How can this be ...

. . . since Islam is the "Religion of Peace"?

From WND, Mein Kampf bestseller in Turkey:

The infamous manifesto penned in prison during the 1920s by one of history's greatest despots has become a bestseller in Turkey, a troubling sign of increasing anti-Semitism and anti-Americanism.

Since January, Mein Kampf has sold more than 50,000 copies, rising to No. 4 on the bestseller list. The book outlines Hitler's plans for world domination and his intense hatred of the Jewish people.

"A lot of people in the West don't realize this has always been a popular book among radical Muslims," says Steve Hagerman, founder of Turkish World Outreach. "They think it's a tragedy Hitler didn't win the war. This is symptomatic of growing anti-Semitism and anti-Americanism in the country."

Hagerman is concerned about a resurgence of conservative Islam in Turkey, which he believes is promoted and funded by Iran and Saudi Arabia.

"Turkey is a different place right now," Hagerman observes. "The military, the radical Muslims and the secularists are becoming more and more anti-American," he says. "Literalist Islam is teaching the Muslims to hate the Jews and to hate democracy. Their belief in Muslim eschatology is that the world is destined to be conquered by Islam."

Let's do the math: "radical Muslims" = "conservative Islam" = "Literalist Islam" = hatred of Jews = hatred of democracy = the world will be conquered by Islam.

This is because the Qur'an is the most vile piece of hate literature ever devised by man. Islam has caused vastly more death, pain, and destruction than has Nazism, Communism and any other "-ism" you can name.

At least Hitler never claimed to be speaking for a (malevolent and perverse) god.

They ought to do something about the disease of Political Correctness

From Hospital board backtracks on Bible ban:

"According to the BBC, the University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust said it wanted to look at how to accommodate all religious texts in its hospitals and said it was concerned about Bibles spreading diseases like the superbug MRSA."

Originally, the Bibles were considered a health hazard because of an (alleged) inability to sanitize them. It seems they've fixed that.

If the removal of Bibles was to reduce the risk of spreading disease, wouldn't providing more literature increase the risk?

Apparently, they only "dis-ease" with which they are concerned is that which is caused by the word of God.

"Fundamentalist" implies an adherence to principles fundamental to an ideology

An article that appears to be worth exploring begs the question: Do the words of the Qur'an align more closely with the claims of groups like CAIR, or with the Islamic "fundamentalists"?

Booker T. Washington suggested that if you give people the facts in an interesting manner, they will draw the proper conclusion.

Draw your own after reading Jihad: The Teachings of Islam from its primary sources - the Qur'an and Hadith.

The great inconsistency of moral relativism

In a thoughtful piece, William F. Buckley reflects on the court-ordered execution of Terri Schiavo:

"What caused the political commotion was the sense that we were presiding over an execution. Terri Schiavo remained 'alive' until we stopped feeding her. Then she began a fall through a trapdoor descending toward death. She was being committed to a death of an agonizing kind, surely? One that began with the removal of the tubes, and would continue until starvation and dehydration brought on the end of the heartbeat.

"Some years ago, in a forum on euthanasia, my guest was the Rev. Robert L. Barry, who had studied the subject extensively. Father Barry argued that the deprivation of food and water brings on physical pain whatever else the human condition. Was the court system in Florida, then, acquiescing in death by pain for Mrs. Schiavo?

A doctor consulted by one television analyst brushed aside the question, in language not readily transcribed by a layman. He seemed to be saying that Mrs. Schiavo would not suffer pain as the term is commonly understood. But that question was not directly accosted by the judge, who said only that Terri's rights had not been abrogated."

Americans believe that God gives each of us the rights to "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness" and that these are not to be taken unjustly.

Where is the justice in killing an innocent and helpless woman?

Would those who advocated Ms. Schiavo's death by deprivation support the same punishment for convicted rapists, child molestors, terrorists, or other murderers?

If not, why not? Surely those atrocities are infinitely more deserving of such a end.

Where's a clue when you really need one?

In what has become characteristic of the Left, Bill Press rambles incoherently (or duplicitously, it's hard to tell anymore) about the need for someone who knows the dirt on our current administration to come forward in this article. He writes:

"And that's the big story of Mark Felt's confession. Not: Why did he dare tell the truth about Nixon, way back then? But: Why doesn't somebody tell the truth about George W. Bush today? Where's Deep Throat when we need him, now more than ever?"

To have someone reveal an administration's crimes, an administration needs to commit some.

Where was the Left's zeal for truth-telling and justice when Clinton was in office? When Kerry was running?

"As bad as they were, Nixon's crimes weren't the worst committed by an American president. Indeed, former White House Counsel John Dean another hero for warning Nixon about a 'cancer growing on the presidency' argues that George W. Bush is very much like Nixon in his penchant for secrecy, only worse. In his book, 'Worse Than Watergate,' Dean wrote:

'George W. Bush and Richard B. Cheney have created the most secretive presidency of my lifetime. Their secrecy is far worse than during Watergate, and it bodes even more serious consequences ... I must say this administration is truly scary and, given the times we live in, frighteningly dangerous.'

Every administration must keep some information private. Such secrecy does not necessarily indicate corruption.

We live in frightening times, but what's really scary is that an ancient evil, Jihad, is on the rise; we have a President who is fighting back (much more vigorously than an appeasement-first Left would have); and whom does the Left attack? Not the Muslims who would with a smile and a shout of "Allahu akbar!" slit their throats in obedience to Allah's command, but the one defending them!

