Islam: What is it?

Ever since the events of September 11th, much has been written on Islam. As a personal witness to the tragedy, I remember wondering what form of twisted religious thinking would advocate the deaths of thousands of innocents? With some time spent in research, I believe I have come to an answer. I myself, am obviously not a follower of Mohammed, so this article, unlike almost all others on Islam, is not a preachy attempt to convert you to the "way of allah". Rather, the purpose is to offer an explanation of Islam that clearly defines what the religion means to a non-believer.

Early History of Islam

The beginnings of Islam can be traced back to 570 AD, when an Arab shephard, named Mohammed (which means "worthy of praise") was born near Mecca, in what is now Saudi Arabia. Mohammed was given to spending a great deal of his time holed up in caves, away from people, where he would pray and meditate to the pagan gods which his primitive people worshipped. At the age of forty, according to tradition, Mohammed recieved a message from the angel Gabriel, which he transcribed into what is now the Holy Koran (the question of whether an itinerant sheepherder could actually be literate is still debated in non-Islamic circles, although it is taken as blind dogma amongst believers). After achieving a few token converts, Mohammed and his followers were forced to flee to Ethiopia, where they were kindly recieved by the Christians already living in exile there.

After several years in Africa, Mohammed decided it was time to return to his homeland, so he gathered his followers, and captured the city of Yathrib, which they renamed to Medina. From this central location, the followers of "the Prophet" launched attacks on merchants headed to Mecca, with the intention of disrupting the economic power of their enemies (the parallels to the more recent activities of modern Muslims are, I think, obvious). Mohammed and his followers, through their tactic of attacking harmless businessmen, eventually weakened the city so greatly that in 630 Mecca fell to the invading Islamic hoardes. After brutally supressing the local Christian and Jewish communities, Mohammed died in 632, survived by his ten wives.

Muslim Beliefs

All Islamicists, no matter which splinter sect they belong to, believe in certain "irrefutable" tenets. These are collectively referred to as the "Pillars of Islam". There are seven of these, and I shall cover each individually.

1. Shahada - the declaration of faith. This consists of repeating the phrase "There is no god but Allah, and Mohammed is his prophet". Even though this statement is demonstrably false, it is nonetheless effective. As the author of a report on similar activities writes, "The process of indoctrination by repetition rather than reason is frequently termed brainwashing". The end result of the shahada is a self-induced brainwashing, which completes the Muslim's "submittance" (the meaning of the word "Islam") to their god.

2. Salat - the ritual prayer five times a day. As in the shahada covered above, repetition is key to the salat. The Mulsim recites a long prayer in Arabic (which is the only language accepted by believers) while kneeling in the direction of Mecca. The reason for that particular direction should be clear: it is to remind the Muslim that the middle east is Holy, and must remain under Islamic control. Although both Mecca and Medina themselves are under the rule of the Islamic sultans of Saudi Arabia, conquering Jerusalem, considered the third most holy city is Islam, remains the dream of the Muslim people.

3. Zakat - the tithe. As one who fully "submits" to Allah, the Muslim is obliged to give a certain percentage of his income to his mosque. The historical roots of this practice come from the jizya, the tax levied by Mohammed against all non-Muslims under his rule. Eventually, this was expanded to cover Muslims as well, with the money going to fund Islamic wars against non-believers, such as the attack and invasion of Spain. Today, the tradition continues, with zakat monies going to unspecified "charities" in the middle east which are responsible for arming organizations such as the PLO and Osama Bin Laden's Al Qaeda.

4. Fasting for Ramadan - Although a seemingly innocous tradition, the month-long period in which Muslims take no food during the day is a symbol of much more. Unlike the Jewish Passover, which is a rememberance of the past, the celebration of Ramadan is a preparation for the future. On the day when all Muslims are commanded to take arms against the infidels, they will be forced to leave their homes to wage holy war. When this occurs, they will be conditioned, by the fasting celebration, to not require food or sleep. Since Islamic countries have been historically low on food supplies, this can only be a benefit. Note that this should not be confused with the healthful, Christian practice of fasting.

5. Hajj - the pilgrimage to Mecca is considered to be a neccesary part of every Muslim's life. Indeed, a Muslim's piety is measured by how many of these hajj he has made. The idea of the hajj was not "dictated by Allah" to Mohammed until after he conquered the city. After butchering the native merchants, it is clear that the Prophet needed some way to raise enough funds to maintain the city. What better way than to force, through threat of eternal damnation, millions of followers to visit a city you rule? Nowadays, Mecca is under the control of the Saudi regime, which continues this deceit. In fact, although the Saudi government justifies its high oil prices on the grounds of its supposed poverty, they take in excess of 12 billion dollars per year on hajj pilgrims alone. If only that money were doing some good for the poor rather than directly funding attacks on our nation.

