You mean once upon a time Big MO had a vile impulse and didn't get carte blanche from Alan to do it?

Weird.

Surprise, Surprise. Gotta love them loopholes. ROPMA.

So, the holy writ of this religion prescribes the conditions under which the bodies of unbelievers can be mutilated.

Compare and contrast with other major religions.

So corpse mutilation is permitted by mohammedanism.

Glad we cleared that up. For a minute there, I almost bought Shukri's taqqiyah.

NOT!!

What kind of "research" do you suppose they conduct at the European Council for Fatwa and Research? It sounds like a very august body for Islamic fulminators and navel-gazers.

Nice religion. Savages.

Notice the subtle acceptance of torture as a valid tool. It's okay to torture, but don't use fire because only Allah tortures with fire. Nice moon God they got there, he tortures with fire.

In case of war, Muslim are allowed to take vengeance for their mutilated dead strugglers in the same way it was done to them.

I guess CNN didn't show the footage of U.S. soldiers dragging Iraqi civilians through the streets, mutilating their bodies, celebrating wildly, and ultimately hanging the corpses from a bridge.

The Europeans are right. The U.S. media did censor all negative images from the war.

By my #1

I mean, if Alan let Mo kill his prisoners, steal their property and rape their wives, and if Alan didn't have a problem when Mo got a stiffie thinking about six year old girls, I'd figure if Mo wanted to do some ear cutting, Alan would be down with it.

It is good that they do have the retribution clause in there. I mean, how many Taliban were dismembered by JDAMs and the bunch. The RoP-ers still have hundred of bodies of yet to be killed Americans in their celestial mutilation account.

You know, after reading through their justification for mutilation of dead bodies, I have come to the conclusion that Monty Python must have been put in charge of either European Council for Fatwa and Research or wrote the rules in the first place from their underground lair at the Ministry of Silly Walks.

It's a dead parrot I tell you. No it's not. Yes it is. See, it's moving. No it isn't. Yes it is. No it isn't, you moved it! Did not, did too!

More than a loophole, a 70:1 vengeance doctrine.

It is my hope that the rest of the American public is slowly getting this type of information about the ROP. I can only pray that at some point CAIR will have a difficult time appearing in public without being egged by their American fans.

As-Salamu ‘alaykum. Could you please clarify how Islam views the issue of urinating on myself before a marine shoots me in the head? Will I still get my 72 whores if I do?

What a piss poor religion. They need a plague..

Please note that big Mo was OK in retaliation with desecrating 70 times as many as were desecrated. Also, please remember that the US desecrated Saddam's sons by release photos of their corpses. Ergo, this corpse desecration in Falluja was OK under Islam. You just have to know how to do this theology stuff.

There's no Golden Rule in this "reiligion" peace.

Praise Allan.

"religion" o' peace. (It was Allan's fault. He put the heebie jeebie on me.)

#14 Dean Douthat

I think the Nazis liked to exact a similar punishment, at least in terms of numbers, on conquered populations who gave them agita/i> during WW2.

You know, I realize this may sound racist or ethnocentric or whatever other ridiculous PC label one may care to use, but I really don't give a hoot in hell what shari'a claims the rules of mutilation to be. Correct me if I'm mistaken, but doesn't shari'a also provide that it's perfectly fine to stone women to death for committing adultery, to physically force them to keep wrapped up head to toe at all times, that honor killing is perfectly alright, that lying through your teeth is permissible so long as it is done to extend the Dar al-Islam, that Dhimmi are to be "reminded" of their second-class stature in life, that ... Point made.

The civilized world has adopted civil law specifically because the "laws" that come out of religion are generally not so terrific. What those people did in Fallujah, whether in accordance with the niceties of shari'a or not, was despicable, repulsive, abhorrent, ghastly, vile, outrageous, base and otherwise nasty. That's the standard it should be held to, not what the Prophet (piss and bludgeonings be upon him) had to say.

I'm telling you !...the Ferengues have landed in the Arab world and are the ones !

#2 FH

Might be time to amend it to ROPROFLMAO.

#18 My 2 Sense

I think the Ten Commandments still hold up pretty well.

#21 Scaramouche

Point well taken, but you've got to remember that the Ten Commandments have their faults too. Take five, for example - "Thou shalt not kill." There needs to be a whole plethora of provisos with that, such as, it's OK to kill plants and livestock to eat, it's OK to kill an armed intruder to protect yourself or your family, it's not OK but it's also not as bad as it gets to kill someone by accident with your car as you're swerving to miss the little girl who ran into the road to get her bouncing ball...

Plus, the Ten Commandments included only the proscripted conduct - there's no enunciation of the punishments which attend a violation. In all, good principles, but not "law" as it needs to be structured for people to live under.

