1 final vote 72-28 ... lets start a pool ... Note: this type of vote will not indicate strength of Bush - but instead indicate weakness of Dem left.

2 agreed

3 66-34

4 The dhimmitards have finally reached the point where they're like a hostage-taker who has shot all his hostages, and is now holding the gun to his own head, threatening to pull the trigger. Considering who is calling the shots for them these days, I'd say they make asses of themselves in grand fashion.

5 They just dropped a anvil of the demacratic donkey or more likly the donkeys own trap backfired

6 Heh. I said "make asses of themselves" without even seeing the double entendre. I should never post before I have coffee.

7 A bit on the wild side but - 10-1 says Hillary changes her mind and votes YES. I know - longshot - but shes a gamester!

8 You may be right hondo, she's not as smart as most people give her credit for.

9 Of course she's smart - she just doesn't have much to work with politically - which is why she's all over the map on a dime - searching for that "magical middle".

10 If she were really smart, she'd go with what works, rather than trying to foist her crooked Marxist schemes upon us. She is scum and should be... well, you know the rest.

1 Tell this Italian Cockbag (hey Filthy, nice word) to bring it on. WeÂ’ll send his ass to hell along with Tom Hanks.

2 Why is Tom going to hell?

3 Counter sue the commie and make him prove Jesus didn't exist.

4 He stars in the DaVinchi Code movie. ItÂ’s going to lead a lot of people in the wrong direction. I donÂ’t know where Tom will end up, but I would have walked away from this one. I think itÂ’s true that some people will sell their soul for fame. IÂ’ve enjoyed most of the movies by Ron Howard and Hanks. Apollo 13 is one of my all time favorites. I was disappointed to hear both were behind this load of crap.

5 Brad, did you ever read the DaVinci Code? I'm a Christian myself and enjoyed the book very much. I can't wait for the movie... On the topic at hand, however, this is kind of like life imitating art. I see a big courtroom drama a la "Miracle on 34th Street" happening. Heh. I guess "innocent until proven guilty" doesn't play well in Europeville.

6 Vonski, No I have not read the book. I have read and listened to a few knowledgeable Priests and Catholic apologists critique it. I do not believe Jesus had a sexual relationship with Mary Magdalene. I donÂ’t think people who write books or make movies that portray this are going to fair well in the end.

7 Vonski I see a big courtroom drama a la "Miracle on 34th Street" happening. Heh. I guess "innocent until proven guilty" doesn't play well in Europeville. OK, all you boys and girls, let's get out the pen and paper and start writing letters to Jesus, ICO: the Vatican . Then make them prove the Italian Post Office isn't an official agency of Italy .

8 Ironic (to me at least) that not only Christians, obviously, believe Jesus existed but so do many Jews and Muslims, generally speaking. I also am a Christian but speaking strictly from a historical point of view, I thought it was pretty much common knowledge even among historians who are atheists, that Jesus did exist. They may disagree on His importance in the grand scheme of things but I'm not aware of many who deny the He existed. I doubt this guy is going after the clerics at the mosque. *** Spoiler Alert on the Da Vinci Code *** Vonski, I read the Da Vinci code and many are offended because Dan Brown is passing this off as being a fairly accurate historical account of the children of Jesus and Mary Magdalene and the secret organization that 'protects the bloodline'. It is obvious to most that Brown had his plot already decided and then took a bunch of unsubstantiated material on Da Vinci and drew lines to connect the pieces of the story he wanted to tell. Everywhere the story needs to make a serious leap of faith, it is explained away as 'well Da Vinci didn't have the freedom to say what he knew to be factual from being leader of this secret organization so he left us clues in his paintings.' Then he expects the reader to make other leaps of faith on presumed hidden meanings behind Da Vinci's 'The Last Supper' by referring to a specific part of the painting and saying 'this means ...'. On one TV show, he made reference to the letter 'V' that Jesus and the person to his right form in the painting and then expects you to believe his conclusion based on a made-up premise. Sorry, I can't remember the conclusion based on the 'V' or I would so so. I can't say I was offended by the book ascerting that Jesus had children but I was a bit offended as him passing it off as being historically accurate after making a series of leaps-of-faith that sound good when written in a fictional story. I am a Christian who understands the Bible was written by many different people over many years and has gone through many translations that could allow some detail to be lost but it seems to be a reach when no account (Matthew, Mark, Luke, ...) of Jesus' teachings and his adult life have mentioned a wife. Mary Magdalene is generally seen by scholars as another one of his closest disciples but probably not mentioned as such due to 'a woman's place' being subserviant. I have heard many priests who say they don't believe the story is true but that it's certainly not impossible. Sure, a lot of people are going to see it as 'the work of Satan' but most of us just have a problem with Brown because he's passing his story off as being based on truth when all of his 'proof' requires you to believe in the dots he has conveniently connected for us. Yes, it is a work of fiction but Brown has been on many television shows explaining why the book is based on events that are historically accurate. If he were to admit that he made it all up, there wouldn't be as much controversy and, therefore, fewer sales. It has definitely made him a very rich man.

