Mumbai under siege

[trailboss]

Interesting point that. If the Pope and the Arch Biship of Canterbury had stood side by side and demanses, on pain of excoumunication that the violence being commited in God's name stop there would be far fewer young widdows in Belfast and Ulster.

The western world has done so many fu**ed up things in the name of God we are barely in a position to complain. There were the inquisitions, the crusades, the Refermation, witch hunts and of cause every one in every war has "God on our side/Got mit uns".

The stupid thing is in all cases, inquestidor or terrorist are doing stuff that is so far from the teachings of their God I fail to see how they think religion is a reason.

Islam is a peacefull religion. I speak to a lot of Muslims mostly owners and crew from Middle Easten yachts and none even those who have some sympathy for various causes can rationalise the use of terrorism to further the cause of Islam when this kind of behavior is specificly forbiden.

It's allmost painfull at times to see how much these happenings affect the heart of a good Muslim. To see these horrors perptrated in the name of that wich they hold sacred is obviously very hurtfull to them. Most spend a lot of time appoligiseing on behalf of Isalm and trying to assure you this is not the teachings of Islam at work. One Saudi gentleman I know who is rich enough to buy out everyone on this forum (inc you , Robbie) from the contents of the petty cash safe on his yacht was close to tears one day describing to me how he felt about what was being done in the name of God.

He must look down some days and think "WTF?"

Col.

[Pugwash]

Interesting point that. If the Pope and the Arch Biship of Canterbury had stood side by side and demanses, on pain of excoumunication that the violence being commited in God's name stop there would be far fewer young widdows in Belfast and Ulster.

One wonders how, with this power at their fingertips, they can stand by and do nothing. In that respect, Religion is culpable.

[TeeJay]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

Bzzzt. You fail.

Sorry, but naming a 'debating point/logical fallacy' does nothing to change the fact that many so-called 'Islamic Countries' perpetuate behavior and attitudes which is outright forbidden by the Qur'an, such as I noted with female circumcision in some African countries. This is, as mentioned, an example of how cultural attitudes and practices, are being added to the Qur'an, which, as mentioned before, is shirk, thus utterly forbidden.

http://www.islamicperspectives.com/Quran-4-34.htm

If even suspension of sexual relations fails to work, then it is suggested that men use dharb. This word has almost universally been translated here as "beating". Such a translation is supported by some passages in the Qur'an where the word does mean smiting or striking (2:60, 61, 73, 8:12, 50, 7:160 etc).

Yeah, not at all ambiguous. Hmm.

That page is but the work of a single scholar, who chances are, is also a hadithist. (again, a form of shirk) Regardless of how the word is 'universally translated', the fact does not change that the usage of the word in Classical Arabic is different to how it is translated and (mis)understood in contemporary times. Also, as I mentioned before, there are passages in the Qur'an which, when viewed solely out of context of the remainder, are more easily open to misinterpretation or manipulation (as the BNP love to do) because other passages in the text, provide other guidance or commands, which then clarify that specific phrase. Sure, there are passages which are easily quotable, but to be truly understood, they have to be considered with what the rest of the Qur'an states. As I said before, I think you would find it an interesting read, if for no other reason, that it would show you what I'm trying to explain. Remember the example I gave with regards differences of translation as shown in the movie Stargate... Languages mutate, and the use of words alters. Example. A hundred or so years ago, the sentance "I'm feeling particularly gay today, I hope you are having a gay day as well." would mean that the person was happy. In modern times, it would mean something completely different

Even your finest scholars mumble over some passages and hope no-one notices.

Such as?

I don't deny, scholarly opinions will always differ, that is the result of having the intelligence and free-will to draw one's own conclusions about the text, but, as I've said before, this is an example of where the fault lies with the 'organized religion', rather than 'the pure religion' itself. Much, if not all, of the modern perception of Islam is based upon organized versions of it. Sunni, Shia, Suffi etc etc, and this is a good example of how 'the official religion' can be quite different to the fundamental source. Just a little example such as wudu highlights these discrepancies, and why 'organized religion' is not really something to be considered as the true religion:

Performance of wudu according to Sunni Muslims

Start by making niyyah (intention) to perform wudu and cleanse the self of impurities.

Say bismillah ("In the Name of Allah (God)").

Wash the right hand up to the wrist (and between the fingers) three times, then similarly for the left hand.

Rinse the mouth and spit out the water three times.

