Google

10.09.2007

Opinion Column - Not Running in Paper!

That's right, folks. My normal weekly column has been pulled from the paper. However, you can still enjoy it right here on the blog.

Basically, this column was called unfair, uninformed, unbalanced, racist and inappropriate. It was also told to me by the management that it would cause a "headache" for them. Apparently free speech is not worth a headache in the newsroom of The Collegian. Oh well. They can't silence me.

I have requested written documentation stating why this following column is racist and/or inappropriate. I requested this at 10:56pm. When I receive (or don't receive) the information, I will begin to pursue justice.

10:56pm: Request for written documentation.
1:26am: No response from Editor.
6:47am: Nothing.

8:54am: Nothing.
10:48am: Empty inbox.
3:32pm: I'm done holding my breath.
5:27pm: Nothing.

6:03pm: I was fired from The Collegian.


Religion of Violence

Liberals act dangerously to compare Islam to Christianity

“Radical Christianity is just as threatening as radical Islam, in a country like America,” Rosie O’Donnell told millions of Americans when she was still a host on “The View.” This skewed attitude is not unique to O’Donnell; it is one shared by many liberals across the country. Too many individuals are scared to admit the truth, that Islam is nothing like Christianity or any other religion based on Judeo-Christian principles. It is, in fact, a religion of violence.

In a span of four debates, not one Democratic presidential candidate said the words “Islamic terrorists.” Instead, the candidates – and many other liberals – each tip toe around the idea that a religion is the foundation of terrorism. However, when the facts are examined, it is hard to deny that Islam is a violent religion, and one that has bred terrorism.

The Koran contains many verses that are violent. Now, this is not to dismiss the fact that there are also violent verses in the Bible, the book that many Christians hold to be the Word of God. The difference, however, is that the verses in the Bible are merely descriptive; the verses found in the Koran are prescriptive. “In the Koran, there are open ended universal commands for believers to wage war against non-believers,” says Robert Spencer, author of numerous books that examine the history and theology of Islam. “There is nothing that is like that in the Bible anywhere.” In chapter nine verse 29 of the Koran, believers are called to “fight against those who…do not truly believe either in God or the Last Day…till they [have been] humbled in war.”

Verses in the Koran are not the only source of violence found in Islam. The belief of jihad is also a violent concept that many Islamists carry out. This is not to say that every Muslim practices jihad or is a violent individual, but Islam as a whole is a system that calls its believers to practice this “holy war.”

Another belief that many liberals, including O’Donnell, share is that this country’s occupation of Iraq has created terrorists and violence. This could not be farther from the truth. In 1998, Osama bin Laden wrote an article with a few other radical jihadists that called for a fatwa, or a legal ruling, to all Muslims to kill Americans and their allies. In the article, bin Laden says, “The ruling to kill the Americans and their allies – civilians and military – is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it…” The article goes on to say, “This is in accordance with the words of Almighty Allah…” First off, this article goes on to promote the idea that Islam is a religion of violence. However, it also makes aware the notion that jihadists wanted Americans dead long before Operation Iraqi Freedom. In fact, this article was written three years before the horrific attacks on September 11th, 2001.

Americans need to stand up for Western civilization and Judeo-Christian principles, the same principles that this country was founded on. “Whether or not we are Christians ourselves…the Judeo-Christian civilization is still something we are enjoying the benefits of living in the Western world,” Spencer says. “To attack Christianity, ultimately, is to attack one of the foundations of this civilization.”

The religion of Islam promotes the destruction of every foundation of America. Even though not every Islamist believes this is right, the basis of this religion is to destroy any and all non-believers. To side with Islam is to side with the enemy of America.

71 comments:

Shawn said...

I don't blame the collegian for pulling it. That is a mess no one wants. Also quoting Ann Coulter later in your blog isn't helping your credibility.

Anonymous said...

Right, because Coulter completely lacks intelligence on anything of importance, right? Give me a break. It's a mess, but it's not vulgar, obscene, or libelous. Standing up for what is right often means taking some heat...Plus, it's just an opinion column! It should have ran.

Chuck said...

Who should I quote? Harry Reid? Pelosi? Schumer? Franken?

Becky said...

While I don't disagree with you about the Koran being a book that can incite violence, it is faulty interpretation that leads to the most problems. There are spots in the Old Testament that describe how genocide must be carried out in order to prevent retribution. This strict following of doctrine by Nazis led to the mass genocide of Jews, gypsies, and anyone else thought to be against god. While Christians follow the New Testament it is still a book that is open to interpretation. This interpretation has led to religious infighting. Ireland is an example of this religious infighting. Yes there is more to the whole Ireland debacle, but it is just a small example. So your contention that Islam is somehow more dangerous than Christianity is erroneous. It is the miss-interpretation of doctrine, and the need to follow blindly that is dangerous. There have been many genocides, wars, and crusades in the name of Christianity. Death is death in any time period.

