The Common Denominator: Islam

[NYcarbineer]

Has it occurred to any of you neocon types that are also anti-Islam bigots that no matter we do militarily in the ME, the regimes that we ultimately leave in power,

even if we have installed them,

are going to be Muslim?

yes, of course. whats your point?

Over your head, as usual.

If Islam is fundamentally evil, why are we defending and supporting it ANYWHERE????

 

[Kondor3]

"Kill them all, and let God sort them out," was originally spoken by a Catholic abbot.

A Christian cleric acting in direct opposition to the teachings of the founder of his faith.

A Muslim cleric encouraging violence or war oftentimes acts in direct compliance with the teachings of the founder of his faith.

Big difference.

 

[boedicca]

"Kill them all, and let God sort them out," was originally spoken by a Catholic abbot.

And wtf does that have to do with anything going on today?

 

[boedicca]

Has it occurred to any of you neocon types that are also anti-Islam bigots that no matter we do militarily in the ME, the regimes that we ultimately leave in power,

even if we have installed them,

are going to be Muslim?

yes, of course. whats your point?

Over your head, as usual.

If Islam is fundamentally evil, why are we defending and supporting it ANYWHERE????

WE aren't....but Obama Is.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Uncensored2008 said: ↑




“A tiny fraction engage in the horrors proscribed by Muhammad and the Caliphs, while the majority offer silent approval and support. Islam is evil, just as Nazism is evil. And just as most Nazis did not act out on that evil, most Muslims do not act out on evil. This in no way changes the FACT that Islam is completely evil and an enemy to free people and civilization.”


Ignorant, unsubstantiated, hateful nonsense.

 

[Kondor3]

Uncensored2008 said: ↑




“A tiny fraction engage in the horrors proscribed by Muhammad and the Caliphs, while the majority offer silent approval and support. Islam is evil, just as Nazism is evil. And just as most Nazis did not act out on that evil, most Muslims do not act out on evil. This in no way changes the FACT that Islam is completely evil and an enemy to free people and civilization.”

Ignorant, unsubstantiated, hateful nonsense.

More like the Truth that Liberals can't stand to hear.

Everyone understands and applauds your commitment to Freedom of Religion and equality of treatment regardless of race, creed, etc.

That's our common tradition and inheritance.

Trouble is, we're dealing with a Resurrected Evil of times past, which has lain dormant for centuries, and is just now re-awakening and re-militarizing, which is pervasive, and able to utilize the laws and traditions of The West to undermine our own culture and traditions and society.

When Constitutionality and Safety are at swords-point with each other, Safety wins every time.

It has to.

Something else that Liberals can't stand to hear, or to contemplate, or to act upon.

Which is why, in times of crisis, you are sidelined, while others take up the burden and neutralize the threat du jour.

Generally speaking, the country has has enough of your (Liberalism's) shit, in the past six years or so, and is looking forward eagerly to January 20, 2017.

You need to ask yourselves why, in the context of combating Radical Islam, but you won't.

 

[JoeB131]

"Kill them all, and let God sort them out," was originally spoken by a Catholic abbot.

The exact quote was "Caedite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius" (Kill them all. For the Lord knoweth them that are His.)

And while no one enjoys bashing the Catholic Church more than I do, it's questionable if it actually was said.

Arnaud Amalric - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

All that said, the slaughter this happened at was pretty horrible, where they slaughtered an entire city because SOME of the people living in it were "heretics".

 

[Redfish]

Has it occurred to any of you neocon types that are also anti-Islam bigots that no matter we do militarily in the ME, the regimes that we ultimately leave in power,

even if we have installed them,

are going to be Muslim?

yes, of course. whats your point?

Over your head, as usual.

If Islam is fundamentally evil, why are we defending and supporting it ANYWHERE????

Bingo, you finally asked the real question.

 

[JoeB131]

"Kill them all, and let God sort them out," was originally spoken by a Catholic abbot.

A Christian cleric acting in direct opposition to the teachings of the founder of his faith.

Not really. The person who said that said it in the course of a CHURCH SANCTIONED campaign against people the Church had designated as "Heretics". The person who said that was the Papal Legate- the church's representative on site.

