By sheik yer’mami


English Version:
Click below to listen:

German Verson:
Click below to listen:

Tolerance is a mildly perverted Tango depicting the insomnia of the west towards a war that has been deliberatly ignored: Militant Islam, radical Islam, extremist Islam, Islamo-faschism etc. The question must be asked: Is there any other kind?

Nutroots and moonbats believe that it is US that is at fault, that it is only a matter of poverty and that we can just ‘talk it out…’

If it only was that easy! How do you tolerate the intolerable, how do you tolerate those who have sworn to forcibly convert or kill you!

Political correctness is killing us, help us identify the enemy, help us to raise awareness!

The Words In English

All we need is tolerance
we do dot want integration
we do not want assimilation
we only need tolerance

we only need tolerance

For Bali and for Beslan,
For 9/11 and Madrid, for London and for Moskow
For terror, murder and Islam
We need only Tolerance

We still need more tolerance, yes
We demand: More tolerance
Tolerance when we outbreed you
Tolerance to drive Islam into you

We only need to call you ‘racist’
Or scream ‘discrimination’ to drive you right out of your wits
And all the lefty-loony twits
Will jump up and down to turn your nation
Right on track for the Islamization

Do you want total tolerance?
For multi-culti mummenschanz
You never cared for your history
You never cared to learn a thing
You better learn about Islam
and that you must be tolerant,
tolerant, for the intolerance


The Words In German

Als Tango

Sie wollen nur Tolleranz
Sie wollen sich nicht integrieren,
sie wollen nicht assimilieren,
Sie wollen nur Tolleranz

Sie wollen nur Tolleranz,
Tolleranz fuer Bali und fuer Beslan,
Fuer Terror Mord und Islam:

Wir brauchen noch mehr Tolleranz,
Wir brauchen nur Tolleranz,
Wir werden uns sehr schnell vermehren
Und Euch den Islam bescheren

Jetzt schreien wir noch schnell ‘Rassismus’
Und dann noch ‘discrimination’
Und schon sind alle linken Helden
Die sich ‘Menschenrechtler’ schelten
Dabei und schreien Tolleranz

Willst Du totale Tolleranz
Fuer Multi Kulti Mummenschanz?
1000 Jahre Geschichte sind vergessen
under Islamist verlangt vermessen
Tolleranz, fuer die Intolleranz..z


“Tolerance meaning we tolerate all that is good and dont tolerate idiots who wish to superimpose good with bad.”

20 thoughts on “Tolerance”

  1. i can give you a thousand reasons why the hate us ..
    the illegal invasion of Iraq comes to mind as one .

  2. Would you please provide some proof as to what was ‘illegal’ about it?
    Did the US need a mandate from the UN to go into Iraq and is that your criteria to make the difference between right and wrong?

  3. Seems to me they hated us long before Iraq. 911, Khobar Towers, USS Cole, Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, first WTC, American embassy in Teheran all preceeded the invasion of Iraq. What does the hatred of the US have to do with bombings in Bali, Thailand, London, Madrid, Moscow, the massacre at Beslan? Maybe they don’t like us because we are kufr, infidels, non believers. This is not a left against right, liberal against conservative, atheist against deist fight. We need to come together to present a strong front against Islam. If the islamists win there will be no more atheists, Hindus, Buddhists or Zoroastrians because they are not “people of the book”.

  4. Carataus has 100% common sense. These bastards will kill the liEberals before the even get to us.

    Liberalism is indeed a menatl disorder!!!

  5. atheist Says:
    December 20th, 2006 at 5:32 am
    i can give you a thousand reasons why the hate us ..
    the illegal invasion of Iraq comes to mind as one .

    Hey.. atheist.. would you please give me the other 999 reasons?
    And while I am asking.. WHY should I care HEY they hate US?
    Should they maybe ask themselves WHY do WE hate THEM?!
    Do YOU ever ask why the smartest among us hate THEM?!

