Irbis

Destroyed UKR vehicles Look at how this conflict escalated - in 3-4 months it went from being a minor conflict with shots often fired in the air to being an almost full scale war with armored vehicles destroyed every day (72th guards mechanized brigade lost 15 vehicles on 12th August) A map. There is a newer one but only in Russian while this one is in English:

I am SlavicWolf... I simply forgot passsword to my old account so I had to create a new one after a not posting for a long time. I would say there is no difference between non-practicing Christians and non-practicing Muslims except in one thing - Christians are peaceful to the degree that they follow the teachings of Christ. Muslims are peaceful to the degree that they disregard the teachings of Muhammad. My argument would be fallacious if Muslims were allowed to pick & choose bits of their religion according to their personal taste - but the contract between man and Allah does not permit such a thing. In fact, it makes it illegal. It's like law - you can't enslave other people, at the same time claiming that you are a follower of US Constitution as it conflicts with both the Consitiution (13th amendment anyone?) and other legal documents that are in accordance with it.

Most Muslims are ignorant of their religion, often projecting their own worldview on Islam, creating a faith that exists only in their mind. I do believe that once the truth about Islam reaches the masses, most of them will abandon it altogether, millions already have. However, sometimes it does not take much for a moderate, secularized Muslim to becoma a radical Islamist. Most suicide bombers actually come from middle class, non religious families. Doku Umarov (Chechen Islamist leader killed this year) was not religious at all until his 30s. Muslims who follow a watered down version of Islam really shouldn't count as Muslims - precisely because the contract between man and Allah includes a clause saying that man must obey everything Allah says, without the possibility of cherrypicking, with any breech of agreement resulting in the dissolution ot the contract. Muslims simply can't choose the verses they like and ignore those they don't like. Such behavior counts as apostasy.

For simple reason - the New Testament does not contain even 1% as many hateful verses as the Quran does and violent verses of the Old Testament are confined to specific place and time - unlike their Quranic counterparts. Jesus, as depicted in the Bible, was an embodiment of goodness while Muhammad wasn't. The history of Islam, written by Musllims themselves, does not portray Muhammad as a holy man but rather as a cruel, unforgiving criminal. There is strong evidence that he was a narcissist. As Muslims have an obligation to emulate the examples of their prophet, their thoughts and feelings come to resemble his mind. They too become violent narcissists to the degree that they follow examples set by him. Islam has barely changed since the time of Muhammad. It is incapable of reforming itself, because it was purposedly designed in such a way to make any future attempt of reform futile. See the article posted by me today. To reform Islam into a more humane religion you would need a mandate from God. Baha'ullah claimed to have it but his faith cannot be called "reformed Islam".

/-_-' That was about 800 years ago. I don't know why it should concern us now, considering that Christians have long since renounced violence in the name of their religion

I find them credible. Here you have one such longish article http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=124494788 And another one http://www.answering-islam.org/Terrorism/violence.html Even Pope Urban did not cite these biblical verses when he wanted to start a crusade - while at thes aame time Islamic terrorists cite Quranic verses non-stop. Every single document written by Islamic terrorists is replete with quotations from the Quran. Here you have articles about obligation of holy war in Islam, three of them written by Muslims themselves: 1. http://www.2600.com/news/mirrors/harkatmujahideen/www.harkatulmujahideen.org/jihad/o-jihad.htm 2. http://abdurrahman.org/seerah/riyad/11/chap234.htm 3. http://islamqa.info/en/20214 4. http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Jihad_is_Compulsory_(Fard) You may also read "Religious and moral doctrine of Jihad" by Ibn Taymiyya (also available online) other resources on jihad http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Jihad_Literature Even the most bigoted Evangelical Christians do not say that Christians are permitted to kill nonbelievers over their faith... which is attested by a surprisinly low number of terrorist attacks in the name of Christ as compared to the number of terrorist attacks in the name of Allah.

I have such a list of verses which counts more than 500 verses of hatred in the Quran. Unfortunately the website is in Polish so it isn't of much interest to people here. There is a list of more than 100 verses advocating direct fight agaisnt infidels. See for example here Regarding the violence in the Bible - there is no need to beat a dead horse. There are several articles in thw web dealing with the issue of BIblical vs Quranic violence, the conclusion of them is the same - that violence in the BIble is descriptive while violence in the Quran is prescriptive. The Bible is not a direct word of God (unlike the Quran) but an account of historical events written by men, and these violent verses are very well mitigated by historical context contained within the text itself - which is why no one uses these verses as advocating present day violence.