9 I would like to believe the "V" stood for Vonski, but I doubt it. Surely anyone with a firm foundation in Christianity would recognize the work as a fiction. And, there is no denying that people do believe that Christ and Mary Magdalene bore children, in spite of the fact that there is no evidence to support this claim. I agree that Brown stretches things to the point of breaking, but I was able to take it with a grain of salt and see it as entertainment versus letting it challenge my faith. In regards to my initial response to Brad, I would hope that we would not wish to condemn someone to hell for reciting lines in front of a movie camera. That was a bit excessive. Rather, even in spite of the glaring discrepancies, I hope that some good comes of the picture. There might be some that come away convinced that they should research this Jesus fellow a bit more. I suggest starting with the Bible, New Testament, book of Matthew

10 Of course none of this would matter if Christitanity were really based on the teaching of Christ the teacher rather than a cult based on the alleged divinity of Christ as the Son-O-God. Neither Christ nor Buddha, (both appelations, not names, by the way), wanted to have a cult of personality founded on them, but rather wanted only to spread enlightenment throughtout the world. Both failed and succeeded to varying extents, but no matter what, islam takes the prize as the greatest ideological blight to ever befall humanity.

11 Another thing; modern Christianity is derived directly from the Council of Nicea, which was basically nothing more than an instument that allowed the emperor Constantine to unify all Christianity in one official church, under his control, of course, and thus consolidate power through his direct appointment and control of the various bishops. Any sects or teachings which did not contribute directly to such consolidation and control were deemed heretical, and the followers were marginalized and persecuted throughout the empire. In effect, the same people who murdered Jesus took control of the various religions established in his name, and put it to work for their own purposes. As I've said before, Christinity inc. has nothing to do with the teachings of Jesus, but everything to do with power, control, and money. To find the true Jesus, one must first abandon Christianity.

12 Ok Vonski, I can't condemn anyone to hell and really would not want to anyway. I was a little carried away. Shit Maximus, every time I think IÂ’m not being a good enough Christian I read one of your rants and damn if I donÂ’t think IÂ’m actually going to make it. You make me feel so holy. Vonski, I guess we disagree about the seriousness of Hanks making this movie. I would not do it for all the money in the world. Even if you say youÂ’re sorry; there it is for the entire world to see 20 years later. To me, itÂ’s a lot. Finally, IÂ’m going back through the posts and trying to find the thing that set poor young George off and made him snap. Can someone direct me to the thread? It has to be pretty good.

13 Does anyone else get the impression that IM was abused by a priest as an altar boy? Please do not confuse the 'pastors' on TBN and abortion clinic bombers as being ambassadors of the true Christian religion. Constantine's attempt to catholicize all of the sects failed if you haven't noticed (we call this failure "denominations" hehe). And, Jesus did not deny His godhood (and therefore the "good news" that He died for our sins, so no further sacrifice was necessary) in any respect so I don't know where you got that idea. But, that isn't really what this blog post is about. If we are merely talking about whether or not someone should have to go to court to prove that Jesus existed, there is ample historical evidence of this. I don't think the comments section is the appropriate place for a lengthy discussion as to veracity of the claims that Jesus is God and who is true followers are and what exactly they believe.

14 Frankly, I don't know of any passage in the bible that says thou shalt not say Jesus had a girlfriend. And if I were a Christian I would be more concerned about whether Hanks was "saved" than what role he might play in a ficticious story. Afterall, if he was a Christian wouldn't he already be forgiven for playing the role? What's most interesting about it is that I haven't heard any Christians threaten to kill anyone over it or blow up a bus.

