Ridding the Nobel Prizes of Anti-Muslim Bias


npWhat to do? Even as the distaste for Jews intensifies around the Western world and more and more members of the international community step up the pressure on Israel to stop being the cause of so much trouble in the otherwise idyllic Middle East, Israeli and Jewish scientists continue to clean up at the Nobel Prizes. It’s nothing less than fascinating, in fact, that notwithstanding the lack of affection for Jews and the Jewish state that is evidenced in the Scandinavian media, Jews (who, after all, represent less than 0.2% of the world population) have managed to accumulate a staggeringly disproportionate number of Nobel Prizes over the decades – making up about 21% of the laureates in chemistry, 26% in physics, 27% in physiology or medicine, and 37% in economics.

Meanwhile, Muslims – who, if you haven’t heard it lately, number somewhere around 1.5 billion, a good 25% of the planet’s population – have racked up only two Nobel Prizes in the sciences. One of these winners, Egyptian chemist Ahmed Zewail, got his Ph.D. in the U.S., where he’s also done most of his research. The other, the late physicist Abdus Salam, who studied in Britain and spent much of his career outside of his native Pakistan, wouldn’t even count as a Muslim in the eyes of most adherents of that religion, since he belonged to the relatively peaceable, tolerant, and civilized Ahmadiyya sect, whose members are (in Pakistan and many other Islamic countries) officially considered infidels and are the subjects of brutal persecution.

Last week, in an article for the Times of Israel, an Irish writer named Derek Hopper noted that when two Israelis, Arieh Warshel and Michael Levitt, were announced as the winners of this year’s chemistry prize, it was “the fourth time Israelis have won it since 2004.” (Warshel is also a U.S. citizen, while Levitt holds U.S., U.K., and Israeli passports; their co-winner, Martin Karplus, a citizen of both the U.S. and Austria, is Jewish too, having fled the Holocaust at age eight on the Ile de France.) Hopper took the occasion to offer some pointed comments on the increasingly widespread boycotting of Israeli products by Western consumers. The thrust of his remarks was straightforward: while it’s easy enough to forgo Israeli potatoes or olives, truly sincere and consistent haters of Israel should also elect not to avail themselves of the innumerable medical, scientific, and technological advances that have come out of the Jewish state in the last few years – more than a few of which have saved lives – and should declare in advance, moreover, their refusal to make use of any of the (very likely) even more remarkable discoveries and developments that Israeli scientists will be giving to the world in the years ahead. (Hopper might well have mentioned in this context Stephen Hawking, whose announcement last May of his support for an academic boycott of Israel was followed hard upon by the revelation that the very system he employs to communicate such pronouncements runs on an Israeli-designed computer chip.)

To Hopper’s spot-on call for ideological consistency on the part of Israel-haters I would add a single modest observation: namely, that it’s not entirely fair to measure Israeli or Jewish success against Muslim success on the basis of achievements in a handful of categories like chemistry and physics, which, from a certain perspective, may seem almost arbitrarily chosen to tilt the scales in favor of countries like Israel and against, say, Yemen. Such a narrow view of civilizational accomplishment is quite simply (as anyone with a Ph.D. in Middle Eastern or postcolonial studies could explain to you at length) culturally biased – founded on a callous indifference to the distinctive strengths and values of Islamic civilization and an unjust propensity to exalt all things Western. And that this prejudice is perpetrated in the name of Alfred Nobel, of all people, is particularly egregious, given that it was Nobel, after all, who invented dynamite. And let’s face it: if there’s one area of expertise in which Islamic culture has distinguished itself in recent decades, it’s the field of explosives.

So why not an annual Nobel Prize for, say, the most innovative, imaginative, and/or effective use of explosives? Granted, such an accolade wasn’t provided for in Nobel’s will, but then again neither was the award for economics, which didn’t come into being until 1969. Imagine the harvest that Muslims would have reaped in Stockholm over the decades if there’d been an Explosives Prize! It’s enough to blow your mind (no pun intended). In recent years, the category would’ve been a clean sweep for the Islamic world. Think of all the Muslim boys and girls who – but for the shortsightedness of the Swedish Academy – would’ve been inspired to make their own mark on society by such prominent recognition of their ambitious coreligionists!

It’s not too late to repair the damage, however. Why not get this thing off the ground right away? The criteria are easy enough to work out. Some prizes could be bestowed for outstanding specific accomplishments, such as the bombings in and around Atocha station in Madrid in March 2004 and the London bombings of June 2005, both of which demonstrated impressive timing and coordination, not to mention, of course, all-around ruthlessness and brutality. Other prizes could be presented to those responsible for particularly creative, if not ultimately successful, efforts – such as “shoe bomber” Richard Reid, whose December 2001 attempt to blow up a plane from Paris to Miami didn’t quite come off, ingenious and bloodthirsty though it unquestionably was. Or the award could be given for a body of work, such as that of the southeast Asian terrorist group Jemaah Islamiyah, which is considered to be responsible for a wide range of significant actions over a period of many years, including the 2002 Bali nightclub bombing, the 2003 Marriott Hotel bombing in Jakarta, the 2004 Australian Embassy bombing in Jakarta, the 2005 Bali bombings, and the 2009 Jakarta bombings. Clearly, we’re speaking here of an award category that’s long overdue, given the Kingdom of Sweden’s otherwise manifestly wholehearted commitment to cultural relativism, especially in regard to Islam.

To be sure, although the Nobel Prizes are governed by time-honored procedural rules, some of them would have to be altered slightly in order to account for the distinctive nature of this new decoration. For example, it’s not permitted to award Nobel Prizes posthumously, but an exception would have to be made in the case of the Explosives Prize, because to do otherwise would be to unfairly exclude from consideration the many gifted suicide bombers who have done so much important work in the field. Similarly, while the Nobel laureates in every category but the Peace Prize are presented with their medals and diplomas at a lavish royal ceremony in the heart of Stockholm, Swedish authorities might well find it more advisable, in the case of this honor, to hold the awards ceremony in, say, an open field well outside the city center, and to have a well-trained bomb squad on hand instead of the royal family. But these minor adjustments would be well worth the gain in social justice and in global respect for the true scale of Islamic accomplishment that the introduction of the Explosives Prize would secure.

*

Don’t miss Jamie Glazov’s video interview with Walid Shoebat in which the former Muslim Brotherhood terrorist-turned Christian makes The Case for Islamophobia,  exposes Obama’s brother, Malik Obama, and much, much more:

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.  

  • Larry Larkin

    Nice sarcasm Bruce. :D

    • Jake-a-runi

      What sarcasm

  • SCREW SOCIALISM

    Don’t forget the wonders of the bombing of Pan Am 103 and the IEDs which have killed so many people.

    • boeningsol321

      my Aunty Sadie just got a fantastic white Audi S8 by working
      parttime off of a computer… go to the website T­e­c­7­0­.­ℂ­o­m

      • ziggy zoggy

        Your aunt Sadie just got a fantastic @$$ job by the local homeless bum. Go to your website to learn how to take a rear delivery.

        Seriously, you stupid c unt. How stupid do you have to be to think anybody will follow your link? I know you ad trolls follow up on your spam, so suck it, bitch!

        • Hass

          Hehehe…

  • Guest

    Good idea, but I propose one amendment. As with the peace price we should leave it to the Norwegians

  • Hass

    On a serious note, it’s that Evil Book the Quaran. So long as the Muslimes lives keep revolving around it, they’ll never change. And there’s no way they’ll be waking up anytime soon because the majority are illiterate.

    • ziggy zoggy

      Yes. And even the ones who are literate are mostly literate in languages other than Arabic. Saudi Arabia spreads korans around the world and promotes wahhabism, but they tell all the recipients that prayers have to be chanted in Arabic and the koran can only be printed in Arabic. Most muzzles have no idea what islam really is.

      • defcon 4

        I’m pretty sure the insane imams, asinine ayatollahs and mad mullahs can get the point across pretty effectively, as can the actions of their fellow brethren all over the world.

        • ziggy zoggy

          Most islamopithecines are supremacists even though they’re also mostly illiterate. That’s true. But many of them are not, especially in Indonesia.

          Islam is worse than meth, though. It can change anybody into a monster.

    • Joseph Flannagan

      There are many in the west, particularly imported wives , who are illiterate in several European languages as well as their original Arabic or Urdu.

  • Marty

    Happily, Muslims aren’t 25% of the global population. Yet. The 1.5 or 1.6 billion muslims representaround 23% of more than 7 billion people. The Muslim birth rate has slowed down, but is still higher than nonmuslims. Pregnant Muslim women should be entitled to abortions on demand.

    • ziggy zoggy

      The 1.5 billion figure is an islamopithecine fiction. There are absolutely NO census statistics to back it up. And the islamopithecine birth rate is NOWHERE near as high as the human rate. Birth rates in Christian Latin America, Africa and Asia surpass all others – especially Latin America.

      Don’t believe all the factoids you read. Question them, and do your own research. “Conventional wisdom” is nearly always a load of BS.

      • Softly Bob

        Don’t forget too that many Muslims in Saudi Arabia and Iran are secretly converting to Christianity. They have to do it in secret because of fear of death threats. A Christian, on the other hand can ‘openly’ convert to Islam without fear of repercussions. Hence. the Muslim population statistics are inaccurate, and mislead people into thinking that there are more Muslims in the World than there actually are.

  • Biff Henderson

    There is one area where the Mufflepoohdians have come up short and that involves the development of effectively lethal suppository bomb. Were a Mudlin to come up with a device that throws more than mud he’d blow away the competition.

  • Omar Sharbash

    Bottom of the barrel-scraping garbage from a 4th rate ‘intellectual’. Admired only by fellow xenophobes looking for meaning in their lives. p.s. Jews are cleverer than you too.

    • Biff Henderson

      Are those your thoughts or did you plagiarize it off a read out from your electronic prayer rug?

      • Omar Sharbash

        Aren’t you sweet. Advice: play the ball not the man. The piece above is an extended (poor) attempt at a barb, nothing more. Hence my assertion it’s intellectual detritus.

        • Biff Henderson

          I would assert that Islam is bottom of the barrel garbage and doesn’t rise to the level of intellectual detritus. When you can’t distinguish the ball from the man what can you to do but bandy it about as an amusement. Surely you aren’t suggesting I take it seriously?

          • Omar Sharbash

            Difference is, your assertion is baseless whereas mine is supported by even a cursory read of the article above. It’s filler material editors of this magazine sanction the publication of to reel in people like you.

            Bawer, as a gay man living in Europe, is unhappy with Muslims. Perfectly fine, of course, but his article is the written equivalent of a child’s tantrum. It is of little to no benefit. Grow up if you’re actually intent on ameliorating current conditions.

          • N. Wasse

            And i would assert that Islam is the cultural imperialism of the Arabs that is imposed on non Arabs like you.
            So you tell me did you ever meet a Jenni and where can I find a winged horse aka al-Buraq?
            See? Islam is ridiculous and spare us and yourself the Islamic twists and turns

          • Biff Henderson

            Just as you unequivocally avowed that Mad Mo was a fraud when he claimed to be a prophet of Allah I too have no need to be reeled in as I came to the same conclusion as yourself. That a prophet of Allah would make the asinine assertion that the Best of People cannot agree on error discounts him as a fountain of truth. I find it disingenuous of you that a straw man/gay man’s intellect is so tainted by being besmurched by a given people that his intellectual capacity might not take in other factors in making a determination of the worth of a religious body. If my tact of ameliorating current conditions by pointing out the sickness it poisons the mind with is not to your liking, like you say, that’s perfectly fine but talking of nadirs and what it might someday become is what I find to be a utopian endgame of a thinking slave not in keeping with the Sharia and you will be swallowed up by the blind faith donkeys if you let it be widely known. It’s your life and how you chose to cherish it is your business. I’ll do the same.

        • N. Wasse

          Omar is a victim of the Arabs and their cultural imperialism
          The so called Islamic sciences is a big joke after all how come Allah did not know that the earth is not flat?

          • Omar Sharbash

            Well, I tried. Let me join your race to the bottom.

            And you’re a victim of Westerners cleverer than you. Your insufficient IQ can only accept their narrative. Lacking the capacity for critical thought or/and the energy to learn around the (perceived) conflict, you’ve submitted wholesale. Servility; all yours.

          • N. Wasse

            Oh we are back again to the IQ so we are back to the “argument from IQ” but you see Mr Arab wannabe if we kuffar have low IQ’s then we must blame Allah after all your so called Allah says that this life is pre-planned by him so are you blaming Allah Mr Arab wannabe?
            Your replies are stupid but again Islam ruins brains

          • Omar Sharbash

            Uh, no. False premise alert. I accused YOUof being stupid. Not all non-Muslims.

          • N. Wasse

            Your replies are stupid. I did not say that you are stupid so are you stupid? See? Islam ruins brains

          • Omar Sharbash

            Stop playing semantics.

          • N. Wasse

            So are you stupid?

          • ziggy zoggy

            Stop sucking d!cks.

          • ziggy zoggy

            “Cleverer?” That’s your idea of a proper comparative? Don’t get me started on the rest of your sub-literate tirade.

            Moron.

          • Omar Sharbash

            It’s arguably clumsy but is, nonetheless, still applicable.

          • ziggy zoggy

            Bow to your ret@rded slavemasters in mecca and leave English to your betters.

          • Omar Sharbash

            Cleverer is correct. Suck it.

    • N. Wasse

      Is it true that the earth is flat as your Allah claims in Q79:30 and would drinking camels urine cure all diseases as your so called prophet claimed?