I think we have to clarify a few things. All chapters of the Qur'an belong to one of two periods - they are either Meccan or Medinan. In the Quran, however, the chapters are not ordered in chronological order but from the longest to the shortest - so the first chapter "revealed" is sura 96 while the last one is sura 9. There is a sharp difference between verses of the Qur'an written in Mecca and those written in Medina. All peaceful verses in the Qur'an were written earlier. The reason behind their peacefulness is simple - while in Mecca, Muhammad had only a handful of followers. It was impossible for thse 70 or 80 Muslims to wage war against thousands of pagan so he made his Allah portray him as a mere warner, a humble messanger with no earthy powers. During this period he sounded almost like Christ These are examples of verses Muhammad wrote in Mecca: 1. Be patient with what they say, and part from them courteously. (Q.73:10) 2. To you be your religion, and to me my religion. (Q. 109:6) 3. Therefore be patient with what they say, and celebrate (constantly) the praises of your Lord. (Q.20:103) 4. Speak well to men. (Q.2:83) 5. We well know what the infidels say: but you are not to compel them. (Q.50:45) 6. Hold to forgiveness; command what is right; but turn away from the ignorant. (Q.7:119) 7. Pardon thou, with a gracious pardoning. (Q.15:85) 8. Tell those who believe, to forgive those who do not look forward to the Days of Allâh. (Q.45:14) 9. Those who follow the Jewish (scriptures), and the Christians - any who believe in Allâh and the Last Day, and work righteousness, shall have their reward with their Lord; on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve. (Q.2:62) 10. And do not dispute with the followers of the Book except by what is best. (Q.29:46) However, when he migrated to Medina and gained more followers, his thirst for power grew and he bacame more pround and violent, starting with raiding merchant caravans and assassinating his critics (including a mother of five who was stabbed to death on the eyes of her child) and ending with the conquest of whole Arabia. During this period, no more was Allah telling his prophet to be a mere warner and instead, he started telling him more savory things - which abrogated (nullified) earlier peaceful verses. These are examples of verses written in Medina: 1. Oh you who believe! Murder those of the disbelievers who are close to you and let them feel your harshness. (Q.9:123) 2. I will cast terror into the hearts of the unbelievers: smite above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off. (Q.8:12) 3. No religion other than Islam will be accepted of anyone. (Q.3:85) 4. Slay the idolaters wherever you find them. (Q.9:5) 5. Kill them wherever you find them, and drive them out from wherever they drove you out. (Q.2:191) 6. Fight them on until there is no more dissension and religion becomes that of Allâh. (Q.9:193) 7. Fight them, and Allâh will punish them by your hands, cover them with shame. (Q.9:14) 8. Make no excuses: you have rejected Faith after you had accepted it. If we pardon some of you, we will punish others amongst you, for that they are in sin. (Q.9:66) 9. You who believe! Verily, the disbelievers are filthy. So let them not come near Al-Masjid-al-Harâm (the grand mosque at Mecca) after this year. (Q.9:28) 10. Fight those who do not believe in Allâh and the last day... and fight People of the Book, who do not accept the religion of truth (Islam) until they pay tribute by hand and feel themselves subdued. (Q.9:29) 11. Muhammad is a messanger of Allah and those who are with him are harsh against disbelievers but merciful to each other. (Q.48:29). It's hardly believable how rabidly obsessed that man was with disbelievers, fighting and subduing them. In fact, varous variants of the word "disbelief" (represented by Arabic root K-F-R) are the 5th theme most common in the Quran (repeated 525 times) It's precisely these and other similar verses that are used (together with examples from Muhammad's life) by Muslim terrorists to justify their acts of terror. They are also used to deny rights to non-Muslims, to persecute apostates and critics of Islam, in other words - all things we westerners hold as fundamental. If you want to learn more about Muhammad, read "The Sealed Nectar" by Safiur Rahman Mubarakpuri. It's the most detailed, most authoritative biography of Muhammad ever written. Moreover, it's available for free in a PDF format on various Islamic websites. PM me and I will send you a link if you're interested.

People seem to think that because Islam is 600 years younger than Christianity, it looks like Christianity 600 years ago. In fact the differemnce we see now is a reflection of the differences between Jesus and Muhammad. Now in the Middle Ages Christianity got more radical because of political influence fo the Roman Empire on popes and Islam became slighty more moderate thanks to the influence of Greek philosophy (which soon faded). But the Middle Ages passed and the two faiths began diverging again, each in it's own direction. Given that Muhammad was a ruthless thug and every 12th verse of the Quran either orders Muslims to slaughter non-Muslims or spews hatred about how wicked they are, it's a miracle that Islamic terrorism isn't more common. These verses can't be discarded and they cannot be reinrerpreted. There is a limit of how a religious book can be reinrerpreted without falling into absurd.

