"in Turkey some man beat his woman but it has nothing to do with religion.It's because of love problems.This happens in every country here in Turkey Man=Woman you can't marry more than one woman-and it is logical" --->Unfortunately both of the above are mentioned explicitly in the Koran... You and pars might say that beating women is considwered lowly but the other 800 million Moslem men might think its okay since its endorsed in the Koran.... Obviously they consider Koran the word og God and the interpretation is literal... And this is where the debate truly began for me... The Koran CANNOT be considered the word of God one wee bit and secondly the Koran needs to revamped completely for terror to be tackled...This is my idea of dealing with extremism if Moslems step up and insist that the Koran be reformed....

"What does the pilgrimage have to do with this?" -->My point exactly... The verse I presented originally had nothing to do with Al Hajj(Piligrimage) to begin with even though its mentioned in Surah 22(Piligrimage) Pars disagreed and I had to present verse 20-22 from Surah 22 and of course the remainder of the discussion that the verses in Surah 22 in most(95%) part actually have nuthin to do with Hajj even thoh the Surah is named AL Hajj REad the original verse and you'll know that the Verse clearly inspires terror....

Oh man, please grab (I know "p" sounds like "b" in Arabic, does "b" sound like "p" in Turkish? - simply curious) a sarcasm detector. While at it, lets look at some gems from history text-book you put up: >> After the first 4 elected Caliphate, it passed to Umayyad dynasty, then from them to Abbasid dynasty. In the 1500's the last Abbasid Caliphate, passed the caliphate to Ottoman dynasty by his own will. And all of the Sunni part of Islam (the majority) accepted them as Caliph from Morocco to Indonesia. << A bit rich saying "his own will" in 1500s, because Hugalu had him strangled with a bowstring hundreds of years earlier. Of course if you mean the revamped form of Caliph used by Mamlukes and appropriated by Selim I, then the Timurids had as much claim on it as Ottomans or Mamlukes.

"Of course if you mean the revamped form of Caliph used by Mamlukes and appropriated by Selim I, then the Timurids had as much claim on it as Ottomans or Mamlukes. " so? :S i don't get this one what do you mean?

Hulagu did kill the last Abbasis Caliphate who was also a ruler of a state. Mamlukes invited a surviving member of Abbasid dynasty to Egypt and he was accepted by all of the Sunni sects as Caliph. Noone had a better candidate. He did not have any secular power and he was the first Caliph who is so. English is not my native language by the way.

Olive greens-You remind me of PPike.... I do not wanna get into this discussion abt the Caliph..Two reasons.. 1.I dont even know who the Caliph was-let aloe any history abt him 2.I dont care... OG-I suggest you create a seperate thread for all these fleeting thoughts of yours... Lets stick to terrorism and write something related to the thread in discussion..

>> OG-I suggest you create a seperate thread for all these fleeting thoughts of yours... << Ah, but it has everthing to with linking secular and spiritual traditions of Islam. You cannot say a religion is bad without linking it positively to bad things commited secularly. >> 1.I dont even know who the Caliph was-let aloe any history abt him << But you know so much about Muhammad - who was, at the very best, a Middle-Eastern nuisance... which shouldnt really concern you in India. Not atleast till the Ummayd Caliphs consolidae their holdings in modern-day Iraq and sending out expeditionary forces into Sindh. >> 2.I dont care... << But, then again, you dont care... >> Lets stick to terrorism and write something related to the thread in discussion.. << Ah, so very much like PPike... telling others what to do.

Trustedsourceofinfo, I debated with you that you can't blame Islam Directly to terror. You can't blame thim just because of some verses that show violence, and cause of those verses they Islam can not be ruled out as a "None God" Religion. However I never said that the Koran was the word of God. I have better reasons for your side and you have not found them or at least shown them. Since Islam is not of God they are prone to the Devils will, No offense intended. They have a imperfect doctrine as Kane, I believe, agreed to. The Torah's laws were, according to Christiananity, Contaminated by thier dissloyalty thus God's son was sent to change them, Thus the Bible. Both laws are untouchable and pure. I will post my evedance to prove this shortly. This should lead us to a debate about the Terrorists ability to minipulate Islam and that they don't care about Islam it self.

""But you know so much about Muhammad - who was, at the very best, a Middle-Eastern nuisance... which shouldnt really concern you in India. Not atleast till the Ummayd Caliphs consolidae their holdings in modern-day Iraq and sending out expeditionary forces into Sindh."" -->What have you been smoking lately Ppike... Islamic terrorism doesnt threaten us? The last thing I'd expect an Indian to say!!

""Trustedsourceofinfo, I debated with you that you can't blame Islam Directly to terror."" --->OK...I relate Islam indirectly to terror.. Does it matter-people are still being killed in the name of Allah and Muhammad.. I hope you understand some basic things... MOSLEMS REPRESENT ISLAM! If there arent any Moslems Islam is confined to history books only... Its like if there arent any criminals there isnt any CRIME...does it make sense or NOT? DId u read the original verse.. I might have misconstrued but I do think PArs kinda agrees with me in most ways that the Koran needs to be revamped;but of course he wont admit it openly and I dont blame him... But I will not disappoint you...I will present from the Koran and the Sunnah Haadiths what u'd like to see.. And one thing at a time...:)