Islam shares "common roots" with Judaism and Christianity like a car thief "shares" other people's cars

The religion of ancient Israel and Christianity-as-the-Apostles-taught-it share more than common roots.  They are the same tree:

-Jesus, the Son of God, fulfilled the Old Testament prophecies regarding the Messiah.

-He was a Jew descended from King David.

-He declared Himself to be YHWH (the name by which the God of Israel revealed Himself to Moses).

-The Apostles were all Jews.

-The entire Christian Bible -- both Old and New Testaments -- is Hebrew/Jewish.

-The first Christians were Jews.

In fact, the Apostle Paul uses an olive tree as an analogy, saying that Gentile believers are "wild branches" grafted into an olive tree (God's people) where some of the "natural branches" (Jews) have been broken off (for rejecting the promised Messiah):

if the root is holy, so are the branches. But if some of the branches were broken off, and you, although a wild olive shoot, were grafted in among the others and now share in the nourishing root of the olive tree, do not be arrogant toward the branches. If you are, remember it is not you who support the root, but the root that supports you. Then you will say, "Branches were broken off so that I might be grafted in." That is true. They were broken off because of their unbelief, but you stand fast through faith. So do not become proud, but fear. For if God did not spare the natural branches, neither will he spare you. Note then the kindness and the severity of God: severity toward those who have fallen, but God's kindness to you, provided you continue in his kindness. Otherwise you too will be cut off. And even they, if they do not continue in their unbelief, will be grafted in, for God has the power to graft them in again (Romans 11:16-23).

In contrast, the illiterate pagan Muhammad had some contact with Jews and Christians, so he had only an incomplete knowledge of some of their traditions (which explains partly the obvious corruptions of Biblical stories in Qur'an). Add to that the fact that in the beginning of Muhammad's prophetic career -- when he was politically and militarily weak and his "revelations" were still nonviolent -- he tried to persuade Jews and Christians that he was a genuine prophet from their God by co-opting Abraham.  In the same way, today's Islamic propagandists want to lower the affective filters of Jews and Christians (and those familiar with Judaism and Christianity, for if Islam is basically the same as those religions, it can't be bad). That's why Muslims claim Islam as an "Abrahamic faith."

But any comparison of Christianity and Islam's sacred texts shows that the religions' two gods could not be more diametric: Jesus committed no sin, spoke only the truth, healed the sick, raised the dead, died for the sins of the whole world, and resurrected, teaching His people to love even their enemies. On the other hand, Muhammad sacralized the violation of all Ten Commandments and the Golden Rule.

If Muhammad had worshiped Abraham's God, he would have said and done what Abraham said and did.  He would have worshiped the Messiah. Islam shares "common roots" with Judaism and Christianity like a car thief "shares" other people's cars

While open hearts and minds are good, credulity is not, especially when the salesman making the pitch is selling the destruction of all you hold dear

Anthropophagic alien invader or Islamic propagandist?
Same message, same malevolence

Interesting parallels between V and Islam: Both Visitors and Muslim apologists present themselves as desiring only peace and the well-being of Man; both employ appealing, smooth-talking spokespersons; both manipulate media, politicians, and public opinion; both demonize, marginalize, and eliminate their opponents when possible. Both have apostates warning and working against their schemes.  They share the same message . . . and malice.

Unfortunately, only one is fictional.

When Muslims wage soft jihad (with words, not weapons), the more skilled practitioners require translation.  We wouldn't want any "infidels" to misunderstand the Religion of Pathological Deception, would we?

In response to Michal's lengthy propaganda effort.  He begins:

We are Muslims, Ambassadors of PEACE and we are NOT terrorists

The only problem is, our idea of "peace" means that you don't try to slaughter, rape, or enslave us, and we [d]on't have to defend ourselves against you. Unfortunately, Muhammad's idea of "peace" was the kind that comes from (literally) killing the competition:

"Say to the Unbelievers, if (now) they desist (from Unbelief), their past would be forgiven them; but if they persist, the punishment of those before them is already (a matter of warning for them). And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and polytheism: i.e. worshipping others besides Allah) and the religion (worship) will all be for Allah Alone (in the whole of the world). But if they cease (worshipping others besides Allah), then certainly, Allah is All-Seer of what they do" (Qur'an 8:38; ayah 39 from Noble Qur'an).

As for "terrorism"? Of course, not all Muslims carry out or condone terrorism. But what's the best you can expect when "Allah’s Apostle said, 'I have been made victorious with terror'" (Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 220)?

Who will define who a “sweet” person from other religions is?

How about Muhammad? He said of non-Muslims in general (and Jews and Christians, and perhaps Zoroastrians and others -- it depends on whom you ask):

"Those who disbelieve, neither their possessions nor their (numerous) progeny will avail them aught against Allah: They are themselves but fuel for the Fire" (Qur'an 3:10).

"Abu Huraira reported Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: The last hour would not come unless the Muslims will fight against the Jews and the Muslims would kill them until the Jews would hide themselves behind a stone or a tree and a stone or a tree would say: Muslim, or the servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me; come and kill him; but the tree Gharqad would not say, for it is the tree of the Jews" (Muslim Book 41, Number 6985).

"Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued" (Qur'an 9:29).

Michal continues:

No-one needs to [define "sweet non-Muslims], as it is already defined by the socially accepted norms.

As evidenced by just the few citations above, Islam's "socially accepted norms" are not humanity's "socially-accepted norms."

All the things a decent person would not do in real life should also not be done sitting behind a computer.

Because how can a devout Muslim murder someone for insulting Muhammad when he doesn't have even an ip address? Makes one long for the Good Old Days, when an uppity infidel was just stone's throw or dagger thrust away:

"Then (occurred) the sariyyah of Umayr ibn adi Ibn Kharashah al-Khatmi against Asma Bint Marwan [. . .] She used to revile Islam, offend the prophet and instigate the (people) against him. She composed verses. Umayr Ibn Adi came to her in the night and entered her house. Her children were sleeping around her. There was one whom she was suckling. He searched her with his hand because he was blind, and separated the child from her. He thrust his sword in her chest till it pierced up to her back. Then he offered the morning prayers with the prophet at al-Medina. The apostle of Allah said to him: "Have you slain the daughter of Marwan?" He said: "Yes. Is there something more for me to do?" He [Muhammad] said: "No . . . " (Ibn Sa'd's Kitab al-Tabaqat al-Kabir).

Michal adds:

Islam has a fundamental principle that asks humans to treat their fellow humans just the way they would like to be treated themselves.

Michal's confusing Islam with Christianity. Jesus said, "Treat others the way you want to be treated." Muhammad said, "fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war) . . . " (Qur’an 9:5).

Therefore we all should exercise our freedoms with care, consideration and concern for our fellow human beings. Freedom is not and therefore should not become an assault on others.

Which is Muslimspeak for: Don't say anything we don't like . . . or else:

"A blind man had a slave-mother who used to abuse the Prophet [. . .] and disparage him. He forbade her but she did not stop. He rebuked her but she did not give up her habit. One night she began to slander the Prophet [. . .] and abuse him. So he took a dagger, placed it on her belly, pressed it, and killed her. A child who came between her legs was smeared with the blood that was there. When the morning came, the Prophet [. . .] was informed about it.

