Where we are today

While Old Media continues in its preoccupation with self-destructive, bleach-blonde curiosities of questionable judgment and Team Coverage of rain, the world continues on course in its unavoidable confrontation with Islam.

Yet, those in power are either clueless or indifferent.

Though credit must be given to those Western leaders who have taken action against jihadists, these same leaders also must bear much blame for failing to identify and formulate a prudent strategy to combat that which fuels their fire: the word of Allah and the example of his false prophet.

It is not only our governmental leaders failing the People. Those in Academia and the Media who should know better--or who do know better but cravenly remain silent while the West suffocates under the mass of Muslims who by the bomb, the barb, or the ballot work to establish the Tyranny of Allah over all Mankind--are also to blame.

It is left to a few brave souls to expose the utterly disgusting barbarity of the Religion of Peace. (To Islam "peace" means the agreement that comes when all who dissent are either converted, barbarously subdued and humiliated, enslaved, or butchered.)

One of those on whom future generations will look as a hero, someone willing to risk life and limb to the dogs of Allah is Ayaan Hirsi Ali. Her recent public appearance on Bill Maher's program found her correcting Representative Darrell Issa's promotion of the myth of Islamic tolerance.

Unsurprisingly, a propagandist at Newsweek has seen fit to attack her for telling the truth about the Religion of Which We Do Not Speak. That liar is Lorraine Ali.

In "Only One Side of the Story" (that's ironic and begs the question: What other side is there to "...kill the unbelievers wherever you find them"?), L. Ali writes in part:

...Hirsi Ali's exceptionally harsh life story—told in her new memoir, "Infidel"—would elicit empathy from the coldest of hearts. But that's not the book's only purpose. Hirsi Ali, a 38-year-old Dutch citizen and women's rights advocate who now lives in Washington, D.C., is one of Europe's most infamous critics of Islam. She renounced her Muslim faith after the 9/11 attacks, decried what she regarded as the religion's brutality in lectures and interviews, and rode a wave of anti-immigrant sentiment all the way into the Dutch Parliament, where she gained a seat.

Why "infamous"? It is clear on which side of the truth Lorraine Ali falls.

"She regarded"? What part of the command to "...fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war);..." (Qur’an 9:5). is not brutal?

There's clearly an audience for Hirsi Ali in America too...

Perhaps the American people are waking up to the fact that the source and sustenance of Islamic terrorism and the efforts to establish Shari'a is Islam itself. Perhaps the American people are not as dumb as Lorraine Ali hopes.

But Hirsi Ali's memoir is as much about her political agenda as it is her life, and in between tales of her youth she wedges harsh and uncompromising declarations: "True Islam," she writes at one point, "leads to cruelty." ...throughout the book, you can't help but feel manipulated, rather than moved. In describing the 9/11 hijackers, she comes up with an inflammatory conclusion tailor-made for her right-wing constituency: "It was not a lunatic fringe who felt this way about America and the West. I knew that a vast majority of Muslims would see the attacks as justified retaliation against the infidel enemies of Islam."

Of course, "political agenda" means Hirsi Ali is lying. And everyone knows that the "right-wing" is intolerant, hateful, and Islamophobic.

Is Hirsi Ali's statement true or not? Did Muslims celebrate the fall of the Towers or not? Is Osama bin Laden a hero among Muslims or not? Do not Muslims destroy and kill (even nuns) over cartoons, historical evaluations made by emperors whose kingdoms were under siege by Islam, and factual statements from Islam's own authoritative texts about the Pedophile Prophet when those declarations come from non-Muslims without the proper deference?

It appears that Lorraine cannot assail the truth of Hirsi Ali's pronouncements, so she must impugn her character and the character of those who are at least interested in what she has to say (the last time I checked, Bill Maher was not part of the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy/Constituency, and even he gets it!).

If nothing else, we know that Newsweek hires those skilled in ad hominem attacks.

Other Muslim women interested in reform aren't exactly in step with Hirsi Ali. "I wish people had been nicer to her," says Muslim author and feminist Asra Nomani. "But I don't blame Islam. I blame really messed-up people who've used religion to justify their misogyny."

That would be Mohammed, Islam's founder, since the "misogyny" noted is in accord with the revelations he received from Allah.

As staunchly patriarchal strains of Wahhabi Islam infiltrate Muslim cultures outside the gulf region, many modern female followers are wondering how to embrace their religion without succumbing to its more sexist demands.

Wahhabi Islam is just a more faithful, traditional version of what is often passed off as Islam in the West (and many other lands), where those who self-identify as "Muslim" are either unaware of, uninterested in, or hiding what their god and prophet demand.

And isn't this an admission that it is not just a few "messed-up people"?

And they're coming up with answers that don't require them to abandon either their religion or their culture. In the Middle East and South Asia, a strong majority of Muslim women recently polled by Gallup believed they should have the right to work outside the home and serve in the highest levels of government. Here in the United States, dozens of scholars like Ithaca College's Asma Barlas, Harvard's Leila Ahmed and Notre Dame's Asma Afsaruddin have challenged widely accepted interpretations of the Qur'an. "They are Islam's Martina Luthers," jokes Nomani. "They are my heroes."

Here again is an admission that Hirsi Ali is correct: these "reformers" are not appealing to Qur'an, Sira, and Hadith for a less violent, less tyrannical faith, they are perverting and misinterpreting the word of Allah and the words and deeds of his apostle in an attempt to change traditional, historic Islam.

And is this not acknowledgement that violent, fascist, totalitarian understandings of Islam are widely accepted? So much for that vaunted "tiny minority of extremists" and their equally mythical counterparts the "vast majority of moderate Muslims" to whom President Bush, Secretary Rice, Hugh Hewitt, et al so quickly, eagerly, and uncritically appeal!

It is also worth noting here an error/lie common among many commentators: to compare those who want to remake Islam in the image of a pluralistic, human rights respecting, tolerant West (which traditions are a natural result of the Christian religion) with someone like Martin Luther is a grave error. Martin Luther strove to move Christianity toward obedience to the word of Christ, while these "Martina Luthers" seek to move Islam away from the doctrine of Mahomet.

But that sort of error is all you can expect with the mushy thinking (moral equivalence) that often passes for Reason nowadays.

Hirsi Ali is more a hero among Islamophobes than Islamic women. That's problematic considering she describes herself in "Infidel" as a woman who "fights for the rights of Muslim women, the enlightenment of Islam and the security of the West." How can you change the lives of your former sisters, and work toward reform, when you've forged a career upon renouncing the religion and insulting its followers?

Here again is a lie common among Islam's apologists, whether they are devout Muslims or Useful Infidel Idiots--telling the truth about what Islam's god and founder said and did is not "insult" nor is it "phobia," it is...telling the truth about what Allah and Mohammed demand.

If their religion is so grand, so peaceful, so enlightened, so divine, why is it that Muslims are so terrified at the truth being told to Infidels? Is it that their God-given conscience is making their espousal of Mohammed's murderous, genocidal, hate ideology uncomfortable for them? Or is that they don't want us to wake up to the existential threat posed to us by their faith since so much of the West is not only completely unaware of the true nature of Islam, those who dare to tell the truth about it are punished?

Hirsi Ali says overhauling Islam is not her responsibility: she just lays out "the facts" and leaves it to others to go about fixing this supposedly broken faith.

And it is the clear, calm laying out of those facts that so disquiets L. Ali and her ilk.

