yall

Best you can do huh? I'll make it easy for you KRC: 1. Mohammed founded a religion that is based upon his actions and communication with god. 2. Many of mohammeds actions were violent. 3. If the religion is based upon his actions (or at least all of the ones kept track of in the koran and hadith) then the religion is also violent.

OK, quotes please. I'd really like to see the one where you addressed mohammed being violent, and showing disrespect for other religions, especially since that's the once I''ve been asking you tp respond to to for almost a week now. Really, let's see it...

So violent muslims must, themselves have a bad translation, right? Surely they are not ignorant of their own language. When muslims riot in the streets of islamabad and hold up a sign quoting the koran, with what they beleive to be a quote from the koran justifying violence against those who disbelive, they must have the quote out of context, right? Where have I made the assumption that islam is evil? You are using a straw man argument yourself (exagerating my position), by stating I assume islam is evil. Hell, I haven't even tried to prove that it is evil. All I have said, all along is that there are major flaws in this religion, which help to fuel extremism, mostly stemming from the action of mohammed. Furthermore, you are guilty of using an argument ad hominem by attacking me personally with your whole "ignorant" nonsense, rather than adressing my points. You STILL have not addressed that point over 6 pages of your posting and a week's worth of time. When someone else called you out 4 days ago on something you said "oh i'll look in to that...". They are still waiting on a response to that one too. Once again, all you can do is post some quips about me being ignorant, not understanding islam, and not addressing the points (even though you claim to have done so).

Where have I proven that? What counter arguments have I ignored, other than questionable translations? Those who use the violent passages of the koran and hadith for an excuse to kill people don't seem to have any trouble at all with how they interpret the books. Furthermore, not one single poster, has addressed the issue of mohammed being a violent person. Not one! That fact alone has huge implications on the interpretation of the religious texts and the acceptable behavior of those who considers themselves muslims.

I don't deny that one bit. I'm well aware of the flaws with all major religions. But right now radical islam is a major problem worldwide, and it needs to be addressed. The problem is, a large portion of the muslims in the world cannot handle any dialogue regarding their religion and view it as an attack. It's as though the feel they deserve a special treatment, one that their founder did not afford to others.

Once again no counter points other than "the only way to understand it is to know arabic" argument. Brilliant stuff, really, if ethnocentrism is a valid point for a logical argument. All you and KRC can muster is "blah blah blah" and "you just hate islam" and at best "oh yeah, well other religions suck too". How about addressing any of the real issues and flaws with THIS particular religion?

The koran is a text of hypocracy. It preaches tolerance and then intolerance. If you are islamic, what are you supposed to do? I guess look at the life of mohammed for guidance. "Oh, hey look, he showed contempt for people of other or no religious belief, he murdered, and called for subjugation of those who opposed him in any way." How are they supposed to "filter" which parts of the book to follow? Maybe the parts based upon the examples laid out by it's founder? It's like if your math book said "2+2 = 4" and on another page "2+2=5". What do you do? I guess you recall what your math teacher did in class... Or if Charlie Manson had a few lines about peace and love in his madness. I guess if I went around calling myself a "peaceful mansonite" would be fine, so long as I was peaceful, and that would make charlie and his actions and beliefs peaceful too right? Any time anyone critcizes islam. muslims flip out. Egypt is banning some european newspapers as we speak, for questioning mohammed's past. Why is that? The religion CANNOT stand up to criticism, nor can it's followers.

He has no rebuttal. His counter arguments consist of "you don't understand islam". Again, completely typical of those who do not posess the ability to defend their position. Notice he never did respond to my or your pointed questions. He can't. Islam can't. And I never said or implyed it was the root of all evil. It's a stupid, hypocritacal religion, founded by a murderer. No one can defend it try as they might. Thats why all the monkey can do is to throw crap.

