An open letter to Hugh Hewitt on restoring credibility and the God we worship

Hello, Hugh,

I would repectfully recommend you read The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades), by Robert Spencer. Having him as a guest on your program to discuss his book would be very helpful to restoring your credibility on the topics of Islam and The War Against Extremism. It would also better equip those (apparently few) members of your audience unfamiliar with the real Islam to defend themselves against an ancient and ruthless foe.

(A link to his site, Jihad Watch, on your 'blog wouldn't hurt either.)

I would also respectfully suggest that your reliance on "theologians" to answer the question of whether or not Christians and Muslims worship the same deity reveals the same unfamiliarity with Qur'anic Islam (as opposed to CAIRic Islam) you displayed when you gave a spokesman from that Jihadist organization a platform on your show.

It is blasphemy to try to equate Christ with Allah, and only deceit or ignorance would make such an effort. Because a counterfeit religion tries to gain acceptance by leeching onto the Faith "once for all delivered to the saints," we should accept their claims uncritically? Would you give Mormonism that consideration? Would you allow Jehovah's Witnesses the same courtesy? Why then why would you swallow whole the falsehoods of a religion that has historically slaughtered those unwilling to submit to its ideology?

Any elementary (and honest) comparison between the Qur'an and the Bible would reveal that if it is the same god Christians and Muslims worship, that god is either a liar, a weakling, or insane:

The Bible tells us our Father said of Jesus, "This is My beloved Son; listen to Him." Jesus confirmed Peter's confession of Him as the Son of God.

The Qur'an says that anyone who says Allah has a son is an unbeliever.

Both religions' claims are mutually-exclusive. Either one is true and the other false, or the other is true and the former false, or both are false, but both cannot be true. If it is the same god, then that god is either wickedly deceitful, unable to preserve his word, or mentally unstable.

If the Bible is true, Allah is lying. If the Qur'an is true, YHWH and His Christ lie.

A comparison of the two religions' founders also reveals why Christians and Muslims cannot be worshiping the same god:

Jesus said, "Love your enemies."

Mohammed said, "Kill the unbelievers wherever you find them."

Jesus healed the sick, raised the dead, and committed no sin.

Mohammed was a murderous, deceitful pedophile. (Lest you try to accuse me of an "extreme" position, Mohammed killed, maimed, and had assassinated thousands of people, taught and practiced "War is deceit," and consummated his marriage to his six-year-old bride when she was nine. All this is recorded in Islam's own accepted traditions).

The two religions' histories also reveal they serve very different gods:

The Church was slaughtered for centuries after its founding, "turning the world upside down" and expressing the love of Christ in word and deed.

Islam spread for centuries by slaughtering others (and it hasn't stopped).

Have the courage to face Qur'anic Islam honestly and clearly. Yes, the implications of a religion whose text commands its billion-plus followers to fight against, subdue, and kill "unbelievers" is frightening, but what is the alternative? Hide our heads in the sand until we have no heads left to hide? (Beheading is commanded by Allah.)

Regards,

Amillennialist

On the War Against Extremism, the Religion of Peace, and the answer to your uncertainty

Dear President Bush,

I have been a steadfast and ardent supporter of you in both your presidential campaigns. I contributed financially to your re-election. I have defended you in numerous political discussions, even to the point of enduring abuse for it.

Mr. President, if we are to succeed in the War Against Extremism, we must recognize the enemy. From your public statements, those of Dr. Rice, and the apparent establishment of Sharia in Iraq, it seems that you do not recognize that our current conflict is just the latest phase of the ancient struggle against Jihad.

Since Mohammed, Islam has waged war against those whom it considers infidels. Historically (and according to the Qur'an, Hadith, and Islamic jurisprudence), the non-Muslim has only these choices under Islam: convert, submit (and pay the jizya), or die. This may seem a politically-incorrect thing to say, but it is true.

Allah commands the faithful Muslim to, "...kill the unbelievers wherever you find them" (Qur'an 9:5), "...fight...the People of the Book [Jews and Christians] until they feel themselves subdued and pay the jizya" (Qur'an 9:29), and, "...fight...until all religion is for Allah" (Qur'an 8:39).

Jihad has raged for fourteen centuries. Today it is being carried out all around the world. It will not end as long as people believe the Qur'an is the word of a god.

