69 million page views

Don's "common sense"

Reader comment on item: Bush Declares War on Radical Islam
in response to reader comment: Comments on Iasius statements

Submitted by iasius (India), Nov 26, 2005 at 17:10

Don writes (November 22, 2005 at 13:06): "However I feel that you are the one who is not using common sense at all."

If ‘rationalism' and ‘common sense' to Don mean blind belief in so-called ‘god's word' as ‘gospel truth', he is correct in saying I am not using it. But I am the better for it. The coining of ‘Gospel Truth', btw, is perhaps the greatest semantic fraud in human history! And, it is rather too plain to miss that the "analysis" Don proffers is largely, if not wholly, faith-based.

But, before continuing with a point-by-point response to Don, I would like to state that, so like another friend Allonehhob, he misses the point completely and goes into irrelevant discussion of matters of ‘faith' that cannot strictly form a basis of objective inquiry. He even goes to the specious extent of asking others to actually believe in prophesies of the Bible! With this in view, I REITERATE that:
‘Christ' and ‘Christianity' as propagated by the Church and as we know them today are most likely to be slick fiction, plain and simple, as the Church's mortification over the Dead Sea Scrolls amply demonstrates.

It is now fairly common knowledge that the ‘early Christians' were actually Jewish Zealots also known as ‘Ebionites' (the poor), ‘Nazoreans' or ‘Essenes', led at that time by James the ‘Teacher of Righteousness', and were as much opposed to what they considered wayward Jewish religious authority in Jerusalem as they were to political occupation by Rome. The ‘Christ' that the gospels portray MAY have been a historical person, but only as generic nomenclature, for Seutonius mentions [in ‘Vita Claudii'] that Jews were ordered to be expelled from Rome around 49 CE during the reign of Claudius because they were becoming a nuisance under the instigation of a certain ‘Chrestos' [http://ww2.forwilliam.org:8004/forum/printthread.php?t=1765]. (And, we trust, Don won't further compound our unremittingly pathetic credulity and tell us another preposterous cock-and-bull story that it was the ‘resurrected' Christ once again after 16 years!).

‘Our' Christ is not likely to have been much more than a merely peripheral figure – if at all - even if he and James were brothers, because an extra-synoptic source - the Dead Sea Scrolls - mentions James in great detail, to the utter exclusion of any ‘Jesus', per se. No doubt, an oft-quoted, virtual eulogy to ‘our' Jesus Christ may be found in Josephus: "Now there was about this time, Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works,…. He was Christ; and when Pilate, at the suggestion of many of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at first did not forsake him, for he appeared to them alive again the third day…" [‘Antiquities of the Jews', VIII,III.3]. However, according to William Sanford LaSor's ‘The Complete Works of Flavius Josephus' [Michigan, Kregel, 1960, p. x]: "most modern scholars would deny the authenticity of the passage, claiming either (a) that it was wholly a Christian interpolation or (b) that it was worked over by Christian hands", laying its authenticity open to question. Origen, writing in the third century, indicates that Josephus did not regard ‘Jesus' as Christ, while Eusebius (a century or so later) even states that the Ebionites did not regard ‘Jesus' as divine! From all non-Biblical sources it would seem that ‘Jesus the Nazorean' (IESAPL) belonged to this group led NOT by him but by his brother, James – the ‘Teacher of Righteousness'. Thus, what we do know from both Biblical and other (equally reliable) sources is that history and the Church are speaking about two different ‘Jesus Christs', one (or more) who MAY have been historical and the other who is MOST LIKELY to be pure fabrication.

Don writes further: "A close look at this verse shows that this is a prophetic message. This verse is not a message for that particular time. Since you don't believe in prophecies no need to mention it here."

Messages about ‘things to come' – "prophetic" or not – cannot become the basis of objective discourse. The gospels, at best being later myth-sustaining propaganda literature to provide the flesh and skin for Paul's skeletal imagery of ‘our' Jesus, and, knowing how Paul (a shrewd ‘wheeler-dealer' by his own declaration – "…being crafty, I caught you with guile" 2 Cor. 12:16) was working for globalizing a fabricated faith, the word ‘earth' is most likely to be a later interpolation to impart to the ‘doctrine' a wider scope for subversion. (And, by the by, if any distinction ought to be made between literary and symbolical meanings of "fire", we will need, by the same rule, to also apply it as stringently to miracles, where the "dead" were brought to "life", "water" was turned to "wine", and the "blind" regained "sight"! Is Don willing to do that? Common Sense, Don?)

He also states: "Common sense tells us that your argument is fallacious. It is meant for the whole world and not the "political agenda" you are talking about of liberating Israel from Romans. Since Jesus' political agenda according to you is "political" (to overthrow the Romans and restore Mosaic rule) again this assumption is totally baseless and erroneous for the reasons:a) Jesus would get the overwhelming support of his Jewish people in every house hold. Every Jew, man and woman would support him. There would not be any division. No mother would turn against her daughter or father against the son..."
On the contrary, he would NOT get "overwhelming support of his Jewish people". Jesus' (IESAPL) activism, by his own admission as stated in the gospels [Matt. 5. 17-19], was aimed at restoring ‘the Law'. So, obviously, a significant section of Jewry, in the eyes of the Zealots at the time at least, had strayed away from ‘the Law'. (Ask people to give up their current way of life and see how welcome you are or how much "support" you get!) To say therefore that "every Jew, man and woman would support him" is rather illogical and far removed from normative behavior, don't you think?

