Sunday, April 18, 2021   

  Home     About     Guest Editorials     Advertise     Blog     Site Map     Links     Contact      Subscribe RSS      Subscribe Email  
Home » General

LGF: Fact-Checking Pamela Geller: ‘270 million’ victims of Islam?

7 November 2011 General 25 Comments Email This Post Email This Post

by Sergey Romanov (LGF)

In her latest post Pamela Geller screeches:

It is time there was a museum exhibit dedicated to the victims of jihad. Where is the Met’s showcase of the lives and cultures and histories of the 270 million victims of over a millennium of jihadi wars, land appropriations, cultural annihilations, and enslavements? Where is the grandiose suite of new galleries dedicated to highlighting Islam’s systematic dehumanization of women: honor killings, clitorectomies, and so much more?

Wow, wow, Pamela, wait there a second. “270 million victims” of Islam? Are you sure? What might be the source for this? She gives no link.

Thankfully, Gus found what might be the primary source for this statistic:

Tears of Jihad

These figures are a rough estimate of the death of non-Muslims by the political act of jihad.


Thomas Sowell [Thomas Sowell, Race and Culture, BasicBooks, 1994, p. 188] estimates that 11 million slaves were shipped across the Atlantic and 14 million were sent to the Islamic nations of North Africa and the Middle East. For every slave captured many others died. Estimates of this collateral damage vary. The renowned missionary David Livingstone estimated that for every slave who reached a plantation, five others were killed in the initial raid or died of illness and privation on the forced march.[Woman’s Presbyterian Board of Missions, David Livingstone, p. 62, 1888] Those who were left behind were the very young, the weak, the sick and the old. These soon died since the main providers had been killed or enslaved. So, for 25 million slaves delivered to the market, we have an estimated death of about 120 million people. Islam ran the wholesale slave trade in Africa.

120 million Africans


The number of Christians martyred by Islam is 9 million [David B. Barrett, Todd M. Johnson, World Christian Trends AD 30-AD 2200, William Carey Library, 2001, p. 230, table 4-10] . A rough estimate by Raphael Moore in History of Asia Minor is that another 50 million died in wars by jihad. So counting the million African Christians killed in the 20th century we have:

60 million Christians


Koenard Elst in Negationism in India gives an estimate of 80 million Hindus killed in the total jihad against India. [Koenard Elst, Negationism in India, Voice of India, New Delhi, 2002, pg. 34.] The country of India today is only half the size of ancient India, due to jihad. The mountains near India are called the Hindu Kush, meaning the ‘funeral pyre of the Hindus.’

80 million Hindus


Buddhists do not keep up with the history of war. Keep in mind that in jihad only Christians and Jews were allowed to survive as dhimmis (servants to Islam); everyone else had to convert or die. Jihad killed the Buddhists in Turkey, Afghanistan, along the Silk Route, and in India. The total is roughly 10 million. [David B. Barrett, Todd M. Johnson, World Christian Trends AD 30-AD 2200, William Carey Library, 2001, p. 230, table 4-1.]

10 million Buddhists


Oddly enough there were not enough Jews killed in jihad to significantly affect the totals of the Great Annihilation. The jihad in Arabia was 100 percent effective, but the numbers were in the thousands, not millions. After that, the Jews submitted and became the dhimmis (servants and second class citizens) of Islam and did not have geographic political power.

This gives a rough estimate of 270 million killed by jihad.

This was written by Bill French aka “Bill Warner” of “Center for the Study of Political Islam” (cf. this FrontPageMag interview).

Let’s go over it step by step.

1. Africans. The number of 120 million victims is, of course, taken from thin air. Even assuming the number of 25 million slaves to be correct, and assuming that “Islam” was responsible for them, one cannot simply multpily the number by a single dodgy statistical point to get some sort of a total number of “dead”.

Notice that the whole transatlantic slave trade is attributed to Islam! Apparently, Christians had nothing to do with it. This way we will soon hear that Confederacy was an Islamic separatist state.

However, when we assume the scope of the Arab slave trade (which existed before Islam) to be between 10-18 million people, to claim that Islam as such is responsible for the associated victims is the same as claiming that Christianity is to blame for the victims of slavery and racism perpetrated by Christians (among many other things).