      • Omar Sharbash

        I can confirm the Earth is NOT flat and the chemical composition of camel urine is not the claimed elixir Mohamed propounded it to be. Next.

        • N. Wasse

          Then you disagree with your Allah now do you think that I should inform your masters the Wahhabis that you disagree with Allah? what do you think would happen to you? Oh camels pee? It will be next

          • Omar Sharbash

            Get this. It, Islam, is a cultural heritage like any other whose precepts need reinterpreting (what I did with those verses you highlighted) to accommodate the natural fluency of civilizations. Today, admittedly, is a relative nadir in that part of the world’s history. Change, however, is possible, indeed is bound to happen. Your short-sighted analysis and that of many western commentators entrenches the pan-cultural difficulties we encounter daily. You change too.

          • N. Wasse

            And you get this: Gobbledygook. Hello: your Allah says that the earth is flat and his so called prophet says that drinking camels urine cures all diseases and this is Islamic sciences.
            Oh and Allah is not an Urdu speaker and does not share your culture either

          • Omar Sharbash

            Not gonna throw out the baby with the bathwater because you’re unhappy with parts of Islam. Again, the kinks you keep on bringing up are easily dealt with by very basic theology. If your issue is with religion per se then say so.

          • N. Wasse

            More twists and turns: We are talking about Islam your so called Allah and science so you tell me how come Allah had no clue that the earth is not flat? Any guesses?

          • Omar Sharbash

            Allah didn’t mean it literally(?). Really is that simple and is a treatment of apparent contradictions consistent with other verses absolutely accepted as being allegorical.

            Edit: You sound angry. Relax.

          • N. Wasse

            Your Allah says: The earth is flat and you want me to say that this idiocy is “allegorical”? Are you for real?
            Islam is ridiculous and your so called prophet was an Arabian warlord and caravan raider or was this “allegorical” too?

          • Omar Sharbash

            Reemploying an interpretive artifice, one given (indirect) imprimatur for application by the Quran itself, is a valid solution pathway.

            And please, some nuance in your argumentation would help.

          • N. Wasse

            I’m not the one who is interpreting the idiocy or Q79:30 where your so called Allah says that the earth is flat I’m only telling what Ibn kathir and al-Tabari tell us so do you also disagree with Ibn Kathir and al-Tabari?

            And you Mr Arab Wannabe tell us 1400 years later that the earth is flat disaster in Q79:30 is “allegorical” then how come al-Tabari and Ibn kathir did not tell us that?

            The only way out is that Muslims have no clue about what your so called Allah is really saying in the book of ignorance

            And please some reality in your “argumentation” is needed

          • Omar Sharbash

            And my stance is I don’t care what Ibn Kathir or anybody else said. They were men of their times like we are of ours. My responsibility is to at least try make co-existence possible given that we all axiomatically hold violence as a means for persuasion unpalatable (to put it lightly). Realistically, that means working out a new formulation of Islamic exegesis. Or do you honestly think, in your reality-based analysis, that the whole Muslim world is going to apostatize. Maybe you enjoy seeing blood spilled.

          • N. Wasse

            You do not care about what your Allah says or what Ibn kathir says then destroy your Islamic literary sources and good riddance but you know what? you and Muslims are stuck with the fact that the book of ignorance says that the earth is flat so is the earth flat?
            So you tell me do you have a direct phone line with Allah so you can find out what he is really saying in this disaster 79:30 the idiocy that earth is flat? Sorry Allah is not Urdu speaker or English speaker for this matter

          • Omar Sharbash

            Mate, I’m not from the subcontinent. Lol.

            As for the rest of your comment, it’s evidently a structural problem leading us to disagree. Still, we’re more in agreement than you think.

          • N. Wasse

            Really? then I’m not mother Teresa either
            So are you planning to destroy your Islamic literary sources?

          • Omar Sharbash

            No, really, I’m not Indian/Pakistani/Bangladeshi. I have no idea why you’ve assumed I am one of the three.

            Edit: Oh, and I propose a complete rethink of Islam and its position in society.

          • N. Wasse

            Why the self hate? I guess this is what Islam and the cultural imperialism of Islam is all about
            You still did not answer my question: do you plan to destroy your Islamic literary sources?

          • Omar Sharbash

            That’s right. You’re not Mother Theresa like I’m not from the subcontinent.

          • N. Wasse

            Boring

          • ziggy zoggy

            You are a stupid youth who thinks the idiocy and fallacious argumentation methods he is taught in school work in the real world.

            That $hit doesn’t fly in America, snot-nose.

          • Omar Sharbash

            stop double posting

          • ziggy zoggy

            Stop double speaking, dip$hit.

          • ziggy zoggy

            You are a stupid youth who thinks the idiocy and fallacious argumentation methods he is taught in school work in the real world.

            That $hit doesn’t fly in America, snot-nose.

          • ziggy zoggy

            You can write whatever you want, but there is no Islamic reformation or renaissance.

            You are a taqiyatroll. Suck my @$$.

          • ziggy zoggy

            You can write whatever you want, but there is no Islamic reformation or renaissance.

            You are a taqiyatroll. Suck my @$$.

          • Omar Sharbash

            By the way, Braveheart, why don’t you state your real name instead of that feminine alias.

          • ziggy zoggy

            Omar Sore@$$,

            Why? Do you want to friend me on Facebook?

          • defcon 4

            Big words for such petty lies.

          • ziggy zoggy

            The koran applies an imprimatur for you to employ interpretations for your orifices. That way you can bend over or suck, depending on your mood.

            Isn’t islam wonderful? Your dentist and proctologist think so.

          • defcon 4

            Re-inserting the phallus in his orifice, the supercilious Mohammedan attempted to conceal his mendacity by abusing
            his 4 syllable vocabulary.

          • Harald Eigerson

            Don’t forget child rapist at least according to some hadith. The cultural relevance being that they were not condeming him, but praising him.

          • N. Wasse

            This character Muhammad that appears in the biography of the prophet of the so called Allah in the redaction by Ibn Hisham of Ibn Ishaq’s original work that is not extant is a vile character because Ibn Ishaq makes it clear that Muhammad was an Arabian warlord and caravan raider who married a 6 year old girl when he was 53 years old and also had 22 wives and concubines!
            Ibn Ishaq must be number one islamophobe

          • ziggy zoggy

            Islamopithecines are so islamophobic. Those racists!

          • ziggy zoggy

            Islamopithecines are so islamophobic. Those racists!

          • ziggy zoggy

            Yep. Islamithecines celebrate pedophilia, genocide, treachery, cowardice, deceit, thievery, rape, slavery and every other vice you can think of.

            No wonder the world hates them.

          • ziggy zoggy

            Yep. Islamithecines celebrate pedophilia, genocide, treachery, cowardice, deceit, thievery, rape, slavery and every other vice you can think of.

            No wonder the world hates them.

          • ziggy zoggy

            There are no allegorical passages in the unholy koran. Everything written in it is supposed to be the word of the moon god allah as recited by Satan and the arch angel Michael.

            If you have to to pretend the genocidal passages of the war text koran are allegorical, you have no argument and no faith.

            But we all know you’re lying for effect. Fuck you up your AIDS riddled @$$. Stupid hawkenah.

          • ziggy zoggy

            All Islamic “theology” is basic and none of it conforms to your lies. Islam is evil and violent and incapable of reform.

            Eat it, taqiyah troll.

          • Omar Sharbash

            I can’t stop humming that Spice Girl’s song, zig a zig ah

          • ziggy zoggy

            You can’t stop humming? I believe it. Look up “hummer” in real English – American.

          • ziggy zoggy

            What kind of old queen knows any Spice a girl songs?

          • Omar Sharbash

            Homophobia Alert!

          • ziggy zoggy

            The gift that keeps on giving. Sounds like your bum.

          • Omar Sharbash

            Is it true you pretended to be Muslim to get laid? So sad.

          • defcon 4

            Did you hum it when you used to dance for older beards in Afghanistan or Iran?

          • Biff Henderson

            “Today is a relative nadir of the”…??? Oh goody. A guessing game. The low point of a fraudulent hoax perpetuated by Mad Mo? The missed opportunity to come to know the Creator because of a slick huckster?

          • Omar Sharbash

            What are you on about?

          • Biff Henderson

            My capacity is limited to reading what you present in a post, not a mind as you seemingly claim to possess when it comes to Allah’s true intentions.

          • Omar Sharbash

            Look, I don’t know you personally but I’d bet you’re a decent person. My injection of comments here was simply to push back against what I believe is poisonous criticism and unnecessary criticism by Bawer. His and others’ reflexive (hatred of Muslims is a long-established feature of former Christendom) potted vitriol make it more likely the end-point of this struggle is a terrible one.

          • Biff Henderson

            Unwarranted pride, the Best of People and all that deluded hogwash is not to be addressed and shown to be an impediment to your lofty goal? How would you have us address this impediment?

          • Omar Sharbash

            Address it better. First understand Islam. Then, if you feel it’s necessary, criticise it where criticism is due. I can think of two incompatibilities.

            (1) The lack of commitment to free speech is a root source of friction structurally extant within Islam. We are right – i.e. have weighty rational grounds – to continuously reinforce every man’s birth right to think freely and to express those thoughts. Consequently, it is the Muslim world which needs to change and not us.

            (2) Another problem needing attention is the unwillingness of Muslim scholars to abrogate oblique commands inferring the Islamic legality of expansionist warfare. This is a long-term threat and why the West’s actions of propping up secular dictators is moral.

            On the other hand, contentious issues categorised under terrorism are routinely traced back to Islamic doctrine when in fact it, Islam, explicitly states a position against the murder of noncombatants. This derives from an unreasonable hatred of all things Islamic. The West has to change as well.

            It’s a long discussion that I will maybe revisit to have. But right now, I’m tired because of fasting.

          • N. Wasse

            Allah states that non combatants shall not be murdered? Where? as in chapter and verse? and how about the vile Ayat al-sayf? Hint: al-naskih wa al-mansukh!

            Your Allah even tells you to terrorize his enemies in Q8:60 and is this also “allegorical”?

          • Biff Henderson

            All that has to happen is Islam has to gut itself of it’s core beliefs and in the meantime we’re to keep mum about the negative impact it has in the interim? Go about your mental slim fast plan and I’ll make the necessary adjustments to insure my survival.

          • Omar Sharbash

            Never mind. I tried. Clown.

          • Biff Henderson

            You haven’t scratched the surface. When the BS doesn’t wash your target is a clown. Give up, slink away, hope to find an easier prey.

          • Omar Sharbash

            Speak English please. Haven’t got time to decipher your nonsense.

          • Biff Henderson

            Oops, should I be making an allowance for your fast-induced, cognitive disability? Finish your fast and after a gluttonous binge session take a nappy poo and get back to me. I don’t want to be accused of taking advantage of the mentally disenfranchised.

            Regards,
            Biff

          • ziggy zoggy

            You lie like a child. You are a child. No adult could repeat the ani-intellectual pap you are fed in school and expect it to work in an adult forum. Go change your intellectual diapers, Haji.

          • Omar Sharbash

            I’m not sure you’ve been to school. Your writing skills are awful.

          • ziggy zoggy

            How are my writing skills awful and how are yours anything but?

            You don’t get a free “A” grade from me just for showing up and being an islamopithecine.

          • ziggy zoggy

            Wishful thinking, Ali G.

          • ziggy zoggy

            You tried taqiyah, you scumbag. And yes, you squat in the U.K.

            You can’t even lie effectively. Just another islamopithecine with no skills whatsoever. I look forward to the day when humanity exterminated islam. We’ll do it over mountains of islamopithecine bodies, and that will be a good beginning.

          • Omar Sharbash

            Seriously, Editors? My remark about the quality, or lack thereof, of this article is deleted but his open declaration of enjoying mass murder is given free airing.

            What a low website.

          • ServosT

            Islam is assuredly against killing non-combatants. Of course its definition of “non-combatants” is somewhat open to interpretation depending on exactly who else is a passenger of the target airplane or if any muslims are working in Trade Center Towers. We’ll call those “combatants,” or at least non-voluntary jihadis.

          • Omar Sharbash

            That’s just not true. You evidently, typically of men with radical pathologies, know very little about Islam. You wish all that was going down was because of Islam; it would provide easy rationalisations to explain away (previous and current) criminal Western activity.

            Non-combatants means exactly what you would think it does. Anybody not involved in a direct capacity in a war is not to be harmed. The. End.

          • ServosT

            Well maybe you should get going and try to convince the muslims who kill non-combatants in the name of iSLAM. Because they believe mohammed’s religion teaches that they can, and I feel that iSLam’s rich heritage of destruction is on their side.

          • N. Wasse

            So where do you live Omar the Arab wannabe? and how do you support yourself? Let me guess stupid Brits pay the cost of your health insurance and social benefits right?

          • ziggy zoggy

            An. Easily. Verifiable. Lie.

            The unholy koran is not a hidden scroll. Anybody can read its murderous and primitive nonsense. Try not to fall off the edge of the flat Earth after imbibing too much camel piss.

          • Omar Sharbash

            You. Know. Nothing. About. Islam.

            That, in the pronunciation of a famous Spanish soccer coach here in Europe, is a ‘FACHT’.

          • N. Wasse

            What would you like me to tell you about Islam?
            Hint: I will only use your Islamic sources! Go!

          • ziggy zoggy

            I’ve forgotten more about islame than you will ever know. The koran, hadith and sura are so crude that an eight year American will laugh at them. I was eight when I first read the koran and learned how ignorant and stupid islamopithecines really are.