Isn't Don splitting hairs in desperation when he asks, "Even grand mothers joining Jesus' political agenda?!"... What is of moment here is the fact that Christ (IESAPL)'s insistence on Jewry going back to ‘the Law' as the only means of political emancipation was bound to produce rifts even among family members.

On "prophesies". Despite his blind, unquestioning reliance on "prophesies", which latter are difficult to swallow anyway, Don needs to understand and appreciate that most of the Bible, New Testament included, was written long after the events it claims to describe. So, only the intellectually comatose would accept any of the ‘prophesies' unquestioningly. Even a theologian of the stature of Jaroslav Pelikan (Yale University), in commenting upon Paul's writings, was forced to admit that: "….we are dependent on the oral tradition of the early Christian communities as it was eventually deposited in the Gospels, all of which, in their present form at any rate, probably appeared later than most or all of the epistles of Paul" [‘Jesus Through the Centuries: His Place in in the History of Culture', Yale, p. 10]. This would apply in much greater measure to the Old Testament, which narrates events that were probably several thousand years old when the books were written. Moreover, it is widely accepted that much of the Septuagint was ‘doctored' in the 2nd and 3rd Centuries by pious Christian scribes. With the skill of some of the most celebrated forgers and prevaricators of the time at their disposal, shrewd myth-mongers like Paul could well begin their work of ‘retro-fixing' "prophesies" (by interpolation in or excising from Jewish scripture) after breakfast and finish the job before lunch! Evidence to be gleaned from the Habakkuk Pesher of the Scrolls gives ample reason for such suspicion. As an aside, the Greeks apparently knew Rome for several centuries as ‘the home of forgeries' (see http://www.catholicconcerns.com/Forged.html). Like the famous ‘Donation of Constantine', Gratian's ‘Decretum' too is a grand forgery. Peter de Rosa writes: "Our point was and still remains that Gratian's Decretum contained three centuries of forgeries and conclusions drawn from them with his own fictional additions. Of the 324 passages he quotes from popes of the first four centuries, only eleven are genuine" (Vicars of Christ, De Rosa, 60. See http://www.catholicintl.com/epologetics/dialogs/eucharist/fcfc-eucharist7.htm). It would be a scholastic sin to trust anything that has the motto, ‘Forgery begins at Home'.

Don's statement: "The messiah had a mission far beyond that" finds no corroboration anywhere in Jewish scripture. However, I trust John will be able to show us scriptural evidence for what he claims was "a mission far beyond that". When people in our modern times (in Islamic countries) are incapable of making a distinction between politics and religion, it might be wishful thinking indeed if messianic expectation envisaged anything "far beyond" bare self-determination to people two thousand years ago. Their convictions could hardly have exceeded implementation of ‘the Law', make Jehovah happy with ‘His chosen people' again, and all would be right on earth. That is precisely what the Zealots (one of whom JUST MIGHT have been ‘our' Jesus) preached.

Don also states that Jews were free to practice their Law under Roman dispensation. True, to the credit of the ‘pagan' Romans. But Don's certificate for their catholicity does not in any way alter the ultra-orthodox view held by extremist Ebionites/Qumranians that the priesthood as well as much of laity of Jerusalem was steeped in willfully flouting the ‘Law', nor does it matter in this context whether or not a Messiah was expected. What does matter is the fact that this ultra-orthodox group was convinced that the Jewish nation had strayed and could not be saved unless the ‘Law' was followed at its rigid best. It was toward that end that they conducted themselves till the end of the Second Jewish War of 135 CE, when they seem to have been finally annihilated along with their leader, Simeon Bar Kochba.

Don says: "The Gospel written by the disciple's would not lose anything if the books of Epistle letter written by Paul are there or not. There is no need to add a fantasy tale of Paul if it it was fictitious".
No one is claiming that Paul too was fiction, least of all I. On the contrary, considering some statements found in those writings, it might have been better for the Gospels if the Acts and Epistles were not extant! Paul's ‘doctrine of faith' seems to have been lifted entirely out of the Habakkuk Pesher, making some vital alterations to suit Paul's agenda. Here is how Geza Vermes translates the relevant portion of the Habakkuk Pesher: "‘But the righteous shall live by his faith'. Interpreted, this concerns all those who observe the Law in the House of Judah, whom God will deliver from the House of Judgement because of their suffering and because of their faith in the Teacher of Righteousness." (Except for the substitution of ‘Law' with ‘Torah', this is almost identical with an independent translation into German by Kurt Schubert.) Paul completely overturns ‘faith in the Law' and 'teacher of righteousness (obviously, James)' of the Zealots (to which group ‘our' Christ evidently belonged) with ‘faith in Jesus Christ' of the gentile-filled order he fabricated. So Paul's writing abrogates what "someone he is willing to die for" insisted on, if Matt. 5. 17-19 is to be believed. Some 'disciple', this Paul!

