French Magazine which portrayed Prophet 10 Dead in Office.

Lets make it a bit more spicy and lets bring up some other similar stories.

The guy who captured and killed hostages in the jewish shop, who was a most wanted in France, along with his girlfriend criminals... He was actually a special guest in the precedential palace, during Sarkozi government.

It reminds me the same exact similar story, with Isis leaders and mccain

Link 1 (france)

Link 2 Mccain with isis

So I start believing that the jewish incident was a special guest event, setup. Both stories similar, both "guests/pawns" dead after they used them. They always want to use some events to point out the anti simitism. Its very gray the least.

Its very gray for many reasons, The request he made, in order to set free the hostages, was the most stupid request I ve ever seen, if you are a most wanted, can you be such a rebel/activist? And if you are an activist, can you kill that easy 4 people? lol Including this story with Sarkozi government.

Its 2 different profiles into 1 personality.

a reply to: Aliian

Right. We all know that the cartoons of the prophet is offensive "to Muslims".

Maybe the cartoonist are in heaven right now, laughing their head off. But, at least,
they now know how Muslims feel about the cartoons.

You sound as though you believe that Muslims are irrational beasts, devoid of reason or self control, and that therefore the victims deserved to die for inciting uncontrollable natural forces. I do not share your Islamophobia. The Prophet wanted to abolish idolatry, not set himself up as a new idol. True Muslims feel like this:



L'Orient

They submit to the Prophet's teachings of compassion, not of conquest. Mosques should support Muslim immigrants in integrating themselves into their new culture, not further alienating them from it.

a reply to: Ploutonas

He was actually a special guest in the precedential palace, during Sarkozi government.

Not exactly. The article you cite says that he was one of hundreds present at the "French White House" to publicize Sarkozy's successful employment policies. Not exactly a secret power luncheon.

originally posted by: Aliian

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: Aliian

That's the problem. We all know that cartoons of the prophet is offensive.

No; I think they are funny.

Right. We all know that the cartoons of the prophet is offensive "to Muslims".

Maybe the cartoonist are in heaven right now, laughing their head off. But, at least,
they now know how Muslims feel about the cartoons.

Actually that cartoon was insulting to RADICAlS in islam. there is nothing in the koran that forbids a drawing of muhammed unless ti was added in after his death which aborgates it since it was not his to add.

Their prophet actually have very dark history and they trying hard to hide it, but they cant. They cannot re-write history and he was not a holy for sure. They force persuade him as holy and his actions. Even his sins are holy to the today muslims and one of them is pedophilia. Just 2 weeks ago, I ve read that the high priests in a muslim country, I think its egypt or arab country (I have to search it again), said : there is nothing wrong of men getting married with 6 year old girls, its holy... lol

edit : I found the article about the 6 year old little girl in Sudan, they forced it to be married with a 30+ y old man. And it become global news and muslim priests supported the action of a 6y old to be married. The news published @30 of December 2014

In the other hand, all these things happening just a bit before France recognize Palestine as a state and less than a month ago, arab seichs had a secret meeting with mosand and jewish president, in israel. They wanted to keep it secret but photos leaked and news about it, so they kept it low, covered up. (there is some news and facts to prove that).

so there is lots of gray areas here...

And muslim religion is actually a copy paste of jewish religion and jewish religion comes from babylona, Kronos/Saturn or Sabaoth or SEt in most ancient terms, or Jade or whatever.

wrong post

Here the strange things started.

The officer Mr. Fredoun who held the investigation of Habdo just suicide. The official report says : depression

www.medhajnews.com...

Not sure if its fake, but the oficial big media, such us (bbc, yahoo, etc) they give no word about it. But they posted it in my country.

originally posted by: Ploutonas
Here the strange things started.

The officer Mr. Fredoun who held the investigation of Habdo just suicide. The official report says : depression

www.medhajnews.com...

Not sure if its fake, but the oficial big media, such us (bbc, yahoo, etc) they give no word about it. But they posted it in my country.

It's real, I found articles reporting it.

edit : the big medias aren't reporting it because he was just one guy working on the case. People die, people commit suicide, sometimes they happen to be related to other big stories but here I call simple coincidence.

le parisien

France 3

tendance ouest

a reply to: NeoMuslim

“Hmm on one side this seems to be exaggerated. Those people should not offend others especially their teacher. It's because none of you believe in Mohammad (PBUH).”