"He assembled the people and said: 'I adjure by Allah the man who has done this action and I adjure him by my right to him that he should stand up.' Jumping over the necks of the people and trembling the man stood up.

"He sat before the Prophet [. . .] and said: 'Apostle of Allah! I am her master; she used to abuse you and disparage you. I forbade her, but she did not stop, and I rebuked her, but she did not abandon her habit. I have two sons like pearls from her, and she was my companion. Last night she began to abuse and disparage you. So I took a dagger, put it on her belly and pressed it till I killed her.'

"Thereupon the Prophet [. . .] said: 'Oh be witness, no retaliation is payable for her blood'" (Abu-Dawud Book 38, Number 4348).

Michal whines:

[Facebook] seems to allow mockery of religions it has an issue with… The caricatures of the prophet Mohammed were uploaded, and instead of taking any consideration and action, they came out and said they were supporting it.”

Do you think that nearly 16,000 documented jihad attacks since 9/11 alone might have something to do with the urge to mock Muhammad? I'm willing to bet -- I'm going out on a limb here -- that if your coreligionists stop blowing up, raping, and enslaving non-Muslims, non-Muslims will stop telling the truth about Muhammad.

All Muslims love all humans including non-Muslims (Yes and you might be surprised at this due to popular misconceptions).

If "Muhammad - the messenger of GOD - and those with him are harsh and stern against the disbelievers, but kind and compassionate amongst themselves" (Qur'an 48:29), where's the "misconception"?

Now Muslims believe that our non-Muslim cousins are misguided yet are sensitive to their religious sensitivities.

Really? "the Messenger of Allah . . . would say: 'Fight in the name of Allah and in the way of Allah. Fight against those who disbelieve in Allah. Make a holy war. . . . When you meet your enemies who are polytheists, invite them to three courses of action. . . . Invite them to (accept) Islam; if they respond to you, accept it from them and desist from fighting against them. . . . If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya. If they agree to pay, accept it from them and hold off your hands. If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah's help and fight them . . .'" (Muslim Book 19, Number 4294).

Nothing oozes "religious sensitivity" like warfare against all who refuse conversion or dhimmitude.

per Islamic orders non-Muslims are allowed to practice their faith freely non-publicly. This is because of the reasons mentioned below

As in the Pact of Umar?

As per Islam, Muslims DO NOT insult our non-Muslim cousins, their religion and Idol Gods (as applicable), despite knowing that they are misguided and their beliefs largely false, just for the sake of harmony and respecting their beliefs.

Like this? "And well ye knew those amongst you who transgressed in the matter of the Sabbath: We said to them: "Be ye apes, despised and rejected" (Qur'an 2:65).

Or this? "They do blaspheme who say: Allah is one of three in a Trinity: for there is no god except One Allah. If they desist not from their word (of blasphemy), verily a grievous penalty will befall the blasphemers among them" (Qur'an 5:73).

Or this? "Those who believe fight in the way of Allah, and those who disbelieve fight in the way of the Shaitan. Fight therefore against the friends of the Shaitan; surely the strategy of the Shaitan is weak" (Qur'an 4:76).

All things considered, I'd take insults over genocide any day.

Islam and therefore Muslims love all humans and our non-Muslim cousins. Now as per Islam they are proceeding towards eternal failure and hell fire. Islam doesn’t want that for them.

So, enslaving, raping, and beheading those who refuse conversion might cause some to convert [anyway], which makes those crimes expression of "mercy," right?

Therefore Islam directs believers to spread the message of peace (Islam) and call all to the One true God (Allah) and eternal success.

Just like Muhammad, right?

"The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter . . . " (Qur'an 5:33).

Ibn Kathir says of this verse: "'Wage war' mentioned here means, oppose and contradict, and it includes disbelief, blocking roads and spreading fear in the fairways. Mischief in the land refers to various types of evil." So, Muhammad requires execution, crucifixion, or cutting off hands and feet from opposite sides for "disbelief."

there is no pressure in religion

No, of course not. It's either conversion, subjugation and humiliation, or war. No compulsion at all.

an environment needs to be created for our non-Muslim cousins so that they can find it less difficult socially to heed to the call of their True and ONLY creator.

Yes, removing a person's freedom, money, wife, daughters, limbs, and head tend to create that "environment," don't they, Michal? You're quite a liar for Allah.

This is the reason why Islam, though respects and allows the practice of the religion and beliefs of our cousins at personal levels, it is not allowed for them to do this publicly in an Islamic Country so that it is easier for those non-Muslim cousins who want to come to the true path to embrace success.

Of what are you so afraid? If Islam were as wonderful as you pretend, you wouldn't have to lie, obfuscate, or censor opposing viewpoints. Persuasion at the point of a sword, gun, or nuke is coercion, not faith.

as Devil’s best weapons include deception, false pretences and material & social fears.

That's ironic, coming from someone promoting "sacralized" genocide, pedophilia, rape, mutilation, torture, slavery, theft, extortion, religious and gender apartheid, wife-beating, polygyny, deceit, and blasphemy as "true religion."

Don't you see? How can someone promoting the violation of all Ten Commandments and the Golden Rule be from heaven and not from hell itself? What is it about Muhammad that screams out to you "prophet of god," the beheadings or the pedophilia?

I hope this answers your questions and that you will consider them with an open heart and mind. Once again thanks for your interest and the queries

Thank you for highlighting the fact that while open hearts and minds are good, credulity is not, especially when the salesman [making the pitch] is selling the destruction of all you hold dear in the name of his "religion."

Neither the Son of God nor the Apostle Paul were sufficiently credible. Will Augustine be?

Another post on whether or not Christ founded His Church on Peter himself or on Peter's Divinely-inspired, God-the-Father-given profession of who Jesus is ("You are the Christ, the Son of the living God").  I am gratified to find that Augustine agrees with me.

Found this below. Perhaps Kevin can consult his Aramaic originals* to verify Augustine's words as quoted.

(Note that Augustine came to the same conclusion as your obedient servant . . . Perhaps you can call him names too, Kevin.):

AUGUSTINE

Augustine is considered by many the most important theologian in the history of the Church for the first twelve hundred years. No other Church father has had such far reaching influence upon the theology of the Church. His authority throughout the patristic and middle ages is unsurpassed. He was the bishop of Hippo in North Africa from the end of the fourth century and on into the first quarter of the fifth, until his death in 430. William Jurgens makes these comments about his importance:

If we were faced with the unlikely proposition of having to destroy completely either the works of Augustine or the works of all the other Fathers and Writers, I have little doubt that all the others would have to be sacrificed. Augustine must remain. Of all the Fathers it is Augustine who is the most erudite, who has the most remarkable theological insights, and who is effectively most prolific (William Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers (Collegeville: Liturgical, 1979), Vol. 3, p. 1).

