What bothers me most is the displacement of responsibility that continues to afflict not only our enemies, but our own cultural gate-keepers; academics, politicians and media. Muslims have real grievances in the world, but those who believe that if America just abdicates its global responsibilities (what the left calls "imperialism"), then the hatred and the jihad will subside...are terribly, terribly naive.

Muslims have been waging war upon infidels since the inception of Islam 1400 years ago. They're not inclined to abandon the dictates of their prophet, that Islam shall reign supreme upon the earth.

The Left has ONE thing right: Muslims don't just hate us for who we are, they hate us for our policies. Why? Because our policies are an impediment to their aspirations of destroying Israel and achieving global hegemony. In short, their hatred is a badge of honor for us....and proof positive that we're doing something right. Tragically, very few seem to get it.

You are correct, some individuals have no morality and dignity and are beneath contempt, but that is based on their actions, not the religion of their birth. You seem to be saying - by your support of the term "sub-human" to define Muslims in general - that ALL Muslims, even those who have lived exemplary lives, have no morality and dignity and are beneath contempt. This is a clearly bigoted world-view.

For the record, I'm opposed to Muslim immigration, for sociological and security reasons, not because Muslims are "sub-human".

I just got finished reading Daveed Garstein-Ross's 'My Year Inside Radical Islam'. One of the atmospherics that became apparent to him early on at the Islamic charity where he worked was that the discourse among Muslims favored the most radical statements...these were seen as the least controversial and the ones that were rarely if ever challenged.

I've noticed a similar dynamic here at JW. I occasionally defend working in concert with moderate Muslims abroad (I reject any assertion that there is a moderate Islam and I oppose Muslim immigration at home). Muslims in Iraq and Afghanistan are fighting and dying alongside US troops. Muslims in Algeria and elsewhere are fighting and dying trying to stem the spread of Sharia. I think they deserve our support.

Many here have disagreed with me. That's fine. There are legitimate arguments on both sides. But that 83p rating is a badge of honor as far as I'm concerned, and proof that I'm being true to myself and offering more than just angry harangues to the echo chamber about the evils of Islam....(though I do occasionally resort to such a harangue).

Here, I've denounced a poster for dehumanizing Muslims by calling them "sub-human". Yet, apparently, it is ME who is being controversial.

Do you think for one minute I'm going to defend the dehumanization of Jews that is promulgated in the Quran? It is despicable! But apparently, your answer is to imitate the Islamic ethos and reciprocate its hatred and bigotry.

JW is providing an indispensable service to mankind, chronicling the daily jihad that is wreaking so much havoc in the world. I fear that on the day the UN gains control of the internet, this web-site will disappear. Until that day, I want to see it flourish...and comments like the one above are not only unethical, they are a tactical mistake, giving ammunition to those who want to discredit this great institution by branding it a hate site.

I like to think that our culture in the West is distinguishable from that of Islam by our ethics and our basic humanity. But I guess that doesn't apply to everybody.

Not to mention gender equality, freedom of conscience, and rock'n roll.

Kudos for hitting on what I believe to be the foundation for all human morality...."the dignity and worth of the individual." Without it, we're just cattle.

It's not a question of being polite. It's a question of basic humananity. Muslims may be many things, but they are not "sub-human". This is the language Hitler used to justify his genocide of Jews, Gypsies, and Slavs.

Your appropriation of such language can only serve to discredit this web-site and help to validate the erroneous accusations of Muslims and their apologists that JW is a hate-site. One can be brutally honest about Islam as a belief system without de-humanizing Muslims.

I'm sick of this bullshit...subjecting JW to outside attack as a hate-site because of vicious comments like this. We can engage in righteous exposition of Islam as a violent, intolerant faith...without using the language of Nazis and branding Muslims as subhuman!

This is the same argument used by Jeremiah McCauliffe (sic)...who insists that "ridda" is treason in time of war, not apostasy. But the Hadith clearly make no such distinction. Robert only cited one...there are others that specifically mandate the shedding of Muslim blood for three crimes, of which leaving Islam is one. This is obviously not a war-time edict, but rather a standardized establishment of Islamic jurisprudence.

Like so many other Muslim apologists trying to present an Islam sanitized for Western sensibilities, Professor Bassiouni's inaccuracies cannot be attributed to ignorance...not a man of his educational accomplishments. The only alternative is that he is liar.

Because of their practice of polygamy, Muslims have an insatiable demand for ever more brides. What better way for them to decimate the Christian population in Egypt without a formal genocide: Confiscate the women.

We are simply not taking advantage of the 'honor/shame' component in the Islamic ethos. This kind of atrocity should be front-page news, should be a "teaching moment" in our schools and universities, and should be on the lips of our politicians and cultural gate-keepers.

We should be attempting to shame Muslims into not only a repudiation of such behavior, but into some corresponding introspection regarding from where it emanates. To do so would be planting the seeds of future cases of apostasy.

Yep. 'Newspeak' is alive and well.