2. Christians. The first source cited is not quite scholarly. It’s a mish-mash of statistical data, and when it comes to “martyrdom” particularly, there is no careful, scholarly discussion of each particular number as well as its sources, which leaves the question of the reliability of each particular statistic open. Here’s the table 4-10. It is so exhaustive, yet it has only 9 million alleged Christian victims of Muslims (I did not bother to verify by recounting, but table 4-5 does have 9 million alleged victims of Muslims). However then the “Tears of Jihad” article claims that there were 50 million more of them. How did the authors of that table somehow miss these additional millions? If they were so incompetent, why cite their statistics in the first place?

But where is the 50 million figure from? The source is given as “History of Asia Minor” by Raphael Moore. Quick Google search brings up this source, which is an article by Raphael Moore entitled “In Memory Of The 50 Million Victims Of The Orthodox Christian Holocaust”. Its first sub-section is called “History Of Asia Minor: 1894-1923”, which is apparently at the root of confusion for Geller’s source: the name of the sub-section was confused with the name of the complete work. Such brilliant scholarship.

The number “50 million” does appear in the article, but only as a total number of Christians martyred in XXth century!

Between the tolls exacted from prisons, concentration camps, forced marches and exiles, warfare, famine, and brutal military occupation, it is reasonable to conclude that up to 50 million Orthodox Christians have perished in the first eight decades of the twentieth century.

Geller’s source simply took this number and ascribed it to “Jihad”.

(As a side note, this source is also far from scholarly and the number is not calculated properly, but that is already irrelevant for the purposes of the present critique.)

3. Hindus. It is claimed that the number is estimated by Elst (who is known for right-wing anti-Muslim bias). However, when we take a look at his book we see this:

As a contribution to research on the quantity of the Islamic crimes against humanity, we may mention Prof. K.S.Lal’s estimates about the population figures in medieval India (Growth of Muslim Population in India). According to his calculations, the Indian (subcontinent) population decreased by 80 million between 1000 (conquest of Afghanistan) and 1525 (end of Delhi Sultanate). More research is needed before we can settle for a quantitatively accurate evaluation of Muslim rule in India, but at least we know for sure that the term crime against humanity is not exaggerated.

So it’s not Elst’s estimate, but Lal’s estimate. And moreover, it is not an estimate of 80 million murders. It’s an estimate of a population decrease in five centuries, the causes of which may be many, including natural population decrease, conversions, etc.

The problem, however, is that Lal’s estimates are simply fantasies. One cannot take seriously any such estimates based on extremely fragmentary demographic data for the year 1000. Simon Digby writes in his review of Lal’s book, after addressing some of Lal’s assumptions (Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, vol. 38, no. 1, 1975, p. 177):

Regarding the population of India before A.D. 1000 Lal quotes the guesses of Colin Clark – 70 millions – and Jyotindra Mohan Datta – 200 to 300 millions. He himself prefers 200 millions and he believes that, mainly as a result of the Muslim invasions and presence, the population of India fell from 200 millions in A.D. 1000 to 125 millions in A.D. 1500, to rise under more amiable Mughal rule to 175 millions in 1700.


The author is known for his detailed studies of the Khalji dynasty and of the fifteenth century Delhi sultanate. He is well versed in the sources of medieval North Indian history. In the present study he has assembled almost all the conceivably relevant data and for this reason it will remain of value as a compendium of references. Yet the unknown variables are so great and the quality of the data yielded by our sources so poor that almost any detailed general estimates of population based upon them must appear wilful, if not fantastic. At the time when this review was being written, E. J. Hobsbawm (in New Society, 11 July 1974, 76) called the attention of historians of premodern Europe, who dabble in social statistics based on sources of comparable quality to those of Lal, to an axiom of computer operators ‘GIGO’: this stands for ‘Garbage in – Garbage out’!

A reasonable person can agree with this conclusion. Thus, the figure of “80,000,000” Hindus murdered by Muslims is based on nothing but weak speculations.

Interestingly, elsewhere Elst writes:

Prof. K.S. Lal once estimated that the Indian population declined by 50 million under the Sultanate, but that would be hard to substantiate; research into the magnitude of the damage Islam did to India is yet to start in right earnest.

4. Buddhists. The only source given for the alleged Buddhist victims of Muslims is the same book with Christian statistics, not any scholarly historical source about, you know, Buddhists. But when we look at the table 4-1, we only see the number of 10,000,000 Buddhists cited (without sources, I might add; and it contains 80,000,000 alleged Muslim martyrs as well, 10 million more than alleged Christian martyrs, estimated to be 70 million!). There is no indication in the table that these Buddhists were slaughtered by Muslims.