There must be a mistake. That "clarification" had to have been from the year 1004. Surely no religious leader in 2004 would write something so vile.

Chazerai! May their corpses be wrapped in bacon!

The moral depravity of the 'leading scholars' of Islamic theocracy ... er, I suppose I'm meant to say theology ... never ceases to astonish me. Anything & everything is permissable if their blessed pride is somehow wounded. If this had been a muslim attacked, dragged from their car and treated in such a horrifyingly barbaric fashion, I can only imagine what manner of horrors they would be planning for us. This is what separates them from us.

I once again had this concept made clear to me, the idea of The West's civility as compared to the Islamic world's "___ " (I honestly can't think of a word to adequately describe what happened in Fallujah) when I was watching "Good Morning, America" this morning.

Two men, one a former Navy Seal colleague and friend of Scott Helvenston & the other the brother of Serbian immigrant Jerry Zovko, were interviewed by Diane Sawyer. Each were clearly devasted (although I have to commend Diane on not being determined to make them collapse on camera as so many so-called journalists do), but neither called out for the flattening of Fallujah, as I was wont to do yesterday. Rather, each talked of the strength of character their friend & brother possessed, and how neither man would wish to have devastation wrought in retribution for their deaths. These two people had seen the deaths of their loved ones, in a manner that no one could conceivably endure witnessing, and yet they wanted the perpetrators arrested and tried, not drawn & quartered.

That is what makes Judeo-Christian superior to Islam, and makes the moral equivocation of walking character deficits like this Kos/Koz ingrate utterly repulsive to anyone with a heart and a mind. People like Helvenston, Zovko & Teague should make you proud to be an American, not ashamed.

21

We all know those covet and stealing commands were written so the war profiteers and capitalists could justify holding the proletariat classes down.

/snark

religion of convenient loopholes©®™

#27 Ms. Andi

LOL

#8, SoCalJustice: You’re right. I didn’t see it on the major TV news channels, but C-Span showed the videos frequently yesterday.

#22, My 2 Sense: I like to think that the interpretation of the Commandment is “Thou shalt not murder”. Also, the Commandment that tells us to “Not take the name of G_d in vain”, to me means that no one should speak for G_d. I find it pathetic that our Muslim "friends" always feel free to speak for allah.

22 My 2 Sense

the problem with some people, they believe their sense can repalce education

Point well taken, but you've got to remember that the Ten Commandments have their faults too. Take five, for example - "Thou shalt not kill." There needs to be a whole plethora of provisos with that, such as, it's OK to kill plants and livestock to eat, it's OK to kill an armed intruder to protect yourself or your family, it's not OK but it's also not as bad as it gets to kill someone by accident with your car as you're swerving to miss the little girl who ran into the road to get her bouncing ball...

It might interest you to know, the Commandment sats something like, Thou shall not murder...

which translation do you cite?

Plus, the Ten Commandments included only the proscripted conduct - there's no enunciation of the punishments which attend a violation. In all, good principles, but not "law" as it needs to be structured for people to live under.

maybe you can tell us what your education is concerning Torah studies adn Oral law..and where you recieved Smicha..?

Who was your Rabbi?

Guys, calm down. The Bushidos of Japan prior to WWII were radical Buddhists, for G-d sakes. Now what could be more peaceful than Buddhism? The KKK, Christians. The Stern Gang, Jews. While Islam does seem a tad more violence permissive than the others, I don't think it is inherently so. It does seem to be more irrational, however. More brains, more peace.

#29 Grandma

Likewise, a valid point. However, construing "kill" to mean "murder" still does nothing either to define murder or set forth any gradations of it. Also, it's a pretty big problem if the law has to be open to each individual's interpretation and not that of the promulgating authority. That's why we have courts to interpret and apply the law. As far as I'm aware, St. Peter has always waited until the "defendant" go to the pearly gates before discussing whether or not a particular commandment was broken, and I've never been cc'd on the opinions construing the commandments.

Bottom line, I never meant to suggest that no religious organization has ever issued a statement on what its adherents should or shouldn't do that wasn't barbaric or evil. That's clearly not the case. However, the pronouncements have generally not been sufficiently detailed so as to make for good law as is needed for a society to function and, since they're often viewed as springing from the decrees and demands of the Almighty, they're often not subject to reconsideration when demonstrated to be counter-productive (e.g., Rome's insistence that the use of condoms is wrong even though it would help curb the spread of AIDS and reduce the number of children born into starvation-inducing poverty) or even morally questionable (e.g., God's telling Abraham to slaughter Isaac so as to demonstrate his subservience to his Creator).

Check out this Professor of History at the U. of Michigan - on his website - Juan Cole actually blames Sharon for Fallujah.

