We have received a message from a person who is asking: "If you [Muslims] reach majority in our [European] countries will you chop off my head too and of all the others?".
Since this is an increasingly wide-spread fear, we reproduce the full text of his message followed by our point-by-point comments.
If it only was as you stated. I believe no religion should be evil but I see from Islam is disgusting nothing. I never studied Islam and do not know Arabic and here is the problem. But I believe Islam is an evil religion from what I see on Internet and will always believe so. You have also vile people among Christians that is no doubt but they are not such to chop off head for a purpose of frightening people in a worst manner possible. Islam always spread with wars and Christianity not. They had martyrs and monks who went to lands and spread the word of god. Sooner or later the west will realize that and I hope soon enough. We build mosques here and so and no churches in Arabic world. Muslims only know your rights and don't want to hear about obligations. Many cultures have died out and maybe it is time for us to die out but anyway anyhow Islam is evil and that I am sure of. We westerners became to soft with you and that is the problem of all civilizations when they collapse. On the other hand you Islam countries are Bedouins and do not have nothing and they migrate into Europe and US etc.
Behind these rational words you spread there are lies and deceit as always. I think I have seen enough of Islam already to create my opinion.
If you reach majority in our countries will you chop off my head too and of all the others? I sincerely believe so.
Barb wire around all Islamic countries and walls with military surveillance and you should have your own countries then and regimes as you please. No atomic bomb until you reach some stage of development and liberalism.
But then again you have bought off many politicians long time ago and we are the dying breed now. But I see many people standing against it nowadays and hopefully we can still save western civilization. It is not perfect but still much much better then what Islam has accomplished.
If it only was as you stated.
You have not told us to which of our statements you refer. If you want to comment on anything published on our website please quote the passage you refer to, and provide the URL of the article to which it belongs.
The Site Visitor assumes that we know what he is talking about without telling us what it is - a common "Human Communications" error.
In most "political" disputes the parties make no effort to clarify what they are arguing about, but keep exchanging meaningless accusations and counter-accusations, the sole purpose of which is to present themselves in a favourable light, while vilifying their opponents. - Nothing but posturing and name-calling.
I believe no religion should be evil.
Religion, in general, is the result of people seeking to understand their place in the world in which they find themselves and to regulate their behaviour on the basis of this understanding, thus raising themselves above the base primitive drives and emotions.
But their understanding is always limited, and raising themselves above the primitive instincts and emotions is a constant struggle which each person has to struggle individually and each human group collectively.
The "religions" are instances of this struggle as it developed among different groups of people. And, because of the limitations of human knowledge and understanding, all religions contain some false ideas and beliefs. And because of the failures of people to rise above their primitive urges and emotions, many evil acts have been committed by humans in spite of religions, and in the name of religions.
The word "evil" mean "bad". But in English it has "religious" connotations. But in practice it's use is mostly subjective and political. Bad acts committed against "us" are "evil", while atrocities committed by "us" against others would be either "glorified", or "justified", or "ignored", or in rare cases admitted as "mistakes" and "swept under the carpet".
Politicians use the word "evil" to vilify the victims of their intended aggression so as to justify their own evil acts against other people.
By presenting Islam as evil, politicians seek to justify their own wars of aggression against countries of Africa and Asia.
But I see from Islam is disgusting nothing.
Given your understanding of Islam this is not surprising.
This person's view of Islam is based on what he "sees on the Internet". And there is indeed plenty of material which presents Islam as "evil".
I never studied Islam and do not know Arabic and here is the problem.
It is possible to have a general idea about Islam without knowing Arabic, or becoming a "student of Islam". We have a comparative overview of the 3 Abrahamic religions at
which gives you a general view of the Abrahamic Religions: Judaism, Christianity and Islam.
The problem this person has with his view of Islam, is due not to lack of knowledge of Arabic, or failure to "study Islam" - ignorance is a normal condition, nobody knows everything. His problem is that he forms strong beliefs, without having made the necessary effort to inform himself on the subject of his "hatred".
Forming strong beliefs without adequate knowledge is the real meaning of the word "bigotry", although politicians often use the word "bigotry" to describe views of those who disagree with them.
But I believe Islam is an evil religion from what I see on Internet and will always believe so.
There is indeed much anti-Islamic propaganda published on the Internet, and if you believe it, you would hate Islam, which is what the purpose of this propaganda is.
There has been anti-Arab and anti-Islamic propaganda in the USA by some pro-Israel groups for over 50 years. And there was a surge of it after the 1967 war. But after the "9/11" it has assumed massive proportions, and has been further increased this year. This propaganda campaign has spread to Europe.