But her facts are often subjective: at one point she characterizes "every devout Muslim who aspires to practice genuine Islam" as a follower of the Muslim Brotherhood. That may have been true in Hirsi Ali's experience, but it hardly speaks for the globe's 1.3 billion other followers.

One thing facts can never be is subjective.

If a person swears fealty to the god of Mahomet, to what do they promise their love, faithfulness, and service? Among other things, they promise to do as their prophet did. And what did he say?

...Fight in the name of Allah and in the way of Allah. Fight against those who disbelieve in Allah. Make a holy war...When you meet your enemies who are polytheists, invite them to three courses of action.... Invite them to (accept) Islam; if they respond to you, accept it from them and desist from fighting against them...If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya. If they agree to pay, accept it from them and hold off your hands. If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah's help and fight them...'" (Muslim Book 019, Number 4294).

So, there may be moderate (Apostate) Muslims, but every devout Muslim promises to aid this ideology. Every devout Muslim adores a god and founder who require the fighting against, subduing and humiliating, and killing of non-Muslims to make the world Islam.

It's ironic that this would-be "infidel" often sounds as single-minded and reactionary as the zealots she's worked so hard to oppose.

Commitment to truth in the face of the tireless bloodlust of Allah requires single-mindedness. And the atrocities committed at the behest of Allah and his heretical prophet require resistance (unless you're Muslim, then you must approve).

To equate someone who tells the truth about Islam's authoritative texts and historical practice with those who actually butcher, rape, and enslave for Allah is the nadir of deceit.

Burying the truth

It wasn't enough for James Cameron to falsely portray the fate of rich and poor to advance Marxism in his Titanic (what does it say for the truth of an ideology that one must lie for it?). Now he is conducting a clumsy, obtuse, pseudo-scientific attack against Christianity.

From here.

New scientific evidence, including DNA analysis conducted at one of the world's foremost molecular genetics laboratories, as well as studies by leading scholars, suggests a 2,000-year-old Jerusalem tomb could have once held the remains of Jesus of Nazareth and his family.

Of course,"scientific evidence," "DNA analysis," and "scholars" make every unsubstantiated assertion in this article legitimate, since everyone knows that if a "scientist" says it, it must be true.

"Could have"? Was only one family living in Jerusalem at the time? Perhaps someone ought to save Cameron from public humiliation by letting him know that there are eyewitness accounts of what happened to Jesus' body in these little texts called the Gospels.

The findings also suggest that Jesus and Mary Magdalene might have produced a son named Judah.

"...findings also suggest" should read, "these could be anybody's bodies, but we're going to draw the most absurd conclusion possible just to reach the preconceived outcome we desire. Yes, we could've have asked a local cabbie if Jesus had a son with Mary and come to just as reasonable a conclusion, but that wouldn't lend us the same air of authority."

The DNA findings, alongside statistical conclusions made about the artifacts — originally excavated in 1980 — open a potentially significant chapter in Biblical archaeological history.

"...archaelogical historical fiction," it should say. And statistics can never be misused as a means to one's ends, can they?

As for DNA findings, do the "scientists" have Jesus' mother's DNA? No? Then how in the world can they possibly conclude these are the remains of Christ and His family (especially since eyewitnesses testified upon pain of death to His Resurrection and Ascension)?

...Scholars know that from 30 B.C. to 70 A.D., many people in Jerusalem would first wrap bodies in shrouds after death. The bodies were then placed in carved rock tombs, where they decomposed for a year before the bones were placed in an ossuary.

So, when the opportunity comes to try to discredit among the naive and the eager the Resurrection, "scholars" know that First Century Jews prepared their dead in this way, but when looking at the eyewitness accounts of what was done with Christ's body recorded in the Gospels, then the knowledge of those same cultural practices lends no historical validity at all to those testimonies?

Five of the 10 discovered boxes in the Talpiot tomb were inscribed with names believed to be associated with key figures in the New Testament: Jesus, Mary, Matthew, Joseph and Mary Magdalene. A sixth inscription, written in Aramaic, translates to "Judah Son of Jesus."

Yes, no one was named "Jesus" in those days, except at least one male in every family (even Barabbas, the criminal sentenced to death but released in Christ's stead, was named "Jesus").

And of course, what are the odds of any other First Century Jews being named "Mary" or "Joseph"? Or of being buried in Jerusalem?

What does the statistical analysis of the fact that only half the boxes in this tomb have names matching New Testament figures?

It looks like all we have evidence of is a common, two-thousand year old, Jewish tomb (and someone's predetermined outcome), as evidenced by the following:

"Such tombs are very typical for that region," Aaron Brody, associate professor of Bible and archaeology at the Pacific School of Religion and director of California's Bade Museum told Discovery News.

Here comes support not for this supposed "discovery" but for the Gospels (and an odd bit on Mary):

...Frank Moore Cross, a professor emeritus in the Department of Near Eastern Languages and Civilizations at Harvard University, told Discovery News, "The inscriptions are from the Herodian Period (which occurred from around 1 B.C. to 1 A.D.). The use of limestone ossuaries and the varied script styles are characteristic of that time."

Jodi Magness, associate department chair of religious studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, told Discovery News that, based on the New Testament writings, "Jesus likely lived during the first century A.D."

In addition to the "Judah son of Jesus" inscription, which is written in Aramaic on one of the ossuaries, another limestone burial box is labeled in Aramaic with "Jesus Son of Joseph." Another bears the Hebrew inscription "Maria," a Latin version of "Miriam," or, in English, "Mary." Yet another ossuary inscription, written in Hebrew, reads "Matia," the original Hebrew word for "Matthew." Only one of the inscriptions is written in Greek. It reads, "Mariamene e Mara," which can be translated as, "Mary known as the master."

If the second box did contain the remains of Jesus, those remains would have been placed there by family/followers. They would no doubt have noted His mother's name, not Joseph's, since the Gospels cease mentioning Joseph very early in their accounts and often identify Him with His mother, even at His crucifixion where He makes arrangements for her life without Him.

So was this "Mary" actually the wife of Jesus ("Mrs. The Master") as Cameron and Jacobvici seem to hope? Or was this some sort of First Century gender-identity conflict?

Using Cameron and his Partner-in-Crime's logic, we might as well conclude that this tomb is evidence of Mary Magdalene's central place in authentic Christian theology, no doubt usurped by those patriarchal, misogynist Church Fathers.

Someone call Dan Brown quick!

Francois Bovon, professor of the history of religion at Harvard University, told Discovery News, "Mariamene, or Mariamne, probably was the actual name given to Mary Magdalene."

Bovon explained that he and a colleague discovered a fourteenth century copy in Greek of a fourth century text that contains the most complete version of the "Acts of Philip" ever found. Although not included in the Bible, the "Acts of Philip" mentions the apostles and Mariamne, sister of the apostle Philip.

"When Philip is weak, she is strong," Bovon said. "She likely was a great teacher who even inspired her own sect of followers, called Mariamnists, who existed from around the 2nd to the 3rd century."

So, is their "Mariamne" the Magdalene, Philip's sister, or a first century Oprah?

...Jacobovici, director, producer and writer of "The Lost Tomb of Jesus," and his team obtained two sets of samples from the ossuaries for DNA and chemical analysis. The first set consisted of bits of matter taken from the "Jesus Son of Joseph" and "Mariamene e Mara" ossuaries. The second set consisted of patina — a chemical film encrustation on one of the limestone boxes.

It's hard to call something "lost" that was used for only a couple of days and then never needed again.