He was a prolific writer and he has made numerous comments which relate directly to the issue of the interpretation of the rock of Matthew 16:18. In fact, Augustine made more comments upon this passage than any other Church father. At the end of his life, Augustine wrote his Retractations where he corrects statements in his earlier writings which he says were erroneous. One of these had to do with the interpretation of the rock in Matthew 16. At the beginning of his ministry Augustine had written that the rock was Peter. However, very early on he later changed his position and throughout the remainder of his ministry he adopted the view that the rock was not Peter but Christ or Peter's confession which pointed to the person of Christ. The following are statements from his Retractations which refer to his interpretation of the rock of Matthew 16:

In a passage in this book, I said about the Apostle Peter: `On him as on a rock the Church was built'...But I know that very frequently at a later time, I so explained what the Lord said: `Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church,' that it be understood as built upon Him whom Peter confessed saying: `Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,' and so Peter, called after this rock, represented the person of the Church which is built upon this rock, and has received `the keys of the kingdom of heaven.' For, `Thou art Peter' and not `Thou art the rock' was said to him. But `the rock was Christ,' in confessing whom, as also the whole Church confesses, Simon was called Peter. But let the reader decide which of these two opinions is the more probable (The Fathers of the Church (Washington D.C., Catholic University, 1968), Saint Augustine, The Retractations Chapter 20.1).

Clearly Augustine is repudiating a previously held position, adopting the view that the rock was Christ and not Peter. This became his consistent position. He does leave the interpretation open for individual readers to decide which was the more probable interpretation but it is clear what he has concluded the interpretation should be and that he believes the view that the rock is Christ is the correct one. The fact that he would even suggest that individual readers could take a different position is evidence of the fact that after four hundred years of church history there was no official authoritative Church interpretation of this passage as Vatican One has stated. Can the reader imagine a bishop of the Roman Catholic Church today suggesting that it would be appropriate for individuals to use private interpretation and come to their own conclusion as to the proper meaning of the rock of Matthew 16? But that is precisely what Augustine does, although he leaves us in no doubt as to what he, as a leading bishop and theologian of the Church, personally believes. And his view was not a novel interpretation, come to at the end of his life, but his consistent teaching throughout his ministry. Nor was it an interpretation that ran counter to the prevailing opinion of his day. The following quotation is representative of the overall view espoused by this great teacher and theologian:

And I tell you...`You are Peter, Rocky, and on this rock I shall build my Church, and the gates of the underworld will not conquer her. To you shall I give the keys of the kingdom. Whatever you bind on earth shall also be bound in heaven; whatever you loose on earth shall also be loosed in heaven' (Mt 16:15-19). In Peter, Rocky, we see our attention drawn to the rock. Now the apostle Paul says about the former people, `They drank from the spiritual rock that was following them; but the rock was Christ' (1 Cor 10:4). So this disciple is called Rocky from the rock, like Christian from Christ...Why have I wanted to make this little introduction? In order to suggest to you that in Peter the Church is to be recognized. Christ, you see, built his Church not on a man but on Peter's confession. What is Peter's confession? `You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.' There's the rock for you, there's the foundation, there's where the Church has been built, which the gates of the underworld cannot conquer (John Rotelle, Ed., The Works of Saint Augustine (New Rochelle: New City Press, 1993), Sermons, Vol. 6, Sermon 229P.1, p. 327).

*Kevin Bold claims to know exactly what was said in a conversation the only account of which we have was written in Greek. Even if the same word were used in Aramaic, it still doesn't change the fact that Christ did not say, "You are Peter (petros) and on you Peter (petros) I will build my Church." Rather, Jesus declared, "You are Peter (petros), and this rock (petra) I will build my Church," in response to Peter's confession of Jesus as "the Christ, the Son of the living God."

It's what isn't said but everyone knows that says it all . . .

A headline from Yahoo! News and AP:

Pakistani anti-terror court convicts 5 Americans

Were they Tea Party members?  Returning military?  Conservative Christians?  Octogenarians?

Not only do you know from only the headline that the convicted were Muslim, you know right away that the editors wanted to hide the reason for their terrorism.  It wasn't "Americanism" that made them do it.

The first sentence reveals what the title's trying to hide. That the word "Muslim" wasn't hidden until the last paragraph (or at all) is progress, I suppose.

Five young American Muslims were convicted of plotting terrorist attacks and sentenced to 10 years in jail Thursday in a case that highlights concerns about Westerners traveling to Pakistan to link up with al-Qaida and other extremist groups.

"Westernism" doesn't cause jihad.  Neither are their efforts to "cause terror in the hearts" of non-Muslims "extremism." It's just plain, simple, traditional, historical, Qur'anic, What-Would-Muhammad-Do Islam.

It wasn't the climate that was warming . . .

No wonder.

"Hey, there, groovy chick(s). Is the globe getting hotter, or is it just you?"

The former vice-moralist of the United States is in trouble.  Notice that the liberal media sat on the story for years.  I doubt the same courtesy would have been shown to a Republican.  Let's see how long it takes for the politics-of-personal-destruction to claim another victim in defense of the predator.

The Gores must have known it was coming, which explains Tipper's quick exit.

A Portland massage therapist gave local police a detailed statement last year alleging that former Vice President Al Gore groped her, kissed her and made unwanted sexual advances during a late-night massage session in October 2006 in a suite at the upscale Hotel Lucia.

So that's why he's taken so long to do . . . nothing

"You never want a serious crisis to go to waste." -Rahm Emanuel

How arrogant must a person be to think that they can legislate a planet's climate?  What will they do after they've taxed us to death and still the wind and the waves won't obey?

Note, dear readers, that the issue here is not saving the planet, it's making another excuse, another justification for a tighter stranglehold by government on the necks of We the People.

And notice the writer's sycophantic "spur the US Senate into action."  Almost as repulsive as the tyrant for whom she shills

Barack Obama will on Wednesday make a renewed push to spur the US Senate into action on climate change,

More like a "renewed push to spur the US" into slavery.

saying the BP oil spill underlines the urgency for the country to lessen its dependence on fossil fuels.

The US president will host senators from both parties at the White House – including those who have proposed variations on a climate change bill – but analysts are sceptical about whether he can overcome the political impasse on a proposal that is seen as essentially a tax.

“The oil spill has dramatically increased the urgency for the need to act,” said Daniel Weiss of the Center for American Progress Action Fund. “But I’m not looking for any breakthrough at the meeting. I think President Obama wants to listen to various concerns and follow up on various ideas.”

Since he was a presidential candidate, Mr Obama has been promoting legislation that would put a cap on carbon emissions from polluters but allow them to buy permits to emit more.

How best to pay tribute to the three thousand slaughtered by Islam on 9/11? Let's build a mega mosque on their grave!

But New York's Mayor Bloomberg says, "If they can't build a mosque, you can't build a temple."  Great.  When Orthodox Jews start flying planes into buildings to shouts of "YHWH is greatest!" Then we can engage in moral equivalency.

Until then, state the facts plainly.  On September 11, 2001, three thousand innocents were slaughtered in accord with Muhammad's example and in obedience to Allah's commands to war against the non-Muslim world "until all religion is for Allah" (Qur'an 8). The Religion of Wanton Bloodlust should not be rewarded with a monument to its "sacralized" carnage anywhere on Earth, let alone the site of one of its most successful "outreach efforts" toward non-Muslims in our history.