            Think about that. An eight year old American has more wisdom than your camel molesting prophet pretender lil’ Mo did. Americans have walked on the moon while islamopithecines wallowed in $hit. We stepped on your mythological allah deity. What has islam ever accomplished? Nothing. It’s a gutter cult practiced by mental defectives.

            Be sure to bow to your Arab masters five times a day, slave boy.

          • Omar Sharbash

            Stop it. Just stop it. I doubt you could even read at age eight.

          • defcon 4

            But if he was a little girl he could be married off against his will in most any islamic state!

          • ziggy zoggy

            By age eight I was a better writer than Bhukari and mohammadman was illiterate his whole life.

          • Aryan Hindu

            We know everything about Islam. We graduated from Ali Sina University of Islamic studies.

          • defcon 4

            Do you think the najjis kaffir here on FPM haven’t noticed the atrocities being committed in the name of your death cult all over the world, on practically a daily basis in the here and now? Are you arrogantly stupid? Or stupidly arrogant?

          • N. Wasse

            Radical “pathologies”? Do you really know what the word pathology means? And where did you learn your English? You are not a native English speaker and Let me guess it is Paki-English that they teach in the basket case and failed state of Pakistan right?

          • Omar Sharbash

            It makes sense, you’re just stupid. I’ve told you already. And a man who is yet to master the concept of commas is in no position to critique others’ writings.

          • N. Wasse

            “Radical pathologies”! Ignorant You are not just a wannabe Arab but you are also a liar sir
            I feel sorry for you
            But again this is what Islam does to human beings

          • Omar Sharbash

            Punctuation, (dreary) boy. Use it!

          • N. Wasse

            So is the earth the center of the universe and do the moon and the sun orbit earth as your Allah tells us?

          • defcon 4

            LOL, your holey prophet himself violated those concepts Hajji. He had unarmed people murdered for criticising him. He had unarmed men, who had surrendered, beheaded.

          • defcon 4

            What about the rabid Jew hatred found in all your holey books of hate Hajji? What about the “authentic” hadith that call for the extermination of Jews? What about the commandments to murder and persecute the unbeliever? What about the punishment of muslime apostasy?

          • Omar Sharbash

            They don’t exist. If they do then why didn’t Muslims in the middle ages massacre all the Jews living amongst them? Why haven’t the Iranians killed off their native Jews? They’ve been Muslim for almost 1,500 years. Surely that’s enough time to organise a holocaust a la the Christian Europeans did?

          • N. Wasse

            And hatred of Hindus, your ancestors, has been a long established feature of Islam resulting in the murder of 60 million Hindus by the Muslim invaders of India.
            Christians have every right to hate Islamic imperialism and the Muslim crusades starting in 633 CE

          • Omar Sharbash

            My. God.

            I’m not Indian. My surname, I understand, is a word in Urdu meaning ‘well done(?)’ but I am not from there. Third time telling you and it’s really for your benefit. If you want to develop an argument, best it’s founded on sturdier grounds.

          • N. Wasse

            I read this as you are an Arab wannabe from India/Pakistan and that Allah says that earth is flat and your so called prophet said that drinking of camels urine cures all diseases and last 60 million Hindus your ancestors were murdered by the Muslim invaders of India

          • Omar Sharbash

            Hahahaha

            You’re a moron of some stature, son. smh

          • N. Wasse

            Why would Arab wannabes like you care about their own Hindu ancestors that were brutalized by the Muslim invaders of India? But this is what Islam does to its victims

            Oh one more thing and your so called Allah says that Islam is the religion of the Hijazi Arabs only would you like to know more?

            As for being a moron I will leave this to the readers to judge you

          • Omar Sharbash

            Amen. But with a caveat. Readers with three-digit IQ should be left to judge.

          • N. Wasse

            So you still did not answer my question: Are you aware Mr Arab wannabe that Islam is the religion of the Arabs only?

            As for your IQ anyone who believes that an Arabian warlord and caravan raider spoke to an Arabian deity via an angel and who believes that there are creatures called Jinnis and that there are indeed winged horses has an IQ of zero and that will be you

          • Omar Sharbash

            Newton.

          • N. Wasse

            Newton you ain’t! Arab wannabe you are
            What an idiot

          • Omar Sharbash

            Haha. You’re funny.

          • N. Wasse

            No the funny one is your Allah who tells us that the earth is flat and fools like you tell us “But this is allegorical”

          • Omar Sharbash

            You’re sick. To the clinic.

          • N. Wasse

            Well help where can I get some camels urine to cure my sickness?
            So you tell me why are you chit chatting with “sick” people O glorious madrassa graduate?

          • ziggy zoggy

            Which clinic? The one that treats your butt herpes?

          • defcon 4

            He has blasphemed the prophet, it’s obviously time for a head chopping, in the time honored tradition of muslimes everywhere.

          • ziggy zoggy

            Stupid sock puppet. No matter how many times you change your alias you can’t hide. Harry Sack, Omar Sore@$$, whatever.

            You suck.

          • Omar Sharbash

            Not Harry Sack, troll. My name is Omar. Thought it was obvious.

            Reading through your posts makes me realise if you weren’t anti-Islam you’d be an anti-semite.

          • N. Wasse

            You care about them Jews? Really? How about your Hindu ancestors that were brutalized murdered and enslaved by your Muslim masters that invaded India?

            Sir: You are a fake

          • Omar Sharbash

            Where did the holocaust take place again?

          • N. Wasse

            And where did the Hindu Genocide take place where millions of your Hindu ancestors were murdered enslaved and raped by your Muslim masters that invaded India? You see charity starts at home
            But I’m curious you must be an Arzal right?

          • Omar Sharbash

            I don’t know anything about this so called Hindu genocide. Will look into it.

            WTF is an Arzal?

          • N. Wasse

            Millions of your Hidnu ancestors were enslaved killed and raped by your maters the Muslims that invaded India look it up How come you did not know about it? You see it is one of two things you either knew and you were hoping that we kuffar do not know which means that you are no more than another Muslim liar or you are ignorant so which is it ignorant or a liar?
            An Arzal is you Mr Arab wannabe those invaders regarded your likes as an untouchable right?

          • Omar Sharbash

            Link me to some authoritative work regarding the massacre. Looked online but can’t locate anything worthwhile.

            I’m not from the subcontinent.

          • N. Wasse

            Boring!

          • Omar Sharbash

            So I take it there isn’t any work published by reputable historians supporting your thesis. What a shame.

          • N. Wasse

            Boring

          • Omar Sharbash

            Maybe but I still want to know about it. What are the best three books/journal articles written on the massacre?

          • N. Wasse

            As ‘Aiysha (the child bride of your so called prophet who used to cheat on him as the Shia tell us so did she cheat on him Mr Arab wannabe?) would have said: You will find it all in the book of ignorance aka the Qur’an

          • Omar Sharbash

            I don’t understand the relevance of your reply. I asked for historical evidence to support your extraordinary claim. Can anybody direct me to a good source of information?

          • N. Wasse

            Tedious and boring

          • ziggy zoggy

            So hatred for the stone aged death cult of islame and its child molester, prophet pretender lil’ Mo is racist? With a name like Gomer suck@$$, it’s no surprise that you’re mentally ret@rded. All islamopithecines are.

          • Omar Sharbash

            Ziggggggggy! Long time no see. How many people you killed recently?

          • ziggy zoggy

            Killed people? I’ve never even killed an islamopithecine, you lunatic.

          • defcon 4

            Islam isn’t a race, Omar.

          • ziggy zoggy

            Newton discovered laws that prove the existence of God and disprove the existence of moon rock mythology.

            Eat it.

          • Omar Sharbash

            Newton proved the existence of God?!?!

            Missed that meeting.

          • ziggy zoggy

            The universe is governed by laws. There is nothing random about it. It is impossible for the universe to have constructed itself. It was guided.

            Do try to disprove any aspect of relativity. Maybe a big quaff of camel p iss will help you concentrate. 3:)

          • Omar Sharbash

            How does anything you just said PROVE the existence of God. Grab a dictionary and understand what proving something entails.

          • ziggy zoggy

            There are no spontaneous events in nature. A big batch of nothing did not explode and form the dinosaurs. If I claim that whatever guided the creation of the universe was God can you disprove it?

            The koran is easily disproved.

          • Omar Sharbash

            Your first two sentences show a lack of imagination, that’s all. Absence of evidence is not evidence, full stop. That I can’t prove God doesn’t exist is not helpful to you or me in making our case that he does.

            Also, if the Quran is easily disproved, then so is the Bible.

          • Omar Sharbash

            ‘The universe is governed by laws.’ No $hit, Sherlock.

            Exactly how does that PROVE the existence of God. Don’t bother answer, you’ll only embarrass yourself further.

          • N. Wasse

            Can you prove the existence of Allah?
            It is you chance to make a fool of yourself. Go!

          • defcon 4

            Fig Newtons are definitely good w/a glass of milk.

          • hiernonymous

            All the right-thinking people know that instead of an Arabian warlord speaking to an Arabian deity, it was a virtuous young virgin who had to explain to her impossibly patient fiancee that her condition was the result of an invisible Jewish deity’s suddenly intimate interest in His creation. Instead of the Djinn we have angels, possessed pigs, and a veritable bestiary in Revelation.

            It’s not that hard to make any religion sound pretty silly, if you put your mind to it. Maybe you can find a better way to measure IQ?

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Talking about a rapist as a “prophet” in pursuit of “justice” and “equal rights for women” is fundamentally silly regardless of how it’s articulated, unless you don’t mind lying.

            Which leads to the next topic…

          • hiernonymous

            I’m sure you expressed some interesting thoughts, but they didn’t address anything in my post. Perhaps your comments were misdirected?

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “I’m sure you expressed some interesting thoughts, but they didn’t address anything in my post.”

            I’m redirecting the conversation from your attempts to obscure through distraction, not necessarily responding to your desires.

          • hiernonymous

            “I’m redirecting the conversation…”

            Well, your bit of it, anyway. Enjoy.

          • Omar Sharbash

            I’m not lying about anything. I might be wrong about everything, but I’m not lying. And I’m only responding because you come across as fair-minded.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “I’m not lying about anything. I might be wrong about everything, but I’m not lying”

            I’m sorry I didn’t phrase it more carefully. I should have said “unless one doesn’t mind lying.” It wasn’t directed at you personally.

          • Omar Sharbash

            No worries!

          • ziggy zoggy

            You are deliberately misrepresenting islam. You are lying. Lil’ Mo was a genocidal, pedophiliac rapist who liked knocking back big foamy cups of camel pi$$. Or maybe he drank it straight from the tap. He was the perfect man, according to your death cult, and the moon is named allah – an all merciful mythological deity who wants to eternally torture all the people he forced to be infidels.

          • Omar Sharbash

            I’m deliberately presenting my views on Islam and other things. They are my honest opinions and as such are not lies. Because you disagree with me that Islam is not (even close to being) all bad does not make me a liar.

            Also, I’m the one who grew up a Muslim here, not you. I know better than you the impulses Islam engenders; the drive to discover truth, in my case, is directly a result of Islamic education I received when I was young. The commitment to truthfulness, in turn, is another Islamic injunction clearly stated in its Holy Book and traditions. There are many other similarly good practices I’ve been the benefactor of which you might be unaware of.

            There are problems to resolve, of course, but that’s what the ongoing reformation is for.

          • ziggy zoggy

            Mary was infertile. She was not a virgin. The King James Bible has a few mistakes. (Thou shalt not commit murder.)

            Whether angels are meant to be story characters or real, they are a bit more believable than genies and pegasi.

            And spare me any bullcrap about possessed pigs.

            I don’t recall Jesus doing anything evil, much less commanding Christians to wage jihad.

          • hiernonymous

            It’s not simply a matter of translation. There was a time when the Church put a great deal of importance on establishing that Mary’s hymen was intact after giving birth to Jesus.

            “And spare me any bullcrap about possessed pigs.”

            Mark 5:12

            “I don’t recall Jesus doing anything evil…”

            You don’t recall Jesus doing anything at all, unless you’re as old as that Mel Brooks character.

          • defcon 4

            “The Church” doesn’t speak for Yeshua, because you see he was dead long before they were ever around.

          • hiernonymous

            “The Church” speaks for Christianity, which is more to the point. Because, you see, he was dead was dead long before we began this conversation, but the Church is still around. At issue is what Christians believe.

          • ziggy zoggy

            At issue is your ridicule of Christianity over the Virgin Mary mistranslation, and your attempt to equate it with the stone aged Islam.

            Jesus and the Patriarchs never drank camel pi$$, much less claimed it was salubrious and yummy.

          • hiernonymous

            “…and your attempt to equate it with the stone aged Islam.”

            Well, no, that wasn’t the issue, but I’m more than happy to take it up.

            1. There’s no “mistranslation” involved. Mary’s virginity – and even her perpetual virginity – were established Christian doctrines over a millenium before the KJV was written, and centuries before the language in which the KJV was written would even begin to develop.

            2. On what objective basis are you claiming that it’s absurd to believe that Muhammad spoke to an angel, but rational to believe that Mary bore the child of an incorporeal being? In both situations, we have a belief in the interaction between the human and the supernatural – if you are so offended by the idea that these are similar beliefs, what is the objective difference?

            “Jesus and the Patriarchs never drank camel pi$$, much less claimed it was salubrious and yummy.”