While whether he actually said it or not is in dispute, the fact was, the church sanctioned crusade resulted in thousands of "heretics" being slaughtered, to the point where no one believes in that religion anymore.

By comparison, Christian, Jewish, Mandean, Yazidi, Baha'i and Zoroastrian enclaves existed across the Middle East for centuries, usually in peace.

That is, unless some other country comes in and fucks everything up looking for oil or weapons that don't exist.

A Muslim cleric encouraging violence or war oftentimes acts in direct compliance with the teachings of the founder of his faith.

Big difference.

You know what, in times of War, Christian Clerics went out there and told people to go out and kill for the Greater Glory of Jesus, even when Killing their fellow Christians. World War one was the Lutherans and Catholics against the Anglicans and Orthodox. And the Churches had no problem with it.

 

[Kondor3]

"Kill them all, and let God sort them out," was originally spoken by a Catholic abbot.

A Christian cleric acting in direct opposition to the teachings of the founder of his faith.

Not really. The person who said that said it in the course of a CHURCH SANCTIONED campaign against people the Church had designated as "Heretics". The person who said that was the Papal Legate- the church's representative on site.

While whether he actually said it or not is in dispute, the fact was, the church sanctioned crusade resulted in thousands of "heretics" being slaughtered, to the point where no one believes in that religion anymore.

By comparison, Christian, Jewish, Mandean, Yazidi, Baha'i and Zoroastrian enclaves existed across the Middle East for centuries, usually in peace.

That is, unless some other country comes in and fucks everything up looking for oil or weapons that don't exist.

A Muslim cleric encouraging violence or war oftentimes acts in direct compliance with the teachings of the founder of his faith.

Big difference.

You know what, in times of War, Christian Clerics went out there and told people to go out and kill for the Greater Glory of Jesus, even when Killing their fellow Christians. World War one was the Lutherans and Catholics against the Anglicans and Orthodox. And the Churches had no problem with it.

Another way of distilling the core or root problem here...

1. show me where in the New Testament that Jesus of Nazareth said that it was OK to wage war and to kill and commit violence in the name of God or in support of his church

2. show me where in the Q'uran that Muhammed said that it was OK to wage war and to kill and commit violence in the name of God or in support of his religion

Believers, and even clerics, can say that it's OK to do so.

But, when the Founder says that it's not OK, Believers can always point to that as a sign that the church is overreaching and not being true to core beliefs.

By contrast, when the Founder himself says that it is OK, well... no such braking mechanism or reset button exists, by which to stop the madness, and, to add to the problem, those permissions can (and frequently are) used, to build a case for proposed wars.

We are talking two different houses of faith.

Each of those houses has a different foundation.

The nature of the foundation dictates the direction in which the house will lean be default - towards peace or war.

 

[NYcarbineer]

"Kill them all, and let God sort them out," was originally spoken by a Catholic abbot.

A Christian cleric acting in direct opposition to the teachings of the founder of his faith.

Not really. The person who said that said it in the course of a CHURCH SANCTIONED campaign against people the Church had designated as "Heretics". The person who said that was the Papal Legate- the church's representative on site.

While whether he actually said it or not is in dispute, the fact was, the church sanctioned crusade resulted in thousands of "heretics" being slaughtered, to the point where no one believes in that religion anymore.

By comparison, Christian, Jewish, Mandean, Yazidi, Baha'i and Zoroastrian enclaves existed across the Middle East for centuries, usually in peace.

That is, unless some other country comes in and fucks everything up looking for oil or weapons that don't exist.

A Muslim cleric encouraging violence or war oftentimes acts in direct compliance with the teachings of the founder of his faith.

Big difference.

You know what, in times of War, Christian Clerics went out there and told people to go out and kill for the Greater Glory of Jesus, even when Killing their fellow Christians. World War one was the Lutherans and Catholics against the Anglicans and Orthodox. And the Churches had no problem with it.

Another way of distilling the core or root problem here...

1. show me where in the New Testament that Jesus of Nazareth said that it was OK to wage war and to kill and commit violence in the name of God or in support of his church

2. show me where in the Q'uran that Muhammed said that it was OK to wage war and to kill and commit violence in the name of God or in support of his religion

Believers, and even clerics, can say that it's OK to do so.

But, when the Founder says that it's not OK, Believers can always point to that as a sign that the church is overreaching and not being true to core beliefs.

