QuoteOriginally posted by: flairplayPS: Do you think he should be posthumously stripped of his Nobel and Dirac medals etc? Cannot just hand em out to Muslims eh?what's one thing got to do with the other ?there's a fallacy which liberals are especially susceptible in which it is assumed that because someone is an expert on A) therefore we listen to his positions on everything.

QuoteOriginally posted by: flairplayPity he died before BrightDay carried out his original investigations. what a strange statement.What BrightDay linked is common knowledge and in the public domain. No investigation required.Given islam's origins (allah was the moon-god of mecca and dogs howl at the moon), their aversion to man's best friend is hardly a surprise

QuoteOriginally posted by: ppauperQuoteOriginally posted by: flairplayPity he died before BrightDay carried out his original investigations. what a strange statement.What BrightDay linked is common knowledge and in the public domain. No investigation required.Given islam's origins (allah was the moon-god of mecca and dogs howl at the moon), their aversion to man's best friend is hardly a surpriseYou must be patient - I don't have your knowledge and intellect. A lot of what you, BrightDay and other similar talents know, will be news to me. But I'm learning from you every day.It was not common knowledge that Muslims must choose to kill between infidels and dogs. But you are my guru, a sadhu if you will. There are lots of things in the public domain that lesser mortals aren't aware of. But I think u and BrightDay are eloquently pointing out that it is open season on those limited Muslims. The courage of pointing such stuff out is impressive - even if it was only something that was in the public domain.Question:If Muslims must choose to kill between infidels and dogs, would it not be sensible for infidels and dogs to protect themselves?Can't something be done about it? There are possibly 2m Muslims in the UK, and knowledge of how many dogs around must be in the public domain, and therefore available information to you and BrightDay and all other intelligent creatures.Now dogs are neither liberal nor retiring types. So in principle they could be trained to attack Muslims before the Muslims try to kill them (or infidels). It might seem difficult to implement. But do recall:In the old South Africa, police German Shepherd dogs were trained to attack black people only (is this in the public domain somewhere?). This shows that these intelligent creatures could sniff out racial characteristics. Or maybe it was not just olfactory cues, maybe visual cues like darker skin colour did it as well.So with 2m Muslims in the UK, I would guess this could be implemented. Do recall that most Muslims are in the UK are of darker complexion - well some even as dark as Indians (who though are quite like the rest of us in other matters). Ok, we do have to agree that some Muslims are quite light skinned, and some have blue/green eyes, especially ones from certain parts of Europe, and some from the northwest of Pakistan etc. But I think any racial profiling would show that they are mostly darker skinned than Europeans, if not as dark as Indians.If somehow dogs could be trained to sniff out Muslims, perhaps first through visual cues like darker skin, and then secondary cues like smell (do Muslims stink?), then dogs could be on their guard, and strike pre-emptively.What do you think?

QuoteOriginally posted by: ppauperQuoteOriginally posted by: flairplayI do know that he used to read the Koran daily for a couple of hours. Certainly dont recall any stories of him killing either infidels or dogs. Clearly he did not read the Koran very thoroughly.See BrightDay's link belowAppearantly, neither did you. From BrightDay's link:"Muhammad did not make any superstitious statements regarding dogs in the Quran (other than the references to the dog with the sleepers in the cave)"Might I suggest that you think (how difficult this may be for you), before posting random stuff found on the internet. Btw, ppauper, you still have not answered my questions from another thread. Still waiting...

QuoteOriginally posted by: flairplayQuoteOriginally posted by: ppauperQuoteOriginally posted by: flairplayI do know that he used to read the Koran daily for a couple of hours. Certainly dont recall any stories of him killing either infidels or dogs. Clearly he did not read the Koran very thoroughly.See BrightDay's link belowTotally agree - that is why he was so challenged intellectually. I always knew he was limited coming from an Islamic background.Pity he died before BrightDay carried out his original investigations. But at least I am learning. Teach me more, teach me more please!PS: Do you think he should be posthumously stripped of his Nobel and Dirac medals etc? Cannot just hand em out to Muslims eh?Well flairplay, clearly, the infidel dogs should be done with first, followed by infidels and then areligious dogs (unless of course these dogs convert to islam and agree to pray 5 times a day). I am sure ppauper can find the appropriate passage in the Quran where this issue isaddressed.