            It’s not clear what argument you’re making here. Clearly, you’re uncomfortable with the practice of drinking camel urine. It’s equally clear that nearly every culture engages in practices that other cultures would find revolting – and we engage in many that we don’t like to think too closely about. We ourselves drink the fluid emitted by lactating cows; we even allow that fluid to go bad, allow bacteria and fungus to grow in the degenerating mess, and then eat it. Some cultures eat dog or horse meat, but Americans find that objectionable for no objective reason. The U.S. and Japan are the primary markets for the insanely expensive coffee Kopi Luwak, make from beans extracted from feline feces. The Chinese eat a food made from bird saliva.

            You seem to be obsessed with camel urine and homosexuality, but your squeamishness isn’t an indictment of those practices so much as a road map of your neuroses.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “1. There’s no “mistranslation” involved. Mary’s virginity – ”

            Comes from the texts.

            “…and even her perpetual virginity – were established Christian doctrines over a millenium before the KJV was written, and centuries before the language in which the KJV was written would even begin to develop.”

            This is Roman Catholic variation. Not Biblical.

            “Some cultures eat dog or horse meat, but Americans find that objectionable for no objective reason.”

            It’s taboo because these animals are highly intelligent and serve productive roles for humans other than as food. It’s food of absolute last resort. Which makes sense objectively.

            Civilizations that eat dog and horse meat tend to be very poor and or very unsophisticated in their ability to use these animals for work rather than as food.

            Ranchers that raise sheep and use dogs for herding will generally eat the sheep before eating the dogs. Sheep don’t often herd themselves. So that’s seems like a good, rational reason.

          • hiernonymous

            “This is Roman Catholic variation. Not Biblical.”

            Arguing that Christian doctrine was in error doesn’t mean that it wasn’t Christian doctrine. OP argued that belief in Mary’s virginity was the function of a mistranslation in the KJV; I’ve shown that belief in Mary’s virginity long predates KJV, and was a central tenet of Christian doctrine. Not sure how you suppose either of your comments addresses that issue.

            “Civilizations that eat dog and horse meat tend to be very poor and or very unsophisticated in their ability to use these animals for work rather than as food.”

            Horse meat is eaten in Europe. Europe is remarkable for neither its poverty nor for its lack of sophistication in using horses for work.

            For that matter, it’s not clear why you believe that using a particular animal for food stock and for working stock is somehow mutually exclusive.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Arguing that Christian doctrine was in error doesn’t mean that it wasn’t Christian doctrine.”

            I didn’t take any position on whether it was or is erroneous, only that you are wrong to claim it’s a universal or even mainstream Christian belief. It was a belief taught by the dominant political entity that claimed to be “The True Church.” I’m adding precision to your comments.

            “Not sure how you suppose either of your comments addresses that issue.”

            Did it ever occur to you that I’m not always engaged in defending everything everyone “on my side” says?

            “Horse meat is eaten in Europe. Europe is remarkable for neither its poverty nor for its lack of sophistication in using horses for work.”

            The traditions come from past, not present context.

            “For that matter, it’s not clear why you believe that using a particular animal for food stock and for working stock is somehow mutually exclusive.”

            If I eat a horse on Monday, the horse will not drag my plow on Tuesday. Or Wednesday. If I’m that desperate, I can sell the horse to someone that can use it for work and pay a lot more than food of comparable nutrition unless the horse is very old.

            And traditions are often taught to children before we can get in to nuanced discussions with them. So taboos evolve that might seem irrational but that originally did have rational basis.

            So ignoring horse and dog meat may not be purely rational all the time, but there are rational reasons for the taboos. It’s generally not a good idea to eat the dog or the horse unless you are desperate or too stupid to know what else to do with it.

            Modern cultivation methods may have changed the economics, but I didn’t do that much research.

            http://www.cnbc.com/id/100496993

          • hiernonymous

            “I’m adding precision to your comments.”

            Not if you’re trying to define Catholic doctrine as anything but mainstream Christianity. It’s the single most significant Christian sect.

            “Did it ever occur to you that I’m not always engaged in defending everything everyone “on my side” says?”

            I didn’t ask you how your comments defended anything anyone “on your side” said. I questioned how your comments addressed the immediate issue to which they were applied. I don’t actually spend time musing on your motivations for posting, and I’m not at all interested in digressing in a metaconversation about the same.

            “If I eat a horse on Monday, the horse will not drag my plow on Tuesday.”

            I had fish sticks last night; my aquarium wasn’t suddenly empty.

            A horse that’s running the Preakness today isn’t pulling your beer wagon today, either, yet somehow we manage to support both. You don’t see too many Clydesdales at the Preakness, for that matter. We breed different sorts of horses for different purposes; food would simply be another purpose.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Not if you’re trying to define Catholic doctrine as anything but mainstream Christianity.”

            That’s debatable. But why would you insist on leaving out the explicitly Catholic origins?

            “It’s the single most significant Christian sect.”

            Single most important historically and politically, yeah. Influential in leading grass roots belief Umm. well…I don’t know about that. But you can take that position and I won’t care as long as you’re not deceiving people by omitting salient facts. The origins are Catholic, without question, and can be directly refuted by the Bible contents.

            “A horse that’s running the Preakness today isn’t pulling your beer wagon today, either, yet somehow we manage to support both. You don’t see too many Clydesdales at the Preakness, for that matter. We breed different sorts of horses for different purposes; food would simply be another purpose.”

            OK genius. Go and raise horses for food instead of cows without modern technology. Let us know when you successfully turn a profit.

            Herding and feeding cows, chickens, sheep, goats, pigs, etc. lots easier and cheaper than herding horses. You can, but you’re not going to want to eat many of them because most people want to maximize their gains for any given effort or holding. And if like most people your horses are at home on your farm with your children for the purposes of getting work done, you’re going to want to have your cake rather than eat it. You just explain that we don’t eat the working animals. Like horses and dogs.

            If you’re that different from all the others, we can accept that. But the taboo developed for rational reasons. And go ahead and eat a horse. Nobody is stopping you. We’re discussing the taboo, not the reason why you can’t ever eat horse or dog meat.

          • hiernonymous

            “But the taboo developed for rational reasons.”

            Nothing you’ve said so far suggests any such thing. Arguing that horsemeat is less profitable than cow meat explains why cow meat is prevalent, not why there’s a taboo. The taboos against pork didn’t arise out of the economic superiority of mutton or beef, but from diseases associated with undercooked pork.

            “OK genius.”

            As good a sign as any that you’re reacting emotionally.

            “Go and raise horses for food instead of cows without modern technology. Let us know when you successfully turn a profit.”

            I doubt I could raise cows, chickens, sheep, goats, or pigs without benefit of modern technology and turn a profit.

            “We’re discussing the taboo, not the reason why you can’t ever eat horse or dog meat.”

            Yes, we are discussing the taboo (though you seem to have lost sight of why), and you’ve yet to establish an objective reason for such a taboo. As I noted, there’s no such taboo in Europe, and the Europeans faced the same essential economic choices as the Anglo-Saxons mentioned in your speculative article. The Europeans never found it economical to breed horses primarily for food – nor did they find it necessary or useful to develop a taboo against doing so when circumstances or opportunity called for it.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Summary: You can’t follow the logic.

            That’s not a problem for me to solve.

          • hiernonymous

            “Summary: You can’t follow the logic.”

            Not a good summary – but that’s not a problem for me to solve.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “I doubt I could raise cows, chickens, sheep, goats, or pigs without benefit of modern technology and turn a profit.”

            So you don’t really understand organic farming. OK. Then how are you judging what is plausible among a population of farmers from the past?

          • hiernonymous

            “So you don’t really understand organic farming. OK.”

            Where did you ever get the idea that organic farming doesn’t make use of modern technology?

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Where did you ever get the idea that organic farming doesn’t make use of modern technology?”

            So you DO understand organic farming BUT only WITH modern technology? Not too creative. OK then.

            You are at least aware of the fact that people make a profit all the time with organic farming methods that do not depend at all on modern technology?

          • hiernonymous

            “You are at least aware of the fact that people make a profit all the
            time with organic farming methods that do not depend at all on modern
            technology?”

            Perhaps there are, though I’ve never met them. All the organic farmers I know of make constant use of modern technology. They use the internet and mobile communications to find markets. They use computers to track purchases and stock. They use modern transportation to get their produce to market. They employ tools made of modern alloys that they can afford because they were produced using modern methods. And so on.

            I’d sure hate to have to compete against them while denying myself all modern technology. I don’t think I’d succeed. How you conclude that this implies I don’t understand traditional farming methods well enough to “judge what is plausible among a population of farmers from the past” remains a mystery. You’re also wandering more than a bit far afield.

          • hiernonymous

            “But why would you insist on leaving out the explicitly Catholic origins?”

            What an odd suggestion. Mary’s virginity was established as doctrine before the schisms – in fact, it was accepted doctrine in the Apostle’s Creed (natus ex Maria Virgine) in the infancy of the Christian Church. Explicit reference to the Virgin Mary was in the Nicene Creed by AD381.

            In short, to attempt to describe the belief in the Virgin Birth as some sort of fringe belief atypical of mainstream Christianity is to ignore the very roots of the Christian church and Christian belief, and is nearly as absurd as ascribing said belief to a mistranslation of a translation of the Bible penned over a millenium after the doctrine was first formally enshrined.

            You might also note that even after the schisms, the Eastern Orthodox Church also retained Mary’s virginity as an element of its doctrine.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Are you able to distinguish between the claim of virginity at the time of Jesus’s birth and perpetual virginity?

          • hiernonymous

            Yes. Let’s deal with the former before worrying about the latter.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            I already stipulated that the texts report that. More than once. I made that very clear.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/perpetual

            The doctrine of “immaculate conception” of Jesus is supported by the Biblical texts. The doctrine that deifies Mary as “perpetual virgin” is Catholic, and is contradicted by the texts.

          • hiernonymous

            You’re getting confused. “Immaculate conception” relates to the doctrine that Mary was free of Original Sin. It’s not synonymous with the virgin birth of Jesus, which is not synonymous with the perpetual virginity of Mary – which is why, in my response to OP, I made allusion to both doctrines (virgin birth of Jesus and perpetual virginity of Mary) separately.

            As I noted before, let’s not try to muddy this up with side issues. Let’s stick, very specifically, with the doctrine that Mary was a virgin when she conceived Jesus. OP contends that this is a function of a mistranslation in the KJV. You claim that this is a uniquely Catholic doctrine that should be identified as such. Neither is accurate – the virgin birth of Jesus is enshrined in the bedrock of the religion, in both fundamental statements of faith from the days of Christianity in the Roman Empire – the Apostle’s Creed and the Nicene Creed.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Let’s stick, very specifically, with the doctrine that Mary was a virgin when she conceived Jesus. OP contends that this is a function of a mistranslation in the KJV. ”

            Some believe that the texts are trying to characterize her as spiritually pure rather than literally getting pregnant without sex. That’s not a mainstream view as far as I know, but I have heard it before.

            “You claim that this is a uniquely Catholic doctrine that should be identified as such.”

            Where “very specifically” did I say that?

          • objectivefactsmatter

            My first reply is being moderated. Why don’t you reread the thread and see if you can save us some time please?

            Thanks a a lot.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “You’re getting confused. “Immaculate conception” relates to the doctrine that Mary was free of Original Sin.”

            It’s you again. I said, “The doctrine of “immaculate conception” of Jesus is supported by the Biblical texts.”

            The “immaculate conception of Mary” is a later tradition and Catholic dogma that states Mary is more or less like Jesus in that way as well. Trying to deify her alongside Jesus.

          • hiernonymous

            You’re simply misusing “immaculate conception.” It’s a common mistake.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “You’re simply misusing “immaculate conception.” It’s a common mistake.”

            You must be an ex-Catholic or Catholic educated if you think that is the only legitimate use of the phrase. I explicitly stated “immaculate conception” of Jesus.

            The Immaculate Conception of Mary is an explicitly Catholic doctrine. But it was contrived to justify deifying Mary by showing somehow that she was also born without sin more or less as Jesus was according to the Biblical texts. Not only that, but Jesus was also conceived immaculately according to that doctrine. That’s the entire point, to deify them together.

            That’s why I used scare quotes and lower case.

          • hiernonymous

            “Immaculate” is not a synonym for “virgin.” The “immaculate conception of Jesus” does not refer to the condition of his mother’s hymen at the moment he was conceived, but of his own soul. If you wish to discuss Mary’s status as a virgin at his conception, “immaculate” is probably the most misleading and problematic word you could have chosen.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “”Immaculate” is not a synonym for “virgin.” The “immaculate conception of Jesus” does not refer to the condition of his mother’s hymen at the moment he was conceived, but of his own soul.”

            The point being that according to the Catholic Church if Mary had not been “immaculate” *in her life and her own conception* then neither could Jesus have been.

            http://catholicism.about.com/od/beliefsteachings/f/Imm_Concept_FAQ.htm

            “The Immaculate Conception refers to the condition that the Blessed Virgin Mary was free from Original Sin from the very moment of her conception in the womb of her mother, Saint Anne. We celebrate the Nativity of the Blessed Virgin Mary on September 8; nine months before is December 8, the Feast of the Immaculate Conception.”

            I’m not quite sure why you felt the need to mention her hymen.

            “If you wish to discuss Mary’s status as a virgin at his conception, “immaculate” is probably the most misleading and problematic word you could have chosen.”

            Here again you miss the point and blame everyone but yourself. It led to a discussion of origins. I’m sorry you feel that was another problem for you.