Chuck said...

While many have committed acts of violence in the name of Christianity, they are doing so by inaccurately interpreting the Bible. The Bible tells what will happen to sinners by the hand of God, not what should happen by the hand of man/believers. The Koran tells what should happen by the hand of man/believers to non-believers who will not convert. There is no gray area in regards to that in the Koran.

jordan said...

The fact that the Collegian didn't publish this column goes to show how ignorant America still is when it comes to islamic terrorism.

Anonymous said...

It should have ran. You didn't say EVERY person was violent and did a great job of making your point. The Collegian is still full of raging liberals who were probably just looking for an excuse to drop you. I couldn't handle that paper and finally quit there when I was in school because of that. Kudos on sticking it out for so long.

Michael said...

As I have said before, it is ok for Kevin Phillips to constantly bash Christians, but when it comes to any other religion people start crying.
I bet Bill O'Reilly would like to hear about this story.

Jeri Anne Mayo said...

I'm pretty ticked that the collegian pulled it, although I highly disagree with your article. I've studied religions of the world for quite a while and Islam is a very peaceful religion. People like Osama are like the Phelps with Christianity, just crazy fundies. People should study other religions to better understand people. Maybe people could get along better. Islamics believe that they are the third and final chapter of the Jewish and Christian God. Their Allah. It's all the same God. Islam in it's true nature is very very peaceful. And the bible is very violent. There is a story in there about how a woman is raped and the jews kill almost an entire tribe over it. I'll admit to that and I'm a Christian. You really should have delved more into Islam and learned what it is about before you wrote this, they probably would have been more likely to run it, although it IS an opinion column and they should have ran it anyway.

Jeri Anne Mayo said...

I am all for free speech, but I totally disagree with your column. Islam in it's true form is a very peaceful religion. The terrorist could be compared to the Phelps for Christianity. They are fundamentalist and don't go with the norm of the religion. The bible has some very violent stories in it. There is one about how a woman is raped and then almost an entire jewish tribe is wiped out because of her rape. Islam believes that they are the 3rd and final chapter of God's story for the people. The Jews had the first chapter, the Christians the second and they are the third. It all builds. And it is all the same God. You really really should research the religion before you write a story like this. I've studied religions of the world for about 5 years, Islam is very peaceful. And just like people twist things in the bible, people do the same with the Koran. Jihad does not mean holy war, Jihad means a personal war with yourself. Like some have a Jihad with eating too much. It's a challenge to overcome. The fundies have just twisted the word to make it a holy war. Research the religion.

Jeri Anne Mayo said...

crap sorry for the double post. My internet went down when I was trying to post the first.

Chuck said...

Tell me why Islam is a religion of peace.

Jeri Anne Mayo said...

According to Islam, the three basic elements of building a peace culture are: Compassion, Forgiveness and Respect for all.
You only hear the bad side of Islam. You never hear about the normal Islam, the people that wouldn't hurt a fly. I have a friend that is an Atheist and the reason why they were so against Christianity was because they only heard about the Crusades and people like Fred Phelps. Those are the only things that make the news. The people who take a small part of the religion and make a huge deal out of it. You know that Christianity isn't about judging others because of their lifestyle. It's about loving Christ and your neighbors. Just like Islam is not about killing everyone who isn't Islamic. You can't judge a religion just by what you hear about a small group of people in the news. You need to know the roots of it before you pass judgment and label everyone in that group as violent. Besides the bible has passages in it that are very violent against non-Christians: Deuteronomy 13:6-16

"6. If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which [is] as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers; 7. [Namely], of the gods of the people which [are] round about you, nigh unto thee, or far off from thee, from the [one] end of the earth even unto the [other] end of the earth; 8. Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him: 9. But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people. 10. And thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die; because he hath sought to thrust thee away from the Lord thy God, which brought thee out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage. 11. And all Israel shall hear, and fear, and shall do no more any such wickedness as this is among you. 12. If thou shalt hear [say] in one of thy cities, which the Lord thy God hath given thee to dwell there, saying, 13. [Certain] men, the children of Belial, are gone out from among you, and have withdrawn the inhabitants of their city, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which ye have not known; 14. Then shalt thou enquire, and make search, and ask diligently; and, behold, [if it be] truth, [and] the thing certain, [that] such abomination is wrought among you; 15. Thou shalt surely smite the inhabitants of that city with the edge of the sword, destroying it utterly, and all that [is] therein, and the cattle thereof, with the edge of the sword. 16. And thou shalt gather all the spoil of it into the midst of the street thereof, and shalt burn with fire the city, and all the spoil thereof every whit, for the Lord thy God: and it shall be an heap for ever; it shall not be built again."

But does that make Christianity a violent religion? No. People are only reading certain verses out of the Koran so they can point out how violent it is. You have to read the whole thing to know what the religion is really about. Plus every religion kills people who don't believe in it. Jews have, Islamics have, Christians have. It's human nature. It's not right, but it's not just an Islamic thing.