"But the only way to blow the lid off the misdeeds of the Bush administration is to come up with our own Deep Throat. Somewhere in the Bush White House, for example, there is someone who knows the list of special-interest lobbyists who met secretly with Cheney to develop the administration's energy policy."

It wouldn't hurt to have some actual misdeeds. (Not defending our borders and spending taxpayer dollars like a drunken liberal are misdeeds, but not to the Left.)

"Somewhere in the White House, CIA or Pentagon, there's someone who was present when Bush and Cheney decided to lean on a pack of lies about nuclear weapons, weapons of mass destruction, chemical-laden drones, mobile weapons labs, long-range missiles and Saddam Hussein's ties to al-Qaida in order to sell the American people on the war in Iraq."

And who created the "pack of lies" on which Bush and Cheney leaned? Clinton, Gore, Kerry, England, France.... Everyone believed Saddam still had WMD (apparently even he did).

The only evidence you need for W's innocence is the fact that the Left have had to resort to all sorts of distortions, fabrications, and out-right lies to try to hurt the President--the avalanche of "tell-all" books before the 2004 Election, CBS's Rather fraudulent document scandal, and the MSM's most recent Qur'an "desecration" fantasy.

Death throes, but not for Islam

Death throes . . . - The Washington Times: Commentary - June 03, 2005:

"Fascism has long vacated its birthplace in Europe. The fragments of the former Soviet autocracy are democratizing. The caudillos are gone from Latin America. The last enclave of dictators is the Middle East. Yet after Saddam's capture in a cesspool, their hold is slipping, too.

There will probably not be an Assad III or a second Mubarak.

The real suspense is whether the Gulf royals can make good on their promises of reform and elections. Will they end up like pampered Windsors or go the ignominious way of Iran's former shah? In desperation, the apparatchik journalists in the state-controlled Arab press damn the United States, the avatar of change. Syria breaks all relations with America, even as it leaves Lebanon, and is terrified of the Iraqi experiment.

Then there is bankrupt Islamic fundamentalism. The zealots can always tape a beheading or turn out a few thousand to burn an American flag. But the Taliban are gone from power. Iran faces popular disgust at home, while its desperate nuclear plots are awakening even a comatose Europe. And the promise of a return to the eighth century has always had an appeal limited to a few thousand pampered elites, like Osama bin Laden, Dr. Ayman al-Zawahiri or Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi. These losers figured they might become Saladins if they convinced an Arab populace the Jews and America, not their own corrupt regimes, kept them poor. Now they are reduced to ranting about the evils of freedom and democracy.

Oil, terror, anti-Semitism and hating America gave the fundamentalists some resonance, but there were never any ideas. The Islamicists offered nothing to galvanize the Arab masses other than nihilism. That doctrine feeds and employs no one. Instead, we witness the creepy threats and the pyrotechnics of a lunatic ideology going the way of bushido and the kamikazes."

As much as I respect and admire Mr. Hanson's knowledge and expertise, on the issue of Islam he appears to be unaware of what makes it tick--the "lunatic ideology" to which he refers (what I call "Qur'anic Islam") is going nowhere. It has thrived for the last fourteen centuries and it will continue indefinitely (barring something approaching a miracle) because it is founded upon and fed by the words of Allah (the Qur'an) and the sayings and doings of its "prophet" Mohammed.

Unless and until the Qur'an ceases to be considered the actual word of a god, its faithful will continue to obey it.

Jihad only smiles while it's recovering, regrouping, and regaining its strength--then it smiles as it cuts off your head.

The "wall of separation between church and state" is to protect religion from the state, not the state from religion

But facts never deter liberals from pursuing their agenda: ACLU asks jail for Tangipahoa school officials.

The "separation of church and state" is nowhere to be found in either the Declaration or the Constitution. It was a statement of reassurance by Thomas Jefferson to a group of pastors that the government would not interfere with their (and our) Constitutionally-guaranteed Freedom of Religion.

That enemies of American Liberty have been so successful in completely perverting the meaning of this "wall" is testament to America's ignorance of its Constitution and its lack of will for defending it.

An Iranian Christian is facing the death penalty for the unspeakable crime of ...

... becoming a Christian and sharing that faith with others: Christian convert waiting for his apostasy trial asks for prayers.

The Qur'an is very clear--"...kill the unbelievers wherever you find them...," and "...fight until all religion is for Allah." The only other options allowed by Islam's god are submission (feeling "humiliated" and paying the Jizya), enslavement, or conversion.

Apparently, in addition to being peaceful, Islam is tolerant too.

Please pray for this man and his family. Pray that those in power (government, media, academia) start telling the truth.

An intolerant, right-wing, religious extremist

"...brood of vipers!"

"...white-washed sepulchres!"

"...den of thieves!"

Who would have the insensitivity to say such things?

Who would be so intolerant as to judge someone else's "truth"?

Who would dare to call someone's "personal choice" "sin"?

Jesus -- the same person who ate with outcasts, forgave sinners, healed the sick, gave sight to the blind, and raised the dead.

He is kind and compassionate to those who admit their sin and turn to Him for mercy, but with those who will not, Jesus is direct.

Some people think that it is impolite or rude to tell a necessary but unpleasant truth. And there are many times when it is proper to ignore others' everyday failings, for as the Scriptures say, "We all stumble in many ways," and, "Love covers over a multitude of sins."