The remains of another seventy-two of Muhammad's victims have been discovered:

New York City officials say a renewed search this year of debris in and around the World Trade Center site has recovered 72 human remains.

The sifting of more than 800 cubic yards (612 cubic meters) of debris recovered from ground zero and underneath roads around the lower Manhattan site began in April and ended Friday.

The greatest number of remains – 37 – were found from material underneath West Street, a highway on the west side of ground zero. The new debris was uncovered as construction work made new parts of the site accessible.

The city began a renewed search for human remains in 2006. More than 1,800 remains have been found.

Some have been matched to previously unidentified 9/11 victims.

Even Obama's business "allies" can see the writing on the wall

It reads, "You're bankrupting the Republic."

The chairman of the Business Roundtable, an association of top corporate executives that has been President Obama's closest ally in the business community, accused the president and Democratic lawmakers Tuesday of creating an "increasingly hostile environment for investment and job creation."

Ivan G. Seidenberg, chief executive of Verizon Communications, said that Democrats in Washington are pursuing tax increases, policy changes and regulatory actions that together threaten to dampen economic growth and "harm our ability . . . to grow private-sector jobs in the U.S."

"In our judgment, we have reached a point where the negative effects of these policies are simply too significant to ignore," Seidenberg said in a lunchtime speech to the Economic Club of Washington. "By reaching into virtually every sector of economic life, government is injecting uncertainty into the marketplace and making it harder to raise capital and create new businesses."

Three strikes against the American military

We have more about which to be concerned than an interview given to a publication of questionable judgment.

Why should our military have confidence in their "leaders"?

Our best and bravest should not have to operate against jihadist barbarians under suicidally-restrictive Rules of Engagement. Those animals know that they can attack us from behind their women and children or from inside a mosque and we won't fire back. Did Imperial Japan or Nazi Germany receive such "consideration"? If they had, we'd be speaking Japanese or German today.

As far as strategy, how in the world can you expect to win the hearts and minds of those who believe that their god commands them to "fight until all religion is for Allah" (Qur'an 8:38-39)? Who believe that if they kill or are killed "fighting in Allah's' cause," they get to go to Paradise with dozens of "perpetual virgins" (and "boys like pearls") waiting for them to do them as they wish (Qur'an 9:111)?

Finally, having as Commander-in-Chief an (allegedly) former Muslim who lies to the world about what Islam is -- an Islam he studied as a child and, as the "smartest president ever," must have learned well -- must inspire in anyone who's paying attention something diametric to "confidence."

One world leader lectures another on the importance of reducing government debt

Unfortunately, it's Angela Merkel, Chancellor of Germany, explaining how economic liberty works to B. Hussein Obama, "leader" of what used to be the most powerful economic engine in history.  It's stunning how decades of contra-constitutional government spending, borrowing, taxation, and regulation can destroy a free people.

Here's an excerpt:

Chancellor Angela Merkel championed German export strength as “the right thing” for her country, spurning President Barack Obama’s call to boost private spending as both leaders prepare for Group of 20 talks.

Merkel, addressing a business audience in Berlin today, said she told Obama in a phone call that cutting government debt is “absolutely important for us,” exposing a second point of contention ahead of the June 26-27 G-20 summit in Canada.

Reducing the budget deficit by 10 billion euros ($12 billion) per year “won’t put a brake on the world’s economic growth,” Merkel said, relating what she told Obama yesterday. Germans are more likely to spend money if they feel the government “is taking precautions” to ensure solid finances, she said.

What's in a word? Nothing less than the foundation of the Church

Some who seek to assert the authority of the Roman Catholic Church over the rest of Christendom appeal to Matthew 16:18-19, claiming that here Christ founds His Church on Peter, making any church that does not follow in succession from him illegitimate.

Here's the passage:

And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

Some will argue that Peter means "rock," so they conclude (self-servingly) that Jesus will build His Church on Peter.  The only problem is, Peter is "petros" in the Greek, and "rock" is "petra."  So a better reading of that verse would be:

And I tell you, you are petros, and on this petra I will build my church . . . .

So, the Greek in Matthew makes a distinction between Peter and "this rock."  To what was Christ referring then?  Jesus was founding His Church on the Divinely-inspired confession Peter just made as to who the Christ is:

Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, "Who do people say that the Son of Man is?"

And they said, "Some say John the Baptist, others say Elijah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets."

He said to them, "But who do you say that I am?"

Simon Peter replied, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."

And Jesus answered him, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven (Matthew 16:13-17).

The "rock" on which the Church is founded is Christ.  Who is Christ?  Jesus, "the Son of the living God."  Peter's confession is the foundation of the Church (a fact that would later be misused by the religious authorities to murder Jesus for "blasphemy").

Below is my reply to Kevin Bold, someone who took issue with my pointing out what the Biblical text actually says.

The oldest extant manuscript copies of Matthew's Gospel are in Greek. I've got the Robinson/Pierpont Byzantine Greek New Testament w/Strong's Numbers here; the words in Matthew 16:18 are "petros" (πετρος G4074) and "petra" (πετρα G4073). Jesus doesn't say "on you I will build my Church," but "on this petra . . . ."

"keys" (κλεις G2807) is in verse 19 of Chapter 16, as I indicated.

The church in Jerusalem "moved its headquarters" to Rome? The Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Jerusalem traces its line of succession to the Jewish Christian bishops of Jerusalem, of whom James was the first (martyred 62 AD). The Catholic Encyclopedia states that:

During the first Christian centuries the church at this place was the centre of Christianity in Jerusalem, "Holy and glorious Sion, mother of all churches" (Intercession in "St. James' Liturgy", ed. Brightman, p. 54). Certainly no spot in Christendom can be more venerable than the place of the Last Supper, which became the first Christian church.

"Catholic" means "universal;" it was a term used for the entire Christian Church; the three ecumenical creeds professed throughout Christendom use "catholic," but they aren't calling themselves "Roman Catholic" (imagine a Lutheran calling himself "Roman Catholic"!).

"Roman Catholic" didn't arise until the split between East and West in 1054, when the Patriarch of Jerusalem (and the other Eastern Patriarchs) formed the Eastern Orthodox Church, and the Patriarch of Rome formed the Roman Catholic Church (called "Catholic" by Aquinas in the thirteenth century).

The Verse of the Sword "abrogated every agreement of peace between the Prophet and any idolator, every treaty, and every term," leaving non-Muslims "no choice, but to die or embrace Islam"

Muhammad declared, attributing to Allah: "kill the pagans wherever you find them" (Qur'an 9:5). That's been known traditionally as "the Verse of the Sword."

Regarding Ibn Kathir and his tafsir (Qur'anic exegesis):

Ibn Kathir "wrote a famous commentary on the Qur'an named Tafsir al-Qur'an al-'Adhim which linked certain Hadith, or sayings of Muhammad, and sayings of the sahaba to verses of the Qur'an, in explanation. Tafsir Ibn Kathir is famous all over the Muslim world and among Muslims in the Western world, is one of the most widely used explanations of the Qur'an today . . . Ibn Kathir was renowned for his great memory regarding the sayings of Muhammad and the entire Qur'an. Ibn Kathir is known as a qadi, a master scholar of history, and a mufassir (Qur'an commentator)."