Jeri Anne Mayo said...

Oh, and they really can't say they pulled it due to racism because Islam isn't a race, it's a religion. One point for Chuck.

Chuck said...

In chapter nine verse 29 of the Koran, believers are called to “fight against those who…do not truly believe either in God or the Last Day…till they [have been] humbled in war.”

The Bible speaks of what will happen by the hand of God. The Koran speaks of what should happen by the hand of man. This is no mystery or epiphany that I brought about in my column, and to refute this is not to refute me, but it is to refute history.

Where in the Koran does it speak of peace, compassion and forgiveness?

Chuck said...

Oh, and very good point: Islam is in fact not a race. Thanks for the point!

This is what I love about opinion columns...They generate discussion. The Collegian should have ran my column and then opened their doors up to guest columnists or letters to the editor that tried to refute my opinion...That's how it works...But to pull my column takes any opinion out of my hands and the readers' hands.

And, at the very core of this, I am a conservative columnist writing conservative columns. Just like "bury" could be construed as a threat, my situation could be construed as a liberal paper silencing conservative voices. 2 points for Chuck.

Clint Blaes said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Clint Blaes said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Clint Blaes said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
The Anti-Federalist said...

Chuck,

It's Jonas you're old editor returned to haunt you from beyond the graduation stand - ooooooh.

A few points from an "insider."
1) You don't flat-out proclaim that every Muslim is a terror-breeding OBL fanboy. But you don't go to any great lengths to separate the wheat from the chaff (take that metaphor, ag boy!)

Any newspaper editor, when confronted with a blanket or near-blanket statement is going to get a case of the vapors. Imagine a K-State columnist claiming that black men (note the absence of all) are more likely to spend time in jail. Phrased one way, it is a statistical fact, phrased another it is a bigoted statement. You may claim this is semantic hair-splitting, but the libel lawyers will disagree.

2) Going point/counter-point with Koran verse-Bible verse is an exercise in futility. The defining characteristic of any believer is that they are right and the other is wrong. But religions of all flavors have historically shown their endless benevolence by raping and pillaging the other guy - this is a failure of people and not religion.

If I were there, I probably would have sent the column back and told you to clarify some of what sounded like blanket statements. But each editor is going to have to decide what they can and cannot live with. On one end is a refusal to tackle anything of value; on the other end is CSU's idiotic "Taze this, editorial."

As for my personal feelings, the column just seems sort of willfully close-minded. Both in and out of the military I've met Muslims who love America heart and soul. In fact, there are a good number of crescents above soldier's memorials.

Brad said...

It's not a question of whether or not you agree with it. The collegian gave him permission to write a column about his opinion, he did that, and because the looney liberals at the collegian disagree with what was said, they pull it. What a bunch of idiots! All of the stupid liberals say "they're the ones who'll protect freedom of speech" and then censor something for political gain. Screw the liberals, screw the Collegian and write on Chuck.

Anonymous said...

It's easy for the editors to say they didn't want to run the article for fear of being sued. Much easier than saying their real reasons. But, maybe the eds need to go back and take mass comm law. One of the fundamental elements required to prove libel is that it causes personal harm to an individual. You cannot libel a group, unless a group is small enough that individual members of the group could prove that they were harmed. The only individual mentioned in Chuck's article is OBL, and I don't think he's going to sue.

Another thing that would have to be proven is errors in fact. Statements of pure opinion cannot be libelous. So far, I haven't heard anyone accuse Chuck of having any factual errors. People have said they disagree with his opinion, but it is not - in its facts - erroneous.

Here's a good resource for what is and what is not libel.

The eds weren't scared of being sued (and if they were, they shouldn't have been), they were just scared of causing controversy. Thanks Chuck for giving them even more controversy than would have been caused by your article running.

Kathryn Koepke said...

Whether or not people agree or disagree with the article, it is an opinion column. It is just that...your OPINION (not necessarily fact). People have the right to agree or disagree with someone's opinions. If the Collegian wants to censor what you write in an opinion column, what's the point of having an opinion column? Anyway, I am sorry to hear that you were fired. You should be proud for standing up for your beliefs and defending your opinions.

Kathryn Koepke said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
The Anti-Federalist said...

Speculation as to "their real reason" is just that, speculation. The Collegian editors have shown plenty of times that they aren't afraid of controversy.

What is at issue is the Collegian's, decision not to publish a column, as is the editors' rights. Collegian columnists are pretty much freelancers that submit works for review, if the Collegian doesn't like it then they aren't obliged to use it.

At the heart, it's ridiculous to think that the Collegian opinion page is liberally biased. The opinion editor is Brett King for crying out loud!

Anonymous said...

