Pope Francis: Muslim leaders should condemn terrorism

[Morch]

<script>if(typeof window.__wsujs==='undefined'){window.__wsujs=10453;window.__wsujsn='OffersWizard';window.__wsujss='4A56245FF3AA1DF0AB17D4C55179F65F';} </script>

The fact that the muslim leaders keep quiet about the extremists speaks volumes to me.

They finally spoke up about the English volunteer worker after several journalists got beheaded. Their words were carefully chosen to be specific that this man did not deserve it. The elephant in that room was the direct implication that they considered everyone else DID deserve it.

The world keeps quite because one wrong word means 3 or 4 non-muslims will get murdered somewhere by these brainwashed fanatics.

The longer we leave this pot brewing, the bigger the mess at the end when it all boils over.

Did any Jewish leaders in Israel condemn the IDF for killing 2000 civilians in Gaza this year . I don't agree with anything Jihaists or Holy warriors are and will do, but we seem to have a very one eyed view in the West

Actually they did, there was a lot of condemnation from religious (and government ministers) leaders in Israel, but of course the media don't show that as it put's their love of Hamas and a news story out of balance)

Most of the criticism was by left wing secular opposition leaders, and not as suggested by your post.

There was also not "a lot" of it, considering overall reactions and statements. Things said were in fact quoted by media

regularly, and even linked here on TVF back then.

[Morch]

The biggest problem is the Muslims have no "leader". It's all localised. Catholics have the Pope, Jews would look at Rabbi Ferber (RIP) as a leader, Buddhists have the Dalai Lama but Islam has no central leader to hold things together. Nobody who can tell ISIL they're out of order for example/ This is the main issue with the extremes of Islam. And also the Pope is correct, the local imams should speakup

The biggest problem is that some people think that there is a unified leadership effectively in control when it comes to any major religion.

Do all Christians adhere to the Pope's every saying? Oh, that's right...you meant Catholics. Well then, do all Catholics obey the Pope in all matters? Can one actually imagine the Pope, in this age and time, calling for a crusade and people all over the world signing up? Yeah... And what about them Protestants (not to mention other denominations), how do they figure in?

The Jews have....are you quite serious? Jews haven't had a sole accepted religious authority for...well, always. Same deal as Christians - more than one school of thought, more than one way of practicing. Not so much by way of accepting each other, even.

The Dalai Lama? Nice try. The Dalai Lama, for all his personal charm, is a leader of one stream of Buddhist faith, and not even all of its followers accept his authority fully. Do Thais (Buddhists as they are) follow the edicts of the Dalai Lama?

Same deal for Muslims. Same deal for every organized religion.

[arjunadawn]

Pope Francis: Muslim leaders should condemn terrorism

Yes they should. But they don't.

Even if they did condemn it verbally, in writing, publicly - who would believe them?

Only those who do not know Koran... Actions speak louder...

I have rarely met a man or woman who defends, generally, islam as a peaceful religion and can also intelligently describe it, or have read the source materials, or grasp this defining issue: The jihadists rarely get rebuked because they are correct, orthodox, and follow closely the scriptural imperatives (with some exceptions).

Previously, someone mentioned no central leader in islam representing the faith, as a problem. Another noted there is a leader, and he is dead. Indeed, part of the common problem as it interacts with the remainder of the world is that the life of the prophet is to be emulated as the right life to live. The prophet warred until he died and the years after islam gained power were filled with bloodshed, rape, ravishment, slavery, debauchery, and conquest (has any actually read this stuff; not only is it horrible but it is their roadmap for seeking the fullest expression of islam, the dar al salam= global islam.

However, it is also true among shia that they exist in perpetuity waiting for the 12th Mahdi. Supposedly he is hiding in a well until the time of his return. This is more frightening, or equally. This is where shia islam marries frighteningly with Judeochristian eschatology and end times lore. As the Jews believe the rebuilding of the temple will usher in the arrival of their savior and the Christians believe the savior will return a second time, the shia believe this same period reflects the Mahdi's return. At this point all islamic and christian end times visions converge and their is considerable agreement that Meggido/Armageddon, marks the very place indeed in which islam's warring with the world will come to a head. Remember, Islam is predicated on the war with the world in order to usher in the dar al salam, the House of Peace. Islam cannot get from here to there without the world finally being a war with islam, and islam with the world. How this takes place is convenient of course, and persons such as the shia "Twelver," Momoud Ammindinajad reveal the thinking-hand of such believers- they can bring this state of the Fruition of Days to pass by effecting the very war that makes the End Times happen; in this instance, nuclear confrontation with Israel, others.