As an atheist, I have no problem with talking about the responsibility of religions for many evils of this world. However I must state that the much bandied about number of “270 million” victims of Islam is total bunk based on nothing.

Original post: LGF: Fact-Checking Pamela Geller: ‘270 million’ victims of Islam?


  1. This woman is UGLY dude

  2. @Salim, in more than one way.

  3. Every utterance by Geller is slanted, racist, and generally unfortunate. She is actually moderately attractive, which is also unfortunate. This article has a great photo of her.

  4. Yes, when someone doesn’t have a valid argument they usually resort to ad hominem attacks. Shame on you. Now how’s about a good argument refuting the number and supplying your own figures ( with proof) ?

  5. It appear “admin” wasted a lot of energy searching for the most unflattering picture they could find in lieu of a good solid argument.

  6. and what proof did geller have for the 270 million wait none no proof at all she just throws it out there based on as the article says nothing but numbers possibly taken out of thin air or from things that had nothing to do with islam, and I love that part “the confederacy was an islamic sepratist state” why do I get the feeling you and other supporters of probably on pot geller would believe that if she said told you so.

  7. If you think Geller’s wrong, then disprove it.

  8. since your not being very specific if its about the 270 million thing that is already been found to be baseless, but hopefully this will do but if anything lets see my favorite argument would have to be “taqiyya” according to many crackpots including geller herself it is a religious sanctioned lie to promote islam, in the words of doctor cox of scrubs “wrong wrong wrong wrong, wrong wrong wrong wrong” it is nothing of the sort see here, the reason I go on about that is because it is a completly nonsensical critique of islam for example you said that you would believe a muslim if he was threatining you but what about if he was trying to help you or wanted to be your friend? you see this is the thing about its nonsensibility, people like geller would take a something disturbing such as a random muslim saying he/she could “kill non muslims” or something along the lines of that and take it to face value and thus believe this about islam and how all muslims are, but when a muslim comes up and says something contrary to the above quote debunking such a statement and condemning him/her for it as a way of conveying that this is not what islam and muslims are, then geller and spencer go on about how we should be weary of what he or she is saying because of “taqiyya.”

    another reason the taqiyya critique makes no sense see if you can guess who said this “all war is based on decetpion” I will give you a hint “art of war” or cops who go undercover to arrest criminals by lying about who they are in order to get evidence against them, batman, or the people who planned and carried out “operation fortitude.”

  9. you will see why I put this here when my comment is done being moderated.

  10. 270 million, 100 million, 10 million, 1 million, 3 thousand, what’s the difference? (other than to those acctualy killed and their loved ones) to me the larger point is that the abrahamic religions, despite claiming to be “divine revelations” have proven themselves to be quite the oppisite.

    Volume 4, Book 52, Number 68:

    Narrated ‘Aisha:

    When Allah’s Apostle returned on the day (of the battle) of Al-Khandaq (i.e. Trench), he put down his arms and took a bath. Then Gabriel whose head was covered with dust, came to him saying, “You have put down your arms! By Allah, I have not put down my arms yet.” Allah’s Apostle said, “Where (to go now)?” Gabriel said, “This way,” pointing towards the tribe of Bani Quraiza. So Allah’s Apostle went out towards them .

  11. corey,

    i don’t know anything about this supposed lying for islam. but i have read some of the koran and severaal hadiths. so my “nonsensical critique of islam” is that it’s not conducive to modern western ideals. we don’t whip people for having consentual sex. we don’t stone adulterers or people who chose to change or abandon their religion. in fact we don’t whip or stone people to death for any reason.