The Koran is quite blatant in it's stance for violence. In fact some of the names used to refer to Allah translate to Satan. If that's not a vote for violence, I don't know what it. On the other side, Christianity is meant to breed peace. The Bible is firm on this virture. Christ taught the importance of peace. Often what we confuse in definition is that peace does not equal a lack of passion. Being enthused, strongly opinionated, being able to get angry and stand for truth can exist alongside of peace. Peace may equal tranquility, and serenity but it does not exclude passion.

I'm sorry more people will not be able to read this opinion column. It was well done.

Anonymous said...

Jonas,

I don't disagree with you that the eds have the right to pull the column if it's bad. But the reasoning given to Chuck for the column being pulled were that it was racist and not balanced. Well, it wasn't racist, and opinion columns aren't supposed to be balanced. We've established that they can't claim libel either. So, there are basically two options left for why they wouldn't run it, and neither is a very good one.

1. It would stir up too much controversy. Maybe they are a little gun-shy after the past minority uproars at the collegian. One got Ron Johnson removed as advisor, and another recent one blew over without much incident.

2. They disagreed with the viewpoint and suppressed Chuck's column. Probably less likely, but not out of the question.

If they were looking for the "don't stir up controversy" route, they didn't succeed. There's been plenty of controversy now about the column NOT running. Plus, it somewhat violates one of the fundamental purposes of journalism, to provide a forum to promote intelligent debate about the issues of the day.

Bottom line is that they should have run the column and let the readers decide to agree or disagree. They denied the readers the ability to do so.

Unholy Infidel said...

There are two main issues here.

1)There are muslim students at KSU. They are already a minority here. This article would put them under a magnifying lens, making them even more uncomfortable here at KSU. KSU is all about inclusiveness and exposing the students to different cultures. The article could establish a hostile atmosphere of intolerance, and could incite a student to commit a violent act against a muslim student. There has been too much violence on college campuses already, and I am sure no KSU student wants a violent incident here. I think the editor was wise to not run the article. Sorry.

2)You do have the right to say whatever you want, limited only by the law, but the Collegian does not have to grant you the use of their paper to say it in. You have your blog, and you have your say here, so you can't claim that your opinion hasn't been heard. As was previously pointed out, the editor has the right to decide what to print and what not to print, that is the editor's job.

Accepting that what you say about Islam is true, doesn't necessarily mean that what you allege about Christianity is true. Don't forget all the wars of religion fought throughout Europe by christians. Don't forget the Holy Inquisition, or the Salem Village and other New England colonies witch trials. The fact of the matter is, too many people die in the name of religion, regardless of the religion involved. The only answers seem to be:

1)Tolerance (as put forward in the U.S. Bill of Rights)

2)Atheism.

Until everyone becomes atheist, tolerance seems to be the only answer to the problem of religious strife. The problem comes from those persons who refuse to be tolerant of other religious views. In the current issue, the problem is fundamentalist muslims and fundamentalist christians (nothing new here). I guess the question is, are we (the Western societies) going to have to fight the crusades all over again? It seems the fundamentalist muslims are pushing for that. It appears the Western world may have no choice but to fight the Crusades once again. If so, I hope we end it once and for all. Unfortunately, I fear what it will take to make that happen, it could make the Jewish Holocaust appear insignificant in proportion.

Anonymous said...

I have to respond to "unholy infidel"'s post. It seems to me many have partially missed the point of Chuck's article. His claim was not that violence has never been done in the name of Christianity--he stated that the doctrines of Christianity are not founded on violence unlike many of those of Islam.

The difference lies in the fact that when a Christian is violent, hateful, etc., he is going against his religion. Is this true of a violent Muslim? Or is the Muslim practicing peace, love, and compassion going against their doctrines?

Finally, Jeri Ann Mayo instructed Chuck to "research the religion" before writing about it. I might suggest the same to her. She states, "Islamics believe that they are the third and final chapter of the Jewish and Christian God. Their Allah. It's all the same God." This is entirely false. Christians worship the Triune God, three in one. That is not the same Jewish and Muslim worship.

eak

Steve said...

Well done on the article. I can't believe some of the crap I've read about you getting your "marching orders from right-wing talk radio" from your university's "most tolerant."

They should pull the paper's Opinion section immediately over this.

Keep up the good work; *some* people are listening/reading.

Lori said...

Good grief. Other columnists can bash Christianity all they want, but someone intelligently wants to discuss some issues with the religion of Islam and BAM! - The column gets pulled. While I was at K-State, I worked for The Collegian, and I am sad to see this happen.

Leo said...

You shouldn't have been fired for that one column, they should have given it back to you and said "Look, you're making huge generalizations here, please clarify and revise it"

But...I've read your other opinion pieces, now that you're fired I can read the Collegian without having to come across some more Neocon propaganda. Face it, being conservative isn't hip anymore. Conservatives got us into two wars with no end, the budget deficit is breaking records, and our doller is weaker than the Canadian loonie. Someone's gotta take the heat, and that someone is the political party that's had control of the white house for the last six years.