Gently put water into the nostrils with the right hand, pinch the top of the nose with the left hand to exhale the water. This is performed three times.

Wash the face (from the hairline on the forehead to where facial hair begins and ear to ear). This is to be performed three times.

Wash the entire right arm, including the hand, up to the elbow three times; then the left arm three times.

Wet hands and starting with your hands flat on the top of your head near the hairline, wipe them to the back of the neck and back again to the front. This is only done once. This act is called masah. One may make masah over a Muslim head cap.

With wet fingers, place thumbs at backs of ears, use index finger on curves of ear and middle finger to wash the ears (front and back). This is only done once. This is called making masah the ears.

Starting with the right foot, wash both feet from the toes up to the ankles.

Recite the shahadah.

Performance of wudu according to Shia Muslims

Wudu must be performed on the skin except in the case of the wiping of the head (unless there is an obstacle that isn't naturally there, such as a combover). If there are bandages stopping one from wiping the skin of the arms, face, etc., then it is permissible to wipe the bandage.

Make the intention to perform wudu in the heart.

Shape the right hand like a cup and take water into it. Afterwards, pour the water on the top of the forehead and wipe down with the right hand. It is obligatory to wash from the area where the hair normally grows to the chin.

Shape the left hand like a cup and take water into it. Afterwards, pour this water onto your right forearm and wash your right forearm (covering the right forearm in water, leaving no spot dry). Wipe from the elbow to the fingers, and not from the fingers to the elbow.

Repeat this process except with the left forearm.

Without taking more water, wipe your hair from the middle down to the forehead, or vice versa, using the index finger of your right hand; it is mustahab to use three fingers. If you are balding, you would wash your hair as if it were growing when you had a full head of hair. It is not permissible to wipe the hair over an obstacle (such as wiping a hat or a turban instead of the hair/skin). It is not obligatory to wipe the actual skin on the head. If, however, the hair isn't growing from the area you are wiping (such as if you have a combover), then you must move the hair to where it belongs and wipe the skin.

Without taking more water, wipe the top of your right foot with your right hand. You only wipe once and with a swiping motion. It is unallowed to wipe the shoe, sock, etc. You MUST wipe the skin of the feet unless there is an extreme reason.

Do the same thing, except using your left hand and wiping your left foot.

Okay, that's the 'official/organized' version. That's what the majority of Muslims world-wide have been raised to believe to be correct to do. But:

Performance of wudu according to Qur'an Alone Muslims

Qur'an Alone Muslims 1. Wash the face 2. Wash the arms to the elbows 3. Wipe the head 4. WIPE the feet to the ankles.

This is based on the 6th Ayat of Surah al-Ma'ida (Qur'an 5:6) which states:

"O you who believe! when you rise up to prayer, wash your faces and your hands as far as the elbows, WIPE your heads and your feet to the ankles..."

So, when the Qur'an specifically and clearly says how to perform wudu, and the order with which it must be done, why have 'the other versions' come about? Again, through hadithism, emulation of the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH), which is, as mentioned before, shirk, thus utterly forbidden.

Organized religions sadly, are too often confused with the actual fundamentals of the religious scripture, and this is why I try and make this distinction between the two so clear. It is not a matter of belief, but a matter of what one is believing...

Anyway, I digress. Islam has a PR disaster with terrorism and appears to be doing nothing about it. That's where I feel the real debate lies.

Again, no disagreement from me there, but, key emphasis must be put to "appears to be doing nothing..." (just because that is how it appears, that is not necessarily the actuality of the situation, and one must also remember media influence, and who it gives the opportunity of accurate coverage to.

Take the BNP for example. The press are under orders never to portray the party in a positive light. Is that giving an equal opportunity for them to espouse their views? Look at the recent situation where the members list made its way into the press, despite there being a court-order forbidding such a thing happening. Of course, the public does not have much sympathy for the BNP, but, the key issue which is being ignored by the press, is that the Data Protection Act, and court orders, make such an occurrence a criminally punishable act. Now, please don't think that I'm actually trying to defend the BNP here, nothing could be further from my mind. All I'm trying to do, is highlight how the media chooses to grant coverage to certain groups rather than others, and will always portray certain groups in a negative way, even when such portrayal is not relevant to the particular situation... Don't forget, the press always need someone to demonize, so once that happens, they are not going to start making exceptions...

