Muhammed was a totally EVIL person, abnd thats why the terrorists are so whacked

Now that you have at least tried a little harder to post an original argument (which nevertheless included 107 directly plagiarized words), let me clarify my points: 1. You wish to show that today's terrorism is a product of Muhammad's "life and legacy." To do this, you go to anti-Muslim hate-speech sites and claim that they actually recount Muhammad's life. Thus, your very argument is based on racist distortions, instead of optimally objective facts. Your argument fails because you do not even provide an objective foundation for it. 2. In order to connect Muhammad's "life and legacy" to modern terrorism, you state that the proof lies in the culprits' claim that they are following their religion. Evidently, you believe that terrorists can blow you up, but they cannot lie, let alone deceive themselves (or be deceived by their leaders). Thus, your argument fails because it takes this absurdity as an axiom. 3. If you pursue #2 above to its logical conclusion, you will inculpate Jesus in the incomparable atrocities thus far carried out among Christian nations, very often in the name of Jesus himself, which go far beyond anything that can be found among Islï¿½mic nations, in both ruthlessness and sheer number of deaths (see below). Yet you discount those events as a mysterious exception to your logic. In conclusion, your syllogism fails because it: (a) is built on a foundation of anti-Islï¿½mic hate speech instead of legitimate sources; and (b) uses causal logic that would equally implicate Jesus. Now, here are a few sites with a decent overview of Muhammad's life, which are *neither* Islï¿½mic in origin *nor* anti-Islï¿½mic hate-speech sites. Note especially Encyclopaedia Britannica, whose authority is uncontestable: http://www.pbs.org... (brief overview in the form of a timeline) http://www.religionfacts.com... (medium-length article on the life of Muhammad) http://www.britannica.com... (Encyclopaedia Britannica's full-length article) AFter you read these, consider objectively the history of anti-Islï¿½mic propaganda throughout European history and what it has left us in modern times. Also consider the fact that biographies and supposed sayings of Muhammad written centuries after he died reflect the opinions or agendas of those people who wrote them. And now, on to your accusations: 1. You wrote that Muhammad "raided over 85 Jewish caravans." Exaggerated, of course, but it is true that Muslims in Madï¿½nah (not usually Muhammad specifically) "raided caravans" at a particular point in history. Your fallacy is not knowing or caring why. The highway projecting north of Makkah ran right through Madï¿½nah, thence northward toward Syria, westward toward an important port of call, and eastward toward Persia. The Makkans were attacking and harassing the Muslims in Madï¿½nah. The Muslims fought back at first by enforcing an embargo against Makkah. 2. You wrote that Muhammad "brutally tortur[ed] and murder[ed] the men." No, he didn't. Read an objective account before you say this. Yes, executions took place during the wars. No, torture did not occur. Read the Qur'ï¿½n for a clearer understanding of what the Muslims were and were not permitted to do. I trust you at least understand the concept of treason and the danger it represents in wartime, correct? Yes, it does merit the utmost penalty. 3. You wrote that Muhammad "enslav[ed] and repeatedly rap[ed] the women." Again, read the objective accounts. He did no such thing, but yes, your anti-Islï¿½mic hate-speech sites will try hard to claim the ultimate depravities at all cost. In fact, European sources have a long history of doing exactly this, so distortions of the life of Muhammad in European sources actually go back several centuries, which provide a lot of today's material. 4. You wrote that Muhammad "married a 6 year old, Ayisha." Yes, he did. But again, you don't understand this, do you? In many cultures, marriages were arranged. A "betrothal," often a very young age, proceeded the marriage ceremony. Later, the official ceremony took place. Among the early Arabs, however, the betrothal in these politically motivated cases was the "marriage" contract itself, and the groom was often decades older than the bride. Historians know that it was political in nature. Review European history for many examples of far younger cases! Of your points regarding plagiarism, this one is particularly interesting: You wrote: "I am a published technical author in many reputable journals." Wow. I'd love to run those through the plagiarism detection software! Please send me the references, so I can do so. I look forward to it! Just give me one reference, and I can take it from there! I'm serious! Here are a few other points: 1. You wrote: "[E]veryone who tries to say [Craig Winn's] site is 'right wing' [...]." Not right-wing. It's anti-Islï¿½mic hate speech. Craig Winn's resorting to a curiously twisted translation of the Qur'ï¿½n to prove his points is more than enough to show that his agenda is the same as yours, albeit with a lot more originality. 2 You wrote: "You, like the liberals and democrats, try and equate somehow ISLAM and CHRISTIANITY." I'm a conservative. Here is a synpsis of atrocities committed by Christian nations, often explicitly in the name of Christianity itself: http://www.islam101.com.... How did Jesus cause this? 3. You wrote: "While you can point to ingorant people in HISTORY trying to use Christ to empower themselves, and commit violence, it is NOT from what he taught." My point indeed. Think about it. 4. You wrote: "[T]he KKK, a racist idiotic, [is] now non exisitent." Go their website: http://www.kkk.com.... One of the first things its says is "Bringing a Message of Hope and Deliverance to White Christian America! A Message of Love NOT Hate!" Remember what you said: "IN THEIR OWN WORDS"! Here are some recent deaths committed through KKK inspiration as late as 1998: http://www.dickgregory.com.... CLOSING ARGUMENT Islï¿½mofascist terrorism is terrorism in the name of Islï¿½m. It is no more legitimately Islï¿½mic in origin than the genocide by Bosnian Christian Serbs of 200,000 Bosnian Muslims from 1992 to 1995, an atrocity sparked by Orthodox Christian Serbs' racially inspired claims of mistreatment by Bosnian Muslims (http://www.unitedhumanrights.org...). Both the Bosnian Christian Serbs and al-Qï¿½'idah are examples of how terrorists will hijack religion to justify their violence. Yet the Bosnian Christian atrocity alone puts Christianofascism far ahead of Islï¿½mofascism among today's headlines. Islï¿½mophobic websites abound these days, which spew the same kinds of hatred as that which set off the Bosnian genocide. In this respect, they are hardly different from the Ku Klux Klan's propaganda, which likewise continues to inspire violence against African Americans in the name of Christianity (reference Dick Gregory, above). These anti-Islï¿½mic hate-speech sites usually start by cherry-picking a few favorite verses from the Qur'ï¿½n, which they then try to explain in the worst possible way (cf. http://www.islamicresourceonline.org...). Of course, were we to do the same with the Old Testament, it would be a far easier, but no more justifiable, task. Devout Christians and Muslims alike must be unified in their opposition to violence committed in their name. The Bible tells us, "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God" (Matthew 5:9). The Qur'ï¿½n tells us, "Anyone who kills a person who has not committed murder, or who has not committed corruption in the land; then it is as if he has killed all the people! And whoever spares a life, then it is as if he has given life to all the people" (5:32). Conscientious people of both faiths have a lot more in common than they have that should divide them.