The human remains were analyzed by Carney Matheson, a scientist at the Paleo-DNA Laboratory at Lakehead University in Ontario, Canada. Mitochondrial DNA examination determined the individual in the Jesus ossuary and the person in the ossuary linked to Mary Magdalene were not related.

Now, we've gone from "possibly" to a definite identification of Mary Magdalene's remains.

(It would be useful to notice here that "scientists" will admit the Biblical Jesus was really a man, but only when they want to defame and discredit Him.)

Since tombs normally contain either blood relations or spouses, Jacobovici and his team suggest it is possible Jesus and Mary Magdalene were a couple. "Judah," whom they indicate may have been their son, could have been the "lad" described in the Gospel of John as sleeping in Jesus' lap at the Last Supper.

Could this have been one of those common exceptions indicated by the use of the word "normally"?

Count the weasel words: "suggest," "possible," "indicate," "may have," and "could have." Doesn't sound like much with which to destroy two thousand years of established historical fact.

Never mind that the last sentence in that paragraph reveals someone who's never read the Biblical text. There was no boy sleeping in Jesus lap (now He's a pedophile? They must be thinking of the founder of that other world religion).

Robert Genna, director of the Suffolk County Crime Laboratory in New York, analyzed both the patina taken from the Talpiot Tomb and chemical residue obtained from the "James" ossuary, which was also found around 1980, but subsequently disappeared and resurfaced in the antiquities market. Although controversy surrounds this burial box, Genna found that the two patinas matched.

...Upon examining the tomb, the filmmakers determined a space exists that would have fit the "James" ossuary. Given the patina match and this observation, Jacobovici theorizes the lost burial box could, in fact, be the "James" ossuary.

So, the James Ossuary has gone from being "controversial" to establishing that the Son of God had a child and is still dead.

Not only is the James box being used to validate this ahistorical defamation of Christ, the fiction itself is being used to establish the identity of the remains in the James Ossuary.

That's the problem with false, circuitous logic: it never ends. Neither do the lies of those who hate Christ.

The suicide of the West

From The American Enterprise: How the West Was Won, and How It Will Be Lost, by Oriana Fallaci:

On October 22, 2002, Oriana Fallaci addressed an audience at the American Enterprise Institute. Following are short excerpts from her talk. Ms. Fallaci, a native of Florence, Italy and a life-long journalist, caused turmoil across Europe with the publication of her book The Rage and the Pride, calling the West to stand up to the Islamic world.

I don’t hide. I never have. I stay at home because I like to stay at home, and at home I work. I have not appeared in public for at least ten years. No interviews, no TV.

Why am I here, then? Because, since September 11, we are at war. Because the front line of that war is here, in America. Because when I was a war correspondent, I liked to be on the front line. And this time, in this war, I do not feel as a war correspondent. I feel as a soldier. The duty of a soldier is to fight. And to fight this war, I deploy a personal weapon. It is not a gun. It’s a small book, The Rage and The Pride.

My soldier weapon is the weapon of truth. The truth that begins with the truth I maintain in these pages:

From Afghanistan to Sudan, from Palestine to Pakistan, from Malaysia to Iran, from Egypt to Iraq, from Algeria to Senegal, from Syria to Kenya, from Libya to Chad, from Lebanon to Morocco, from Indonesia to Yemen, from Saudi Arabia to Somalia, the hate for the West swells like a fire fed by the wind. And the followers of Islamic fundamentalism multiply like a protozoa of a cell which splits to become two cells then four then eight then sixteen then thirty-two to infinity. Those who are not aware of it only have to look at the images that the TV brings us every day. The multitudes that impregnate the streets of Islamabad, the squares of Nairobi, the mosques of Tehran. The ferocious faces, the threatening fists. The fires that burn the American flag and the photos of Bush.

“The clash between us and them is not a military clash. Oh, no. It is a cultural one, a religious one. And our military victories do not solve the offensive of Islamic terrorism. On the contrary, they encourage it. They exacerbate it, they multiply it. The worst is still to come.”

President Bush has said, “We refuse to live in fear.”

Beautiful sentence, very beautiful. I loved it! But inexact, Mr. President, because the West does live in fear. People are afraid to speak against the Islamic world. Afraid to offend, and to be punished for offending, the sons of Allah. You can insult the Christians, the Buddhists, the Hindus, the Jews. You can slander the Catholics, you can spit on the Madonna and Jesus Christ. But, woe betide the citizen who pronounces a word against the Islamic religion.

My small book is not tender with Islam. In certain passages, it is even ferocious. But it is much more ferocious with us: with us Italians, us Europeans, us Americans.

I call my book a sermon--addressed to the Italians, to the Europeans, the Westerners. And along with the rage, this sermon unchains the pride for their culture, my culture. That culture that in spite of its mistakes, its faults, even monstrosities, has given so much to the world. It has moved us from the tents of the deserts and the huts of the woods to the dignity of civilization. It has given us the concept of beauty, of morals, of freedom, of equality. It has made the unique conquest in the social field, in the realm of science. It has wiped out diseases. It has invented all the tools that make life easier and more intelligent, those tools that our enemy can also use, for instance, to kill us. It has brought us to the moon and to Mars, and this cannot be said of the other culture. A culture, which has produced and produces only religion, which in every sense imprisons women inside the burkah or the chador, which is never accompanied by a drop of freedom, a drop of democracy, which subjugates its people under theocratical, oppressive regimes.

Socrates and Aristotle and Heraclitus were not mullahs. Jesus Christ, neither. Leonardo da Vinci and Michaelangelo, and Galileo, and Copernicus, and Newton and Pasteur and Einstein, the same.

My book is also a j’accuse. To accuse us of cowardice, hypocrisy, demagogy, laziness, moral misery, and of all that comes with that. The stupidity of the unbearable fad of political correctness, for instance. The paucity of our schools, our universities, our young people, people who often don’t even know the story of their country, the names Jefferson, Franklin, Robespierre, Napoleon, Garibaldi. And no understanding that freedom cannot exist without discipline, self-discipline.

I accuse ourselves also of another crime: the loss of passion. Haven’t you understood what drives our enemies? What permits them to fight this war against us? The passion! They have passion! They have so much passion that they can die for it!

Their leaders, too, of course. I met Khomeini. I discussed with him for more than six hours in calm, and I tell you that that man was a man of passion. I never met bin Laden. But I have well observed his eyes. I have well listened to his voice. And I tell you that that man is a man of passion. We have lost passion.

Well, I have not. I boil with passion. I, too, am ready to die for passion. But around me, I see no passion. Even those who hate me and attack me and insult me do this without passion. They are mollusks, not men and women. And a civilization, a culture, cannot survive without passion, cannot be saved without passion. If the West does not wake up, if we do not refind passion, we are lost.

To quote from my book:

“The problem is that the solution does not depend upon the death of Osama bin Laden. Because the Osama bin Ladens are too many, by now: as cloned as the sheep of our research laboratories…. In fact, the best trained and the more intelligent do not stay in the Muslim countries... They stay in our own countries, in our cities, our universities, our business companies. They have excellent bonds with our churches, our banks, our televisions, our radios, our newspapers, our publishers, our academic organizations, our unions, our political parties. . . . Worse, they live in the heart of a society that hosts them without questioning their differences, with- out checking their bad intentions, without penalizing their sullen fanaticism.

[“I]f we continue to stay inert, they will become always more and more. They will demand always more and more, they will vex and boss us always more and more. ’Til the point of subduing us. Therefore, dealing with them is impossible. Attempting a dialogue, unthinkable. Showing indulgence, suicidal. And he or she who believes the contrary is a fool.”