By contrast, when the Founder himself says that it is OK, well... no such braking mechanism or reset button exists, by which to stop the madness, and, to add to the problem, those permissions can (and frequently are) used, to build a case for proposed wars.

We are talking two different houses of faith.

Each of those houses has a different foundation.

The nature of the foundation dictates the direction in which the house will lean be default - towards peace or war.

How did Christians manage to conquer virtually the entire North and South American continents, in many cases by aggressive force of arms,

if the Bible commands them not to do so?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Has it occurred to any of you neocon types that are also anti-Islam bigots that no matter we do militarily in the ME, the regimes that we ultimately leave in power,

even if we have installed them,

are going to be Muslim?

yes, of course. whats your point?

Over your head, as usual.

If Islam is fundamentally evil, why are we defending and supporting it ANYWHERE????

Bingo, you finally asked the real question.

And who is answering it? There's a lot of big talk about the evil of Islam, but where are the people willing to say they'd support backing that up with action,

specifically, wiping out Islam, i.e., exterminating all who follow the faith they call evil?

 

[Kondor3]

"Kill them all, and let God sort them out," was originally spoken by a Catholic abbot.

A Christian cleric acting in direct opposition to the teachings of the founder of his faith.

Not really. The person who said that said it in the course of a CHURCH SANCTIONED campaign against people the Church had designated as "Heretics". The person who said that was the Papal Legate- the church's representative on site.

While whether he actually said it or not is in dispute, the fact was, the church sanctioned crusade resulted in thousands of "heretics" being slaughtered, to the point where no one believes in that religion anymore.

By comparison, Christian, Jewish, Mandean, Yazidi, Baha'i and Zoroastrian enclaves existed across the Middle East for centuries, usually in peace.

That is, unless some other country comes in and fucks everything up looking for oil or weapons that don't exist.

A Muslim cleric encouraging violence or war oftentimes acts in direct compliance with the teachings of the founder of his faith.

Big difference.

You know what, in times of War, Christian Clerics went out there and told people to go out and kill for the Greater Glory of Jesus, even when Killing their fellow Christians. World War one was the Lutherans and Catholics against the Anglicans and Orthodox. And the Churches had no problem with it.

Another way of distilling the core or root problem here...

1. show me where in the New Testament that Jesus of Nazareth said that it was OK to wage war and to kill and commit violence in the name of God or in support of his church

2. show me where in the Q'uran that Muhammed said that it was OK to wage war and to kill and commit violence in the name of God or in support of his religion

Believers, and even clerics, can say that it's OK to do so.

But, when the Founder says that it's not OK, Believers can always point to that as a sign that the church is overreaching and not being true to core beliefs.

By contrast, when the Founder himself says that it is OK, well... no such braking mechanism or reset button exists, by which to stop the madness, and, to add to the problem, those permissions can (and frequently are) used, to build a case for proposed wars.

We are talking two different houses of faith.

Each of those houses has a different foundation.

The nature of the foundation dictates the direction in which the house will lean be default - towards peace or war.

How did Christians manage to conquer virtually the entire North and South American continents, in many cases by aggressive force of arms,

if the Bible commands them not to do so?

Where they leaning on the Old Testament or the New?

Mind you, the New supersedes the Old, and the teachings of the New override those found in the Old.

Did Jesus of Nazareth give his followers permission to make war and to commit violence?

If not, then, those Christians were, in fact, acting in disobedience and opposition to the teachings of their Founder.

 

[NYcarbineer]

"Kill them all, and let God sort them out," was originally spoken by a Catholic abbot.

A Christian cleric acting in direct opposition to the teachings of the founder of his faith.

Not really. The person who said that said it in the course of a CHURCH SANCTIONED campaign against people the Church had designated as "Heretics". The person who said that was the Papal Legate- the church's representative on site.

While whether he actually said it or not is in dispute, the fact was, the church sanctioned crusade resulted in thousands of "heretics" being slaughtered, to the point where no one believes in that religion anymore.

By comparison, Christian, Jewish, Mandean, Yazidi, Baha'i and Zoroastrian enclaves existed across the Middle East for centuries, usually in peace.

That is, unless some other country comes in and fucks everything up looking for oil or weapons that don't exist.

