from Dawkins.

In Christ,
JL

mkvine said...

"In the real world, experience supersedes theory."

And yet, 1MM gave his own theories as to the "motives" behind Muslim terrorist attacks.

"Even if we find that the native Americans have a Holy Book that says kill the white Europeans, it would be completely irrelevant."

What if those native Americans GAVE their motives and said it was because of their holy book? Case in point, Nidal Hasan. He clearly pointed out that his actions were religiously motivated and even used the Quran to justify it. Second, what if there is no occupation? How would you explain the violence then? Case in point, Pakistan. Christians are oppressed and martyred all the time in Pakistan and yet they are the minorty.

"2/ No terrorist ever has said that he committed his terror act because he was commended to fight the unbelievers, just because the unbelievers."

Al-Qaeda? Taliban? Ansar al-Islam? As-Shabab?

valentin said...

John lollard,
Hello, Link didn't work? hmm that's odd, well the easiest way is to go to YouTube and type in: richard dawkins cultural christian. Its a short clip taken from an interview he did in 2007. I only pointed this out in my previous comment to show the distinction between a christin and a "cultural Christian" A mass murderer like Anders commits acts of horrific violence and people (liberal media, Muslims) lay it at the feet of Christianity.

Peter said...

I have read most of Anders Behring Breiviks manifest, and I have followed the story, so perhaps I can give you a few insights:

- Breivik is probably insane. His own attorney has stated this too. Breivik believes that he is the co-founder of a modern crusader army. He has sewn a uniform for himself and awarded medals and distinctions to himself. He believes that there is a an actual war going on where the social democrats in Norway are traitors and therefore a legitimate target for a massacre. He admits to having killed children but he doesn't see it as a crime.

- Breivik claims that there are more cells, but so far it looks like he is alone and that the terrorist cells are just figments of his imagination.

- Breivik has copied texts from a lot of people, e.g. the Unabomber Ted Kaczynski and put it in his manifest. A lot of commentators compare him to Ted Kaczynski, Timothy McVeigh and to several school shooters.

- Breivik claims to support democratic muslims and thus doesn't seem to hate muslims per se. He writes that he is opposed to what he sees as an islamistic invasion run by cultural marxists (who he identifies as the Norwegian social democrats)

- Breivik hates the former Norwegian prime minister Gro Harlem Brundtland, and she seems to be the original main target for his assassination. However he was late, so she had already left the assassination site. Breivik is a nationalist and believes that Brundtland has "killed" Norway.

- Breivik uses the names and symbols of medieval crusaders. He even calls his organisation "the Knights Templar". He finds justification for his crusade by referring to the medieval popes Urban II and Pope Innocent III as well as catholic Canon Law.
Other than that, he argues the the bible allows for self-defence, and he sees his massacre as a form of self-defence, because he thinks that the social democrats are "killing" Norway.

- In some passages Breivik portraits himself as a very devout catholic knight, and in other passages he portraits himself more like a non-believing supporter of the culture of Christendom. He claims that he doesn't want a “Christian fundamentalist theocracy” but instead he wants "a secular European society based on our Christian cultural heritage". He writes that people who wants to be a templar like him are allowed to be "Christian atheists". It is not about actually believing in God. It's about a culture.

I hope that I was able to shed some light on this extremely shocking and meaningless mass murder.
I guess that my point is that even though Breivik portraits himself as a christian, it is just a fantasy in his twisted mind. He makes up a lot of names for what he is. He also calls himself a revolutionary conservative, even though conservatism is the opposite of revolution. I am pretty sure that he is insane, and that his writings are simply his way of making up a fantasy to justify his actions. When he portraits himself as a Knights Templar, he thinks that he will become a martyr which will allow him to do whatever he wants and clear him of all wrongdoings.

I feel sorry for the victims and their families. But I also feel sorry for Breivik. He is insane. And he is (of course) not Christian.

Nicky said...