This is what I write about Europe: “Identical [are our] faults, the cowardices, the hypocrisies. Identical the blindness, the deafness, the lack of wisdom, the masochism. . . . Identical the ignorance and the lack of leadership that favors the Muslim invasion. Identical the fad of the Politically Correct that encourages it. To believe me, you only have to observe the financial club you proudly call European Union. A club that only serves to impose the rhetorical nonsense called common currency . . . to pay fabulous and undeserved salaries (tax free) to the members of its inept and useless Parliament. . . .

“A club that shelters more than 15 million sons of Allah and God knows how many of their terrorists... A club that fornicates like a whore with the Arab countries and fills its pockets with their filthy petrodollars. The same petrodollars with which the Saudi Uncle Scrooges buy our ancient palaces, our banks, our commercial and industrial firms. A club, moreover, that dares to speak of cultural similarities with the Middle East. . . . [Y]ou chatterers, you mentally retarded[!] Where the hell is the cultural similarity with the Middle East, you cretins, you silly clowns?!? At Mecca? At Bethlehem, at Gaza, at Damascus, at Beirut?!? At Cairo, at Tripoli, at Nairobi, at Tehran, at Baghdad, at Kabul?!?

“When I was very young, about 17 or so, I longed so much for a united Europe! I came from a war in which the [Europeans] had pitilessly slaughtered each other: remember? The damned Second World War. Plunged up to his neck in the brand-new struggle, my father preached the European Federalism. . . . He held rallies, he spoke to the crowds, he chanted: ‘Europe! Europe! We must make Europe!’”

“But this frustrating and disappointing and insignificant Financial Club…[with] its sons of Allah who want to erase my civilization, this European Union, which chatters of Cultural-Similarities-with-the-Middle-East and meanwhile ignores my beautiful language, meanwhile sacrifices my national identity, is not the Europe I dreamed of when my father chanted, Europe-Europe. It is not Europe. It is the suicide of Europe.”

And the West.

More deceit, more cowardice, more misdirection...

...and more lies from the enemies of Christ. A response to the tiny bit of intellectually lazy and dishonest tu quoque posted by Anonymous.

The comments quoted below are probably intended to silence criticism of Islam (though this is not truly criticism, for the ugliness, barbarity, and pure evil manifested in Allah's will and Mahomet's example are recorded verbatim in Islam's own "sacred" texts--this is just telling what its texts actually say, truth that so many in the West are eager to dismiss, excuse, and ignore, truth so many rush to punish truth-tellers for telling). If you can condemn YHWH and libel His Christ at the same time, that's just a bonus!

If the poster's true motivation is merely to discredit the God of the Bible (in his mind only, not in truth), regardless of the fact that attempting to do so in this manner only moves the ignorant, gullible, uncritical Infidel away from Christ and closer to the tyranny of Allah, then he and his kind are happy to make such false arguments!

Yes, there are commands requiring violence in the Old Testament, but this apparent "similarity" between the God of the Bible and the god of Islam exists only for those ignorant of the textual and historical contexts of both religions' commands. There is no substantive similarity between the word of YHWH as expressed in Christ and the word and will of Allah as expressed through the murderous, thieving, enslaving, raping, heretical pedophile Mohammed.

It is important to remember that:

-the death penalty in Exodus was to be carried out within the nation of Israel only for breaking specific laws--they were legal requirements, while Allah's commands to "...kill the infidels wherever you find them..." (Qur'an 9:5, et al) are to be carried out throughout the entire world until "all religion is for Allah" (then you just get to kill apostates);

-YHWH's command for Israel to wipe out all living things in Canaan was for that time and place only and the carrying out of Divine judgment. Mohammed's exhortations to fight against the people until "all confess there is no god but Allah and Mohammed is his apostle" were for all times and places. According to him, the Infidel is to be offered three choices under Islam: conversion, submission and humiliation, or war;

-the God of the Old Testament fully revealed Himself in His Son Who loved, healed, committed no sin, and gave Himself up to brutal torture and death for sinners. Mohammed, whom Allah described as a "beautiful pattern of conduct," warred, murdered, enslaved, raped, lied, stole, consummated his "marriage" to a six-year-old child when she was nine and he in his fifties, and taught His followers to do the same.

There can be no greater difference, no sharper distinction, no wider moral chasm than that between Christ and Allah, between the God of the Bible and the devil of Qur'an and Sunnah. Those who argue otherwise only harm their hearers.

Following are some comments from an anonymous writer with enough courage for only a drive-by posting.

Just a tiny bit of Christian apoplectics, taken from the book of Exodus.

An attempt to equate YHWH with Allah, mocking Him while he's at it.

If an ox gores a slave, the owner of the ox must pay the owner of the slave 30 shekels of silver, and "the ox shall be stoned." 21:32

Forget compensating a slave for his injury, let's protect a dangerous, violent beast! He must be a lawyer (or a liberal).

"Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live." Thousands of innocent women have suffered excruciating deaths because of this verse. 22:18

This was a legal judgment for Ancient Israel whose people willingly placed themselves under the Mosaic Covenant, promising to obey all its laws, including those against witchcraft and divination. That some Christians later misapplied the command was an evil.

"Whosoever lieth with a beast shall surely be put to death." Is it really necessary to kill such people? Couldn't we just send them to counseling or something? 22:19

"He who sacrificeth unto any god, save unto the Lord only, he shall be utterly destroyed." If this commandment is obeyed, then the four billion people who do not believe in the biblical god must be killed. 22:20

That conclusion can only be drawn by the ignorant and the deceitful. Again, the capital punishment was for violating Israel's criminal code, not a "divine" mandate for universal bloodshed (as in Islam).

If you make God angry enough, he will kill you and your family with his own sword. 22:24

More mocking, not only of God, but also of basic intellectual integrity.

Here is the verse in question and what comes immediately before:

"Never take advantage of any widow or orphan. If you do and they cry out to me, you can be sure that I will hear their cry. I will become angry and have you killed in combat. Then your wives and children will become widows and orphans" (Exodus 22:22-24).

So, what God intends as a command for justice, decency, and mercy, Anonymous makes into petty anger and brutality befitting Allah.

Apparently, Anonymous believes it is good, right, and salutary to exploit orphans and widows (assuming he actually read the text)! How noble of him!

"The firstborn of thy sons thou shalt give unto me." (As a burnt offering?) 22:29

No, as would be clear from reading the rest of the passage. Here is the rest of the story from the word of God:

"Never show disrespect for God...Never withhold your best wine from me. You must give me your firstborn son. You must do the same with your cattle and your sheep. They will stay with their mothers seven days, but on the eighth day you must give them to me. You must be my holy people..." (Exodus 22:28-31).

More from Anonymous, Unread, and Dishonest:

God promises to "send his fear before the Israelites" and to kill everyone that they encounter when they enter the promised land. 23:27

Actually, God promised to Abraham that He would give his descendants that land, and He was defending Israel as they entered it. God was also carrying out judgment against those nations for practicing all sorts of evil, including the worship of Molech (a god that required child sacrifice upon its burning arms). He wanted a holy people.

Perhaps Anonymous believes that the nations of the Promised Land were going to let Israel walk right in and take over.

Here is more of the passage:

"My Messenger will go ahead of you and will bring you to the land of the Amorites, Hittites, Perizzites, Canaanites, Hivites, and Jebusites. I will wipe them out.

"Never worship or serve their gods or follow their practices. Instead, you must destroy their gods and crush their sacred stones. You must serve the LORD your God, and he will bless your food and water. I will take away all sickness from among you. No woman in your land will miscarry or be unable to have children. I will let you live a normal life span.