The purpose of this vilification of Islam is to justify wars of aggression and other criminal acts committed by politicians by presenting them as a "Fight against Islamic Extremism".
You have also vile people among Christians that is no doubt but they are not such to chop off head for a purpose of frightening people in a worst manner possible.
Not only you have no knowledge of Islam, but you have no knowledge of Christianity either. All the European Christian kingdoms and empires used to "chop off head for a purpose of frightening people in a worst manner possible" and they used even more "frightening" punishments up to the 20th Century. And in the 20th Century they engaged in the most destructive and murderous wars (World War I and World War II), as well as committing multiple mass atrocities against the people of Asia and Africa in their colonial wars.
This aggressive behaviour of the ethnically Christian "powers" has been revived in our times and can be seen in the American-European wars of aggression against Iraq and Afghanistan.
Exemplary punishments, like public hangings, beheadings, etc., are not specifically "Islamic", but are common to governments of all religions. The reason that they were performed in public was indeed to "frighten" the public and thus to prevent crimes from being committed. Public beheading or hanging of a criminal was an effective means of preventing others from committing crimes. Punishing a criminal by killing him with a "lethal injection" (as practiced today in the USA) is not more "humane" or "kind", as far as the victim is concerned, than hanging or beheading - in either case the loss of consciousness by the victim is instant, but it lacks the deterring (frightening) effect of a "public execution", and is a less efficient way of crime prevention.
Islam always spread with wars and Christianity not.
Although there are examples of some European Kingdoms accepting Christianity of their own free will (like Russia), much of the spread of Christianity around the world is due to imperial conquests and forcible conversions.
An early Russian monarch, having heard that religion is good for "good governance", sent messengers East and West to learn about different religions. Having heard the messengers accounts about the religions they saw, he liked Islam, but, because Islam prohibits drinking of alcohol, chose Christianity, as he had no hope of weaning the Russians of their drinking habits. Alcohol is still a major problem in Russia even today.
They had martyrs and monks who went to lands and spread the word of god.
From the earliest times of the spread of Christianity in Europe it was adopted as a state religion of the two rival empires: Byzantium (Greece) and the Roman Empire. And after the demise of these two empires Christianity was "nationalised" by the emerging European "powers", which became "Empires" in the own turn. So you have "The Church of England", "The German Lutheran Church", "The Russian Orthodox Church", etc. And all these European Powers waged colonial wars and spread their versions of Christianity by whatever weapons they had in their possession.
Up to the 20th century Christianity was the basis of political and social life of most European countries. Being an integral part of the European monarchies it was also highly nationalistic, and wars between the the various rival European national monarchies were often justified by the particular "national" versions of Christianity.
Traces of such rival Christian nationalisms can be still observed in Northern Ireland and the Balkans.
One of the ideas advanced by the promoters of the hatred towards Islam is to present it as "inherently violent" as opposite to all "other religions" and "us the West", which are "peaceful". This is contradicted by all the Human History and the current events: the incessant wars between the European states up to the 20th century culminating in the two World Wars, the colonial wars waged by "the West" against the people of Africa and Asia, and the current wars by "us the West" waged under the slogan of "War on Terror".
Sooner or later the west will realize that and I hope soon enough. We build mosques here and so and no churches in Arabic world.
The reasons that in some European countries mosques are built is because there live some Muslim communities, who build these mosques for their own use. The reason there are less churches being built in Europe, and of some of the existing churches falling into disuse is that many people in Europe find it difficult to continue to maintain their Christian beliefs.
Many Arab countries (like Egypt, Syria, Iraq, etc) have substantial Christian communities and many Christian churches. Some of these Christian communities date back to times before Christianity reached Europe, while others are the result of the European Crusades and European Colonialism.
Following the demise of the European Colonial Empires in the middle of the 20th Century, there was an influx into Europe of immigrants from the former colonies. And, as the cost of "native" European labour has risen sharply in Europe, due to the emergence of the Welfare State, the immigrants from the former colonies provided a cheap alternative and were welcomed by the European governments of the time. There were, however, some violent anti-immigrant groups, who attacked immigrants, not because of a "religion", but because of their "colour" [of skin]. Such groups in post-WWII Europe were condemned by the main political parties and the main-stream media, as "racist", or "fascist".
This time also saw mass secularisation among the Europeans and to many churches becoming redundant. The immigrants, however, retained their religions and many temples, gurduvaras, and mosques have been built. Up to the end of the 20th centuries this was not seen as a problem.