6. Jihad - the holy war. Ever since Mohammed called upon his followers to sack and pillage the cities of Yathrib and Mecca, Muslims have been leading wars against the "infidels". According to the Koran, Allah demands the blood of those who dare to fight back:

The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His apostle, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution or crucifixion (Surah 5:33)

Furthermore, the death of a non-Muslim is not considered a crime: No Muslim should be killed for killing a kafir (infidel). (Vol 9:50), and any Muslim killed in the jihad is guarenteed rewards, either in this life or the next:

The person who participates in Jihad in Allah's cause and nothing compels him to do so except belief in Allah and His apostle, will be recompensed by Allah either with a reward or treasure (if he survives) or will be admitted to paradise (if he is killed). (Vol 1:35)

It should be clear that the suicide bombers of Sept. 11th believed that they would be sent to paradise, their station in Heaven improved with each "American dog" they killed.

7. Fatwa - the sacred edict. According to Islamicist laws, those who are higly educated in the Koran can issue edicts which all followers of the faith must obey. Osama bin Laden, terrorist Number One, and the "conscience of Islam", is one such cleric, and his fatwas are widely followed throughout the Arab world. A fatwa is to be followed by all Muslims, no matter who issues it. Thus a declaration of jihad against the "Great Satan" of the United States by some terrorist is every bit as binding as a statement from a true hero such as Malcom X.

Islam Today

It is hard to ignore Islam today. With terrorism, anthrax scares, and war, this fast-growing faith will play a much larger role in the future of America. In spite of all this, let us not forget that there are some Islam sects which espouse peace over violence, which is in some ways similar to America's own ideals. With a better understanding of Islam, we can prepare ourselves better for the coming times of crisis.

	Not all Muslims are extremists. (5.00 / 2) (#5)
	by Craig McPherson on Thu Oct 18th, 2001 at 06:08:44 PM PST

	In fact, many mainstream Muslims say that the "Muslims" who engage in terrorism are NOT Muslims at all, because they've perverted the teachings of the Koran to suit their own ends. You have to admit that much of the terrorists' philosophy is based on gross misinterpretation of scripture from the Koran. For example, one verse in the Koran states that for every infidel a Muslim man kills, he'll receive 77 virgins in Heaven: the extremists misinterpret this verse to mean that for every infidel a Muslim man kills, he'll receive 77 virgins in the afterlife. The verses in the Koran that say that Muslims should kill Jews whenever possible are often misinterprted to mean that Muslims should kill Jews whenever possible. Where the Koran states that Muslims who die in the process of murdering non-Muslims will get a free ticket to Heaven, the extremists misinterpret that to mean that Muslims who die in the process of murdering non-Muslims will get a free ticket to heaven. So, you see, the extremists are GROSSLY misinterpreting and twisting these scriptures and putting words in the mouth of the Prophet. They'll never hesitate to pervert the meaning of a verse of the Koran to make it suit their twisted agenda. For example, they take the verses that state that a woman who shows her face in public should be executed, and they somehow twist it around to mean that a woman who shows her face in public should be executed. The way they freely re-write the Koran, like in the above examples, can they realy be considered Muslims at all? -- If you want to know why Lunix is so screwed up, just take a look at the people who use it. Idiocy.

	Yeah I noticed that too. (5.00 / 3) (#6)
	by Anonymous Reader on Thu Oct 18th, 2001 at 07:09:39 PM PST

	Those damned revisionist muslims. Introducing innovations to their religion all the time. When the Quraan says When your Lord revealed to the angels: I am with you, therefore make firm those who believe. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them. Some radical hotheads within the islamic community think that means that they should strike off the heads of those who disbelieve and strike off every fingertip of them. These desert-dwelling nomads need to read up on their Derrida, Barthes and Nietzche. Perhaps then they would interpret their holy texts in a different light.

	interpretation (none / 0) (#15)
	by Anonymous Reader on Fri Oct 19th, 2001 at 11:22:49 AM PST

	It's a matter of how you interpret that verse. Does non-blievers mean Christians, Hebrews, Hindus, etc. Or it can be taken as those who have strayed from the true path. I wish I could remember what it was called but there were a group of people that tried to spread a corrupted message of the Koran. Osama bin Laden is said to practice it. The bible can be interpretted the same way. That's why people like Pat Roberston fluorish. They claim everything thing they do is sanctioned in the bible. People stop believing this about Protestantism (Christianity is divided into to main sector Catholicism and Protestantism) a long time ago. Might be why he's being invetigated by teh Attorney General, the IRS and countless orther organizations.