Mr. President, unless and until we recognize the enemy and expose it for what it is, we will lose this war. We cannot waste one American life to establish in another country the religion that is trying to convert, subdue, or kill us, for that is what we are doing in Iraq now, as is clear from the work of our ambassador there and the apparent conclusion of their efforts to draft a constitution--the establishment of Sharia.

This inability or unwillingness to recognize the truth about Islam is not new. It has been blinding United States' policy for several administrations.

The following comments make this clear (originally from El at LittleGreenFootballs, courtesy of Caryolyn2 at JihadWatch):

-Arming, training and using Nato airforce to help KLA islamic terrorists in Kosovo and Bosnia [X]Check

-Funding Palestine islamic thugs [X]Check

-Pressuring Europe to integrate Turkey [X] Check

-Pressuring Israel to relinquish its land and make concession after concession [X] Check

-Sacrifice US service men & women as well as billions of dollars to erect an Islamic Iraqi state [X)Check

-Being best buddies with the Saudis [X] Check

One got to wonder what it would be like if the US was not at war with terrorism.

You were right to urge Americans to refrain from punishing innocent Muslims in the United States. You were right to attack the Taliban. You were right to go after Saddam and his WMD (no doubt sent to Syria). It was noble to require that our military restrain their use of force to protect innocent Iraqis (even to their own detriment). You were right to believe that the rectitude of Liberty would inspire that nation and those around it. Under your leadership, our nation has had many great successes.

However, all of that will be for nothing if we do not recognize the enemy.

-Do not waste all of that effort, and blood, and money by failing to recognize what motivates our enemy (the teachings of Mohammed and his god).

-Recognize the "extremists" for what they are (faithful to Allah's numerous commands to fight against, convert, subdue, and kill unbelievers).

-Combat their ideology (with what? I don't know, since the Qur'an cannot be used effectively to refute itself).

-Stop trying to equate Judaism/Christianity with Islam.

-Stop pressuring Israel to surrender to Islam (in the form of the "Palestinians," whose stated goal is to wipe Israel from the face of the earth).

-Stop wasting American blood and dollars to build another Sharia state.

All that begins by telling the truth: the "extremists" are really just following the fundamentals of Islam and imitating its founder, Mohammed, in their use of violence against unbelievers. It is the truly "moderate" Muslim (and not the one practicing taqiyya or kitman) that misrepresents the Qur'an. The "Islamofascists" (or whatever other indirect term one might use) are those who are obeying Allah in their duty to fight against the Infidel.

It is clear from your past comments that you consider Allah to be the same god as the God of the Bible. Are you aware that Allah says in his Qur'an that anyone who says God has a Son is an unbeliever? That would mean he is saying your Lord (and mine) is an unbeliever because He said of Himself, "I am the Son of God." Would the God of the Bible call His Only Son "an unbeliever"?

When you equate the God of the Bible with the god of the Qur'an, you not only reveal a deadly unfamiliarity with the Qur'an, but you also lie about the true God. When you equate the words of the Qur'an with the Sermon on the Mount, you not only lie about Christ, but you endanger the souls of those who might hope in Him and so be saved.

Islam is not like Christianity. Allah is not like YHWH. The Qur'an is in no way, shape, or form comparable to the Holy Scriptures. Mohammed is no comparison to Jesus Christ.

Mr. President, I urge you and all your Administration to learn about the nature and history of Islam. A site like JihadWatch is an excellent resource. The book The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades), by Robert Spencer is a great new primer on the real Islam, not the one groups like CAIR (several of whose members have been indicted on and/or convicted of terrorism-related crimes) would have us think it is, to our own great harm.

I know you are a caring and faithful man. I know you do not send thoughtlessly young American men and women to risk life and limb. This is a war we must fight, or we will fall to Islam, just as Christian lands fell in ancient times.

If you will recognize the nature of Islam and tell the truth about it publicly, you will begin the (in some ways, much more difficult) ideological struggle against Jihad.

It's a fake fatwa, and you're helping the enemy

From 630 WMAL:

"630 WMAL Suspends Michael Graham

In a statement released last night, 630 WMAL president and general manager Chris Berry announced midday personality Michael Graham would be indefinitely suspended pending an internal investigation into Graham's July 25th remarks that Islam is a terrorist organization.