  6. Well, we still got the nukes.
    And for good reason, too.
    We could use them if they wouldn’t hide in the cracks and behind their women.
    When have you seen a terrorist with a uniform, fighting like a man?
    Stay in the middle east and deal with your problems there.
    Don’t come here.
    Don’t send your children to go to school here.
    Live like you want, in the middle ages.
    Don’t accept modern ways of life.
    Don’t practice modern medicine.
    Treat your women like crap, if you think it make you a man.
    Pound you chest and rant and rave about how the west has done you wrong.
    And keep your oil.
    Let’s see you eat it!
    We’re developing alternatives really fast, using modern science.
    Count Brazil off your list, they have already bailed out. They grow their own now.
    In 20 years you won’t have the west as a customer for you fossil poison and you’ll have to come up with a way to eat it or the sand you live in because oil won’t be worth the energy it takes to pump it out of the ground.
    You’re on your way back to the 15th century.
    Does this make you happy?
    Ever seen a terrorist when he’s caught and separated from his buddies?
    Have you?
    I have.
    He’s not so bold.
    There isn’t any shouting God-is-great, he cowers like a dog that is about to be beat.
    You aren’t men, you’re sissys that shout like an insolate brat. It’s time for a time out.

  7. Where were the muhujadin when Saddam and family were killing, raping and torturing MUSLIMS? Where was the ummah to fight against oppression of MUSLIMS then…no, they don’t care about Iraq, the insurgency is all about a Shia Sunni power struggle.

    Actually Islam attacked America first, from 1776 onwards. Muslims (The Barbary Pirates) were attacking American ships (amongst others) and enslaving the crew, and forcing huge ransoms to be paid, even for those who died in the dungeons, their ransom still had to be paid. America (and other countries) were forced to pay huge sums of tribute money (Jyzia tax?) When George Washington died they (the muslims) demanded a tribute from the Americans of $10 000!

    In 1786 Thomas Jefferson and John Adams met with the Tripoli ambassador Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja to renegotiate a peace treaty.
    They asked the ambassador WHY America had provoked such hostility from Tripoli…the answer was, as they reported to the Continental Congress, “that it was founded on the Laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as Prisoners, and that every Musselman who should be slain in Battle was sure to go to Paradise.”

    Please note this was many years before American foreign policy, before oil, before Israel, before US troops in muslim countries…before all the excuses liberal loonies use today to justify muslim aggression.

  8. February 9, 2007
    The Truth about Tolerance
    How our therapeutic thinkers threaten Western values.
    by Bruce Thornton
    Private Papers

    Acceptance of a double standard has always been a sign of inferiority. To let someone behave according to one set of principles or values while demanding that you be subjected to others is to validate a claim of superiority that justifies the inconsistent and unfair behavior. A double standard can also reflect incoherent thinking, a failure to apply consistently a principle that presumably has universal validity. In the West’s struggle with Islamic jihad, doubts about the superiority of Western values have coupled with a breakdown in ethical reasoning. The result is the appeasement of jihadist aggression and the confirmation of the jihadist estimation of the West’s corruption.

    That’s why many Muslims demand from Westerners a hypersensitivity to Islam, all the while that Christians and Jews in Muslim countries are subjected to harassment, assault, and the looniest kinds of slander and insult. In the West, respect for Muslim ways such as the veil for women is supposed to be granted as a self-evident right beyond argument or debate. Yet Western ideals and values, such as the equality of the sexes, are derided, disrespected, and rejected as self-evident evils. The worst inconsistencies, however, involve the violation of core Western ideals, most importantly free speech. Many Muslims demand the right to deny the Holocaust, recycle Nazi-era anti-Semitic drivel, characterize Christianity as polytheistic idolatry, and excoriate a decadent, corrupt Western civilization. But no such criticism of Mohammed or Islam is tolerated, but it is, in fact, met with violence and threats.

    The past few years have seen numerous examples, from the riots over the extremely mild political cartoons featuring Mohammed, to the uproar over the Pope’s quotation of a Byzantine emperor. The exercise of free speech in all these cases is met with rage, violence, and hysterical demands of “respect” for Islam, but there is no reciprocal respect for Western values. And for the most part, we in the West go along with this double standard, and thus accept the logic of the jihadist position: we are weak and unsure of our beliefs. Our craven behavior is a sign of our inferior status and our justified subjection to those who passionately believe in the rightness of their faith.