Thank you, Peter, for laying that info down. The point is, if someone who commits violence says they are Christian, clearly they do not know the teachings of Jesus. I'm trying to figure out 1MM's claim that David has "motives." Motives for what? Committing violence against Muslims? Anyone? The point of this blog is to shed light on Muslim's actions and how they connect to Islamic doctrine. Muhammad taught violence toward women, unbelievers and apostates in the name of Allah and we have seen the "fruit" it produces. David has been very consistent in providing evidence from the Quran and hadiths to bring this to light. Muslims are quick to say "see, Christians do it too!" because they know, they cannot defend terrorism with their doctrine. But they also cannot connect the crimes of random individuals who claim to be Christian with the teachings of Jesus. I pray that 1MM muslim continues to come and encounter true Christians that he may know the Love and salvation of Jesus Christ.

Jesus said in John 6:63, "It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, [they] are spirit, and [they] are life."

Fisher said...

Lest anybody is still buying the claptrap about Anders being a "Christian fundamentalist," I would like to quote the killer's own words to put that myth to rest once and for all:

‎"I'm not going to pretend I'm a very religious person, as that would be a lie ... I've always been very pragmatic and influenced by my secular surroundings and environment. In the past, I remember I used to think: 'Religion is a crutch for weak people. What is the point in believing in a higher power if you have confidence in yourself!? Pathetic.' Perhaps this is true for many cases. Religion is a crutch for many weak people, and many embrace religion for self-serving reasons as a source for drawing mental strength (to feed their weak emotional state [for] example during illness, death, poverty etc.). Since I am not a hypocrite, I'll say directly that this is my agenda as well. However, I have not yet felt the need to ask God for strength, yet."

Source:
http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=325765#ixzz1T83heV4q

Nazam said...

Answering Islam is cited in Norway Terrorist's Manifesto

Check out page 733, 10th footnote. It's actually a citation found in an article that Andrew cited.

Robert Spencer is also all over the place in his manifesto. Also do a check on Shoebat and Geller.

1MoreMuslim said...

Fisher
I have the document, your source is forged. The shooter is indeed Christian, reading his manifesto is like reading AM Blog and you comments. The same Robert Spencer's crap: Justification of the Crusades and so on. MR Spencer was honored in the Manifesto. The shooter knows his books inside out. Just like this blog honors R Spencer.
Do you think the Holocaust happened overnight? Or was it preceded by campaigns of defamation and fear mongering theories about the Jews. what is that different than David and Co, teaching night and day, that the good Muslims are Bad Muslims and the real Muslims are just like Ben Laden?

David Wood said...

1MoreMuslim said: "Fischer, I have the document, your source is forged."

Funny. I have the document too, in both Word and PDF formats. And it says exactly what Fischer quoted. So why would 1MoreMuslim be trying to cover up Breivik's claims? "War is deceit," as Muhammad said. (NOTE: STAY TUNED FOR VIDEO ON BREIVIK'S ACTUAL CLAIMS.)

Nazam said: "Answering Islam is cited in Norway Terrorist's Manifesto

Check out page 733, 10th footnote. It's actually a citation found in an article that Andrew cited.

Robert Spencer is also all over the place in his manifesto. Also do a check on Shoebat and Geller."

Nice try, Nazam. Wikipedia and the BBC are also cited, along with the Qur'an and Sahih al-Bukhari. Breivik explains why he became concerned about Islam, and it had nothing to do with Answering Islam, Robert Spencer, or Pamela Geller. He said he personally witnessed around 50 assaults BY MUSLIMS against non-Muslims. He then studied Islam, IN THE 1990s, and decided that Islam must be stopped.

Like it or not, Breivik said he started planning the attack in 1999, after NATO bombed the Serbs. Geller and Spencer started blogging a few years later. So unless you're convinced that they have a time machine, you're going to end up looking desperate on this one when you try to blame them for Breivik's views and actions.

1MoreMuslim said...

David Wood:
I think there is a difference between citing Spencer to legitimize his fear of Muslims, and citing Nobel to how make a TNT to kill them. But of course, in your black and white world you can't see the difference.

1MoreMuslim said...

Fisher:

Read again:

"I’m not going to pretend I’m a very religious person as that would be a lie. I’ve always
been very pragmatic and influenced by my secular surroundings and environment. In the
past
, I remember I used to think...
In the PAST, no longer now.