NeoMuslim, people haven't chosen to not believe in Mohammad arbitrarily, rather neither he nor his followers, by which I mean actual Muslims who've followed his example, have made a convincing case to believe in his claims, in fact both he and the jihad fighters who represent him have (by in large) shown their total lack of Scriptural knowledge, knowledge of proper history and disinterest in the study of God in any fashion. Waving guns and swords before someone's face isn't compelling evidence, yet this is how these men have always convinced others to accept Islam, it's never been through the beauty of a verse but by the power of their arms. Therefore people reject not only Mohammad, but also his false retelling of the life of figures like Jesus and Moses, there's an excellent example to be found in the case of Isa, Isa isn't a real person, he's taken directly from apocryphal writings (e.g The Infancy Gospel of Thomas) which were penned by persons posing as the disciples hundreds of years after the events they claim to record, hence Mohammad literally spoke fairy tales of the ancients into the Qur'an. Such an objection is to be found within the Qur'an itself (Qur'an 6:25; 23:83; 27:68; 46:17; 68:15; 83:13.)

Qur'an 8:31: "And when Our verses are recited to them, they say, "We have heard. If we willed, we could say [something] like this. This is not but legends of the former peoples."

Moreover you've written: "Isn't it obvious? Romans did a lot worse to those following the book. And in turn, spread the word of Jesus farther than he would have done alone." which appears very much confused, this isn't the Islamic interpretation of the events which followed Jesus' works and ministry, furthermore it's inaccurate with regards to Christian and secular interpretations of history also. For you to claim Rome propagated Jesus' message further than He could have is to say they were accurately representing His words, deeds and beliefs, however if that were the case Quranic testimony of Jesus' life would be thoroughly and irretrievably in error! Modern Islamic teaching precludes there being any crucifixion, atonement, trial and passion narrative, events which (particularly in the case of the crucifixion) historians unflinchingly accept, therefore that which you've written could be by less forgiving people misconstrued as blasphemy against Allah. Moreover, Christ's teachings flourished within Jewish and Gentile communities without the intervention of any nation or governmental powers. Historian Philip Schaff in The Person of Christ succinctly illustrates this:

"This Jesus of Nazareth, without money and arms, conquered more millions than Alexander, Caesar, Mohammad, and Napoleon; without science and learning, He shed more light on things human and divine than all philosophers and scholars combined; without the eloquence of schools, he spoke such words of life as were never spoken before or since, and produced effects which lie beyond the reach of orator or poet; without writing a single line, he set more pens in motion, and furnished themes for more sermons, orations, discussions, learned volumes, works of art, and songs of praise than the whole army of great men of ancient and modern times."

Yet believers in Islam can't adopt this or any accurate historic narratives, not without having to jettison Islamic truth claims concerning Jesus. So by way of an alternative Muslims both active in jihad and nominal are forced to embrace radical notions such like swoon theory, the idea that Christ merely fainted upon the cross only to later emerge from internment within the tomb, nevertheless that is an unevidenced assertion which ignores both the efficiency of the Roman soldiers, in addition to an early biographical account which alludes to Jesus' heart rupturing after having had a spear thrust through His side (John 19:34.) What's more, due to how thoroughly debunked the Quranic account of events has become, Muslims who are willing to learn are immediately blitzed by way of both unscholarly and conspiratorial theories such like apparent death theory, how then can people honestly be surprised when murderers and fanatics emerge from within these communities, and are Muslims to lecture as you hope whilst they're ever influenced through faith bolstering fantasies?

Bookending your message you've written: "So those who speak only of hate towards Islam, I invite you to learn why you hate it. Take a lesson or two, point something out that goes against everything you stand for and then grow a dislike. Instead of wrongfully attaching the religion on people. The real value of the religion is in the Holy book The Quran. Read and Understand before you hate and discriminate." In an awesome showing of teamwork both you and I have invited people to read the Qur'an recently! Albeit done for very different reasons, nonetheless you're mistaken regarding your use of the word discriminate, since you've used the word alongside hate as if to show they're similarly negative, yet discriminating simply means to recognize a distinction between one sort of thing and another. For example, I discriminate between acid and water when I'm feeling thirsty, wouldn't you too? I also discriminate between red, amber and green lights when I'm crossing the road, to ignore and refuse discriminating wouldn't be particularly intelligent. Therefore, if I'm so discriminatory concerning my body which is temporal, how much more ought I to discriminate when faced with choices that may impact the soul and my eternity? We must stop conflating Christianity and Islam, it has become a tool through which every religion is condemned for Islamic atrocities and Islamic ideology hides behind the peaceful teachings of others.

