Why do people hate islam?

[RodeoX]

have you even red the article until the very end?

thing is:
1/ the turkish gov denies such convoys
2/ such convoys come from "west turkish regions" under NATO's exclusive control

come on, of course there are bribes.. but thats not the point.

Yes but Turkey has little control over that area, much less NATO. This is a traditional smuggling area and the "rat lines" IS uses are decades old routes. I have been there and it is a wild place with lots of hiding spots. When I was there last some Kurds were killed smuggling cigarets because they were mistaken for rebels. It led to protests and problems for the government. I think Turkey just does not know what to do about it.

But the idea that NATO is supplying IS is preposterous. Not that you were exactly saying that.

[hdbuck]

have you even red the article until the very end?

thing is:
1/ the turkish gov denies such convoys
2/ such convoys come from "west turkish regions" under NATO's exclusive control

come on, of course there are bribes.. but thats not the point.

Yes but Turkey has little control over that area, much less NATO. This is a traditional smuggling area and the "rat lines" IS uses are decades old routes. I have been there and it is a wild place with lots of hiding spots. When I was there last some Kurds were killed smuggling cigarets because they were mistaken for rebels. It led to protests and problems for the government. I think Turkey just does not know what to do about it.

But the idea that NATO is supplying IS is preposterous. Not that you were exactly saying that.

I think (US) NATO is playing with fire, in both the Middle East and in Ukraine - although i never been there, i still try to read and inform myself with as much data and reports as the internet makes it possible.
I personally found that there is a lot of objective elements that support such "insidious" agenda.
Plus there is lots of "whistleblowers" as they call it.

And this article just pined the tail on the donkey imho.

ps: and im a "westerner" btw - just try to think by myself here, which happily led me to bitcoin too

[BADecker]

have you even red the article until the very end?

thing is:
1/ the turkish gov denies such convoys
2/ such convoys come from "west turkish regions" under NATO's exclusive control

come on, of course there are bribes.. but thats not the point.

Yes but Turkey has little control over that area, much less NATO. This is a traditional smuggling area and the "rat lines" IS uses are decades old routes. I have been there and it is a wild place with lots of hiding spots. When I was there last some Kurds were killed smuggling cigarets because they were mistaken for rebels. It led to protests and problems for the government. I think Turkey just does not know what to do about it.

But the idea that NATO is supplying IS is preposterous. Not that you were exactly saying that.

I think (US) NATO is playing with fire, in both the Middle East and in Ukraine - although i never been there, i still try to read and inform myself with as much data and reports as the internet makes it possible.
I personally found that there is a lot of objective elements that support such "insidious" agenda.
Plus there is lots of "whistleblowers" as they call it.

And this article just pined the tail on the donkey imho.

ps: and im a "westerner" btw - just try to think by myself here, which happily led me to bitcoin too

And it will be really bad for the U.S. people when the dollar collapses, and most of the U.S. strength goes down with it.

[xuan87]

Terorism is originally made by Islam.
I have known all religion at school and this is the worst ( no offence but a fact)

Now islam had spread into a complex form that will attract more follower become a terorist like ISIS nowdays

[RodeoX]

Terorism is originally made by Islam.
I have known all religion at school and this is the worst ( no offence but a fact)

Now islam had spread into a complex form that will attract more follower become a terorist like ISIS nowdays

In the back woods of Southern Missouri it was the Cristian groups like the CSA. I have even gone through road block checkpoints they set up. But that does not make all Christians terrorists either.

[KingZee]

Terorism is originally made by Islam.
I have known all religion at school and this is the worst ( no offence but a fact)

Now islam had spread into a complex form that will attract more follower become a terorist like ISIS nowdays

As much as you might be right, you are also extremely wrong. It's not the religion itself that created terrorism, it's some of its people. Back when the prohet existed,  muslims were going into wars, to defend themselves against people who wanted the religion to die simply because it came to abolish things that were bad. So there were muslim arabs, who agreed to join the religion, and arabs who didn't, because they simply liked to treat themselves (have sex with any woman they like, have their trials simply done by sword to sword duels, drink with no limits, etc etc etc... Islam abolishing these things was clearly rational, but obviously not everyone was going to like it.

So when muslims went into wars, the religion promised the ones who would fight and unfortunately die bravely in the land of battle, would have a granted place in heaven. That's why muslim soldiers back in that time managed to conquer almost all of North Africa, and South Asia. Muslims would fight in battles willing to give up their lives for their religion.