15 IM, Agreeing with your basic premise of church + absolute power = corruption, I definitely have to disagree with your assertion that Christ's message was separate from himself. There is no way you can read the book of John and not walk away with the doctrine that Jesus is God. Even acknowledging him as the "Christ" is attributing character beyond that of any human. Christianity (not the religion, mind you) is still first and foremost about the salvation accomplished by Christ (literally, the Saviour). The cults can usually be easily identified on this one point alone.

16 True, Oyster, but I am going to give Tom Hanks a noogie next time I see him. I'll bet he will stop with the anti-Christian movies after he hears about this threat. Haha!

17 Vonski, it sounds like we are in agreement. Like I said (or at least meant), the religious statement wasn't my issue with the book because I did recognize it as a work of fiction. My only issue is the continual sermonizing by the author on every liberal media outlet to try and make people believe this a story based on fact. IM, I may not agree with the philosphical part of your argument but you're at least a man of strong conviction and it sounds like you know your history.

18 First to Brad: If you're feeling holy, then you're standing at the gates of hell, metaphorically speaking. There's no righteousness like self-righteousness. Next, to Vonski: No, I wasn't an altar boy, nor was I even Catholic, for which I am grateful, considering the odds, but it is telling that you resort immediately to personal slurs rather than attempt to engage in enlightened discourse. Unfortunately, this is not atypical behavior of most Christians with whom I debate. If you're afraid I'm too smart for you to take head on, then don't try a sneak attack, because I'm too smart for that too, and you'll get busted, like you just did. My kung fu is stronger than your kung fu. What happened to me was that I learned to think for myself, which put me forever in opposition to any and all dogma and doctrines that pretend to the truth, whether in the form of an ancient text or some televangelic fraud selling redemption and family vacations at Jesusland USA in one package for only twelve easy payments. Don't take this personally, but if you believe that any person can find the truth for you better than you can find it for yourself, then I've got a bridge I'm looking to sell... As for Jesus not denying his godhood, (we call it divinity, hehe), the Council of Nicea, along with deciding whether Christ was human, divine, or both, was also tasked to assemble the various gospels and other texts into the Bible, and Eusebius was a fairly thorough editor, changing, deleting, and adding as he saw fit, and even saying that falsehoods, if they served the cause, were perfectly acceptable. Even Pope Leo X said "it has served us well, this myth of Christ". The Bible exists in the form it does because Eusebius wanted it that way, and all other conflicting gospels he ordered burned, as was also threatened to the newly-denounced heretics, but many survived, though most are even more preposterous than the ones that were kept. And now, to Henry: Read the previous paragraph then continue. The word Christ doesn't mean savior, it means anointed, and may be etymologically related to the word for golden, chrysos.This is an academic argument and I have to take the dog for a walk, so it'll have to wait for another time, but I will be glad to continue at a later time. As to the word Christ, I use it not because I wish to acknowledge his divinity, but because if I called him Ye-sh-ua bin Yu-suf, (damned filter),nobody would know who I was talking about. The salvation that Jesus offered did not then, nor does it now, require membership, twelve easy payments, nor the abandonment of reality, but it does require letting go of all sin, along with the willingness to forgive yourself and others for being human, though not to the point of absurdity. And absurdity is something in which Christianity inc. is well practiced. Finally, to slug: Thanks, and you bet I know what I'm talking about, otherwise I'd keep my trap closed.

19 Pope Leo X never said that except in a satire by a British anti-Papist named John Bale. The work was titled, Pageant of the Popes. Show me where he said it in an encyclical and I will entertain the notion. Until then, the quote is non-existant as a historical matter.

20 Well Rob, it looks like you were right. I had never researched that quote on the internet, and now I know better. Thanks. See? I'm honest in my dealings, because the truth is all that matters to me, and I will readily lay aside anything other. Can the same be said for my antagonists?

21 That's the thing about IM. He's an atheist, but he's an honest atheist and he doesn't have an axe to grind. I can live with atheists like that. Our country is big enough for the both of us. Unlike the anti-christian Leftards who should all be packed into shipping crates and handed over to IM to dispose of as he sees fit.

