Blogging the Qur’an: Sura 6, “Cattle,” verses 1-83

posted at 9:00 am on September 30, 2007 by Robert Spencer

The Qur’an’s sixth sura, “Cattle,” dates from Muhammad’s last year in Mecca, before the Hijra, or Flight, to Medina during the twelfth year of his prophetic career. In Medina he became for the first time a political and military leader as well as a religious one; at Mecca, he had been solely a preacher of his new and uncompromising monotheism, in an atmosphere of increasing antagonism with his own tribe, the Quraysh, who were pagans and polytheists. Sura 6 is preoccupied with that antagonism, and features, among imprecations against the unbelievers, Allah speaking to Muhammad to console him for the Quraysh’s rejection of his message.

Verses 1-12 reaffirm that the unbelievers have rejected the truth of their Creator. Allah warns: “See they not how many of those before them We did destroy?” (v. 6). Allah mocks their unbelief, saying that if he had sent Muhammad a “a written message on parchment,” the unbelievers would have dismissed it as “obvious magic” (v. 7), and if he had sent an angel in the form of a man, they would have just been confused (v. 9). Nothing will satisfy them: they are inherently perverse.

Then verses 13-32 emphasize the oneness of Allah, and claim that “those to whom We have given the Book” – that is, the Jews and Christians – “know this” – that is, the truth of Muhammad’s message – “as they know their own sons” (v. 20). This is because, says Ibn Kathir, “they received good news from the previous Messengers and Prophets about the coming of Muhammad, his attributes, homeland, his migration, and the description of his Ummah.” That is, their unbelief in Islam is not a sincere rejection based on honest conviction, but sheer perversity: they “lie against their own souls” (v. 24).

And there is nothing worse than this. Nothing. Allah asks, “Who doth more wrong than he who inventeth a lie against Allah or rejecteth His signs?” (v. 21). “Signs,” once again, is ayat, the name used for the verses of the Qur’an. This verse emphasize that there can be no greater sin than shirk, the association of partners with Allah. The Tafsir al-Jalalayn asks, “And who, that is, none, does greater evil than he who invents a lie against God, by ascribing to Him an associate, or denies His signs?”

There is no greater evil. In 1997 the “Invitation to Islam” newsletter asserted:

Murder, rape, child molesting and genocide. These are all some of the appalling crimes which occur in our world today. Many would think that these are the worst possible offences which could be committed. But there is something which outweighs all of these crimes put together: It is the crime of shirk.

Some people may question this notion. But when viewed in a proper context, the fact that there is no crime worse then shirk, will become evident to every sincere person.

There is no doubt that the above crimes are indeed terrible, but their comparison with shirk shows that they do not hold much significance in relation to this travesty. When a man murders, rapes or steals, the injustice which is done is directed primarily at other humans. But when a man commits shirk, the injustice is directed towards the Creator of the heavens and the earth; Allah. When a person is murdered, all sorts of reasons and explanations are given. But one thing that the murderer cannot claim, is that the murdered was someone who provided him with food, shelter, clothing and all the other things which keep humans aloft in this life.

Yet those who commit this worst of all sins are still doing so because Allah has “thrown veils on their hearts,” so that they do not understand Muhammad’s message (v. 25). Hellfire awaits them (vv. 26, 30).

Muslims should be careful not to value the things of this world, for “What is the life of this world but play and amusement?” (v. 32). Says the Tanwîr al-Miqbâs min Tafsîr Ibn ‘Abbâs, “Do you not comprehend that this world is evanescent and that the Hereafter is everlasting?”

Many do not. In verses 33-73 Allah consoles Muhammad for the unbelievers’ rejection of his message: “We know indeed the grief which their words do cause thee” (v. 33), but they are “deaf and dumb” (v. 39), and wouldn’t believe even if they witnessed great miracles (vv. 35, 37). The fact that Allah, in a perfect book that has existed from all eternity, is so solicitous of his prophet and concerned about his grief at being rejected, is for pious Muslims only further confirmation of Muhammad’s importance and exalted status. Allah’s solicitude for Muhammad became the springboard for an exaltation of Muhammad in the Islamic mystical tradition. The Persian Sufi mystic Mansur Al-Hallaj (858-922) said that Allah “has not created anything that is dearer to him than Muhammad and his family.” The Persian poet Rumi (Jalal al-Din Muhammad Rumi, 1207-1273) said that the scent of roses was that of the sweat of the Prophet of Islam:

Root and branch of the roses is
the lovely sweat of Mustafa [that is, Muhammad],
And by his power the rose’s crescent
grows now into a full moon.