I think this article (written by a former Muslim) is a good summary.

Well, Muslims have an obligation to emulate their prophet and he, being a pathological narcissist, had no conscience at all. He massacred entire populations and killed people for the slightest criticism of his person with total ease of mind. Muslims share his psychopathology to the degree that they follow his examples. Yes, I do think ISIS are very close to the purest form of Islam. Their actions are roughly consistent with both the behavior of Muhammad (who according to the Quran is the perfect man and an ideal example to follow) and the teachings of Islam as exemplified by the most authoritative clerics of all times. Reading the works of men such as Ibn Taymiyya, Ibn Qayyim, Al Ghazali, books about four Sunni schools of jurisprudence (Hanafi, Hanbali, Maliki, Shafi) would be a good start in learning what makes ISIS (and all Islamists) who they are. These men are basically Islamic equivalents of St. Augustine or Thomas Aquinas. Reading works of contemporary clerics (Sayyid Qutb, Abu Ala Maududi, Abdullah Azzam, Anwar Al Awlaki and many others) would also clarify many things.

@John Cuthber: The stoning as depicted there has never been practiced by Jews, it looked totally different... the culprit was brought to some place high above the ground and thrown down and if they did not die, stones were used. And these weren't small stones but big heavy ones that were mean to finish the victim off. That story from the New Testament was probably fabricated by Christians in order to make Jews look like villans and make their prophet take more credit for "abolishing" these barbaric practices The second aspect of that punishment is that even before Jesus, Jews introduced such rigoristic standards of proof that death penalty became de facto illegal. These are the steps that must have taken place for someone to be eligible for death penalty for any offence under Jewish law: 1. Before comitting the crime the perpetrator was warned by two kosher witnesses that the actions he/she is about to do is punishable by death. The witnesses must be upstanding citizens known to have never sinned in public, with the knowledge of both Torah and Talmud, plus they cannot be related to the perpetrator. 2. The perpetrator accepted the warning, i.e. stated that he has heard the it but is going to do it anyway 3. The perpetrator then comitted the crime immediately after accepting the warning. This is determined by the amount of time it takes to say "Shalom Lecha Rabbi", - about 3 seconds. Imagine that - you are about to commit adultery, two witnesses who are known to be perfect citizens warn you that it's a capital crime and you disregard the warning and commit the crime within, like, 3 second after that... how probable is such a sequence of events? O.o But all of that is needed just to consider the POSSIBILITY of giving you death sentence - as that's not everything so let's move forward. 4. The punishment can be carried out only by the Sanhedrin, the highest religious court in Jerusalem which has been disbanded since 70 AD. So unless it is rebuilt, there is no one capable of carrying out your stoning. 5. The witnesses were examined separately. Any discrepancy - even a minor one - would render their testimony invalid. 6. The witnesses could be called to either defend the accused or to claim the other witnesses were lying (eidim zomemim) 7. The judges (there must be 23 of them) would deliberate. During this process, a judge who argued for innocence could not change his mind and argue for guild, while a judge who argued for guilt would be allowed to raise arguments for innocence (after which he could not raise any arguments for guilt). 5. The most junior judges would speak first with more senior judges speaking later on, so that the younger jusges would not be worried about contradicting the most senior judges. 6. The court would then vote. A majority of two votes was needed for guilt. So your argument that the bible advocates stoning is pretty much BS. No one interprets it in such a way since, well, antiquity. I think that the Bible can have positive influence on people.

"No, equanimity may promote reading it that way but the texts still say you should stone people to death for being different." Sorry for asking a question regarding an almost month old post but what punishment exactly do you mean? If you mean stoning for adultery in the Bible, then this is no argument - as Jews stopped practicing it completely AT LEAST by the time of Jesus, about 2000 years ago. In Talmudic law to be sentenced to death for any offence requires such an absurdally high standards of proof that a court that sentenced more than two people to death over the course of 70 years was considered bloodthirsty. Western Civilization is not a race.

I know that severe malnourishment in childhood can negatively affect height for example, but can diet have influence on it as well? Teke Asia for example - the tallest of all East Asians are Northern Chinese, followed by Koreans and Japanese, with South Chinese and peoples of Southeast Asia being generally the shortest. I know that such disparity can be explained by genetic differences but diet differences have been suggested as well - more precisely, higher intake of meat and dairy products in the north as compared to more vegetable based died in the south. Is there any truth in this? I wonder. And East Asians in general are smaller than Europeans. For example, Dutch men have an average height of between 179 and 183cm (estimates vary) while Japanese men only reach about 170-173cm on average.

I noticed that behavior of my cat closely resembles that of tigers. That cannot be a coincidence...