22 JC, Maxie ain't got that much free time on his hands, even if he is semi-retired. Haha!

23 Oh I've got time on my hands if I want it, I just don't want to waste my time tilting at windmills. Besides, my differences with Christianity are generally philosophical and ethical in nature, i.e., purely academic, and what I want is not to see Christianity destroyed, but reformed once again and taken out of the gigantic, palatial temples of wealth where it's broadcast live on national television and sold in vacation packages for just twelve easy payments, and put back into the hearts of people. I'd rather the the Christianity the Jesus taught, not that which was given by the Pope's armies at the threat of fire and sword. Christians have always contributed to the greatness of America, and it wouldn't be half a nice a place to live if not for Christianity. Anyone who thinks different should live in a muslim or communist country for a while, or one of the post-Christian secular European hellholes where morality is about as fashionable as steam driven locomotives and sailing ships. This, however, does not excuse the excesses committed and excused by many in the name of Christianity, and everyone knows what I'm talking about, so I won't go on about pedophile priests or televangelical frauds. Anyway, I'm not against Christians or Christianity, but I am against hypocrisy, and well never, ever, let hypocrites get by without notice.

24 Which goes to show that there is a vast difference between being athiest and being anti-religion or anti-Christian.

25 >>>Which goes to show that there is a vast difference between being athiest and being anti-religion or anti-Christian. True dat.

26 That italian atheiist jackass needs to get a bolt of lightning in his rear just like the atheist jackass MICHEAL NEWDOW who is trying to force the who nation to abide by his wishes they both nned a bolt of lightning in their rear ends

1 Nasal control implants? Put there by the alien overlords, no doubt. Just more proof that liberals are so stupid that they're too dangerous to society to be allowed to live.

2 But....but...the liberals are so intelligent and educated and smart and.......The truth is that they are just a bunch of dumb asses. Good lord, what will these idiots come up with next?

3 If I only had a dollar for every time some idiot libtard told me they were the smart ones...

4 Ha, ha. Excellent.

1 A refutation without condescension would have been preferred. In reviewing my comments, I believe it is a viable summary to say Pat Robertson thinks this way. He cites the Bible and we know that his life is guided by the Bible. He cautions that future leaders should follow this biblical warning. "Sharon "was dividing God's land and I would say woe unto any prime minister of Israel who takes a similar course to appease the EU (European Union), the United Nations, or the United States of America," Robertson said. The rest of my comments were meant to reflect that it is human behavior to rejoice when our opponents have trouble and that it is just as common on one side as another. There was no intent to support evildoers of any hue. I regret that my comments were not clear.

2 I don't do condescension, just sarcasm. Or snark, if you will. That's one problem with the internets, you can't hear the voices in my head.

3 Anyone who takes one word from Pat Robertson's mouth seriously is about as big an idiot as Robertson himself. I used to watch the 700 Club when I was a Christian, and even back then in my brainwashed state I knew he was as full of shit as a Christmas goose.

4 The rest of my comments were meant to reflect that it is human behavior to rejoice when our opponents have trouble and that it is just as common on one side as another. Why we should not simply resign ourselves to such "human behavior": Proverbs 24:17-18 17 Do not gloat when your enemy falls; when he stumbles, do not let your heart rejoice, 18 or the LORD will see and disapprove and turn his wrath away from him.

5 Pat Robertson is not representative of Christians, and does not speak for anyone but himself. That the media reports his stupidity is more a statement on the media than on Christianity.

6 Just an aside from the Peanut Gallery: Anyone who takes one word from Pat Robertson's mouth seriously is about as big an idiot as Robertson himself. I used to watch the 700 Club when I was a Christian, and even back then in my brainwashed state I knew he was as full of shit as a Christmas goose. The difference between Left and Right. We denounce our looneys. Yet everyone wants a photo-op with theirs (e.g. Crazy Al Sharpton)

7 A refutation without condescension would have been preferred. Funny, I thought the comments being refuted were condescending.

8 So is everybody on this board saying it WASN'T the will of God?

9 Well this might be splitting hairs... but do I think it was the will of god. Specifically Loki, the Norse god of mischief and the deity Libs call to when they pray for an American defeat.