Here's how Ibn Kathir explains the Verse of the Sword (Muhammad's words in parentheses and italicized):

Mujahid, `Amr bin Shu`ayb, Muhammad bin Ishaq, Qatadah, As-Suddi and `Abdur-Rahman bin Zayd bin Aslam said that the four months mentioned in this Ayah are the four-month grace period mentioned in the earlier Ayah,

(So travel freely for four months throughout the land.)

Allah said next,

(So when the Sacred Months have passed...),

meaning, `Upon the end of the four months during which We prohibited you from fighting the idolators, and which is the grace period We gave them, then fight and kill the idolators wherever you may find them.' Allah's statement next,

(then fight the Mushrikin wherever you find them)

means, on the earth in general, except for the Sacred Area, for Allah said, (And fight not with them at Al-Masjid Al-Haram, unless they fight you there. But if they attack you, then fight them. 2:191) Allah said here,

(and capture them)

executing some and keeping some as prisoners,

(and besiege them, and lie in wait for them in each and every ambush)

do not wait until you find them. Rather, seek and besiege them in their areas and forts, gather intelligence about them in the various roads and fairways so that what is made wide looks ever smaller to them. This way, they will have no choice, but to die or embrace Islam,

(But if they repent and perform the Salah, and give the Zakah, then leave their way free. Verily, Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.)

Abu Bakr As-Siddiq used this and other honorable Ayat as proof for fighting those who refrained from paying the Zakah. These Ayat allowed fighting people unless, and until, they embrace Islam and implement its rulings and obligations. Allah mentioned the most important aspects of Islam here, including what is less important. Surely, the highest elements of Islam after the Two Testimonials, are the prayer, which is the right of Allah, the Exalted and Ever High, then the Zakah, which benefits the poor and needy. These are the most honorable acts that creatures perform, and this is why Allah often mentions the prayer and Zakah together. In the Two Sahihs, it is recorded that Ibn `Umar said that the Messenger of Allah said,

(I have been commanded to fight the people until they testify that there is no deity worthy of worship except Allah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, establish the prayer and pay the Zakah.)

This honorable Ayah (9:5) was called the Ayah of the Sword, about which Ad-Dahhak bin Muzahim said, "It abrogated every agreement of peace between the Prophet and any idolator, every treaty, and every term.'' Al-`Awfi said that Ibn `Abbas commented: "No idolator had any more treaty or promise of safety ever since Surah Bara'ah was revealed. The four months, in addition to, all peace treaties conducted before Bara'ah was revealed and announced had ended by the tenth of the month of Rabi` Al-Akhir.''

(And if anyone of the Mushrikin seeks your protection then grant him protection so that he may hear the Word of Allah (the Qur'an) and then escort him to where he can be secure, that is because they are men who know not.)

So, the Verse of the Sword "abrogated every agreement of peace between the Prophet and any idolator, every treaty, and every term," leaving non-Muslims "no choice, but to die or embrace Islam."

We have a choice.

Muslims cry about "shutting down dissent" only when it's they who are silenced

Since when is Jew-hatred "dissent"?

How hypocritical (but typical) of Muslims to cry about "shutting down dissent" when it's their hate speech being silenced. Here's what Muhammad did to one poetess who "dissented":

"Then (occurred) the sariyyah of Umayr ibn adi Ibn Kharashah al-Khatmi against Asma Bint Marwan [. . .] She used to revile Islam, offend the prophet and instigate the (people) against him. She composed verses. Umayr Ibn Adi came to her in the night and entered her house. Her children were sleeping around her. There was one whom she was suckling. He searched her with his hand because he was blind, and separated the child from her. He thrust his sword in her chest till it pierced up to her back. Then he offered the morning prayers with the prophet at al-Medina. The apostle of Allah said to him: "Have you slain the daughter of Marwan?" He said: "Yes. Is there something more for me to do?" He [Muhammad] said: "No . . . " (Ibn Sa'd's Kitab al-Tabaqat al-Kabir).

It's about time UC Irvine does something about the jihad on its campus.

Darwin's creation myth must be true, since scientists have observed bacteria involve into . . . bacteria!

An article on the significance of Lenski's E. Coli (subheadings and footnotes in the original).  After two decades and tens of thousands of generations, Darwinists still cannot show what they claim has been occurring for billions of years.  And that proves they're right!:

A New Scientist article proclaims:

'Lenski’s experiment is also yet another poke in the eye for anti-evolutionists, notes Jerry Coyne, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Chicago. "The thing I like most is it says you can get these complex traits evolving by a combination of unlikely events," he says. "That’s just what creationists say can’t happen."'

[. . .]

In 1988, Richard Lenski, Michigan State University, East Lansing, founded 12 cultures of E. coli and grew them in a laboratory, generation after generation, for twenty years (he deserves some marks for persistence!). The culture medium had a little glucose but lots more citrate, so once the microbes consumed the glucose, they would continue to grow only if they could evolve some way of using citrate. Lenski expected to see evolution in action. This was an appropriate expectation for one who believes in evolution, because bacteria reproduce quickly and can have huge populations, as in this case. They can also sustain higher mutation rates than organisms with much larger genomes, like vertebrates such as us. All of this adds up, according to neo-Darwinism, to the almost certainty of seeing lots of evolution happen in real time (instead of imagining it all happening in the unobservable past). With the short generation times, in 20 years this has amounted to some 44,000 generations, equivalent to some million years of generations of a human population (but the evolutionary opportunities for humans would be far, far less, due to the small population numbers limiting the number of mutational possibilities; and the much larger genome, which cannot sustain a similar mutation rate without error catastrophe; i.e. extinction; and sexual reproduction means that there is 50% chance of failing to pass on a beneficial mutation ).

As noted elsewhere (see ‘Giving up on reality’), Lenski seemed to have given up on ‘evolution in the lab’ and resorted to computer modelling of ‘evolution’ with a program called Avida (see evaluation by Dr Royal Truman, Part 1 and Part 2, which are technical papers). Indeed, Lenski had good reason to abandon hope. He had calculated that all possible simple mutations must have occurred several times over but without any addition of even a simple adaptive trait.


In a paper published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, Lenski and co-workers describe how one of 12 culture lines of their bacteria has developed the capacity for metabolizing citrate as an energy source under aerobic conditions.

This happened by the 31,500th generation. Using frozen samples of bacteria from previous generations they showed that something happened at about the 20,000th generation that paved the way for only this culture line to be able to change to citrate metabolism. They surmised, quite reasonably, that this could have been a mutation that paved the way for a further mutation that enabled citrate utilization.

This is close to what Michael Behe calls ‘The Edge of Evolution’—the limit of what ‘evolution’ (non-intelligent natural processes) can do. For example, an adaptive change needing one mutation might occur every so often just by chance. This is why the malaria parasite can adapt to most antimalarial drugs; but chloroquine resistance took much longer to develop because two specific mutations needed to occur together in the one gene. Even this tiny change is beyond the reach of organisms like humans with much longer generation times. With bacteria, there might be a chance for even three coordinated mutations, but it’s doubtful that Lenski’s E. coli have achieved any more than two mutations, so have not even reached Behe’s edge, let alone progressed on the path to elephants or crocodiles.