All you can ever do is point out flaws in other religions, and sidestep the problems with islam. I'm not surprised as it's a typical response from people unable to defend their belief system when met with scrutiny. "Well Jews and Christians weren't nice to them either..." Well done. That proves islam is peaceful for sure. And for the what... 3rd(?) 4th time(?) you have completely avoided the problem of mohammed being a violent man. It's not a far jump for someone to say "Well the new testament says a couple of nasty things, but Jesus didn't say this stuff, it came from apostles, and if you look at his life he was peaceful, so maybe thats how I should be..." On the other hand it isn't a stretch to go from "Well mohammed executed people, and his book says to be nice, but at that same time to kill and subjugate those not like him.." to "its ok to kill for allah". Debating this type of reality with a true beleiver is like clapping with one hand.

It's common known that english translations add the word "lightly" to that passage, although it is not there in the arabic version. Muslims should be outraged that their holy book is being tampered with. And don't give me the "you just have to be able to read it in arabic to appreciate it" line. Although I do believe in certain words not tranlating well between english and arabic, IRONY being one. I'm still waiting for you to address the violent history of the prophet and reconcile that with what are considered very clear interpretations of passages such as this: Koran 5:33 "The Punishment for those who oppose Allah and his messenger is : Execution or Crucifixion or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides or exile from the land" Now with that one you could say that's your punishment once you get to hell, so may mohammed didn't command it, but it was instead a warning. But that doesn't explain this one: Sura 9:29 "Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold forbidden that which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued" Again, the words of the prophet. "So when you meet in battle those who disbelieve, then smite the necks until when you have overcome them, then make (them) prisoners, and afterwards either set them free as a favor or let them ransom (themselves) until the war terminates. That (shall be so); and if Allah had pleased He would certainly have exacted what is due from them, but that He may try some of you by means of others; and (as for) those who are slain in the way of Allah, He will by no means allow their deeds to perish." And let me get this straight: I'm supposed to respect a religion created by a guy who had no respect for other religions? Didn't mohammed smash the idols that were worshipped by some polytheists? "Surely the number of months with Allah is twelve months in Allah's ordinance since the day when He created the heavens and the earth, of these four being sacred; that is the right reckoning; therefore be not unjust to yourselves regarding them, and fight the polytheists all together as they fight you all together; and know that Allah is with those who guard (against evil)." I could go on all day with these types of passages, and these aren't even the good ones. Seriously, the founder was violent, sanctioned killings, participated in forcible conversions, extortion, and participated in open warfare. You can't combine those FACTS with the contents of the holy books, and tell people with a straight face it is a religion of peace and tolerance.

I don't know why I'm bothering to respond to you, since you have refused to respond to my queries, but what the heck, I'm game. Koran, chapter 4:34 "Men are the maintainers of women because Allah has made some of them to excel others and they spend out of their property; the good women are therefore obedient, guarding the unseen as Allah has guarded; and (as to) those on whose part you fear desertion, admonish them, and leave them alone in their sleeping-places and beat them; then if they obey you, do not seek a way against them; surely Allah is High, Great." As far as the killing and taxation of non-believers, you seem like a bright guy, try a search engine. If you haven't been convinced by now that islam is not a very peaceful religion, and you care to ignore the violent history of its founder, then I highly doubt there are enought links or proof to change your mind.

Here is a well thought out comment from faithfreedom.org on the different interpretations of islam. (This is basically what I said many posts ago, that "peaceful muslims" are the ones who are not "true" muslims): 18- But there are other versions of Islam. Not all Muslims are fanatics. There are many Muslims who are liberals, who believe in human rights and equality of gender. You cannot condemn all the Muslims. The Islam I am opposing is the Islam of the Prophet Muhammad and what he taught in Quran. I am not concerned about other versions of Islam. Islam cannot be changed. You only can change Islam when you change Quran. Trying to humanize Islam is like trying to humanize Nazism. Representing Islam as a tolerant and humanistic religion is lying. Can you put the foundation of human happiness on lies? Quran and Hadith say that women are less than men; they are deficient in intelligence and beat your wives. How can you preach equality without changing what is in Quran? Quran demands killing the disbelievers, waging war on them until everyone converts to Islam or is "subdued, feels humiliated and pay Jizyah", How can you build an Islam that talks about tolerance, but neglect the inhumanities of Quran? It is like saying, let us discover the “liberal” Nazism in which everybody is loving and gentle, and there is no racial hostility. If you want to fool yourself go ahead but you won’t be able to fool others. If you are so much attached to Islam, live by it. Don’t try to change it and pick and choose what pleases you most. If you are unsatisfied with what you see, may be it is time to move on. The true Muslim was Khomeini.