There's a world beyond Kansas, Chuck, and it's full of beautiful unique people who are Islamic and who don't want to kill us. Maybe if you met some, you'd change your mind.

Anonymous said...

"Chuck-tard"

Chris Barker said...

I think the issue of understanding how we as Christians and/or Americans should view and respond to the Muslim community is something that is worth substantial time and consideration.

I found this article, titled "Muslims Leaders Warn Pope 'Survival of World' at Stake" fairly enlightening and thought I would add it to the mix as we all try to understand our place in today's world.

It is obvious that some Muslims would claim that their faith has led them to take the lives of innocent people in the name of Islam. Yet, we run a dangerous risk when we blanket entire religions as being wholly devoted to the causes of those said religion's followers who end up in the news most often.

In the assumptions that we make about entire groups of large people, based on what we know about a few, we easily alienate ourselves from that demographic of people. While I am not going to get into a sparring war about what the bible says concerning how we should respond to Muslim extremists, alienating ourselves from an entire people-group seems very counterproductive.

Chuck said...

It's also dangerous to make empathetic comparisons of radical Islam and radical Christianity. Yes, Rosie O'Donnell made that comparison, and yes, she is not credible in the least...But, how many millions of Americans watch The View and shake their heads to everything that is said? When Rosie said that, the crowd erupted in applause. This is dangerous. Did you know there have been 9,744 deadly terror attacks since September 11, 2001 (carried out by Islamic terrorists)? This is not an issue that needs to be dealt with by making empathetic and sympathetic comparisons. This is a serious issue, and has cost this country many lives (How many people were killed by the hands of Islamists on 9/11?).

But, this is your opinion, and I respect that. With that said, I respect everyone's (well, almost everyone's :) ) opinion on this comment section. Go Freedom of Speech!

Chris Barker said...

My first post is not intended to be in disagreement with you on any of your counterpoints. I agree with you that the two religions differ greatly and cannot be considered similar. I agree that it is sad that when famous voices speak too few question what is said. I also agree that every deadly terror attack that has happened since 9/11 and before is a terrible tragedy. I in no way want to caudal those who have committed these crimes. Yet, I do want the responsibility for those crimes to fall on those whom it justly belongs to.

The question I have asked myself is, "Are the acts of terror, mentioned above, condoned and endorsed by 100% of the Muslim community?" I do not believe it comes even close to that figure.

I am far from liberal in my political views. Yet, as we fight those who seek to destroy our nation, let us not lose sight of the 1.5-2 billion people whose families, children and souls call Islam their religion and yet have nothing to do with the terror we have been talking about.

I realize that freedom of speech is the central issue here, and I have not weighed in on that issue with these posts. My goal is simply to provide some context and balance to our often narrow-sighted view of what the religion of Islam is often thought to be. I would love to hear your thoughts on the article I mentioned in the first post.

Chuck said...

I would love to see peace amongst Muslims and Christians. However, it is historically accurate to view Islam as a religion founded on violence...This is not a conservative, close-minded view.

I also mentioned in the article that not every Muslim practices jihad (referring to the idea that not every Muslim believes in the violent foundations).

It is a good thing when Muslims stray from the historical, foundational texts of their religion.

If we can have peace amongst the two religions, then fantastic! But, it's dangerous to start saying we both follow the same god (like other comments made on this page) because that is just completely inaccurate.

Chris Barker said...

Thanks for your comments, I look forward to seeing how things shake out. Blessings.

Shawn said...

I read this today and remembered commenting about her on this blog. A couple people wondered why I thought Ann Coulter was not credible.

Ann Coulter on what the U.S. looks like in her dreams.

Coulter said it would look like the Republican National Convention in 2004 People were happy,” she said, according to a transcript provided to CNN by CNBC. “They're Christian. They're tolerant. They defend America."

When Deutsch responded, "It would be better if we were all Christian?" Coulter said "Yeah."

Deutsch, himself Jewish, continued to press Coulter on her remarks, asking, "We should just throw Judaism away and we should all be Christians then?"

"Yeah," Coulter responded, adding "Well, it's a lot easier. It's kind of a fast track."

"You can't possibly believe that," Deutsch responded. “You can’t possibly. You’re too educated.”

"Do you know what Christianity is?" Coulter replied. "See, we believe your religion, but you have to obey. We have the fast track program."

Later in the interview Deutsch asked Coulter if she doesn't want any Jews in the world, Coulter responded, "No, we think — we just want Jews to be perfected, as they say."

"Wow, you didn't really say that, did you," Deutsch said.

Advanced said...

If a Christian believes he is saved by the grace and mercy of the Lord through the death and resurrection of Jesus Chris, how can he not think Judaism, Islam, Buddahism, etc. are incorrect in their beliefs?