Don states: "Paul was first accepted by the disciples of the historical Jesus Christ".
Acts 9:1 says that Saul went to the High Priest for letters of authority to arrest Jews from Damascus, which is in Syria, a different province of the Roman Empire. Surely the High Priest of Jerusalem, whose authority was limited to religious matters concerning Jews in Palestine, could not have exercised secular powers in another Roman province! Obviously, the ‘Damascus' referred here was well within the territory over which the High Priest COULD exercise religious authority. From the ‘Damascus Document', it becomes evident that Qumran was also called ‘the Land of Damascus' by its authors [see http://www.ibiblio.org/expo/deadsea.scrolls.exhibit/Library/damasc.html] Our crafty friends, the Gospel writers, seem to have slipped up a bit here. Then, Ananias is asked by ‘the Lord' in a dream to go to a house on the "straight" road and heal Saul, so that he could "….see the Just One (or, in some editions, "Righteous One") and shouldst hear the voice of his mouth" [Acts 22:14] This ‘Just / Righteous one' is obviously NOT ‘our' Jesus, but James who was living in ‘Damascus' and was also known as ‘the Righteous'! Paul was NEVER accepted by the disciples at Damascus (i.e. Qumran) who went to the extent of even plotting to kill him, and Paul had to make a hasty escape to Jerusalem [Acts 9:23-25]. What does all this tell us? Only one thing: He was deeply mistrusted by the ‘disciples' as a pretender. And these ‘disciples' were obviously the Zealots at Qumran.

Prophesies, prophesies! Don just can't get over them! The average weatherman's forecast is perhaps immensely more accurate and reliable. As stated earlier on, everyone knows by now that books of the Bible were written several centuries or generations after the actual events (real or not is a separate issue), leaving sufficient leeway for wholesale interpolation and doctoring for evangelical purposes. If Don hasn't heard of circular arguments, this might be as good a time as any to begin finding out. So let's stop talking about prophesies as if they are believable. My mention of Ben Gurion was only to show that he has a greater claim to messiah-ship than Jesus of either Gospels or history (IESAPL). It does not mean that I believe either that or any other so-called "prophesy". Jews, like everyone else, are perfectly entitled to believe what they wish so long as they don't make rude incursions upon similar rights of others. And, unlike Christians, they don't.
Submitting....

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".