Interesting point that. If the Pope and the Arch Biship of Canterbury had stood side by side and demanses, on pain of excoumunication that the violence being commited in God's name stop there would be far fewer young widdows in Belfast and Ulster.

The western world has done so many fu**ed up things in the name of God we are barely in a position to complain. There were the inquisitions, the crusades, the Refermation, witch hunts and of cause every one in every war has "God on our side/Got mit uns".

The stupid thing is in all cases, inquestidor or terrorist are doing stuff that is so far from the teachings of their God I fail to see how they think religion is a reason.

Islam is a peacefull religion. I speak to a lot of Muslims mostly owners and crew from Middle Easten yachts and none even those who have some sympathy for various causes can rationalise the use of terrorism to further the cause of Islam when this kind of behavior is specificly forbiden.

It's allmost painfull at times to see how much these happenings affect the heart of a good Muslim. To see these horrors perptrated in the name of that wich they hold sacred is obviously very hurtfull to them. Most spend a lot of time appoligiseing on behalf of Isalm and trying to assure you this is not the teachings of Islam at work. One Saudi gentleman I know who is rich enough to buy out everyone on this forum (inc you , Robbie) from the contents of the petty cash safe on his yacht was close to tears one day describing to me how he felt about what was being done in the name of God.

He must look down some days and think "WTF?"

Col.

You'll get no argument with me there. In such cases, religion is simply being used as a justification (excuse) for such behavior, because, as you say, the behaviors are so far from the teachings, it is a wonder how they think they are acting "in God's name", when the behaviour is so utterly forbidden. The only answer can be an ignorance of the true message in the Qur'an, and 'being brainwashed', by charismatic speakers who know how to use scripture to manipulate people, rather than enrich them.

Indeed, it is very hurtful, but, it is also a challenge to overcome those misconceptions, and such challenges can only be rewarding.

[TeeJay]

Edit: Just before anyone decides to turn this into an anti-Islam rant using my posts as a launch platform, TJ is right on the peace aspect of Islam, whereby they want to be a religion of peace.

However, Islam has a PR issue and it's not helped by Islamic terrorists. Islam needs to disown them and it needs to do so loudly and it needs to do so fast. Unfortunately, Islamic leaders and members have not universally shunned or disowned terrorists before and show no willingness to do so in the future, much like Christian leaders didn't tell the Irish to stop killing each other. As long as terrorists can use the names of religions unchecked, we will continue seeing terrorists as emissaries of their religions. If you're doing it in His name, and no-one on your side is disagreeing, we'll judge your religion, and rightly so.

I hadn't read you edit, so I'll quickly comment here:

Absolutely so, I quite agree, except for this one point:

If you're doing it in His name, and no-one on your side is disagreeing, we'll judge your religion, and rightly so.

Not 'rightly' so, but definitely understandably so.

[Raijor]

The really sad thing, is if these idiots actually bothered to read the Qur'an, they would know that such actions are utterly forbidden. They have no right to call themselves Muslims, as their behavior is totally against the tenets of Islam

Teejay .. are not certain Imams and Madrassa interpreting and teaching the Koran in a way that encourages this kind of action in the name of Islam, just as any religious sectarianism allows for a complete range of philosophy. I so do not want to make this seem Islam is the cause of this behavior or to blame for any terrorism ... that is not at all the point of my post . I would just like some edification on the question I ask about violence preaching Imams and Madrasas...if this is something that is happening and this is not the true message of Islam can anything be done? ... or does Islam by its nature prevent the stifling of the teachings of any Imam or Madrassa? Just curious about this and do not know anything about this except what I have seen on CNN.

By way of example in the Catholic Church. John Paul II was devoutly anti-communist and when he became Pope he made it the Church's business to work on destroying communism in the world with his focusing on eastern Europe and specifically through Poland. As an anti-communist Pope he also faced an issue in South America with openly Marxist revolutionary priests espousing violent over throw of fascist regimes in their countries and supporting replacing them with communist governments. Pope John Paul gave these revolutionary priests an ultimatum stop preaching a Marxist revolutionary ideology from the pulpit and stop all support for any Marxist causes and groups or leave the Church and give up their vocation as Catholic priests. If they did not they would be stripped of their priesthood and excommunicated. He accomplished his goal of cleansing the clergy of revolutionarys for good or ill depending on which side of the issue you are on. Is there any mechanism in Islam that could accomplish the same kind of thing if it were deemed desirable by the majority of Muslims? I know this is not a practicle thing but I would like to know is there is any central authority that has the last word. If there is not it helps explain why there has not been widespread condemnation of the acts of terror engaged in by certain Muslims by the Islamic world.