    Let’s be clear on the roots of this cowardly response — the West has lost its faith. We have created John Lennon’s juvenile utopia in which there is “nothing to kill or die for, and no religion too.” Shorn of transcendent validation, now all our beliefs are contingent and negotiable, easily traded away for security or comfort. At the same time, the therapeutic mentality bestows on the non-Western “other” a finely calibrated sensitivity to his culture, no matter how dysfunctional, all the while the West refuses to extend such consideration to its own. Why would it? Haven’t generations of Western intellectuals and artists told the world how corrupt and evil the West is? Having culturally internalized this self-loathing, we are vulnerable to those who are filled with passionate intensity about the rightness of their beliefs and the payback due to us for our various historical sins such as colonialism or imperialism or globalization. And then we wonder why the jihadist considers us ripe for conquest, and destined to be subjected to the superior values of Islam.

    Consider the following cautionary tale, from San Francisco State. Last October the College Republicans held an anti-terrorism rally during which posters painted to look like the flags of the terrorist gangs Hamas and Hezbollah were walked on. Since those flags have the name of Allah in Arabic, a complaint was filed in which the College Republicans were accused of “incitement,” “creation of a hostile environment,” and “incivility.” The complaint is now headed for trial before one of those campus star chambers created to monitor and police student behavior.

    “chilling effect.” The Vice President of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, Robert Shilbey, has pointed out the obvious: “At a public university, stepping on a flag — even burning an American flag — is without question a constitutionally protected act of political protest. The right to protest is at the very heart of the First Amendment, and means nothing if only inoffensive expression is permitted.”

    Here’s where the double standards and incoherence of much politically correct behavior comes in. On any college campus in this country, every day, inside of class and out, you can encounter speech that is “insensitive,” “uncivil,” or “hostile.” But of course, this speech is directed towards Christians, or “conservatives,” or Israel, or Republicans, or “straight white males.” Nobody attempts to censor this speech or haul people before tribunals to answer vague charges such as “incivility,” which will be defined according to the subjective standards of the complainants. And if someone does complain, the faculty and administration will immediately go into high dudgeon mode and start preaching the glories of unfettered free speech no matter how offensive. In other words, free speech for me but not for thee.

    But the ill effects of this hypocrisy are nothing compared to the damage done when the institution caters to the unreasonable demands of those Muslims who, convinced of their spiritual superiority and righteousness, are active enemies of the West and think they are justified in imposing their standards on everybody else, even if those standards violate a core political value such as free speech. And when the appeasement comes from the university, which supposedly exists in order to foster what Matthew Arnold called “the free play of the mind on all subjects,” the message is quite clear: we don’t really believe in all these goods we profess and benefit from, but we will abandon them at the first threat. And if we don’t believe in them, why should the jihadist?

    ©2007 Bruce Thornton

  9. atheist never saw an intolerant person he didn’t like (because their views of the West and Christianity match his SO well!)- not, at least, until one of the most intolerant takes his head off.

  10. Tolerance in Islam

    by M. Rafiqul-Haqq and P. Newton

    “There is no compulsion in religion.” (The Qur’an 2:256)
    This Qur’anic verse is used by Muslims to defend themselves against the charge that Islam is an intolerant religion. The charge of intolerance has been haunting Muslims everywhere since the beginning of Islam. Is this charge well founded or is it a false one?

    To answer this question we shall look at what the Muslim scholars have said about the issue and at this verse in particular. We will also look at some historical facts related to that issue.


    Of the verse “There is no compulsion in religion”, the scholar Nahas said:

    “the scholars differed concerning Q. 2:256. Some said: ‘It has been abrogated [cancelled] for the Prophet compelled the Arabs to embrace Islam and fought them and did not accept any alternative but their surrender to Islam. The abrogating verse is Q. 9:73 ‘O Prophet, struggle with the unbelievers and hypocrites, and be thou harsh with them.’ Mohammad asked Allah the permission to fight them and it was granted. Other scholars said Q. 2:256 has not been abrogated, but it had a special application. It was revealed concerning the people of the Book [the Jews and the Christians]; they can not be compelled to embrace Islam if they pay the Jizia (that is head tax on free non-Muslims under Muslim rule). It is only the idol worshippers who are compelled to embrace Islam and upon them Q. 9:73 applies. This is the opinion of Ibn ‘Abbas which is the best opinion due to the authenticity of its chain of authority.”[1]
    In exempting the Jews and the Christians from Q. 2:256, the Muslim scholars agree that the idol worshippers can be compelled by force to embrace Islam.