          • hiernonymous

            H: “Mary’s virginity was established as doctrine before the schisms…”

            O: “The doctrine of “immaculate conception” of Jesus is supported by the Biblical texts. The doctrine that deifies Mary as “perpetual virgin” is Catholic, and is contradicted by the texts.”

            Your response indicated that, at the time you made it, you were confusing “immaculate conception” with “virgin birth.” The alternative reading is that your reference to ‘immaculate conception’ was a non-sequitur.

            “Here again you miss the point and blame everyone but yourself.”

            If your points are so consistently ‘missed,’ you might want to revisit your assumption that you’re actually making them. You might want to focus your efforts on the topical aspects of the posts, rather than the posturing.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Your response indicated that, at the time you made it, you were confusing “immaculate conception” with “virgin birth.” The alternative reading is that your reference to ‘immaculate conception’ was a non-sequitur.”

            You are hilarious. YOU are clear that I was confused. OK then.

            Dumbass, Catholics and others make the miracles of Jesus’s sinless birth focus on Mary’s virginity because they have an agenda. They refer to the “immaculate conception” of Mary because they are trying to tie her to Jesus by elevating her, showing she had similar if not identical origins and trying to show that these things in common are salient with regard to her status as a quasi-divine or divine person. I believe I said this to you at least once, perhaps even twice or thrice.

            In any case, if I use plain English to draw attention to the similarities, and you conflate the terms in your own mind, that’s your problem. Not mine. Get it?

            Now, in the Bible it is not even clear how much Jesus’s divinity and “lack of sin” have to do with Mary’s virginity per se, but rather it’s much more about the clear fact that virgins can’t point to human fathers. It’s mostly to emphasize that Jesus has a divine father. It’s about the “immaculate conception” vis-a-vis God as his only father, not because Mary was super disciplined. Mary as virgin is merely a supporting statement, not the central feature of “immaculate conception.”

            This is crucial to understand because the Bible makes clear that Mary was also a sinner. So it’s not about avoiding Original Sin unless you want to deify Mary.

            Jesus DID have an “immaculate conception” but Mary did not, except to Catholics and those that follow these traditions that originate with them. But immaculate conception is mostly about having no human father, because God in Heaven is the father of Jesus while Mary had 2 human parents. Making Mary’s mother sinless is fruitless if she had an ordinary sinner for a father. Catholic tradition and dogma must distract from this line of thinking.

            If you’re not clear now, stop blaming me or you will look even worse. Try to maintain some credibility.

          • hiernonymous

            “In any case, if I use plain English to draw attention to the similarities, and you conflate the terms in your own mind, that’s your problem. Not mine. Get it?”

            Well, yes, I do get it. You misused the term and you’re now engaging in a bit of face-saving involving some interesting personal theology, some contorted redirection, and the pointlessly insulting posturing often associated with the embarrassed.

            “Try to maintain some credibility.”

            That’s always good advice.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Well, yes, I do get it. You misused the term and you’re now engaging in a bit of face-saving involving some interesting personal theology, some contorted redirection, and the pointlessly insulting posturing often associated with the embarrassed.”

            Wow. You really are deranged. You must be a Nancy Pelosi Catholic. I wonder if you realize that you’re preaching dogmas rather than conversing?

            http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/immaculate

            http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/conception

            Anyone can read what I wrote and challenge the logic rather than the “propriety” of going against Catholic dogma.

            Jesus’s birth was the result on an immaculate conception. Mary’s was not, unless you accept all Catholic dogma. They also teach that people “get confused” just like you do, because they want to insist that Mary’s conception was “immaculate” while Jesus’s conception was..what? Not immaculate?

          • hiernonymous

            Nobody’s preaching, nor is anyone taking you to task for any “impropriety” in “going against Catholic dogma.” You simply employed a phrase that has a specific meaning in this context – specifically, “immaculate conception” – and made a common mistake in using it. You’ve since been trying to redefine the term – not to mention engaging in increasingly hysterical personal comments (No, I’m not any kind of Catholic, though I am fairly familiar with Catholic doctrine) – rather than simply acknowledge a poor choice of words.

            “Jesus’s birth was the result on an immaculate conception.”

            So Christians believe – but that belief is not the same as their belief that Mary was a virgin. “Immaculate” refers to the condition of being free from sin, which is a separate issue from Mary’s virginity.

            Your comments over the past few posts sound like a fellow who mistakenly refers to the electricity driving his plasma TV as “direct current.” When the error is pointed out, rather than simply acknowledge the mistake, he posts a link to Merriam-Webster for “direct” and “current,” then argue “hey, it follows a straight path from the substation to your house, so it’s ‘direct,’ and it’s clearly an electrical current, so it’s ‘current.’ It’s not my fault if you can’t follow my plain English…”

            Bottom line: you took a term that has a particular meaning in this context, you botched that meaning, and you are too proud, angry, or both to simply acknowledge the fact and move on.

            Since it’s likely we both understand that now, there’s no point in beating that horse. I’ll read your response with interest, but unless you have something pertinent and new to offer, I’ll leave the last word to you.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Your comments over the past few posts sound like a fellow who mistakenly refers to the electricity driving his plasma TV as “direct current.”"

            Facts matter. Nothing I said was inaccurate or misleading except for people programmed by dogma.

            And while most people in the USA drive their “Plasma TV systems” with MAINS power, which of course is alternating current, many sections of the circuit are rectified to direct current. So what really matters is whether one is correct about the facts.

            But for you it’s about dogma and I violated your rules. I don’t care.

            “Bottom line: you took a term that has a particular meaning in this context, you botched that meaning, and you are too proud, angry, or both to simply acknowledge the fact and move on.”

            So you claim that I am wrong about the Bible’s position on Jesus’s conception, that to characterize it as an immaculate conception is not accurate?

            I notice you ignored that most salient question, was Jesus’s birth (according to the Biblical text) immaculate or not?

            Yes or no?

            You and your BS phony grievances. No wonder you have so much empathy for jihadis.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “So Christians believe – but that belief is not the same as their belief that Mary was a virgin. “Immaculate” refers to the condition of being free from sin, which is a separate issue from Mary’s virginity.”

            The only “immaculate conception” recorded in the Bible is that of Jesus. Can you refute that or not?

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Was the conception of Jesus immaculate according to the Bible or not?

            Was the conception of Jesus immaculate according to Catholics or not?

            What more do your dogmas have for us on these matters?

          • objectivefactsmatter

            You’re quite used to blaming your confusion on other people and then never giving it another thought.

          • hiernonymous

            If you say so.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “The Church” speaks for Christianity, which is more to the point.”

            A church speaks for it’s leadership. Sometimes congregants agree. The Church, singular, simply means all who believe in Jesus as messiah. And it’s also clear in Christian doctrine that only God knows who its members are. Joining a congregation or “church” means you hope you’re following Christian beliefs authentically. Believers are exhorted by the Bible to reason through and to come to faith directly in God and his “Word” (the texts, but Jesus is also referred to as “The Word”).

            It’s complicated. It’s reasonable for people to misunderstand and poke fun. But there are also a lot of people that understand Christian and Islamic texts. Those people see why the Islamic texts are a lot more difficult to believe. It’s not any one thing, because taking apart any supernatural or alien event can be presented in a silly manner. What is silly about the Islamic texts is that even in context, it’s hard to believe (and I think I said this to you already) that a rapist pedophile would be sent by God as the ideal role model for pious believers And that this rapist would argue that all rapes are caused by the target’s lack of discipline in keeping from exciting the rapist. And in full context, this “prophet” is also teaching perfect justice and equal rights for women.

            To the Western mind, that is silly. But more seriously, it’s also incompatible with our values.

            Now if people believe that rape (just as an example) is the fault of the lust target, and those people also want to migrate to our nations, they must adopt our laws and integrate such that we don’t need to change our core values in order to keep conflict to a minimum.

            So even if we don’t resolve which text is correct, we can still see that the belief systems are incompatible. If an incompatible civilization wants to destroy my own, I’ll either join that civilization, I’ll die, or I’ll kill them.

            And from my perspective I can understand why anyone in today’s world would think that a rapist could not be a prophet fighting for human rights, unless women are seen as inhuman. But this rapist is also allegedly fighting for equal rights for women.

            You can’t resolve it unless you have blind submission to Allah. Which is incompatible with life in the West.

            By the way, Christians outside of the Roman Catholic Church see the Bible as the ultimate source for Christian doctrine. The Roman Catholic Church claims they authored (or at least compiled) the Bible in the time of Constantine. They propose that this gives them a sort of prophetic role to speak for Christ on earth. Anyone outside of the RCC and many inside it do not accept this.

            Therefore you are wrong about who speaks for Christianity.

          • ziggy zoggy

            It absolutely is a matter of translation. Practicing something incorrectly doesn’t make it correct.

            Whether the story from Mark was an allegorical description of Jesus curing a man of multiple personality disorder or an exorcism, neither case is hard to believe. Believing that if workers are given a share in the means of production it will lead to utopia is hard to believe. Taking away our guns and forcing Obamacare down our throats for our own good is hard to believe. Atheism is hard to believe.

            I recall plenty that I haven’t experienced first hand. I’ve never been to the sun but I know it’s hot.

            And you’re pretty damn old if you remember “History of the World Part I.

          • hiernonymous

            The doctrine of the virgin birth predates the King James Bible by at least 14 centuries; it predates the English language, and in fact predates the arrival of the Angles in Britain by at least 2 centuries. If there’s a mistranslation at issue in the doctrine of the virgin birth, it sure as heck has exactly nothing to do with any errors in the KJV.

            In fact, by about the 4th century AD (or CE, if you prefer!), there had emerged in Christianity the doctrine of Mary’s perpetual virginity – an unusual development indeed for a belief rooted in a faulty Jacobian translation.

          • defcon 4

            There’s only one religion that advocates persecution of the unbeliever though. Only one.

          • hiernonymous

            You are too harsh. The auto-da-fe was gruesome, but surely other religions have committed similar crimes against their victims’ consciences.

          • defcon 4

            Yeshua never advocated the torture or persecution of anyone dolt.

          • hiernonymous

            You seem to be confusing Jesus and his religion. (It’s okay to say “Jesus” – we’re communicating in English. The Latin-letter approximate transliteration isn’t a bit improvement in accuracy, anyway.)

          • ziggy zoggy

            He is contrasting Jesus with mohammad because you ignored him when he contrasted benevolent Christianity with genocidal jislam.

          • ziggy zoggy

            All religions are at peace except one. Only islam is at war with all other religions and people.

          • ziggy zoggy

            The mean average is 100, you hopeless ret@rd. three digits.

            Tell me again how muzzles supposedly created algebra.

          • Omar Sharbash

            Double facepalm.

          • defcon 4

            Then bang your head on the floor.

          • Omar Sharbash

            Are you Zoggy’s wingman? Hope you’re getting paid.

          • ziggy zoggy

            Are you a slave girl for the Arabs? Yes. Yes you are.

          • defcon 4

            Didn’t you just use that line? Can’t come up w/anything
            original? Prayers taking up too much of your time?

          • Omar Sharbash

            No. Different lines used differently at different times.

          • ziggy zoggy

            Why are you laughing? Did you pull your pants down and see the little joke?

          • ziggy zoggy

            If you’re having gay problems I feel sorry for you son, I’ve got 99 problems and a bitch ain’t one.

          • Omar Sharbash

            Hey, Bawer. One of your acolytes hates your ‘kind’.

          • ziggy zoggy

            Mohammadman was a camel molesting pig humper. P iss be upon him.

          • ziggy zoggy

            You are an ethnic Indian living in the U.K, you prancing little fairy.

            And oh, yeah. Pakis are just Indian traitors who practice the death cult of islam. You have no real identity other than a parasite. Enjoy that welfare check, pig boy.

          • Omar Sharbash

            Can I have some of what you’re drinking?

          • ziggy zoggy

            Nothing I drink can counteract the effects of camel piss in your mouth. Sorry, son.

          • N. Wasse

            You are not even funny
            So what do you do for living Omar?

          • defcon 4

            Camel Urine Cocktail: prophet recommended, prophet approved.

          • Omar Sharbash

            I’m not, you bona fide madman.

          • ziggy zoggy

            Ali G,

            Even chavs are superior to you. So are cockroaches, so that ain’t saying much.

          • Omar Sharbash

            Seriously, can I have some of what you’re drinking?

          • ziggy zoggy

            Are you all out of camel p iss?

          • Omar Sharbash

            So you’re a racist, a potential mass murderer, and an all-round thicko. I hope American security agencies are keeping an eye on you.

          • ziggy zoggy

            How many contributions to science came from Islam? Drinking camel pee doesn’t count. Neither does child molestation.

            Pakis are vermin. India is better off with the partition.

          • Omar Sharbash

            What’s that got to do with your being a nutcase, Gump.

          • N. Wasse

            Well said. This guy is a Pakistani/Indian that lives in England

            Right Omar the Arab wannabe?

          • ziggy zoggy

            Ali G,

            How is hatred for the death cult of islam “racist?”

          • Omar Sharbash

            Forrest Gump,

            Did you not denigrate Pakistanis, or Pakis, as you refer to them?

            ‘Pakis are just Indian traitors who practice the death cult of islam.’ (Zoggy 2013)

          • ziggy zoggy

            Pakis are ethnic Indian perverts who serve the death cult of islam. Indians are White. Am I racist against Whites because I used the term “paki?” Moron.

          • Omar Sharbash

            LOL. Seriously stupid. You’re racist towards Pakistanis. Stop playing games.