But when failing to speak up allows someone to be harmed, it is a Christian's duty to tell the truth, with gentleness and respect.

Today, many Christians are worried about offending people. Many are afraid to be called names. Many would choose popularity with the ungodly over pleasing God.

Jesus said that when men speak well of us we should be concerned, for that is how their ancestors treated the false prophets.

But when men speak ill of us because we are doing and saying what Jesus would have us say and do, we should rejoice, for that is how their ancestors treated God's prophets.

Christians need to stop worrying about offending people and to start telling the truth, because people are dying. The eternity that awaits those whose sin is still on their own heads is hell (and I'm not speaking figuratively).

God grant His people the courage -- and the love -- to tell the truth.

Reformists imprisoned in Dar al-Islam

I thought democracy and Islam were compatible, but how can one have democracy without freedom?

The latest from our "ally" in the War on Terror: Saudi reformists get harsh penalty.

"RIYADH, Saudi Arabia -- In a stunning setback for reformists in Saudi Arabia, a Riyadh court yesterday sentenced three detained Saudi reformists to jail terms ranging from six to nine years for sowing dissent and disobeying the ruler.

Three judges at the court, which was ringed by security forces, issued their verdict after a nine-month trial, which was conducted almost entirely behind closed doors.
The court sentenced Ali Al-Dumaini to nine years in jail, Abdullah Al-Hamed to seven years in jail, and Matruk Al-Faleh to six years in jail.

The academics have been imprisoned for more than a year after being arrested in March 2004 for calling for a constitutional monarchy, an independent judiciary and freedom of speech. The prosecutors had accused them of using Western terminology in calling for their reforms. "

In case there was any doubt that this is more than just a tyrant trying to retain power, consider this:

"Mr. Al-Dumaini reportedly received the harshest sentence because of his criticism of the Saudi educational system, which he said was responsible for producing terrorists."

The government maintains the rule of Sharia. If the government did not have a king, but was still ruled by Islam, would it be any different? It doesn't seem likely.

Whether the tyrant is a god (Allah) or a man (Saud), there is no room for those who disagree.

"I'm in shock," said Jamila Al-Ukala, the wife of Mr. Al-Faleh, as she spoke with supporters and reporters yesterday outside the courthouse.

"They didn't commit a crime. From the beginning, there was no evidence against them," said Ameer Al-Faleh, the 23-year-old son of Mr. Al-Faleh. "The whole case is just about thoughts that were just ink on paper."

The Qur'an's words are "just ink on paper," yet they have directly resulted in the enslavement, rape, and murder of millions of non-Muslims throughout Islam's history.

"Mr. Gothaimi said the panel of judges found that the men had overstepped the bounds by speaking to the foreign press, supposedly with the intent to incite people against the government The men also were accused of challenging the independence of the judiciary. "

Does anyone else get the irony here? A democratically-elected President and Congress would facilitate American justice with the additions of much-needed judges who respect the U.S. Constitution, but the Democratic Party instead is trying to circumvent the will of the people using the same terminology.

"This verdict is a reflection of how bad our courts are," said Mohammed Alanezi, a supporter of the reformists. "They are centuries behind. We are now going downhill."

That would be about fourteen centuries behind, wouldn't it?

"The Saudi regime is determined to stifle reasonable and peaceful voices for reform in the country," said Ali Alyami, the Washington-based director of the opposition Center for Democracy and Human Rights in Saudi Arabia. "Surely, it is time for the Bush administration and the U.S. Congress to stop regarding the Saudi royal family as sacrosanct and start holding them accountable for their violations of human rights".

Yes, it is time for accountability, but not only for the House of Saud. It is time to hold Islam accountable.

How can you defeat an enemy you do not recognize?

Secretary of State Rice, whom I hold in extremely high regard, this weekend made some very disturbing comments in her address to some of our military overseas.

Besides apologizing for our "desecration" of the Qur'an (how do you desecrate that which is by nature profane?), Dr. Rice said that "the lack of freedom" in the Middle East is what motivates the "ideology of hate."

This is not true. It is the Qur'an and the sayings and doings of Mohammed that inspire the hate. Allah commands it. (Are any of our military dying with the belief that their sacrifice will help Islam love us? I hope not.)

I have been disappointed, frustrated, and angered to hear President Bush repeatedly refer to Islam as "one of the world's great religions" and a "religion of peace." I was outraged to hear him equate the Qur'an with the Bible in his Second Inaugural Address. I thought he was, for what he deemed necessary political gain, knowingly misrepresenting Islam.

After hearing Dr. Rice express the same dangerous beliefs on what motivates our enemy, I am led to hope that perhaps our leaders are only ignorant of the breadth and depth of the danger of Qur'anic Islam, and not actually lying to us.

Is ignorance better than lying? At least with ignorance there is the possibility that one will realize the truth before it is too late.

Whom can you trust...

when a person's god commands them to kill you? From Muslim Troops' Loyalty a Delicate Question.

Why this Friday is Good

All around the world today Christians celebrate Good Friday, a remembrance of Jesus of Nazareth's crucifixion at the hands of Roman and Jewish authorities. What is the meaning of His death for us today?

Three-and-one-half millennia past, the God of Israel, "I AM" (YHWH), appeared to a man named Moses, calling him to lead His people out of slavery in Egypt and to a land promised generations earlier to their ancestor Abraham.

The pharoah would not allow Israel to leave to worship as they wished, despite being at the receiving end of a number of destructive plagues. The last and most devastating judgment against Egypt would be the death of all firstborn males in the land.