1MoreMuslim said...

Fisher read the source for yourself and stop relying on hoax:

"However, I have not yet felt
the need to ask God for strength, yet... But I’m pretty sure I will pray to God as I’m
rushing through my city, guns blazing, with 100 armed system protectors pursuing me
with the intention to stop and/or kill. I know there is a 80%+ chance I am going to die
during the operation as I have no intention to surrender to them until I have completed
all three primary objectives AND the bonus mission

David Wood said...

1MoreMuslim said: "I think there is a difference between citing Spencer to legitimize his fear of Muslims, and citing Nobel to how make a TNT to kill them."

You really need to read some of the Manifesto before you keep telling us about it. I went through all 1500+ pages to prepare some videos. He quotes Wikipedia repeatedly to justify claims about Islam and Muslims. He also quotes the Qur'an and Hadith repeatedly to "legitimize his fear of Muslims," and he discusses his extended personal experience of Muslim violence. Why do you point to Spencer, who started blogging years after Breivik began planning his attack? I suppose the implication is that he appeals to Spencer, therefore Spencer is evil. But he appeals to the Qur'an as well. Hence, following your logic, the Qur'an is evil.

David Wood said...

1MoreMuslim said: "Fisher: Read again: "I’m not going to pretend I’m a very religious person as that would be a lie. I’ve always been very pragmatic and influenced by my secular surroundings and environment. In the past, I remember I used to think... In the PAST, no longer now."

I usually try to assume that you make these blunders out of sheer sloppiness, but here I can't help but think that you're deliberately distorting Breivik's words. Breivik said he used to think that religion is a crutch, and that it's therefore pathetic to believe in it. He then immediately says that he has come to believe in religion as a crutch (that is, he no longer believes it's pathetic to believe in a crutch, because crutches can be useful). Here's what you deliberately left out of your quotation (these words immediately follow the words you quoted):

"Perhaps this is true for many cases. Religion is a crutch for many weak people, and many embrace religion for self-serving reasons as a source for drawing mental strength (to feed their weak emotional state [for] example during illness, death, poverty etc.). Since I am not a hypocrite, I'll say directly that this is my agenda as well. However, I have not yet felt the need to ask God for strength, yet."

He clearly says that he only believes in God as a crutch. You should be ashamed of yourself for mangling the text in a desperate attempt to make a point.

Charles said...

@ 1MoreMuslim:

This killer could describe himself christian as he wishes, but did you see any christian religous authority, clergy, or people sponsoring his act, and dancing after the shooting? There are thousands of muslims who does it every time after a suicide bomber, branding the Koran in their hands.

As for playing the victim and the defense card to justify the muslim terrorist attacks, please answer this question:

Why do all muslim countries punish apostasies either by death or by prison? Why do they all forbid prolitysing for any other religion than Islam?

How do you describe forbidding people from leaving Islam? Isn't a sort of a terror practiced by the State? Did they all misunderstood the Coran and Mohammad teaching for 14 centuries?

Or may be it is also beacuse of the amercian invasion to Irak? Or a coincidence?

1MoreMuslim said...

David wood disperate from you:
Religion is a crutch for WEAK PEOPLE. The Shooter is not including himself, he does not believe himself as weak. The clear meaning is, Weak people use religion as crutch and that it's true even if writer think that religion is true.
Good attempt Wood, continue reading the next sentence: "However, I have not yet felt the need to ask God for strength, yet... But I’m pretty sure I will pray to God as I’m rushing through my city, guns blazing.."
For who is he going to pray? hmmm, to Zeus?

Charles said...