    It is clear that, whether Q. 2:256 was abrogated or not, the scholars quite naturally admit to the historical fact that “the Prophet compelled the Arabs to embrace Islam and fought them and did not accept any alternative but their surrender to Islam.”


    The Muslim theologians had to justify this compulsion. Here is the reason given by a famous scholar:

    “No compulsion” is a condemnation of compelling people to do evil generally, but compelling people in the truth is a religious duty. Does the infidel get killed for any thing except on the basis of his religion? The Prophet said: I have been ordered to fight against the people until they testify that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah. This Hadith is taken from the words of Allah ‘Fight them on until there is no more tumult and religion becomes that of Allah (Q. 2:193).
    If some one asks how can people be compelled in the truth when the mere fact of compelling indicates a the violation of the will of the one compelled? The first answer is that Allah sent Mohammad calling people to Him, showing the way to the truth, enduring much harm … until the evidence of Allah’s truth became manifest … and His apostle became strong, He ordered him to call people by the sword … hence there is no more an excuse after being warned. The second answer is that people first are taken and compelled, but when Islam becomes prevalent … and they mix and make friends … their faith strengthens and finally becomes sincere.”[2]

    According to the above :

    1. Muslims believe that they have the right to compel people to accept Islam because it is the truth.

    2. Muslims believe that Mohammad was given a divine command to fight against people, not in self defence or for economical or political reasons, but because people do not worship the one Mohammad worshipped.

    3. The above scholar had no value for the human free will. To him, forcing Islam on people is justified if later on they will become Muslims. It is not an exaggeration then to say that the sword is Allah’s final word.


    Q. 2:256 is not the only verse that speaks of tolerance and which has been “abrogated”. We find other verses that speak of tolerance in early Islam; Q2:62, for example:

    “Surely they that believe, and those of Jewry, and the Christians, and those Sabaeans, whoso believes in God and the Last Day, and works righteousness their wage awaits them with their Lord, and no fear shall be on them, neither shall they sorrow.” (Q. 2:62)
    And another like it:

    “Surely they that believe, and those of Jewry, and the Sabaeans, and those of the Christians, whosoever believes in God and the Last Day, and works righteousness no fear shall be on them, neither shall they sorrow.” (Q. 5:69)
    These verses were abrogated[3] by the following:

    “Whoso desires another religion than Islam, it shall not be accepted of him; in the next world he shall be among the losers.” (Q. 3:85)
    Ibn Hazm al-Andalusi, the author of an-Nasikh wal-Mansukh, informs us that there are 114 verses that speak of tolerance in early Islam, but all were abrogated by one verse, “Slay the idolaters wherever you find them” (Q. 9:5), before the death of Mohammad.[4] We mention here some of the abrogated verses:

    “Pardon thou, with a gracious pardoning…” (Q. 15:85)
    “Speak good to men…” (2:83)

    “If it had been thy Lord’s Will, they would all have believed, all who are on earth! Wilt thou then compel mankind against their will to believe!” (Q. 10:99) Yusuf Ali’s translation.

    “To you your religion, and to me my religion.” (Q. 109:6)

    All the above verses have been abrogated by Q. 9:5.

    Ibn Hazm al-Andalusi also wrote:

    “Fight in the way of God with those who fight with you, but aggress not: God loves not the aggressors (2:190)” On the authority of Ga’far ar-Razi from Rabi’ Ibn ‘Ons, from ‘Abil-‘Aliyah who said: This is the first verse that was revealed in the Qur’an about fighting in the Madina. When it was revealed the prophet used to fight those who fight with him and avoid those who avoid him, until Sura 9 was revealed. And so is the opinion of ‘Abd ar-Rahman Ibn Zayd Ibn ‘Aslam who said this verse was cancelled by 9:5 “Slay the idolaters wherever you find them”[5]
    Not all scholars however agree that these verses were abrogated. They recognise that to abrogate His own commands is unworthy of the character of God. For example Dr. Sobhy as-Saleh, a contemporary academic, does not see in Q. 2:256 and Q. 9:73 a case of abrogation but a case of delaying or postponing the command to fight the infidels. To support his view he quoted Imam Suyuti the author of Itqan Fi ‘Ulum al- Qur’an who wrote:

    The command to fight the infidels was delayed until the Muslims become strong, but when they were weak they were commanded to endure and be patient.[6]
    Dr. Sobhy, in a footnote, commends the opinion of a scholar named Zarkashi who said :

    Allah the most high and wise revealed to Mohammad in his weak condition what suited the situation, because of his mercy to him and his followers. For if He gave them the command to fight while they were weak it would have been embarrassing and most difficult, but when the most high made Islam victorious He commanded him with what suited the situation, that is asking the people of the Book to become Muslims or to pay the levied tax, and the infidels to become Muslims or face death. These two options, to fight or to have peace return according to the strength or the weakness of the Muslims.”[7]
    We can see that whether Q. 2:256 was abrogated or Q. 9:73 was delayed the result is the same: the infidels should embrace Islam or face death at the hands of its followers.

    The authentic Hadith confirms the above. In the collection of Hadith known as Sahih al-Bukhari there is a chapter headed “‘The statement of Allah, ‘But if they repent and offer the prayers perfectly and give the obligatory charity then leave their way free'”(9:5) In this chapter al-Bukhari recorded the following Hadith:

    “Narrated Ibn ‘Umar: Allah’s Apostle said: I have been ordered to fight against the people until they testify that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that Mohammad is Allah’s apostle, and offer the prayers perfectly and give the obligatory charity, so if they perform all that, then they save their lives and property from me except from Islamic laws, and then their reckoning (accounts) will be done by Allah.”[8]
    In the chapter “Paradise is under the blades of the swords”, al-Bukhari mentioned the following Hadith:

    “Our prophet told us about the message of our Lord that ‘… whoever amongst us is killed will go to Paradise.’ ‘Umar asked the prophet, ‘Is it not true that pure men who are killed will go to Paradise and their’s (ie. those of the pagan’s) will go to the (Hell) fire? The prophet said, ‘Yes'”[9]
    Also al-Bukhari mentioned that Mohammad said, “Know that paradise is under the shades of swords.”[10]

    We can see that al-Bukhari’s authentic Hadith confirms and praises the concept of compelling the infidels to embrace Islam by force.


    Dr. M. Khan the translator of Sahih al-Bukhari into English, had this to say in the introduction to his translation:

    “Allah revealed in Sura Bara’at (Repentance, IX) the order to discard (all) obligations (covenants, etc), and commanded the Muslims to fight against all the Pagans as well as against the people of the Scriptures (Jews and Christians) if they do not embrace Islam, till they pay the Jizia (a tax levied on the Jews and Christians) with willing submission and feel themselves subdued (as it is revealed in 9:29). So the Muslims were not permitted to abandon “the fighting” against them (Pagans, Jews and Christians) and to reconcile with them and to suspend hostilities against them for an unlimited period while they are strong and have the ability to fight against them. So at first “the fighting” was forbidden, then it was permitted, and after that it was made obligatory.”[11]
    Dr. M. Khan, in a very straightforward manner, tells us that by the one verse Q. 9:5 Allah ordered Mohammad to cancel all covenants and to fight the pagans and Jews; even the Christians of whom the Qur’an had earlier spoken in the following terms:

    “Thou wilt find the nearest of them in love to the believers [Muslims} are those who say ‘We are Christians'” (Q. 5:82)
    Here is a clear confession from the Qur’an about the love of the Christians for the Muslims in the time of Mohammad.

    We would like to draw the attention of the readers to the fact that while Allah commanded Mohammad to fight even those who loved the Muslims, Christ commanded his followers to love their enemies.

    “You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbour and hate your enemy. But I tell you: love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you… If you love those who love you, what reward will you get?” (Matt. 6:43-44)
    Contrary to the above commandment, so called Christians have committed many atrocities throughout history. Christ never taught his followers to fight but to love their enemies. Allah and Mohammad, however, commanded the Muslims to cancel all treaties and fight even their friends.