In His providence, God directed the people of Israel to slaughter a male lamb and to place its blood around their doorposts. When the Angel of Death passed over, it would see the blood and harm no one inside. All those who did not have the lamb's blood over them lost their firstborn. There was a devastating (and unnecessary) loss of life.

Israel was commanded to remember God's Passover forever.

Fifteen hundred years later, God provided another Lamb Whose blood would save us from eternal death.

This Passover Lamb Who was slaughtered once-for-all is Jesus the Christ, the Messiah promised to Israel and foreshadowed by the lambs of the first Passover.

By His death we have life. It is His sacrifice for us we remember today.

An American court orders the death of an innocent

All legal technicalities aside, the Schiavo case boils down to one issue: an American court has ordered the death of an innocent (and defenseless) woman.

The American Declaration of Independence argues that God gives all people the rights to Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. The American Constitution guarantees to all its citizens that neither Life, Liberty, nor property can be taken from them without due process.

If Mrs. Schiavo were a pedophile, or a murderer, or an abortionist, those calling for her death by dehydration and starvation would be protesting for her to have all legal options explored in preserving her life. A convict on Death Row would have all legal avenues exhausted and still many "kind-hearted" liberals would be arguing for a stay of execution.

This act of injustice is indefensible.

A Dear John (and Ken) Letter

Two popular Southern California radio personalities, John and Ken have, over the course of the past week or so, unrestrainedly expressed their contempt for religion (and the religious) in connection with the Schiavo Right-to-Live case.

In particular, they've repeatedly equated religious faith with irrationality.

It is true that not all religions are morally or rationally sound. It is true that not all who are religious believe on the basis of empirical evidence.

It is irrational to assume, without any examination of a religion or its empirical foundation, that by definition a religion is mythological.

It is irrational to assume, without any investigation as to why a person believes, that he or she is deluded.

One of the great successes of the enemies of God over the last century-and-a-half is the idea in Western culture (among liberals in Academia and the Media) that religion is unscientific, irrational, and anti-intellectual.

This is due to the erosion of confidence in the reliability and accuracy of the Scriptures by lying liberal "theologians" (is that redundant?) and the Darwinists. Too many Christians (in the West) have abandoned this one sure foundation for religious faith.

Rather than arguing what is empirically true (that Darwinism is contrary to Reason and Science; that the Scriptures are historically-reliable documents, and in many cases, eyewitness accounts of actual events; and that America was founded on a thoroughly Christian worldview), Christians have become complacent, ignorant, and cowardly.

There is one religion that is founded on fact, one that is attested to by History, Archaeology, and Reason. That religion is the religion of Moses and the Prophets. It is the religion of Christ and His Apostles.

Deadly bias

ABC News deceptive in Terri Schiavo poll?

I thought it strange to see more than one broadcast today characterize the Schiavo case as involving "Terri's right-to-die."

According the information I've seen, these are the important facts:

-There is no legally-valid, written statement of Mrs. Schiavo's wishes, only her husband's assertion that Terri would have wanted to die in this kind of situation (on which point he contradicted himself when interviewed by Larry King).

-Mr. Schiavo has two children with his mistress.

-A financial settlement to provide for Terri's rehabilitation was won, but Terri has not received such rehabilitation.

-A lawyer for Terri's parents told Terri that her feeding tube would be removed and that she had to say she wanted to live, which Terri tried to do.

-Terri is not in a coma. She is not unresponsive. Neither is she on a life support system.

This is not a case of "Terri's right-to-die;" this is a case of a husband's right to kill his wife.

It is not for Man to decide whether a person's life is no longer worth living, whether a judge or a husband, and it is unconscionable that our nation gives individuals the right to kill the defenseless.

The one on whom Terri should have been able to depend to defend her is the one trying to end her life.

That one judge after another has ruled in favor of her murder should not be a surprise, since each one of these decisions is another in a decades-long tradition of American courts ruling in favor of death.

If millions of children can be murdered by their own mothers (and this defended as a "Constitutional right") what is one "damaged" adult?

That the Mainstream Media are portraying the facts of this case falsely (if not to influence public opinion, then why?) is another example of its leftist, immoral, pro-death agenda.

BBC and IHT suffering from HITS Syndrome

BBC News: Anti-Muslim bias 'spreads' in EU

In what is (hopefully) a severe case of "Head-In-The-Sand" syndrome, the International Helsinki Federation for Human Rights claims that Muslims are unjustifiably "suffering" increased "prejudice" throughout Europe.

Apparently, close contact spreads this disease, since in reporting on it, the BBC fails to add any sort of context to IHT's inexcusable cluelessness (or is it overt propaganda?).

The following statements are symptoms of this potentially fatal disease, followed by my comments...

"In France, the debate over the French law forbidding religious clothing in schools had encouraged discrimination against Muslim women who wear headscarves, the report says.

We are concerned that these developments threaten to undermine positive efforts at integration and further increase the vulnerability of Muslims to human rights violations and marginalisation...."

So, wearing highly-visible garments intended to demonstrate one's separation from the mainstream will help integration?

"In the UK, the report says the media have created the impression that justice officials are successfully prosecuting Muslim terrorists, although only a few people have been convicted and the vast majority of those who are arrested on allegations of terrorism are released without charge."

Isn't any conviction of Islamists a "successful prosecution"? It only took a few individuals to bring down The Towers.