a reply to: DJW001

DJW001, are you perhaps of the Muslim persuasion? I ask because you have written "The Prophet" as if to say you truly believe Mohammed was a prophet of Allah, perhaps this is simply a term you use so to appease and befriend others, please do clarify. Although if you aren't Muslim I'd consider your language very suspect indeed! I can just imagine someone like this entering a room, one wherein there is already a Muslim, Christian and Jew present, to the Christian they'd first approach by words of "Greetings, peace be with you in the name of Jesus, God's only and eternally begotten Son!" Thereafter they'd approach the Muslim, whereupon they'd proclaim "In the name of Allah, the merciful, the compassionate, Jesus was but a man!" Next as is their style they'd approach the Jew, saying as they do: "Hear O Israel, your God is one! Cursed be this Jesus who was hung upon a tree."

Of course if you are Muslim then I'm doubly disturbed! Largely because you've written: "They submit to the Prophet's teachings of compassion, not of conquest." I'm curious as to how you've come to so un-Islamic a conclusion, although your view is rather hazy which leads into other questions. However, rather than outlining my own views concerning whether or not Mohammed was compassionate as you claim, I would prefer to list what Muslim writers and historians have written regarding their prophet, what's more I'll only list Muslim sources.

* Mohammed beheaded anywhere between 600 to 900 Jewish men and boys within trenches, as confirmed by the earliest Muslim biography of Muhammad: "Then [the Banu Qurayza tribe] surrendered, and the apostle [Muhammad] confined them in Medina in the quarter of d. al-Harith, a woman of B. al-Najjar. Then the apostle went out to the market of Medina (which is still its market today) and dug trenches in it. Then he sent for them and struck off their heads in those trenches as they were brought out to him in batches. Among them was the enemy of Allah Huyayy b. Akhtab and Ka`b b. Asad their chief. There were 600 or 700 in all, though some put the figure as high as 800 or 900. As they were being taken out in batches to the apostle they asked Ka`b what he thought would be done with them. He replied, 'Will you never understand? Don't you see that the summoner never stops and those who are taken away do not return? By Allah it is death!' This went on until the apostle made an end of them."

* Mohammed ordered that a man named Kinana be tortured with fire for refusing to hand over his money, as read in Sirat Rasulallah by Ibn Ishaq: "Kinana al-Rabi, who had the custody of the treasure of Banu Nadir, was brought to the apostle who asked him about it. He denied that he knew where it was. A Jew came (Tabari says "was brought"), to the apostle and said that he had seen Kinana going round a certain ruin every morning early. When the apostle said to Kinana, "Do you know that if we find you have it I shall kill you?" He said "Yes". The apostle gave orders that the ruin was to be excavated and some of the treasure was found. When he asked him about the rest he refused to produce it, so the apostle gave orders to al-Zubayr Al-Awwam, "Torture him until you extract what he has." So he kindled a fire with flint and steel on his chest until he was nearly dead. Then the apostle delivered him to Muhammad b. Maslama and he struck off his head, in revenge for his brother Mahmud."

* Mohammed believed ex-Muslims must be murdered: 'Allah's Apostle said, "The blood of a Muslim who confesses that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that I am His Apostle, cannot be shed except in three cases: In Qisas for murder, a married person who commits illegal sexual intercourse and the one who reverts from Islam (apostate) and leaves the Muslims." (Sahih al-Bukhari, 9:83:17, Sahih al-Bukhari, 4:52:260.)

* Further confirmation: "An Apostate will be suppressed three days in prison in order that he may repent ..... otherwise, he should be killed, because he has changed his true religion, therefore, there is no use from his living, regardless of being a man or a woman, as Mohammed said: "Whoever changes his religion, kill him", narrated by Al-Bukhari and Muslim."

* Mohammed approved of women being raped in front of their husbands: "Some of the Companions of the Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) were reluctant to have intercourse with the female captives in the presence of their husbands who were unbelievers. So Allah, the Exalted, sent down the Qur’anic verse: (Sura 4:24) "And all married women (are forbidden) unto you save those (captives) whom your right hands possess." (Abu Dawud 2150, also Muslim 3433.)

* Further confirmation: "We went out with Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) on the expedition to the Bi'l-Mustaliq and took captive some excellent Arab women; and we desired them, for we were suffering from the absence of our wives, (but at the same time) we also desired ransom for them. So we decided to have sexual intercourse with them but by observing 'azl (Withdrawing the male sexual organ before emission of semen to avoid-conception). But we said: We are doing an act whereas Allah's Messenger is amongst us; why not ask him? So we asked Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him), and he said: It does not matter if you do not do it, for every soul that is to be born up to the Day of Resurrection will be born." (Sahih Muslim 3371.)