10 Right. And Pat Robertson wasn't chosen to head up the RNC either.

11 Pat Robertson is the head of the Republican National Committee?

12 I wonder what Robertson or Osama would have to say about the structural failure at Mecca which killed a bunch of hajjis?

13 Ah! I'm with IM on this one.

14 JJ - You and I are having a communication breakdown, I think ;-) I was implying that the dems gleefully chose Dean as their spokesman and embrace all the looney comments he spews, yet scream about republicans by quoting the likes of Robertson. The difference is that we didn't choose Robertson to head up the RNC. Sorry. I'm expecting people to read my mind.

15 Oyster, I got it. (only because I had to read your mind though)

16 Damn, Oyster, I get no sarcasm these days. I'm uptight and out of sight about this damn dry weather. Christian or no, you need to pray for some rain in Texas. It is bone dry.

17 Pat Robertson had better spend all his time praying that he dies peacefully in his bed from no apparent cause. What's the saying? "Payback is Hell"

18 Yeah, I hope the weather gets damper, JJ. Maybe Filthy can sacrifice a goat or something for you. I'll say a prayer.

1 Let me just remind you guys. That Saddam was bad, he had WMD. He could nuke the UK in 45 mins, just like that was a load of bollocks, so is this whole Iran and N. Korea rubbish. Finally lets remember Iran. The FIRST DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED PRIME MINISTER OF THE COUNTRY WAS OVERTHROWN BY THE USA BECAUSE OF NATNIOLIZING THE OIL and replaced by the very western Shah of Iran, WHO WAS OBERTHROWN AND REPLACED BY THE WESTERN BACKED AYATOLLAH KHOMENEI.

2 Jaaaaaaack Abramoff is squealing, Republicans get pwned, coooooorrupted government, gets blown up on the walls. I bet he won't live till Friday, surely he'll be dead, shot down like John Kennedy, or slave-freeing poor Abe. Soon available on über-copyrighted, spywared CDs and DVDs from Sony BMG. Also tune in for "Abramoff is going to die"-music video, 10 pm every day on NBC.

3 In other news, 99%-certainly-Christian Greek anarchists blow up car of Finlands ambassador. Greek authorities try to assure that the Finnish embassy was not especially targeted. A Finn still feeling hung over after holidays... 90% alcohol drinks are not meant to be drunk in mug sizes.

4 Yes Amaad, the whole thing with Iran is a "load of bollocks" as you eloquently put it. As Europe will be one of the first areas that Iran's nuclear warheads will be capable of reaching, you had best hope that indeed that is the case. Iran is preparing to be a Nuclear armed nation, not only are they purchasing weapon systems capable of missile defense, they're also shopping for missiles capable of carrying nuclear warheads to greater increasing distances. Nth. Korea is an example why Iran should not be allowed to possess nuclear weapons, "you cannot put the genie back in the bottle" and once they have them, they'll use them as a bargaining chip in round after round of negotiations, they will of course never give them up. Then you have to look at Iran's promise to prolificate nuclear technologies to all Islamic nations, not an idea anyone should relish.

5 The article is way to obscure on details. What "western European nations"? What "leading industrialists"? They're saying, "We have a leaked, sensitive document 55 pages long, but we're not telling you any of the 'detailed assessments' we have in the document. We'll just stick with generalities to freak you out." All it tells me is that if Iran is still "seeking" parts and knowledge, they don't have anything concrete yet.

6 Hey amaad, tell your mother that her last goat-blowing video sold well, but she needs to take a bath, as the goats are complaining about the smell. Finn, you're just a fucking moron and not worth the effort of a good, biting comment. I hope being a dhimmi works out for you, which it should, as you seem to like fellating muslims.

7 Amaad, The Brits wanted Mossadegh out, not the U.S. Their money was at stake, not ours. We helped them get rid of him because that was the price of their continued help in the Korean War. That doesn't make it right, but the people who own the blame for the abuse Iran took up to 1953 are the Brits, not the Americans. Where do you get this idea that the "West" backed Khomeini? Khomeini's only tie to the West prior the revolution was his short stay in France after the Shah forced him out of Iraq. France never "supported" him. They just gave him asylum.