"I will send my terror ahead of you and throw any nation you meet into a panic. I will make all your enemies flee from you. I will spread panic ahead of you to force the Hivites, Canaanites, and Hittites out of your way. I will not force them out of your way in one year. Otherwise, the land would be deserted, and wild animals would take over. Little by little I will force them out of your way until you have increased enough in number to take possession of the land.

"I will establish your borders from the Red Sea to the Mediterranean Sea and from the Sinai Desert to the Euphrates River. I will put the people living in the land under your control, and you will force them out of your way.

"Never make a treaty with them and their gods. Never let them live in your land, or they will make you sin against me and trap you into serving their gods" (Exodus 23:23-33).

More from He Who Mocks Knowledge:

Moses has some animals killed and their dead bodies burned for God. Then he sprinkles their blood on the altar and on the people. This makes God happy. 24:5-8

But what does God say?

"So Moses wrote down all the LORD'S words. Early the next morning he built an altar at the foot of the mountain...Then he sent young Israelite men, and they sacrificed bulls as burnt offerings and fellowship offerings to the LORD.

"Moses took half of the blood and put it into bowls, and he threw the other half against the altar. Then he took the Book of the LORD'S Promise and read it while the people listened. They said, 'We will obey and do everything the LORD has said.'

"Moses took the blood and sprinkled it on the people and said, 'Here is the blood which seals the promise that the LORD has made to you based on everything you have just heard.'

"Moses went up with Aaron, Nadab, Abihu, and 70 of Israel's leaders. They saw the God of Israel" (Exodus 24:4-10).

To make clear to us the utterly abhorrent nature of sin, God required animal sacrifice in payment for it: "Without the shedding of blood, there can be no forgiveness of sins." All of the sacrifices required under the Mosaic Covenant were foreshadowing the ultimate sacrifice by God's own Son, "the Lamb of God, Who takes away the sin of the world."

"Each day sacrifice a young bull as an offering to make peace with the LORD. Sacrifice this offering for sin on the altar in order to pay for its sins" (Exodus 29:36).

So yes, blood was required for sin, but it was for our benefit, first as an object lesson, sign, warning, and atonement for Ancient Israel, then in fulfillment of God's justice and mercy in Christ's body on the cross for us.

Of the offal remaining (pun intended), here's Anonymous' last misrepresentation to elicit a reply:

If you can't redeem him, then just "break his neck." Hey, it's all for the glory of God. 34:20

But the Biblical text does not read so flippantly:

"Every first male offspring is mine, even the firstborn males of all your livestock, whether cattle, sheep, or goats. It will cost you a sheep or a goat to buy back the firstborn donkey. If you don't buy it back, then you must break the donkey's neck. You must buy back every firstborn of your sons.

"No one may come into my presence without an offering" (Exodus 34:19, 20).

Again, an object lesson.

Misdefining Islam again, by proxy

It wasn't enough to invite CAIR to spread their opiate; today Hugh Hewitt had on a "cartographer" for the Pentagon.

I had a chance to hear only a bit, and it sounded like this:

"Jihadists wage war in reaction to their own economic deprivation and oppression and as a result of enduring manipulation and exploitation at the hands of their own governments" (a paraphrase of Barnett's comments).

So, Muslims kill because they're poor and the government makes them do it.

Yes, OBL was destitute and oppressed by the House of Saud. And it must have been a bitter existence for Zawahiri (a physician!), growing up in a well-off Egyptian family.

Any analysis of the "Global War on Terror" (that's a misnomer! Terror is a tactic, not an enemy) that fails to consider the central role of the command of Allah and the example of Mohammed in inspiring and sustaining jihad is no analysis at all; it is just another windmill delaying at a time when we can afford no delay our successful defense against the tyranny of Allah.

Around the world Islam's adherents murder the innocent. They war against the Infidel because their god and prophet command the faithful to fight against, subdue and humiliate, and kill non-Muslims to make the world Islam (Muslim Book 019, Number 4294):

Mahomet's co-religionists decapitate innocent Indonesian schoolgirls as an act
of Muslim charity because their god commands: "...kill the unbelievers wherever
you find them" (Qur'an 9:5).

Mujahideen go into Sudanese towns asking the women, "Muslim or Christian?" and then slice off the breasts of (and leave to die in the street) those who answer wrongly, all because their prophet--who according to Allah is a "beautiful pattern of conduct" and must be obeyed--said, "I have been ordered to fight against the people until they testify that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that Muhammad is Allah's Apostle" (Bukhari Volume 1, Book 2, Number 24).

Islam's martyrs bravely slaughter hundreds of children (raping some) on their first day of school because "Allah’s Apostle said, ‘I have been made victorious with terror...'" (Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 220).

Hugh is at it again: Barnett's misrepresentation of our enemy complements nicely CAIR's lies. It is no "map." Traditional, historical, Qur'anic Islam--the source and sustenance of Muslim terrorism--is the core issue to be addressed if we want to win our War of Self-Defense Against Allah.

To pretend there is something we can do to appease, entice, mollify, or cajole Islam from its divine mandates and historic practice is suicidally blind.

Poverty does not inspire jihad, Allah does

More from here, first in response to mishaz:

so why arent every islamist countries in the world fighting to convert to islam? i know there are many that are, but if by your theory of islam holds, why isnt turkey, indonesia and every other islamic country at war...

mishaz, you're making an ad hominem argument. Whether one or one billion Muslims engage in and/or support jihad does nothing to negate the fact that from its inception, according to its own god and founder as recorded in its "holy" texts, the Religion of Peace has required the good Muslim to fight against, subdue and humiliate, and kill non-Muslims to make the world Islam.

As noted in my post above, Mohammed is considered by Allah a "beautiful pattern of conduct." He said--not me--that he was ordered to fight until all confess there is no god but Allah and Mohammed is his prophet.

Whether or not jihad is waged by a particular individual, group, or nation is determined by a number of factors, including knowledge, zeal, opportunity, and resources.

Each of those countries you note have significant and growing populations of jihadists and those who aid them (Turkey was secular for many years because Ataturk crushed Islam. Those defenses against it which he instituted are now eroding).

if they somehow fund terrorists then why dont the us go after the funders of terrorists?

Some of them happen to be our oil-rich allies. Couple that with the fact that our President still wants to call Islam a "religion of peace," and I think you've got an answer.

dont rely on your book fed education as you so deftly demonstrate in your quran citations.

We wouldn't want to let anything like a book get in our way, would we? Emotional ad hominem and straw man arguments are much more effective in determining truth.

As for my "book fed education," I am reading only that with which every Infidel ought to familiarize himself: Islam's foundational, authoritative, "sacred" texts. (By the way, they're what every devout Muslim will read, and they're what inspire and sustain every jihadist.)

In light of the fourteen hundred year history of the global jihad, it is clear that Muslims have traditionally taken Allah at his word. If there is anything in that word you find unpalatable, you ought to take it up with him.

jihad means to pray and fast regularly and lead a good muslim life.

That is one use of the term. That is not the way it is used primarily, and it is definitely not the use the mujahideen have employed against non-Muslims and Apostates since the time of Mohammed.

When Allah's apostle and his followers slaughtered all the men of a Jewish tribe which had done nothing to them, raping and enslaving their women (Mohammed took one that he found especially attractive for himself), was that "praying, fasting, and leading a good muslim life"?