	More informational links on Islam. (5.00 / 1) (#7)
	by Craig McPherson on Thu Oct 18th, 2001 at 10:34:01 PM PST

	Information on Islam Islam was created by Catholics What Muslims experience after death The connection between Islam and Freemasonry The connecton between Islam and Catholicism Why Muslims, Catholics, and Atheists hate Jesus Quotes from the Koran and Muslims Selected quotes from the last link: "A man can have sexual pleasure from a child as young as a baby. However, he should not penetrate; sodomising the child is OK." "It is better for a girl to marry in such a time when she would begin menstruation at her husband's house rather than her father's home. Any father marrying his daughter so young will have a permanent place in heaven." "A man can have sex with animals such as sheeps, cows, camels and so on. However, he should kill the animal after he has his orgasm." "Eleven things are impure: urine, excrement, sperm...non-Moslem men and women...and the sweat of an excrement-eating camel." Yikes! -- If you want to know why Lunix is so screwed up, just take a look at the people who use it. Idiocy.

	Don't be misled by Jack Chick (none / 0) (#10)
	by Adam Rightmann on Fri Oct 19th, 2001 at 06:20:08 AM PST

	Someone who has obviously never read the Gospels (cf. Upon this Rock I biuld my church) can hardly be trusted to declaim upon them. A. Rightmann

	hold on a second. (none / 0) (#41)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sat Oct 20th, 2001 at 09:48:00 PM PST

	A favorite point of discussion by Chick and other fundamentalists is the Eucharist (the "death cookie" etc). According to them it is nothing short of unholy cannibalism. But at the last supper, Christ clearly held up bread and said 'this is my body'. Given that fundamentalists claim to interpret the bible literally, how is this apparent contradiction explained?

	Don't be embarrassed.. (5.00 / 1) (#55)
	by Mint Waltman on Sun Oct 21st, 2001 at 03:36:38 PM PST

	as many people confuse Catholicism with Christianity. At the last supper Jesus clearly said, "this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in rememberance of me." He was clearly speaking in symbolic terms. The idea that a priest with magical powers turns an ordinary waffer into the actual body of Christ would be laughable if it weren't so darn heretical!

	hrmph. (none / 0) (#56)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Oct 21st, 2001 at 08:45:36 PM PST

	>At the last supper Jesus clearly said, "this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in rememberance of me." ... and at a Roman Catholic mass I hear precisely the same thing, except maybe 'memory' instead of 'remembrance', depending on the priest. Or does the Roman Catholic church preach differently to what it implies in its Mass? Or have I stumbled upon a wack splinter sect of the RCC that doesn't identify itself differently? ('this do'. Hah. I hope Christ was more eloquent than that.) >He was clearly speaking in symbolic terms. Well duh. The RCC has a Council of Sciences so they would be more aware of the results of a chemical analysis of a communion wafer than your average anti-catholic fundy (who doesn't know any science, particularly evolution of the species).

	Are you denying (5.00 / 1) (#65)
	by Mint Waltman on Mon Oct 22nd, 2001 at 01:03:25 PM PST

	...the Roman Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation where by the communion waffers and wine become the body and blood of Christ through the incantations of a priest? The Catholic 'church' fails to explain the mechanism of the Eucharist, though they do not let this prevent them from believing it! If you find this hard to swallow perhaps you should come to my church on Sunday morn!

	(i am a different AR) (none / 0) (#79)
	by Anonymous Reader on Mon Oct 22nd, 2001 at 11:17:55 PM PST

	>...the Roman Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation where by the communion waffers and wine become the body and blood of Christ through the incantations of a priest? I disagree with both you and the initial AR. If that's what Christ really said ('this is my body'), then why does it need explanation? >The Catholic 'church' fails to explain the mechanism of the Eucharist, See above. >though they do not let this prevent them from believing it! So when christ said 'this is my body' then no-one should believe it? > If you find this hard to swallow Not funny. >perhaps you should come to my church on Sunday morn! Hardly. To me it looks like christ took bread and said said 'this is my body'. Christ never lied. (therefore) the bread is his body. So what precisely do the Catholics have to explain here? (disclaimer: i am not christian, although I have been strongly inclined toward converting to one branch or another of christianity)

	humph (none / 0) (#86)
	by Anonymous Reader on Tue Oct 23rd, 2001 at 11:49:05 AM PST