8 Nice writng Shannon. improbulus go f**** yourself. The Ayatollah was given the support of the USA after his touching speech on 'Islamic democracy'. This suprised the Shah because he thought the USA would respect a man in a suit more. 'taken from 'the days that shook the world' BBC3

9 As for terrorism: you fail to remember its global, not islamic. There are Christian, Jewish, Black, White, Nationalistic, Communist etc terrorist groups. S0 THINK BEFORE YOU ARE PREJUDICED AGAINST MUSLIMS. IF YOU ARE DRIVEN TO HATE BY THE ACTIONS OF A FEW SO CALLED 'MUSLIMS' THEN YOU HAVE FELL INTO THE TERORISTS T

10 Afgahanistan is now a pothole in the ground beacuse of the USA not the Soviets. Soviets invaded, mujahideen rebelled, USA gave financial and political backing, soviets left, USA left, Afghanistan turns into a pothole. i think I know why the Afghani's would be pissed with America.

11 Muslims going to America and Europe are faced with a flood of questions about Islam. People have many ways of asking these question and different motivations for doing so, but their questions are essentially as follows: Why does Islam permit polygamy? Why is a woman counted as half a man in matters of inheritance and when she gives testimony? Why does Islam “belittle” women? Is Islam a religion of terror since it prescribes jihad? Who should we believe: Sunnis or Shiites? Questions like these are what occupy their minds when they think about Islam, since the Western media has actively maligned Islam as a religion of lust and blood and nothing else. When our Muslim youth go to their countries, they often find such questions awkward and try to evade them. They might say things like: Permission for polygamy is conditional upon justice between wives and justice between wives is impossible to achieve. Allah says: “You will not be able to be just between women even if you strive to do so.” [Sûrah al-Nisâ’: 129] Whatever is conditional upon something impossible is impossible itself. Therefore, polygamy is forbidden in Islam. In many cases, Muslims will come across a strange opinion on a matter and promote it simply because it is more conciliatory. When I visited America, I found that many Muslims who did not have correct or sufficient Islamic knowledge suffered from such difficulties. They really did not know what to do. I used to tell them the following: Why should we be on the defensive? Why don’t we adopt a more assertive attitude? If they confront us one question, we should respond with ten of our own. If they ask us about jihad, we should ask them about America’s openly aggressive policies in many parts of the world, not to mention all of their covert operations. If they ask you about polygamy, ask them about the sexual promiscuity that is rife in their societies that has brought humiliation to so many women and allowed men to absolve themselves of their responsibilities towards them and towards their children? If they ask you about inequalities in inheritance, ask them about the reality in their own country where a woman earns only 60% of what a man earns for doing the exact same job. I do not mean that we should be evasive. However, it is not good for you to respond when you are in a state of weakness and difficulty where there is a danger that you might answer falsely and misrepresent Allah’s religion in order to appease someone else. You can move on to a more advanced level of discourse and demonstrate that Islamic teachings are the solution to the problems that they are suffering from. For instance, according to some assessments, there are 119 women to every 100 men in the United States. In some states, the number is more like 160 women to every 100 men. Polygamy is the solution to the problems that ensue under such circumstances, since it requires some men to assume responsibility for more than one woman and to be as just as humanly possible in doing so. We can stress how Islam teaches equality between all people. There is no preference for anyone over anyone else except by a person’s piety and virtue. This is the way to do away with the problem of racism that people in the West suffer from. The Islamic teachings about jihad are what uproots oppression and guarantees people the freedom to think and to choose their religion for themselves without being under any compulsion. Islam seeks to have people freely submit themselves to their Creator and not be placed under the subjugation of any worldly dictator, race, tribe, or nationality. There are a few points that I would like to emphasize: 1. Matters of Islamic law are established by the unambiguous texts of the Qur’ân and Sunnah. No one, regardless of who he is, has the right to change, add, or subtract anything to placate anyone’s desires or fears. When someone who calls others to Islam opts to misinform people about Allah’s rulings, he is doing a disservice to Islam. He is also deceiving people. He has no right to meddle in matters of Islamic Law that are the jurisdiction of Allah alone. 2. Matters that fall within the scope of juristic discretion and allow for differences of opinion should be presented in a balanced and objective manner by the person who is calling others to Islam. He should take circumstances into consideration when doing so. He should not select the most severe and restrictive opinion on a matter and present it to the people as if it is Islam itself, especially when he is trying to endear Islam to the people’s hearts. 3. Our objective should be to convince others of the correctness of the Islamic ruling so that they will accept it. We must employ all of our knowledge and reasoning abilities in achieving this objective. We must provide all the relevant facts. We can employ to our advantage other areas of knowledge that we find to be of benefit in convincing people of Islam. This may inlude discussions of the Qur’ân's scientific miracles, statistical information, circumstances and experiences, and rational arguments. There is nothing wrong with this. In fact, this is an integral part of conveying the truth to the people. 4. We must instill in the hearts of our young people complete and total confidence in every aspect of Islam, from the most general teachings of their faith to the most specific. We must dispel any sense of weakness or deficiency that they might possibly feel at the hands of some of those who dispute with them. We do a disservice to Islam if we lead the people to believe that Islam is close to the life that they already living and that the Islamic approach to life is not much different than their own. This only makes the people feel that Islam is unnecessary for them and encourages them to turn away from it. They are, in fact, trying to escape from the hellish aspects of the lives that they are already leading. They need to be presented with an alternative. When they ask about Islam or even about something else, they are looking for a way out. They are looking for something to rescue them. Therefore, we must present Islam to them with all of its uniqueness and show them clearly how it differs from their own life experiences. In this way, we encourage them to think about Islam. We must present Islam to them in a logical manner with clear and insightful arguments. Our responsibility ends here. Indeed, this was the extent of the responsibility of Allah’s Messengers (peace be upon them). Allah says to Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him): “It is naught your duty but to convey the message.” [Sûrah al-Shûrâ: 48] “It is your duty only to convey the message. It is upon Us to take account.” [Sûrah al-Ra`d: 40] “So admonish them. You are but one who admonishes. You do not control their affairs.” [Sûrah al-Ghâshiyah: 21-22] It is not necessary for us to fancy that the whole world will convert to Islam at our hands. However, we must be eager to guide them and we must seek to do so in every possible and permissible way. We should perfect our way of presenting Islam to them, taking into account the age, circumstances, and level of knowledge of those whom we are addressing. We must present to them the noble Islamic values of freedom, justice, and human dignity and prove to them that Islam is superior to everything that they already know. Above and beyond all of this, we must conduct ourselves in the best, most ethical manner and present our own lives as a practical example of moral virtue. Unfortunately, many Muslims call people to Islam with their tongues while pushing them away from it with their ignoble, contradictory conduct and with their narrow-mindedness.