Blair No. 2 spurns Straw veil call

So there are 2m muslims in UK and only a minority is committing terrorism on their god's name. Still... we are talking here about a religious sect that claims (among many other things) that:- it is respectful of freedom of speach and when the leader of a different faith makes a theological lecture (and therefore complex for anyone in its meaning, even for philosophers to who the message was intended) they get as annoyed as to proclaim a death penality on him; - claims it is peaceful, and therefore proves their good intentions by re-enforcing the death penality on the pope by assassinating a nun- claims to be equalitarian and women are still treated as inferiors. If the veil is required to show humility in front of god, why are women only required to wear it?So i'm a nazi by nature and a dick-head for not understanding other people's culture. But do the 2m muslims in uk understand why i become worried when some of their clerics do hate campains asking for sharia law to be introduced in UK and walking in Oxford Street i see women in burka?And if the 2m think that wearing a burka is only a religious symbol and it doesn't show a fracture in society, i think that they are in bad faith. Yesterday i tried to walk around Covent Garden with a balaclava and people were looking quite badly at me even if my skin if fair.To me it is simply happening that with all the worries about caring about the muslims sensitivity we are getting insecure by the fact that the 2m muslims don't seem to have any interest in ours.And it's not a problem with race. England has probably as many hindu as people from Pakistani origin, but they they culture is probably a truly peaceful one, and able to understand different cultures.

QuoteOriginally posted by: BrightDaySo there are 2m muslims in UK and only a minority is committing terrorism on their god's name. Still... we are talking here about a religious sect that claims (among many other things) that:- it is respectful of freedom of speach and when the leader of a different faith makes a theological lecture (and therefore complex for anyone in its meaning, even for philosophers to who the message was intended) they get as annoyed as to proclaim a death penality on him; - claims it is peaceful, and therefore proves their good intentions by re-enforcing the death penality on the pope by assassinating a nun- claims to be equalitarian and women are still treated as inferiors. If the veil is required to show humility in front of god, why are women only required to wear it?So i'm a nazi by nature and a dick-head for not understanding other people's culture. But do the 2m muslims in uk understand why i become worried when some of their clerics do hate campains asking for sharia law to be introduced in UK and walking in Oxford Street i see women in burka?And if the 2m think that wearing a burka is only a religious symbol and it doesn't show a fracture in society, i think that they are in bad faith. Yesterday i tried to walk around Covent Garden with a balaclava and people were looking quite badly at me even if my skin if fair.To me it is simply happening that with all the worries about caring about the muslims sensitivity we are getting insecure by the fact that the 2m muslims don't seem to have any interest in ours.And it's not a problem with race. England has probably as many hindu as people from Pakistani origin, but they they culture is probably a truly peaceful one, and able to understand different cultures.Why are you so upset? I dont see anyone disagreeing with you. I haven't.I suppose to play devil's advocate (are all Muslims devils?), some others might argue that:"it is respectful of freedom of speach and when the leader of a different faith makes a theological lecture (and therefore complex for anyone in its meaning, even for philosophers to who the message was intended) they get as annoyed as to proclaim a death penality on him"--> Since in many sects of Islam there is no such thing as an ordained clergy, then no Muslim has the right to proclaim a death penalty on someone else. In fact, they might argue that it was the Christian crusades that were ordered by various popes, and which committed carnage on mostly Muslims and Jewish peoples in medieval times. As well, that Muslim leaders at that time were far more chivalrous than their Christian counterparts - often sparing lives of all inhabitants, while the likes of Richard Lionheart slaughtered town inhabitants by the thousands."claims it is peaceful, and therefore proves their good intentions by re-enforcing the death penality on the pope by assassinating a nun"--> What makes you conclude it is the religion rather than the murderer's interpretation of religion? "claims to be equalitarian and women are still treated as inferiors. If the veil is required to show humility in front of god, why are women only required to wear it?"--> Why are men allowed to remove their tops in sporting enouncters but women cant go topless (in the West)? What right have these egalitarian societies to impose different standards for men and women? Islam is one end of the spectrum where even the face is regarded as something that needs modesty, while in the West it may just be the female top."So i'm a nazi by nature and a dick-head for not understanding other people's culture. But do the 2m muslims in uk understand why i become worried when some of their clerics do hate campains asking for sharia law to be introduced in UK and walking in Oxford Street i see women in burka?"--> Why would you want to feel like a Nazi? Nobody is calling you that. Maybe many Muslims do understand why you dont like the idea of women under veil, but maybe they dont like the idea of all Muslims being condemned by it. What do you think of Jewish people who go the synagogue in traditional clothes? Do you have it in for them as well? Will you ask Hasidic Jewish men to shave since their luxurious growths cover their faces? What about othodox Jewish women who do not wish to show their real hair and cover it with wigs? Would you condemn the whole community?It would be a pity because I quite like them as they are - it's their choice and I respect them for it. "To me it is simply happening that with all the worries about caring about the muslims sensitivity we are getting insecure by the fact that the 2m muslims don't seem to have any interest in ours.And it's not a problem with race. England has probably as many hindu as people from Pakistani origin, but they they culture is probably a truly peaceful one, and able to understand different cultures"--> What makes you say that all of the 2m Muslims have no interest in your culture? A sweeping judgement no? Maybe it is you who have no understanding of their faith and are looking at every opportunity to spin something negative about it. Agreed that Hinduism is a religion of peace - like nearly all religions, when it comes to their good parts. But what do you make of those fundamentalist Hindus who carry out atrocities on poor Muslims in India? Would you condemn all Hindus because of it? Have you even read about it? Mr Bal Thackeray, a leading light of the BJP said that no Muslim should be allowed in India, and threatened to murder the whole Pakistan cricket team if they set foot in India in 1999?But Mr Thackeray's pronouncements to do not make Hinduism a religion of violence, even if he foments religious hatred. Just like Bin Laden's views do not make Islam a religion of hatred. Bin Laden and his cronies are a bunch of murderers carrying out atrocities in the name of religion. Do you really think that Islam encourages the murder of innocents? Really?What about those Christian militia men who slaughtered 1600 women and children, nearly all Muslims, in the Saabra Shatilla refugee camp in 1982? Does that make Christianity a religion of violence? I cannot agree - the murderers were murderers, Christian or not.Like most religions Hinduism has many followers. Like many Muslims and many Christians, they have their good ones and their bad ones.As to not understanding other cultures why is that so many Muslims in America are high level professionals? Can you answer that? Long as you start to treat every human being as human, and respect their freedoms, then things are okay. The problems with those mad mullahs is they dont like anyone who is different, and incite hatred. But by doing so yourself, you are no different.The war of terror is not a war of terror, it's a war of ignorances on both sides. On one side mad mullahs happy to proclaim that all Westerners are bad and want to see Islam destroyed, on the other ignorant Westerners who say that all Muslims are terrorists and seek the destruction of Western society. In my view both try to light fires - but forget that fires once lit have a life of their own. The time is for dialogue and better understanding - rather than wild characterisations based on ignorance.I am happy to tell Mullahs to go and see how the West practises the deeper egalitarian ideals of Islam better than they could ever conceive, and I am happy to tell Westerners to go and see how many Muslims are truly peace loving and normal people.Do try and lift the cultural burka you wear - it blurs your vision.