Likewise a modern Arab writer opined that Allah “created Muhammad’s body in such unsurpassable beauty as had neither before him nor after him been seen in a human being. If the whole beauty of the Prophet were unveiled before our eyes, they could not bear its splendor.”

In verses 40-49 Allah discusses how he has sent messengers all over the world, warning of punishment to those who disbelieve. Verses 50-58 instruct Muhammad to issue various warnings to the unbelievers. Verses 59-69 emphasizes Allah’s absolute sovereignty, with v. 59 making a succinct statement of his omniscience: “And with Him are the keys of the Invisible. None but He knoweth them. And He knoweth what is in the land and the sea. Not a leaf falleth but He knoweth it, not a grain amid the darkness of the earth, naught of wet or dry but (it is noted) in a clear record.” (Similarly, “We have neglected nothing in the Book,” v. 38, is believed by some Islamic interpreters to refer to the Lawhul Mahfuz, the Protected Tablet, on which Allah has written everything that occurs in the universe, even the minutest actions of animals and birds.) Allah tells Muhammad to “leave alone those who take their religion to be mere play and amusement, and are deceived by the life of this world” (v. 70).

Then verses 74-83 depict Abraham rejecting polytheism by noting the deficiencies of various pagan objects of worship: the stars, the moon, the sun. Those who glibly associate Allah with the moon-god – a pre-Islamic Arabian god of war – should note v. 77: “When he saw the moon rising in splendour, he said: ‘This is my Lord.’ But when the moon set, he said: ‘unless my Lord guide me, I shall surely be among those who go astray.’”

Next week: How can Allah have a son if he has no wife?

(Here you can find links to all the earlier “Blogging the Qur’an” segments. Here is a good Arabic/English Qur’an, here are two popular Muslim translations, those of Abdullah Yusuf Ali and Mohammed Marmaduke Pickthall, along with a third by M. H. Shakir. Here is another popular translation, that of Muhammad Asad. And here is an omnibus of ten Qur’an translations.)


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Just reading these small snippets makes me feel like taking a shower.

Kahuna on September 30, 2007 at 10:02 AM

Robert, can you expand on V 77. What’s the significance? Why is the crescent moon a symbol of Islam? What’s the connection?

TheBigOldDog on September 30, 2007 at 10:20 AM

Why is the crescent moon a symbol of Islam? What’s the connection?

TheBigOldDog on September 30, 2007 at 10:20 AM

The cross and the star were already taken. ;-)

In all seriousness, I’ve wondered about that myself.

flipflop on September 30, 2007 at 10:43 AM

I read the ‘Invitation to Islam’ article linked by Mr Spencer and found the concept of ‘shirk’ fascinating. The article reminds me of one of those old psychopathic Jack Chick evangelistic tracts – Islamic style.

Here is the part that caught my eye:

Shirk by Humanisation – The Tawheed of Allah’s names and attributes demands that we believe Allah to be free from any human likeness. Those who commit shirk by humanisation give attributes to God which are more appropriate for human beings than an all-powerful Creator.

If Muslims really believe that Shirk, such as personifying Allah, is an unforgivable sin that will send even the most devout to everlasting Fire, can we blame them for going stark raving mad when their diety or prophet is depicted in cartoon form? I am not excusing the behavior – I find it just as barbaric as the next person, but I am just trying to put myself in the shoes of a Muslim in an Islamic nation under Sharia Law. If my society, my heritage, indeed everything I was raised to believe was Islamic, and I was confronted with a secular world which routinely committed shirk by blaspheming and insulting my diety, the consequences of which was eternal Fire, what would I do?

Seriously, what would any of us do in this situation? I don’t condone it, I don’t excuse it, I don’t accept it, but I think I can sympathize with those Muslims who go beyond all bounds of reason when they themselves view this world mere “play and amusement” (Sura 6:32) against the backdrop of eternity.

Question for HotAir readers:
Would you not kill if you thought not doing so would result in eternal damnation? I don’t know, I cannot put myself in those shoes. It is so alien to my thinking that I cannot easily put myself in that situation. But this is the ultimate problem that faces the world gripped in Islamic terror, and I think the prime motivator is the threat of eternal Fire and unforgivable sins. If Allah was dangling me, my family, all I knew and understood over the Fires of Hell, what would I do – what would any of us do?