@ 1MoreMuslim,

No good muslim is like Ben Ladin. Good muslims are like Muhammad, their model prophet:

He married 6 years old gril, had sex with her when she was 9 (he was supposed to "elevate" the cultural behavior of his people, not imitating the most disgustfull).
He conducted over 60 attacks over peaceful trader caravans in order to steal their goods.
He Shared Allah with the booty (?).
He nullified the adoption in order to marry the daughter of his former adoptive son whome he lusted for her.
He ordered the assanination of whoever moked or opposed him, inlcuding a old woman Om Kerfa who was shred between 2 camels.
He oderd the decapitation of over 800 jewish of Beny Kuraiza tribe, had all their women and children taken into slavery, and had sex with one of the widows the same night.
He had dozen of wifes and sexual slaves.
He participated in the stoning of an adulturar woman while her baby was 2 years old.
He allowed his followers to lie in war, to their wives, and to bring peace (?) between 2 muslims.
He allowed his followers -through the Koran- to have sex with as many women as they want from their "possesions" (captive sexual slaves)
He sent a letter to christians in syrian Tabouk giving them 3 choices: Islam, Jiziah (2nd zone citizenship) or Death, before invading it, other than ruling over the arabian penensula by the power of the sword.
As a spiritual testimony, he orderd the religious cleansing of the arabian penusula from all non-muslims.
and more.....

Here are interesting more killings and massacres by your prophet, the one considered to be "the perfect human", according to one billion and half muslims around the world:

http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Qur'an,_Hadith_and_Scholars:Muhammad_the_Mass_Murderer

Charles said...

@ 1MoreMuslim,

No good muslim is like Ben Ladin. Good muslims are like Muhammad, their model prophet:

He married 6 years old gril, had sex with her when she was 9 (he was supposed to "elevate" the cultural behavior of his people, not imitating the most disgustfull).
He conducted over 60 attacks over peaceful trader caravans in order to steal their goods.
He Shared Allah with the booty (?).
He nullified the adoption in order to marry the daughter of his former adoptive son whome he lusted for her.
He ordered the assanination of whoever moked or opposed him, inlcuding a old woman Om Kerfa who was shred between 2 camels.
He oderd the decapitation of over 800 jewish of Beny Kuraiza tribe, had all their women and children taken into slavery, and had sex with one of the widows the same night.
He had dozen of wifes and sexual slaves.
He participated in the stoning of an adulturar woman while her baby was 2 years old.
He allowed his followers to lie in war, to their wives, and to bring peace (?) between 2 muslims.
He allowed his followers -through the Koran- to have sex with as many women as they want from their "possesions" (captive sexual slaves)
He sent a letter to christians in syrian Tabouk giving them 3 choices: Islam, Jiziah (2nd zone citizenship) or Death, before invading it, other than ruling over the arabian penensula by the power of the sword.
As a spiritual testimony, he orderd the religious cleansing of the arabian penusula from all non-muslims.
and more.....

Here are interesting more killings and massacres by your prophet, the one considered to be "the perfect human", according to one billion and half muslims around the world:

http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Qur'an,_Hadith_and_Scholars:Muhammad_the_Mass_Murderer

valentin said...

It is quite evident just how "Desperate" the attempts by Muslims on here are, in trying to lay the Norway murderers at the feet of Christianity. Did Anders cite some biblical text as inspiration? What did he use? "love your enemies"? Or maybe it was some other teaching of Jesus or Paul which speaks against hate.

Peter said...

There's no question that Breivik writes a whole lot about Christianity and Islam. And there's no question that he identifies with Christianity. No question at all.

I simply claim that:

1: He cannot be a true Christian, because what he did is the radical opposite of what Christianity teaches

2: He cannot really be compared to any Christians of today when he tries to base his religious arguments on the supposed authority of a couple of medieval crusader popes.

3: He cannot even be considered a religious person when he sees himself as a cultural Christian and not a "very religious person" (his words). He adds to this by inviting atheists to join his "crusade" explaining that it is about cultural christendom and not religion.