When in obedience to the command of Allah (and in imitation of his false prophet) Islam exploded out of Saudi Arabia and conquered from Spain to North Africa to Palestine to India, butchering, raping, and enslaving millions along the way, was that "praying, fasting, and leading a good muslim life"?

When devout Muslims fly planes into skyscrapers or behead Christian girls on their way to school as an act of charity, is that praying, fasting, and "leading a good muslim life"?

No, that's following in Mohammed's footsteps and obeying Allah's commands.

much like the wing nuts that manipulate good christians into their cults and sects, so is islam co-opted to do the same.

That is false.

When Christians do evil, it is contrary to the word of Christ. When Muslims do evil, it is in obedience to Allah and his apostle, as is obvious from reading Qur'an and Sunnah.

Amillennialist, you should think a little more gray.

Another ad hominem. That's at least three in one brief post, and it's a sign that you are unable to point out any factual errors in my citations of the Islamic texts.

It is intellectually lazy (and dishonest) to try to make my "thinking" the issue here. The texts say what they say. Allah commands what he commands. Mohammed lived the life he lived.

The good Muslim will obey and follow.

In response to Will:

Amillennialist Is a Dangerous Idiot
Mishaz already stated the reasons why.

Name-calling! Now that's a persuasive argument!

If the repeated use of logical fallacies instead of pointing out factual errors can be considered "stating reasons," then I suppose you're right!

Every religion has its crazies. Those crazies are usually kept fairly muted in democratic and prosperous societies. Middle Eastern societies, unfortunately, are, for the most part, neither prosperous nor democratic, giving radicals a natural advantage as they offer easy solutions to hard problems.

That's a simplistic answer. And it's false.

First, "every religion has its crazies" implies that Muslims who kill in the name of Allah do so contrary to Islam's teachings. As demonstrated above, it is Islam itself--the command of Allah and the example of his false prophet--that makes its adherents "crazies."

(By the way, I don't think it is very nice to imply that those who kill for Allah in obedience to his commands are insane. Are you some kind of Islamophobe?)

Second, living in a society neither prosperous nor democratic does not make one go out and blow up children or shoot nuns. Do you see poor Buddhists flying planes into buildings? Destitute Methodists blowing up buses? Penniless Hindus besieging, raping, and slaughtering schools full of children on their first day of classes?

Many of the mujahideen in the news are well-educated and well-off. Ever heard of that billionaire panhandler bin Laden? Or his right-hand man, the destitute physician from a prominent, middle-class, Egyptian family, Zawahiri?

Furthermore, by funneling rage towards America and "heretics", they reinforce the same regimes whose fault it is that most Middle Eastern are neither democratic nor prosperous.

It is thus the dire economic and political state of affairs in the Middle East and the regimes that perpetuate them , not their religion, that is the problem.

(Winston Churchill noted otherwise.)

Your statement betrays a fundamental ignorance of Islamic theology and history and current events.

As just noted, being poor does not make one a terrorist.

Believing in a god whose "beautiful pattern of conduct" celebrated, "I have been made victorious with terror," does.

To name the religion, and not those regimes, as the root of the problem, is not only idiotic, it is dangerous, for it plays right into the hands of those regimes, reinforcing them and the radicals.

What is dangerously idiotic is denying the fact that Allah commands the fighting against, subduing and humiliating, and killing of non-Muslims to make the world Islam.

What is perversely suicidal is ignoring what the mujahideen themselves freely confess--they fight and die for Allah, citing Surah and Ayat along the way.

What is inexplicably obtuse is hoping that a change of government or an influx of cash will remove the jihadist impulse, for poverty does not inspire jihad. Allah inspires jihad.

Another failed New Year's Resolution

The commitment to expose, confront, discredit, and defeat Islam didn't last long. Perhaps that's because our political, media, and academic elite refuse to make it. In response to a somewhat praiseworthy mention of the use of a Qur'an in Congress:

What of Ellison’s Qur’an (and Islam’s other “sacred” texts) does PowerLine find so acceptable, so compatible with the American Constitution?

Mohammed’s Statement of Purpose?

“...the Messenger of Allah...would say: Fight in the name of Allah and in the way of Allah. Fight against those who disbelieve in Allah. Make a holy war...When you meet your enemies who are polytheists, invite them to three courses of action...Invite them to (accept) Islam; if they respond to you, accept it from them and desist from fighting against them...If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya. If they agree to pay, accept it from them and hold off your hands. If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah’s help and fight them...’” (Muslim Book 019, Number 4294).

Allah and the false prophet’s dictums on warfare to make the world Islam?

“...fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war)...” (Qur’an 9:5).

“Fight those who believe not in Allah...nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued” (Qur’an 9:29).

“...fight them [Unbelievers] on until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah altogether and everywhere...” (Qur’an 8:38, 39).

“Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not” (Qur’an 2:216).

“Allah’s Apostle said: ‘I have been ordered (by Allah) to fight against the people until they testify that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that Muhammad is Allah’s Apostle...’” (Bukhari Volume 1, Book 2, Number 24).

“Muhammad said, ‘A single endeavor of fighting in Allah’s Cause is better than the world and whatever is in it’” (Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 50).

“A man came to Allah’s Apostle and said, ‘Instruct me as to such a deed as equals Jihad in reward.’ He replied, ‘I do not find such a deed’” (Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 44).

“Allah hath purchased of the believers their persons and their goods; for theirs (in return) is the garden (of Paradise): they fight in His cause, and slay and are slain: a promise binding on Him in truth, through the Law, the Gospel, and the Qur’an...” (Qur’an 9:11).

The "divine” endorsement of terrorism?

“Remember thy Lord inspired the angels (with the message): ‘I am with you: give firmness to the Believers: I will instill terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers: smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them’” (Qur’an 8:12).

“Allah’s Apostle said, ‘I have been made victorious with terror. The treasures of the world were brought to me and put in my hand’” (Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 220).

Allah’s requiring Mohammed’s raping of his nine-year-old “wife”?

“My mother came to me while I was being swung on a swing between two branches and got me down. My nurse took over and wiped my face with some water and started leading me. When I was at the door she stopped so I could catch my breath. I was brought in while Muhammad was sitting on a bed in our house. My mother made me sit on his lap. The other men and women got up and left. The Prophet consummated his marriage with me in my house when I was nine years old” (Tabari 9:131).

“Allah’s Apostle told Aisha [his six-year-old bride and nine-year-old sexual “partner"], ‘You were shown to me twice in my dreams. I beheld a man or angel carrying you in a silken cloth. He said to me, “She is yours, so uncover her.” And behold, it was you. I would then say to myself, “If this is from Allah, then it must happen”’” (Bukhari Volume 9, Book 87, Number 139-140).

Raping slaves and those whose husbands you’ve just slaughtered?

“Also (prohibited are) women already married, except those whom your right hands possess...” (Qur’an 4:24).

"...when Allah enabled him to conquer the Fort (of Khaibar), the beauty of Safiya bint Huyai bin Akhtab was described to him. Her husband had been killed while she was a bride. So Allah’s Apostle selected her for himself and took her along with him...her menses were over and he took her for his wife...” (Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 143).

The way in which Allah deals with prisoners of war (apparently, like President Bush, Allah has never heard of the Geneva Conventions!)?

“The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter...” (Qur’an 5:33).

Mohammed’s perspective on freedom of religion (it sounds just like the Bill of Rights!)?

"Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him” (Bukhari Volume 9, Book 84, Number 57).

Of course, we can trust Ellison, for a Muslim would never, ever, under any circumstances, lie:

Mohammed said, “War is deceit” (Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 268).