          • Aryan Hindu

            Hating Porkis is a human right.

          • Omar Sharbash

            Confirmed racist no. 2

          • ziggy zoggy

            Seriously, moron. Learn the difference between races and countries. Stop playing games, you trollistani douchetard.

          • defcon 4

            Funny, I’ve heard Indian HIndus refer to Pakistainis as Pakis.

          • ziggy zoggy

            Did you not earn my contempt? You losers chose to stay slaves after the British liberated you.

          • Omar Sharbash

            Who’s ‘you’ in the above?

          • ziggy zoggy

            Porkis. The formerly Hindu slaves of the Mongols and Arabs.

          • Omar Sharbash

            So why the ‘you’?

          • ziggy zoggy

            Because you’re a Porki.

          • Omar Sharbash

            Facts getting in your way again, as usual.

          • defcon 4

            Edit 1: islam is not a race.

          • Omar Sharbash

            Never said it was, defcon 4.

          • defcon 4

            Duh then how can someone be a racist if they hate
            muslimes?

          • Omar Sharbash

            It was his insult of Pakistanis that made it obvious he’s racist.

          • ziggy zoggy

            CE? What is that? We live in 2013 AD. There is no such thing as “CE.” Spare us your juvenile P.C. hatred of Christianity. The only reason you are able to express your vile hatred is because Christianity built the tolerant and scientific world that coddles you.

          • Omar Sharbash

            Wrong person you frothing moron. He’s on your side. LMAO

          • ziggy zoggy

            I don’t tailor the facts to suit my “side,” you brain diseased cretin. That is one of the main differences between conservative human beings and the lefties and islamopithecines who hate us. Our morals and integrity are consistent and real. You lot will say anything to further your vile causes and commit any atrocity.

            I guess you broke your fast. How was the camel piss? Halal? Stop scratching your pimply @$$ before you pick out your brain.

          • Omar Sharbash

            Why can you not write properly? Do you not understand English? Did you graduate from High School? Answers on a postcard, please.

            He’s on your side in that he’s anti-Islam too.

          • ziggy zoggy

            If you can point out any errors in my writing, please do so.

            Don’t get me started on your errors, Ali G.

          • Omar Sharbash

            Your comprehension is poor. You struggled with the ‘he’s on your side’ bit and missed the point entirely when I wrote only people with three-digit IQs should judge the relative merits of mine and Wasse’s arguments.

          • N. Wasse

            The one whose comprehension is poor and twisted is you

          • defcon 4

            Yes three digit IQ’s counted in octal.

          • hiernonymous

            “Our morals and integrity are consistent and real.”

            Betraying one’s religion and lying to others about one’s true religion in order to procure a bride doesn’t seem to represent particularly high morals or consistent integrity, but you no doubt have a rationalization in mind.

          • ziggy zoggy

            WTF are you referring to, you lunatic?

          • Omar Sharbash

            Because heirnonymous is the lunatic here.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            He’s fairly stable for a leftist drone, but he certainly has his moments of lunacy.

          • hiernonymous

            Your heartwarming tale of having pretended to be a Muslim in order to marry your former wife.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            The law requires it and it’s not “pretending,” it’s submission to sharia. Everyone knows the score.

            We live in an imperfect world and everyone compromises. Some cultures and value systems help us strive for moral perfection without actually expecting the ultimate achievement of that perfection (simply the best we can muster) while others encourage narcissism and fatalistic stupidity.

            But then again they’re probably all more or less the same. The true tensions throughout the world are caused by capitalism and class warfare. That’s what we should worry about.

          • hiernonymous

            Ziggy-Zoggy: “Our morals and integrity are consistent and real.”

            OFM: “Everyone knows the score…everyone compromises…”

            Ziggy-Zoggy: ” I had to pretend to convert to islame to marry my wife.”

            OFM: “The law requires it and it’s not ‘pretending…’”

            Hmmm.

            The law requires that one claim to be Muslim? Or the law requires that one claim to be Muslim to get what one wants? This is consistent with ‘our morals and integrity are consistent and real’ in what way, exactly?

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “The law requires that one claim to be Muslim? Or the law requires that one claim to be Muslim to get what one wants?”

            I believe he’s talking about Indonesia, which is theoretically multicultural with some features of sharia. The law requires submission to certain sharia requirements to marry. But they’ve adapted and created their own version of sharia.

            The most common requirement is (from memory) to have each party a member of the same religious group (1 of 5 officially recognized groups) and that non-Muslim couples must have an official religious organization recognize the marriage before the state will. For Muslims one only need follow sharia and the state itself sanctifies the marriage.

            In reality this means that you can get stuck as a non-Muslim because the law also grants quite a bit of authority incoherently to local community leaders. You must have endorsements from official neighborhood community leaders.

            I don’t know his full story, but what he describes is extremely common and everyone aware of the circumstances understands that it’s about submission.

            That’s from memory so the details might be slightly off. I’m happy to hear corrections. AFAIK those are the most common requirements but they do make adjustments to other requirements from time to time. Controlling marriage seems to be a big deal to them.

            But also note that it’s nothing in Indonesia compared to true Islamic republics. Indonesia is not a hotbed of international jihad, but the international jihad does inspire local jihadi violence along with the legacy local jihad in places like Aceh.

          • hiernonymous

            Having recapped the obvious, this brings us back to the original point: Z-Z professed Islam to gain access to a woman.

            You may find that understandable in a “we’re-all-men-of-the-world” sort of way, but how, exactly, is that consistent with “our morals and integrity are consistent and real” in what way, exactly?

            I forget – was it “Thou shalt have no other gods before me, unless she’s really hot?”

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Having recapped the obvious, this brings us back to the original point: Z-Z professed Islam to gain access to a woman.”

            Marriage is all about “access” to you? Well in any case he submitted to an element of sharia in exchange for access to government sanction for his marriage. I don’t have a lot of details but I do know that among humans marriage can be a big deal.

            “You may find that understandable in a “we’re-all-men-of-the-world”

            What does gender have to do with the question?

            “…but how, exactly, is that consistent with “our morals and integrity are consistent and real” in what way, exactly?”

            It’s not consistent. It’s a counter example. We find those among human lives. Your a real hero for reminding us of our humanity.

            “I forget – was it “Thou shalt have no other gods before me, unless she’s really hot?”

            Actually the commandments are the ideals and according to most interpretations, means of atonement are devised as acknowledgement that perfect obedience is not humanly possible.

            Submission to sharia is a violation. But turning away from a commitment may have violated other commandments. I don’t know all of the circumstances so I can’t go much further in explaining his situation.

            It reminds me a whole lot of your other examples of pulling events out of context to try to make a point. When context is explored, your arguments usually become less relevant to the discussion from my perspective.

            But then you’ve got your own agenda to push, so it’s not surprising.

          • hiernonymous

            “Well in any case he submitted to an element of sharia…”

            His words were “I had to pretend to convert to islame.” Let’s not waste time trying to couch that in euphemisms that gloss that over.

            “I don’t know all of the circumstances so I can’t go much further in explaining his situation.”

            The thought is late in occurring to you.

            “It reminds me a whole lot of your other examples of pulling events out of context to try to make a point.”

            I don’t tailor the facts to suit my “side,” you brain diseased cretin. That is one of the main differences between conservative human beings and the lefties and islamopithecines who hate us. Our morals and integrity are consistent and real.

            The context is pretty obvious in this case. Thanks for your input, though.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “His words were “I had to pretend to convert to islame.” Let’s not waste time trying to couch that in euphemisms that gloss that over.”

            He feels guilty about it. He didn’t set out to fool anyone nor that he did in fact deceive anyone. He was coerced and considered it offensive that he must “pretend.”

            It’s not quite the confession you’re making it out to be. Keep trying.

            “The thought is late in occurring to you.”

            That’s a stupid statement. I commented on what I know and limited my remarks accordingly.

            “The context is pretty obvious in this case. Thanks for your input, though.”

            The context of that remark was a heated discussion. I’m not vouching for any individual’s moral perfection. I’m pointing out to you that you’re actually employing classic ad hominem fallacies.

            Or maybe you’re here simply to attack individuals. So carry on. We all still have reasonable freedom to do that here.

          • hiernonymous

            “I’m pointing out to you that you’re actually employing classic ad hominem fallacies.”

            This suggests that you’re either not reading closely, or you’re not as familiar as you suppose with informal fallacies.

            He feels guilty about it. He didn’t set out to fool anyone nor that he did in fact deceive anyone. He was coerced and considered it offensive that he must “pretend.”

            I commented on what I know and limited my remarks accordingly.

            Hmm. I think I’ll let Ziggy speak to his emotional state, his intent, and the specifics of his circumstances. Unless you have a source of information that isn’t immediately obvious?

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “This suggests that you’re either not reading closely…”

            Mr. propagandists pushes his dogmas so intensely that he doesn’t realize the rest of the world around him. You didn’t understand his statement and I did. So I informed you that you’re attacking him personally over a statement he made about Judeo Christian morality, which is external to the individual even though of course must be processed by the individual. Or you can say that as a propagandist that you changed the subject to his personal execution but in the context of the conversation it’s fallacious to attack him about his statement. Nobody claimed to be perfect. And I already stated at least twice that it would count as a counter-example which is to say a useless illustration unless you can show why this example would matter if we’re talking about external sources for moral conduct rather than personal accomplishment.

            “Hmm. I think I’ll let Ziggy speak to his emotional state, his intent, and the specifics of his circumstances. Unless you have a source of information that isn’t immediately obvious?”

            It’s obvious to most readers that followed what I said. I’m not sure I need to always care about what is obvious to you. And it’s not like we can trust you to be honest about informing us.

            Why don’t you go and do your “behind the firewall” research and then tell us all about marriage in Indonesia and the topic under discussion? I already explained my views.

          • hiernonymous

            “You didn’t understand his statement and I did.”

            Your assessment is noted for what it’s worth.

            “So I informed you that you’re attacking him personally over a statement he made about Judeo Christian morality, which is external to the individual even though of course must be processed by the individual.”

            That’s one of the pitfalls of informing. I draw your attention again to his actual comment, rather than your euphemistic recastings: “That is one of the main differences between conservative human beings
            and the lefties and islamopithecines who hate us. Our morals and integrity are consistent and real. You lot will say anything to further your vile causes and commit any atrocity.”

            “Integrity” is not a reference to the characteristics of an external code of ethics, but to how well one adheres to one’s chosen ethics. Similarly, the reference to consistency of integrity is a claim to the superior way in which the code is implemented – to wit, that it is not followed hit-or-miss. Noting a significant deviation from the code in the individual placing the claim is clearly not ad hominem; it goes directly to the quality of the claim.

            You’ll note that he’s also quite clearly constrasting this, not with the underlying ethical framework of the other ‘side,’ but with their actual actions.

            Bottom line: you’ve attempted to recast Ziggy Zoggy’s words by means of euphemism, and now by deflection. No doubt your next post will contain yet another; you’ll forgive me if I wait for Ziggy’s response, rather than continue to play whack-a-mole with your objections.

            “And it’s not like we can trust you to be honest about informing us.”

            We are amused, and we note that the first person plural lends dignity and weight to banalities.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            If that’s how hard you want to work to justify attacking him personally rather than addressing his ideas (though if you parse his words literally I do understand your justifications), then that is your choice. It still doesn’t address the subjects we typically talk about here when we try to come up with constructive solutions.

            Carry on then. I already gave you plenty of information to follow up and learn what the issues are.

          • ziggy zoggy

            Integrity means ATTEMPTING to practice the moral or ethical principles one believes in. I do that but few leftists do.

            Leftism isn’t even based on morality or ethics (or reason.) it is based on elitism and totalitarian control of others. It is hate driven, dishonest and full of contradictions.

            Not all lefties are rotten but leftism is. Like Islam, it requires its worshipers to ignore common decency and choose vice over virtue.

            When Churchgoers greet each other in the pews, it is a sincere avowal of love, brotherhood and the desire to behave morally. Leftist gatherings are always hate-fests of smug self congratulation and screeching criticism of others.

            It’s plain to see why I prefer Christianity.

          • ziggy zoggy

            OFM IS RIGHT AND YOU ARE WRONG. Christian morality exists separately from me and it doesn’t change like fads do. I try to follow its principles whether it’s convenient for me or not – unlike leftists, who are infamous for their inconsistency.

            I did not enjoy being shanghaied into marriage and being forced to take part in an Arabic ceremony. It was a betrayal and an imposition.

            Because of your fixation, you blame me for something that was done to me.

          • hiernonymous

            “I did not enjoy being shanghaied into marriage and being forced to take part in an Arabic ceremony.”

            You were forced? As in a gun to your head, do this or die? If that’s the case, your original post was poorly worded, you didn’t actually pretend to be a Muslim, and no blame attaches to you.

            On the other hand, if you weren’t actually forced, but you went along to get along, then you made a decision, nothing was done “to” you, and you’re attempting to evade responsibility.

            At any rate, your bitterness toward Muslims is a bit easier to understand now. Not excusable, but easier to understand.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “His words were “I had to pretend to convert to islame.” Let’s not waste time trying to couch that in euphemisms that gloss that over.”

            You must hate entertainers that throw away all of their integrity when they role play.

            How about when leftists pretend to be trees in empathy building exercises? Ever done that?

          • ziggy zoggy

            Pretending to to convert was an element of sharia. OFM recognizes that but you deny it even as you write it.

            I have not compromised any facts to support my ideology or religion. Every time you paste my comment, you confirm that.