Another question for HotAir readers:
How is this problem solved?

HeIsSailing on September 30, 2007 at 11:15 AM

In all seriousness, I’ve wondered about that myself.

flipflop on September 30, 2007 at 10:43 AM

Ditto… had heard that in pre-Islamic times, polytheists worshipped lots of different gods around the Mecca meteorite, one of which was coincidentally named Allah (and whose symbol was, coincidentally, a moon of some kind). No idea if that is apocryphal or not…

RD on September 30, 2007 at 11:16 AM

Mr Spencer:
What tradition does verse 74 come from?

(Remember) when Abraham said unto his father Azar: Takest thou idols for gods? Lo! I see thee and thy folk in error manifest.

As astute Bible students know, Terah is the father of Abraham according to the Hebrew tradition in Genesis. This conversation does not exist in Genesis either. Does this come from some other tradition lost to antiquity, or does it originate here in the Quran? The verse seems to imply that this fact is already known to the readers.

HeIsSailing on September 30, 2007 at 11:23 AM

RD says:

…one of which was coincidentally named Allah …

I think Allah literally means God in the Arabic language. Allah is derived from an ancient Semetic root, El, who is an ancient Canaanite diety. A cognate of Allah is Elohim, which is translated as God in most English translations of the Old Testament.

I think that is the basics of where the words came from.

HeIsSailing on September 30, 2007 at 11:31 AM

I think that is the basics of where the words came from.

HeIsSailing on September 30, 2007 at 11:31 AM

My understanding was that “Allah” literally meant “The God”, as in the one and only.

flipflop on September 30, 2007 at 12:03 PM

Thanks Robert.

RD

In the introduction to my copy of the Koran by N.J. Dawood he writes:

At the Ka’bah the Meccans worshipped not only Allah, the supreme Semitic god, but also a number of female deities whom they regarded as the daughters of Allah. Among these were Al-Lat, Al-’Uzza, and Manat, who represented the Sun, Venus, and Fortune respectively.

HeIsSailing

Islam is the religion of the eternal death threat. Every Muslim lives with the threat that some “holy” man will kill him if he slips and does something wrong, says something wrong, or thinks something wrong. Beyond that, every Muslim knows that if a human doesn’t get him for being wrong, Allah will. All this does is develope people incapable of reason. Rational thought cannot coexist with fundamentalist Islam.

Muslims today slaughter those who don’t think like them because they have a false belief in a false god inspired by a false prophet who has led them to false conclusions about the true nature of God, nature, and man.

Mojave Mark on September 30, 2007 at 12:07 PM

Unless I’m mistaken, “Allah” as a word is something like the word “Baal”: a general title or a designation more than a name (Allah being “deity” and Baal being “lord”). From what I understand, the word “allah” is nonspecific to YHWH in the way that the word “god” is nonspecific.

Lehosh on September 30, 2007 at 12:09 PM

Well-said, HelsSailing and Mojave Mark. If I had been brainwashed from birth, my soul blackmailed by a psychotic cult, in a society where the same brainwashing had been perpetrated on everyone, I imagine I would think and act a lot like Islamic Rage Boy. I would at least be aware that such thinking and behavior was expected of me…

RD on September 30, 2007 at 12:18 PM

Heads-up Lehosh: ilah is non-specific, allah is specific. I’m still interested to know if the pre-Islamic, pagan Allah (not Allah our athiest-in-residence ;-) was associated with the crescent moon in any way, shape or form.

RD on September 30, 2007 at 12:21 PM

Heads-up Lehosh: ilah is non-specific, allah is specific.

Sorry, I just muddied the waters even more. All I meant to say is that allah refers to a specific instance of a god, and is thus more specific than “lowercase god” linguistically.

Exactly how specific it is with respect to various historical notions of God may depend on time & place – and as uppercase God knows, I’m no expert on that topic ;-).

RD on September 30, 2007 at 12:28 PM

If Muslims really believe that Shirk, such as personifying Allah, is an unforgivable sin that will send even the most devout to everlasting Fire, can we blame them for going stark raving mad when their diety or prophet is depicted in cartoon form?

Why should they care what infidels do in infidel lands? Or is their rage actually an indication that some (or all) countries are being targeted for inclusion in the Ummah.