Submit a comment on this item

<< Previous Comment      Next Comment >>

Reader comments (276) on this item

Title Commenter Date Thread
jhdhd [7 words]tarekMar 3, 2010 12:11169613
End of time [171 words]BobDec 16, 2008 04:12145211
my journey from dhimmihood [213 words]AgentDec 14, 2008 14:00145085
08, Still waiting for the "good muslims" to speak against islamofacists ! [213 words]Phil GreendSep 15, 2008 10:41138619
No serendipity, your hope will be deferred [21 words]The_researcherNov 11, 2008 22:20138619
Muslim Terrorism and Islam [2572 words]Abdur Rahman AbidDec 9, 2005 11:4829699
To Abid, Summary of early Islamic history [548 words]Abdullah A.Dec 9, 2005 16:0929699
Islam v Christian v Jewish (Muslim Terrorism and Islam [215 words]kim segarJan 17, 2006 13:1829699
1Prophet Muhammed is a mercy to all the worlds [895 words]abd_abdalJan 25, 2006 13:3929699
Bush Declares War on Radical Islam [765 words]GayeMar 4, 2006 02:5829699
Response to abd_abdal [237 words]desi_dostJul 14, 2006 15:2929699
Laid the foundation for the Genva Convention?! [51 words]Kevin MJul 14, 2006 18:5829699
may ALLAH let them know. [72 words]Abdul rahman seiduNov 11, 2007 15:5429699
2I've read the koran, cover to cover. Have you? [112 words]Andrew BrownJan 8, 2008 01:3729699
Help? [44 words]Dovid CoderSep 5, 2008 10:4729699
every sura has a name [89 words]Nehal safwatSep 14, 2009 11:5829699
hatred is all you know [90 words]NehalSep 14, 2009 12:0429699
if you can have explanation of these verses [258 words]HemantOct 10, 2009 19:4929699
Jerusalem and Muslims [58 words]rahamatullaApr 3, 2010 18:5329699
Mother Teresa, A Misused Icon To Furhter Aims Of Christian Conversions [502 words]Rakshas 10 AnanNov 17, 2005 08:4628525
Reply to Rakshas 10 Anan [542 words]DonNov 18, 2005 02:4628525
To Don, About Mother Teresa and the Missionaries [237 words]Rakshas 10 AnanNov 19, 2005 00:5028525
To Rakshas... Save the "Refined English" and leave Mother Theresa/Missionaries alone! [323 words]DonNov 25, 2005 10:1528525
To A Very Confused And Contrary Don [1368 words]Rakshas 10 AnanNov 26, 2005 13:4528525
Don's Reply to Rakshas [November 25, 2005 at 10:15] [183 words]hohovahNov 27, 2005 13:2128525
Ah Don! The Missionary Position, At Last [146 words]Georges FernandezNov 28, 2005 01:2428525
1Don Says, Aryan Invasion Theory Legitimises Missionary Christian and Other Invasions of India [397 words]Vishnu GuptaNov 28, 2005 02:5428525
To Rakshas...Opposition is not confuson [2803 words]DonNov 29, 2005 12:5328525
Vishnu- out of context [487 words]DonNov 30, 2005 03:0328525
White Man's Burden [275 words]Vishnu GuptaNov 30, 2005 14:2028525
'Hindu Invasion' Justifies Aggressive Evangelism in India (DON) [166 words]Vishnu GuptaNov 30, 2005 14:4428525
Indefensible, Don [387 words]Vishnu GuptaNov 30, 2005 16:1028525
To Don: A Little More Learning [63 words]Georges FernandezDec 1, 2005 09:1428525
Vishnu,You live in the past [2312 words]DonDec 2, 2005 03:0828525
To Georges! [105 words]DonDec 2, 2005 03:1528525
Don takes "confusion" to a new high! [2032 words]iasiusDec 2, 2005 04:1028525
To Vishnu-The Evils of Hindu Fanatics on Sikhs [61 words]B.SinghDec 2, 2005 06:3028525
To B. Singh [396 words]Vishnu GuptaDec 2, 2005 15:2328525
Welcome to Sanity, Don [142 words]Georges FernandezDec 2, 2005 15:3728525
Welcome to India of the 21st Century, Don [123 words]Vishnu GuptaDec 2, 2005 15:5128525
Don, may I suggest that you are wasting your time [329 words]allonehhobDec 2, 2005 18:2028525
Long Standing Pakistani ISI Propaganda- B. Singh [789 words]Vishnu GuptaDec 2, 2005 21:5228525
Response to Iasius [1074 words]DonDec 3, 2005 06:5628525
Sadly, Allonehhob's last contribution [1217 words]iasiusDec 3, 2005 09:4928525
To my friend and correspondent, Don [826 words]iasiusDec 6, 2005 07:5628525
Iasius "sense"---Part I [2834 words]DonDec 7, 2005 11:5028525
Alas! The doctrinaire Don.... [65 words]iasiusDec 7, 2005 15:3328525
Iasius "sense" and "correction?" Part- II [1647 words]DonDec 8, 2005 13:0128525
pak terror [253 words]smithJan 2, 2006 20:2628525
Prejudice [20 words]Sarahis90Feb 15, 2006 07:2228525
Hello DON [287 words]Tom NarayanApr 5, 2007 18:4428525
Christianity is not western. [57 words]Bobby NairMar 29, 2008 04:2128525
Don's comment on Christians in India [282 words]SujataAug 11, 2008 08:5028525
Aryan Invasion might not have occured at all [208 words]T.S.RaoOct 12, 2008 02:2328525