"In Germany meanwhile, more than 80% of those surveyed last year associated the world 'Islam' with 'terrorism' and 'oppression of women'..."

Could that be because the Qur'an commands the faithful to "...kill the unbelievers wherever you find them"? Could that be because Islam allows the beating of one's wife, the treatment of women as chattel, the debasement and subjugation of women, and polygamy?

"...although it was unclear to what extent this resulted in discriminatory behaviour."

That discrimination cannot be determined is a testament to the German people's patience and decency (or their widespread consumption of the BBC).

"It also says that Muslim schools in the Netherlands are widely believed to 'undermine integration efforts" although it says such claims are "poorly supported by facts'."

You wouldn't want facts to get in the way of understanding something affecting the fate of Western Civilization.

"A number of European countries have been engaged in a debate about whether long standing policies of multi-culturalism best serve the minorities involved."

Then the Islamists are winning. The debate should be about whether the integration of those whose god commands them to slaughter the native population best serves the majority.

"Assimilation has been put forward as a means of stopping minorities - and particularly Muslims - from occupying a parallel society that could exclude them from mainstream benefits."

The only assimilation Qur'anic Islam desires is that which will result in the establishment of Shari'a (or that facilitates the killing of infidels), and by then the only option for non-Muslims will be the occupation of "a parallel society that will exclude them from mainstream benefits."

Here's an example of the kind of assimilation in which Islamists are interested, courtesy of an American plotting to assassinate the PotUS: "...al-Qaida leaders gave Abu Ali two options: He could either become part of a martyr operation or he could establish a cell in the United States and he would 'marry a Christian woman, assimilate into the community and he would be provided operatives.'"

"The IHF warns that "growing distrust and hostility" experienced by Muslims and a possible erosion of their confidence in the rule of law could also fuel support for extremist organisations."

Something ought to be done about that which fuels "support for extremist organizations"--how 'bout starting with the Qur'an?

"It also advocates actively promoting tolerance among EU citizens by encouraging debate in the media over how to cover minorities and avoid "perpetuating prejudice", and also recommends the setting up of elected Muslim representative bodies."

Just another step toward the establishment of Shari'a.

Like a lobster in a pot of boiling water, by the time it realizes it's in trouble, it's too late.

"The IHF has a consultative status with the UN and the Council of Europe."

Let's hope they don't listen.

CAIR doesn't

...about the truth, that is.

A revealing post at DhimmiWatch lists a number of members of the Council on American-Islamic Relations who have either committed or plotted acts of Jihad, or have expressed sympathy or solidarity with those who do.

Read it here: Dhimmi Watch: DC Watson: CAIR's Perpetual Twists & Turns

More on taqiyya and kitman

In doing a little more reading on taqiyya, or the Islamic practice of deception, I found the following information. This is again an especially difficult doctrine for people of good will, for how are we to distinguish between those Muslims who are truly peaceful and those who only appear peaceful?

From history:

"During the Spanish inquisition, Sunni Moriscos attended mass and returned home to wash their hands of the ‘holy water’. In operational terms, taqiyya and kitman allowed the ‘mujahadeen ’ to assume whatever identity was necessary to fulfill their mission; they had doctrinal and theological and later jurisprudential sanction to pretend to be Jews or Christians to gain access to Christian and Jewish targets: ‘the mujahadeen can take the shape of the enemy’."

And

"Al Taqiyya is with tongue only; not the heart. A believer can make any statement as long as the ‘heart is comfortable'. The 9/11 terrorists lived and visited in the United States for two years before the 9/11 attacks. How did they acculturate? By the use of taqiyya. Meaning: I hate you but I smile at you-in public."

A Christian should know better than to try to justify any lie. Jesus said that the devil "was a liar and a murderer from the beginning and there is no truth in him."

Learn some more here.

Tradecraft. Persona. Deception. Disinformation. Cover: Western operational terms and techniques. But, Islamic terrorists have their own terms: taqiyya (pronounced tark-e-ya) : precautionary dissimulation or deception and keeping one’s convictions secret and a synonymous term, kitman: mental reservation and dissimulation or concealment of malevolent intentions...

Taqiyya and kitman or ‘holy hypocrisy’ has been diffused throughout Arabic culture for over fourteen hundred years since it was developed by Shiites as a means of defence and concealment of beliefs against Sunni unbelievers. As the Prophet said: 'he who keeps secrets shall soon attain his objectives.’

The skilful use of taqiyya and kitman was often a matter of life and death against enemies; it is also a matter of life and death to many contemporary Islamic terrorists. As so often in the history of Islam, a theological doctrine became operational.

During the Spanish inquisition, Sunni Moriscos attended mass and returned home to wash their hands of the ‘holy water’. In operational terms, taqiyya and kitman allowed the ‘mujahadeen ’ to assume whatever identity was necessary to fulfill their mission; they had doctrinal and theological and later jurisprudential sanction to pretend to be Jews or Christians to gain access to Christian and Jewish targets: ‘the mujahadeen can take the shape of the enemy’.

Taqiyya is common to both Shiite and Sunni Muslim discourse and has significant implications for understanding Islamic fundamentalism and terrorist operations. The theory and practice of counter terrorism would be counter productive, indeed pointless, and even harmful, without reference to taqiyya and kitman and the crucial role of deception ranging from Islamic jurisprudence to Al Qaeda training manuals, which carry detailed instructions on the use of deception by terrorists in Western target countries.