	Meanwhile, they're probably superior scholars than everyone here, you included. Superior at what? Carefully wording concessions that science does provide insight into the world that religion cannot? In the face of more and more research the church is finding that it has to give an increasing amount of ground to keep from becoming a complete laughing stock in the face of reality. Where you see enlightened scholarship, I see clutching at the last straws of relavance... When it comes to scientific inquiry I'll rely on the secular world...

	We only want to help (3.66 / 3) (#8)
	by Anonymous Reader on Fri Oct 19th, 2001 at 12:57:31 AM PST

	Have you ever stopped to think that there might be a reason why a dozen men would hijack four airliners and fly them into buildings filled with people? Did it ever occur to you that maybe, just maybe, these men would perform acts of such enormity out of... love? Yes. Try to imagine something so valuable that handsome, virile young men, would be willing to give their lives, and the lives of as many other people as they could take with them, to save it Such a thing exists, I assure you. Something more precious than than any jewel, any work of art, any portfolio of internet stocks, any Suburban Utility Vehicle With Full Luxury Entertainment Package, Custom Aluminum Wheels, And Anti-Ultraviolet Paint Treatment. Even as I sit here typing, I can hear you scoff. I can see you snort with derision, fingerlets of contemptuous mucous darting out onto your sneering lip. Yet against your scorn, I persist. There does, as surely as you sit on your complacent ass reading these words of fierce truth, exist an object of such infinite value, that a man like Usama bin Laden is willing to defy the mightiest nation on earth to rescue it from the darkness and squalor in which it currently festers. That something is your eternal soul. Yours and those of billions of people like you. What is your World Trade Center, your Pentagon, your Bilbao Guggenheim, your Luxor Hotel-and-Casino, without the infinite love of all-powerful Allah, He who cast the cosmos across the heavens as effortlessly as you sprinkle Love-My-Carpet over the living room rug? How can you measure the tears of a few thousand families against the infinity-fold pain, sorrow beyond imagining, that gentle God feels over a single human being wallowing in sin? We only want you to open your hearts to the tendeness of Allah's infinite mystery. And we will do so with any and all means at our disposal. Because what lies in the balance, your soul, and his, and hers, and that guy's over there, and yes even the soul of that other gal waaay over on that side of the room, is too precious to lose. ISLAM. Live it. Love it. Be it.

	Whoa dude... (none / 0) (#9)
	by hauntedattics on Fri Oct 19th, 2001 at 06:11:24 AM PST

	You've convinced me. Where do I sign up? Or can I just declare that I follow Islam and believe in Allah, and then proceed to off the people I perceive are 'wallowing in sin'? As if I were someone to judge? How about letting people live their lives as they see fit, with, yes, their WTCs and their Pentagons and their SUVs. Then at the end of their natural lives, we'll see what happens.

	The most important question is... (5.00 / 1) (#11)
	by iat on Fri Oct 19th, 2001 at 07:20:12 AM PST

	He who cast the cosmos across the heavens as effortlessly as you sprinkle Love-My-Carpet over the living room rug? Is "Love-My-Carpet" anything like Shake'n'Vac? I am researching domestic cleaning products from around the world for a forthcoming book (provisionally titled "The Exciting World of Domestic Cleaning Products") and an answer to this question would be most helpful. Thanks in advance. Adequacy.org - love it or leave it.

	This is not... (5.00 / 1) (#87)
	by Mint Waltman on Tue Oct 23rd, 2001 at 12:07:14 PM PST

	I disagree with both you and the initial AR. If that's what Christ really said ('this is my body'), then why does it need explanation? ... So when christ said 'this is my body' then no-one should believe it? ... To me it looks like christ took bread and said said 'this is my body'. Christ never lied. (therefore) the bread is his body. So what precisely do the Catholics have to explain here? ...about what Christ said. This is about what the Catholic church's interpretation of Christ's words. They are, as you may be aware, quite separate and distinct entities. Some believe in magical priests who can alter the substance and essence of waffers and wine without being told how this occurs. Did Chirst turn water into wine? Most certainly he did. For a priest to claim the same ability is heresy! Refer to the earlier post in this thread about the 'this is my body' statement...