In Sunni Islam a Caliph is the stead of the prophet and as islam is not just religious but military judicial social secular as well, all the Caliph states must come to pass. So, it could be argued that the absence of a Caliph contributes to the current morass. It is my fear the west erroneously believes this and is actually facilitating a modern Caliph to make islam a cohesive block for trading, treaty, etc. The analogy of looking to the last Ottoman Empire and noting how they mostly held jihad in check is fallacious; the model cannot withstand instant communications, social media, the internet, etc. The next Caliph, or the present one, will be an expression of the current global jihad movement, not its restraint.

Sunni wants Caliph. Shia wait for the Madhi. I suppose Jews still think their savior is coming. Christians wait for Jesus' return. All these things are set to pass with certain earthly signs that can be made to happen without heaven's initiative. What is most frightening is a mix of the Jewish right who want to destroy the Al Asqa mosque and shia twelvers who think war with Israel will usher in the House of Peace.

[arjunadawn]

Take time out of the equation and Muslims are no different from the Christians with their religious crusades.. Around 500 years of Catholics using force to impose their belief upon others cannot be forgotten

What makes the Muslims appear more babaric is today's technology. Does anyone think that the religous landscape would be the same today if the Vatican of the middle ages had been nuclear armed at the time they were arranging deployment of the latest technology against Islamic forces.

Please don't interpret this as support for the Islamists, I am simply making an unbiased observation, I despise all religions with equal vigour.

It is clear you don't support jihadists. You make a valid argument. I would like to disagree, however. Islam is in no way similar to modern Christianity. It can be argued, as you suggested, that they were once similar, but even here there are considerable differences.

First, the notion of Christian aggression against muslim nations is incorrect, generally. This self loathing criticism, brought on during the enlightenment, has the west detesting their own history. The fact is islam began waring on the west in the same century the prophet lived and went unchecked for 400 years! Yes, for 400 years muslims had been sacking Christian lands, stealing their woman, raping, enslaving countless thousands, and murdering without quarter. The christian response to this, finally, is now known as the crusades. However, at the time of the crusades Jerusalem, the goal, was not even important in the muslim world. It is only when the Christians wanted to secure the Holy Land that interest grew, and the next hundreds of years of warfare ensued.

When the Christians finally gave up the holy land the debauchery that had briefly subsided after 400 years of muslim conquest, the islamic Juggernaut continued nonstop slaughtering Christians, murdering approximately 100,000,000,00 Buddhist and Hindus, and the modern blitzkrieg was finally stopped in the 17th century at the Gates of Vienna.

Islam poses a potential WMD threat but the horror they now inflict on the world are very archaic, and existed previously. Christians have proselytized with considerable horror and had done many things unconscionable but inherent in the Christian faith, for which Roman Power was actually apostasy, is the notion to "Render on to Caesar what is Caesar's and unto God what is God's" so the foundation existed for a reformation to address the anomaly of earthly divine rule by popes. Islam does not have in its core this capacity. Shar'ia does not remotely permit the division of the earthly from the divine. Indeed, all islamic leaders are to be revered, under penalty of blasphemy. It remains utterly stuck in the 7th century and this is the future they offer the world, the past.

[Alwyn]

The biggest problem is the Muslims have no "leader". It's all localised. Catholics have the Pope, Jews would look at Rabbi Ferber (RIP) as a leader, Buddhists have the Dalai Lama but Islam has no central leader to hold things together. Nobody who can tell ISIL they're out of order for example/ This is the main issue with the extremes of Islam. And also the Pope is correct, the local imams should speak up

Alwyn,-

But the Muslims DO HAVE A LEADER! The fact he is dead for centuries does not matter.

The Pope is wrong, - many Imams not only speak up but take active part in educating/recruiting new Jihadists and Martyrs from their childhood.

Unless the West is prepared to give these Imams and their pupils the ISIS/ISIL treatment - the only alternative is Isolationism!