According to Christian ethics lying is a sin; In Islamic jurisprudence and theology, the use of taqiyya against the unbelievers is regarded as a virtue and a religious duty.

Taqiyya, American-style

Suspect Said to Admit Plan to Kill Bush

If it weren't disturbing enough that an American citizen is also an Islamist, note the choice this traitor was given by his superiors:

"...al-Qaida leaders gave Abu Ali two options: He could either become part of a martyr operation or he could establish a cell in the United States and he would 'marry a Christian woman, assimilate into the community and he would be provided operatives.'"

It is worth repeating: an American citizen (and high school valedictorian) whose goal it was to marry a Christian woman and assimilate into the community so that he could kill Americans.

I hope President Bush realizes this threat against his life is coming at the command of a god he wants to equate with the God of the Bible.

The implications for whom we can trust is quite troubling.

"Democracy and Islam are contradictory terms."

As noted here, the commands of the Qur'an make it impossible for anyone but Muslims to enjoy the full rights of citizenship under Islam.

Jihad Watch has a link to an article that makes several of the most important points regarding the (largely unrecognized) threat of Qur'anic Islam: Five Misconceptions about Islam that could kill Democracy.

Here's number five:

"5. Islam and Democracy are compatible.
Democracy and Islam are contradictory terms. The goal of Islam is Sharia law, the implementation of the Quran as the law of the land. What you see in Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Afghanistan is the Moslem global vision. The idea we express in a democracy, 'I may not agree with what you say but I will fight to the death for your right to say it' is not understood in Islam. There is no right to dissent. There are 16 Moslem nations in the Middle East; not one of them is Democracy."

Apology of Islam and its Theology of Power

"Apology" as in defense, not contrition.

Some excerpts from an article by a UCLA professor at Austin Bay Blog caught my attention. Here is my response:

Can one have Islam without the Qur'an? No. Can one have Islam without Mohammed? Of course, not.

As long as one person believes the Qur'an is the word of Allah (and therefore must be obeyed), there will be someone who believes it is his duty to "...kill the unbelievers wherever you find them" (Qur'an 9:5).

Regardless of the various tangents taken by Muslim schools of thought throughout its history, Qur'anic Islam requires war against unbelievers, "until all religion is for Allah."

Obedience to the Qur'an will eventually result in its adherents doing that which its god commands: converting, subjugating, or killing non-Muslims. (Indeed, it is a blessing that more Muslims don't actually do what its scriptures teach and what its founder practiced.)

That Khaled Abou el Fadl has to argue that various movements have rejected, strayed from, or re-interpreted "extremist" Islam is quite revealing in itself.

His comments never repudiate the fact that according to the Qur'an, violence for Allah against unbelievers who reject his message is the duty of every able-bodied Muslim.

In stating, "Muslim jurists reacted sharply to these [terrorist] groups, considering them enemies of humankind....Regardless of the desired goals or ideological justifications, the terrorizing of the defenseless was recognized as a moral wrong and an offense against society and God...," el Fadl appears to be implying that what we see from modern Islamists is against traditional, Qur'anic Islam.

While it may be true that some jurists reject terrorism as a tactic, it does not deny that Allah commands his people to subdue or kill the unbeliever who will not convert.

el Fadl appears to try to discredit militant Islam by using such loaded language (no pun intended) as: "...puritanical zeal...Wahhabism resisted the indeterminacy of the modern age by escaping...to a strict literalism...Wahhabism exhibited extreme hostility to intellectualism, mysticism and any sectarian divisions...any form of moral thought...as a form of self-idolatry, and treated humanistic fields of knowledge, especially philosophy, as 'the sciences of the devil.'"

Whether Wahhabism does any of these things is irrelevant; what matters is whether or not the violence done in the name of Allah is justified by the Qur'an or is in violation of it. If it is against the Qur'an, then there is hope that Islam can be reformed.

The disturbing fact is that such murderous behavior is not only justified, it is commanded.

el Fadl continues: "According to the Wahhabi creed, it was imperative to return to a presumed pristine, simple and straightforward Islam, which could be entirely reclaimed by literal implementation of the commands of the Prophet....Wahhabism rejected any attempt to interpret the divine law from a historical, contextual perspective...."

If any of the multitude of Qur'anic verses commanding violence against non-Muslims is not enough evidence that those verses should be taken literally, look at the "prophet" himself. Did his life give the impression that he was predisposed to hyperbole, or did he mean what he said? Obviously, Mohammed obeyed Allah's revelations.

In writing of the rise of Saudi Arabia, el Fadl writes, "The Wahhabi rebellions of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries were very bloody because the Wahhabis indiscriminately slaughtered and terrorized Muslims and non-Muslims alike." This is the manner in which Mohammed unified Arabia under Islam 1300 years ago.

Finally, we read, "In this sense, it is accurate to describe this widespread modern trend as supremacist, for it sees the world from the perspective of stations of merit and extreme polarization."

It is not a modern trend. This is how the Qur'an has taught its readers to see the world for the last thirteen centuries.

The problem with Islam is not defeatism, anti-intellectualism, or a misapplied literalism. The problem with Islam, if you are an unbeliever, is the Qur'an.

Defining terms

I have taken to using a term I've not seen anywhere else, and that is Qur'anic Islam.

By this I am referring to the practice of Islam as commanded in the Qur'an and expressed throughout Islam's history, beginning with its founder.

This is the Islam that commands non-Muslims be converted, subjugated, or killed.

This is the Islam that justifies the slaughtering of innocents.