4: He is probably insane. This is not judging from his actions, because he could be a cold blooded political or religious extremist. No, this is based on e.g. his narcissistic traits and the way he sees himself as an actual soldier in an actual war even though he in reality is a lone gunman who has sewn his own uniform and awarded himself medals. Very early Breivik's lawyer said that his impression was that Breivik was insane. He said that Breivik was living in a "bubble" and was "not like any of us". We were also told that Breivik made demands where some of them are "impossible to meet". Today the lawyer added to that story by saying, quote: "He (Breivik) has stated that he doesn't want to say anything about those (terrorist) cells, before some of his demands are met. But the demands are so special, that they are actually not rooted in the real world. That's why I don't want to comment any further on them". (my translation from Norwegian). The only person to have talked to Brevik for hours and hours is the defense lawyer, and when HE says that Breivik's demands have no root in reality and are therefore impossible to meet, then it adds to my clear feeling that this man is not a cold blooded political or religious murderer, but actually an insane person.

I feel very sorry for this man as well as for all Norwegians, especially the families of the murdered children. Peace & love.

valentin said...

To further show what a nutcase Anders behring breivik is, he admits he used Call of duty modern warfare 2 for training and simulation. "I just bought Modern Warfare 2, the game. It is probably the best military simulator out there and it’s one of the hottest games this year. … I see MW2 more as a part of my training-simulation than anything else. I’ve still learned to love it though and especially the multiplayer part is amazing. You can more or less completely simulate actual operations"  Well there you have it, There will be a backlash if there already isn't from foolish people about how  "video games supposedly "influence" people to commit murder or violence"  It's not that video games influence people to commit such atrocious acts. We call it for what it is, an evil man did what was right in his own mind (evil) and thus breaking gods moral commands.  

Charles said...

@ 1 More Muslim

All assassins, murderers, mass killers, slave traders have been strongly condemned by Popes, excluded or ex-communiated from the Church, including the ones who commited atrocities during Crusades, who practiced slave trading in the middle centuries or who massacred native indians in america.

By the way, the crusades themselves were a response to the destruction of the Holy Sepulcher chrurch in Jerusalem, the continous kidnapping of christian pelgrims in the Holy Land by muslims for ransoms, despite all treaties of the time.

I wonder how would muslims today react if americans occupied Meca and destroyed the Kaaba? This was the case in the 11th century in Jerusalem. the holiest christian land occupied by invading muslims.

Christians do not consider criminals, who cumulated wealth or who had bad behavior, as models including some middle ages Popes; but rather they use Christ, the apostles who died praying for their killers, as well as saints who lived in extreme poverty serving others, such as mid-age Fran├žis of Assisi or modern Theresa of Calculta.

In contrast, muslism venerate killers, mass murderes and use them as models, including the first Khalif Abu Bakr, who massacred 20 thousand for apostasy, Omar who ordered the invasion of middle east and Europe, considering Egypt as a "cow milk", Mehmed II who invaded Costantinople, who allowed his men several days to kill, rape and sak the city, and is highly admired as the "conquerer" in muslim history books.

By the way, the first 4 khalifes had dozens of wives and sexual slaves, including young girls (imitating their prophet), were all killed by opponents, were all involved into disputes and wars over wealth and possesions, including the prophet's Daughter! These are considered to be among the 10 annonciators of Paradise!!!! And are the aim of evey suicide bomber to meet!

Catholic Churh has apologized several times for all crimes comitted in its name through history. We are yet to hear any apology from any mulism for their invasions, massacres and humiliation for native populations by imposing the Jyziah (according to Koran instruction) in north Africa, Spain and South Asia.

In contrast, muslims scholars celbrate their historical barabric actions until today!

See the difference?

CL Edwards said...

Muslims like 1more are card carrying members of the Vitacrate party, all victims all the time, even if i kill you in Jihad its still not my responsibly,,you forced me to kill you by being such a dirty little Jew loving kafir, if you would just be a good dhimmi I would not need to kill you..see the logic?

CristoTeAma said...

"Religion is a crutch for many weak people, and many embrace religion for self-serving reasons as a source for drawing mental strength (to feed their weak emotional state [for] example during illness, death, poverty etc.). Since I am not a hypocrite, I'll say directly that this is my agenda as well"

He in this part is clearly saying that as the ppl who uses religion to get strenght in some moments, he is gonna USE religion for his porpose, but the thing is that the religion he chosed does not allow to KILL and even more to make a masacre.
Let's see what is a fundamentalist:
WIKIPEDIA: "Fundamentalism is strict adherence to specific theological doctrines typically in reaction against the theology of Modernism"
So according to this definition, a real christian fundamentalist would've never done such a thing, because Christ (from whom we pick the name "christianity") said to love the enemies, and that those who kill by sword shall die by sword, between many other passages, also the apostles said the same things, like Paul telling us to leave the revenge to God.
But the question is, if someone reads the quran, the non abrogated verses, could he do such a things? kill infidels or apostates from islam? i think we all know that answer.

goethechosemercy said...