  12. The Black Hole of History
    Everybody knows that Turkey, Egypt, North Africa, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan and other Islamic nations (there are 57 in all) are nearly 100% Muslim. Those countries were Christian, Buddhist and Hindu. Exactly how did this change to Muslim happen?
    When you read history it seems that Islam came, and, magically, the countries are Islamic. But of course an event of this magnitude did not simply happen. But our schools insist that Islam “just happens.” In fact, the entire history of the rise of Islamic imperialism is denied in the curriculum of our private, state and religious schools. Our schools don’t teach how Islam transforms each and every nation it invades to pure Islam, how it happens and what the consequences are. This is the law of Islamic saturation.
    Our history denies the truth of the Islamification of civilizations. Actually, our history denies that Islam is even involved. It was the Turks, the Arabs, the Moors and so on. There is no Islam, just some ethnic group.
    Look even closer at the history and ask this question: how many Kafirs (non-Muslims) died in Islamic conquest? You may find a number of dead here and there at a particular battle, but the establishment answer of the number murdered by jihad is zero, zip, none. In fact, there was not even a category called “jihad deaths.” You see, Islam just happens.
    After 9/11, there was an intellectual response to the establishment intellectual vacuum about how Islam actually functioned. A revolution of new scholarship on Islam was created by those amateur scholars who are outside the brain-dead establishment academy. The minds and labors of Bat Ye’or, Spencer, Trifkovic, Bostom, Warraq, Warner, Phares and many others tackled the problem of the true nature of Islam. The new scholarship gave answers to all of the questions about Islamic colonization of the world.
    For the deaths caused by Sharia law, the Center for the Study of Political Islam coined the name, Tears of Jihad. There is no way to actually come up with a precise number of deaths, because Islam has written the history (after all, they were the winners) and, of course, the history is all beautiful. There is only one way to even get close to a precise answer and that is for the academy to take up this subject and treat it as a priority. Conferences would be held, papers given, journals published with peer reviews and the rest of the academic critical thought process would go on for decades and many papers.
    If the answer to the total jihad deaths is not zero, then CSPI proposes that 270 million Kafirs have been murdered over the last 1400 years. This figure includes 60 million Christians and 80 million Hindus. What if only 30 million Christians had been killed? Does that mean that churches should continue to ignore the Coptic murders in Egypt today and deny the million Armenians killed in the 20th century? Would Hindus have more or less courage if only 50 million, instead of 80 million had been murdered?
    This is a civilizational problem, not an accounting problem. It is not that we deny that 270 million have been killed by jihad; we deny that Islam is even at war with all Kafirs and Kafir civilization. A better kill number won’t erase the cowardice that blinds us today to an acknowledgment that Islam has a history of annihilating all civilization—the law of Islamic saturation.
    It is interesting to see people’s reaction to the numbers. The vast majority ignore them. They don’t want to know. The most political figure is the number of Africans killed in jihad for the slave trade. The establishment tells us that all slaves were brought here from the West coast of Africa by Christians. It turns out that the slave trade was also on the Mediterranean and the east coast of Africa and each and everyone of the wholesalers in Africa were Muslims. This knowledge violates the establishment dogma of Christian evil.
    One of the failures of the number 270 million is that it does not include the number of the Zoroastrians killed in Persia and other minorities such as the Sabians and Bahai. Who knows how many peasants died in some village without a name, simply because they did not believe that Mohammed was the prophet of Allah?
    So, if the number is not 270 million, then what is a better number? Use critical thought to answer this problem, and don’t tell us that the number is zero. Give us an improvement, not a denial. We have had denial for 1400 years.
    Facts and numbers are important but the real tragedy here is that our schools don’t teach the history that is the source the world’s greatest suffering caused by Islamic jihad imperialism. Since establishment professors and historians refuse to touch the subject of the Tears of Jihad, we must depend upon other scholarship to address the question of how we get the exact numbers. To that end, if you can improve any of the death figures with factual data, go to /blog/the-black-hole-of-history/ and give us your information.
    Bill Warner, Director, Center for the Study of Political Islam

  13. yeah I think these nice sikhs got a taste of the “intellectual response of islam” after 9-11 what else was there oh yes there was the rise of psuedo experts of islam who champion themselves as “freedom fighters” even though they are supportive of people who propose udemocratic laws unfair to muslims such as either banning them from wearing a hijab or taxing them for wearing one such as geert wilders (how democratic and freedom supporting of him) and fans of thers who think that deporting muslims or taking away there rights under the constitution is morally acceptable(again very democratic) yeah 9-11 gave rise to alot of intellegence didnt it.

  14. M2,
    You obviously don’t believe in divine revealation to Muhammad (PBUH). That hadith was talking about how the Prophet forgot to punish the criminals of the tribe of Banu Qurayzah. This was one of the 3 major Jewish tribes in Medina. The first two were banished for openly supporting and passing on information to the enemies of the Muslims. The Banu Qurayza were punished for openly and willingly supporting the pagans of Mecca. They were punished according to the Jewish laws for treason and people who break treaties. The Hadith is only to show you how God sent his angels to tell Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) not to put down his weapons when there were still traitors to be dealt with.
    As always, you pity the criminals, and not the victims. This is not the first time you have mentioned the Banu Qurayzah and it probably won’t be the last.