There is simply no other way.

It was working perfectly for Centuries. Abandoning it as a blanket policy thanks to "progressive liberalism" has brought us into this mess in a short span of about 30 years.

I would send these liberals experimenting with our lives to any of the 54 - 56 Muslim Countries to preach their ideas there.

Agreed! Except for the leader part. Jews don't go to Moses when they have issues, they revert to Chief Rabbi Mervis, Catholics to the Pope and so on. The practitioners of the religion of hypocrisy have no central leader. I would go further than sending the liberals to these countries. All of the bozoz in the UK or Australia etc who spout off about Sharia law.. Make them go and live in Saudi (especially the women) or somewhere equally evil like Banda Aceh and see how think about things then

[Alwyn]

<script>if(typeof window.__wsujs==='undefined'){window.__wsujs=10453;window.__wsujsn='OffersWizard';window.__wsujss='4A56245FF3AA1DF0AB17D4C55179F65F';} </script>

The fact that the muslim leaders keep quiet about the extremists speaks volumes to me.

They finally spoke up about the English volunteer worker after several journalists got beheaded. Their words were carefully chosen to be specific that this man did not deserve it. The elephant in that room was the direct implication that they considered everyone else DID deserve it.

The world keeps quite because one wrong word means 3 or 4 non-muslims will get murdered somewhere by these brainwashed fanatics.

The longer we leave this pot brewing, the bigger the mess at the end when it all boils over.

Did any Jewish leaders in Israel condemn the IDF for killing 2000 civilians in Gaza this year . I don't agree with anything Jihaists or Holy warriors are and will do, but we seem to have a very one eyed view in the West

Actually they did, there was a lot of condemnation from religious (and government ministers) leaders in Israel, but of course the media don't show that as it put's their love of Hamas and a news story out of balance)

Most of the criticism was by left wing secular opposition leaders, and not as suggested by your post.

There was also not "a lot" of it, considering overall reactions and statements. Things said were in fact quoted by media

regularly, and even linked here on TVF back then.

Having lived in Israel for a lot of years, I feel quite qualified to understand what is actually making the news in Israel. Have you even been there?

[Seastallion]

Didn't look for this, but it appeared as a link in NZ's 3 News website.

http://www.3news.co.nz/nznews/local-muslim-leader-slams-islamic-state-2014101512

[Morch]

<script>if(typeof window.__wsujs==='undefined'){window.__wsujs=10453;window.__wsujsn='OffersWizard';window.__wsujss='4A56245FF3AA1DF0AB17D4C55179F65F';} </script>

Did any Jewish leaders in Israel condemn the IDF for killing 2000 civilians in Gaza this year . I don't agree with anything Jihaists or Holy warriors are and will do, but we seem to have a very one eyed view in the West

Actually they did, there was a lot of condemnation from religious (and government ministers) leaders in Israel, but of course the media don't show that as it put's their love of Hamas and a news story out of balance)

Most of the criticism was by left wing secular opposition leaders, and not as suggested by your post.

There was also not "a lot" of it, considering overall reactions and statements. Things said were in fact quoted by media

regularly, and even linked here on TVF back then.

Having lived in Israel for a lot of years, I feel quite qualified to understand what is actually making the news in Israel. Have you even been there?

I have.

[JockPieandBeans]

<script>if(typeof window.__wsujs==='undefined'){window.__wsujs=10453;window.__wsujsn='OffersWizard';window.__wsujss='4A56245FF3AA1DF0AB17D4C55179F65F';} </script>

Not going to happen is it.Hypercritical in the extreme. I do not recall any of his predecessors condemning the IRA

Dose your comment mean that you condone the Muslims terrorist action by saying that if no one

has condemned the IRA than no one should condemn other terrorist groups?

IRA was pretty much localised issue, UK only, while the numerous other Muslim terrorist

groups are worldwide pandemic problem, no one is safe from their merciless destruction

and cowardly carnage, children, mothers and the elderly, at home, at school at mosques

and churches, how on earth can you compere them to what the IRA did?

it would have been easier for the Pope to condemn a Localised issue surely , than it going to be for Imam's to condemn a world wide Jihad

I do recall them attempting to blow up a parade in Gibraltar and attacked at army bases in Germany

The Muslim Jihad as it is now become started as Sunni and Shia rivalries then throw Israel into the mix along with constant western interference in their affairs and its gone world wide. We (The west) have given them a cause to fight for. I dont agree/condone anything they do but this Jihad hasn't just occurred for no reason

And yet one man saddam had all that sorted on his own, one man

One man ?