No, there is no reason any American should be concerned at all with legitimizing Islam, even though Allah says of Mohammed:

“Ye have indeed in the Messenger of Allah a beautiful pattern (of conduct) for any one whose hope is in Allah and the Final Day, and who engages much in the Praise of Allah” (Qur’an 33:21).

Lying, theft, enslavement, rape, pedophilia, murder, genocide. Such an example is not only beautiful, it’s patriotic!

And will the President's announcement of a change of course in Iraq next week reveal any substantially-greater understanding of Islam than has been demonstrated so far?

Blind in both eyes

Since he first revealed it on air by offering a national platform to Islam's lies (by way of CAIR, Muslim propagandists with documented ties to terrorists), I have criticized Hugh Hewitt's utter and persistent blindness of Allah and his false prophet's requiring offensive warfare against non-Muslims to make the world Islam.

Mr. Hewitt still refuses to show Muslims the courtesy of defining their religion the way their god and prophet do. Rather than accurately state what Qur'an and Sunnah, Islam's sacred texts, reveal of their god's will and their prophet's example, Hugh chooses to mis-define the faith in terms of apostates, heretics, and liars. (Who told him CAIR was a reputable source of information on Islam? The same people whom Hugh trusts for his definitions of Islam, no doubt).

One hopeful sign is that Dean Barnett, a regular at Hugh's 'blog, has at least approached the fact that it is the faithful, devout Muslim--not the "radical" or "extremist"--who must war for his god.

Following are excerpts from a post from Barnett (along with one comment in reply notable for its obtuseness). He acknowledges that if non-Muslims wish to end the 1400-hundred-year jihad against them, the only way to do it (humanly-speaking) is by eliminating those who will not abandon warfare for Allah.

Disappointingly, Barnett does not mention the "divine" mandates for offensive jihad which inspire and sustain Islam's bloodlust (Qur'an 9:5, for example). It is disappointing because recognition of this central fact is vital to ending Islam's threat against humanity, and ignoring it allows the deluded to persist unchallenged in their suicidal ignorance.

Just as sadly, when mentioning President Bush's failure to secure already what Americans would widely regard as "success" in Iraq, Barnett fails to note that it is because the President was--and remains--ignorant of Islam (though he was coming close with "Islamic Fascism," a term the use of which he quickly abandoned). Its god requires the devout to fight against, subdue and humiliate, and kill non-Muslims until all mankind is under the tyranny of Allah (Muslim Book 019, Number 4294). Not only this, but Mohammed, considered a perfect model of conduct in Islam (Qur'an 33:21), confessed and carried out (much to the dismay of billions since): "I have been ordered to fight against the people until all confess there is no god but Allah and Mohammed is his prophet" (Bukhari Volume 1, Book 2, Number 24).

According to its own god and founder, the only "peace" of which Islam is a religion is the kind that comes when all who refuse to convert or submit and pay tribute are dead.

Finally (and ironically), a reply to Barnett shows its author suffering from the same blindness that prevents Hugh Hewitt and the President from properly identifying our enemy and speaking, planning, and acting accordingly. He fails to recognize that there are no other options for the Infidel under the threat of Islam; true equality and religious liberty do not exist under the rule of Allah.

In light of this, what can be done to end support for jihad among Iraq's (or any Muslim nation's) population? If the people are devout and aware of their own religion's "sacred" texts, what can be done to keep them from striving for our conversion, submission, and eradication? Money given for oil and in charity has only paid for the sword that beheads us, and giving up land for peace has worked for Israel not at all, for once under Islamic rule, a land always belongs to Islam.

Nothing but our conversion, subjugation and humiliation with tribute, or death will satiate Allah's malevolence.

Here are excerpts from Barnett and one of his readers:

THE HOPE WHEN WE INVADED was that we’d be greeted with garlands of roses. To some extent, metaphorically speaking anyway, this worked out. The vast majority of Iraqis were in fact happy that we toppled Saddam. Other than Baathist dead-enders and several million suddenly skittish Sunnis, the country rejoiced.

The Kurds appreciate us. Undoubtedly, other Iraqis do too. But how can one whose god commands, "...kill the unbelievers wherever you find them..." (Qur'an 9:5), do anything other than hate us, even if it is "with a smile on their face" as they "curse us in their hearts"? How can the devout receive American blood and treasure with anything less than contempt for those who so generously and selflessly supply it?

The reason that those Sunnis were skittish, though, should have given us some pause. The problem with the “garlands of roses” metaphor was that it implied that once Saddam was gone, the Iraqi body politic would be a proverbial piece of clay for America’s State Department wizards to shape and mold. Oh sure, the nascent Iraqi democracy would probably have screwy things like Kafiyehs and a constitutional clause dedicated to annihilating Israel, but the administration’s plans banked on the hope that the Iraqi people, above all else, would want to live in peace.

Because of Islam. That fact is the elephant in the room, it's what the emperor isn't wearing, and it's why too many Iraqis do not want to live in peace.

And that’s where the program parted with reality. The Islamic world hasn’t really excelled at living in peace over the past several decades. More specifically, Shiites and Sunnis have never been great in the peaceful coexistence department. Given the bad feelings that Iraq’s Shiites had after a few decades of abuse at the hands of Saddam’s Sunni henchmen, Iraq was a particularly problematic spot from which to launch what would have to be a historically harmonious Shiite/Sunni joint venture.

Actually, its been the last one hundred forty decades. And Sunni/Shia violence has been going on since Mohammed's too-late passing.

...WAS THIS ALL FORESEEABLE? Perhaps. I’d even say probably. It should have been obvious given even a cursory glance at Iraq and its neighbors that there would be a great number of people who, after Saddam fell, would have little interest in living in a peaceful, tolerant society.

Before and immediately following 9/11, I "knew" of Islam nothing more than "It's a religion of peace," and "They share the same values as conservative Christians." In other words, I knew nothing of Islam.

The President can be excused for not knowing then. Over five years out, when even a few hours with an internet connection is enough to discover that, according to Mohammed, there is no greater work for Allah than jihad (Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 44), it is inexcusable--it is treasonous malfeasance--to not know, and our political, media, and academic elite are all culpable.

None of this is to say that both the Sunni and Shiite communities aren’t full of good and wonderful people. But any serious appraisal of the situation has to take into account certain indisputable facts from the region: If Egypt had free elections, the Muslim Brotherhood would win. If Saudi Arabia had free elections, a Wahabist sect sympathetic to Osama bin Laden would win. A similar statement can be made of every country in the Middle East. (Except Israel, of course, where free elections are in fact held and Radical Islamic parties usually do quite poorly.

Which destroys Hugh's "tiny minority of extremists."

SO WHY SHOULD IRAQ BE DIFFERENT? Perhaps a more pressing concern today is whether in fact Iraq is different. Things like the Saddam execution suggest the answer to the latter question is no. There is a deep undercurrent of savagery in the Iraqi culture that will not just inhibit the growth of a peaceful democracy there, but probably prohibit it.

Not "probably." Definitely, as long as it is Muslim. And the source and sustenance of that "deep undercurrent of savagery" are the commands of Allah and the words and deeds of Mohammed as recorded in Qur'an and Sunnah.

What part of "...fight until all religion is for Allah," is compatible with a free society? Democracy (one male believer, one vote) is only a tool to be used to establish Shari'a, the rule of Allah. In that sense, our imposition of democracy in Iraq has aided those who want to kill us by replacing one America-hating, terrorist-aiding, WMD-wielding monster with thousands of America-hating, terrorist monsters who wish they had WMD and would use them if they did (and millions who support them).

