==Please, name these mysterious, materialist, non-radically-religous and non-creationist Islamic radicals, GGG. They’re utterly unknown to the rest of the world.
How far do you want to go back, Mr. Islamo-Commie terrorist lover? Shall we start with the “Islamic Marxist” movement set up by the Bolsheviks in 1916? Or how about the PLO? Would you like to trace their Commie-Terrorist roots? Or how about your buddy Abbas Zamani, the KGB organizer of Hezbollah in Lebanon and Pakistan. Or how about all the Hezbollah suicide bombers that turned out your fellow traveling materialist commies and socialists. Or how about Bin Laden’s right hand man, KGB agent Ayman al-Zawahiri. All of them are hardcore Commie-Materialists who worship at the alter of evolutionary materialism, just like you.
The words of GGG:
I would be remiss if I didnt point out that Harun Yahya et al are performing a wonderful service re: the War on Terror.
When Muslims become creationists, they tend to openly and publicly denounce terror carried out in the name of Islam. As such, the more Muslims who become creationists (even if its of the Muslim variety) the more that helps the US and its allies in the War on Terror.
Actually, the majority of radical Islamist terrorists despise creation, and are materialist to the core. . . . All of them are hardcore Commie-Materialists who worship at the alter of evolutionary materialism . . .
Harun Yahya must be proud of you, GGG. Here you've reiterated perfectly his fraudulent and bizarre Islamic apologetics. For example, in Mr. Yahya's screed entitled "Islam Is Not The Source of Terrorism, But Its Solution", we find an overflowing bucket of the very bilge-water that you are carrying for him:
The words of Mr. Yahya:
One point that should be stressed at the outset is that the identities of the perpetrators of the acts of terrorism which targeted the United States are not yet determined. There is a chance that these horrible attackers are linked to quite different centres. It may well be a communist organization harboring rage and hatred against American values, a fascist organization opposing federal administration or a secret faction in another state. Even though the hijackers have Muslim identities, the questions regarding by whom and for what purposes these people were used will probably remain to be a mystery. . . .
[W]hile looking for the perpetrators of a terrorist act, its origins should be sought in disbelief rather than in religion. People with a fascist, communist, racist or materialist outlook on life should be suspected as potential perpetrators. The name or the identity of the triggerman is not important. . . .
Actually, the materialist, irreligious philosophies and ideologies that prevailed in the 19th century are responsible for these dismal acts. . . . At the roots of the greatest brutalities of the 19th century lies the Social Darwinist ideology. . . . As a matter of fact, the main disagreement is not between the West and Islam. Contrary to the general opinion, it is between the religious people of the West and of the Muslim world on the one hand, and the people opposing religion (like materialists and atheists) on the other.
Support should be provided for the spread of "True Islam", which is a religion of love, friendship, peace and brotherhood, and for its true understanding by Islamic societies.
And in the surreal interview that Mr. Adnan Oktar (qua Harun Yahya) gave to Azernews, which he subsequently posted on his equally surreal HarunYahya.Tv website as "AN INTERVIEW WITH MR. ADNAN OKTAR BY AZERNEWS (October 23, 2008)", we hear your esteemed Islamic-Creationist mentor say:
But what is even more interesting is that Darwinists have not a single transitional form fossil they can use. They have not a single fossil they can call a transitional form to prove Darwinism. What kind of theory is that? It is total nonsense, a complete lie. Can you have a theory with absolutely zero supporting evidence? You may say that something is a theory if there are two or three bits of evidence for it. But this one has none, no evidence at all. And it is total nonsense.
"All those who perpetrated the September 11 attacks were people who had received a Darwinist, materialist and atheist education, who had been educated in Europe and who held materialist views. Their identity papers may describe them as Muslims, but that is irrelevant...
It was the Masons who controlled Saddam. They used him, and then cast him off like an old shoe. They first used him in massacres, but Saddam was nothing without Masonic support. He could do nothing.
The public imagine that Masons are perfectly rational people, but they are actually materialists and this and that. They are people who directly worship Shaytan. But Shaytan cannot vanquish the followers of Allah. The prophets were followers of Allah, for instance, and could not be vanquished
The whole question is one of being a supporter of Allah. The supporters of Allah are invincible. So long as we genuinely love Allah, are genuinely on His side, fear Allah and genuinely believe in Allah, then we can never be laid low.
These things happen in cold, materialist politics. There are no such problems in politics in which religious faith and love prevail.
As Mr. Yahya's "Baghdad Bob" you are truly doing a stellar job of spreading his whopping lies, but the question remains: How did an Islamic apologist like you find such a comfortable and prominent home at Freerepublic?