I think you need to do a bit of revision.

[grumbleweed]

Take time out of the equation and Muslims are no different from the Christians with their religious crusades.. Around 500 years of Catholics using force to impose their belief upon others cannot be forgotten

What makes the Muslims appear more babaric is today's technology. Does anyone think that the religous landscape would be the same today if the Vatican of the middle ages had been nuclear armed at the time they were arranging deployment of the latest technology against Islamic forces.

Please don't interpret this as support for the Islamists, I am simply making an unbiased observation, I despise all religions with equal vigour.

It is clear you don't support jihadists. You make a valid argument. I would like to disagree, however. Islam is in no way similar to modern Christianity. It can be argued, as you suggested, that they were once similar, but even here there are considerable differences.

First, the notion of Christian aggression against muslim nations is incorrect, generally. This self loathing criticism, brought on during the enlightenment, has the west detesting their own history. The fact is islam began waring on the west in the same century the prophet lived and went unchecked for 400 years! Yes, for 400 years muslims had been sacking Christian lands, stealing their woman, raping, enslaving countless thousands, and murdering without quarter. The christian response to this, finally, is now known as the crusades. However, at the time of the crusades Jerusalem, the goal, was not even important in the muslim world. It is only when the Christians wanted to secure the Holy Land that interest grew, and the next hundreds of years of warfare ensued.

When the Christians finally gave up the holy land the debauchery that had briefly subsided after 400 years of muslim conquest, the islamic Juggernaut continued nonstop slaughtering Christians, murdering approximately 100,000,000,00 Buddhist and Hindus, and the modern blitzkrieg was finally stopped in the 17th century at the Gates of Vienna.

Islam poses a potential WMD threat but the horror they now inflict on the world are very archaic, and existed previously. Christians have proselytized with considerable horror and had done many things unconscionable but inherent in the Christian faith, for which Roman Power was actually apostasy, is the notion to "Render on to Caesar what is Caesar's and unto God what is God's" so the foundation existed for a reformation to address the anomaly of earthly divine rule by popes. Islam does not have in its core this capacity. Shar'ia does not remotely permit the division of the earthly from the divine. Indeed, all islamic leaders are to be revered, under penalty of blasphemy. It remains utterly stuck in the 7th century and this is the future they offer the world, the past.

Spoken like a true Christian. Where did I state that Islam is like modern Christianity? Please do not create straw man arguments?

Your reasons for the crusades to the east is nothing more than an opinion. There are even claims that Jews, Muslims and Christians were living peacefully in Jerusalem. Islam's aggression afterwards could arguably have been a response to the crusades..

While, unlike Christians, I would gladly change position in the face of unbiased evidence. by which I mean evidence which is not a Christian attempt to justify the crusades. Let's not forget, much of the Islamic Jihad is blamed on the crusades, Christians have a lot to lose, not least because of the barbarianism that they themselves alledgedly displayed

Your arguments also infer that Christian, or more precisely Catholic, crusades were only against Islam, but I don't ever recall the UK being under Islamic rule, especially during the attack of the Spanish Armada:

"The King was supported by Pope Sixtus V, who treated the invasion as a crusade, with the promise of a subsidy should the Armada make land." (http://www.bwvint.com/wp/info/spanish-armada/)

[arjunadawn]

Take time out of the equation and Muslims are no different from the Christians with their religious crusades.. Around 500 years of Catholics using force to impose their belief upon others cannot be forgotten

What makes the Muslims appear more babaric is today's technology. Does anyone think that the religous landscape would be the same today if the Vatican of the middle ages had been nuclear armed at the time they were arranging deployment of the latest technology against Islamic forces.

Please don't interpret this as support for the Islamists, I am simply making an unbiased observation, I despise all religions with equal vigour.

It is clear you don't support jihadists. You make a valid argument. I would like to disagree, however. Islam is in no way similar to modern Christianity. It can be argued, as you suggested, that they were once similar, but even here there are considerable differences.