A Muslim cleric encouraging violence or war oftentimes acts in direct compliance with the teachings of the founder of his faith.

Big difference.

You know what, in times of War, Christian Clerics went out there and told people to go out and kill for the Greater Glory of Jesus, even when Killing their fellow Christians. World War one was the Lutherans and Catholics against the Anglicans and Orthodox. And the Churches had no problem with it.

Another way of distilling the core or root problem here...

1. show me where in the New Testament that Jesus of Nazareth said that it was OK to wage war and to kill and commit violence in the name of God or in support of his church

2. show me where in the Q'uran that Muhammed said that it was OK to wage war and to kill and commit violence in the name of God or in support of his religion

Believers, and even clerics, can say that it's OK to do so.

But, when the Founder says that it's not OK, Believers can always point to that as a sign that the church is overreaching and not being true to core beliefs.

By contrast, when the Founder himself says that it is OK, well... no such braking mechanism or reset button exists, by which to stop the madness, and, to add to the problem, those permissions can (and frequently are) used, to build a case for proposed wars.

We are talking two different houses of faith.

Each of those houses has a different foundation.

The nature of the foundation dictates the direction in which the house will lean be default - towards peace or war.

How did Christians manage to conquer virtually the entire North and South American continents, in many cases by aggressive force of arms,

if the Bible commands them not to do so?

Where they leaning on the Old Testament or the New?

Mind you, the New supersedes the Old, and the teachings of the New override those found in the Old.

Did Jesus of Nazareth give his followers permission to make war and to commit violence?

If not, then, those Christians were, in fact, acting in disobedience and opposition to the teachings of their Founder.

Jesus said love your enemies and turn the other cheek. Is that what you do? Are you a Christian?

 

[NYcarbineer]

"Kill them all, and let God sort them out," was originally spoken by a Catholic abbot.

A Christian cleric acting in direct opposition to the teachings of the founder of his faith.

Not really. The person who said that said it in the course of a CHURCH SANCTIONED campaign against people the Church had designated as "Heretics". The person who said that was the Papal Legate- the church's representative on site.

While whether he actually said it or not is in dispute, the fact was, the church sanctioned crusade resulted in thousands of "heretics" being slaughtered, to the point where no one believes in that religion anymore.

By comparison, Christian, Jewish, Mandean, Yazidi, Baha'i and Zoroastrian enclaves existed across the Middle East for centuries, usually in peace.

That is, unless some other country comes in and fucks everything up looking for oil or weapons that don't exist.

A Muslim cleric encouraging violence or war oftentimes acts in direct compliance with the teachings of the founder of his faith.

Big difference.

You know what, in times of War, Christian Clerics went out there and told people to go out and kill for the Greater Glory of Jesus, even when Killing their fellow Christians. World War one was the Lutherans and Catholics against the Anglicans and Orthodox. And the Churches had no problem with it.

Another way of distilling the core or root problem here...

1. show me where in the New Testament that Jesus of Nazareth said that it was OK to wage war and to kill and commit violence in the name of God or in support of his church

2. show me where in the Q'uran that Muhammed said that it was OK to wage war and to kill and commit violence in the name of God or in support of his religion

Believers, and even clerics, can say that it's OK to do so.

But, when the Founder says that it's not OK, Believers can always point to that as a sign that the church is overreaching and not being true to core beliefs.

By contrast, when the Founder himself says that it is OK, well... no such braking mechanism or reset button exists, by which to stop the madness, and, to add to the problem, those permissions can (and frequently are) used, to build a case for proposed wars.

We are talking two different houses of faith.

Each of those houses has a different foundation.

The nature of the foundation dictates the direction in which the house will lean be default - towards peace or war.

How did Christians manage to conquer virtually the entire North and South American continents, in many cases by aggressive force of arms,

if the Bible commands them not to do so?

Where they leaning on the Old Testament or the New?

Mind you, the New supersedes the Old, and the teachings of the New override those found in the Old.

Did Jesus of Nazareth give his followers permission to make war and to commit violence?

If not, then, those Christians were, in fact, acting in disobedience and opposition to the teachings of their Founder.

So why bind Muslims to their book, or certain cherrypicked excerpts from it, when even Christians have proven that the 'book' is rarely interpreted literally?