I'll sit on the "deal first" end of the table to avoid the bad hits... I'm probably not even gonna gamble too much. I figure I'll allow myself losses in the neighborhood of $150-$200 per day. Figure I'll spend as much time at the $5 tables as I can.

Really? I don't mind one bit. I figure there is always a chance he catches a stray bullet while going through NYC... : )

Yeah, I'll definately give you guys the rundown on our dirty life & times...!!! Thanks for the heads up on the Palamino too.

Hey gang, A friends and I are flying to Las Vegas tomorrow for some fun and relaxation (along with heavy drinking and gambling). We are staying at the Flamingo for 3 nights and taking a red-eye back Saturday night (landing back in Buffalo around 6:00 am Sunday morning where the ol' lady will pick us up and head straight to the Ralph!!! ). I was just curious if there were any Vegas "veterans" who had any recommendations or advice to offer on how to get the most from our trip, bang for buck, etc. (Good strip club recommendations gladly accepted too! )

The Pub on Broadway in Depew. Best wings ever. If you go there for a Bills game, they serve free ones at half-time. (You have to be there from the 1st quarter though, or else they won't let you have any...)

And here is a nice op-ed piece that sums up who is really being irresponsible right now: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,214338,00.html (I know, I know "Ahhhhhh!!! FoxNews... Right-Wing Conspiracy!!!!")

Still, no one has addressed the implications of a religion being founded by a violent conqueror. The one link I provided may not be the pinnacle of credibility, but all you need to do is look around and you will find thousands of sites that accurately describe the life and times of the prophet. Once again CTM.. you said you would respond, but never did. Our childish insults aside, can you deny that the violence perpetrated during the life of the prophet nullifies (or at least brings into serious question)the "peaceful" nature of islam?

Alot of folks need a refresher.

Wrong, all I have been saying all along is that Islam supports (by default) the actions of mohammed, which were quite violent. Can you deny that?

Oh, and for those of you interested... here is a nice link about "Mr Peace" mohammed... http://personalpages.tds.net/~theseeker/Mohammed.htm And crap thrower (I'm assuming thats your name because you throw crap in response to arguments and pray that it sticks..) to say that islam was a peaceful religion until the 1950's ignores common sense and history itself.

OK, here is one... took me all of .04 seconds to find... http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/fnc/st...42746.asp?c=rss Get out from the mosque much? I could actually give you more links to more people who endured similar forced "conversions" but you don't seem to be one for little things like "facts" or "reality".

And regardless of what the Koran actually says...the historical record has a more than fair number of examples of not just tolreance of but protection of Jews and Christians. The protection of Orthodox and Nestorian Christians in the Low Middle Ages springs most immediately to mind, as does the acceptance of Jewish refugees from the Inquisition (as of WWI, there were still Spanish-speaking Jewish communities scattered across the Ottoman Empire). The Jewish and Christian communities in most major Islamic cities I can think of (Kabul and Herat in Afghanistan being great examples) were thriving and important communities up to WWII and beyond. Fact is, Islam from its inception to about 1950 has been no more and in many ways substantially less intolerant and violent than Western culture. That that changed around 1950 with the advent of Arab nationalism (the Arab League and Muslim Brotherhood - which is, in fact, NOT a "Muslim" brotherhood but an Arab one) is not the fault of Islam, nor does it represent Islam circa 1200. 778470[/snapback] Bravo. They were sort of okay to Jews and Christians, but Hindus? Zaoastrans? Nope sorry. They deserved death. Hardly the model of tolerance. It's like me hating blacks, but being ok with hispanics, since they have some european lineage. I'm still a racist !@#$. Same goes for Islam.

Again, the history of islam is rooted in violence, oppression, and intolerance. See: Life of Mohammed. You can blame all of the outside influences that there are and ever were, that doesn't change the fact that they worship the life and times of a murderous conqueror. As far as the crusades go, they were a reaction to islamic violence. Both sides were bad, but one side started it. Wanna guess who? I shouldn't have to tell you if you know so much about their history.