  15. Anonymous,
    The Christians have been using Muslims for centuries to cover up their mess and human rights violations. Many of these slaves were Muslims themselves. Did the Muslims make the Christians treat their slaves badly? NO! This was because of Britain. Slavery came because of the British and many of the Founding Fathers worked tirelessly to end slavery.
    The Muslims treated their slaves very well. They did not enslave the children born from slaves. The slaves earned wages (although small) which could be used to buy their freedom. They ate from the same food, wore the same clothes, and slept in the same house as their Masters. The slaves in Arabia were treated more like what you would call servants in today’s world. The reason slavery got a bad name was because of the oppression of African Americans in the U.S. You will also find many passages in the Quran that encourage fair treatment of slaves. Slaves are considered equal to their Masters and only differ in regard to the deeds they carried out and what was in their heart.

  16. M Bennett,

    yes you’re right i don’t believe in god or “divine revelations”. congradulations on figuring that out. ok, forget about the Banu Qurayza. how about the athiests burnt alive by ali and the prophet’s “divine revelation”, “whoever changes their islamic religion, kill them.” how about adulterers? fornicators? drunks? islam clear supports torture, right?

    “As always, you pity the criminals, and not the victims”, i guess it depends on how you define “criminal” and “vitcim”. so who is who in this situation???????????

    much like the bangladeshi girl, they got what they deserved according to allah.

    peace, well as long as 4 people don’t see you having sex, then it’s death by stoning or maybe just 100 lashes. thank god for small mercies!!!

    as for slavery, are you serious? “The Muslims treated their slaves very well”……. sorry i can’t stop laughing. how about not enslaving people to begin with. god couldn’t make the divine revelation, something like “thou shall hold no man or woman in bondage”? how about “thou shall not enslave anyone”????????????? so there is a book on menstration but god couldn’t take the time to reveal on sentance on not enslaving people????? oh wait he did “speak” to slavery.

    “The reason slavery got a bad name” LMAO. so slavery by it’s self doesn’t have a bad name???? so a kinder gentler slavery has a good name???????? you can try to redefine words all you want. but if you can’t come and go as you please as an adult you are a slave, and therefore not equal to your master. if you can’t quit your “servant” job, then you aren’t a servant, you are a slave. a gilded cage is still a cage. i don’t care what you ate, wore, or where you slept, are you serious??????? slavery is a good thing according to god/islam?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

  17. sorry laughing so hard i had a few typos. “clearly” and “one” not clear and on.

  18. “The Muslims treated their slaves very well.”

    Yes and they STILL do to this day. Muslims are one of the few groups left on this earth that still believe it’s ok to keep slaves. Nothing to be proud of. Oh and you forgot to mention that it was muslims who were responsible for selling all those slaves to the Americans.

    BTW, Nice try at deflection and changing the subject.

  19. M2,

    “islam clear supports torture, right?” (srry, where does the Quran say this? Plz show me.)
    “much like the bangladeshi girl, they got what they deserved according to allah.” (Ohhh, you heard Allah say this? Congratulations, i had no idea you had divine revealation sent to you. I already told you in the previous article. That girl was raped. She would not be punished according to the proper Sharia law. Srry if you think all bad Muslims are following Islam properly.)

    You obviousl don’t take the time to hear my explanations. The hadith you quoted was not accepted as the norm by God or Muhammad. There are many more hadiths that show Prophet Muhammad did not punish apostacy. The only apostacy Prophet Muhammad punished were the ones who had joined the enemies who were openly fighting the Muslims (punished for treason, not apostacy). Right, so whatever Ali says is the word of God? Who said what? What the Quran says is the word of God. WHAT AlI SAYS is not.

    Your problem is you can’t separate religion from the mistakes or wrongdoings of what people do. No one can help you if you choose to think this way.

  20. Anonymous and M2,
    I never said ENSLAVING people was okay. Neither does the Torah, Bible or Quran. Slavery was deeply embedded into the Arab culture b4 Islam. Islam encouraged the freeing of slaves in many passages of the Quran. Not that you would actually bother to read them. God only told them to gradually end slavery. Telling them to free everyone would not work because Bedouin tribes living across Arabia kidnapped and sold people as slaves all the time. Introducing Islam was a way to get them to stop this. Why not read the biography of Salman al Farisi? He was a Persian slave who earned his freedom because of his help from Prophet Muhammad.