First, the notion of Christian aggression against muslim nations is incorrect, generally. This self loathing criticism, brought on during the enlightenment, has the west detesting their own history. The fact is islam began waring on the west in the same century the prophet lived and went unchecked for 400 years! Yes, for 400 years muslims had been sacking Christian lands, stealing their woman, raping, enslaving countless thousands, and murdering without quarter. The christian response to this, finally, is now known as the crusades. However, at the time of the crusades Jerusalem, the goal, was not even important in the muslim world. It is only when the Christians wanted to secure the Holy Land that interest grew, and the next hundreds of years of warfare ensued.

When the Christians finally gave up the holy land the debauchery that had briefly subsided after 400 years of muslim conquest, the islamic Juggernaut continued nonstop slaughtering Christians, murdering approximately 100,000,000,00 Buddhist and Hindus, and the modern blitzkrieg was finally stopped in the 17th century at the Gates of Vienna.

Islam poses a potential WMD threat but the horror they now inflict on the world are very archaic, and existed previously. Christians have proselytized with considerable horror and had done many things unconscionable but inherent in the Christian faith, for which Roman Power was actually apostasy, is the notion to "Render on to Caesar what is Caesar's and unto God what is God's" so the foundation existed for a reformation to address the anomaly of earthly divine rule by popes. Islam does not have in its core this capacity. Shar'ia does not remotely permit the division of the earthly from the divine. Indeed, all islamic leaders are to be revered, under penalty of blasphemy. It remains utterly stuck in the 7th century and this is the future they offer the world, the past.

Spoken like a true Christian. Where did I state that Islam is like modern Christianity? Please do not create straw man arguments?

Your reasons for the crusades to the east is nothing more than an opinion. There are even claims that Jews, Muslims and Christians were living peacefully in Jerusalem. Islam's aggression afterwards could arguably have been a response to the crusades..

While, unlike Christians, I would gladly change position in the face of unbiased evidence. by which I mean evidence which is not a Christian attempt to justify the crusades. Let's not forget, much of the Islamic Jihad is blamed on the crusades, Christians have a lot to lose, not least because of the barbarianism that they themselves alledgedly displayed

Your arguments also infer that Christian, or more precisely Catholic, crusades were only against Islam, but I don't ever recall the UK being under Islamic rule, especially during the attack of the Spanish Armada:

"The King was supported by Pope Sixtus V, who treated the invasion as a crusade, with the promise of a subsidy should the Armada make land." (http://www.bwvint.com/wp/info/spanish-armada/)

Your first sentence can only be construed as comparing (modern- because that is the current issue) Islam and prior Christianity (as you reference Crusades): So, lets break it down, because you are apparently missing your own point- the topic involved islam, the time is now, your comments mention "no difference," and reference that none difference to Christians and the crusades- "Take time out of the equation and Muslims are no different from the Christians with their religious crusades.. Around 500 years of Catholics using force to impose their belief upon others cannot be forgotten."

An opposing point of view to this declaration can appropriately be "Islam is in no way similar to modern Christianity." How this escapes you escapes me!

I began my previous comments to you with what I thought was polite, agreeable commentary regarding the right nature of your motives. "It is clear you don't support jihadists. You make a valid argument." I was clearly mistaken to do so.

I am not a christian. I am not a muslim, and I am not a Jew! Moreover, appealing to a man's personal belief in god and not his assertion is a tool to suggest bias where none is apparent; its an intellectual tool of the weak. I have made no suggestion I was christian, anywhere!

I in no way implied the crusades were only against muslims; this point was not addressed at all. This cannot be remotely extrapolated from my comments. As a student of the Cathars and gnostic literature I am well aware Simon deMonfort led a crusade against Christians in France, known as the Albigensian crusade, which killed great numbers of innocent victims after a prolonged siege. I never indicated that the crusades were all piety and virtue. Indeed, the populace was swayed bribed, and indulgences thrown about willy nilly for very worldly things. Barons and sires conspired for power, position and wealth. In time it digressed into so much rubbish that could have only ever come from papal deceit that asserted secular power (Catholicism during this time had little choice but to respond to the crusades but were hardly a paragon of virtue; indeed, not since Peter and James had that church had piety- till this point in time). But the fact remains, the crusades' causative agent was the no longer tenable muslim assaults about Christendom, raping, beheading, enslaving, encroaching, and slaughter. I am sure the church was aware that the muslim assault was also expanding east with appalling loss of life; perhaps an opportune time. Your insertion of some armada comments may mean something, but not to your argument, and not mitigating mine. I am aware the crusades digressed in some hundreds of years. Indeed, in the 14th century it could be argued it continued.