If Ann Coulter were to give "credibility" to Judaism, would she not be denying her own Savior? Why is she faulted for having complete faith in her beliefs?

Anonymous said...

Reasons why Chuck is right...taken from the Koran itself.


The Verse of the Sword states "When the sacred months are passed, kill those who join other gods with Allah wherever ye shall find them, besiege tem, and lay wait for them with every kind of ambush"

and then there is 9:29 "Make War upon such of those whom the scriptures have been given as they believe not in Allah, or the last day, and forbid not that which Allah and his Apostle have forbidden."

Then again, there is sensibility in the Quran especially in 10:99 "Had your lord willed, everyone on earth would have beleived. Will you then compel people to become believers?" but earlier in Q9:123 says "Make war on the infidels who dwell around you and let them see how harsh you can be."

Even further Allah is supposed to have said, in Q8-12 "I shall be with you. Give courage to the believers. I shall cast terror into the hearts of the Infidels. Strike off their heads, strike off the very tips of their fingers!"

Again in 8:60 "Muster against them all the Cavalry at your command, so taht you may strike terror into the enemies of Alla and your enemies, and others besides them who are unknown to you, but known to Allah. All that you give in the cause of Allah shall be repaid to you. You shall not be wronged."

According to the Koran, Islamic Terrorists can be in the right? Doens't sound like a religion of peace to me?

Anonymous said...

How ironic that a columnist saying how violent Islam is ends up getting fired for threatening to "bury" his editor. Who would Christ bury? Good way to show Christian hypocrisy.

Anonymous said...

I don't know that the act of "burying" was in fact a threat. Chuck said he was going to start the quest to bury the Editor in Chief, offering no ultimatum.

Plus, give me a break: What journalist doesn't use the word bury? I'm going to bury this lead, I'm going to bury George Bush...

It seems as though this misconstrued threat was the most justifiable reason to fire Chuck.

Anonymous said...

How often do you see people chanting from the Bible as they decapitate someone on YouTube?

Marie said...

Muslim Leaders Warning to the Pope that Survival of the world is at stake, is a lie all together. First of all in the letter it stated that Muslims used verses from the Bible to compare to the Quran is deceitful, because in the Quran, Muhammed proclaimed that Christians and Jews have corrupted and distorted the Bible, because there no verses mentioned about Muhammed's coming. This is Islamic proselytizing 101, because in the Quran Muhammed endorsed the practiced of Taqiyya, which in short is the art of lying in order to promote the religion of Islam. To Leo who told Chuck that their is a beautiful world around Kansas and that their are Islamic people out their who do not want to kill, I'll tell you that I am from New York, where in the city a school for Arabic speaking students has just opened and already it has stirred controversy when the students wore t-shirts with the word intifada. Also to anyone who reads this, tell me if Islam is the religion of peace, then how do you explain the persecution of nonmuslims in Muslim countries. If you don't believe I implore to visit this website www.persecution.org. I also implore you to go to a bookstore and read the Quran.

The Muslim Extremist said...

I will go out into the world and convert non-believers(infidels) by any means, even the point of a sword, AK-47, or RPG. I require that all women cover themselves and submit to the will of the husbands as well as Allah. If you commit adultery, you will be stone to death. If you deny Allah, you shall beheaded. Praise be to Allah

The Conservative Christian said...

I shall go out into the world and make followers of Jesus by the use of the word and by praying. I may stumble in my faith, but I pick myself up. I shall endure hatered for my faith, but it will make me stronger. I will do my best to love my neighbor. But I will defend my friends and family from harm or danger. I shall not force my faith on others as my fathers did with a sword. But convey my faith to others who have not known my Lord God, Jesus Christ. Amen.

Jon said...

I'm not sure why this column got pulled. The Collegian has run plenty of ignorant columns in the past. But you've got to have some kind of standards, and the editors have to make the call. It's not "censorship" -- it's just how a paper works.

There are a lot of problems with the column. There's no evidence that you have tried to understand things from a Muslim point of view. For example, "jihad" is not inherently violent. For most Muslims, it simply means the effort to make yourself a better Muslim. The term has been hijacked by violent people who happen to be Muslim, but the vast majority of Muslims believe it is not a valid use.

So how do you decide if a religion is inherently violent? I am well-versed in Christian scripture, and I don't buy your claim that the Bible only includes descriptions of violence. The Israelites were a pretty violent bunch, and so was their God. And it would not be fair to say that the Koran demands violent behavior from its followers. It's a matter of interpretation, and unless you know the language and the culture, you probably aren't qualified to judge (I know I'm not).

So do you judge a religion by what it's followers do? The vast majority of the world's Muslims are not violent. The same is true of Christians -- although Christianity has a more violent history (just look at Medieval Europe).