[Watchman]

I wonder how long it will take for this thread to make it to the loony bin ...

[trailboss]

It is a PR problem tho.

Look at it this way. From a western POV the word "Muslim" conjures up an sterotype image of a male of middle eastern decent who is a wife beating, jew hateing, enemy of the west explosives expert. At the very least Isalm has a very strict and cruel image in the west. While this may be true in some places it is of cause small groups who have these type of extream views yet all branches of Isalm are lumped in together.

Just beacuse there both christian no one would expect say the Methodists to be held up as responsible for the actions of the Branch Divideons at Waco.

No reasonable person would even blame the Seventh Day Adventists whome this mob of loonies split from. Nore do I hold the parisheniers at my local Roman Catholic church as complicient in the actions of their brethren in Belfast. Why would I? The majority of them are as horrified as me. Oh there's proberley some who secretly agree, even some who sent money for guns in the bad days but by far the majority of them are as appaled as I.

But with Islam the weight of the sins of a few are carried by all. Fire bombing the local Mosque in Alabama beacuse of what some extreamist on the other side of the world did makes about as much sence as blowing up the local Salvation Army hall in retaliation for the actions of "Christian" hit squads in Bosnia. Chances are the two parties have about as much in common.

Col.

[TeeJay]

Teejay .. are not certain Imams and Madrassa interpreting and teaching the Koran in a way that encourages this kind of action in the name of Islam,

Absolutely so. This is what I was trying to clarify when I say that what is publicly recognized as an organized religion, should never be (but often are) confused with the true fundamentals of the (or any) religion itself.

There was a documentary on TV I saw a while back about the history of the Qur'an, and naturally, that included examinations of many contemporary 'Islamic practices' by the 'organized doctrines', and it was astounding just how much of them are actually shirk when viewed against the actual text of the Qur'an. The example I made above about wudu is but a simple one, but it is also a very clear and effective one...

I so do not want to make this seem Islam is the cause of this behavior or to blame for any terrorism ... that is not at all the point of my post . I would just like some edification on the question I ask about violence preaching Imams and Madrasas...if this is something that is happening and this is not the true message of Islam can anything be done? ... or does Islam by its nature prevent the stifling of the teachings of any Imam or Madrassa? Just curious about this and do not know anything about this except what I have seen on CNN.

Indeed, I understand the point you're raising, and I quite agree with it. Yes, there are Imams who preach violence and radicalism, and indeed, there are Imams in Arabic countries who would claim to be utterly devout Muslims, yet their practices are unquestionably shirk. Islam (or rather, the instruction within the Qur'an) certainly does not stifle teachings, indeed, it specifies that there is no obligation in religion, and that people have freedom of choice in the matter. However, the 'recognized organization' could certainly stifle teachings which they considered threatening to their power-base (much as the Catholic church behaved over the translations of Egyptian hieroglyphs, because it would have conflicted with their 'approved dogma')

By way of example in the Catholic Church. John Paul II was devoutly anti-communist and when he became Pope he made it the Church's business to work on destroying communism in the world with his focusing on eastern Europe and specifically through Poland. As an anti-communist Pope he also faced an issue in South America with openly Marxist revolutionary priests espousing violent over throw of fascist regimes in their countries and supporting replacing them with communist governments. Pope John Paul gave these revolutionary priests an ultimatum stop preaching a Marxist revolutionary ideology from the pulpit and stop all support for any Marxist causes and groups or leave the Church and give up their vocation as Catholic priests. If they did not they would be stripped of their priesthood and excommunicated. He accomplished his goal of cleansing the clergy of revolutionarys for good or ill depending on which side of the issue you are on. Is there any mechanism in Islam that could accomplish the same kind of thing if it were deemed desirable by the majority of Muslims? I know this is not a practicle thing but I would like to know is there is any central authority that has the last word. If there is not it helps explain why there has not been widespread condemnation of the acts of terror engaged in by certain Muslims by the Islamic world.