This is a professor of History reasoning: US gave permission to Sharon to kill Yassin => Sharon kills Yassin => Islamists seek vengeance for the death of Yassin => Islamists kill Americans.

Here it is:

And then Ariel Sharon sends US-made helicopter gunships to Gaza and has them fire missiles at people coming out of a mosque, killing 8 and wounding 24. One of the dead is a half-blind paraplegic Islamist named Sheikh Yassin. He could have easily been arrested, and had been in the 1990s. But he was incinerated in a piece of state terror instead. And all of a sudden the people of Fallujah in Iraq are pointing their fingers at the American troops and saying, 'you did this. You gave Sharon the green light.'

This guy is teaching American kids History!

#31 Cato

Did you forget your sarcasm tags?

While Islam does seem a tad more violence permissive than the others

Just a tad more violent.

"How much exactly is a tad off course? Well in laymen's terms, about 2 million miles"

Airplane 2 The sequel.

cato: The japaneese were nationalists driven by imperial desire who practiced different religions including buddhisim.

All other groups were localized idiots, not world wide cancers on the face of humanity. The KKK in no way follow christian values. Many muslims follow their god's will while commiting murder and trying to drag the world back to their 6th century devolved mindset. My 2 cents.

So this 70:1 ratio for corpse-mutilation has me thinking that it's rather like a very high interest rate. Usurious, even. What does Allah say about interest and usury, again?

I'm reminded of an old Star Trek episode where an evil humanoid robot was given contradictory information until smoke rose from his head and he self-destructed.

On second thought, scratch that thought. Muslims and "self-destruct" isn't something I want in the same sentence.

#30 ploome, Hineni

Actually, never had a rabbi. As for my education, while I admit that my Torah's a bit rusty, my background/doctorate is in the law, and I can tell you right now without any hesitation, that a statute which read "Thou shalt not murder" is no better off than one that says "Thou shalt not kill" or "Thou shalt not be mean to people." Any such open-ended proscription fails for vagueness because a reasonably intelligent person wouldn't know what conduct was forbidden.

#35 Radian

I've been thinking about a response to Cato about why moahmmedanism doesn't really compare to the examples he cited, but, leaving aside the Japanese, I think you nailed the difference with "localized idiots".

My 2 sense-You have a poor translation. The commandment is that you shouldn't "murder" not that you shouldn't "kill", i.e. you shouldn't commit an unjust killing of another person for unjust reasons. There is no prohibition on killing in general, infact there are numerous situations where killing is required (someone coming to kill you must be killed first, for example). There then follows a huge body of law and tradition on what constitutes a "just" killing, most of these severely proscribed and delimited by the strictest of criteria through years of accumulated rabbinic knowledge of how people work and to create a functioning social system.

It is a dangerous thing to read an English translation of the Hebrew bible, without the neccessary background, and then make sweeping statements about what the bible says. I know large numbers of Christians, in particular, tend to do this a lot, although more than a few Jews are quilty of it, but I do wish people wouldn't. It is a dangerous way to get your divine guidance.

I was given a copy of a booklet entitled "The Koran's message to Christians and Jews" and I was trying my best to wade through and understand exactly what our place is supposed to be. I concluded it can be interpreted in nearly way from complete obliteration of any Jew or Christian who doesn't immediately convert, to peaceful coexistence and tolerance. Mostly the pamphlet itself pushed a "We're superior and we know it and you Christians, and especially you Jews, are inferior."

So this morning I finished it and chucked in my recycle pile. My pet rabbit likes to get into the recycle box and preshred stuff. This morning, I saw him running around the house with this booklet, pausing to shred it, throwing it around, chasing it, biting it and then pausing to shred it some more. I found myself getting a great deal of satisfaction from watching him do that, just inceased by this post.

I'll be off line until Thursday what with Pesach preparations (cooking for sixteen people and four generations with a fifth on the way, Baruch Hashem!) and the Yom Tov. May every Jew everywhere have a peaceful and kosher Pesach and have a good weekend to the rest of you!

On second thought, scratch that thought. Muslims and "self-destruct" isn't something I want in the same sentence.

ROTFLMHO! (Last post.)

My 2 sense:

Apparently "kill" is a mistranslation of the original Hebrew word "murder."

As for your charge of statutory vagueness, whether the word be "kill" or "murder"--statutes of all sorts are by necessity vague and open to interpretation. That's what common law vs. statutary law is all about. The common law (the court system) is there to determine guilt or innocence and sentencing, but its other function is to interpret statutory law to fit each particular case. Thus is a body of law born and developed in detail. And the Talmud does the same for Jewish law as expressed in the Torah.

With behavior and comments like that from the Arabs, I can now understand why the Romans used crucifiction as a punishment.

