And a matter of survival.”

I like that, Morgoth. And if “survival” means to you what I think it means, I like it even more. Especially after this:
“But are you saying we cannot discuss Islam and what Muslims believe?”

In a way, yes. Because she holds christians guilty of crimes against her, she casts christianity in the same brutal light as islamic jihadism.

It is rather intriguing then, that she ran to the USA, a country still steeped in its christian heritage. Why would she do such a thing, if she believed the line she is spinning at us? Namely, that christianity, in it’s tenets and doctrine, is as rapacious as islam? Why did she not run to an islamic state, or any country within the EU? All would have been much more logical.
Dina from Bosnia
…..You know what – you could use your big words for something better in your life. I told you I don’t hate anybody and when I see your sick comments I just cannot believe it.You all watched slaughter of bosnians from 91 to 95. I wish I did not have to leave. I came to the US because I was a refugee with no future and a Jewish charity helped me. Very nice people. We live peaceful life here and I am not planning to kill or convert anybody or to have 10 children. Yeah, let’s see what hateful comments you can write as an answer.

I was not attempting to claim that Indonesia was some kind of island of peace and civility. My point with Indonesia is that I am not aware (although I expect there are some exceptions) of violence being justified in terms of Muhammad’s life story. A lot of it had to do with the CIA attempting to counter Communism as well as the government’s ill-conceived plan to take Muslims from over-populated majority Muslim islands and settle them in Christian/Animist areas (especially Kalimantan). If we could find a single culture that had successfully eradicated violence then I suspect we would not be looking at planet earth and its human occupants.

<i“More than enough to support a peaceful ideology of treating non-Muslims well.” If so, why has Shariah law always treated Jews and Christians as second class citizens and polytheists even worse – sometimes to the point of forfeiting their lives? Is that “treating non-Muslims well”? And if not – how did this confusion arise?
I assume you’re not making the banale point that the incredible tolerance generally shown (although, this obviously fluctuated ruler to ruler/dynasty to dynasty) throughout Islamic history to Christians and Jews (relative to Christendom’s treatment of non-white/non-Christian/non-their-particular-sect groups) is not quite up to the standards of modern Britain. Right? You weren’t. Good.

Certainly, certain countries which claim, unconvincingly, to apply shari’a do not treat non-Muslim minorities well at the moment compared to how Britain does. But there is no reason from history, or from the Qur’an (if interpreted through the prism of a non-violent ideology) that Islamic arguments for tolerance in the way it is understood today, not in the 12th Century Andalusian definition, not be made. For every King Fahd Academy, with textbooks from Saudi, there are thousands of Muslim children in this country being taught lessons like “tolerance is born out of the very nature of Islam” (Muhammad Abdel Haleem).

As for your claims to which I said I’d return. I still don’t have time because my guests for the evening have just arrived. I’m afraid I’m going to have to keep you waiting a little longer. Apologies.

Libertophobia [Noun deriv. libertas (Latin) and phobo (Gk.) Rel. adj. Libertophobic] To display a morbid fear of personal, political or social liberty, as exemplified by followers of Islam and other totalitarian ideologies.

(I’m guessing at the Latin and Greek so please feel free to help me out.)

Well you asked me a lot of definitional questions, so… You claim that although Muslims treat Mohammed as a perfect example for all mankind and although he himself led a movement that used violence copiously, Muslims have a peaceful ideology “connected” to Mohammed. In what sense do you mean “connected”?

How violent is the average Indonesian? A pretty meaningless question. If we ask how violent has Indonesia been since independence, we find
in 1965 an anti-communist purge resulted in the deaths of 500,000 to one million. In East Timor Indonesian occupation resulted in 60,000 to 200,000 deaths. There have also been regular massacres of Christians, horrible acts of piracy and other outrages.

If the whole planet behaved like Indonesians, deaths since 1950 would amount to perhaps 45 million. So, I am not sure we can say Indonesia’s predominantly Muslim culture has delivered on peace has it? But I am glad to see them engaging with democracy to some extent – there have been fewer deaths since they have had proper elections.

Feel free to point out that World War 2, with Europeans in the van, led to more deaths in five years, but I don;t personally defend national socialism, communism, nationalism, racism or imperialism.

“More than enough to support a peaceful ideology of treating non-Muslims well.” If so, why has Shariah law always treated Jews and Christians as second class citizens and polytheists even worse – sometimes to the point of forfeiting their lives? Is that “treating non-Muslims well”? And if not – how did this confusion arise?

“1) You quote me and then you don’t actually respond in any way to what I said. Why?”

I did respond.
I pointed out the bogus nature of your claims of conditionality. Islamic doctrine promotes islamic victory through the extermination of all infidelity, and all infidels.

“2) You referred to “your prophet”. What makes you believe that I consider Muhammad a prophet?”

Because you are self evidently an islamic apologist. It seems to me you will say absolutely anything, to prop up your assertion that islam is benign, and we are all lacking in “nuance”.

That’s rich.

We have a clearly vicious doctrine, with it’s example set for all mankind by a genocidal prophet, who probably knew his own religious obligations best. He didn’t bother much with nuance. He just ensured that he took no prisoners until he had “made widespread slaughter in the land”.

The report is about Vietnam. HB, how many Muslim villages are there in south Vietnam?

In recent telephone interviews with The New York Times, three of the former soldiers quoted by The Blade confirmed that the articles had accurately described their unit’s actions.

But they wanted to make another point: that Tiger Force had not been a ”rogue” unit. Its members had done only what they were told, and their superiors knew what they were doing.

I.e., the Americans destroyed villages and killed women and children under orders from their commanders.

Ah, I see what the explanation can be: the commanders were Muslim.

Women and children were intentionally blown up in underground bunkers. Elderly farmers were shot as they toiled in the fields. Prisoners were tortured and executed — their ears and scalps severed for souvenirs. One soldier kicked out the teeth of executed civilians for their gold fillings.

If it were not antisemitic to say so, one would be tempted to note that these Americans behaved very much like the Nazis, no?

Villages were bombed, burned and destroyed. As the ground troops swept through, in many cases they gunned down men, women and children, sometimes mutilating bodies — cutting off ears to wear on necklaces.

These are the people purporting to teach Muslims morality lessons.