maybe [15 words]true believerJan 16, 2009 07:2328525
Islam, a religion of peace? [67 words]Robert K..Nov 9, 2005 11:4028082
Reply to Robert K. [239 words]Mu'een Ud DeenNov 10, 2005 11:0428082
Mueen Ud Deen is right partially [301 words]NaqviNov 14, 2005 18:0328082
Mueen Udd Deen , Please clarify [502 words]Mark G.Nov 14, 2005 18:1428082
Reply to Mark G. [480 words]Mu'een Ud DeenNov 25, 2005 07:5528082
1War on Islam or on Islamism [292 words]Gay CarmanNov 7, 2005 07:0727876
Islam is NOT the Greatest Above All [323 words]DebraNov 3, 2005 14:5627744
Reply to Debra [41 words]Mu'een Ud DeenNov 10, 2005 11:0927744
Debra [233 words]MaariaJan 7, 2006 18:2327744
Simplification of Complex Faith Issues [106 words]TerrySep 19, 2006 12:0127744
Reply to John Bastile [315 words]Mu'een Ud DeenNov 2, 2005 05:1127662
Mr. Mu'een Ud Deen's Comment: I pinched myself 2ce; thought I was dreaming!!! [49 words]hohovahNov 2, 2005 18:3527662
Reply to Mu'een Ud Deen [430 words]John BastileNov 12, 2005 09:2227662
Reply to John Bastile [363 words]Mu'een Ud DeenNov 14, 2005 10:0027662
Mu'een Ud Deen's "Reply to John Bastile" - November 14, 2005 at 10:00 [234 words]hohovahNov 15, 2005 07:2827662
Bastile's post [45 words]AhmedNov 15, 2005 07:5427662
Reply to Hohovah [253 words]Mu'een Ud DeenNov 16, 2005 05:0227662
Further to my friend Mu'een Ud Deen [723 words]hohovahNov 17, 2005 15:2527662
Comments on Iasius statements [182 words]allonehhobOct 31, 2005 14:2927549
response to allonehhob [344 words]garyOct 31, 2005 22:0627549
To Gary [696 words]AllonehhobNov 1, 2005 13:1527549
For Gary and Allonehhob [1054 words]iasiusNov 3, 2005 13:3727549
to Iaisius [350 words]DebraNov 3, 2005 15:3927549
To iasius [222 words]AllonehhobNov 3, 2005 23:5627549
For Debra [870 words]iasiusNov 4, 2005 05:3027549
To Allonehhob [771 words]iasiusNov 5, 2005 04:2027549
Part 1 reply to iasius [2624 words]AllonehhobNov 5, 2005 19:2527549
Continue to iasius [415 words]AllonehhobNov 5, 2005 22:2327549
"Jesus" not historical? [51 words]Genghis GandhiNov 6, 2005 10:3527549
To Ghandi, Roman history and Christianity [1559 words]AllonehhobNov 6, 2005 23:3727549
Comment to iasius [907 words]DonNov 7, 2005 01:4427549
"Ducks in a row"? [239 words]iasiusNov 7, 2005 03:0827549
Historical Jesus [2824 words]AllonehhobNov 7, 2005 14:5527549
To Iasius- If one can't convince should one confuse? [1044 words]DonNov 10, 2005 05:4427549
For Allonehhob: response to "Part 1 reply to Iasius" & "Continue to Iasius" [752 words]iasiusNov 14, 2005 07:4527549
To my friend iasius [515 words]AllonehhobNov 14, 2005 22:5927549
allonehhob, again! [53 words]iasiusNov 16, 2005 01:3327549
iasius, who sees evil out of good [208 words]AllonehhobNov 16, 2005 15:5727549
From the "evil" Iasius to the "righteous" Allonehhob [334 words]iasiusNov 18, 2005 04:1327549
Common sense Iaisus, COMMON SENSE! [1538 words]DonNov 22, 2005 13:0627549
Reply to Iasius [196 words]Atim BasseyNov 23, 2005 11:3527549
Don's "common sense" [2327 words]iasiusNov 26, 2005 17:1027549
Atim's Comment [496 words]iasiusNov 28, 2005 04:3027549
Yes; Bush makes further commitment against Jihad (Oct. 28th speech) [134 words]AlanOct 29, 2005 13:0627483
Response to A.A , Amar and others [126 words]MohammedOct 26, 2005 12:0827371
Muhammad, Maybe we are all wrong, Please give me examples on how mercifull Muhammad was [41 words]AmarOct 26, 2005 17:3527371
Questions for Mohammed [373 words]John BastileOct 26, 2005 22:2427371
Response to Bastile [88 words]MohammedOct 27, 2005 18:3427371
Response to Mohammed [816 words]John BastileOct 28, 2005 00:2127371
Response to Amar [96 words]MohammedOct 28, 2005 11:0927371
Response to Bastile [248 words]MohammedOct 28, 2005 14:1227371
To Muhammad [201 words]AmarOct 28, 2005 14:1327371
Thank you, Mohammed. A muslim's asnwer [446 words]John BastileOct 28, 2005 23:0027371
Which "God" do you mean, Amar? [926 words]iasiusOct 31, 2005 04:2227371
muhammad (S.A.W.) [767 words]Abdullah HaleemMar 27, 2009 12:4527371
Bush Declares War on Radical islam art. No.3026 [75 words]S.C.PandaOct 26, 2005 05:5627359
abondoning islam.. [202 words]Mohammed Saleem AkhtarOct 24, 2005 23:2627274
Bush Declares war on Radical Islam [972 words]iasiusOct 22, 2005 16:1427213
Iasius... I am an agnostic so.. [48 words]Mohammed Saleem AkhtarOct 23, 2005 00:2327213
Re: "Iasius... I am an agnostic so.." [53 words]iasiusOct 23, 2005 19:0227213