	Hmm... (none / 0) (#94)
	by Anonymous Reader on Tue Oct 23rd, 2001 at 11:18:45 PM PST

	>Did Chirst turn water into wine? Most certainly he did. For a priest to claim the same ability is heresy! But didn't Jesus say 'do this in memory of me?' Surely the Catholics _are_ doing the bread-thing in memory of him? (IOW, Jesus said 'do this in memory of me', so the Catholics are doing precisely what he said, doing 'this' in memory of [Jesus]. Jesus said bread == my body, now do this in memory of me, so to me, it looks like the catholics are doing the exact same thing, i.e. they are agreeing with Jesus in saying that bread == his body, and they are doing it in memory of Jesus, at mass, as he said).

	You would make a (5.00 / 1) (#95)
	by Mint Waltman on Wed Oct 24th, 2001 at 09:11:36 AM PST

	...poor Catholic indeed. You are clearly a logical person, and would find yourself starving for want of reason were you to become a Catholic. You see, the Sacrament of communion in the Protestant churches that partake is symbolic. Contrast this with the Catholic Eucharist where the bread and wine are claimed to actually become the body and blood of Christ. It's quite simple, Protestants are doing what Christ said. Catholics have added this idea of 'transubstantiation' in order to legitimize the priesthood. Clearly this is falling away from the teachings of Christ toward darkness.

	You'll have to forgive me (none / 0) (#66)
	by Anonymous Reader on Mon Oct 22nd, 2001 at 01:12:22 PM PST

	The RCC has a Council of Sciences so they would be more aware of the results of a chemical analysis of a communion wafer than your average anti-catholic fundy (who doesn't know any science, particularly evolution of the species). for not putting much faith in any 'science' espoused by the Vatican... When did they finally admit Galileo was correct after all? 1992?

	ermph. (none / 0) (#76)
	by Anonymous Reader on Mon Oct 22nd, 2001 at 10:58:10 PM PST

	>for not putting much faith in any 'science' espoused by the Vatican... Meanwhile, they're probably superior scholars than everyone here, you included. >When did they finally admit Galileo was correct after all? 1992? That's when the church dropped the ball regarding galileo; the church has for a long time now not cared what its followers believe about the sun -> earth etc. (if it helps, the Pope is a big-bang believer, since 1980 at least; at least that's what hawking recounted after meeting JP II)

	You're wrong. (none / 0) (#12)
	by tkatchev on Fri Oct 19th, 2001 at 09:08:29 AM PST

	What you said is completely correct, except for one thing: Muslims don't believe in a loving God. They also have no concept of a soul, or of salvation. In fact, Islam's "Allah" is Christianity's Satan. This is not a slur -- this is a definition. Read Christian and Islamic theology, then compare the definition of "Satan" in Christianity, and the definition of "Allah" in Islam. I am betting that you'll find some striking similarities. -- Peace and much love...

	Fool (none / 0) (#13)
	by Anonymous Reader on Fri Oct 19th, 2001 at 09:21:31 AM PST

	They are all aspects of the demiurge. Return to the true gnostic revelation of Christ and you may escape the vile circles ruled by this so-called God wether his name be Allah, Yahweh, Jehova, or Ahura-Mazda.

	If there is a God... (none / 0) (#17)
	by tkatchev on Fri Oct 19th, 2001 at 11:44:20 AM PST

	...that God is a loving God. That much, at least, is obvious to me. Otherwise, it is indeed not a God, but a "demiurge"[1] -- "demiurge" meaning a talented and powerful creator, but not a supreme all-powerful being. [1] Indeed, in Christianity, the "demiurge" is none other than Satan. P.S. If I've been horribly mistaken, and Muslims indeed believe in a loving God, please forgive me. My Islamic theology is lacking, sadly. -- Peace and much love...

	If Allah is a loving God... (none / 0) (#19)
	by hauntedattics on Fri Oct 19th, 2001 at 01:30:52 PM PST

	...then the A.R. who posted the above is not Muslim, and is quoting some perverted version of Islam. In my book, "loving" does not equate to "demanding that believers kill others they perceive as sinful." But then again, my Islamic theology is also sadly lacking, and I don't make any guarantees for my vocabulary either.

	You obviously need a new book... (none / 0) (#27)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sat Oct 20th, 2001 at 01:36:46 AM PST

	I recommend the Koran. ISLAM. Live it. Love it. Be it.