* Mohammed attacked helpless people: "The Prophet had suddenly attacked Bani Mustaliq without warning while they were heedless and their cattle were being watered at the places of water. Their fighting men were killed and their women and children were taken as captives" (Bukhari 46:717.)

Were you perhaps unaware of how early Muslim historians depicted Mohammed, nevertheless compassion isn't what comes to mind when people begin studying Mohammed's life, that which you have posted is misguided at best and propaganda at worst. Nominal Muslims however sincere in their views are yet following someone who (according to Muslim sources remember?) demanded that ex-Muslims are to be killed, and non-Muslims are to be fought and taxed for their disbelief. (Qur'an 9:29.)

a reply to: OldSchoolContemporary

I am an atheist, and use proper terms of address when appropriate, as a point of etiquette. I will refer to H.H. the Dalai Lama, HRH Queen Elizabeth, and so forth. Each surya in the Qu'ran that establishes a law will generally end "provided that it is done with Mercy and Compassion." Look it up!

You are correct about Mohammed's warrior exploits. (Note that when discussing the secular historical record, the Prophet is just a man, not a religious symbol!) I have never claimed that "Islam is a religion of peace." The Prophet's teachings were an attempt to quell the traditional internecine warfare of tribes on the Arabian peninsula. Unfortunately, in his attempt to bring peace to the Arabs, he spread strife abroad. Nevertheless, the intent of the Qu'ranic injunctions are to make a warlike people more merciful and compassionate.

I am curious: what makes you think Jews greet each other by cursing Jesus?

a reply to: DJW001

Good morning DJW001!

As I've posted, you use language such like "The Prophet" (Capital P no less) so to appease and befriend Muslims who would be offended otherwise, and to defend this by writing: "I use proper terms of address when appropriate, as a point of etiquette." only serves to compound my earlier point! Since if you write Mohammed was a warrior involved in warrior exploits (that and not a prophet of God) then you writing The Prophet isn't "an appropriate term of address." Rather what you're saying is that it's an expedient term of address, convenient and practical although possibly improper or immoral. I've never greeted Muslims through assalamualaikum because I'm not Muslim in outlook, doing so would make someone an unashamed fraud, apparently you're happy saying and writing The Prophet whilst disbelieving in prophets in the fashion which Muslims believe, in addition you also don't believe in Allah who's supposedly sent them!

'Each surya in the Qu'ran that establishes a law will generally end "provided that it is done with Mercy and Compassion." Look it up!'

I'm truly hoping this isn't what you're grounding "the Prophet's teachings of compassion" upon, it's tantamount (though not selfsame) to writing: "Mohammed's teachings are compassionate because Mohammed's book says they're compassionate, look it up!" Outrageous reasoning DJW001, regardless let's continue by way of how you decide an issue is either compassionate or something otherwise, because "in the name of god the merciful, the compassionate." begins every chapter of the Qur'an save one, chapter nine, the last major chapter of the Qur'an and its most violent, hence Allah's/Mohammed's final orders are without an assertion of compassion and mercy which you find so compelling. Nonetheless nobody believes someone to teach compassion because they say they do, perhaps you were being expedient when you called Mohammed's teachings compassionate, which would mean everything you write is filtered and rewritten so to conform to somebody's interpretation of etiquette, rather than simply writing something truthful.

"I have never claimed that "Islam is a religion of peace."

Could you perhaps clarify what Islam is then, since in the above you appear to be saying Islam isn't a religion of peace. In addition "True Muslims feel like this" (as written by yourself) appears to be you asserting who's a real Muslim and who isn't, which I'm unperturbed by if what you're writing is based upon anything, which thus far it appears it isn't. Who exactly is a true Muslim according to your viewpoint?

"I am curious: what makes you think Jews greet each other by cursing Jesus?"

Considering Jesus Himself was Jewish I thoroughly doubt Jews curse Him upon their daily greetings! Rather I wanted to shoot a familiar theme through all three of the hypothetical conversations, Jesus is in fact a perfect figure to do this with. Actually in the case of Messianic Jews they'd greet one another in the name of Jesus their Jewish Messiah!

"The Prophet wanted to abolish idolatry, not set himself up as a new idol." & "Nevertheless, the intent of the Qu'ranic injunctions are to make a warlike people more merciful and compassionate."