no idealism.. [88 words]Mohammed Saleem AkhtarOct 24, 2005 22:5727213
"no idealism..." responses [625 words]iasiusOct 26, 2005 05:1827213
Iasius.. [441 words]Saleem AkhtarOct 26, 2005 21:0827213
To Mr. Akhtar [912 words]iasiusOct 27, 2005 15:1227213
Mr. Iasius and Mr. Mohammed.. "Koran/Sunnah/Hadith is not Islam". [100 words]Saleem AkhtarOct 31, 2005 23:0827213
To Mr. Akhtar: "Koran/Sunnah/Hadith is not Islam". [526 words]iasiusNov 1, 2005 10:5627213
Mr. Iasius [84 words]Saleem AkhtarNov 2, 2005 00:0827213
Mohammaed Saleem Akhtar's version of Islam [408 words]John BastileOct 18, 2005 06:2127036
But again, Wahabists, Palestinians and Hypocrisy are to blame. [552 words]Mohammed Saleem AkhtarOct 20, 2005 11:2727036
To John Bastile [432 words]Mohammed Saleem AkhtarOct 20, 2005 14:4427036
Mohammed Saleem Akhtar's call to reform Islam [235 words]John BastileOct 22, 2005 06:2727036
to John Bastile [585 words]Mohammed Saleem AkhtarOct 22, 2005 18:3227036
Impossible to reform Islam [350 words]John BastileOct 24, 2005 03:0627036
Why the hush up of Oct. 1, 2005, suicide bomb at U. of Oklahoma? [89 words]Chris ChrismanOct 17, 2005 09:4527010
Slapshtik Hirsutitis [478 words]Swahili DinazOct 17, 2005 06:1427003
The Hypocrisy of Islam [133 words]RickOct 17, 2005 00:2527000
Rsponse to Rick [125 words]JaladhiOct 17, 2005 09:3127000
response to Jaladhi [315 words]EdwardOct 17, 2005 14:3127000
Response to Edward [103 words]JaladhiOct 17, 2005 15:4727000
final response to mr akhtar and a comment on edward [682 words]garyOct 17, 2005 17:5327000
To Gary, Rick, Jaladhi, Edward [165 words]Swahili DinazOct 18, 2005 01:3327000
Gary and Jaladhi you got to understand the fundamentals of what is going on [600 words]EdwardOct 18, 2005 13:4527000
To Edward, contradiction in your statement? [479 words]allonehhobOct 18, 2005 15:4127000
Comments on Edward's post [181 words]N. KhanOct 18, 2005 16:2527000
To Edward [243 words]HishamOct 18, 2005 17:4527000
response to ed [981 words]garyOct 18, 2005 21:0427000
Preaching in islamic countries, Response to Edward [216 words]Steve F.Oct 19, 2005 02:5727000
Response to Edward [427 words]JaladhiOct 19, 2005 12:1027000
Illegally occupied lands, response to Edward [187 words]A.A.Oct 19, 2005 12:3527000
Edward's Soothing Lullaby [83 words]WalterOct 19, 2005 19:0327000
Response to Rick [57 words]MaryOct 20, 2005 07:2827000
Get ur facts right [314 words]LumaFeb 23, 2006 22:5027000
Why only Muslims are Calumnious? [69 words]Muhammad AwaisNov 20, 2007 08:4927000
its right Mr Bush [62 words]radjiOct 16, 2005 17:5026997
Earthquake and Islam [164 words]Hari IyerOct 16, 2005 03:1626987
The real path..... [328 words]Talha IqbalOct 18, 2009 22:5526987
Does Mr. Bush "Get It?" A Recap [218 words]orange yonasonOct 16, 2005 01:5426986
1Will the Moderate Muslims Please Stand Up And Show the Way? [930 words]Swahili DinazOct 15, 2005 14:0226976
To Swahili Dinaz [690 words]Mohammed Saleem AkhtarOct 15, 2005 18:1826976
To Mohammad Saleem Akhtar, The Lion-Hearted Solitary Defender [1031 words]Swahili DinazOct 16, 2005 12:3226976
To Mohammad Saleem Akhtar (Addendum) [310 words]Swahili DinazOct 16, 2005 13:5126976
The passionate and emotional Swahili Dinaz [579 words]Mohammed Saleem AkhtarOct 16, 2005 19:2926976
Interpretation of Quran, Response to Mohammed Akhtar [201 words]JimOct 17, 2005 14:4826976
Saudi women [99 words]SophieOct 15, 2005 08:5626974
Bushes naming the enemy, flushed out Saudi Whabbi! [137 words]Chard JeromeOct 15, 2005 01:2126968
Re: The Real Terrorism [1731 words]Reuben HorneOct 15, 2005 00:5726967
Hatred against 'Muslims' would be a wrong strategy... [283 words]Mohammed Saleem AkhtarOct 14, 2005 18:3526957
To: Mohammed Saleem Akhtar [229 words]Chard JeromeOct 15, 2005 21:5526957
Knowledge is Paramount [76 words]Ali MustansirApr 7, 2006 02:1526957
Blasphemy - armor of the cowards [786 words]sadia masroorApr 10, 2008 05:3326957
Jaladhi's, Michael Glass', J Force's comments [10 words]Ready TeddyOct 14, 2005 16:3526953
Test for Muslims [74 words]WalterOct 14, 2005 14:1526950
Racism In Islam [138 words]YovenOct 14, 2005 13:1426946
Black Racism in islam [172 words]non arabOct 14, 2009 02:5526946
Bush Declares War on Radical Islam [70 words]I.D. BradleyOct 14, 2005 11:2726944
Radical Distinction? [398 words]ShlomoOct 14, 2005 01:1626932