So decades after those times, while all of what I said is stated in Islam's religious book, some people, who are initially the reason of all terrorism, decide to twist the book and use only versets that are in their benefits, they go to illiterate muslims, gather a big bunch of them, and make them understand that muslims used to kill anyone who wasn't a muslim, and it is allowed and even recommended by the religion. They even tell them that if they die fighting people from other religions, they will absolutely be granted a place in heaven. And they believe them, knowing nothing better, having no life purpose, being raised in a country where religion is law.

Don't think of 9/11 or of any muslim that suicides to kill as many people as possible as your classical kamikaze. Kamikazes are people who have given up on life, and in a last hope, does some sort of attack to change the tide of a war. A muslim "kamikaze", or terrorist as you would call him, is simply a brainwashed person, that thinks what he does will make him the happiest man alive. I mean I believe in heaven, all muslims believe in heaven, all religious people believe in heaven. But suiciding, while killing completely innocent beings, is not even allowed in the religion of Islam itself. There are several versets, clearly saying that : anyone who suicides, will lose any hope of accessing heaven. Anyone who kills a person with no reason, will also go to hell, since a human has no right to judge and take another human's soul only by God's law. Back when the prophet existed, muslims would live peacefully with not only atheists, but also christians, jews. When muslims would go to war against other religions, they would send a messenger, to explain every aspect of the religion to them, and ask them to join them. If they didn't agree, they would ask for safe haven to all muslim armies on their territories, when then they wouldn't agree, they clearly challenge the muslims to war, which is why there are several clashes between muslims and christians in history.

[BADecker]

Terorism is originally made by Islam.
I have known all religion at school and this is the worst ( no offence but a fact)

Now islam had spread into a complex form that will attract more follower become a terorist like ISIS nowdays

As much as you might be right, you are also extremely wrong. It's not the religion itself that created terrorism, it's some of its people. Back when the prohet existed,  muslims were going into wars, to defend themselves against people who wanted the religion to die simply because it came to abolish things that were bad. So there were muslim arabs, who agreed to join the religion, and arabs who didn't, because they simply liked to treat themselves (have sex with any woman they like, have their trials simply done by sword to sword duels, drink with no limits, etc etc etc... Islam abolishing these things was clearly rational, but obviously not everyone was going to like it.

...

Right and wrong. The prophet started Islam so that he could rake in the profits like the foreign Christians were doing. After all, they were Arab profits. So, why shouldn't he have them instead of foreigners. Unfortunately, this was his biggest reason for becoming "patriotic."

[KingZee]

Terorism is originally made by Islam.
I have known all religion at school and this is the worst ( no offence but a fact)

Now islam had spread into a complex form that will attract more follower become a terorist like ISIS nowdays

As much as you might be right, you are also extremely wrong. It's not the religion itself that created terrorism, it's some of its people. Back when the prohet existed,  muslims were going into wars, to defend themselves against people who wanted the religion to die simply because it came to abolish things that were bad. So there were muslim arabs, who agreed to join the religion, and arabs who didn't, because they simply liked to treat themselves (have sex with any woman they like, have their trials simply done by sword to sword duels, drink with no limits, etc etc etc... Islam abolishing these things was clearly rational, but obviously not everyone was going to like it.

...

Right and wrong. The prophet started Islam so that he could rake in the profits like the foreign Christians were doing. After all, they were Arab profits. So, why shouldn't he have them instead of foreigners. Unfortunately, this was his biggest reason for becoming "patriotic."

I'm afraid you are mistaken in your comparison. There are no words in Islam history about collecting money from arabs, except for when the wars started, there were fees collected from MUSLIMS, to aid the armies and make them more prepared. The church instead, would clearly ask people to give them money to purchase "indulgences", so that God woul forgive their sins. You'll never find in any book about Islam asking people to give money for forgivance of their sins, a muslim is forced by religion to pay out a flat amount per year, and it is only stated in the religion that the money should be given away directly to the poor and the needy. It is still done until today. Other than that, I don't see what exactly are the profits you are talking about, I hope you have something to back your words with.