I would also add to flairplay's points that there is this big discconect between how some people in the west (for lack of a better word) view muslim attitudes toward the west and the actual muslim attitudes in reality. Here's an academic study that surveys muslim opinion of the west. The survey results are very surprising:http://polisci.lsa.umich.edu/documents/ ... .pdfHere's from the introduction:Although the administration of President George W. Bush insists that the U.S. Waron Terrorism is not a war on Islam, too many Americans seem to view it that way. Anational poll taken by the University of Michigan’s Institute for Social Researchfollowing the attack of September 11, 2001, found that 54 percent expressed theview that the attack was motivated by a conflict between Christianity and Islam.Even more disturbing are the statements of some religious figures in the U.S. Forexample, Rev. Franklin Graham, son of Billy Graham and a well-known evangelistin his own right, said of Islam, ‘‘I believe it’s a very evil and wicked religion.’’ Thisand a sampling of other offensive references to Islam by prominent Americanconservatives are summarized by Nicholas Kristof in an important New York Timesarticle published this summer.1 Mr. Kristof concludes that if we expect Muslimleaders to confront the hate-mongers in their societies, we must confront those herein the U.S.Yet another illustration is the reaction of some conservatives to a plan by theUniversity of North Carolina to assign a book on Islam to incoming freshmen. TheFamily Policy Network, a conservative Christian organization, filed suit against theuniversity. Fox News Network talk-show host Bill O’Reilly denounced the teachingof ‘‘our enemy’s religion’’ and compared the assignment to teaching Mein Kampf in1941.2Finally, there is the well-known ‘‘Clash of Civilizations’’ thesis, in which ProfessorSamuel Huntington of Harvard argues that cultural and religious differences are amajor cause of international conflict in the post–ColdWar era and asserts that Islamin particular encourages Muslim aggressiveness toward non-Muslim peoples.According to Huntington, ‘‘Some Westerners have argued that the West does nothave problems with Islam but only with violent Islamic extremists. But evidence to

QuoteOriginally posted by: flairplayIt was not common knowledge that Muslims must choose to kill between infidels and dogsthat's a mis-characterization.They can of course kill both, the issue is which to kill first