Incompatible with Democracy? Yes, and there's a reason for it

Consistently brilliant, Victor Davis Hanson writes about why Democracy could work in the Middle East, and why we should support it.

There are two points at which Mr. Hanson seems to be missing the mark. The first is here:

"In the case of the Muslim world, there is nothing inherently incompatible between Islam and democracy. Witness millions in India, Malaysia, Indonesia, and Turkey who vote. Such liberal venting may well explain why those who blow up Americans are rarely Indian or Turkish Muslims, but more likely Saudis or Egyptians. The trick is now to show that Arab Muslims can establish democracy, and thus the Palestine and Iraq experiments are critical to the entire region."

It seems to me in those societies named there is insufficient public support for the implementation of Qur'anic Islam (though I do not doubt there are those working within them to move those societies into the "freedom" of Shariah).

The second point is here:

The Arab world so far has missed the bus of history. The success of democratic reform in parts of Africa, Latin America, and Asia is a daily reminder of the decades lost in the Middle East, and how endemic Arab envy, jealousy, and excuses — which so repel or bore the world — can be ameliorated only by a new maturity and responsibility that are the wages of democratic government.

The reason the Arab world has "missed the bus of history" is because of Islam. It commands that non-Muslims be converted, subjugated, or killed.

Qur'anic Islam is inherently incompatible with Liberty.

Read it all here.

Saudis spread hate through U.S. mosques

But it's the religion of peace, and they're our friends, right?

Jihad is here, courtesy of one of our main allies in the Middle East. Read about it.

A site worth a look

Amillennialist Contra Mundum :)

Moral equivalence can kill you

This lack of judgment reminds me of a scene from the movie Independence Day:

"'With all the news from Iraq and Afghanistan and the 'war on terror,' a lot of people are really tuned into the news, and the major news sources have a Western bias,' Brandchannel Editor Robin Rusch said. 'I think people are tuning in to Al-Jazeera and looking at its Web site because it does offer another viewpoint,' Rusch said. 'For the global community, it's one of the few points of access we have to news from the region with a different perspective.'"

If you've seen the movie, you may remember when a crowd gathered atop the First Interstate building in downtown Los Angeles to greet a massive alien ship--just before the aliens opened up their big gun on them.

Al-Jazeera's perspective is different. It is different because Al-Jazeera is Al-Qaeda's media arm. If there is a "Western bias", I suppose it is because we believe that it is wrong to slaughter innocent men, women, and children.

Too many in the West are absolutely unaware of the danger already here (as I lamented in this post).

Apple edges Google as top brand.

Shouldn't 9/11 have been enough?

Can one have Islam without the Qur'an? No. Can one have Islam without Mohammed? Of course not.

As long as even one person believes their god commands them to "...kill the unbelievers wherever you find them... (Qur'an 9:5)," as long as one person believes the murderous Mohammed was the "perfect man" whose example should be imitated by the faithful, Jihad will not end.

Of course, the reality is much worse. Millions of people actually believe the Qur'an to be the word of their god; Mohammed taught that "war is deceit" and his followers in the West practice this; and many in the West are blinded by this Muslim duplicity and the lie of multiculturalism.

When you have the most powerful man on earth saying that the God of the Bible and the god of Islam are the same, when you have him equating the words of the Qur'an with the Ten Commandments and the Sermon on the Mount, when billions of American dollars are going to an enemy that believes those Americans are devils whose blood should be spilled, what hope is there that America will deal with the real cause of Islamic terrorism before it is too late?

How can one defeat an enemy it does not recognize?

People ignorant of the Qur'an, the Hadith, and Islam's history will believe that Islam is another "one of the world's great religions." With jihadists in America using murder (New Jersey), the Intolerance Card, and the courts (thanks, ACLU) to try to intimidate into silence anyone who dares to tell the truth about Islam, it seems doubtful that our nation will wake up to the very real threat posed by Qur'anic Islam any time soon.

Do we need an even more devastating attack on our nation before we start telling the truth? Shouldn't 9/11 have been enough?

Is the "Greater jihad" really spiritual struggle?

Going a little too far...

Apparently, the president's "tolerance" extends to groups who support Islamic terrorism: Key Bush Aide Praises HAMAS Front

One phrase for posterity

In what was in all other respects an outstanding address, President Bush made the grave error of (again) trying to legitimize Islam by equating the Qur'an with the words of God.

In referring to the giving of the Law to Moses at Mount Sinai and the words of Christ in the Sermon on the Mount, the president includes "...the words of the Qur'an."

Of which words was he thinking? "Slay the unbeliever wherever you find him"? Perhaps he had in mind Allah's command to fight the unbelievers until "all religion is for Allah." Was he referring to the command to fight Jews and Christians "until they feel themselves subdued and pay the jizya"?

Obviously not.

But for what reason would someone so knowledgeable and well-versed in history (the president referenced at least Lincoln, Roosevelt, and Jefferson in his address) make such an obviously misleading statement?

Is President Bush trying to give our Muslim "allies" a means to save face? Is he trying to make American Muslims feel accepted? (Indeed, this latter explanation was my rationalization for why after 9/11 the president referred to Islam as a "religion of peace" and to Allah and Christ as the same God).

To equate the words of a murderous pedophile with the words of God is, three years after 9/11 (by which time someone in the Administration should have read at least some of the Qur'an), inexcusable.

What should have been a speech for the ages will be marred forever by one phrase.