            Your fixation on my life is unhealthy. So is your constant defense of Islam.

          • ziggy zoggy

            “Access?” I did what I thought was necessary to get married to the girl I was already living with. She said we were getting engaged but after the ceremony (conducted in Arabic, which not even the imam understood) I was informed we were husband and wife. I chose to honor the arrangement. Any immorality involved was on the parts of my ex and the Indonesian government – and Islam, of course.

            I not only feigned a conversion to the death cult, but I don’t recognize it as a real religion, so I didn’t dishonor God in any way – only myself. Last time I checked, Allah doesn’t exist, unless you believe the moon is sentient.

            And you know, I don’t need a stalker like you passing moral judgement on me. Atheism and Marxism are intrinsically immoral, which is why you people think you can take God’s place.

          • hiernonymous

            “I not only feigned a conversion to the death cult, but I don’t recognize it as a real religion, so I didn’t dishonor God in any way – only myself.”

            Ironically, you have just described – to a T – the Shi’a doctrine of taqiyya. Having offered such a passionate defense of its principles, I trust that we won’t be hearing anymore about how it paints Islam as a religion of liars.

            “And you know, I don’t need a stalker like you passing moral judgement on me.”

            Why not? Passing moral judgment seems to be something of a hobby with you – is there some reason you feel you should be exempt?

          • ziggy zoggy

            Your memory is good. We did have to get our marriage endorsed by a state recognized religion we both belonged to, and the community”leader” was a “village chief” whose only function was to demand a huge bribe. Two of them, in fact. (Thanks to my foolish ex-wife.) His “village” was a local kampung. (Slum.)

            I have a Catholic friend who married a Muslim man. Neither of them switched religions. Because he’s muslim instead of her, the government “officials” involved went along……..with the proper cash inducement, of course.

            You’re right about Indonesia being much different from true islamic Republics – for now. Suharto did more damage than people realize.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “This is consistent with ‘our morals and integrity are consistent and real’ in what way, exactly?”

            That would be a counter-example in some ways.

            It’s very useful for you to search for individual human imperfections, especially among the xenophobes. We can assume that’s your worst indictment of this subject.

            You’re a real trooper for humanity and social progress.

          • hiernonymous

            I draw your attention to the post to which I responded, which contained the following comment:

            I don’t tailor the facts to suit my “side,” you brain diseased cretin. That is one of the main differences between conservative human beings and the lefties and islamopithecines who hate us. Our morals and integrity are consistent and real.

            “It’s very useful for you to search for individual human imperfections, especially among the xenophobes.”

            Identifying “human imperfections,” as you euphemistically put it, is directly relevant when addressing one who is claiming superiority on the basis of his morals and integrity – particularly, as in this case, in the consistency of his morals and integrity.

            “We can assume that’s your worst indictment of this subject.”

            You may assume that snakes turn into bats under a full moon if it pleases you.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Identifying “human imperfections,” as you euphemistically put it, is directly relevant when addressing one who is claiming superiority on the basis of his morals and integrity – particularly, as in this case, in the consistency of his morals and integrity.”

            Essence of his statement: “Our morals and integrity are consistent and real.”"

            He didn’t claim to be morally perfect. He claimed to have a superior source for referencing moral guidelines or non-coercive “commandments.”

            If you want to attack the statement, you have to logically attack what he referred to rather than his own real or theoretical flaws.

            “You may assume that snakes turn into bats under a full moon if it pleases you.”

            I’ll continue to follow the evidence.

          • ziggy zoggy

            I don’t see your implied contradictions. My wife or I had to fake a conversion to get married. I did it (to my regret. i should have had her do it but she tricked me.) That was a compromise. The law claimed I was a muzzle, whether I was sincere about it or not.

            The law persecutes Christians and muzzles who want to convert to peaceful religions. You seem to think that’s morally acceptable.

          • ziggy zoggy

            Damn, you stalkers are creepy. It’s illegal for a Christian man to marry a muzzy woman in Indonesia. I’m not the one with a morality problem. I don’t persecute Christians or make excuses for Islamic atrocities.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            If you acknowledge the calendar you acknowledge it’s origins, ie where zero came from (theoretically, though it’s off by a few years). Referencing CE is pretty lame.

          • hiernonymous

            Acknowledging origins and being expected to adopt a religious position (i.e. “year of the Lord”) are two different things.

            The Christian dating system is the de facto common framework, not because there’s any inherent virtue to starting the dates at that point, but because Europe was dominant during the time the common frameworks were being established. “CE” is a reasonable way of allowing those who don’t want to endorse Jesus as Lord with every chronological reference to use the common framework neutrally.

            Nothing stopping you from using AD if you wish. I use it at my current work all the time, but I don’t get the vapors every time I run into “CE” and “BCE.”

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Coming up with politically correct acronyms is part of the fight for true social justice.

            I hope atheist Americans can come up with some workaround for all of that offensive currency still in circulation. These things are critical if we’re to build our future expected Utopian society.

            Then again, EBT cards as far as I know make no references to any offensive theology. Once we get rid of cash entirely, that big problem will be licked. Forward to the next solution!

          • N. Wasse

            I stand corrected 633 AD

          • hiernonymous

            “CE? What is that?”

            Umm – look it up?

          • ziggy zoggy

            Christ’s Era?

          • defcon 4

            CE isn’t a slam against Christianity, it’s recognition that other faiths exist besides Christianity.

          • ziggy zoggy

            It absolutely is a slam against Christianity. The only reason people misuse our calendar system is hatred for Cristianity. Anybody can use a different – and inferior – calendar, but they cannot change ours just by using it incorrectly.

            Besides, the whole world uses our calendar. Using inferior calendars for cultural and religious observances doesn’t change the fact that ours is necessary to interact with the modern world, just like English is the only truly international language.

          • knowshistory

            just a wild guess, but possibly Christendom’s “;long established feature” may be a result of Islam’s long established tradition of robbery, rape, murder, lying, and genocide. just a guess, though, and based in part on those highly flexible Islamic scriptures, but based mostly on 14 centuries of genocide of everyone that does not assume the anal-receptive position 5 times daily.

          • Omar Sharbash

            Could you not say the same thing more politely.

            As for your point, sure. And it might even be the first cause of the strife between Islam and Christianity/West. Then again, the last time the Muslim world set out to conquer other lands was….

            Further, I’ve already yielded the right of the West to preemptively suppress any potential Islamist front. However, much of what’s reported in the news as examples of Islamic decrepitude is in fact a fight back by people assailed unfairly.

          • ziggy zoggy

            Islamopithecines have never stopped trying to conquer humanity, and they have no legitimate grievance against us.

            Taqiyah jihad attempt: DENIED.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Then again, the last time the Muslim world set out to conquer other lands was…”

            As we speak.

          • Omar Sharbash

            Could you explain, please.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            There are ongoing active efforts to retake “Muslim” land that is only “Muslim” in the sense that Muslims once colonized it. There are also campaigns to restore a regional caliphate that include seizing land as soon as the opportunity arises.

            How serious are these campaigns in terms of actually threatening us? Their plans won’t work out as they wish, but they are still wreaking havoc.

            OTOH, if Iran goes nuclear…

          • knowshistory

            cant really blame you peaceful muslims for your anger at the evil infidels. I would be angry too if I worshiped an evil god, was required to venerate an archcriminal pedophile, and was forced to hold my hindquarters up like a bich in heat 5 times daily. no surprise peaceful muslims hate those not required to be ridiculous

          • ziggy zoggy

            Hatred of islamopithecines is a natural human reaction. Like the natural revulsion and deserved hatred for all other vermin.

          • ziggy zoggy

            Hatred of islamopithecines is a natural human reaction. Like the natural revulsion and deserved hatred for all other vermin.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “My injection of comments here was simply to push back against what I believe is poisonous and unnecessary criticism by Bawer.”

            You do know that the article is satirical, don’t you? Nobody really considers satire to be necessary. The question is whether it’s useful. Can it inspire constructive discourse?

            By the way it pokes fun at leftist ideology as much as it does at Islam. Obviously the Nobel Prize is a product of Western culture. Muslims won’t naturally care as much about a Nobel Prize as Westernized people would.

          • Omar Sharbash

            I do (know it’s satirical). But it’s tawdry and beneath the author. It’s also part of an incessant attack on Islam and Muslims that’s just, frankly, annoying in addition to being unproductive.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “It’s also part of an incessant attack on Islam and Muslims that’s just, frankly, annoying in addition to being unproductive.”

            If it’s annoying to Muslims then it just might be more productive than you think. After all, if there is to be any kind of significant reformation, Muslims need to learn to be a LOT more tolerant of criticism regardless of how it makes them feel.

            September 11, 2001 was the day of a great watershed event, but September 11, 2012 was a day that probably turned more people against Islam than any other. And then to have POTUS go to the UN and utter the words that seem to blame our traditions and laws protecting speech as the cause of global violence in reaction to…a low budget video? Come on man. Things are not getting better. Dealing with criticism is crucial if you want a truly peaceful resolution of any kind.

            Having said that, I don’t think your response is necessarily objectionable but it misses the larger point about origins of all this hostility. I don’t have a problem with you personally except that I disagree with your priorities and focus. Convince them, not us.

          • defcon 4

            In any of your various islamic sties, anyone criticising your death cult publicly would face very unpleasant consequences for doing so — most often death.

          • Aryan Hindu

            Hatred of Muslims is a Human right.

          • Omar Sharbash

            Spitting in the face of self-hating Indians who kowtow masochistically to their white masters is a human right.

          • defcon 4

            Who runs India now? I seem to remember hundreds of thousands of Hindu slaves being marched off to slavery over the Hindu Kush by muslimes. Of course, there are hadith that suggest, plainly, that Muhammad was a WHITE man.

          • Omar

            Oh, please. Hatred of Christians has long been an established feature of Islamism. Learn from facts.

          • Omar Sharbash

            Nice to meet you, me.

            I know you know very well Christians are accorded special provision in Islam. Show me evidence Muslims, as a matter of policy, hate Christians.

          • Omar

            You’re kidding me, right? The Islamist persecution of Christians is happening on a virtually daily basis. Just to give an example: the population of Bethlehem in 1948 was 85 percent Christian. But by 2006, the Christian population of that city had shrunk to 12 percent of Bethlehem’s population.Even that percentage number is almost certainly smaller today. Another example of Islamist persecution of Christians was how the Ottoman Islamists conquered Constantinople in 1453 (that conquest, by the way, led to the end of the Byzantine Empire, which was the direct successor to the Roman Empire, as the Byzantine Empire was the eastern half of the Roman Empire) and renamed that city Istanbul. Remember that during World War I, the Islamist Ottoman Empire committed genocide against the Armenian people. About 1.5 million Armenians died at the hands of the Ottoman Islamists. Today, Christians in the Middle East are still being persecuted by radical Islamists. Egypt, for example, has become a very dangerous place for both Christians and Jews(as well as any opponemt of Islamists. Libya, too, has followed that same path. Christians and Jews are forbidden to enter Mecslam’s holy city.Muslims banned from entering Rome or Jerusalem? The answer is no. Please give me examples (if you even have any) of any alleged Christian persecution of Muslims (besides the Spanish Inquisition).Name Please read Robert Spencer’s Freedom Center pamphlet on Islam to learn more

          • defcon 4

            Gee, I wonder if it had anything to do w/the persecution, murder, rape, forcible conversion and enslavement of Christians by muslimes?

          • Doger Trader

            omar,
            u said change is possible. as a muslim (i guess according to your name..) how do u think it can it happen?
            i am on your side if u acknowledge some change is needed is the muslim world.
            thanks
            mony

          • Omar Sharbash

            Thank you for your correspondence, Doger.

            I believe change is necessary, i.e. it has to happen. It’s method of occurring will be either (a) peaceful – Muslims exhibiting greater intellectual integrity so as to resolve what are the (seemingly) intractable and, indeed, foundational problems or (b) by dint of force. The latter, naturally, as a human being before even my ‘Muslimness’, is something I do not want to precipitate.

            I actually agree, by and large, with the approach taken by Western governments. There is a problem and in isolated places against isolated people, Islamism should be rebutted by measured force. But more work should be done by those on both sides of the divide to dialogue.

            My whole contention is per the article’s churlishness and its nourishing of the worst of the West.

          • Dallas25305

            What about Charles the Hammer? He understood Islam.

          • Omar Sharbash

            He understood the right of man to self-defense.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “He understood the right of man to self-defense, not Islam.”

            It’s very likely he understands both better than any of us do.

          • ServosT

            He understood the importance of defeating Muslims, and that’s enough.

          • defcon 4

            Great response.

          • ziggy zoggy

            1400 years of reality conflict with your fantasy, you pretentious twit.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            You know you’re promoting apostasy.

          • Omar Sharbash

            Not necessarily. By today’s standards they probably would be construed as such but you underestimate (or as Bush Jr would say, misunderestimate) the receptivity of Muslims to change and the flexibility of Islam. Ultimately, a process of dissonance not unlike what has happened in the West to integrate modernity with cultural heritage will happen there.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Ultimately, a process of dissonance not unlike what has happened in the West to integrate modernity with cultural heritage will happen there.”

            For the most part those who advocate change and modernism are either used for cover, or killed. If you are sincere about your hopes, you are also delusional about Islam itself.

            To the extent that they can reject Islam Muslims can change. That doesn’t mean that they can then change Islam as well as they reject it.

            Lots of “modern Muslims” (well, enough for us to observe and evaluate) try to reform Islam without explicitly denouncing it. They don’t get a lot of traction, and are usually hated outside the West and often inside as well.