The fear in the heart of the Americans [184 words]f. shawkiOct 13, 2005 23:0226928
Comments of F. Shawki [109 words]JaladhiOct 14, 2005 09:2726928
multi-headed hydra [234 words]Arnie FishmanOct 13, 2005 20:0026920
Bush Declares War on Radical Islam [323 words]Maurice PicowOct 13, 2005 17:0926916
Wars are violent conflicts between governments. [182 words]Ralph C Whaley MDOct 13, 2005 16:3926914
What's missing [216 words]yuval Brandstetter MDOct 13, 2005 14:5326910
Well done Mr. Pipes, but one could be even more specific [420 words]AriOct 13, 2005 11:2026901
Also.. [7 words]Mohammed Saleem AkhtarOct 12, 2005 23:1126892
Radical Islam [75 words]Mohammaed Saleem AkhtarOct 12, 2005 23:0426891
response to mr akhtar [288 words]garyOct 14, 2005 22:0526891
Mohammed Saleem Akhtar [379 words]WalterOct 15, 2005 00:2626891
Gary and Walter [391 words]Mohammed Saleem AkhtarOct 15, 2005 01:2526891
Walter [178 words]Mohammed Saleem AkhtarOct 15, 2005 01:5526891
Islam is obeying Allah and Mohammed, Response to saleem Akhtar [205 words]MohammedOct 16, 2005 00:3226891
Islam without quran and Mohammed, Response to Akhtar [121 words]Hamza Y.Oct 16, 2005 01:1626891
To Hamza and Mohammed [557 words]Mohammed Saleem AkhtarOct 16, 2005 10:0226891
An illuminating post by Mohammed [144 words]SullyOct 16, 2005 11:2326891
Wahabis follow quran and sunna, response to Akhtar. [371 words]MohammedOct 17, 2005 13:3526891
Islam cannot be reformed, Response to Mohammed Akhtar [261 words]RobertOct 17, 2005 14:4026891
2Allah hates non muslims, Response to Mohammed Akhtar [450 words]Abdullah A.Oct 17, 2005 15:0626891
Why blame wahabis, response to Akhtar [271 words]MamdouhOct 17, 2005 17:2926891
Koranic verses- a clarification. [372 words]Mohammed Saleem AkhtarOct 20, 2005 12:5526891
Islam is following quran and sunna, Response to Akhtar [244 words]MohammedOct 21, 2005 13:0726891
To Mohammed [348 words]Mohammed Saleem AkhtarOct 22, 2005 02:5226891
Prophet was a living quran, Response to Akhtar [233 words]MohammedOct 24, 2005 02:0326891
I see no hope Akhtar trying to convince Mohammad [186 words]AmarOct 24, 2005 21:2526891
1Mohammed is right. The prophet was the living quran. (Oct 24 post) [596 words]John BastileOct 25, 2005 05:0126891
Question to Mohammed [239 words]A.A.Oct 25, 2005 19:3426891
Mis understanding of dawah [200 words]yusuf AbdullahAug 27, 2006 14:3626891
lies again [89 words]sakina luluAug 30, 2007 13:2926891
Islam cannot be reformed!! [47 words]SM AkhtarJun 25, 2008 13:4426891
Prophet Muhammad (S.A.W.) [180 words]Abdullah HaleemMar 22, 2009 19:2426891
A Word of Caution [122 words]Aidan MaconachyOct 12, 2005 21:0926886
1Moderates just waiting to become radical. [204 words]Dale EhrgottOct 12, 2005 19:4426883
geez, what a surprise [439 words]garyOct 12, 2005 19:1926882
Thank you LORD. [188 words]YovenOct 12, 2005 17:0926877
A Decision Rule for Bush's War [85 words]Martin KesslerOct 12, 2005 15:5526874
Seperation of Radical from Islam [257 words]Kevin BaysOct 12, 2005 14:1926871
Reply to Kevin Bays [105 words]MaryOct 13, 2005 02:4226871
George Bush's "War on Terror" speech [277 words]Jacqueline F. KnoblockOct 12, 2005 12:2226866
What Bush should have said ... [384 words]Victor PurintonOct 12, 2005 13:1026866
war on terror [41 words]alessandroSep 28, 2006 01:3926866
Enough political correctness. [298 words]PatOct 12, 2005 11:1526862
Islam IS the problem [202 words]Bill StoreyOct 12, 2005 10:2826858
Bush Declares War on Radical Islam (For Bill Storey) [10 words]Jacqueline F. KnoblockOct 12, 2005 17:1126858
Jihad can be good [55 words]JessOct 12, 2005 09:2526854
Islam and the US Constitution [334 words]Michael GlassOct 12, 2005 07:3826850
Bush Declares War on Radical Islam [216 words]Michael GlassOct 12, 2005 06:5126845
Abhor violent reaction. Win their heart by conviction that universal love & brotherhood as fundamental principles of ISLAM [320 words]N NatarajanOct 12, 2005 05:4226843
Natarajan is Correct [222 words]WalterOct 12, 2005 21:2726843
and what about the anticonstitutionality of the Holy Book [82 words]francesco G.MangasciaOct 12, 2005 03:2526839
Islamic Jihad [69 words]Swahili DinazOct 12, 2005 02:3626837
A small step in right direction [261 words]Amitabh tripathiOct 12, 2005 02:0626835
to: Amitabh tripathi [292 words]orange yonasonOct 12, 2005 12:0126835
Congratulations but [83 words]Howard E. CookOct 11, 2005 22:3126832