 

[JoeB131]

[

Another way of distilling the core or root problem here...

1. show me where in the New Testament that Jesus of Nazareth said that it was OK to wage war and to kill and commit violence in the name of God or in support of his church

.

Matthew-

10:21 And the brother shall deliver up the brother to death, and the father the child: and the children shall rise up against their parents, and cause them to be put to death.

10:22 And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake: but he that endureth to the end shall be saved.

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

10:34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.

10:35 For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.

10:36 And a man's foes shall be they of his own household.

10:37 He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

 

[Mustang]

I'll tell you what, I'll agree that the Islamic State is Islamic if conservatives will agree that the Christian Identity movement is Christian.

Christian Identity - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

 

[Kondor3]

A Christian cleric acting in direct opposition to the teachings of the founder of his faith.

Not really. The person who said that said it in the course of a CHURCH SANCTIONED campaign against people the Church had designated as "Heretics". The person who said that was the Papal Legate- the church's representative on site.

While whether he actually said it or not is in dispute, the fact was, the church sanctioned crusade resulted in thousands of "heretics" being slaughtered, to the point where no one believes in that religion anymore.

By comparison, Christian, Jewish, Mandean, Yazidi, Baha'i and Zoroastrian enclaves existed across the Middle East for centuries, usually in peace.

That is, unless some other country comes in and fucks everything up looking for oil or weapons that don't exist.

A Muslim cleric encouraging violence or war oftentimes acts in direct compliance with the teachings of the founder of his faith.

Big difference.

You know what, in times of War, Christian Clerics went out there and told people to go out and kill for the Greater Glory of Jesus, even when Killing their fellow Christians. World War one was the Lutherans and Catholics against the Anglicans and Orthodox. And the Churches had no problem with it.

Another way of distilling the core or root problem here...

1. show me where in the New Testament that Jesus of Nazareth said that it was OK to wage war and to kill and commit violence in the name of God or in support of his church

2. show me where in the Q'uran that Muhammed said that it was OK to wage war and to kill and commit violence in the name of God or in support of his religion

Believers, and even clerics, can say that it's OK to do so.

But, when the Founder says that it's not OK, Believers can always point to that as a sign that the church is overreaching and not being true to core beliefs.

By contrast, when the Founder himself says that it is OK, well... no such braking mechanism or reset button exists, by which to stop the madness, and, to add to the problem, those permissions can (and frequently are) used, to build a case for proposed wars.

We are talking two different houses of faith.

Each of those houses has a different foundation.

The nature of the foundation dictates the direction in which the house will lean be default - towards peace or war.

How did Christians manage to conquer virtually the entire North and South American continents, in many cases by aggressive force of arms,

if the Bible commands them not to do so?

Where they leaning on the Old Testament or the New?

Mind you, the New supersedes the Old, and the teachings of the New override those found in the Old.

Did Jesus of Nazareth give his followers permission to make war and to commit violence?

If not, then, those Christians were, in fact, acting in disobedience and opposition to the teachings of their Founder.

Jesus said love your enemies and turn the other cheek. Is that what you do? Are you a Christian?

My personal beliefs have little or nothing to do with the subject matter at hand.

And they certainly have nothing to do with whether or not those Christians were acting in disobedience and opposition to the teachings of their Founder.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Not really. The person who said that said it in the course of a CHURCH SANCTIONED campaign against people the Church had designated as "Heretics". The person who said that was the Papal Legate- the church's representative on site.

While whether he actually said it or not is in dispute, the fact was, the church sanctioned crusade resulted in thousands of "heretics" being slaughtered, to the point where no one believes in that religion anymore.

By comparison, Christian, Jewish, Mandean, Yazidi, Baha'i and Zoroastrian enclaves existed across the Middle East for centuries, usually in peace.

That is, unless some other country comes in and fucks everything up looking for oil or weapons that don't exist.


You know what, in times of War, Christian Clerics went out there and told people to go out and kill for the Greater Glory of Jesus, even when Killing their fellow Christians. World War one was the Lutherans and Catholics against the Anglicans and Orthodox. And the Churches had no problem with it.

Another way of distilling the core or root problem here...