JiangxiDad on September 30, 2007 at 12:40 PM

Why should they care what infidels do in infidel lands? Or is their rage actually an indication that some (or all) countries are being targeted for inclusion in the Ummah.

JiangxiDad on September 30, 2007 at 12:40 PM

DING DING DING

And the Pope is Catholic and Paul McCartney is not dead.

mram on September 30, 2007 at 1:04 PM

JiangxiDad:

Why should they care what infidels do in infidel lands?

Well the problem is that the Danish cartoon insanity began in.. Denmark and spread throughout Europe from there. These are not traditional Islamic nations. But according to Mark Steyn’s America Alone – The End of the World as We Know It, Europe is fast becomming, indeed may be lost to, Islam. Infidel lands are becoming Islamic lands. They see ‘shirk’ committed all around them. They are afraid of their own God. They panic, riot and kill.

That is how I see it anyway.

HeIsSailing on September 30, 2007 at 1:18 PM

http://www.prophetofdoom.net/Does_Allah_mean_God.Islam

Questions and Answers

Q: “no god but Allah?” Isn’t “Allah” another word for “God?”

A: The transliterated phrase from Arabic reads, “La ilaha illAllah.” A word for word translation into English would read: La [no] ilaha [god] ill [except or but] Allah [Allah]. The important thing to note is that the word “Allah” is a name and is not the word for god. If “Allah” were the word for god, then the phrase would read, “there is no allah but allah. Clearly it does not. The Qur’an itself claims that Allah is the personal name of the Islamic god: (Qur’an 17:110) “Say, Call Him Allah or call Him Ar-Rahman; whatever the name you call Him, all His names are beautiful.” If “Allah” were the word for god, then Islam’s god is nameless. There is also no evidence that the word “Allah” is a contraction of the words “al ilah,” which means, “the god.” If it were, then again, the phrase would read, “there is no allah but allah.” As part of the first “Pillar of Islam,” this issue is critical as Islam claims that the God of the Bible (whose name is Yahweh) and Allah are one in the same and that we all, therefore, worship the same god.

Excerpts from Prophet of Doom

From chapter 6, “Heart of Darkness”

Then one day, sun boring down on the treeless town, Muttalib was struggling to clear the well of Zamzam when: Ishaq:66/Tabari VI:2 “It is alleged, and Allah only knows the truth, that Abdul Muttalib encountered opposition when he was digging Zamzam. He vowed that if given ten sons, to make his labor less arduous and to protect him, he would sacrifice one of them to Allah at the Ka’aba.” Bad move, because eventually he had ten sons. So, foolishly faithful to the rocks, he tossed divining arrows at Hubal’s feet to determine which son should die. Ishaq:67 “They used to conduct their affairs according to the decisions of the arrows.” His youngest lost. The boy’s name was Abd-Allah, or Slave-to-Allah.

Now why would someone name a kid “Slave-to-Allah” a generation before Islam’s prophet claimed Allah was the creator-god of the universe? The answer is as embarrassing as any in the annals of religious lore. For all Muhammad really did was promote one of the existing Meccan idols, the moon god Allah, above Hubal, Al-Lat, Manat, Al-Uzza, and hundreds of others. On this day Allah had to compete for adoration, as Muttalib’s tossing arrows at Hubal’s feet attests. A Bukhari Hadith confirms the godly congestion: Bukhari:V5B59N583 “When the Prophet entered Mecca on the day of the Conquest, there were 360 idols around the Ka’aba. The Prophet started striking them with a stick.”

Islamic scholar Montgomery Watt, one of the English translators of Tabari, adds an interesting footnote. He says, “The name [not word] Allah has throughout been [wrongly] translated as ‘God.’ It should be kept in mind, however, that in the pre-Islamic period it does not necessarily mean “God” in a monotheistic sense. It is known from the Qur’an (29:61 and 39:38) that many pre-Islamic Arabs believed in Allah as a god who was superior to the other gods whom they also recognized.”

Allah was a name, much like the Judeo-Christian “Yahweh.” But Muslims desperately needed the world to see it otherwise. For if Allah was a proper name – not a word – their religion was a fraud. The creator of the universe can’t be a pagan god, no matter how big a stick Muhammad swung. And Allah can’t be Yahweh any more than I can be George Washington.