No one in this world has done more to hurt Christianity, Christians, and Western civilization and Westerners, more than Anders Breivik.
The Muslim warrior without who is honest in his hatred of us is a thousand times more salvageable as a soul than this mockery of a man.

Charles said...

@ CristoTeAma

In few words, as you said:

A fundamental christian will imitate his Christ's deeds: Die while forgiving and praying for his ennemies.

A fundamental muslim will also imitate his prophet's teachings: Die in martyr while fighting, killing and cursing his ennemies.

...an ennemy in Islam, is the one who opposes muslim laws or supremacy, or mokes Muhammad as prophet of Allah.

This is why in muslim countries, they do not use the word "fundamentalist" to describe muslim terrorists who kill in the name of Allah: They either use "a lost clan" (in Saudi Arabia), or "extremists" elsewhere.

The word "fundamentalist" reminds muslim apologists (including lots of useful idiots lefties) too much about the prophet and his followers. They are reweriting history now -through takkeya (lying for the sake of Islam)- and need to embellish and find all kind of excuses and justifications for their founders deeds, not the opposite.

A case like the norweyan killer gives them some amunitions in their task to fool the ignorants.

1MoreMuslim said...

C L LEWIS
even if i kill you in Jihad its still not my responsibly,,you forced me to kill you by being such a dirty little Jew loving kafir, if you would just be a good dhimmi I would not need to kill you..see the logic?

I guess you had that logic when you were Muslim. I've already demonstrated your lack of understanding Christian doctrines, now it's clear that you won't understand any religion you embrace, because of a disease in your brain. Good luck with the Generated God.

Did Jesus commanded Christians to sell their their garments and buy a sword to fight?
Norway killer : YES
Muslims: YES
Christian Scholar John Mac Arthur: YES
Amateur Apologetic David Wood: No, John Mac Arthur is distorting the Bible.

valentin said...

THE DRIVEL OF 1moremuslim: 
Did Jesus commanded Christians to sell their their garments and buy a sword to fight?
Norway killer : YES
Muslims: YES
Christian Scholar John Mac Arthur: YES
Amateur Apologetic David Wood: No, John Mac Arthur is distorting the Bible.

Yes, Jesus did say to the disciples "sell your garment and buy a sword" When TWO swords were presented Jesus said "that is enough" 
Hmm two swords are enough? For what? To go raid caravans? Get outta here!
Oh one quick point did Jesus say buy a sword "to fight"? You snuck that last part in. Furthermore If you think Jesus' purpose in saying this, is to instigate violence, it's because you are reading the text of the bible through the LENS of the Qur'an, thus you are coming to the conclusion that its speaking of violence or gives reason to fight offensively. Which is UNTRUE.
 "To the pure, all things are pure. But to those who are defiled and unbelieving, nothing is pure, but both their mind and their conscience are defiled"

1MoreMuslim said...

Valentin:
My Drivel is also the Drivel of John Mac Arthur.
What is the use of your silly interpretation, if the majority of Christians believe that is wrong?

Radical Moderate said...

@Valetin

Good catch, he did sneak that in there I almost didn't catch that.

1Milimeter

Can you show me the verse where Jesus commanded his disciples to in your words "to sell their their garments and buy a sword to fight?

Its amazing how Muslims accuse Christians of corrupting the New Testemant. We don't have to Muslims do that for us.

Oh 1milimeter just to let you know the reason why Jesus told his disciples to buy swords and the reason why two where enough is given in the text.

So the prophesy would be fullfilled that he "WOULD BE NUMBERED WITH THE TRANSGRESORS"

CristoTeAma said...