    Dr. Khan continued:

    The “Mujahideen who fight against the enemies of Allah in order that the worship should be all for Allah (alone and not for any other deity) and that the word is Allah’s (ie. none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and His religion Islam) should be upper most.”[12]
    And sufficient is Allah’s statement to show the importance of Jihad in this matter:

    “O who believe! shall I direct you to a commerce that which will save you from a painful torment? That you believe in Allah and His Apostle (Mohammad), and that you strive hard and fight in the cause of Allah with your wealth and your lives. That will be better for you, if you but knew. If you do so He will forgive you your sins, and admit you into gardens of Eternity – that is the great success” (Q. 61:10-12)

    In a contemporary Islamic periodical we read the following:

    “Here we would draw the attention of westerners to the fact that Islam and all true religions cannot be imposed on people for two reasons. Firstly, after all the clear proofs, the logical reasoning and the manifest miracles there is no need for force at all. Only the person who lacks logic and proof would resort to force. But the divine religion has very sound logic and strong proof. Secondly, the influence of force and the sword can have their impact on bodies but not on ideas and beliefs.”
    To this point, the argument is sound and logical and no one can argue with that. But listen to the rest of the statement:

    “In fact, Islam seeks recourse to military force in three situations:
    1. For the purpose of eradicating polytheism and idolatry. Because Islam does not consider idolatry as a form of religion, but as a deviation, a disease and a myth. Islam perceives that a group of people should not be allowed to tread the path of deviation and myth but that they should be stopped. That is why Islam called the idol- worshippers to the unity of God and if they did not heed there would be recourse to force where the idols would be smashed and the temples destroyed. Islam attempted to prevent any appearance of the elements of idol worship in order to destroy the source of this spiritual and mental disease.

    2. To counter those who plot in order to eradicate Islam. In these cases there are injunctions to engage in defensive Jihad and to take recourse to force.

    3. In order to obtain freedom for calling to religion. For every religion should have the right to propagate its teachings in a logical manner and if anyone tries to prevent this then this right should be taken by force of arms.”[13]

    Could the explanation for the flight of thought in the above words be that it is the work of two authors, one of whom believes that ‘Only the person who lacks logic and proof would resort to force’; the other author obviously lacking this logic, but passionately believing in the right of Muslims to use force?


    Al-Ghazali (died AH 505, that is AD 1127) who earned the title “hoggat al-Islam, meaning rock of Islam”, some five centuries after the time of Mohammad, is not apologetic in stressing the use of force in the preservation and progress of Islam:

    “After the death of Mohammad, the man of the miracle [the Qur’an] and the apostle of truth and the companions, fearing the weakening of Islam, the decrease of the number of its followers, and the return of masses to their previous infidelity, saw that holy war and invading other countries for the sake of Allah, smashing the faces of the infidels with the sword and making people enter the religion of Allah as the most worthy of all tasks and better than all sciences.”[14]
    What al-Ghazali referred to in this quotation is known as the wars of apostasy (hurub ar- Riddah) which occurred in the time of Abu Bakr when the Arabic masses rejected Islam, and had to be brought back by the sword. These wars (not one war) lasted almost two years (632-634 AD). This is a fact of history. Some modern writers want us to believe that those wars were economical and political in nature, but historians tell us otherwise. The historian Ibn Ishaq quoted ‘A’isha the wife of the Prophet who said:

    ‘when the Prophet died the Arabs rejected Islam and drank Judaism and Christianity and the Star of Nifaq'”.[15]
    Besides, the word riddah that describes the wars means “apostasy”, and thus the wars are recognisable as being religious in origin because of this use of religious terminology. If those Arabs accepted Islam willingly, why did they reject it when the Prophet of Islam died? A contemporary writer admitted that the Arabs were forced to embrace Islam. He wrote,

    “It is important to note that the inhabitants of the Arabic peninsula initially did not accept Islam willingly and sincerely. This explains the force of the apostasy (riddah) after the death of the Prophet … the Arabs on the perimeter of the peninsula who were recent converts to Islam refused to pay the tax, some rebelled against the Islamic rule while others rejected Islam. The people of Mecca were about to reject Islam, yea they wanted to, until ‘Attab Ibn Osayd threatened them … and if it was not for Sohayl Ibn ‘Amr who coerced them they would have not turned back to Islam”[16]
    It is a historical fact that except for these wars, those tribes that rejected Islam would have remained non-Muslims. Were these wars an act of religious tolerance? These wars stand in history as the supreme example of religious intolerance by Islam.

    The use of the sword in the spread of Islam is attested to by the following statements from the lips of the renowned scholar al-Ghazali,

    “Just as scholastic theology is used with thinking people concerning the truth, the sword is used with the infidels after informing them with the truth … so just as it cannot be said that the sword was Mohammad’s most eloquent argument, neither can it be said that scholastic theology is the ultimate science.”[17]
    We have seen earlier that the sword was Allah’s final word, and according to the above statement (apart from scholastic theology) the sword was Mohammad’s most eloquent argument.