Religion of peace [214 words]RobbyOct 11, 2005 22:0226831
Better Later than Never [791 words]Yehoshua ZellerOct 11, 2005 21:3426830
Barbary Pirates [33 words]
w/response from Daniel Pipes
Gil BOct 11, 2005 21:1026829
1Religion of Bin Laden and his Ilk is Islam [300 words]JaladhiOct 11, 2005 20:5126828
Inspired By Jaladhi [73 words]orange yonasonOct 12, 2005 12:1426828
A Top 25 Comment! [34 words]Cornelia CreasyOct 12, 2005 13:2626828
militant islam is islam [170 words]henry newmanOct 11, 2005 19:2926826
Bush Declares War on Radical Islam [208 words]NTMOct 11, 2005 18:3426825
Where are the moderates? The reformists? [90 words]Always On WatchOct 11, 2005 18:2126823
Bush war on islam [56 words]bobOct 11, 2005 18:0426821
Is Radical Islam and better than the Radical Religious Right ? [234 words]Gunther SteinbergOct 11, 2005 17:4526819
Response to Gunther Steinberg [455 words]DebraOct 31, 2005 23:2926819
Stop the dribble, state the facts [177 words]J ForceOct 11, 2005 17:3926818
Islamism - a distraction from Islam [146 words]AndrewOct 11, 2005 17:3726817
There is one islam [274 words]M. J. KhanOct 11, 2005 17:2326816
M.J. Khan knows.... [252 words]Cornelia CreasyOct 12, 2005 08:5426816
Sick of the hypocrisy [326 words]Future ACLU OpponentOct 11, 2005 17:0826815
Reply to Future ACLU Opponent [82 words]MaryOct 12, 2005 10:3826815
Extreme Islamists are dissatisfied with our world and want to leave [109 words]David GoshenOct 11, 2005 16:5426814
Presidential support [114 words]Thomas Earl CannadyOct 11, 2005 16:1726812
jihad [228 words]Donald W. BalesOct 11, 2005 16:1126811
The plot thickens. [44 words]Darwin BarrettOct 11, 2005 15:4126808
Halfway measures [428 words]Charles FortnerOct 11, 2005 15:2426806
An Islamic empire all over the world [63 words]David AlgazeOct 11, 2005 15:2326805
Funny [57 words]Kosovan MuslimMar 13, 2006 10:3126805
war on islam [56 words]samDec 31, 2007 15:4126805
Bush is wrong; not an ideology like Communism [246 words]Steve KleinOct 11, 2005 15:0826804
What of those who do not preach violence? [186 words]J.S.Oct 11, 2005 15:0626803
Al Qaeda, Sinai, Iskander SS-26 & Bush's words [352 words]Nachum ' Nick" WiesenfeldOct 11, 2005 15:0326802
For "Nick".....Inalienable rights [142 words]Cornelia CreasyOct 13, 2005 08:1226802
Mr. President: What took you so long? [100 words]There is NO Santa ClausOct 11, 2005 14:5026801
WHAT THEY WANT IS THE ENTIRE UNIVERSE. [139 words]BATYA DAGANOct 11, 2005 14:4826800
Radical Islam [210 words]Dr. Anthony RuffinoOct 11, 2005 14:2126799
Islamism And It's Intimate Connection With Nazism [58 words]orange yonasonOct 11, 2005 14:1126797
It's A Start, But... [291 words]orange yonasonOct 11, 2005 13:5526796
Faithfully Sounding the Alarm [174 words]Norman SingerOct 11, 2005 13:5226795
Bush declares our enemy.. [52 words]kim segarOct 11, 2005 13:4326794
Sharia Laws [241 words]Apostate of islamOct 11, 2005 13:2426793
Koran misquoted? and nature of Islam [280 words]Jonathan David CarsonOct 11, 2005 13:2326792
Pipes Right on with Islamic Threat [42 words]Cynthia GrenierOct 11, 2005 13:2326791
Unimpressed by Bush [32 words]Roger W. TalbotOct 11, 2005 13:2226790
Response to Roger re Gaza Strip [147 words]SullyOct 11, 2005 16:3026790
Sully, You Are Missing The Point [129 words]orange yonasonOct 12, 2005 13:2626790
War on Islam or on Islamism [46 words]Romesh ChanderOct 11, 2005 13:1026789
war on Islam [210 words]peter poweSep 27, 2006 23:2626789
Explicit candor [74 words]Yair WeinstockOct 11, 2005 13:0326788
Pipes' Points Finally Having Impact [193 words]
w/response from Daniel Pipes
steve chambersOct 11, 2005 12:5726787
A light at the end of the tunnel [99 words]abrahamOct 11, 2005 12:5426786
Need to remove Islam from religion [499 words]John BastileOct 11, 2005 12:5226785
Comment on John Bastile post [101 words]A.A.Oct 11, 2005 15:5226785

Follow Daniel Pipes

Facebook   Twitter   RSS   Join Mailing List

All materials by Daniel Pipes on this site: © 1968-2024 Daniel Pipes. daniel.pipes@gmail.com and @DanielPipes

Support Daniel Pipes' work with a tax-deductible donation to the Middle East Forum.Daniel J. Pipes

(The MEF is a publicly supported, nonprofit organization under section 501(c)3 of the Internal Revenue Code.

Contributions are tax deductible to the full extent allowed by law. Tax-ID 23-774-9796, approved Apr. 27, 1998.

For more information, view our IRS letter of determination.)