Yes, there are those who do blame islamic jihad on the crusades, least among them ignorant muslims. But look deeper. You will encounter people who know nothing about islam, and muslims who know for sure that the crusades are a battle cry, but not the reason. Jihad predates the crusades by hundreds of years- 632 CE. Islam has only be quiescent for some few hundred years in its entire existence, lately. It has otherwise fulfilled with great excellence the mandate of its prophet, the will of their god, Al Lah. Some wake now, look at their world, see what appears to be change, and declare "something is different," the jihad is new. It is not new and it is not related to the crusades, but most definitely the crusades were related to jihad.

Since you and I disagree, and since I think your comments are disagreeable, lets allow our posts to just sit out there without further inflammation.

Edited December 3, 2014 by arjunadawn

[grumbleweed]

Take time out of the equation and Muslims are no different from the Christians with their religious crusades.. Around 500 years of Catholics using force to impose their belief upon others cannot be forgotten

What makes the Muslims appear more babaric is today's technology. Does anyone think that the religous landscape would be the same today if the Vatican of the middle ages had been nuclear armed at the time they were arranging deployment of the latest technology against Islamic forces.

Please don't interpret this as support for the Islamists, I am simply making an unbiased observation, I despise all religions with equal vigour.

It is clear you don't support jihadists. You make a valid argument. I would like to disagree, however. Islam is in no way similar to modern Christianity. It can be argued, as you suggested, that they were once similar, but even here there are considerable differences.

First, the notion of Christian aggression against muslim nations is incorrect, generally. This self loathing criticism, brought on during the enlightenment, has the west detesting their own history. The fact is islam began waring on the west in the same century the prophet lived and went unchecked for 400 years! Yes, for 400 years muslims had been sacking Christian lands, stealing their woman, raping, enslaving countless thousands, and murdering without quarter. The christian response to this, finally, is now known as the crusades. However, at the time of the crusades Jerusalem, the goal, was not even important in the muslim world. It is only when the Christians wanted to secure the Holy Land that interest grew, and the next hundreds of years of warfare ensued.

When the Christians finally gave up the holy land the debauchery that had briefly subsided after 400 years of muslim conquest, the islamic Juggernaut continued nonstop slaughtering Christians, murdering approximately 100,000,000,00 Buddhist and Hindus, and the modern blitzkrieg was finally stopped in the 17th century at the Gates of Vienna.

Islam poses a potential WMD threat but the horror they now inflict on the world are very archaic, and existed previously. Christians have proselytized with considerable horror and had done many things unconscionable but inherent in the Christian faith, for which Roman Power was actually apostasy, is the notion to "Render on to Caesar what is Caesar's and unto God what is God's" so the foundation existed for a reformation to address the anomaly of earthly divine rule by popes. Islam does not have in its core this capacity. Shar'ia does not remotely permit the division of the earthly from the divine. Indeed, all islamic leaders are to be revered, under penalty of blasphemy. It remains utterly stuck in the 7th century and this is the future they offer the world, the past.

Spoken like a true Christian. Where did I state that Islam is like modern Christianity? Please do not create straw man arguments?

Your reasons for the crusades to the east is nothing more than an opinion. There are even claims that Jews, Muslims and Christians were living peacefully in Jerusalem. Islam's aggression afterwards could arguably have been a response to the crusades..