    The most telling assessment of the whole issue, confirming the centrality of the sword in Islam; comes from a modern scholar who wrote in al-Azhar, which is the most celebrated magazine in the Muslim world:

    “Holy war (Jihad) is an Arabic virtue, and a divine obligation: the Muslim is always mindful that his religion is a Qur’an and a sword … the Muslim then is forever a warrior.”[18]
    With this assertion, the Qur’an, the Hadith, the history of Islam, and scholars, ancient and modern, concur.

  11. No Tolerance Here:

    Pope calls for religious freedom in Muslim countries: “Respect and dialogue require reciprocity in all spheres”

    Makes sense, right? What could possibly stand in the way of that? Just Islamic law, whose very purpose is to establish Islam’s dominance, and the subjugation of other religions under it. That imperative follows the commands of Qur’an 9:29, which provides unbelievers the options of conversion, subjugation, or war — not reciprocal respect and dignity. Indeed, the entire purpose of jihad in all its forms is to impose the rule of Sharia, and this unjust social order that is enshrined in it.

    Saudi Arabia is given particular attention in this story. Ultimately, the Saudis are only carrying out Muhammad’s intentions according to authoritative (sahih, or “solid,” “reliable”) Islamic texts:

    “I will expel the Jews and Christians from the Arabian Peninsula and will not leave any but Muslim.” – Sahih Muslim 19.4366.
    Indeed, we are repeatedly told Islam in its “true” form is tolerant, but Islam is tolerant on Islam’s own terms, and by its own definition of the proper extent of religious tolerance. The inherent instability and frequently violent conditions for non-Muslims in Muslim countries are direct consequences of Islam’s utter rejection of the notion of reciprocity and equality between believers and non-believers.

    It will be interesting to see what response Pope Benedict’s comments elicit from Muslim leaders, beyond the usual generalities about “tolerance,” “respect,” and “justice,” made with the hope that non-Muslim listeners will project their own cultural understanding onto those terms.

    “Pope calls for religious freedom in Muslim states,” by Phillip Pullella for Reuters, November 11:

  12. * “Pope calls for religious freedom in Muslim states,”

    He could search on [muslims conquer rome] to get an idea of allah’s intentions:

    14 Apr 2008 … Hamas Cleric Predicts ‘Rome Will Be Conquered by Islam’,

    Former Jordanian minister insists Islam will conquer Rome …

    The Messenger of Allah gave us the good tidings that we will conquer Rome, the capital of Christendom today, after the Muslims conquered the first capital …

    17 Sep 2006 … Just imagine the Muslim reaction if instead of “Islam will conquer Rome” and “Jesus is the slave of Allah” somebody held up placards reading …

    Videos for muslims conquer rome

    15 Mar 2010 … Mcnorman’s Weblog: Islam Will Conquer Rome and Twisted Islam The Weekly Standard: Scott Brown Slams Obamacare in Weekly GOP Address Gateway …

    Will Islam Conquer Europe?
    Within 100 years of his death, Muslim armies had conquered the … “We will control the land of the Vatican; we will control Rome and introduce Islam in it. …

    (and another 650,000 results)

    The Pope would be better served preaching the Gospel, for this war is not against flesh and blood … if it was, allah would cream the world and everyone in it.

  13. Muslim Brother Tariq Ramadan:

    “Tolerance is not equality, tolerance is ‘I suffer your presence'”

    This is a must watch video:

    The author, himself a Muslim (or an ex-Muslim?) claims he doesn’t recognize his religion, which the Islamists have somehow “hijacked”. (around 34:38) and in his case, it seems -almost- believable. In this case it just proves that Muslims really don’t know much about the real Islam….

  14. Toleranz:
    kleine persönliche und kultische Freiräume, die den Dhimmies unter islamischer Herrschaft zeitweise gewährt werden.

  15. do you know how many battle, my prophet kills… ?
    do you know how much…?
    only one… how? just a simple scratch at his neck… he died because of shock and afraid of my prophet… if to me, that is not consider as one, because he is still alive after that… and it just a simple scratch…

Comments are closed.