Why can't all deranged fatwas be limited to space travel?

If only Islam's perverse rulings were confined to other planets. This world would be a much better place.

But people like green_planet and Okay_a_Username won't allow it. Whether because of actual devotion to the genocidal pedophile Muhammad or just plain hatred of Christianity (everyone knows that Islam is its mortal enemy), the effect is the same: jihad advances and the only real defense against it is undermined.

As for the ruling itself? "religious leaders argue that making the trip would be tantamount to committing suicide, which all religions tend to frown upon."

Religions, yes. But Islam? It forbids suicide unless you're able to murder or maim non-Muslims in the process. Then you get paradise (Qur'an 9:111). (What a deal!)

Below are replies to the propaganda so popular with devout Muslims and their suicidally-nescient Useful Idiots, this time at Crave:

@green_planet

You're quite a liar, aren't you?

Yours is the standard Islamic apologist/Useful Idiot tu quoque: "Okay, Islam is bad, but Christianity is too."

First, thanks for admitting that Islam kills.

Second, yes, it is true that Christians commit evil often, but it is not true that the religions "teach the same crap." Neither is it true that Islam is only "accused" of the same teachings.

Christ committed no sin, spoke only the truth, healed the sick, raised the dead, died for the sins of the whole world, and resurrected, commanding His people to love even their enemies.

On the other hand, Muhammad preached and practiced genocide, anti-Semitism, pedophilia, rape, slavery, torture, mutilation, polygyny, wife-beating, theft, arson, deceit, sedition, treason, and blasphemy, warning his followers, "Allah made me do it, and you will too, or else!"

No, there is no comparison.

"Allah’s Apostle said, '[...] I have been made victorious with terror [...]'" (Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 220).

@Okay_a_Username
That is not only historically-illiterate, it is perverse.

Islam has been raping, enslaving, and slaughtering non-Muslims (and those they consider not-Muslim-enough) for nearly one and one-half millennia as knowledge, zeal, and resources allow, including 9/11 and twenty-two thousand jihad attacks since.

They do so because Muhammad preached and practiced it.

Hitler hated Christianity but admired Islam. He allied with Muslims to slaughter Jews, including the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, who exhorted Nazis in the concentration camps to do their "work" diligently.

As for Yugoslavia, even if atrocities were committed against Muslims, it was in defense against jihad and because of similar atrocities committed against them, a fact of which you are conveniently ignorant (or worse, you choose to omit).

There's only one group of people on Earth detonating their shoes, underwear, intestines, and breasts in efforts to murder and maim "unbelievers."

"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 [...] if they perform that, then they save their lives and property from me [...]'" (Bukhari Volume 1, Book 2, Number 24).

You have to "blame the religion."

And here are a few more comments on that article from other misunderstanderers of Islam and ... some pithy replies:

ascpgh Feb 22, 2014
How about strapping a belt bomb on and going to a local market to set it off? How about taking control of an airliner and deliberately crashing it into buildings?

Going to Mars is suicide and they are "against" that? If so centrally powerful and unified voice of Islam, why have they waited this long to address suicide as being on the bad list of weekend activities for Muslims?

dixiedog1944 Feb 22, 2014
@ascpgh Hey, you gotta' blow some people up to make suicide worth it. They would probably starve to death before a U.S. mission arrived and they could attack. Simple economics.

SantiagoMatamoros Feb 22, 2014
@dixiedog1944 @ascpgh

"Allah hath purchased of the believers their persons and their goods; for theirs (in return) is the garden (of Paradise): they fight in His cause, and slay and are slain: a promise binding on Him in truth, through the Law, the Gospel, and the Qur'an: and who is more faithful to his covenant than Allah?" (Qur'an 9:111).

Ed9065 Feb 22, 2014
@SantiagoMatamoros @dixiedog1944 @ascpgh Yeah, extremists tend to like twisting the Qur'an/bible/Torah/whatever to what they want you to do.

SantiagoMatamoros Mar 5, 2014
@Ed9065

How much does "kill the pagans wherever you find them" (Qur'an 9:5) have to be twisted in order to get the faithful to ... you know ... kill pagans wherever they find them?

keizer790 Feb 23, 2014
Extremist groups are not the normal, average folks of them! Generalizing is never a good idea

SantiagoMatamoros Mar 5, 2014
@keizer790

Who's "generalizing"?