[BADecker]

Terorism is originally made by Islam.
I have known all religion at school and this is the worst ( no offence but a fact)

Now islam had spread into a complex form that will attract more follower become a terorist like ISIS nowdays

As much as you might be right, you are also extremely wrong. It's not the religion itself that created terrorism, it's some of its people. Back when the prohet existed,  muslims were going into wars, to defend themselves against people who wanted the religion to die simply because it came to abolish things that were bad. So there were muslim arabs, who agreed to join the religion, and arabs who didn't, because they simply liked to treat themselves (have sex with any woman they like, have their trials simply done by sword to sword duels, drink with no limits, etc etc etc... Islam abolishing these things was clearly rational, but obviously not everyone was going to like it.

...

Right and wrong. The prophet started Islam so that he could rake in the profits like the foreign Christians were doing. After all, they were Arab profits. So, why shouldn't he have them instead of foreigners. Unfortunately, this was his biggest reason for becoming "patriotic."

I'm afraid you are mistaken in your comparison. There are no words in Islam history about collecting money from arabs, except for when the wars started, there were fees collected from MUSLIMS, to aid the armies and make them more prepared. The church instead, would clearly ask people to give them money to purchase "indulgences", so that God woul forgive their sins. You'll never find in any book about Islam asking people to give money for forgivance of their sins, a muslim is forced by religion to pay out a flat amount per year, and it is only stated in the religion that the money should be given away directly to the poor and the needy. It is still done until today. Other than that, I don't see what exactly are the profits you are talking about, I hope you have something to back your words with.

A true believer at last.

No, I don't have anything to back my words up other than human nature.

[Spendulus]

......some people, who are initially the reason of all terrorism, decide to twist the book and use only versets that are in their benefits, they go to illiterate muslims, gather a big bunch of them, and make them understand that muslims used to kill anyone who wasn't a muslim, and it is allowed and even recommended by the religion. They even tell them that if they die fighting people from other religions, they will absolutely be granted a place in heaven. And they believe them, knowing nothing better, having no life purpose, being raised in a country where religion is law......

Very similar to what I have said, that Sayd Qutb is the origin of Muslim Terrorism.

Almost nobody in the USA understands the difference.  They were neither taught it or told it.

But for you I have one thing to say.

Mohammed (praise be his name if you like) did not split the Moon asunder.

[KingZee]

......some people, who are initially the reason of all terrorism, decide to twist the book and use only versets that are in their benefits, they go to illiterate muslims, gather a big bunch of them, and make them understand that muslims used to kill anyone who wasn't a muslim, and it is allowed and even recommended by the religion. They even tell them that if they die fighting people from other religions, they will absolutely be granted a place in heaven. And they believe them, knowing nothing better, having no life purpose, being raised in a country where religion is law......

Very similar to what I have said, that Sayd Qutb is the origin of Muslim Terrorism.

Almost nobody in the USA understands the difference.  They were neither taught it or told it.

But for you I have one thing to say.

Mohammed (praise be his name if you like) did not split the Moon asunder.

Indeed, they do not understand why exactly a muslim wouldn't care about killing himself for his "purpose", even though he isn't nearly reaching it, but alas, he was almost brainwashed by his surroundings.

And well, say what you like, it remains your subjective opinion. For words like those, I won't argue with you about. I only argue about what I can argument, and this religion subject is sticky about what can be argumented and what cannot be.

[Spendulus]

......some people, who are initially the reason of all terrorism, decide to twist the book and use only versets that are in their benefits, they go to illiterate muslims, gather a big bunch of them, and make them understand that muslims used to kill anyone who wasn't a muslim, and it is allowed and even recommended by the religion. They even tell them that if they die fighting people from other religions, they will absolutely be granted a place in heaven. And they believe them, knowing nothing better, having no life purpose, being raised in a country where religion is law......

Very similar to what I have said, that Sayd Qutb is the origin of Muslim Terrorism.

Almost nobody in the USA understands the difference.  They were neither taught it or told it.

But for you I have one thing to say.

Mohammed (praise be his name if you like) did not split the Moon asunder.

Indeed, they do not understand why exactly a muslim wouldn't care about killing himself for his "purpose", even though he isn't nearly reaching it, but alas, he was almost brainwashed by his surroundings.

And well, say what you like, it remains your subjective opinion. For words like those, I won't argue with you about. I only argue about what I can argument, and this religion subject is sticky about what can be argumented and what cannot be.