QuoteOriginally posted by: gardener3QuoteOriginally posted by: ppauperQuoteOriginally posted by: flairplayI do know that he used to read the Koran daily for a couple of hours. Certainly dont recall any stories of him killing either infidels or dogs. Clearly he did not read the Koran very thoroughly.See BrightDay's link belowAppearantly, neither did you. From BrightDay's link:"Muhammad did not make any superstitious statements regarding dogs in the Quran (other than the references to the dog with the sleepers in the cave)"and then below that:QuoteFrom BukhariVol. 4, #540 - Narrated 'Abdullah bin 'Umar: Allah's Apostle ordered that the dogs should be killed.From the Hadith of Abu Dawud - #2839 - Abd Allah B. Mughaffal reported the apostle of Allah as saying: Were dogs not a species of creature I should command that they all be killed; but kill every pure black one.The Hadith's note for #2839 says, "The prophet did not order the killing of all the dogs, for some are to be retained for hunting and watching. He ordered to kill the jet black ones. They might be more mischievous among them.From Sahih Muslim #3814 - Ibn Mughaffal reported: Allah's messenger ordered the killing of dogs and then said, "what is the trouble with them (the people of Medina? How dogs are nuisances to them (the citizens of Medina)? He then permitted keeping of dogs for hunting and (the protection of) herds. ...[and for] for the protection of cultivated land.From Sahih Muslim #3813 - Abu Zubair heard Jabir Abdullah saying: Allah's messenger ordered us to kill dogs and we carried out this order so much so that we also killed the dog roaming with a women from the desert. Then Allah's apostle forbade their killing. He said: "It is your duty to kill the jet-black (dog) having two spots (on the eyes) for it is a devil.The note for #3814 says, "The Hadith gives us an idea why the prophet commanded to kill dogs. There must have been an excess of stray dogs and thus the danger of rabies in the city of Medina and its suburbs. The prophet therefore ordered to kill them. Later on when it was found that his Companions were killing them indiscriminately, he forbade them to do so and told them that only the ferocious beasts which were a source of danger to life should be killed. The word "Devil" in the Hadith clarifies this point. Here devil stands for ferocious./q]

QuoteOriginally posted by: gardener3Even more disturbing are the statements of some religious figures in the U.S. Forexample, Rev. Franklin Graham, son of Billy Graham and a well-known evangelistin his own right, said of Islam, ‘‘I believe it’s a very evil and wicked religion.’’ That statement is especially disturbing because it is borne out by the actions of militant islamists

QuoteOriginally posted by: ppauperQuoteOriginally posted by: gardener3Even more disturbing are the statements of some religious figures in the U.S. Forexample, Rev. Franklin Graham, son of Billy Graham and a well-known evangelistin his own right, said of Islam, ‘‘I believe it’s a very evil and wicked religion.’’ That statement is especially disturbing because it is borne out by the actions of militant islamistsFranklin Graham plans to rebuild hundreds of burned churches and maintain a hospital in Sudan despite the anti-Christian violence that's occurred during his years of ministry there.godspeed, frankin

QuoteOriginally posted by: ppauperQuoteOriginally posted by: gardener3QuoteOriginally posted by: ppauperQuoteOriginally posted by: flairplayI do know that he used to read the Koran daily for a couple of hours. Certainly dont recall any stories of him killing either infidels or dogs. Clearly he did not read the Koran very thoroughly.See BrightDay's link belowAppearantly, neither did you. From BrightDay's link:"Muhammad did not make any superstitious statements regarding dogs in the Quran (other than the references to the dog with the sleepers in the cave)"and then below that:QuoteFrom BukhariVol. 4, #540 - Narrated 'Abdullah bin 'Umar: Allah's Apostle ordered that the dogs should be killed.Let me make it as simple for you so that perhaps your little brain can comprehend. You mentioned Quran. Those are not passages from Quran. Do you understand? Shall I draw a picture? Btw, still waiting for the answers....

QuoteOriginally posted by: ppauperThe note for #3814 says, "The Hadith gives us an idea why the prophet commanded to kill dogs. There must have been an excess of stray dogs and thus the danger of rabies in the city of Medina and its suburbs. The prophet therefore ordered to kill them. Later on when it was found that his Companions were killing them indiscriminately, he forbade them to do so and told them that only the ferocious beasts which were a source of danger to life should be killed. The word "Devil" in the Hadith clarifies this point. Here devil stands for ferocious./q]Do you even read the stuff that you post? how is this a bad thing?