Arabic, like Hebrew before it, is a Semitic language. In Hebrew, “el,” was the word for god – lower case “g” – as in idols. Elohiym was used with the article to convey “God” with a capital “G.” In Arabic, “el” became “il.” Then, over time, Arabs derived a secondary word for god, “ilah.” With “al” being the Arabic word for “the,” Muslims would have us believe that “Allah” is a contraction of “al” and “ilah.” But the first pillar of Islam contradicts this claim when it says: “There is no ilah but Allah.” If “Allah” were the Arabic word for god it would have been written: “There is no allah but Allah. Moreover, the Qur’an itself uses “Ilah” when Allah claims to be “the God of Abraham” (Qur’an 2:132). And that ends the debate because the only way Muslims can claim Allah, not Ilah, is the Arabic word for “God” is for the Qur’an to be errant or for its author to be either ignorant or deceitful. Further, there are hundreds, if not thousands, of Islamic traditions like the one we just reviewed that confirm that Allah was the name of a well-known pagan deity (at least in Mecca). Their own scriptures profess that Allah had an ignominious rule as a Meccan rock idol centuries before he was transformed from god to God, from an ilah to Allah. All of which serves to destroy the most essential Islamic myth: “We all worship the same God.”

VinceP1974 on September 30, 2007 at 2:13 PM

We must question the story logic of having an all-knowing all-powerful Allah, who creates faulty Humans, and then blames them for his own mistakes.
- Gene Roddenberry

MB4 on September 30, 2007 at 3:36 PM

MB4 on September 30, 2007 at 3:36 PM

MB4, you do realize that Roddenberry’s original quote was a little broader than just Allah, right?

http://www.quotedb.com/quotes/201

HeIsSailing on September 30, 2007 at 3:53 PM

HeIsSailing on September 30, 2007 at 3:53 PM

You weren’t suppose to tell.

MB4 on September 30, 2007 at 4:25 PM

Those who glibly associate Allah with the moon-god – a pre-Islamic Arabian god of war – should note v. 77: “When he saw the moon rising in splendour, he said: ‘This is my Lord.’ But when the moon set, he said: ‘unless my Lord guide me, I shall surely be among those who go astray.’”

I am not sure what Mr Spencer is saying here. I glibly associate Allah as a pre-Islamic god, am I wrong? It seems that the Koran says, yes, the moon is my Lord, Allah.

I am sorry to be so dense, but I think I need more interpretation.

CrimsonFisted on September 30, 2007 at 5:50 PM

CrimsonFisted:

Actually v. 77 is saying just the opposite: not “the moon is my Lord,” but “the moon is NOT my Lord.” This is a separate question from whether or not Allah is a pre-Islamic god, but there is no doubt that in the Islamic conception Allah is greater than the moon.

Robert Spencer on September 30, 2007 at 5:56 PM

TheBigOldDog:

Robert, can you expand on V 77. What’s the significance? Why is the crescent moon a symbol of Islam? What’s the connection?

The crescent moon is an Ottoman imperial symbol that over time came to be associated with Islam as a whole. The crescent moon is waxing, you see — as Islam is expanding until it encompasses the whole world. The color green is the Islamic color for the same reason: it is the color of spring, of growth, of expansion.

Robert Spencer on September 30, 2007 at 5:58 PM

HeIsSailing:

Would you not kill if you thought not doing so would result in eternal damnation? I don’t know, I cannot put myself in those shoes. It is so alien to my thinking that I cannot easily put myself in that situation. But this is the ultimate problem that faces the world gripped in Islamic terror, and I think the prime motivator is the threat of eternal Fire and unforgivable sins. If Allah was dangling me, my family, all I knew and understood over the Fires of Hell, what would I do – what would any of us do?

Now you coming to the point of why I am writing this series. If we don’t understand how those who oppose us think, we will never, ever be able to formulate some way to thwart their plans to conquer and subjugate us.

Robert Spencer on September 30, 2007 at 6:01 PM

HeIsSailing:

What tradition does verse 74 come from?

(Remember) when Abraham said unto his father Azar: Takest thou idols for gods? Lo! I see thee and thy folk in error manifest.

As astute Bible students know, Terah is the father of Abraham according to the Hebrew tradition in Genesis. This conversation does not exist in Genesis either. Does this come from some other tradition lost to antiquity, or does it originate here in the Quran? The verse seems to imply that this fact is already known to the readers.

There are stories in the rabbinic tradition of Abraham having conversations like this with his father Terah. The name Azar seems to be a garbled version of Eleazar, Abraham’s servant, whom Muhammad evidently confused with his father.