12 First of all don't talk crap up about Islam. Read between the lines of the quraan. Don't make up phony hadith. ISlam isn't bad.

13 Back to the topic point - I have serious problems with a report in the Guardian - long on claims and totally absent on details. The Guardian will eagerly play both sides of the street to stir the pot.

14 WHY SHOULD I BELIVE BUSH THIS TIME. HE HAD 'CLEAR' and 'CONCSIVE' PROOF THAT SADDAM HAD NUKES, WHERE THE F*** ARE THEY?

15 Stay on topic - don't let Amaad divert you into an idiotic argument about caparative islam.

16 Yes, the lack of specifics in the Guardian report is curious. Perhaps they're planning a series. Amaad: the source of Islam's bad press is 9/11 and 7/7, not the western media. The American MSM have bent over backwards to accommodate Islam. That's why there's a media embargo on 9/11 images. I have tried to find something redeeming in Islam, but failed. It appears to be a corrosive, third-world cult that thrives on ignorance.

17 There are good people that are Muslims, nonetheless Islam is not peaceful. Eventhough Islamofascists are a minority of Muslim they still represent Muslims in the millions. Unlike communist, neo-nazi, white supremacist etc, etc groups; Islamofascists are extremely well financed by millionaire and billionaire fellow cadres. As for the religion of peace claim by Muslims go to this website - http://www.thereligionofpeace.org - to see the true ethics of Islam. Islamofascist are not nice people and their intent is world domination with an overseeing Caliphate. Not good for unbelieving Muslims who will to choose between conversion or death or dhimmitude.

18 Oops that website is http://www.thereligionofpeace.com, not dot org.

19 Afgahanistan is now a pothole in the ground beacuse of the USA not the Soviets. How is that again? The Arabs flocked to Afghanistan like it was some third-world, donkey meat, kebab cart and hung around like a bad cumin smell. You can also look at their neighboring country Pakistan for pretty much all of Afghanistan problems, seeing as they occupied, and created their own Government in Afghanistan, and created a third-world, medieval, knuckle-dragging society where women were treated worse than goats, and "evils" such as music and art were banned. You have some huge nuts, sunshine.