Furthermore, I don't see the point of branding Islam "a religion of violence". If it is, what are we supposed to do about it? Kill them all? Run them out of our country? Stop buying Saudi oil? It is essentially an emotional argument with no real-world application. All it does is alienate a billion people we have to learn how to coexist with.

Anonymous said...

Jeri Anne Mayo said...
You never hear about the normal Islam, the people that wouldn't hurt a fly.

Please read this one...
Prophet Mohammed (PBUH) Never Hurt a Fly!

Travolta said...

Anyone here know why there is not a single fatwa against Osama till to this very day, thats today?

If Islamic terrorists have hijacked the religion of peace, then logically there should be thousands of fatwa against OBL, but why we dont find a single one?

Anyone who vouch for religion of peace or the great liberals, please answer this question and try to avoid ad hominum if possible.

Andrew said...

On what Ali Baba magic carpet are those who think lslam is a peaceful religion?

It is nonsense to compare the Koran to the Bible except for academic reasons.

It is more than three centuries since Christianity prescribed death for heresy. Islam continues the practice today.

Rather count the heads of the beheaded, dozens by Islamics, none by Christians.

More than 3,000 murdered at 9/11 and more than 10,000 Islamic terrorist attacks since then around the world.

There will be no fatwa against the terrorists for the simple reason that such a fatwa would have to contradict the Koran.

Jon said...

Let me get this straight: you're saying that Islam is NOT a religion of peace, because if it WERE a religion of peace, peace-loving Muslims would WAGE WAR and issue "fatwahs" against the violent Muslims? What kind of sense does that make?

I don't care if Islam is "a religion of peace" or "a religion of violence". What do we gain by slapping that kind of simplistic label on religion observed by a billion people? Islam is a religion. Almost all of its observants are peaceful people. Some aren't.

Calling Islam "a religion of violence" really only serves one purpose: to make people who fear Muslims and want to wage war against them feel better about it. It is an attempt at rationalization.

I'm not an expert in Islam, but Christianity SHOULD be a religion of peace. It doesn't seem to be working out that way, lately. I think we need to protect ourselves, but that doesn't justify everything we've done. Neither does calling Islam "a religion of violence".

NoTaqyaa said...

Jon:
"Let me get this straight: you're saying that Islam is NOT a religion of peace, because if it WERE a religion of peace, peace-loving Muslims would WAGE WAR and issue "fatwahs" against the violent Muslims? What kind of sense does that make?"

You don't seem to understand the meaning of a term "fatwa". A fatwa is a religious dictate
given by a religious leader in islam interpretating Koran and Hadith (the sayings and teachings of Muhammad). A fatwa doesn't necesserely have anything to do with war or violence. It could be about a right for a muslim to dye his/her hair (which right they do not have).

Travolta:
"If Islamic terrorists have hijacked the religion of peace, then logically there should be thousands of fatwa against OBL, but why we dont find a single one?"

If a respected muslim cleric would issue a fatwa against Osama Bin Laden, that fatwa should
be based on religious texts and not contradicting them. However, we have a numerous fatwas
based on Koran and Hadith supporting the idea of military Jihad. There is no islamic cleric
issuing a fatwa against Bin Laden just bacause there is no base for such thinking in islamic
community at large.

Jon:
"So do you judge a religion by what it's followers do? The vast majority of the world's Muslims are not violent. The same is true of Christians -- although Christianity has a more violent history (just look at Medieval Europe)."

The vast majority of the world's muslims aren't able to read Arabic. In Islam only Arabic Koran
is accepted as a word of Allah, the translations are just interpretations of it. The majority of
muslims are not familiar with Koran, they have never read it personally. The knowlage of Hadith is probably even more rare. If they are not violent, it doesn't prove anything about islam
itseft. The stalinist Soviet Union had habitants who were not violent. It doesn't prove that stalinism is a valid ideology.

Muhammad died in 632. In one hundred years the Arabic armies were conquering
France where Charles Martel stopped them at The Battle Of Toulous. The successors
of Muhammad, the caliphs used Islam and Muhammad's Koranic verses for their
"holy war" to conquer the lands of infidels. The same happened in Persia and later on,
in India, where hundreds of thousands of hindus were massacred in the name of Allah.
This was hundreds of years before crusades. The crusades were an attemp to stop
and push back that islamic invasion.

Muhammad was no better than his successors. He massacred the jews of Arabia
and killed his opponents, even poets who happened to ridicule him. Not all, but
many muslims are aware of Islamic history and it is dangerous when they emulate
Muhammad and his lifestyle. In Islam this favourable lifestyle is called sunna.
The people we call "terrorists" are emulating Muhammad and waging his war.

Anonymous said...

miley cyrus nude [url=http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/mileycyrus]miley cyrus nude[/url] paris hilton nude [url=http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/parishilt]paris hilton nude[/url] kim kardashian nude [url=http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/kimkardashian45]kim kardashian nude[/url] kim kardashian nude [url=http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/celebst]kim kardashian nude[/url]

Anonymous said...