No.  I can easily argue that the "Moon was NOT split asunder" from the point of lunar geography and astrophysics.  Religion of any sort to survive must coexist with factual, established science.  I have no trickery or disingenous intent to engage you in an article of faith disproved by science.

I only seek to illustrate the existence of this disparity.

[KingZee]

......some people, who are initially the reason of all terrorism, decide to twist the book and use only versets that are in their benefits, they go to illiterate muslims, gather a big bunch of them, and make them understand that muslims used to kill anyone who wasn't a muslim, and it is allowed and even recommended by the religion. They even tell them that if they die fighting people from other religions, they will absolutely be granted a place in heaven. And they believe them, knowing nothing better, having no life purpose, being raised in a country where religion is law......

Very similar to what I have said, that Sayd Qutb is the origin of Muslim Terrorism.

Almost nobody in the USA understands the difference.  They were neither taught it or told it.

But for you I have one thing to say.

Mohammed (praise be his name if you like) did not split the Moon asunder.

Indeed, they do not understand why exactly a muslim wouldn't care about killing himself for his "purpose", even though he isn't nearly reaching it, but alas, he was almost brainwashed by his surroundings.

And well, say what you like, it remains your subjective opinion. For words like those, I won't argue with you about. I only argue about what I can argument, and this religion subject is sticky about what can be argumented and what cannot be.

No.  I can easily argue that the "Moon was NOT split asunder" from the point of lunar geography and astrophysics.  Religion of any sort to survive must coexist with factual, established science.  I have no trickery or disingenous intent to engage you in an article of faith disproved by science.

I only seek to illustrate the existence of this disparity.

Well indeed you would seemingly be more correct than I am on that matter, according to science. But then again, as much as correct as you would think you are, science has proven to be false on rare occasions, and no matter your arguments about how the moon was not split asunder, you will be unable to prove it nor disprove it, in an experimental way of speaking.

Besides, each religion has its "miracles". Even if you would be using scientific arguments, you will not convince me of your idea, simply because I believe in the prophet's existence and God's word, like you wouldn't convince a jew that Moses did not split the sea on half, as you wouldn't convince a christian that Jesus healed a man that was naturally born blind...

[mudiko]

because people don't know what it is . I mean %90 of muslims don't know too

[Spendulus]

......some people, who are initially the reason of all terrorism, decide to twist the book and use only versets that are in their benefits, they go to illiterate muslims, gather a big bunch of them, and make them understand that muslims used to kill anyone who wasn't a muslim, and it is allowed and even recommended by the religion. They even tell them that if they die fighting people from other religions, they will absolutely be granted a place in heaven. And they believe them, knowing nothing better, having no life purpose, being raised in a country where religion is law......

Very similar to what I have said, that Sayd Qutb is the origin of Muslim Terrorism.

Almost nobody in the USA understands the difference.  They were neither taught it or told it.

But for you I have one thing to say.

Mohammed (praise be his name if you like) did not split the Moon asunder.

Indeed, they do not understand why exactly a muslim wouldn't care about killing himself for his "purpose", even though he isn't nearly reaching it, but alas, he was almost brainwashed by his surroundings.

And well, say what you like, it remains your subjective opinion. For words like those, I won't argue with you about. I only argue about what I can argument, and this religion subject is sticky about what can be argumented and what cannot be.

No.  I can easily argue that the "Moon was NOT split asunder" from the point of lunar geography and astrophysics.  Religion of any sort to survive must coexist with factual, established science.  I have no trickery or disingenous intent to engage you in an article of faith disproved by science.

I only seek to illustrate the existence of this disparity.

Well indeed you would seemingly be more correct than I am on that matter, according to science. But then again, as much as correct as you would think you are, science has proven to be false on rare occasions, and no matter your arguments about how the moon was not split asunder, you will be unable to prove it nor disprove it, in an experimental way of speaking.

Besides, each religion has its "miracles". Even if you would be using scientific arguments, you will not convince me of your idea, simply because I believe in the prophet's existence and God's word, like you wouldn't convince a jew that Moses did not split the sea on half, as you wouldn't convince a christian that Jesus healed a man that was naturally born blind...