In the recent years there has been a surge of "European Secular Christian Nationalism" - the proponents of this movement are not "religious" and have no knowledge of Christianity, but they proclaim themselves "Christian" and talk about "Christian Values" and call for a war against the "Evil of Islam".
Muslims only know your rights and don't want to hear about obligations.
If you were familiar with Islam, which you are not, you would know that Islam imposes many obligations on its followers, giving precedence to obligations over "rights". There are no rights without obligations, and there are obligations without rights. It is a modern European secular tendency to promote "rights without obligations" which is one of the reasons for the current European moral decay.
The "rights and obligations" of Islam are based on Natural Justice and Natural Morality, which in their turn are based on the understanding of Human Nature. The "rights and obligations" as understood by the site visitor is whatever the politicians in power want it to be.
Many cultures have died out and maybe it is time for us to die out but anyway anyhow Islam is evil and that I am sure of.
The decay of the European civilisation to which you refer is not due to the "Threat of Islam", it is the result of the abandonment of the Christian Morality by the Europeans themselves, and replacement of it by a decadent, sodomitic "Pop Culture", which promotes use of the reproductive instincts and emotions for entertainment, use of alcohol and drugs, break down of the family, sodomy, dishonesty in government as a norm, aggressive senseless wars justified by false arguments.
According to (5) above, all his knowledge of Islam is based on what he has seen on anti-Islamic web sites on the Internet.
We westerners became too soft with you and that is the problem of all civilizations when they collapse.
You see the world divided into "us the West" and "them the Muslims" who act as some kind of monolithic "forces" fighting each other. But this is only in your imagination - the real world is not like that.
Islam is a religion not a "race". Nor is it limited to a particular geographical area. As more and more people East or West, learn about Islam, they see it not as a "Cause of the Civilizational Collapse", but as a foundation on which the Human Civilization will be re-built, having been destroyed by those who call themselves "Us the West".
On the other hand you Islam countries are Bedouins and do not have nothing and they migrate into Europe and US etc.
Bedouins are nomadic tribes that live in some parts of Africa and Asia - they can be of any religion, or no religion at all.
In most African and Asian countries most people are not nomads (that is people who do not have a permanent settlement but travel from place to place, like European Gypsies), but live in cities, towns and villages. And although some Asian and African countries have predominantly Muslim populations, many of them do not have Muslim governments, but are secular nationalist democracies - similar to the former Yugoslavia (or the present day Slovenia).
Here is another example of the false ideas about Islam prevalent among those who call themselves "Us the West".
The reference to Slovenia is due to the site visitor having a Slovenian name and a Slovenian address.
Behind these rational words you spread there are lies and deceit as always.
But you do not say what these "lies and deceits" are, nor which "rational" words you refer to, so we do not know what you are talking about.
We do get from time to time informed that we are "all wrong" without any reference to anything written by us. Such "global" refutations are typical examples of "political argument".
I think I have seen enough of Islam already to create my opinion.
Where have you "seen" it? What do you mean by "Islam" at all?
According to (5) above, all his knowledge of Islam is based on what he has seen on anti-Islamic web sites on the Internet. But many of the "opinions" about Islam among "western" experts, academics and "public figures" are based on even less "knowledge" than exhibited by this site visitor.
If you reach majority in our countries will you chop off my head too and of all the others? I sincerely believe so.
There are some "democratic politicians" in Europe who promote such ideas to frighten people like yourself into supporting them. Such fear mongering and promotion of hate of some groups is permanent feature of the European democracies: in the past it was the fear and hatred of the Jews and the Gypsies, now of the Muslims.
There is no threat to any of the European countries of being attacked or "overwhelmed" by Muslims from Asian and African countries.
But as the Europeans learn more about Islam, the people of understanding of European origin accept Islam of their own free will. And this happens due to the anti-Islamic propaganda. While you accept the anti-Islamic propaganda, because it makes you feel "superior", people of understanding - that is knowledgeable, rational people see in Islam the salvation from the European immorality and social decay.
Such baseless frivolous speculations are typical of the "political discourse". One of the current justifications for the Iraq war is: "If we had not removed Saddam Hussein, he would have developed nuclear weapons and attacked us". And the current Afghan War was justified by saying: "If we do not defeat the Taliban, we shall have to fight them in the streets of London". These totally baseless statements were made by persons at the top government level of a "leading western power".
Barbed wire around all Islamic countries and walls with military surveillance and you should have your own countries then and regimes as you please.