'Talk radio is an excellent forum to discuss issues important to our society. Nevertheless, the statements that Michael Graham made on July 25 crossed the line,' Berry said. 'He has been suspended pending an internal investigation. We do not condone his position, and we believe his statements were irresponsible.'

Shortly after the second round of bombings in London last week, Graham began telling listeners Muslim leaders were complicit in terrorism, since they had not said or done enough to curb extremism.

The Council on American-Islamic Relations issued a press release late Monday condemning Graham's remarks and urging the station to repremand him. The station has received hundreds of emails and calls since then, both supporting and criticizing Graham.

Yesterday, CAIR and other American Muslim leaders gathered in Washington to announce a fatwah, or religious edict, against terrorism, citing criticisms that Muslim leaders had not said or done enough to curb extremism. "

WMAL should reinstate Mr. Graham and apologize to him.

This station is taking the side of those who would destroy our Life and Liberty in their obedience to a god who commands:

"...kill the unbelievers wherever you find them" (Qur'an 9:5),

"fight..the People of the Book [Jews and Christians] until they feel themselves subdued and pay the jizya" (Qur'an 9:29), and

"...fight...until all religion is for Allah" (Qur'an 8:39). (These verses are just a) sampling.

WMAL is helping CAIR, a front for Jihadists, and many of its leaders have been charged with, or convicted of, terrorism-related crimes.

Our nation will not be able to defend itself as it should if its people are not only unaware of the nature and purpose of Islam, but actually aid its adherents in establishing Shari'a.

A sad irony

Courtesy of Power Line:

"The arrest of one of the failed London bombers apparently has been a breakthrough, as nine more people were arrested earlier today, all in south London. It was also revealed that police found twelve unexploded bombs, some packed with nails, and four detonators in a car belonging to one of the terrorists who died in the July 7 attack.

In this rather grisly context, the AP's gratuitous 'religion of peace' reference seems a little jarring:

'Residents in Tooting said police arrested three men who lived in an apartment above a takeout restaurant selling halal burgers. Halal is meat from a herbivore slaughtered in a humane way — as Islam requires.'

No nail bombs for cows, I guess."

Is it the slaughtering or the humanity that is required? It depends on whether you're speaking of human beings or cattle.

The Qur'an commands fighting, killing, decapitating, and dismembering unbelievers, but I don't recall anything about doing it humanely.

That would mean Allah values unbelievers less than livestock, wouldn't it?

The myth of the 'moderate' Muslim

Excerpted from JihadWatch.org :

I have long maintained that those who identify themselves as moderate Muslims must resolutely attempt to convince Muslims that the theology and ideology of jihad is wrong, or their moderate statements are essentially useless -- and that jihadists will always be able to quote Qur'an and Sunnah against them. Jihadists, as I have often said, view the aggregate of moderate Muslims simply as a recruiting ground. I have also often noted here that support among Muslims for moderate Muslim groups such as Free Muslims seems to be notably slight. This is because, as I have said again and again, there are moderate Muslims, but Islam itself is not moderate. But the mainstream media, left and right, has persistently ignored this, even though the facts abundantly attest to its truth. Now Salim Mansur in the London Free Press (thanks to Nicolei) tells these truths again:

Since at least Sept. 11, 2001, the non-Muslim world at large has been waiting for that segment of the Muslim population designated as "moderate" to resolutely denounce terrorists who, in defiling its faith-tradition, have subverted Islam into a cult of death.

The expectation there is a large, identifiable segment of "moderate" Muslims is a transposition to the Muslim world of the idea of "moderation" in politics and religion that sustains democracies.

It is also a natural expectation that the sort of extremism associated with "jihadi" (war-mongering) politics of Muslim terrorism and suicide bombings would generate a counter-offensive by "moderate" Muslims, repudiating such violence and isolating extremists politically and socially, while supporting the global war on terror.

But this has not happened. On the contrary, as atrocities mount, Muslims generally have remained -- their private anguish aside --publicly complacent, and their religious leaders divided on what should be the proper Islamic response.