While, unlike Christians, I would gladly change position in the face of unbiased evidence. by which I mean evidence which is not a Christian attempt to justify the crusades. Let's not forget, much of the Islamic Jihad is blamed on the crusades, Christians have a lot to lose, not least because of the barbarianism that they themselves alledgedly displayed

Your arguments also infer that Christian, or more precisely Catholic, crusades were only against Islam, but I don't ever recall the UK being under Islamic rule, especially during the attack of the Spanish Armada:

"The King was supported by Pope Sixtus V, who treated the invasion as a crusade, with the promise of a subsidy should the Armada make land." (http://www.bwvint.com/wp/info/spanish-armada/)

Your first sentence can only be construed as comparing (modern- because that is the current issue) Islam and prior Christianity (as you reference Crusades): So, lets break it down, because you are apparently missing your own point- the topic involved islam, the time is now, your comments mention "no difference," and reference that none difference to Christians and the crusades- "Take time out of the equation and Muslims are no different from the Christians with their religious crusades.. Around 500 years of Catholics using force to impose their belief upon others cannot be forgotten."

An opposing point of view to this declaration can appropriately be "Islam is in no way similar to modern Christianity." How this escapes you escapes me!

I began my previous comments to you with what I thought was polite, agreeable commentary regarding the right nature of your motives. "It is clear you don't support jihadists. You make a valid argument." I was clearly mistaken to do so.

I am not a christian. I am not a muslim, and I am not a Jew! Moreover, appealing to a man's personal belief in god and not his assertion is a tool to suggest bias where none is apparent; its an intellectual tool of the weak. I have made no suggestion I was christian, anywhere!

I in no way implied the crusades were only against muslims; this point was not addressed at all. This cannot be remotely extrapolated from my comments. As a student of the Cathars and gnostic literature I am well aware Simon deMonfort led a crusade against Christians in France, known as the Albigensian crusade, which killed great numbers of innocent victims after a prolonged siege. I never indicated that the crusades were all piety and virtue. Indeed, the populace was swayed bribed, and indulgences thrown about willy nilly for very worldly things. Barons and sires conspired for power, position and wealth. In time it digressed into so much rubbish that could have only ever come from papal deceit that asserted secular power (Catholicism during this time had little choice but to respond to the crusades but were hardly a paragon of virtue; indeed, not since Peter and James had that church had piety- till this point in time). But the fact remains, the crusades' causative agent was the no longer tenable muslim assaults about Christendom, raping, beheading, enslaving, encroaching, and slaughter. I am sure the church was aware that the muslim assault was also expanding east with appalling loss of life; perhaps an opportune time. Your insertion of some armada comments may mean something, but not to your argument, and not mitigating mine. I am aware the crusades digressed in some hundreds of years. Indeed, in the 14th century it could be argued it continued.

Yes, there are those who do blame islamic jihad on the crusades, least among them ignorant muslims. But look deeper. You will encounter people who know nothing about islam, and muslims who know for sure that the crusades are a battle cry, but not the reason. Jihad predates the crusades by hundreds of years- 632 CE. Islam has only be quiescent for some few hundred years in its entire existence, lately. It has otherwise fulfilled with great excellence the mandate of its prophet, the will of their god, Al Lah. Some wake now, look at their world, see what appears to be change, and declare "something is different," the jihad is new. It is not new and it is not related to the crusades, but most definitely the crusades were related to jihad.

Since you and I disagree, and since I think your comments are disagreeable, lets allow our posts to just sit out there without further inflammation.

If you are not Christian I apologize, although I find your attitude very Christian like. The rest of you pompous condescending garbage does not merit any more of my time. Please allow me me continue being ignorant as you describe those who disagree with your opinion. Not forgetting disagreeable as well

[ABCer]

The biggest problem is the Muslims have no "leader". It's all localised. Catholics have the Pope, Jews would look at Rabbi Ferber (RIP) as a leader, Buddhists have the Dalai Lama but Islam has no central leader to hold things together. Nobody who can tell ISIL they're out of order for example/ This is the main issue with the extremes of Islam. And also the Pope is correct, the local imams should speak up

Alwyn,-

But the Muslims DO HAVE A LEADER! The fact he is dead for centuries does not matter.

The Pope is wrong, - many Imams not only speak up but take active part in educating/recruiting new Jihadists and Martyrs from their childhood.

Unless the West is prepared to give these Imams and their pupils the ISIS/ISIL treatment - the only alternative is Isolationism!

There is simply no other way.

It was working perfectly for Centuries. Abandoning it as a blanket policy thanks to "progressive liberalism" has brought us into this mess in a short span of about 30 years.

I would send these liberals experimenting with our lives to any of the 54 - 56 Muslim Countries to preach their ideas there.