    Anonymous, can’t help that the Christians have brainwashed you into thinking Muslims were responsible for the slave trade because the slaves were brought from the Middle East. The Christians did not even treat their slaves like humans. They justified this persecution by saying what they were doing was slavery, so it was acceptable according to their religion. I AM NOT THE ONE CHANGING THE MEANING OF WORDS, the Christians have been playing with words for centuries (e.g. infidel, Jihad, holy war). Muslims treated their slaves like servants as you would describe in the Western culture today. The reason we use the word “slavery” is because the definition of slavery according to Muslims is when you control what a person wears, eats, and sleeps. This can also be used to define a prisoner, but we use the word slave because for us slave meant servant back then and that is how they were treated, nicely. Do some research. Did you know that the word “gay” use to mean happy? But, now it is a nice term used to describe people who practic sodomy.

    As mentioned b4, slaves were also used for the term “prisoners of war” so of course they could not leave, but they were allowed to work for a term and go free. Your brain does not seem to be working. There were no prisons in Arabia to hold all these people. The only other option was execution. And you luv to whine like a baby about how the Muslims go killing everyone. You will never be satisfied no matter what explaination I give you.

  21. m bennet,

    sorry for whining like a baby. not sure where or when i did? but hey if a slave can be redefined as a servant, then what seem like logical questions and not wanting to see a law which calls for torture (i.e. flogging and stoning) people implimented, then i guess i do whine like a baby. but if you really want to hear someone whine, make sure you’re one of the witnesses when they take the whip to the evil fornicators.


    الزانية والزاني فاجلدوا كل واحد منهما مائة جلدة ولا تأخذكم بهما رأفة في دين الله إن كنتم تؤمنون بالله واليوم الآخر وليشهد عذابهما طائفة من المؤمنين

    The [unmarried] woman or [unmarried] man found guilty of sexual intercourse – lash each one of them with a hundred lashes, and do not be taken by pity for them in the religion of Allah , if you should believe in Allah and the Last Day. And let a group of the believers witness their punishment.

    i guess one hundred lashes isn’t torture. you do have an interesting why of defining things.

    “torture means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he”

  22. as for the workings of my brain, you maybe right. then again what did jesus say about the spec in your brothers eye?
    “I never said ENSLAVING people was okay. Neither does the Torah, Bible or Quran.” really? ok, maybe you need to reread dueteronomy.


    والمحصنات من النساء إلا ما ملكت أيمانكم كتاب الله عليكم وأحل لكم ما وراء ذلكم أن تبتغوا بأموالكم محصنين غير مسافحين فما استمتعتم به منهن فآتوهن أجورهن فريضة ولا جناح عليكم فيما تراضيتم به من بعد الفريضة إن الله كان عليما حكيما

    And [also prohibited to you are all] married women except those your right hands possess. [This is] the decree of Allah upon you. And lawful to you are [all others] beyond these, [provided] that you seek them [in marriage] with [gifts from] your property, desiring chastity, not unlawful sexual intercourse. So for whatever you enjoy [of marriage] from them, give them their due compensation as an obligation. And there is no blame upon you for what you mutually agree to beyond the obligation. Indeed, Allah is ever Knowing and Wise.

    so how do you define “your right hand posses”. looks like you can have women slaves and have sex with them even if you didn’t manage to kill their husband in battle. that’s nice.

    so are you saying prison systems are better than enslaving people.? so do you think the geneva conventions are better rules for war than the koran? now on that i would agree. “You will never be satisfied no matter what explaination I give you.” now that’s not true. i would be very satisfied with an explaination along the lines of “some of the koran is outdated, and many hadiths have a poor authenticity. and even the one where muhammad sells a slave to settle a masters debt after the master willed manumisism, well that was just wrong of him.

  23. I believe its important that all readers look a little deeper in the infamous history of the thread author.

    Sergey Romanov is a known Holocaust Hate blogger. He is accused of running decades long smear campaigns against Holocaust memorial websites. He was involved in the attempted theft of one, he is a proven to be a black mailer, and cyber criminal.

    You can learn more about him at:

    Don’t be decieved by Sergey Romanov

  24. Thanks for posting those links Eric, what I read there about Sergey Romanov is mind boggling.

    Anything he publishes must be taken with a grain of salt.


Have your say!

Add your comment below, or trackback from your own site. You can also subscribe to these comments via RSS.

Be nice. Keep it clean. Stay on topic. No spam.

You can use these tags:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>