The US and NATO have already attacked and invaded some countries seeking to install "regimes" of their own liking, but this has only strengthened Islam, and spread it more around the world, while the US and Europe have been weakened in every sense.
This recipe is already in use by the Israeli government in Palestine: the Gaza blockade, and the West Bank "bantustans".
No atomic bomb until you reach some stage of development and liberalism.
The only country, which you would call "Islamic" that has "atomic bomb" is Pakistan, whom the USA see as their friend and ally.
No other "Muslim" countries have such weapons. The "threat to the West" does not come from an "Islamic Atomic Bomb", but from the criminality and immorality of the "West" itself. Honest, informed thinking people in the USA and Europe increasingly become aware of the criminality of the politics of their own countries, and at some point they will realise that aggressive ideological militarism which is now prevalent in the USA and Europe is against their own interests, and they will reject it and replace it with government based on "Rule of Law based on Natural Justice and Morality"- and this is what Islam is.
This is one of the main points of the "War on Terror" ideology. The Iraq War was originally justified by the need to "disarm Saddam Hussein", who was "accused" of possession of Weapons of Mass Destruction. Not only was he accused of something which other countries have, but even that accusation was baseless.
Now similar accusations are made against Iran, with calls for a war against that country.
But then again you have bought off many politicians long time ago and we are the dying breed now.
Muslims have practically no influence over the western politicians. But whenever an elections approaches, western politicians proclaim their "support for Israel" and condemn "Islamic Extremism". So, who has "bought off" the politicians?
The "dying out" is the results of use of alcohol, spread of sexually transmitted diseases, break down of the natural family, failure to use their reproductive organs for their natural purpose, abuses of government powers and acceptance of dishonesty as standard practice in government.
So those who call themselves "Us the West" are "a dying breed", because Muslims "have bought off many politicians a long time ago"?
But I see many people standing against it nowadays and hopefully we can still save western civilization.
The way to save whatever is worth saving from the remnants of the European Civilisation is to reject the false ideas prevalent today in the "Western World" and to accept the Morality of Islam. But since most politicians will "never" accept that they are wrong, it will take some time before it happens.
It is true that there is a massive campaign against Islam, ranging from propaganda, to anti-Islamic laws, to wars of aggression. But is this campaign "saving the Western Civilization"? Or is this anti-Islamic delirium but a symptom of the final stage of the terminal decay of the Western Dominance? And has not every "Western" military "victory" resulted but in strengthening and further spread of Islam?
It is not perfect but still much much better then what Islam has accomplished.
It is like that proverbial stinking bad egg - which is still "good in parts". There is no hope of a bad egg becoming good, it can only become worse as time goes by.
Thank you for visiting our websites.
Here "It" stands for "Us the West" or "The Western Civilization", as the site visitor imagines it to be. And his thinking is on the lines of the "Cold War Era" of "Competition between East and West". Of which "system" has "Greater Achievements", who will be "the First to reach the Moon" or to build more "Atomic Bombs"?
But the difference between "Us-the-West-ism" and Islam is not in who has more bombs, but in which religion can provide basis for Human Government in the Global World? The one based on worship of "Political Power" which is sought and preserved by violence, deception and manipulation of the lowest of base instincts, or the one based on Natural Justice and Natural Morality?
Although the above message from a site visitor could be dismissed as "rantings of an ignorant person", all the points made by him are not "his", but are part of the ideology developed by Benyamin Netanyahu, originally in his books, then adopted by the Bush government as the "War on Terror" doctrine, and now that the "War on Terror" has become discredited by the Bush Wars, has mutated into the current campaign to "Save the World from Islamic Extremism".
This latest phase of Netanyahu's War on Terror is fought on a number of fronts: (1) vilification of Islam (see the table above), (2) "Advocacy of Israel" by special "advocates" in the Media and on the various Internet forums and discussion boards, (3) direct military action (using the USA and NATO military power), (4) direct and indirect control of the USA and European governments, (5) control of the Main-Stream Media in the USA and Europe, (6) common subversion and espionage, (7) encouraging and fomenting internal unrest in countries of Africa and Asia, (8) encouraging and provoking "conflicts" between countries of Africa and Asia, (9) use of the "Weapons of Mass Corruption", that is promotion of vices and discouragement of virtues (often under the cover of "modernizing Islam") so as to achieve "cultural" domination.
But the first ten years of the "War on Terror" has not made Israel safe, nor has it resulted in a "Western Triumph", but have seen strengthening and spreading of Islam. The next ten years of that war will see still further decline in the Western Dominance, diminution of the Security of Israel, and strengthening and spread of Islam.