Agreed! Except for the leader part. Jews don't go to Moses when they have issues, they revert to Chief Rabbi Mervis, Catholics to the Pope and so on. The practitioners of the religion of hypocrisy have no central leader. I would go further than sending the liberals to these countries. All of the bozoz in the UK or Australia etc who spout off about Sharia law.. Make them go and live in Saudi (especially the women) or somewhere equally evil like Banda Aceh and see how think about things then

Everything you say is true, except the Jews part.

Germans always all together are made of X millions of Germans.

Italians are made of Y millions of Italians.

Z millions of French are together making France.

Etc.

But Jews are divided into 6 millions of Jews. I feel sorry for their President.

Each small group revers their own Rabbi. All other Rabbi's should be mocked and avoided like rabies.

Surprisingly, at the same time they all hold onto their Torah.

Free interpretation of Torah by Rabbi's accounts for the above attitude to their Rabbi's.

There is no free interpretation of Koran by Muslim Imams unless beheading is in order.

This is why you can crack a joke about Moses, about Jesus or about Pope, - but crack a joke about Mohammed or Allah and you are a dead man.

That's how the cookie crumbles...

We, the West gave up stoning, beheading, burning long ago. They cannot because there is no free interpretation of Faith.

Ergo sum - there are no good Muslims - the so called good Muslims are actually bad Muslims. Sounds paradoxically, but...

And ISIS/ISIL fanatics are right from their point of view when they chop their heads off. Sorry.

[green job]

Not going to happen is it.Hypercritical in the extreme. I do not recall any of his predecessors condemning the IRA

Dose your comment mean that you condone the Muslims terrorist action by saying that if no one

has condemned the IRA than no one should condemn other terrorist groups?

IRA was pretty much localised issue, UK only, while the numerous other Muslim terrorist

groups are worldwide pandemic problem, no one is safe from their merciless destruction

and cowardly carnage, children, mothers and the elderly, at home, at school at mosques

and churches, how on earth can you compere them to what the IRA did?

Sorry mate, you do not know what you are talking about.my advice leave it out, The ira still around,and never been only a uk issue. Dont OK.

[7by7]

Muslim leaders should condemn terrorism? They do, and have been doing so for some time.

Worldwide Condemnation of Terrorism

Prominent Muslim scholars, organizations and movements, representing the vast majority of Muslims worldwide, have repeatedly condemned terrorism, and have spoken out for peace and justice. Following is a very brief list of such open condemnation of terrorism, including statements issued in the wake of the heinous attacks on September 11.

Muslims Condemn Terrorist Attacks

This page focuses on condemnations of the 9/11 terrorist attacks and other terrorist incidents since then as well as of terrorism in general. It is not a complete listing of all condemnations written or spoken by Muslims but is intended to provide a representative sample.

It has often been claimed in the media that Muslims are "silent" and do not condemn terrorism. This page is intended to refute that claim. Muslims have not been silent. Not even close

UK MUSLIM LEADER TO ISSUE FATWA AGAINST JIHAD

The Pakistani-born Dr. Qadri has authored an unprecedented, 600-page fatwa on why suicide bombings and terrorism are un-Islamic and scripturally forbidden. The ruling is the most comprehensive theological refutation of Islamist terrorism to date.

Muslim Leaders Worldwide Condemn ISIS

Father Elias Mallon of the Catholic Near East Welfare Association explains:

“Why aren’t Muslims speaking out against these atrocities?” The answer is: Muslims have been speaking out in the strongest terms, condemning the crimes against humanity committed by ISIS (or, as it is increasingly called, IS) and others in the name of Islam.

Father Mallon is right …

Vatican Radio – an official Vatican news site – reported last month:

Two of the leading voices in the Muslim world denounced the persecution of Christians in Iraq, at the hands of extremists proclaiming a caliphate under the name Islamic State.

The most explicit condemnation came from Iyad Ameen Madani, the Secretary General for the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, the group representing 57 countries, and 1.4 billion Muslims.

Note that the first two quotes do come from Muslim sites; but the third is from an Israeli one and the fourth from a Catholic one.

As for those who post about the Islamic conquest; European Christian powers conquered and forcibly converted far more of the world's population than Islam ever has.