"To understand Islam we must first read the entire Koran. Only then can we realise what drives it and why it is anything BUT a religion of peace, it is a religion preaching total dominance that can only be achieved by outrageous violence and it’s hell bent on the destruction of anything that stands in its way.

The concept of an enemy within is alien to contemporary politicians who crave a Utopian world of multiculturalism, and wouldn’t that be nice. Yet it would be possible except for one thing... Islam.

There are those who risk life and limb playing for Collingwood and there are those who merely support it".

link

Im going to take a wild stab and say Pickering hasn't followed his own advise.

polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 10^th, 2015 at 10:25am:

Im going to take a wild stab and say Pickering hasn't followed his own advise.

... which really is beside the point, but one can certainly understand your reluctance to respond to the quotations he has listed in order to educate and inform his readership as to the flip-side of the PC version of Islamic text so beloved of the apologists.

You really should be spending more time petitioning politicians to have the laws changed to provide for stricter censorship of materials deemed unacceptable to paranoid sensitivities.

It worked in Abbott's case.

A little pressure from Australia's Muslim Colony Leadership - and he did a magnificent Cirque du Soleil double-backflip on the C18 Clause that had Australia's Muslim Colonialists breathing easy again.

Lord Herbert wrote on Jan 10^th, 2015 at 10:57am:

.. which really is beside the point

No Herb it is precisely the point. If you are going to stand up and boldly claim that you can only understand islam by reading the Quran in its entirety - and then proceed to explain how evil it is - whether or not you followed your own advise is the most relevant point of all.


Lord Herbert wrote on Jan 10^th, 2015 at 10:57am:

your reluctance to respond to the quotations

Herb I respond to people quoting the Quran all the time. That is just plain unfair in view of my posting history.

Just one example from the article - this is a most basic misunderstanding:


Quote:

Why must Islam destroy cities it conquers? Quran (17:16) - "And when We wish to destroy a town, We send Our commandment to the people of it who lead easy lives, but they transgress therein; thus the word proves true against it, so We destroy it with utter destruction."

"We" is a well known pronoun used in the Quran referring to God. All Abrahamic religions accept that God destroys individuals, communities and entire cities as he see fit - as he did with Lut and during the flood. They are purely supernatural events, completely out of the hands of mere mortals - not rabid muslim armies marching into cities as Pickering stupidly assumes.

Why is it that Christians are readily willing to agree with critics that there are indeed some nasty bits in the Bible that don't measure up to our Modern Day secular moral standards, and yet contrary to this generous and mature attitude we find that Muslims will do all sorts of intellectual acrobatics and contortions in order to present the Koran as an immaculate work that is beyond even the mildest of moral reproach?

This is passing strange indeed from a religious culture that advocates modesty in its women to the degree that so many of them must advertise this virtue by wearing various forms of dress for morally pretentious reasons.