	A better book (5.00 / 2) (#31)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sat Oct 20th, 2001 at 07:32:36 AM PST

	Which will leave you without need of the Koran, Bible, Torah, or whatever ancient babblings you base your life on, is Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand. The philosophy of Ayn Rand provides a complete, rational overview of life, based on the simple premise that "A = A". It is, quite frankly, the only logical way to live.

	A better book (5.00 / 1) (#33)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sat Oct 20th, 2001 at 08:45:43 AM PST

	>based on the simple premise that "A = A". Which is a totally and utterly vacuous statement.

	So refute it (5.00 / 1) (#34)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sat Oct 20th, 2001 at 09:10:17 AM PST

	Prove that it is not so. I don't see how you could possibly hold any other belief and not be a lunatic. If you knew anything about formal logic, you would understand that the truth of an argument's propositions determines the truth of the conclusion. In this case, the propositions are unassailable.

	you've missed the point. (5.00 / 1) (#43)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Oct 21st, 2001 at 05:13:56 AM PST

	>Prove that it is not so. Why? I didn't say that A != A. >If you knew anything about formal logic, you would understand that the truth of an argument's propositions determines the truth of the conclusion. In this case, the propositions are unassailable. Which is a load of total and utter pseudo-intellectual wank. Why? Simple. A = A does not tell us anything we don't already know.

	If you knew anything about formal logic (5.00 / 2) (#48)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Oct 21st, 2001 at 07:14:40 AM PST

	You would know that the truth of an arguments premises do not determine the truth of it's conclusion. Example: I am not a goat. Bill Gates is rich Therefore, I am married to Jesus Christ. As for A is A, I'd like to see you derive a non-ludicrous argument from that.

	logic (5.00 / 1) (#110)
	by Anonymous Reader on Fri Oct 26th, 2001 at 04:38:44 AM PST

	True propositions + Valid logic = True conclusion True propositions + Invalid logic = undertermined conclusion False propositions + Valid logic = False conclusions False propositions + Invalid logic = undertermined conclusion

	What a basic mistake. (none / 0) (#111)
	by dmg on Fri Oct 26th, 2001 at 05:09:09 AM PST

	The objective truth of the axioms has no bearing on the validity of the arguments. An axiom is simply an assertion we assume to be locically 'true' so we can prove some theorum or other. A lot of students of logic have trouble with this. time to give a Newtonian demonstration - of a bullet, its mass and its acceleration. -- MC Hawking

	I plan on reading the Koran... (none / 0) (#68)
	by hauntedattics on Mon Oct 22nd, 2001 at 01:55:02 PM PST

	...but if it tells me to kill all the "sinners" I see, I don't plan on following its advice. I'm really not someone qualified to judge who deserves to live or die. And neither are you, my friend.

	*yawn* (none / 0) (#25)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sat Oct 20th, 2001 at 12:36:01 AM PST

	Your puerile attempts at provocation are obviously motivated by poor self image brought on by the knowledge that the glorious face of God is turned away from your sinful person. Still, I am a patient servant of the Lord and will take the time to refute your "arguments". First, just because All-Powerful Allah does not go aroung kissing puppies on the nose or jumping up and down singing inane songs like Barney the Purple Dinosaur does not mean He is not a loving God. Second, as I am more interested in sharing the word of God's love than in splitting metaphysical hairs, I used the term "soul" as a rough approximation of the subtler Islamic concept of the afterlife, the easier for the clumsy-minded to grasp what I was getting at. Finally, whether Allah is Christianity's Satan, or Judaism's, Baal, or Shakespeare's Modo, or Milton's Beelzebub, or Lovecraft's Yog-Sothoth, or "Dog's Dick", the Nun-afflicting demon of Loudon, is entirely beside the point. What is not beside the pont is that he or she who rejects sin and with honesty and humility accepts Allah into his or her life will feel the glory of the Lord shining forth from within their "soul" like the warm rays of the sun drying the waters from the flood-washed world after Noah's deluge.

	T k a c h e v (none / 0) (#115)
	by Anonymous Reader on Mon Dec 10th, 2001 at 01:48:02 PM PST

	"In fact, Islam's "Allah" is Christianity's Satan" You are a total idiot. Im glad Chechnyas "raped" all the russians in Chechnya....I think because of people like you, you deserve it! You bombed Chechnya 2nd time because you knew you would all be massacred by Chechens if you put troops inside again... because when 5 chechens attack and scream "Allah Akbar" the whole russian army battalion shits in their pants and runs for their life...