Isaiah 1:18, which I thoroughly enjoy, reads: "Come let us reason together," Let's both examine Mohammed and the Qur'anic intentions therefore, as you're proclaiming what's what with regards to intentions without quoting anything of the belief system. Firstly you believe Mohammed wasn't attempting to make an idol of himself, however that goes directly against the way in which Mohammed believed himself the excellent example of conduct. Professor Maqsood Jafri writing On The Character of Prophet Muhammad explains: "No blot or blemish on his character can be found." Imagine if you or I made so absurd a claim about ourselves! Or perhaps told others we were an example for all of humankind, yet Mohammed makes this claim regarding himself between the pages of the Qur'an, as shown through Qur'an 33:21.

Furthermore Muslims are ordered through their Qur'an to help Mohammed, and to revere Mohammed, and to glorify Mohammed day and night! (Qur'an 48:8-9.) Is the Qur'an infallible by 'Abdallah 'Abd al-Fadi goes into greater detail concerning Qur'an 48:8-9.

“This sentence is disrupted because of a sudden shift from addressing Muhammad to addressing other people. Apart from this, the accusative pronoun in ‘succour Him, and reverence Him’ refers, beyond doubt, to Muhammad, who was mentioned earlier, not to God as the English translator understood it. But ‘give Him glory’ refers to God. The entire verse is chaotic. The reader cannot be expected to understand its true meaning from the arrangement of words. It is kufr (‘unbelief’) to say ‘succour Him, and reverence Him, and that you may give Him glory at the dawn and in the evening’ about Muhammad, since glory should be given to God alone. It is also kufr to make such a statement with reference to God, since God almighty is not in need for succour or help!”

Without cajoling of the text its meaning is plain, Mohammed claimed himself to be an idol of glory and reverence.

Moreover Mohammed informed his followers: "(Say) O Muhammad!: (If ye love Allah) and His religion, (follow me) follow my Religion; (Allah will love you) He will increase your love (and forgive you your sins) which were committed when you followed Judaism. (Allah is Forgiving) of whoever repents, (Merciful) towards whoever dies in a state of repentance. This verse was revealed about the Jews who claimed they were the children of Allah and His beloved ones. When this verse was revealed 'Abdullah Ibn Ubayy said: “Muhammad is commanding us to love him as the Christians loved Jesus”, and the Jews said: “Muhammad wants us to take him as a compassionate Lord, just as the Christians took Jesus as a compassionate Lord." (Tanwîr al-Miqbâs min Tafsîr Ibn ‘Abbâs, Q. 3:31.)

Clarification comes by way of the Qur'an: 'Say, [O Muhammad], "If you should love Allah , then follow me, [so] Allah will love you and forgive you your sins. And Allah is Forgiving and Merciful."' You being an atheist wouldn't believe anything of Qur'an 3:31 coming from Allah, hence it's Mohammed that directly connects a person's salvation upon their reaction to him. Culminating in today's anarchy there's scant reason to doubt that Mohammed and an ongoing precession of his most loyal followers, most likely motivated by wealth and political power, continually exploited others through his example.

Resources that come to the above conclusion are compelling, whereas you too may quote the shahada, which reads "There's no god but Allah, and Mohammed is his messenger." Yet even then your point is undermined by its conclusion. It's clear even the Muslim declaration of faith conjoins Allah with Mohammed. Finally since "intent of the Qu'ranic injunctions" isn't dependant upon Allah's non-existent views, but on Mohammed's, an in-depth study of Mohammed's deeds would better explain whether or not "the intent of the Qu'ranic injunctions are to make a warlike people more merciful and compassionate." Yet judging by your last message nothing in it points to Mohammed being a man of outstanding moral character, in fact you accept my points regarding his torture, rapes, murders, kidnappings and thievery, so how can the Qur'an (an expression of his faulty moral views) be considered useful in attempting to be morally upright?

a reply to: OldSchoolContemporary

Yet judging by your last message nothing in it points to Mohammed being a man of outstanding moral character, in fact you accept my points regarding his torture, rapes, murders, kidnappings and thievery, so how can the Qur'an (an expression of his faulty moral views) be considered useful in attempting to be morally upright?