To be honest, I don't feel qualified to truly answer that question, as I am not an expert in what I can only term 'the rankings of the 'Islamic Church'', as it is not something which I have ever encountered. I am a Qur'an Alone Muslim, so my knowledge of the organized aspects of the religion are limited to what is mentioned in the Qur'an (and to be honest, much of what makes up that organization, is based on Hadith, which, as a Qur'an Alone Muslim, I do not follow or study in-depth). I think that such a thing would certainly be possible in theory, but I would not like to say for sure.

[Corgi]

I've been stuck in meetings for the past few days and I just returned home but all of my free time I spent glued to CNN in the hotel room. This is a catastrophe of immense magnitude. I heard some of the witness accounts and I cannot get the images they described out of my mind. An absolute horror. My prayers are with all of the families who were forced to suffer because of these terrorists' disregard for human life.

[Dani]

I hope India will still be a open and friendly place after this horror.

All my best wishes goes out to all inflicted by this cowards terrorist attacks.

Cheers

[Dani]

Islam.

Somalia,Checnya,Albania,Afghanistan,Indonesia,Iran.

Nuff said, primitive and out of date.

Cheers.

[Pugwash]

Take the BNP for example. The press are under orders never to portray the party in a positive light. Is that giving an equal opportunity for them to espouse their views?

The Press?

Under Orders?

Unfortunately, you're under some paranoid conspiracy influence there. Much like you said the press doesn't report what's really happening in Islam, I think you're passing into the realms of fiction as opposed to fact. I find it hard enough to discuss religion (as it is in my view a form of fiction people choose to believe) with you as it is, but if you're going to call on vast worldwide press-control conspiracies, I'm going to have to bow out of this one as you're off into tin-foil hat territory with that one.

Anyway, to get back on topic, it's a travesty that people kill each other and it's cowardice that makes them hide behind religion.

[trailboss]

No one is going to tell an Imam in Iran or Palistine what he can and can't teach. Where action should be taken is in places like the US and Australia where extreamism is rare. The Isamic Council here has Taken steps to gag a couple of rabble rousers recently. One selling DVD sermons saying stuff like rape victims are responsible "if they display themselvs like meat" in responce to atacks on western girls by a gang of Lebenese youths in Sydney. He was also praising Jihad and "dieing for the glory of Allah." Not the sort of guy I'd want preaching to my kids. Apparntly the council shares my view 'cause he doesn't anymore. Havn't heard a peep from him in months.

Unfortunatly this doesn't seem to happen in some places. London is a good example. There are a cpl of Imams there who realy are a worry. And now it looks like at least seven of the terrorists in India had UK connections. These good people who live by God's law and not the teachings of some twisted indevidual with an agenda should clean house of these extremeists befire they start reading about their sons and daughters blowing themselvs up in Picadilly. It's the young they get. They want to serve God and here is this respected person telling them the best way is to die for Him.

It's a crazy world we live in. Who said Life Of Brian was farce?

Col.

[TeeJay]

Islam.

Somalia,Checnya,Albania,Afghanistan,Indonesia,Iran.

Nuff said, primitive and out of date.

Cheers.

The countries, maybe so, but to blame the issues solely on Islam, is to ignore the fact that the true problems lie with the cultural issues of the locals and government, who are not following the true tenets of Islam. As mentioned above, the Qur'an does not state that women should be treated badly, indeed, there is an entire chapter (and many other passages) relating entirely to the fair treatment of women.

The Press?

Under Orders?

Unfortunately, you're under some paranoid conspiracy influence there. Much like you said the press doesn't report what's really happening in Islam, I think you're passing into the realms of fiction as opposed to fact. I find it hard enough to discuss religion (as it is in my view a form of fiction people choose to believe) with you as it is, but if you're going to call on vast worldwide press-control conspiracies, I'm going to have to bow out of this one as you're off into tin-foil hat territory with that one.

No conspiracy, but NUJ guidelines. I admit, hardly the most unbiassed source, but, that's where the wikipedia led me after a review of the BNP on wikipedia...

I find it hard enough to discuss religion (as it is in my view a form of fiction people choose to believe) with you as it is

Your view is not really relevant to the nature of discussing factual issues though. Regardless of your belief about the 'authenticity' of the Qur'an (or any other religious text) the text contained within is factual of itself and can thus be discussed and referenced as to what it (true or not) permits and forbids. Afterall, this is not a debate as to if the Qur'an is real, or if their is a God, but a discussion about how organized religion can 1) be at odds with it's scripture, 2) how organized religion can be used as a form of manipulation for the (uneducated) masses, and 3) how people following in the true spirit of a religion condemn the actions of extremists who hide behind a perversion of their faith as an excuse for their actions.