1MoreMuslim said

"Did Jesus commanded Christians to sell their their garments and buy a sword to fight?
Norway killer : YES
Muslims: YES
Christian Scholar John Mac Arthur: YES
Amateur Apologetic David Wood: No, John Mac Arthur is distorting the Bible."

This is a tipical muslim tactic, but let read the hole part of that charapter:

Luke 22:36 He said to them, “But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. 37 It is written:‘AND HE WAS NUMBERED WITH THE TRANSGRESSORS’ ; and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me. Yes, what is written about me is reaching its fulfillment.”

38 The disciples said, “See, Lord, here are two swords.”

“That’s enough!” he replied.



So it seems he is not planning a rebelion Muhammad's style, but he is asking them to get the swords so as a thive,murderer,etc who carries a weapon(sword) he will be numbered with the transgressors, so he can fulfil another (of the many) prophecies about him (Isaiah 53:12, this things happens when u have a real prophecied savior). But let's keep reading and see if it's the way i say (also consider this is the guy who told them to love their enemies, and to turn to them the other cheek also, to bless the ones who curse you, etc):

49 When Jesus’ followers saw what was going to happen, they said, “Lord, should we strike with our swords?” 50 And one of them struck the servant of the high priest, cutting off his right ear.

51 But Jesus answered, “NO MORE OF THIS!” And he touched the man’s ear and healed him.

So far it seems that i'm right, that he didn't want to make a rebelion, and that he doesn't allow violence, let's keep reading:

"Am I leading a rebellion, that you have come with swords and clubs?"

So this proves what the real intentions of Jesus are, he is not muhammad, he is not thinking about death and violence, he is fulfiling another prophecy with suceed.

Let's read in another book to check it out:

Matthew:26:52 “Put your sword back in its place,” Jesus said to him, “for all who draw the sword will die by the sword. 53 Do you think I cannot call on my Father, and he will at once put at my disposal more than twelve legions of angels?

Off Topic: This passage makes you think that if jesus would've wanted to spread religion by sword (Muhammad's style)he would've been such a great commander, he can heal, resurrect ppl, have vision, get legions of angels, get food, etc. So this is another proof of the failure that Muhammad represents(and ofc he wouldn't have died by a Jewess poison).

One last question, would be: Did the disciples understand that they were allowed to be violent??

Well, if we read the hole N.T we see that they did not understand that, almost all of them died as Martyrs, but not trying to kill "infidels" but teachings the word of God, so they died in Christ but did not kill in christ(i.e Paul,Peter), we have no passages of Disciples killing, torturing,etc. But we do have passages from Paul like this:

Romans 12:19 Do not take revenge, my dear friends, but leave room for God’s wrath, for it is written: “It is mine to avenge; I will repay,” says the Lord.

So your "Argument?" is another proof of how deceptive you are not only to others but to yourself which makes it more sad.

Hope you can see the way and the truth and the life, because no one goes to the Father except through Jesus.

Charles said...

@ 1 More Muslim

According to you and to other muslim apologists, Jesus asked his people to carry swords to kill, specially in the verses when he said, "I did not come to bring peace but sword, ...a father will turn against his son and son against father, etc...."

Which mean that the only good christian is the one who will kill his parents and family members (and of course his ennemies) for the sake of Christ. Right?

The problem with this twisted logic is the following:

Why Jesus did not take the sword to defend himself, instead of asking his disciples to lay down their swords when he was arrested, saying "whoever take the sword will perish by the sword"?

Ordering such a horrible killing would be evil. Which means that Jesus himself was bad at times. Right?

Why then did he defy everyone saying "Which one of you convicts Me of sin?" (John 8:46)

Moreover,why does your holy book, the Koran says that Jesus is without sin when Gabriel spoke to Mary?:

"I am only a messenger of your Lord, to announce to you a faultless son" (Surah 19:19)".

Do you pretend to know Jesus more that Allah himself?

It's funny; when muslim apologists do not find anything to comment on the shameful and disgusting behaviour of their prophet, they turn to anything in the Bible trying to incriminate christians. As if they were saying: "We are evil, but look, christians are more evil than us". Huge consolation.....