Because all religions are created by men, and no man, including Jesus, is perfect. That is why there is no perfect religion or even ethical code. I will no longer pander to your Anti-Semitic, Islamophobic trolling, which seems intended to inflame rather than persuade.

a reply to: DJW001

I have carefully walked you through Muslim writings and teachings of Mohammad himself, you have addressed none of these, instead you excuse yourself by use of false outrage, for this all you have shown is how unreasonable and inarticulate defenders of modern day Islam are. That in turn reminds me of a quote attributed to Joseph Joubert, who explained: 'It is better to debate a question without settling it than to settle a question without debating it.' You my friend have settled the question without debating it.

originally posted by: OldSchoolContemporary
a reply to: DJW001

I have carefully walked you through Muslim writings and teachings of Mohammad himself, you have addressed none of these, instead you excuse yourself by use of false outrage, for this all you have shown is how unreasonable and inarticulate defenders of modern day Islam are. That in turn reminds me of a quote attributed to Joseph Joubert, who explained: 'It is better to debate a question without settling it than to settle a question without debating it.' You my friend have settled the question without debating it.

And you have done nothing but try to impugn my sincerity, while providing a great deal of historical material that may or may not influence the future course of Islam. I am not defending modern Islam, I am attempting to apply the standards of post-Enlightenment ethics to a potentially disruptive situation. Would you be prepared to abandon your Christianity if someone detailed all the atrocities committed in its name? Christianity evolved from cannibalistic practices documented by the Romans, through violent crusades, "inquisitions," pogroms and sectarian warfare into a modern religion that places the individual's right to establish a personal relationship with their God at its center. Islam may be going through a similar transformation, and the sympathy that many Muslims are expressing for the victims of Islamic intolerance are a positive sign of this development. Why do you seek to disrupt this evolution with self righteous attacks?

This will be my last response to you.

a reply to: DJW001

If your sincerity has been at all impugned it is due to your peculiar way with words, you're now in so desperate a position you've dubbed a follower of Jesus (the greatest Jew to ever live) as Anti-Semitic! I'm sure you can appreciate how wild this is in retrospect. I think this needs saying ever so briefly, I do not doubt how sincerely you hold your beliefs or the conviction with which you would like to defend their validity, rather I'm taking note that as an atheist, someone who denies core Islamic teachings as lies, myths or honest mistakes, you're inviting others and contributing to a narrative you don't actually agree with.

"Would you be prepared to abandon your Christianity if someone detailed all the atrocities committed in its name?"

Of course not, nor would I expect Muslims to have some sort of spiritual crisis based on modern day atrocities committed in the name of Islam, instead they ought to be seriously considering their faith because the founder of Islam committed such acts as would shock and appal Muslims if they'd only study its early history! Perhaps you haven't read my earlier posts my friend, because you're doing exactly what I've advised people against, you're intentionally conflating Islam with Christianity so to minimise Islam's faults and expand what you believe to be issues with Christianity.

"while providing a great deal of historical material"

Did your use of historical really require the sarcastic italics, you've already written I'm correct in my use of historical sources, and if any are mistaken I shall look forward to your correction.

"Christianity evolved from cannibalistic practices documented by the Romans,"

Cannibalistic practices? Perhaps you're writing of the mistaken notion that Romans held concerning the Christian communities they persecuted, what's more they based their faulty notion upon misunderstanding the Eucharist and passages such like John 6:53-56, which reads: "So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in yourselves. He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. For My flesh is true food, and My blood is true drink. He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him."

To write the way you have suggests you think they were real instances of cannibalism.

"Islam may be going through a similar transformation,"

Again, you can't pretend Islam is Christianity just 600 years earlier, Islam from its genesis has been fashioned through violence and expanding via military campaigns, unlike Christianity which for its first 300 years was an authentic Jewish movement under siege. Professor Shaye I. D. Cohen, a Jewish historian taught at the Jewish Theological Seminary, Harvard University, and Brown university highlights how Jesus (and thus early Christianity) was awash in Jewishness:

"Was Jesus a Jew? Of course, Jesus was a Jew. He was born of a Jewish mother, in Galilee, a Jewish part of the world. All of his friends, associates, colleagues, disciples, all of them were Jews. He regularly worshipped in Jewish communal worship, what we call synagogues. He preached from Jewish text, from the Bible. He celebrated the Jewish festivals. He was born, lived, died and taught as a Jew."

For more of such info I'd recommend Dr. Michael Brown's The Real Kosher Jesus. I consider the above important in that it corrects the myth of Christianity being some sort of Roman invention. But as I'm a raging Anti-Semite (or so I've been told) I really ought to throw these books away!

"Why do you seek to disrupt this evolution with self righteous attacks?"

I've hopefully shown that this evolution doesn't exist outside of a fantasy narrative, one held by people who largely refuse to accept they're mistaken in how they've judged events both past and present.