[TeeJay]

No one is going to tell an Imam in Iran or Palistine what he can and can't teach. Where action should be taken is in places like the US and Australia where extreamism is rare. The Isamic Council here has Taken steps to gag a couple of rabble rousers recently. One selling DVD sermons saying stuff like rape victims are responsible "if they display themselvs like meat" in responce to atacks on western girls by a gang of Lebenese youths in Sydney. He was also praising Jihad and "dieing for the glory of Allah." Not the sort of guy I'd want preaching to my kids. Apparntly the council shares my view 'cause he doesn't anymore. Havn't heard a peep from him in months.

Unfortunatly this doesn't seem to happen in some places. London is a good example. There are a cpl of Imams there who realy are a worry. And now it looks like at least seven of the terrorists in India had UK connections. These good people who live by God's law and not the teachings of some twisted indevidual with an agenda should clean house of these extremeists befire they start reading about their sons and daughters blowing themselvs up in Picadilly. It's the young they get. They want to serve God and here is this respected person telling them the best way is to die for Him.

It's a crazy world we live in. Who said Life Of Brian was farce?

Col.

Absolutely so. At the end of the day, it's for local government to keep a better eye on just who is preaching (in all religions). In addition to getting rid of the extremist Imams, it might also help combat pedophiles in the priesthood. Sadly, the UK government is too scared of upsetting any religious group to actually take the kind of steps which are taken in Australia. If England had organization and adherence to the rules more like Australia, it would no doubt be a better place

[JohnG]

Islam is the fastest growing religion in the United States. It is not the problem, it is a tool used to exert political power by a radicalized segment of a population that has been exploited for most of the past century. Virtually no one cares what happens to people who live under a repressive regime whose very existence depends (for example) upon U.S. military aid. The West is complicit in their repression of millions of people. The thing I find shocking is that people can deny this with a straight face.

People who feel great helplessness, rage, and ultimately hatred, will resort to drastic measures.

If the some rich foreign nation funded a coup in the United States and a government that subsequently took away everyone's rights, weapons, and dignity and then killed or imprisoned anyone who complained - AND their families... how long would it take Americans to reach the point where they could justify the indiscriminate killing of their enemies in their own minds?

Anyone who thinks that such contempt for human life or indeed an entire people could not happen in the West - that this is a strictly a religious or racial problem - has no idea what they are talking about. ANY race or culture is capable of the greatest barbarity given the right conditions. We have only to look at what happened in Germany during the 30's and 40's to know this is true.

[KB]

[6] - Anything discussions regarding politics and/or religion in anyway will be closed or deleted unless determined to be pertinent by admins/mods.

Last warning this thread has gone way off topic and if it remains as a religious debate it will be locked.

I want to thank Corgi who is the only poster in the past few pages to understand the original topic.

Ken

[JohnG]

What a coincidence.

[KB]

What a coincidence.

If you are referring to my ruling after your post I should point out it is 7am in OZ, the coincidence is more in line with the time I got out of bed than who had the last say.

Ken

[chronoluvvv]

I hope India will still be a open and friendly place after this horror.

All my best wishes goes out to all inflicted by this cowards terrorist attacks.

Cheers

well i'm sure that they will be implementing tighter controls but as with any 3rd world nation that needs its overseas remittances they cannot afford to be unfriendly with their Western counterparts. As a productive entity, they are superseded only by China with a larger, older population but as the demographics change, they will certainly gain further prominence

[Pugwash]

Last warning this thread has gone way off topic and if it remains as a religious debate it will be locked.

Best lock it up, Ken. A discussion about religious terrorism will include religion.

We're not going to be able to avoid the subject for ever, but I appreciate you're telling us it's best done elsewhere.

[TeeJay]

Best lock it up, Ken. A discussion about religious terrorism will include religion.

We're not going to be able to avoid the subject for ever, but I appreciate you're telling us it's best done elsewhere.

Agreed, 100% It's been a civilized discussion thus far, best to end it thus as well

[chronoluvvv]

well, modern-day Islam = Christianity in the Middle Ages ... hopefully they will catch up

[KB]

Yes I suppose all that should be said has been so I will close it for now....unless requested to reopen by the OP

Ken