Pull your heads out and sniff fresh air, fanatics!

Pls make downloadable.Thnx.

Pls make downloadable. Thnx.

Ipray, fewer lamebrains like you and the world will be a much better place. If you have anything substantive to say, say it. Otherwise do us all a favour - shut up and get back to praying. I'm assuming you are a Muslim but you could also be a commie or a bleeding-heart liberal. Aquamarine's comments are always welcome. It's gratifying to have my low opinion of him repeatedly confirmed.

Muslim notion of proof: "The Arabic of the Quran is the most perfect, the best ever. No one has ever equalled it. So it MUST be of divine origin." Like Creationists and Intelligent Design people, Muslims just want to keep yakking to be in the public eye. No matter how much proof they are given about the shittiness of Islam, they keep claiming no proofs have been given.

Thanks for posting this.

It all depends on what is interpreted as "war against Muslims". Anyone opposing Muslim proselytisation can become an oppressor of Muslims. Most of the claims of oppression of Muslims is from devout Muslim authors, hardly an unbiased source. Yet the truth slips in between the cracks. You should read what Muhammad did to the Banu Quraiza tribe as well the numerous other raids in which he massacred people, looted others' property, destroyed their idols, cut down their vineyards or date palms. He ordered assassinations, broke treaties and amputated the limbs of some thieves. Muhammad had no business trying to keep his viewpoint alive by such measures. He was like a religios ganglord trying to protect and extend his turf. In no other old religion with an identified religious founder, e.g. Buddha, Mahavira, Jesus, Guru Nanak have there been atrocities committed by the founder in the name of a god. That is why his followers today show much of the same traits. In fact, one of the most common sentences in the Quran is, "... theirs will be a painful doom". A religion of peace indeed.

I've deleted 2 of Aquamarine's comments because this is not the place for diffuse, extended "theses". There was also nothing new in the claims that (a) Islam is a religion of peace (b) There is no compulsion in religion as per Islam (c) there is no possibility of people ever changing their points of view (d) no non-Muslim can correctly criticise Islam. Re (a), verse 5.33 of the Quran says: "The only reward of those who make war upon Allah and His messenger and strive after corruption in the land will be that they will be killed or crucified, or have their hands and feet on alternate sides cut off, or will be expelled out of the land. Such will be their degradation in the world, and in the Hereafter theirs will be an awful doom." Verse 2.216: "Warfare is ordained for you, though it is hateful unto you; but it may happen that ye hate a thing which is good for you, and it may happen that ye love a thing which is bad for you. Allah knoweth, ye know not. 2.217: . . . but to turn (men) from men from the way of Allah, and to disbelieve in Him, and in the Inviolable Place of Worship, and to expel his people thence, is a greater [transgression] with Allah; for persecution is worse than killing. And they will not cease from fighting against you till they have made you renegades from your religion, if they can. And whoso becometh a renegade and dieth in his disbelief: such are they whose works have fallen both in this world and the Hereafter. Re (b), verse 2.221 says: "Wed not idolatresses till they believe [i.e. convert]; for lo! a believing bondswoman is better than an idolatress though she please you; and give not your daughters in marriage to idolaters till they believe, for lo! a believing slave is better than an idolater though he please you. These invite unto the Fire ..." It is well-known that those giving up Islam are to be killed, as is made very clear in the Hadith. So much for freedom of religion. Re (c), mullahs and other Muslim activists all over the world are hard at work trying to keep the band of Muslims from disintegrating. This too is merely part of Islamic principle, practice & tradition. Re (d), it's a worthless defense along the lines of "you don't know Arabic". It is the responsibility of Muslims to justify the many violent and bigoted verses in the Quran.

The argument goes as follows: if the Quran is criticised by X, then X doesn't know the Quran; if X praises the Quran, X is a great scholar. This is what passes for logic among observant Muslims. They want the whole world to accept them at their own partisan evaluation. If you have nothing of substance to say or can only give "proofs" which are self-referential, don't waste space with stupid comments. You will only antagonise people against Islam even more. On second thoughts, that's a good thing!

@ 1) Exceptions merely prove the rule. Consider Filipinos who no longer seem to have indigenous names, only Spanish ones. To me, that's a disastrous cultural cave-in, genocide. Christians do give themselves Jewish, Greek, even meaningless names. To a certain extent, that is also to succumb. The Indonesians come off relatively better, since many Muslims there have Sanskritic names deriving from their heritage and history. Perhaps that's now a fading trend under pressure from Arab regional colonialism. While it is natural to give one's progeny names with religious connections, I refer to a wholesale Arabicisation.The issue here is one of self-respect. To give up one's identity too readily, is to value one's traditional culture too cheaply. It is a common condition for invasive religions to try to culturally deracinate the target population. The Christians do it and the Muslims do it. @ 2) THough I'm not a Christian, I can recommend the New Testament saying about obeying the the law in its spirit and not its letter. (Non-Muslim) Asian religions tend to emphasize this. A religion which can only be read and understood in source code (possibly supplemented by "trained" interpreters), is not a religion. If it's broad outlines do not suffice for life, the religion becomes a program/language for thought-control and extreme standardisation. However, for scholarly/philosophical disputes, one could study the scriptures minutely. The induced fear that a small slip of interpretation can destroy the devout's worship also serves the Arabs to retain control of Islam! Reminds one of Microsoft. What you should strive to learn is compassion, tolerance, freedom of thought, common sense. Not the ridiculous minutiae of something some guy (or guys) said or wrote several centuries ago. Unless you are trying to utterly standardise yourself. Think how absurd this attitude is if transplanted to scientific work.

For sure.