...Instead of witnessing "moderate" Muslims resolutely taking back their faith-tradition from extremists and murderers, the world has grown numb to endless apologetics and polemics explaining away "jihadi" politics as a misguided, though inexcusable, response to the wrongs inflicted upon Muslims by the West.

The truth is there does not exist an identifiable body of Muslims, substantive in number or an outright majority, who could be described as "moderate" by their repudiation of Muslim extremists. [emphasis mine]

Violence has been an integral part of Muslim history, irrespective of whether it is sanctioned by Islam, and Muslims who unhesitatingly use violence to advance their political ambitions have created a climate within their faith-culture that any Muslim who questions such practice is then deemed apostate and subject to harm.

Consequently, what might pass for "moderate" Muslims, the large number of Muslims unaccounted for as to what they think, in practical terms constitute a forest within which extremists are incubated, nurtured, given ideological and material support, and to which they return for sanctuary....

Looking at the words and actions of an individual believer of whatever religion (or even a group of adherents to a particular faith) does not necessarily give an accurate representation of that particular faith (although it should be considered in evaluating it).

What defines a religion and the basis on which it should be judged is its sacred texts. From these the beliefs, and therefore, words and actions, of its people flow.

A faithful Muslim, no matter how decent, moderate, or patriotic, cannot argue against Jihad against unbelievers because Allah in his Qur'an commands it. That would be like a Christian arguing against the commands of Christ. You can't do that and still be a Christian (no matter what you might want to call yourself).

Were Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and Dresden justified? Some thoughts on Representative Tancredo's recent comments

Tom Tancredo, a member of the House from Colorado, was asked about a Muslim attack against U.S. cities using nuclear weapons. He stated that a nuclear response against Islam's holy sites might be appropriate.

Many otherwise sensible commentators disagreed. Two of my responses to one host's thoughts are posted below, not so much in defense of the Representative's statements, but to expose the wrong-headedness that apparently informs that host's positions.

This was sent this morning to Representative Tancredo:

Our "War on Terror" is actually a War of Self-Defense Against Jihad.

I believe that the enemy our nation faces in this life-and-death struggle is actually Qur'anic Islam. Suras 9:5, 9:29, and 8:39 clearly command the fighting against, subduing, and killing of non-Muslims.

These (and many other) commands of Allah, taken together with the life of Mohammed and 1400 years of global Jihad, demonstrate that those whom the politically-correct call "radicals" and "extremists" are actually practicing true Islam. It is the "moderate" Muslim whose practice is at variance with the "great world religion" and its scripture, founder, and history (and no doubt some of these "moderates" are actually practicing taqiyya).

A retraction of, or apology for, your hypothetical statement as to what the United States might do in response to a nuclear attack would show weakness to our enemy.

Those normally-sensible Americans calling for you to recant are taking a position consistent with Jihadist-front groups like CAIR, who are working vigorously to deceive the American people about the true nature and purpose of Islam. Such calls compromise what otherwise might be an effective deterrent.

Thousands of innocent Japanese were killed in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Many innocent Germans were targeted in Dresden. Would those criticizing your statement today have made the same arguments sixty years ago? If force against civilians can be justified in those cases (especially in the case of using nuclear weapons against Japan), why is it not justified today (against what is arguably a much more malevolent and dishonorable enemy)?

Since it appears overwhelming, unspeakably-terrible force is the only thing Jihadists respect, such a response may be a necessary evil in defense of our innocents.

The first Rule of Holes...

...is: Stop Digging!

(Or, alternatively, "Ignorance is bliss--until the knife is at your throat")

Hugh Hewitt couldn't leave well enough alone by limiting his dhimmitude-inducing nescience to his radio program; he also updated his website with a few comments that require a response:

"First, Congressman Tancredo said that if we determined that 'extremist fundamentalist Muslims' attacked the U.S. with nukes, then we should bomb Mecca. Why, he should be asked, if 'extremist fundamentalist' Muslims are guilty would we declare war on all Muslims? Why make the distinction about 'extremist, fundamentalist' Muslims if the distinction doesn't matter in our response...."

"Extremist fundamentalist Muslims" is merely a synonym for "devout Muslims." Besides, it's redundant.

Mr. Hewitt's argument here belies the fact that Qur'anic Islam inspires and sustains the killers.