1. show me where in the New Testament that Jesus of Nazareth said that it was OK to wage war and to kill and commit violence in the name of God or in support of his church

2. show me where in the Q'uran that Muhammed said that it was OK to wage war and to kill and commit violence in the name of God or in support of his religion

Believers, and even clerics, can say that it's OK to do so.

But, when the Founder says that it's not OK, Believers can always point to that as a sign that the church is overreaching and not being true to core beliefs.

By contrast, when the Founder himself says that it is OK, well... no such braking mechanism or reset button exists, by which to stop the madness, and, to add to the problem, those permissions can (and frequently are) used, to build a case for proposed wars.

We are talking two different houses of faith.

Each of those houses has a different foundation.

The nature of the foundation dictates the direction in which the house will lean be default - towards peace or war.

How did Christians manage to conquer virtually the entire North and South American continents, in many cases by aggressive force of arms,

if the Bible commands them not to do so?

Where they leaning on the Old Testament or the New?

Mind you, the New supersedes the Old, and the teachings of the New override those found in the Old.

Did Jesus of Nazareth give his followers permission to make war and to commit violence?

If not, then, those Christians were, in fact, acting in disobedience and opposition to the teachings of their Founder.

Jesus said love your enemies and turn the other cheek. Is that what you do? Are you a Christian?

My personal beliefs have little or nothing to do with the subject matter at hand.

And they certainly have nothing to do with whether or not those Christians were acting in disobedience and opposition to the teachings of their Founder.

Your personal beliefs further ruin your lame argument.

 

[Kondor3]

A Christian cleric acting in direct opposition to the teachings of the founder of his faith.

Not really. The person who said that said it in the course of a CHURCH SANCTIONED campaign against people the Church had designated as "Heretics". The person who said that was the Papal Legate- the church's representative on site.

While whether he actually said it or not is in dispute, the fact was, the church sanctioned crusade resulted in thousands of "heretics" being slaughtered, to the point where no one believes in that religion anymore.

By comparison, Christian, Jewish, Mandean, Yazidi, Baha'i and Zoroastrian enclaves existed across the Middle East for centuries, usually in peace.

That is, unless some other country comes in and fucks everything up looking for oil or weapons that don't exist.

A Muslim cleric encouraging violence or war oftentimes acts in direct compliance with the teachings of the founder of his faith.

Big difference.

You know what, in times of War, Christian Clerics went out there and told people to go out and kill for the Greater Glory of Jesus, even when Killing their fellow Christians. World War one was the Lutherans and Catholics against the Anglicans and Orthodox. And the Churches had no problem with it.

Another way of distilling the core or root problem here...

1. show me where in the New Testament that Jesus of Nazareth said that it was OK to wage war and to kill and commit violence in the name of God or in support of his church

2. show me where in the Q'uran that Muhammed said that it was OK to wage war and to kill and commit violence in the name of God or in support of his religion

Believers, and even clerics, can say that it's OK to do so.

But, when the Founder says that it's not OK, Believers can always point to that as a sign that the church is overreaching and not being true to core beliefs.

By contrast, when the Founder himself says that it is OK, well... no such braking mechanism or reset button exists, by which to stop the madness, and, to add to the problem, those permissions can (and frequently are) used, to build a case for proposed wars.

We are talking two different houses of faith.

Each of those houses has a different foundation.

The nature of the foundation dictates the direction in which the house will lean be default - towards peace or war.

How did Christians manage to conquer virtually the entire North and South American continents, in many cases by aggressive force of arms,

if the Bible commands them not to do so?

Where they leaning on the Old Testament or the New?

Mind you, the New supersedes the Old, and the teachings of the New override those found in the Old.

Did Jesus of Nazareth give his followers permission to make war and to commit violence?

If not, then, those Christians were, in fact, acting in disobedience and opposition to the teachings of their Founder.

So why bind Muslims to their book, or certain cherrypicked excerpts from it, when even Christians have proven that the 'book' is rarely interpreted literally?

Because, within the domains of Islam - Radical and otherwise - such permissions-to-violence on the part of the Founder and their version of the godhead are routinely cited as part of the rationalization for violence or war.

It is the Muslims themselves who cite the literal and explicit permissions to violence granted by their Founder and their godhead, not outsiders.

Attempted distraction noted, and judged unsuccessful.