Media's coverage has distorted world's view of Iraqi reality

LTC Tim Ryan, Commander, Task Force 2-12 Cavalry, First Cavalry Division in Iraq writes of the media's one-sided coverage of our efforts in Iraq. Notably, he plainly states the effect of such unbalanced "news":

"Through their incomplete, uninformed and unbalanced reporting, many members of the media covering the war in Iraq are aiding and abetting the enemy."

I've made the same argument since the Democratic leadership crawled out from under their rocks and thought it finally safe enough to try to hurt the president by attacking our military effort.

From one serving on the ground in Iraq, the assertion cannot be easily dismissed, even by those who claim to "support our troops."

This media bias, whether intended to harm our military effort or not, actually harms our military. It aids the enemy. It is treason.

And as noted in "Postmodern War"" (cited below) by Victor Davis Hanson, the resultant demoralization of our forces and the weakening of our will to win here at home is the only hope the enemy has for victory.

Read Lieutenant Colonel Ryan's thoughts here or here.

Win at all costs

Victor Davis Hanson very articulately argues that despite our military and technological superiority, absolute victory is attainable only if we have the will to win at all costs: Postmodern War

The Religion of Peace still at work in America

Three years removed from 9/11, it may be tempting to believe that the horrors of that day were an aberration, but jihad is here, it is coming, and it will not relent.

9/11 was not a fluke.

In just the last few days, jihad again has raised its grotesque head.

In New Jersey, a man and his family were slaughtered like animals, apparently for his criticism of Islam: New York Post Online Edition

And in Texas, a young man was nearly decapitated by his muslim "friend": Saudi pleads guilty to killing Jewish friend

And more evidence for why our borders must be secure: Criminals, jihadists threaten U.S. border

From Islam's beginning until today, because of Allah's commands and its founder's example, Non-muslims have only three choices under Qur'anic Islam: conversion, submission, or death.

An excellent site for staying informed: Jihad Watch. Share it with your family and friends.

Be prepared.

Because Americans are too self-centered to have noticed?

I just heard a teaser for an NBC special to benefit victims of the south Asian tsunami featuring "some of the biggest stars in the world" (or some similar silliness).

While I respect every attempt to help those in need, it is now three weeks after the initial disaster. Millions have been given and pledged by private citizens all across the United States, and our government has generously offered our tax dollars in the form of financial aid, food, supplies, materials, and military support.

With this in mind, what do the celebrities performing (I think I heard the ubiquitous Bono in the ad) think they are doing? Motivating the unwashed masses who, apart from a celebrity on whose every word they hang, would be completely unaware of (and indifferent to) human suffering?

I can't help but wonder about the rationale behind something like this.

A response to the Chairman of the RNC

After receiving an e-mail regarding renewing my support for President Bush, I sent this reply:

Dear Mr. Gillespie,

I have been an ardent supporter of President Bush and his waging of the War Against Islamic Terror. I believe the president is a good man. Even if I wasn't convinced that his opponent in the last election was a liar, a traitor, an appeaser, and a socialist, I still would have supported him.

Now that President Bush has won re-election, there are two major areas where I believe the president's policies are headed in the wrong direction: Illegal Immigration and Domestic Spending.

First, the president must lead the effort to really secure our borders. He must not allow those who (for whatever reason) would violate American law and sovereignty.

Second, though the president has proven he is in most important ways socially-conservative; his fiscal policy is indistinguishable from a Democrat's.

In order to receive any more of my financial support, President Bush must demonstrate the courage and conviction to uphold all of the Constitution.

Regards....

One can hope that if enough of those who supported the president in his last run send responses along this line, change will occur.

Two of America's enemies join forces

In what is a revealing and troubling (but not surprising) development, CAIR, a group with well-documented ties to individuals and groups practicing Qu'ranic Islam, has enlisted the help of the ACLU in attacking and undermining Christian freedom in the United States.

The ACLU has a long history of attacking the religious freedom of the American people and of usurping the will of the people through the use of judicial activism. It has long sought (with a great deal of success) to undermine American Liberty.

CAIR, recognizing the effectiveness of the ACLU, has also chosen to use gross distortions of language and law to intimidate Americans.

Rather than succumb to politically-correct misspeak and be bullied into silence, Americans must continue the persistent and courageous declaration of Truth, for "All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing."

ACLU, CAIR target group of mainly Christian schools

The Incredulity of St. Thomas

by Caravaggio, courtesy Mark Harden

Faith without works is dead

Why are Christians losing America?

It is not enough to "believe" in Jesus.

The Apostle James warns Christians against the false security of thinking that faith apart from works is worth anything at all--"even the demons believe, and shudder."

In other words, faith without works is dead.

Some familiar with Christianity will no doubt object, saying, "We are saved by faith, not by works!" Yes, this is true. But the faith of which James speaks is real faith, the kind of faith that results in obedience to Christ, the kind of faith that results in action.

Jesus said, "If you love Me, obey My commands." He spoke often of the fact that His children will produce the works He intends.

Because it reflects the traditional Apostlic faith, Lutheran theology states it this way: "We are saved by faith alone, but not by faith that is alone."

The reason for the first Christmas

Behold! The Lamb of God Who takes away the sin of the world!

by Rubens, courtesy Mark Harden

+ Word of the Day +

"So I will acknowledge in front of my Father in heaven

that person who acknowledges me in front of others.

But I will tell my Father in heaven that I don't know the person

who tells others that he doesn't know me" (Matthew 10:32-33).