Can one have Islam without the Qur'an? No. Can one have Islam without Mohammed? Of course not. Yet it is both of these, the words of Allah and the sayings and doings of Mohammed, that the jihadists are fulfilling when they fight against and kill non-Muslims.

The only sense in which these individuals are extremist is that they are (currently) a relatively small number of people who actually are carrying out jihadist operations. But they must have additional ideological, logistical, and financial support. From where does this come? No doubt, other Muslims. And how many more in the Islamic world must lend them their prayers and their emotional support?

As evidenced by the 7/7 murderers, the degree of a Muslim's devotion to the Qur'an is directly proportional to the threat they pose to the non-Muslim world ("He recently became very religious").

It is only because a majority of Muslims are either unwilling or unable to carry out Jihad that they do not engage in it. (A third group are no doubt unaware of Allah's commands to do so. If they were, many of these would no longer be Muslim.)

Finally, doesn't "fundamentalist" mean they are adhering to the fundamentals of their scriptures? It does, as any cursory examination of Islam's "sacred" texts and history will bear out.

"Tancredo is no doubt being inundated with 'Stand tall Tom!' calls and e-mails from the anti-Islam crowd. This is a fringe opinion, but its supporters are not afraid of voicing it, much like the pro-Durbin remarks crowd on the left fringe urged Durbin to stand tall when he compared the American military to Nazis and Pol Pot's killers...."[emphasis mine]

This is the sort of repugnant moral equivalence Hugh usually condemns when others engage in it. It is completely indefensible here.

Our American military are not the monsters Durbin implied. Islam is the violent religion its god commands, and our nation needs to be prepared to do whatever it takes to crush Qur'anic Islam.

Hugh ought to answer these questions: Why are the "anti-Islam crowd" against Islam? Could it be they know something he doesn't? Or are the overwhelming majority of his Monday listeners ignorant, hateful bigots?

No doubt Hugh is surprised that his normally intelligent audience boycotted Monday's show.

He continues:

"...And he ought to apologize to every Muslim soldier, sailor, airman and Marine for suggesting that the way to respond to an attack on America is to attack their faith."

Yes, it is regrettable that some of our American heroes will suffer. But whose fault is that? The one who warns against the danger, or the ones who actually create the danger and necessitate such an extreme response?

As Hugh will discover if he researches Islam at all (and no, reading self-serving public announcements--possibly taqiyya--and having "Muslim" friends--probably Muslims In Name Only--doesn't make one an expert on Islam), it is not America attacking their faith, but their faith attacking America. They will have to choose, and a devout Muslim's first allegiance is to the Qur'an and to the Ummah, not to the United States.

"...Destroying Mecca wouldn't destroy Islam. It would enrage and unify Islam across every country in the world where Muslims lived."

After 9/11, many devout Muslims saw the "success" of the attack as a gift from Allah and a validation of their religious service. What would the destruction of their holiest site mean, but the defeat of their god and their theology of power?

"I want to be very clear on this. No responsible American can endorse the idea that the U.S. is in a war with Islam. That is repugnant and wrong, and bloggers and writers and would-be bloggers and writers have to chose sides on this, especially if you are a center-right blogger. The idea that all of Islam is the problem is a fringe opinion. It cannot be welcomed into mainstream thought because it is factually wrong...We are not in a war with devout Muslims. We are in a war with Muslims who think that their faith compels them to kill non-believers and the nations that support those extremists."

What facts contradict the idea that the "War Against Terror" is really a "War of Self-Defense Against Jihad"? Anything from the Qur'an or Hadith? No.

Those "Muslims who think that their faith compels them to kill non-believers" are the "devout" Muslims, and they are right. The Qur'an commands it and Mohammed practiced it. Islam has carried out Jihad against the Infidel throughout its history.

Anyone who can read can see this for himself.

When Allied forces destroyed Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and fire-bombed Dresden, I'm sure the same questions Hugh asks above could have been asked then, "Why, ...if the 'extremist fundamentalist' government of Japan is guilty would we declare war on all Japanese? Why make the distinction about "extremist, fundamentalist" Nazis if the distinction doesn't matter in our response...."

It is war. What will deter the jihadists from attacking American cities with WMD, whether nuclear or otherwise? What will be the response from our President if 50,000 people are incinerated? Another warning? A strongly-worded note? To whom?