Which does, you should see clearly, take the matter of refuting "the Moon split asunder" directly out of the realm of "subjective opinion."  It is not a matter on which I have an opinion which is subjective or inferential, but one on which I have facts.  Today we have imaged the ENTIRE surface of the moon down to half a meter.  We know the entire surface of the Moon in this intimate detail.  These are not opinions.  People with an understanding of geological processes can easily explain what happened in any region of the Moon over the last billion years.  They can also easily state areas which are not scientifically certain, and will do so quite readily.  You see, dust accumulation on the lunar surface is about one millimeter per million years.  Thus, the Apollo astronauts footprints will look exactly the same in 1500 years in the future.

And anything on the lunar surface which happened in the 700AD will be exactly recorded on that surface today.  There is no "change" on the Moon as we know it on Earth.  Here we have the processes of wind, erosion from sand, floods.  Here we have continual change.

You can say, however and if you like, that the Jew that believed the sea was split in half, or the Christian that believed Jesus healed the blind, or the Muslims that believed their prophet split the moon in half - these you can say have "subjective opinions."

More importantly, consider that if you advocate belief in ridiculous things (as above, splitting the Moon, granted, Christians and Jews have no less ridiculous tenets) then people may not find credible your assertions that terrorists are not really Muslim, are misled, are taught a false doctrine, etc.

After all, one man's ridiculous belief is another man's faith.

[KingZee]

Which does, you should see clearly, take the matter of refuting "the Moon split asunder" directly out of the realm of "subjective opinion."  It is not a matter on which I have an opinion which is subjective or inferential, but one on which I have facts.  Today we have imaged the ENTIRE surface of the moon down to half a meter.  We know the entire surface of the Moon in this intimate detail.  These are not opinions.  People with an understanding of geological processes can easily explain what happened in any region of the Moon over the last billion years.  They can also easily state areas which are not scientifically certain, and will do so quite readily.  You see, dust accumulation on the lunar surface is about one millimeter per million years.  Thus, the Apollo astronauts footprints will look exactly the same in 1500 years in the future.

And anything on the lunar surface which happened in the 700AD will be exactly recorded on that surface today.  There is no "change" on the Moon as we know it on Earth.  Here we have the processes of wind, erosion from sand, floods.  Here we have continual change.

You can say, however and if you like, that the Jew that believed the sea was split in half, or the Christian that believed Jesus healed the blind, or the Muslims that believed their prophet split the moon in half - these you can say have "subjective opinions."

More importantly, consider that if you advocate belief in ridiculous things (as above, splitting the Moon, granted, Christians and Jews have no less ridiculous tenets) then people may not find credible your assertions that terrorists are not really Muslim, are misled, are taught a false doctrine, etc.

After all, one man's ridiculous belief is another man's faith.

Hmm, nitpicking over things, to disprove other ideas that are clearly rational and logical that are included in the same religion is quite the interesting tactic you're using here. Yes, you might have the upper hand on proving that the moon was not split in half, using your facts on the moon's geology. But you simply cannot use that in the way such as :

The moon was not split in half. => Which implies, Muslims are terrorists.

If you logically argue with me on each idea alone, I will easily convince you of the main, and the pillars of my religion, which I know well, and past an age where I would know best what to choose, I read about multiple religions, and chose Islam by my own will, based on what I known and deduced.

I might not have the power or the words or the facts to prove some extremely specific ideas, as in why the moon was split asunder, but using those single examples to try and unfold my beliefs, is like saying : "A man survived a thunderbolt with not a scratch, all men are invincible."

[blablaace]

Hate comes from ignorance.
People don't research facts but believes in media reports and propaganda.
I feel people are too much brainwashed in today's society by the media and governments and don't think with their brains anymore.

[Spendulus]

Which does, you should see clearly, take the matter of refuting "the Moon split asunder" directly out of the realm of "subjective opinion."  It is not a matter on which I have an opinion which is subjective or inferential, but one on which I have facts.  Today we have imaged the ENTIRE surface of the moon down to half a meter.  We know the entire surface of the Moon in this intimate detail.  These are not opinions.  People with an understanding of geological processes can easily explain what happened in any region of the Moon over the last billion years.  They can also easily state areas which are not scientifically certain, and will do so quite readily.  You see, dust accumulation on the lunar surface is about one millimeter per million years.  Thus, the Apollo astronauts footprints will look exactly the same in 1500 years in the future.

And anything on the lunar surface which happened in the 700AD will be exactly recorded on that surface today.  There is no "change" on the Moon as we know it on Earth.  Here we have the processes of wind, erosion from sand, floods.  Here we have continual change.