Robert Spencer on September 30, 2007 at 6:03 PM

Thank you, Mr Spencer. I was not wrapping my head around that.

I am very disconcerted in my RCIA class I am attending that the leader is insisting that Allah is another name for God Himself. And that Islam is a peaceful religion with just a few, fringe, jihadists. And that in the past Christianity was just as violent. I believe him to be wrong on all counts.

CrimsonFisted on September 30, 2007 at 6:06 PM

Krykee doodle! No call for blood n guts? Ol’ Mo’ has switched gears.

Robert Spencer,

Is it my imagination or are these verses more moderate in tone & temperament than the previous sura? Verses 1-83 sound more like a theological discourse with admonitions & warnings to non-believers of “god’s” punishment to come (in this life & the next), not a the usual lynch mob proclamations from old mohammed. And do I detect a little plagiarism against the Master shirkster Himself, Jesus?

Sura 6; v 9 ~> ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be persuaded even if someone rises from the dead.’

Sura 6; v 59 ~> “But even the very hairs of your head are all numbered. Fear not therefore: ye are of more value than many sparrows.”

Sura 6; v 70 ~> “For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?”

I’ll refrain from any vulgar retorts about mohammed’s rosey sweat. Has O’l’ Mo’ switched gears for ‘cattle’?

locomotivebreath1901 on September 30, 2007 at 10:40 PM

On the subject of the word/name Allah: what did pre-Islamic, Christian native Arab speakers call God, the God of Christianity? (And do we know for sure or are we merely going by what Arab speakers use today?)

RD on September 30, 2007 at 10:58 PM

There is no doubt that the above crimes are indeed terrible, but their comparison with shirk shows that they do not hold much significance in relation to this travesty. When a man murders, rapes or steals, the injustice which is done is directed primarily at other humans. But when a man commits shirk, the injustice is directed towards the Creator of the heavens and the earth; Allah something totally intangible.

Sound insane? Now don’t forget, the supposed creator of all this stuff also created humans, so wouldn’t it stand to reason that committing crimes against another human (also a creation) would be just as terrible and awful?!
Good Lord, this stuff is impossible! It makes my head spin.

4shoes on September 30, 2007 at 11:20 PM

Locobreath:

And do I detect a little plagiarism against the Master shirkster Himself, Jesus?

You caught that too? This passage from the Quran seems unusually parasitic on the New Testament. I bet I could find a New Testament correllary to nearly every verse in this passage. Not all, but most.

Hmmm… that sounds like a challenge. Let me give it a go.

HeIsSailing on October 1, 2007 at 6:23 AM

Actually, the sweat of people suffering from certain types of mental disorders is sweetish.

There’s a doctoral dissertation waiting for someone in this observation.

profitsbeard on October 1, 2007 at 11:00 AM

Is it my imagination or are these verses more moderate in tone & temperament than the previous sura?

locomotivebreath1901 on September 30, 2007 at 10:40 PM

The Koran was not written in any particular order (other than length), therefore what comes before or after any portion of it really doesn’t provide a context.

This Sura is from the Meccan era, as Mr S. said at the beginning:

The Qur’an’s sixth sura, “Cattle,” dates from Muhammad’s last year in Mecca

The Meccan verses are “peaceful” , the later Medina verses are more militaristic (the Hijra was when Islam twisted from being somewhat tolerant to being militant)

VinceP1974 on October 1, 2007 at 6:42 PM

Robert, I want to know what to do about Bill O’Reilly. I was furious tonight when he had a CAIR rep on about the school that decided to do away with all displays rather than include Ramadan. I do not want to do away with Christian and Jewish holiday displays, but am close to feeling like that is a better choice than allowing Ramadan decorations. I asked him not to discuss issues about Islam because it has been painfully obvious that he knows absolutely nothing about Islam, but he continues to invite CAIR reps on his show. I apologize for being off the specific topic here, but I am so angry.

Connie on October 3, 2007 at 3:48 AM

VinceP1974 on October 1, 2007 at 6:42 PM

It was you who helped me at the Chicago Tribune. I thank you, sir.

Connie on October 3, 2007 at 11:04 PM

VinceP1974 on October 1, 2007 at 6:42 PM
It was you who helped me at the Chicago Tribune. I thank you, sir.

Connie on October 3, 2007 at 11:04 PM

Wow.. good catch!

It’s maddening arguing with leftist idiots , isn’t it?

VinceP1974 on October 4, 2007 at 1:14 PM