You must determine what matters to the enemy so that you have something with which to exert leverage.

...And I really hope that Congressman Tancredo, a fundamentally good man, will appear and regret his comments in unequivocal terms. Congressman Tancredo has seen the aftermath of Islamist terrorism up close when he visited Beslan. He knows the cost of encouraging such violence. I believe he will want to make clear that the vast majority of Muslims do not support that kind of butchery.

But that kind of butchery is commanded by Allah in his Qur'an. That sort of butchery was practiced by Mohammed and it has a long tradition throughout Islam's history, even to this very day.

What sense does it make to blame the victim here? Somehow we've encouraged such violence? How did we encourage 9/11? How did we encourage the U.S.S. Cole or our African embassies? How did we encourage the '93 WTC attack? How did those children in Beslan encourage their own blood being shed? How has any non-Muslim group encouraged such violence through the past 1400 years?

By not being Muslim.

What sense does it make to blame the victim? How does lying down and crawling deter the jihadists?

How does removing any option, even the most extreme, do anything but reassure our enemies of America's weakness?

An otherwise brilliant man blinded by multiculturalism and ignorance of Islam

In discussing today Tom Tancredo's comments on what to do if jihadists were to use nuclear weapons against American cities, Hugh Hewitt, an outstanding political commentator, revealed a huge blind spot regarding Islam.

It is an ignorance demonstrated by many in the West that, if allowed to persist, will result in either the death or dhimmitude of "unbelievers" everywhere.

Mr. Hewitt is right when he argues that many Muslims are decent, law-abiding people. He is right to want to avoid killing innocents, and he is right in arguing that a cataclysmic attack against Islam's holy sites would enrage those who otherwise would give little or no support to the Jihad Against the West.

Here is where Hugh is dead wrong:

First, open war is upon us, whether he would see it or not. We are not at war with Islam; Islam is at war with us, just as it has always been.

This is because the Qur'an commands it. Sura 9:5 says, "...kill the unbelievers wherever you find them;" Sura 9:29 reads, "...fight the People of the Book [Jews and Christians] until they feel themselves subdued and pay the jizya;" and 8:39 exhorts, "...fight...until all religion is for Allah."

For 1400 years, Islam has waged holy war against non-Muslims all around the world. The global jihad continues today. All non-Muslims need to recognize this before it is too late. Having otherwise well-respected, influential commentators like Mr. Hewitt deny this truth dangerously weakens us in our life-and-death struggle against Islam.

Second, Mr. Hewitt apparently views Islam through the prism of Christianity (as do many in the West).

For many people, since Islam is a religion, and over and over again we hear about how Islam means "peace" and values "tolerance," and because many Muslims in the West appear to be decent people, Islam is believed to be just like Judaism or Christianity. People automatically assume that Islam shares the same values as those two (actually) great religions.

It is not! It does not!

If you need any more evidence than the commands of the Qur'an, the examples of Muslim perfection found in the Hadith, and fourteen centuries of bloody Jihad against the infidels, the four Englishmen who made their profession of faith on July 7th should be enough.

Third, the Reformation of the western Church was a move toward obedience to that faith's Scriptures. When a Muslim kills a non-Muslim for refusing to convert or submit to Islam, it fulfills Allah's command. What Islam needs is not a reformation (back to Qur'anic fundamentals), but a deformation away from the Qur'an's numerous commands to fight and kill unbelievers.

Fourth, instead of investigating the validity of the arguments of those who challenged his position, Hugh resorted to ad hominem attacks. That kind of non-argument is the last gasp of those supporting the untenable.

Instead of trying to equate one's ideology of choice with factors over which one has no control (ethnicity, national origin, etc.) , perhaps Mr. Hewitt should research terms like taqiyya and kitman and the doctrine of Abrogation. Maybe he should delve into why traditional Islamic theology divides the world into two lands: dar al-Islam (the Abode of Islam) and dar al-Harb (the Abode of War).

Hugh might discover that the "tolerance" afforded non-Muslims under Islam has been a less-than-second-class citizenship. He might discover the meaning of "dhimmi" before he becomes one himself.

Mr. Hewitt demonstrates his lack of Islamic credentials by denying what those who have studied Islam's "sacred" texts and history know to be true.