OT 'Anti-Zionist rabbi on Arafat's pay'

I'm looking hard in my Bible for where I'm allowed to mutilate my opponent;

So far I've only gotten past the verse: "Thou shall not Kill"

This ain’t “turn the other cheek.” Notice the little loophole in the supposed Islamic prohibition on mutilating the dead;

This is why I wish more (like all) Westerners would read a good translation of the Quran. I think most Americans have this vague assumption that the Quran is sort of a Holy Bible Part III: Old Testament, New Testament, Quran. After all, it derives from the Abrahamic tradition, right? They embrace Moses and Jesus, right? So the Quran (and by extension, Islam), must therefore be similar to the Jewish and Christian traditions, right? If the man in the street only knew how alien this cult really is, there'd be a lot less hand-wringing and self-doubt about Western self-defense.

Aside from the absence of a loving god figure, and aside from the absence of messages of love and peace for all mankind (not just Muslims), and aside from the obligatory exceptions that ALWAYS accompany the few "thou should not kill" passages, one of the most telling omissions for me is the lack of anything resembling the parable of The Good Samaritan.

I wish the heck my neighbors and fellow citizens would read this "holy" book and wake up.

I take Bernard Lewis to heart about all this. His view is very interesting as he actually knows more than just about anybody about the middle east and he is brilliant.

Pretty much, it is all Jimmy Carter's fault.

In his view the Iranian Revolution scared the Wahhabbis
into feeling they were going to lose the race to insanity to the Shia. In order to make sure they remained the most insane of the Islamic world they took billions of dollars of their loot and funneled it into radicalizing Muslems worldwide. That way they would maintain supremacy over the Shia nutcases.

Lewis imagines what Christendom would look like if the KKK had the Saudi oilfields.

As-Salamu ‘alaykum. Could you please clarify how Islam views the issue of DECLARING ANNIHILATION ON THE NEAREST OFF-THE-PLANET RELIGION THAT ALLOWS PARAGRAPHS THAT ALLOW ME AS KUFFAR TO KICK BIOLOGICAL AND NUCLEAR .. ASS

cos i'd really like to know :)

#46 Eugene McGovern

From what I've heard, the Quran is Mother Goose compared to the Hadiths, on which much of shari'a is based.

#42

The reason that a reasonably intelligent person would know is because we've all grown up in a history of seeing movies talking about malice aforethougt. However, not a single statute in this nation simply proscribes "murder" without going into a LOT more detail because a reasonable person cannot simply look at a single word and determine what particular contours it covers. Does the killing have to be done by your own hand, or does hiring someone to do it count? If all the statute says is "don't murder," well you didn't murder anybody - your agent did. And having a court come afterwards to "interpret statutory law to fit each particular case" (#41 blogaddict) doesn't work well with criminal statutes. The whole idea is that a person - a non-lawyer, non-judge, average man-on-the-street person - can look at it and determine what he is and is not allowed to do. Granted, with civil statutes having the courts fill in the gaps is necessary and often very helpful. Not with criminal statutes. Those have got to be, on their faces and independent of any judicial glaze or academic interpretation, clear as to what is forbidden.

CATO:

Your are exactly right about that. Carter did nothing to progress pease in the Middle East. He ended up agreeing to pay extortion to Egypt, stood idly by as the Mullahs took control of Iran, and because of his weekness in the Middle East, encouraged the Soviets to invade Afgahnistan. His foreign policy decisions have led to the deaths and sufferings of millions of people in the last 25 years. It doesn't matter how many houses he built thru Habitat for Humanity, he has some explaining to do.

If you really think about it, we already knew this. The Ayatollah Khomeni had his body ripped to shreds during his funeral procession. And they liked him.

#52 Josef Said

LOL. Good one.

ziiing!

ha.

seems like an eye for an eye to me

#52 Josef Said

I remember seeing the pictures, but I though they had knocked the body on the ground trying to get souvenirs like pieces of cloth. I googled, but couldn't find anything else.

Islam is very progressive and new age,isnt it ?

That IsShit-Online is interesting. There is a chat/Fatwa session on the US election, with the most interesting, and expected Fatwa:

It is our priority to unseat Bush and his party, for no other reason than the fact that he led America on a war based on false premises, and he took away the basic freedoms and rights of Americans, including Muslims. So Muslims muust vote to unseat him.

So, clearly, they wish to get the socialists elected here in the USA also.

When do the trains blow?

IMO, it doesn't matter what the Koran or the Hadith (I only lisp sometimes) say. The fact that Muslims follow them with is a vengeance is the problem. The fact that Muslims can excuse away any evil done in the name of Islam is the problem.

I just made a list of perhaps 100 terror attacks & injustices committed in the name of Islam since WWII that I could name off the top of my head. It was too long to post, so I saved it for my future reference. I know I left out several hundred acts.

I am losing more and more what little patience I have with these people.