Is this how you will convert pagans, hindous and budhists to your religion? Good luck.

To make it worse, muslims interpret the Bible to suit their purposes, but not the way the christians and Church fathers interpret it.

Well, christians interpret the Koran and the Hadiths, not the way of today's peaceful muslims (by re-writing history), but by the way muslim scholars understood it....for 14 centuries.... according to the 4 schools of thoughts.

...Which was hidden from common muslims all that time, with Allah's sword hanging on the neck of whoever questions it.

But not anymore.

simple_truth said...

1MoreMuslim said...

"I guess you had that logic when you were Muslim. I've already demonstrated your lack of understanding Christian doctrines, now it's clear that you won't understand any religion you embrace, because of a disease in your brain. Good luck with the Generated God."

Where have you demonstrated that you understand Christian doctrines? The typical Muslim understands Christianity through other Muslims who have already tried to interpret it for you, or you typically read it by forcing Islamic views upon it. Essentially, you don't use Biblical context to determine meaning; instead, you use Islamic context which you have exported to the text. Understand also that the average Muslim grows up with a built-in bias for the Bible and Christianity because of what the Qu'ran teaches about it, which is distorted from the historical records of Christianity and the Bible. How are you going to get an accurate picture of Christian doctrine with that built-in bias?

I always hear this accusation against former Muslims that somehow the person that later denounces Islam has something wrong with them. The reality is that anyone can come to a rational view that Islam is false, or at least not the religion for them. I think that the one with the brain damage is the one who doesn't see this reality.

Your last comment about Jesus being a generated god just shows that you either don't understand Christian doctrine and scripture or you don't care to understand the Bible apart from the Qu'ran. There are plenty of verses in the Bible that show that Jesus had a unique standing before the Father that no prophet could ever have; therefore, Jesus couldn't have only been another prophet.

"Did Jesus commanded Christians to sell their their garments and buy a sword to fight?
Norway killer : YES
Muslims: YES
Christian Scholar John Mac Arthur: YES
Amateur Apologetic David Wood: No, John Mac Arthur is distorting the Bible."

Mat 26:47 And while he yet spake, lo, Judas, one of the twelve, came, and with him a great multitude with swords and staves, from the chief priests and elders of the people.
Mat 26:48 Now he that betrayed him gave them a sign, saying, Whomsoever I shall kiss, that same is he: hold him fast.
Mat 26:49 And forthwith he came to Jesus, and said, Hail, master; and kissed him.
Mat 26:50 And Jesus said unto him, Friend, wherefore art thou come? Then came they, and laid hands on Jesus, and took him.
Mat 26:51 And, behold, one of them which were with Jesus stretched out his hand, and drew his sword, and struck a servant of the high priest's, and smote off his ear.
Mat 26:52 Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword.
Mat 26:53 Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, and he shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels?
Mat 26:54 But how then shall the scriptures be fulfilled, that thus it must be?

It appears that Jesus is not advocating fighting or violence. In fact, He states that anyone who lives by the sword will die by it. Additionally, if He was prescribing fighting, then why doesn't the rest of the narrative show this?

minoria said...

Reading a bit on what 1MM said,I don't agree with McArthur on his specific point but his general point is valid

Jesus was for peace but he was no pacifist,it is shown in the Temple Incident

However force is a last resort.Augsutine created the just war idea:there are cases when the Best Way to Love your neighbor is by using Force to Protect Him from Evil Persons

LATER ON...

Due to Cambodia,Bangladesh(3 million killed by the Pakistan army,at the time East Pakistan-Bangladesh was part of Pakistan),etc the great French philosopher Jean-Francois Revel,passionate defender of human rights and against the evils of Communism developped the doctrine of ingerence

It means "to intervene,to get involved,meddle with".

It means national sovereignty of a nation can be ignored to stop .Forget the national rights,invade Cambodia and stop the genocide of Pol Pot,for example,without his permission

That is another variation of the just war doctrine.You can translate the article by copying-pasting to GOOGLE TRANSLATE:

http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Droit_d'ing%C3%A9rence