The answer is, "Because Allah commands it"

Hugh Fitzgerald asks and answers the question: 'Why do they hate us?' From Jihad Watch:

The question itself -- 'Why do they hate the West' --is the wrong question, and inevitably encourages the wrong answers.

The correct question is: 'Why do they hate the rest?' Anytime anyone, anywhere, talks about 'why they hate America' or 'why they hate the West' they have already, unwittingly, conceded much of the case.

But like the Ptolemaic (geocentric) theory, that could not account for the data or have predictive value as did the Copernican (heliocentric), those who keep focusing only on 'the West' will not be able to arrive at the correct conclusion.

Again and again it must be pointed out that the greatest victims of Islam have been Hindus, with some 60-70 million killed, and tens of thousands of temples destroyed. The Greco-Buddhist civilization of Afghanistan was largely destroyed by Muslim invaders. The Hindus and Buddhists who once inhabited the East Indies have been steadily reduced, under constant Muslim pressure, as a percentage of the population. The attacks all over Asia, and all over Africa, of Muslims against Christians (not only the Sudan, but the Jihad, with Egyptian pilots strafing Ibo villages, that was the war to suppress Biafra) and animists, need to be constantly recalled.

Not the 'War Against the West.'

But 'War Against the Rest' -- all the Rest.

If Israel was, in the last half-century, the Infidel victim that received the most media attention, this was only because the tiny Infidel state of Israel is located right in the Middle East. Similarly, the Christians of Lebanon, though they did not possess a state of their own, have been targets, especially the Maronites of Lebanon.

If America has been the main target, it is not because of American foreign policy but because America is the most powerful, and most unyielding, and must unsusceptible (chiefly, but not entirely, because it has far more believers in muscular Christianity, not the etiolated pro-"palestinian" kind, and far fewer followers of the Western cult of "tolerance" that the Dutch, to their own great surprise and sorrow, have suddenly and still confusedly realized leaves much to be desired, and is no substitute for knowledge of the enemy).

What Do Women Want? is a title with which we are familiar.

What Do Muslims Want?

That is a title that needs a book to be written under it. Okay, I hereby copyright it, pour tous pays sauf l'U.R.S.S., (which rumor has it no longer exists, so I needn't worry)

Phrase the question wrongly, and hark what silliness follows.

Phrase it correctly -- and you are in, like Flynn.

One of those taking part in the discussion here answered: "They hate us because they think we're corrupt and evil. We have pornography. We have drug use. We have homosexuality."

Is that it? Do the Sudanese blacks, all those Nuer and Dinka tribesmen, spend their time sniffing cocaine or watching Linda Lovelace? Did those 60-70 million Hindus who were killed, or Buddhists, or those devout Christians, singing their hymns, routinely blown up in Pakistan and Indonesia, or those Christian nurses punished in Saudi Arabia for singing Christmas hymns, or those naughty Copts in Egypt, who dare to remain Copts, and ditto with those Maronites in Lebanon -- are these people "hated" and persecuted and murdered by Muslims because they were "corrupt and evil...have pornography...drug use...homosexuality"?

What a failure to comprehend. No, let me put it to you bluntly: the Dinka and Nuer, the Hindus and the Buddhist monks in Thailand, the Christians opening their hymnals in Karachi or Lagos, the Hindu villagers in Kashmir and Pakistan and Bangladesh, are not now, and never were, "corrupt and evil...[with] pornography...drug use...homosexuality."

It is not cocaine and rainbow parties which caused Muslims to persecute and murder non-Muslims everywhere they conquered, and today, even within the countries called "Muslim," to keep the non-Muslims in their place.

It is the fact that they were, they are, Infidels. That's it. Whether we are in our Sunday-go-to-meeting best, or looking like Paris Hilton, looking at Rembrandt, or solemnly examining at the Tate Modern the unmade bed, underpants, tampax, and all the unseemly rest, that recently won a prize as "art."

Infidels. The prim and the libertine, le cru et le cuit, the wise man and the fool. It doesn't matter. Infidels -- that's our original sin. And unless we submit, as dhimmis or as "reverts," we will have hell to pay. Don't think that putting your soul in an upright position will save you, will prevent those Muslims from trying to highjack the civilizational plane you are on -- it won't work.