You can say, however and if you like, that the Jew that believed the sea was split in half, or the Christian that believed Jesus healed the blind, or the Muslims that believed their prophet split the moon in half - these you can say have "subjective opinions."

More importantly, consider that if you advocate belief in ridiculous things (as above, splitting the Moon, granted, Christians and Jews have no less ridiculous tenets) then people may not find credible your assertions that terrorists are not really Muslim, are misled, are taught a false doctrine, etc.

After all, one man's ridiculous belief is another man's faith.

Hmm, nitpicking over things, to disprove other ideas that are clearly rational and logical that are included in the same religion is quite the interesting tactic you're using here. Yes, you might have the upper hand on proving that the moon was not split in half, using your facts on the moon's geology. But you simply cannot use that in the way such as :

The moon was not split in half. => Which implies, Muslims are terrorists.

If you logically argue with me on each idea alone, I will easily convince you of the main, and the pillars of my religion, which I know well, and past an age where I would know best what to choose, I read about multiple religions, and chose Islam by my own will, based on what I known and deduced.

I might not have the power or the words or the facts to prove some extremely specific ideas, as in why the moon was split asunder, but using those single examples to try and unfold my beliefs, is like saying : "A man survived a thunderbolt with not a scratch, all men are invincible."

Bolded section above, if you think I said that, either my words are imperfect or your understanding of them.

Note that I agree with you, that Jews and Christians have similar ridiculous beliefs, however if I am Kafir by way of affirming science where it clearly and simply applies, then so be it.  Ridiculous beliefs of Muslims are not less ridiculous, they exist equally.

I have worked with and had as friends many from the culture of Islam, most were fairly secular in their orientation and would laugh at this question of the "moon being split asunder".  I have known a few who would consider it a serious theological question, but never bothered to discuss.  This is no different than Christians who think the world and universe are 6,000 years in age.

[KingZee]

[...] More importantly, consider that if you advocate belief in ridiculous things (as above, splitting the Moon, granted, Christians and Jews have no less ridiculous tenets) then people may not find credible your assertions that terrorists are not really Muslim [...]

This is what I understood as what you highlighted in bold text. You said that since I believe in these things, it means that anything else I try to prove is not credible, no matter the logic or rationality behind those ideas.

Note that I agree with you, that Jews and Christians have similar ridiculous beliefs, however if I am Kafir by way of affirming science where it clearly and simply applies, then so be it.  Ridiculous beliefs of Muslims are not less ridiculous, they exist equally.

I have worked with and had as friends many from the culture of Islam, most were fairly secular in their orientation and would laugh at this question of the "moon being split asunder".  I have known a few who would consider it a serious theological question, but never bothered to discuss.  This is no different than Christians who think the world and universe are 6,000 years in age.

Well you might be right about the thing that religions have several stories about "miracles" that are impossible to comprehend by man. But the only thing I can ask you to do, is to try to look past the small things: Yes, Science so far can disprove all the facts about godly miracles that have been told about in all of the religions above, but why don't you try to comprehend any religion as a whole for once, with its most important ideals, timeline, the basics of its existence.

Not just Islam, all of the religions. Try to understand why exactly did the man as a being believe in them, not just once, but several times, decades and centuries after each one of them appeared. Look at the world, your surroundings. Do you really believe that all of existence, was made out of pure coincidence? A big bang created all of life from scratch, and made it exist so meticulously that we wouldn't be burnt by the Sun, but also wouldn't freeze if we were just a few kilometers far away from it? Or choke if the gravity was just slightly less, or get crushed if it was just slightly higher?
What about before the Big bang? Why would the Big bang even happen as an event, if there was no power causing it?
What about the human anatomy, and its perfection, and detailed creation, making all of us live with the utmost ease?

I apologize if this has drifted a bit off-topic, but what I mean is that you should try to read about religion, simply looking for the points to bring down the religion. Try for once in your life, to read on it, with eagerness to understand it, or even embrace it.

[Mr Tsoutsounopaiktis]

The Prophet Mohammed, a Jewish pseudo-Messiah
http://www.eretzyisroel.org/~jkatz/theprophet.html

How the Vatican created Islam
http://www.redicecreations.com/specialreports/2006/04apr/catholicislam.html