Now the popularist treatments of this research (e.g. in New Scientist) give the impression that the E. coli developed the ability to metabolize citrate, whereas it supposedly could not do so before. However, this is clearly not the case, because the citric acid, tricarboxcylic acid (TCA), or Krebs, cycle (all names for the same thing) generates and utilizes citrate in its normal oxidative metabolism of glucose and other carbohydrates.

Furthermore, E. coli is normally capable of utilizing citrate as an energy source under anaerobic conditions, with a whole suite of genes involved in its fermentation. This includes a citrate transporter gene that codes for a transporter protein embedded in the cell wall that takes citrate into the cell. This suite of genes (operon) is normally only activated under anaerobic conditions.

So what happened? It is not yet clear from the published information, but a likely scenario is that mutations jammed the regulation of this operon so that the bacteria produce citrate transporter regardless of the oxidative state of the bacterium’s environment (that is, it is permanently switched on). This can be likened to having a light that switches on when the sun goes down—a sensor detects the lack of light and turns the light on. A fault in the sensor could result in the light being on all the time. That is the sort of change we are talking about.

Another possibility is that an existing transporter gene, such as the one that normally takes up tartrate, which does not normally transport citrate, mutated such that it lost specificity and could then transport citrate into the cell. Such a loss of specificity is also an expected outcome of random mutations. A loss of specificity equals a loss of information, but evolution is supposed to account for the creation of new information; information that specifies the enzymes and cofactors in new biochemical pathways, how to make feathers and bone, nerves, or the components and assembly of complex motors such as ATP synthase, for example.

However, mutations are good at destroying things, not creating them. Sometimes destroying things can be helpful (adaptive), but that does not account for the creation of the staggering amount of information in the DNA of all living things. Behe (in The Edge of Evolution) likened the role of mutations in antibiotic resistance and pathogen resistance, for example, to trench warfare, whereby mutations destroy some of the functionality of the target or host to overcome susceptibility. It’s like putting chewing gum in a mechanical watch; it’s not the way the watch could have been created.

Unintentional Islamic truthfulness

Fighting, slaying, seizing, beleaguering, and lying in wait are, literally, what Muslims mean by "Muslim-Jewish Engagement."

Here's to a brief moment of honesty. Salud!

The bedfellows aren't strange when the bed is Islam

Bloodthirsty, rapacious, and rapist, yes, but unexpected?  At least Sunnis and Shiites can agree on something.

One Muslim leader of a formerly decent-because-it-was-Muslim-in-Name-Only state flaunts his close ties to a genocidal, nuclear, Muslim despot with American blood on his hands who happens to be harboring a wealthy, college-educated, revered-by-Muslims-around-the-world mass murderer responsible for slaughtering thousands of Americans with their own planes, all in order to taunt our allegedly-former-Muslim-in-Chief.

But he wants to investigate the Jews!

. . . senior Obama administration officials have been telling foreign governments that the administration intends to support an effort next week at the United Nations to set up an independent commission, under UN auspices, to investigate Israel's behavior in the Gaza flotilla incident. The White House has apparently shrugged off concerns from elsewhere in the U.S. government that a) this is an extraordinary singling out of Israel, since all kinds of much worse incidents happen around the world without spurring UN investigations; b) that the investigation will be one-sided, focusing entirely on Israeli behavior and not on Turkey or on Hamas; and c) that this sets a terrible precedent for outside investigations of incidents involving U.S. troops or intelligence operatives as we conduct our own war on terror.

While UN Ambassador Susan Rice is reported to have played an important role in pushing for U.S. support of a UN investigation, the decision is, one official stressed, of course the president's. The government of Israel has been consulting with the U.S. government on its own Israeli investigative panel, to be led by a retired supreme court justice, that would include respected international participants, including one from the U.S. But the Obama administration is reportedly saying that such a “kosher panel” is not good enough to satisfy the international community, or the Obama White House.

Osama hides in Iran while Obama hides from basic human decency. From here:

Osama bin Laden's hiding place was pinned down for the first time Monday, June 7, by the Kuwaiti Al-Siyassa Monday, June 7, as the mountainous town of Savzevar in the northeastern Iranian province of Khorasan, 220 km west of Mashhad. He is said to have lived there under Tehran's protection for the last five years, along with Ayman Al-Zawahiri and five other high-ranking al Qaeda leaders.

. . . Turkish prime minister Recep Erdogan and his intelligence chiefs are well aware that Bin Laden and Zawahiri are hiding in Iran. The leak to the Kuwait paper was intended to show the Obama administration that the Turkish leader's ties with Iran had grown intense enough for him to be fully in the picture of Iran's secret sanctuary for the authors of the 9/11 attacks on the United States.

Who sounds more like a prophet of God?

Compare the following terms of peace:

General MacArthur, on the occasion of the unconditional surrender of Imperial Japan:

"It is my earnest hope and indeed the hope of all mankind that from this solemn occasion a better world shall emerge out of the blood and carnage of the past-a world founded upon faith and understanding-a world dedicated to the dignity of man and the fulfillment of his most cherished wish-for freedom, tolerance, and justice."

Muhammad:

"the Messenger of Allah . . . would say: 'Fight in the name of Allah and in the way of Allah. Fight against those who disbelieve in Allah. Make a holy war. . . . When you meet your enemies who are polytheists, invite them to three courses of action. . . . Invite them to (accept) Islam; if they respond to you, accept it from them and desist from fighting against them. . . . If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya. If they agree to pay, accept it from them and hold off your hands. If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah's help and fight them . . .'" (Muslim Book 19, Number 4294).

"fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practise regular charity, then open the way for them . . . " (Qur'an 9:5).

"Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued" (Qur'an 9:29).

"Allah's Apostle said: 'I have been ordered (by Allah) to fight against the people until they testify that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that Muhammad is Allah's Apostle . . . '" (Bukhari Volume 1, Book 2, Number 24).

The goal for MacArthur was "a world dedicated to the dignity of man . . . freedom, tolerance, and justice."  The goal for Muhammad?  That non-Muslims "(accept) Islam," pay "jizya," "repent, and establish regular prayers and practise regular charity" [i.e., convert to Islam], "pay the Jizya with willing submission," "feel themselves subdued," and "testify that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that Muhammad is Allah's Apostle."

So, one man warred to advance human dignity, freedom, justice, and tolerance; the other to advance his own power through the subjugation or slaughter of all who rejected his heresies.

Which was more a prophet of God?

Character greater than championships

Bill Walton remembers John R. Wooden:

UCLA can easily claim an endless list of alumni who have helped make the world a better place. But of all the special spirits who have given so much, it is John Wooden, who has truly had the greatest impact on the largest number of people.

It was Coach Wooden’s heart, brain and soul that put him in a position to inspire others to reach levels of success and peace of mind that none of us could ever dream of reaching by ourselves.

All of the UCLA basketball players that John Wooden taught knew that when he retired from coaching in 1975, it did not signify an end to his life-long commitment to teaching, merely a new beginning. He was just getting started.