20 Amaad, It seems unlikely that the U.S. supported Khomeini prior to the revolution for several reasons: We were already invested in the Shah, and Khomeini started denouncing the U.S. shortly after he started denouncing the Shah (about 1963). Khomeini kept claiming the shah was our puppet. He was wrong, but he had no way of knowing that. The U.S. historically *hates* the notion of political disruption in the Gulf to the extent of propping up some pretty oppressive monarchies. We weren't willing to topple the shah for democracy any more than we are willing to support democracy in Saudi or Bahrain. Serious questions of revolution in Iran didn't rise in the U.S. until the latter half of 1979, and our state department was encouraging the shah to put down the massive autumn protests right up until his army fell apart and he fled the county weeks later. What you are interpreting as support for Khomeini is really just State Department double-talk. Khomeini was talking democracy, and the U.S. has to approve of democracy, even when we are working with a dictator. Compare the situation with that of Ferdinand Marcos (though the shah was a good deal more benign than Marcos.)

21 So Amaad Since the topic story (AS PER THE GUARDIAN) is about Iran aquiring missile and nuclear weapons technology from Europe and other sources - what is your opinion? Or is that too fuckin' much to ask? Thank God muslims don't play baseball - otherwise you would be giving use box scores too.

22 Hey amaad, I heard the reason that so many muslim guys are such psychopathic retards is because you all get used like girls when you're young, like your pedophile prophet mohammed (bacon grease upon him) did to poor little Aisha. I guess being used like a girl would mess a guy up, so it figures that you're all such pathetic losers who abuse women and pretty much hate everyone. Maybe you should just kill yourself to end the pain?

23 Amaad: Don't forget to give some credit to the Afghans themselves. We stay we are asked to leave. We leave it's our fault for leaving them hanging. Blaming the US for everything is counter productive. Is it not reasonable to suggest that these countries are due some blame as well.

24 Oh, poor 'as unlikely as possible', disappointment, terrible disappointment. Crummy insults, since it's always that same stuff when you people get stumped and angry. Dhimmi dhimmi dhimmi and some sex stuff, possibly because it's extremely taboo for certain fanatics and those who desperately want more of it. Me? Nah, enough nudity on various screens to not value sex stuff too much, despite lack of manual labour related to the subject.

25 You all hear amaad guys, islam isn't bad, so it must be Mennonites cutting peoples' heads off and blowing up kids and stuff. Hey amaad, is your sister still prostituting in Africa?

26 I also wanted to address the "man assumes responsibility for more then one woman" stuff. Ok men should be responsible and that's all honorable and good. However the attitude that women are helpless without men or a burden is the core problem. If your mindset is that women are incapable and a burden what do you expect? that they will be treated well. Women can and do just about anything and surely in some families the man could be called the "burden".

27 Howie nice seeing you. talk t a later time, busy. Hondo wtf. I do play baseball and soocer.

28 dave your comments are absurd. Pakistan have caught many more Al-qaeda leaders than the USA. Pakistan accept Afghani refugees. Oh and by the way most of the natural gas going to America goes through Afghanistan, turkeminestan and PAKISTAN. Finally Pakistan did not make the government. “A senior delegation from the Taleban movement in Afghanistan is in the United States for talks with an international energy company that wants to construct a gas pipeline from Turkmenistan across Afghanistan to Pakistan. A spokesman for the company, Unocal, said the Taleban were expected to spend several days at the company's headquarters in Sugarland, Texas.” “Taleban in Texas for talks on Gas Pipeline,” BBC News, December 4, 1997 (Sugarland is 22 miles outside Houston.) THE PRESIDENT OF AFGHANISTAN IS A SHARE HOLDER IN THE CARLYLE GROUP. A SHARE HOLDER IN THE MANY OF BUSH'S GROUPS AND FORMER GROUPS. YOU GUYS SHOULD SERIOUSLY WATCH FARENHEIT 9/11. IT'LL GET RID OF THE CRAP IN YOUR BRAIN.