No, Mr. and Mrs. and Miss Infidel, and all the ships at sea, wherever you are, you can do no right by Islam. Don't even try.

A toast, Mr. Henry ...

To America's Sons and Daughters
who have left hearth and home
to defend our Life and Liberty:

May God grant them Grace, Mercy, and Strength!

Huzzah!

A Shameful Exercise in Slight-of-Mouth

As the recent verbal war in Washington, D.C. unfolds, the ever-duplicitous Left is succeeding in doing just what they had hoped: They're deflecting attention away from the betrayal of America by a leader of the Democratic Party.

Democratic officials and their Media minions are implying a moral equivalence between the following very unequal assertions: First, Richard Durbin equated the American military with Nazis, Soviets, and Pol Pot; and second, Karl Rove pointed out what is demonstrably true: liberals would rather blame the victim for 9-11's butchery than take the fight to our enemies.

In other words, Durbin's clearly treasonous attack against our military is of no greater offense or validity than Rove's factually-correct summary of two very different responses to Jihad in America.

The only thing these two statements share is that people were offended and wanted an apology (though for different reasons)--Democrats were offended because someone dared to tell the truth about their moral cowardice, and Americans were offended because a politician attacked the honor and integrity of American heroes.

[It is telling that when running for President, Democrats run from the label "liberal" like schoolboys from their books, but when liberals' lack of moral clarity and courage is pointed out publicly, Democrats take offense. Who's fooling whom?]

Even Rich Lowry, a token conservative on The News Hour, allowed the false comparison to be made today without protest.

That shouldn't be too surprising--Lowry had recently appeased one of Jihad's cells in America (CAIR), when he retracted his publication's support for the sale of a text telling the truth about Islam.

Perhaps, Lowry has more in common with America's Left than he might want to admit.

Taxpayer dollars being wasted NOW

When Bill Moyers was the host of NOW, one had to watch only a few minutes to see that a particular story was going to be irrational Leftist hit-piece against the religious and/or politically-conservative.

An example of pervasive and consistent Liberal bias, NOW is one reason many have been calling for greater ideological balance on PBS.

With a new host and an interesting contrast in guests, Craig Hedges and Roy Moore, I gave the show another chance recently.

The host's own biases were obvious in two ways: when Hedges made false and irrational accusations against Christians, they went unchallenged; when Moore stated his beliefs, those were met with inane follow-up questions or a fluttering of the eyelids (the kind when, as a result of either guilt, fear, or disdain, a person can't look someone in the eye).

Hedges equated "the Religious Right" (really any Christians who believe the God of the Bible--which means all Christians, for how can one call themselves a follower of Christ and not follow Him?) with:

-the oppressive Muslim theocracies of the Islamic world (a popular new strategy among the Left),
-intolerance (the Left is so tolerant of those who have a different worldview, especially a Christian one!)
-Fascism (how can following the One Who said, "Love your neighbor as yourself" equal a government trying to control all aspects of the lives of its citizenry? It is the religion of Christ that gave birth to the Ideology of Freedom that is uniquely American)
-anti-Reason (Hedges used the commonly-unchallenged lie of "facts belong to Science")
-Stupidity: Hedges also made the inherently self-contradictory claim that though the Bible erred, it has power and beauty. (What nonsense! How can a lie be powerful and beautiful at the same time to one who knows the truth?)

Hedges also expressed his concern with the Religious Right's preoccupation with violence, saying that Christ didn't avenge (apparently, contrary to his claim, Hedges hasn't really read that little thing called the New Testament).

The second segment of the program was an interview with Alabama Justice Roy Moore, who clearly, succinctly, and articulately defended his position that Freedom of Religion is guaranteed by the Constitution to all Americans, and that the government has no right to abridge that freedom. He also made clear that a posting of the Ten Commandments is a proper acknowledgement of the God of the Bible who founded this nation (and Who is recognized in the Declaration of Independence and every state constitution in the Union).

After a comment by Justice Moore regarding judicial activism (judges usurping the constitutional role of the legislatures by making up law) with regard to homosexual marriage, the host followed-up by asking him, "Is that what you're afraid of?"

Every American should fear tyranny.

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?