Muhammad is the one who commanded his followers to "kill the pagans wherever you find them" (Qur'an 9:5).

Blame him.

Ninaj1990 Feb 23, 2014
@ascpgh An ingnorant comment.... the terrorists don't know a thing about the religion they claim to follow.... and before making comments like this educate yourself a little.

SantiagoMatamoros Mar 5, 2014
@Ninaj1990

The genocidal pedophile Muhammad boasted, "I have been made victorious with terror ..." (Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 220).

It sounds like the "terrorists" know a whole lot more about your religion than you do.

Or, perhaps, they're just more honest.

An alternative to the anti-American in the White House

He talks a good game.

Just when you thought "man-to-man" was a basketball reference

Speaking of March Madness, I went to a basketball game -- actually, it was a fan-site post on UCLA's recent victory in the NCAA Men's Basketball Tournament -- and a kerfuffle over orientation broke out.

I offered a sympathetic (and gentle) affirmation of Truth and for my efforts received the obligatory, unthinking, and knee-jerk accusation of bigotry.

What, exactly, puts a literally-deviant (and immoral) act beyond reproach? How does a lust constitute a moral good?

Here's my reply to someone who prefers demonizing over debate:

How is recognizing that I'm no better than anyone else a "mask"? And how does argumentum ad hominem prove the rectitude of your position?

As for "prejudice"? That's not only absurd, it's intellectual suicide:

-Every act is subject to moral judgment; in fact, you just made one. Doesn't that make you "prejudiced"?

-Why is it that you can make moral judgments and I can't? Doesn't that make you a hypocrite?

-Is there any act or "relationship" of which you would not approve? If so, then why would you deny anyone their happiness? Doesn't that make you a bigot?

-What makes your "truth" more valid than mine? If there exists no absolute, objective standard of right and wrong, then you are completely unable to condemn anyone else's perspective, because what's true for them is just as "true" as what's true for you.

But an absolute, objective morality exists. Christ endorsed one man and one woman for life.

Our sinfulness does not negate that.

Update: samollie followed up with:

I never judged you. I stated a fact, not anyone's version of truth. I respect the fact that you believe nobody believes to be mistreated, yet you are still judging another because of your faith. That is prejudice, automatically handing down judgment no matter what. We'll leave it at that and agree to disagree.

To which I replied:

You did judge me; "prejudice" is a moral evaluation.

(And since you don't know me, that would make you ... prejudiced.)

The word means "judging before knowing"; since I'm judging no one but merely affirming an objective moral truth regarding a behavior, your use of "prejudice" is inapt (at best; at worst it's a craven attempt to demonize me and quash criticism of something you consider sacrosanct).

Rather than engage in ad hominem attacks, why don't you prove the rectitude of your position?

A fictional president introducing a fictional explanation of origins

From here:

A fictional president introducing a fictional explanation of origins?

Brilliant.

The foundation of Science is observation and experimentation. No one has ever observed Life arise apart from Life and Life's programs. No one has ever witnessed program arise by accident from nothing. No one has ever shown that cells form magically from the muck by only random, natural processes. And no one can answer the question: When the first human being arose, with whom did he or she reproduce?

Darwinists take one fact -- that random, minor genetic mutations occur -- and from it leap nonsensically to the conclusion that from a first accidental cell all Life -- including us -- arose.

Besides the fact that genetic mutations are typically either neutral, harmful, or deadly to an organism, no one's ever seen a mutation result in newer, more complex program, structure, or function.

Neither do living things evolve into significantly-different forms; Life is stable, even over the Darwinists' "millions" of years. After almost 400 million years, the coelacanth is a coelacanth. After several million years, the ancient camel's DNA matches the modern camel's. Geckos and frogs on a hidden plateau in Australia undisturbed for millions of years are still only geckos and frogs. Darwin's finches were still ... finches. And after tens of thousands of generations, Lenski's E. coli evolved into ... E. coli with an eating disorder. (They're still bacteria.)

To believe Darwin's creation myth, not only must you believe that for which no evidence exists, but you have to deny what you know is empirically-true. You have to violate Science's fundamental tenets.

Darwin's creation myth is atheistic naturalism conducting its own Inquisition. It's Gaia in a lab coat.

It isn't Science; it's science fiction.