Coach Wooden taught by example. He never asked or expected anyone to do anything that he hadn’t already done himself. He gave us the ability to learn how to learn, and to compete. His keen knowledge and foresight to always be about what’s next, always about the future, enabled him to lead an incredibly active, constructive, positive and contributing life.

Coach Wooden never talked about winning and losing, but rather about the effort to win. He rarely talked about basketball, but generally about life. He never talked about strategy, statistics or plays, but rather about people and character. Coach Wooden never tired of telling us that once you become a good person, then you have a chance of becoming a good basketball player.

It has been 36 years since I graduated from UCLA. I have spent those years trying to duplicate that incredible period in my life. Our family home, where it all began so many years ago in San Diego, to this day is still a shrine to John Wooden, with UCLA memorabilia, the "Pyramid of Success" and pictures of The Coach everywhere.

Over the years I’ve regularly taken our children to Coach’s Mansion on Margate in Encino, to get for them the timeless lessons of life, including how to put your shoes and socks on, just like he taught us 40 years ago.

John Wooden represents the conquest of substance over hype, the triumph of achievement over erratic flailing, the conquest of discipline over gambling, and the triumph of executing an organized plan over hoping that you’ll be lucky, hot or in the zone.

John Wooden also represents the conquest of sacrifice, hard work and commitment to achievement over the pipe dream that someone will just give you something, or that you can take a pill or turn a key to get what you want.

The joy and happiness in Coach Wooden’s life came from the success and accomplishments of others. He never let us forget what he learned from his two favorite teachers, Abraham Lincoln and Mother Theresa, "that a life not lived for others is not a life."

I thank John Wooden every day for all his selfless gifts, his lessons, his time, his vision and especially his faith and patience. This is why our eternal love for him will never fade away. This is why we call him ‘Coach.’"

Should we believe the media or our lyin' eyes?

You won't get any facts from the Islamophobic mainstream media or politicians. Here's what's really going on with flotilla jihad:

Another unintentional practitioner of Islamic irony

It'd be funny if it weren't so tragic.  T. Behrend slithers:

"someone filled with hatred finds it wherever they seek it, and projects it whenever they speak. There are few posters here more bilious or intense in expressing hatred for the Muslims of the world than you. It's a frightful thing to observe you on this unreflective crusade"

Rather than address the genocidal pedophile's crimes against humanity and their glorification in your texts, you attack . . . me. Dishonest, but typical.

Muhammad commanded the slaughter of all who refuse the "invitation" to Islam, but I'm "filled with hate"? Muhammad had those butchered those who wrote something he didn't like, but I'm "bilious"? I quote your own religious texts, which Muslims around the world have been fulfilling to the tune of more than 15,000 documented attacks since 9/11 alone, but I'm "expressing hatred for Muslims"? I condemn genocide, pedophilia, rape, and slavery in Allah's name and in accord with Muhammad's example, but I'm on a "crusade"?

(Actually, since the word "crusade" comes from cross, and since the first Crusade was called in defense of Christians victimized for centuries by Islam, I'll accept that as a compliment. And wait 'til the West wakes up. You'll wish for Medieval European Christians then.)

As for "unreflective"? That's the pot calling the ivory "black."

A. Hussien first denies Muhammad began raping little, prepubescent Aisha when she was nine, then he says child rape was "common in that time and was not non-familiar"

You can't have it both ways.  Either the Islamic texts mean what they say -- and Muslims have understood them to say for nearly one and one-half millennia -- or they do not.  If they do, then Allah is the devil and Muhammad is its apostle.

A. Hussien begins with:

"I've never called you a liar"

Suggesting that I've never read Qur'an but instead just copy-and-paste from "anti-Islam" sites is impugning my character and attributing to me dishonesty.

"I've adequate knowledge of my religion's instructions which allows me to assist you to understand what you may not understood correctly."

Great. Then you should acknowledge that what I've written of Muhammad and cited from your own "sacred" texts is accurate.

"I'm glad that you're using USC's MSA Compendium of Muslim Texts (Noble Qur'an) as it's the same one I use when I post translated verses"

USC's MSA's translations are by Pickthal, Shakir, and Yusuf-Ali. The "Noble" Qur'an I referenced is the translation by Muhammad Taqi-ud-Din Al-Hilali and Muhammad Muhsin Khan.

"my heart reassures when I read it and it doesn't derive from it but peace, knowledge, good and beauty"

How can you derive from "sacralized" slaughter, rape, and slavery anything but horror, revulsion, and rage?

"and how it has a negative impact on you"

You call commands to behead us and rape and enslave our wives and children "negative."

"Islam is not for everybody"

Not decent people, at least. Or non-Muslims or Muslim apostates, women, and little girls.

"and people do not think in the same way."

That's an basic difference between you and me: You think that people can disagree on whether or not to brutalize, violate, and vivisect "unbelievers." I don't.

"Who's the author of the copy you own of sirat rasul Allah?"

There's only one of author of that biography [Ishaq], of course. Being an expert on Islam, you should know that.

"I didn't lie, - now who's calling the other a liar?"

Anyone who claims to know Islam well enough to teach me but denies its barbarism and depravity is a liar.

"God revealed all these verses to Mohammed peace be upon him in times of war."

Are you so unfamiliar with the genocidal pedophile's history? You must know that Muhammad received his first "revelation" when he was out in solitude performing a pagan religious ritual. Terrified that he was possessed by a demon (he was right), it was Khadijah who assured him that Allah was going to protect him.

It is true that in the beginning Muhammad's message was not well-received, but neither name-calling nor rejection justify violence, and there was no "war" until Muhammad had an army and began waging it. Essentially, you're blaming non-Muslims for defending themselves against Muhammad.

"But do not forget that Islam prescribed a code of conduct in war which remains unsurpassed to this day."

Yes, today we slaughter any man who surrenders and rape and enslave his wife and children (our leaders getting first pick of whom to rape AND a fifth of the spoils -- greedy!). No, wait! That was Muhammad. Well, at least we wage offensive warfare on religious grounds. No, sorry again! That, too, was Muhammad. Okay, let me try one more time: We pin nursing mothers to the ground with large blades through their chests for mocking our prophets. Oh! That was Muhammad, too!

"Unsurpassed"? In hellishness? Yes.

"Part of his instructions to the Muslim army was: ". . . Do not kill an old man, a woman or a child. Do not injure date palms and do not cut down fruit trees . . . ."

An expert on Islam like yourself would know that Muhammad made exceptions to Allah's rules whenever it suited him, such as . . .

. . . killing women and children:

"The Prophet passed by me at a place called Al-Abwa or Waddan, and was asked whether it was permissible to attack the pagan warriors at night with the probability of exposing their women and children to danger. The Prophet replied, "They (i.e. women and children) are from them (i.e. pagans)." (Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 256).

. . . slaughtering the elderly:

"Then occurred the "sariyyah" [raid] of Salim Ibn Umayr al-Amri against Abu Afak, the Jew, in [the month of] Shawwal in the beginning of the twentieth month from the hijrah [immigration from Mecca to Medina in AD 622], of the Apostle of Allah. Abu Afak, was from Banu Amr Ibn Awf, and was an old man who had attained the age of one hundred and twenty years. He was a Jew, and used to instigate the people against the Apostle of Allah, and composed (satirical) verses [about Muhammad].