          • defcon 4

            But how would you know what dissonance is? Because music is haram.

          • Anni

            Islam is a barbaric 7th Century religious cult, not a cultural heritage. Europe has a cultural heritage, even Egypt has one which is not due to Islam. Islam has nothing but a set of barbaric orders for it’s followers that include killing anyone who is a non believer.

          • Omar Sharbash

            Aryan Hindu probably thinks he’s white so is currying favour with his masters. You’re not white, my friend. Stop the self-hate.

          • Aryan Hindu

            Islam is not a culture. It is anti-culture.

          • Aryan Hindu

            ISLAM = International Society for Looters And Murderers.

          • defcon 4

            Yeah, right, just TRY criticising islam or its holey prophet in any muslime state publicly. It would be best to make sure your will is made out and your life insurance paid up before you do so.

      • Omar Sharbash

        Not directed at you Wasse.

        It’s pathetic that my confirmation of the Earth’s roundness and affirmation of the dearth of healing merits urine possesses were deleted. You almost need to make Muslims appear backward to justify the rubbish the type that frequent this forum spew.

        • objectivefactsmatter

          Some times things are deleted for no apparent reason. It happens to all of us at some time or another.

        • N. Wasse

          Not directed to you Mr Arab Wannabe

          It is pathetic that Allah says that the earth is flat and Muhammad claimed that camels urine cures all diseases.We kuffar only tell what the Islamic sources tell us and if the likes of Omar the Arab wannabe is not happy then he should destroy the Islamic literary sources and good riddance
          Deal?

          • Omar Sharbash

            …at you…

            If you’re gonna imitate me at least do it properly.

            And stop stalking me. Friggin’ weirdo.

          • N. Wasse

            “gonna” and “friggin”? What happened to your creepy English?

          • Omar Sharbash

            Part of being a native English speaker, $hitstain.

          • N. Wasse

            Sure and I’m Urdu speaker too! Why the lies?

          • N. Wasse

            Boring!

          • N. Wasse

            “Stalking you”? So now it is also delusions but why would this be surprising after all your so called prophet was suffering from delusions

        • N. Wasse

          We kuffar only tell you what your Islamic sources say as in Allah says that the earth is flat and that the earth is the center of the universe and that the moon and the sun orbit earth so is that true Mr Arab wannabe?

    • ServosT

      I agree. This article assumes that the muslims are trying to win Nobel Prizes or contribute to the advancement of society. Thats non-sense. Muslims are trying to win territory and convert or kill non-muslims and get paid while they are doing it by weak kneed politicians and naive NGOs. If there was a Nobel Prize for that then muslims would clean up.

      • ziggy zoggy

        Or a Nobel prize for attracting fleas.

        • ServosT

          Well that would be about as useful as the Peace Prize has been for the last, um, forever. THey could have given it to that young girl who was shot by the very islamic Taliban because she had the audacity to want to go to school, but instead they gave it to some meaningless group of bureacrats.

  • N. Wasse

    The Arabic word Ulama really means scientists (read this as Muslim clerics) but the science here is not real science but it is about explaining what the book of Arabian ignorance aka the Qu’ran is saying
    The real disaster to Muslims is that Allah was an avid reader of Ptolemy and this is why Allah believes that the earth is the center of the universe and that the moon and the sun orbit earth and that the earth is flat and that the mountains prevent earthquakes! No I’m not kidding
    No wonder Muslims either have to believe Allah or not

  • herb benty

    Bang on!

  • Bill James

    The US Patent Office is even more anti-Muslim!
    Dec. 2011 U. S. Patent Office Report, patents held, http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/ac/ido/oeip/taf/cst_utl.htm: Turkey, Pakistan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia (combined population 350 million) hold 1,100 patents; Israel (population 8 million) holds 22,009 patents.
    ———
    Nobel Prizes in SCIENCE awarded to Israelis (population 8 million) since her “creation” in 1947: five.

    Nobel Prizes in SCIENCE awarded to ALL Muslim nations combined (population 1.5 billion): two — since 1898!

  • Dallas25305

    Muslims aren’t winning, what a surprise?? How would they be inventing anything when they are spending their time making bombs and planning jihad. When your day starts with honor killing your daughter for dating an infidel, beheading an infidel, stoning a woman and driving a truck bomb into a kindergarten or old-folks home, you don’t have any time for science. Besides Mohammad and Islam isn’t about science, it’s about returning to the stone age, which they have already accomplished.

    • Omar Sharbash

      Except previous, substantial scientific accomplishments by Muslims decries everything above. Don’t let the facts get in your way.

      • N. Wasse

        Without the Greek and Hindu (your ancestors) and Persian learning there would have been no Arab/Islamic “sciences”
        Even the translations of the Greek learning was conducted by Nestorians and the so called Arab sciences were the product of non Arabs and non Muslims be it Persians, Jews and Christians
        And to add insult to injury the word sciences in Arabic al-ulum means the knowledge of the book of Allah and not profane science and an illiterate Muslim sheikh is called Alem and the plural is Ulama this is what science islamic style is all about as in drinking camels urine cures all diseases
        And all of this Arab/Islamic sciences was gone by the 11th century and why is that Omar? Hint: Islamic orthodoxy was in charge

        So what did Muslims provide the world of science in the past 900 years? Nothing not a thing

        Oh the Arabs? they were too busy looting and enslaving and killing and destroying great civilizations and burning libraries as in the case of the Buddhist library of Nalanda India where you are from

        • Omar Sharbash

          Are you Indian, by any chance?

          • N. Wasse

            Would being Indian, polytheist and kafir drive you and your so called Allah out of your minds? If so where can I sign in?

      • Freedom Call

        Your ancestors pillaged the great works and declared it their own.

        • Omar Sharbash

          Sure.

          • N. Wasse

            Your so called prophet plagiarized even the Jewish literary sources external to the Bible and this is what your Arab masters call it the embarrassing al-Isra’eeliyat and guess where did your Allah plagiarize Q5:32? Hint: Sanhedrin 5:4

            Even the Qur’an is silent about male circumcision and when that poor Libyan judge who wrote a book back in the early 1990′s declaring that male circumcision is not Islamic and it belongs to al-Isra’eeliyat in other words Muhammad borrowed a Jewish ritual he was declared a kafir
            Oh the warm and fuzzy Islam

          • Fernando

            Your so called religion is an invention mixing Indian and persian traditions.

            Beautiful example: the supposed Talion’s law created by Moses, is written 200 years before he supposedly lived and wrote it on your sacred texts. You can find it on the Louvre museum at Paris. It is called “the Code of Hammurabi”.

            Pd: read history, stop saying things without the proper knowledge. World will be a better place

          • N. Wasse

            Boring

      • De Doc

        Name them please. And not just some clown with an Arabic name, but that said person actually used his religious belief to make some astounding scientific discovery. There are none.

        • Omar Sharbash

          Didn’t say Islam caused discoveries. Was making the point that Muslims have made scientific contributions so the condition of being Muslim is evidently not anathema to learning.

          • N. Wasse

            Then go and tell al-Shaf3ee and Ibn Taymiyya that being Muslim is not “anathema” to learning about profane sciences! They would have declared you a kafir because to them science was only the book of Arabian ignornace

            Oh sorry they must be busy in Allah’s little heaven with 72 virgins and the boys of Allah’s little Janna

            But most damaging to Allah’s little heaven is that i can build a fancy place with lots of food and rivers of wine and each one can have cushions and can have 72 virgins but I can assure you that Allah would have an epidemic of type 2 Diabetes and morbid obesity and hypertension on his hand in this little janna

          • De Doc

            Yet the dearth in scientific inquiry and discovery is entrenched today among most Muslims. Innovation is anathema in your religion because the Quran says so. Not only that, but the insufferable beehive mentality that is Islam kills any free thought. At this point Islam is a religion that appeals to the lowest common denominator and advances violence over the duty to advance the state of the human race as a whole.

          • ziggy zoggy

            Name one scientific achievement made by an islamopithecine. Even their bomb making tradition is a gift from the West.

      • ziggy zoggy

        Discovering that islamopithecines can’t impregnate goats and camels was scientific but it wasn’t much of an accomplishment.

    • Freedom Call

      Barry Hussein won one.

  • Omar Sharbash

    Why have two of my comments been deleted?

    • ziggy zoggy

      Because they sucked and nobody likes you. Boo hoo.

      • Omar Sharbash

        Not talking to you Ziggy, mate.

        • Hass

          Come on mate, you can’t give him the silent treatment. Ziggy is a good bloke.

          • Omar Sharbash

            Lol. I realised it came across that way but thought, hey, leave it for the laughs. You know, do something good for humanity.

          • Hass

            Okay Omar, I have a question for you mate. Please answer me as honest as possible.
            I have to say, after reading a few of your comments I’m starting to think you’re very close to Apostatize from Islam. Here’s why I think that.
            You seem educated from what I’m reading and I’m sure you sometimes have a hard time accepting some of the absurdities in Islam. I say this because, I was like you, I defended the indefensible.

          • Omar Sharbash

            I’m not a literalist so I disagree I’m defending the indefensible.

            Whether or not the critical mass of Muslims like it, they will eventually butt heads with objective reality (namely, scientific truths and material privations) and reorganise their belief system. I did and, I presume, so did you.

            However, we’ve done it differently. Where you’ve abandoned Islam, I see no need to do so especially as I think it’s not even remotely all bad. I also maintain the existence of God.

          • Hass

            I see and understand what you mean, trust me, I’ve been there and a few other stages. It’s long process that took 5 or so years to know I was free.

            Let me ask then, does it not bother you that the prophet, a 56 year old man marrying a child of six and consummated her at 9 years old?
            Then we have the nonstop violence on anyone not Muslim. Especially this, “it the duty of every Muslim to force the world into Islamic submission”.
            This is not my cup of tea. No matter how you look at it, there is no way Islam, the Quaran and Hadiths will ever be altered, Muslims would rather die than change Allah’s commands.

            As for Muslims against Muslims, you and I know that even if they were to kill off the Disbelievers they’d start killing each other again. I could go on, but you get the drift.

            I hope one day you too will ignore Islam and I mean that sincerely.

          • defcon 4

            “not even remotely all bad”. Try telling that to the Christians of Iraq, Iran, Nigeria, Egypt, Syria. Try telling that to the few Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists and Christians still left in Pakistain or Bangladesh. Try telling that to the few Bahai and Zoroastrians left in Iran. Then stick your head in a big bucket of camel urine.

  • De Doc

    An anecdote from Steven Weinberg, a co-recipient of the 1979 Physics Nobel with Abdus Salam: “I have a friend — or had a friend, now dead — Abdus Salam, a very devout Muslim, who was trying to bring science into the universities in the Gulf states and he told me that he had a terrible time because, although they were very receptive to technology, they felt that science would be a corrosive to religious belief, and they were worried about it… and damn it, I think they were right. It is corrosive of religious belief, and it’s a good thing too.” (The Atheism Tapes, 2004).

    Bottom line, Islam and science are ever incompatible.

    • ziggy zoggy

      Science didn’t corrode Newton’s religious belief.

      • De Doc

        Interesting assertion. Of course one must keep in mind that Newton accepted the scientific, heliocentric model of our solar system, counter to the Bible. Newton also held personally to anti-Trinitarian religious views, which were surely heresy for his time. His rationalist philosophy may well have influenced his theology, so one conld argue that it corroded his traditional Christian belief. My own taken on Weinberg’s statement is that science will not necessarily destroy ones religious belief, but at least allow free inquiry not burdened by suffocating theological dictates as found in Islam.

        • Omar Sharbash

          But why specialize Islam? Newton kept his Unitarianism hidden because of social implications suggesting it was heterodox way past what the Church and wider society would tolerate.

          That is absolutely analogous to modern day Islam. Teaching of Evolution, for example, in the Muslim world is resisted exactly for the reasons the heliocentric model once was in Christendom. It was suffocating for Galileo but norms changed.

          So unless you can justify with evidence the uniqueness of Islamic intransigence, your point is invalid.

  • dad1927

    Obama, a Sunni won one! And he did not have to do anything!. Too bad he turned out to be a war criminal.

  • Joseph Flannagan

    Recently Iran has shown that earthquakes are caused by women dressing immodestly. Surely that is worthy of a Nobel award if all we need to do to eliminate quakes is create some simple new fashions. A couple of weeks ago the Saudis have unearthed medical evidence that driving damages a woman’s reproductive system and causes them to turn to prostitution. No information about why being a PASSENGER would not do the same.

    • Freedom Call

      They should form a research group with al-gore and search for manbearpig.

    • KingHasNoClothes

      Fantastic. I had no idea such important research was being conducted by these beacons of Islam. Why, it must be a Jewish conspiracy that this information is being withheld from the world.

      • Joseph Flannagan

        It’s all verifiable if you search online. Those are only the most recent in a long list of amazing discovery generally overlooked by the west.

  • http://vitamind3info.blogspot.com/ Adrian

    I know it’s not politcally correct to say so, but in IQ studies, Jews come out on Top.

    • defcon 4

      I had thought Asians were pretty high up there too. I seem to remember a guy from Japan who once told me he learned integral and differential calculus in high school and that it was commonplace in Japan to do so.

      • ziggy zoggy

        It used to be commonplace in America. We all know who to blame for American ignorance. As you know, Japan doesn’t allow immigration from low I.Q. countries.

        • Omar Sharbash

          Still is commonplace. People’s just don’t say it out loud.