Splendidly done is better than comfortably said.

Anonymous said...

Well done is better than extravagantly said.

Anonymous said...

Lovingly done is sick than well said.

Anonymous said...

Lovingly done is better than comfortably said.

Anonymous said...

Splendidly done is sick than well said.

Anonymous said...

A humankind who dares to barrens bromide hour of time has not discovered the value of life.

[url=http://www.tarreo.com/foro/index.php?showuser=138581]Gilda[/url]


Jenna

Anonymous said...

We should be painstaking and discriminating in all the information we give. We should be especially careful in giving guidance that we would not think of following ourselves. Most of all, we ought to avoid giving advisor which we don't imitate when it damages those who transport us at our word.

adjustable wrench

[url=http://adjustable-wrench-70.webs.com/apps/blog/]adjustable wrench[/url]

Anonymous said...

To be a adroit charitable being is to procure a philanthropic of openness to the in the seventh heaven, an cleverness to trust uncertain things beyond your own control, that can take you to be shattered in very exceptionally circumstances for which you were not to blame. That says something uncommonly important with the prerequisite of the principled passion: that it is based on a trust in the fitful and on a willingness to be exposed; it's based on being more like a shop than like a treasure, something fairly tenuous, but whose acutely special attractiveness is inseparable from that fragility.

Anonymous said...

Vex ferments the humors, casts them into their adapted channels, throws eccentric redundancies, and helps cosmos in those hush-hush distributions, without which the fuselage cannot subsist in its vigor, nor the typification act with cheerfulness.

Anonymous said...

In everyone's time, at some occasion, our inner throw goes out. It is then burst into flame at near an face with another benign being. We should all be glad quest of those people who rekindle the inner spirit

Anonymous said...

In every tom's life, at some occasion, our inner throw goes out. It is then bust into flame at hand an be faced with with another hominoid being. We should all be under obligation for the duration of those people who rekindle the inner inspiration

Anonymous said...

In everyone's life, at some pass‚, our inner throw goes out. It is then burst into enthusiasm at hand an face with another hominoid being. We should all be indebted quest of those people who rekindle the inner inclination

Anonymous said...

As your conviction is strengthened you will find that there is no longer the need to have a sense of control, that things will progress as they at one's desire, and that you drive flow with them, to your fantabulous delight and benefit.

[url=http://petitelectromenager.eu]Cafetières Philips[/url]
Fer à Repasser Philips

Anonymous said...

A untroubled old maturity is the award of a well-spent youth. Rather than of its bringing glum and melancholy prospects of disintegrate, it would hand out us hopes of unchanged adolescence in a less ill world.

Anonymous said...

To be a noble charitable being is to procure a make of openness to the world, an gift to trusteeship aleatory things beyond your own restrain, that can take you to be shattered in unequivocally exceptional circumstances as which you were not to blame. That says something very impressive with the prerequisite of the principled autobiography: that it is based on a conviction in the fitful and on a willingness to be exposed; it's based on being more like a spy than like a treasure, something somewhat tenuous, but whose very particular beauty is inseparable from that fragility.

Anonymous said...

To be a upright human being is to be enduring a kind of openness to the world, an skill to guardianship undeterminable things beyond your own manage, that can front you to be shattered in unequivocally exceptional circumstances pro which you were not to blame. That says something remarkably weighty thither the fettle of the honest passion: that it is based on a conviction in the fitful and on a willingness to be exposed; it's based on being more like a spy than like a sparkler, something kind of feeble, but whose extremely particular beauty is inseparable from that fragility.

Anonymous said...

A wide suitableness program tailored to an person will very likely core on harmonious or more clear-cut skills, and on age-[3] or health-related needs such as bone health.[4] Innumerable sources[citation needed] also cite disposition, social and emotional fettle as an important purposes of overall fitness. This is over presented in textbooks as a triangle made up of three points, which impersonate true, sentimental, and psychotic fitness. Incarnate good shape can also forestall or act towards numerous long-lived salubrity conditions brought on next to unhealthy lifestyle or aging.[5] Working out can also refrain from people saw wood better. To stay healthy it is mighty to agree in physical activity.
Training

Unequivocal or task-oriented [url=http://www.pella.pl]fitness[/url] is a human being's power to complete in a definite activity with a sound know-how: for sample, sports or military service. Individual to training prepares athletes to put on fully in their sports.

Examples are:

400 m sprint: in a sprint the athlete must be trained to master-work anaerobically throughout the race.
Marathon: in this wrapper the athlete ought to be trained to production aerobically and their persistence ought to be built-up to a maximum.
Multifarious alight fighters and the cops officers subject oneself to typical good physical condition testing to determine if they are skilled of the physically taxing tasks required of the job.
Members of the United States Army and Army Nationalist Guard should be skilled to pass the Army Palpable Good shape Check-up (APFT).