Salim Ibn Umayr who was one of the great weepers and who had participated in Badr, said, 'I take a vow that I shall either kill Abu Afak or die before him.' He waited for an opportunity until a hot night came, and Abu Afak slept in an open place. Salim Ibn Umayr knew it, so he placed the sword on his liver and pressed it till it reached his bed. The enemy of Allah screamed and the people who were his followers, rushed to him, took him to his house and interred him" (Ibn Sa'd, Kitab al Tabaqat al Kabir, Volume 2, (2), p.32).

. . . murdering women for mocking him:

"When the apostle heard what she had said he said, 'Who will rid me of Marwan's daughter?' Umayr bin Adiy al-Khatmi who was with him heard him, and that very night he went to her house and killed her.

In the morning he came to the apostle and told him what he had done and he [Muhammad] said, 'You have helped Allah and His apostle, O Umayr!' When he asked if he would have to bear any evil consequences the apostle said, 'Two goats won't butt their heads about her,' so Umayr went back to his people.

Now there was a great commotion among Banu Khatma that day about the affair of bint [daughter of] Marwan. She had five sons, and when Umayr went to them from the apostle he said, 'I have killed bint Marwan, o sons of Khatma. Withstand me if you can; don't keep me waiting.' That was the first day Islam became powerful among Banu Khatma; before that those who were Muslims concealed the fact . . .The day after Bint Marwan was killed the men of Banu Khatma became Muslims because they feared for their lives" (Ibn Ishaq, Sirat Rasul Allah).

"Then (occurred) the sariyyah of Umayr ibn adi Ibn Kharashah al-Khatmi against Asma Bint Marwan [. . .] She used to revile Islam, offend the prophet and instigate the (people) against him. She composed verses. Umayr Ibn Adi came to her in the night and entered her house. Her children were sleeping around her. There was one whom she was suckling. He searched her with his hand because he was blind, and separated the child from her. He thrust his sword in her chest till it pierced up to her back. Then he offered the morning prayers with the prophet at al-Medina.

The apostle of Allah said to him: "Have you slain the daughter of Marwan?" He said: "Yes. Is there something more for me to do?" He [Muhammad] said: "No . . . " (Ibn Sa'd's Kitab al-Tabaqat al-Kabir).

"A blind man had a slave-mother who used to abuse the Prophet [. . .] and disparage him. He forbade her but she did not stop. He rebuked her but she did not give up her habit. One night she began to slander the Prophet [. . .] and abuse him. So he took a dagger, placed it on her belly, pressed it, and killed her. A child who came between her legs was smeared with the blood that was there.

When the morning came, the Prophet [. . .] was informed about it. "He assembled the people and said: 'I adjure by Allah the man who has done this action and I adjure him by my right to him that he should stand up.'

Jumping over the necks of the people and trembling the man stood up. "He sat before the Prophet [. . .] and said: 'Apostle of Allah! I am her master; she used to abuse you and disparage you. I forbade her, but she did not stop, and I rebuked her, but she did not abandon her habit. I have two sons like pearls from her, and she was my companion. Last night she began to abuse and disparage you. So I took a dagger, put it on her belly and pressed it till I killed her.'

"Thereupon the Prophet [. . .] said: 'Oh be witness, no retaliation is payable for her blood'" (Abu-Dawud Book 38, Number 4348).

. . . destroying trees:

"It is narrated on the authority of 'Abdullah that the Messenger of Allah . . . ordered the date-palms of Banu Nadir to be burnt and cut. These palms were at Buwaira. Qutaibah and Ibn Rumh in their versions of the tradition have added: 'So Allah, the Glorious and Exalted, revealed the verse: "Whatever trees you have cut down or left standing on their trunks, it was with the permission of Allah so that He may disgrace the evil-doers"'" (Muslim Book 19, Number 4324).

A. Hussien continues with Muhammad allowing those he'd conquered to "Go your way, for you are free," Which, of course, does nothing to negate his beheading 600-900 who had surrendered to him [or the plethora of verses commanding blood].  Then . . .

"Those are the people who tortured him, insulted him, tried to assasinate him, chased him out of Mecca, and caused the killing of many of his followers, would you do the same thing if you were in his place?"

Would I slaughter, rape, and enslave over insults? No. And if my greed, bloodlust, and just-lust led me to war against my neighbors, I would NOT claim victim status and blame them for resisting. A problem with your relations at Mecca? Fine. Keep it all in the family. But expanding your "revelations" to include offensive warfare against all non-Muslims who refuse the "invitation" to convert or submit is evil.

"Yes I know the Doctrine of Abrogation, but would you please provide some of these passages?"

You're an expert. You know that 9:5 abrogates all the former, more peaceful verses that contradict it.

Here's Muhammad admitting that he changed his story to suit his immediate goals:

"The Prophet said, `If I take an oath and later find something else better than that, then I do what is better and expiate my oath'" (Bukhari Volume 7, Book 67, Number 427).

"Whatever communications We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, We bring one better than it or like it. Do you not know that Allah has power over all things" (Qur'an 2:106)?

Hussien continues:

"Once again, read the verses before and after the ninth verse and you'll find the answer."

Fifth verse. And no, I'm not taking the verse "out-of-context." (Remember, I asked you to save time by refraining from trying the Top Ten Ways to Trick Ignorant and Gullible Non-Muslims into Thinking that "'Islam" Means 'Peace.'")

"Honestly, I still haven't developed a complete opinion on that matter yet. As there're a lot of debates going on right now on the issue of Jihad and its provisions. So I really can't give an answer to that question."

That's more honest than most Muslim apologists will admit. I commend you.

"Nope, because none of that happened" [in response to my asking, "Is it Muhammad's genocide or his pedophilia that scream out "prophet of god!" to you?"].

Except when it did.

"who were those with the most enmity to the Prophet? The non-believers is not it?"

Because he was raping, enslaving, and decapitating them.

"why history never tells us that the non-believers denounced the Prophet's mirriage to Aisha?"

The Islamic texts brag about it, Muslims endorse it. Do you think the fact that Muslims kill non-Muslims for merely telling the truth about Muhammad might have something to do with an alleged lack of criticism?

"these marriages were common in that time and was not non-familiar."

Which is it, Hussien? First, you deny Muhammad raped little Aisha, then you're saying it was common. You can't have it both ways. Now you're justifying raping prepubescent nine-year-olds and claiming "the devil made me do it." What are you going to write next? Aisha liked it?

"These things come under the customs and traditions and not religion."

Being an expert on Islam, you must know that whatever Muhammad said and did -- or saw and allowed -- is "religion."

"Of course, our time is changed now, and this kind of marriages must not be allowed at all."

Thank you for stating that. Again, I commend you. What will you do to convince your coreligionists to remove that from shari'a?

"And what kind of genocide are you talking about?"

Killing non-Muslims on religious grounds. Since no society was Muslim before Islam warred against it, massive numbers of people of various ethnic backgrounds were murdered by Islam.

That's genocide.  Religiocide.