Why should Iraqi culture be contrary to the will of Allah? Ideology determines everything.

The only answer, as it always has been, is to stamp out that savagery ferociously and totally. At the end of this war, Iraq must necessarily be composed of people who always wanted to live in peace and the one-time enemies of peace who have come to realize they have no other choice but to live in peace. How much killing will this take? That will depend on how many enemies of peace there are and how determined they are to live in a state of war. One thing's for certain - the more resolute we are, the less killing there will be.

Dean is right that Islam only understands overwhelming, brutal, bone-splitting force. But here he runs into the question that all Infidels who want their wives and daughters unviolated, who want their boys safe from kidnapping, castration, and slavery, who want to be free to worship (or not) as they see fit, have always faced: how does one distinguish the truly peaceful Muslim who will forever abstain from jihad (and support full equality under the law for non-Muslims and women) from the one who is only waiting until conditions (including Infidel carelessness and cluelessness) improve for "striving in the cause of Allah"? For Islam is patient, and--according to its founder--"War is deceit" (Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 268).

Some might argue that we can’t get this done. But let us remember, the remnants of Imperial Japan came to embrace peaceful democracy. Eventually.

Japan had not embraced Islam.

The best news of the past few days actually wasn’t Saddam’s execution, even though Saddam facing justice (in spite of the primitive savagery of the execution itself) is something that every American can feel proud of. The even better news than Saddam’s death is that (according to the reliable Strategy Page), American and Iraqi forces have begun to make war on the Sadr militia:

Without much fanfare, much less a press release, the government and Coalition troops have gone to war with Moqtada al Sadrs Mahhi Army militia. Leaders are being arrested or killed. The raids are being carried out with overwhelming speed and force, so that pro-Sadr gunmen have little chance to put up effective resistance.

At this point, we need not a national, but a a civilizational recognition of what Islam's foundational texts plainly state: that Allah and his apostle require the faithful to fight to convert, subjugate, and kill until all confess the supremacy of Islam (Bukhari Volume 1, Book 2, Number 24). After we admit that, we can plan accordingly.

Apart from that, taking out some blatant jihadists is the best for which we can hope. And what a disservice to our military! Our best and brightest sacrifice life and limb to carry out fatally-flawed strategies--flawed because they are formulated under a misperception of historic magnitude, strategies intolerably perverse in light of Islam's history.

Are we at last getting serious about this thing? Let us pray.

Until the President announces to the world that our enemy is not the tactic Terrorism but the ideology Islam, we can not describe ourselves as "getting serious." Until we accurately redefine Islam not as a religion the expression of which is protected by the Bill of Rights but a genocidal, totalitarian, seditious ideology sworn to the overthrow of the American Constitution and the destruction of our God-given rights to Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness, we can not possibly be considered "serious."

Finally, here's a snip demonstrating that the West is blind in both eyes, Left and Right:

It is, as I have been taught, very bad manners and vulgar and moonbatty to point out that this would require the slaughter of hundreds of thousands more people, and shows a callous and admitted indifference to life. No, scratch that, it shows a positive love of murder, with Mr. Barnett practically drooling at the idea of murdering Iraqis who are designated as Enemies Of Peace. It shows Mr. Barnett as an ideological cousin of, say Pol Pot.

But it's bad manners to point that out. So what's your preferred euphemism for genocide, and would you please let me know so I can describe it to the widows and orphans of the hundreds of thousands who will have to die to make Iraq a Model Society.What a disgusting, anti-life, murderous and evil person you are, Comrade Pol Stalin Barnett.

Since it is Islam that requires the death of all who will not convert or capitulate, this is obviously not about Barnett or anyone else who resists jihad "loving murder," but self-defense against an enemy whose "divine" calling is waging war against us.

Such a depraved moral equivalence demonstrates the poster's ignorance or cowardice, or both, and is far too typical of what passes for "argumentation" when Islam is the subject.

Because their aim is better than their judgment

In the first hour of today's program, the usually sensible John and Ken discussed Virginia 's Representative Virgil Goode's protest against Keith Ellison's desire to use a Qur'an, rather than the Bible, in his Congressional swearing in ceremony.

-Did John and Ken defend the traditional practice of using the Text on which the United States (and Western Civilization) is founded?

-Did the tireless Defenders of Common Sense effectively, rationally, and unequivocally criticize and condemn the proposed elevation of the Qur'an within American government, a text directly responsible (along with Sira and Hadith) for the slaughter of millions of innocents over the last one and one-half millennia?

-Did the Great Scholars explain to their audience how Islam exploded out of Saudi Arabia (after conquering and slaughtering all dissent within it) and into Palestine, the Middle East, North Africa, Western Europe, Eastern Europe, and Persia, beheading, raping, and enslaving what were primarily Christian, Jewish, Zoroastrian, and pagan lands?

-Did our Intrepid Hosts expose the alarming facts of Ellison's past advocacy on behalf of cop killers, his racist statements, his ties to terrorists, or his connections to the jihad-facilitating publicity stunt with the Six Imams (noted, in part, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here)?

No, they made fun of Goode.

For two men who obviously pride themselves on their reason, honesty, and courage, they displayed none of the above. They did exactly what CAIR--jihad propagandists with documented ties to terrorists--did in their press statement on the letter: they mocked Goode, calling him an Islamophobe.

Here is a brief excerpt from a report on the letter and the ensuing, fabricated controversy. Notice who's complaining:

The Council on American-Islamic Relations, a civil rights group, called on Goode to apologize for the letter.

"Representative Goode's Islamophobic remarks send a message of intolerance that is unworthy of anyone elected to public office," said Corey Saylor, legislative director for CAIR. "There can be no reasonable defense for such bigotry."

Saylor said Goode's remarks follow a recent commentary by radio talk show host Dennis Prager, a member of the United States Holocaust Memorial Council. Prager that swearing an oath on the Quran "undermines American civilization." CAIR has asked President George W. Bush to remove Prager from the taxpayer-supported council.

A spokesman for Goode said no apology was forthcoming, and that the congressman stands by the letter.

CAIR is not a civil rights group, and resisting the promotion of a text requiring the faithful to "...kill the unbelievers wherever you find them," is not bigotry.

As soon as they began reading Goode's statement, John and Ken broke into moronic Southern accents. Why were they so quickly hateful toward a person expressing concern for Americans' safety, especially in defense of an adherent of the ideology which has inspired and sustained Muslim violence against non-Muslims and Apostates for nearly fourteen centuries? Why would they defend the use of one of the documents foundational to Islamic terrorism?

Is it because Goode is from the South? Because he appears to be some sort of Christian?

John and Ken want to appear tolerant, but preaching acceptance of a genocidal hate ideology surpassing in barbarity, totality, longevity, and effectiveness even Nazism is neither enlightened nor patriotic; it is suicidally-stupid.

Demonstrating their utter dearth of knowledge of Qur'an, Hadith, and Sira (Islam's foundational, "sacred" texts) and one and one-half millennia of Islamic bloodlust, they reassured their listeners, "...Ellison is swearing in on a Qur'an; at least he's not helping al Qaeda" (paraphrased).

Al Qaeda, Hezbollah, Hamas, and all other jihadists are motivated to violence by Islam's ancient theological texts, including Qur'an. Just as the founder of their religion did, ancient and modern mujahideen "...fight the people until all confess there is no god but Allah and Mohammed is his prophet." Advocating tolerance for Qur'an and Islam is, in effect, aiding jihad.

This leads one to wonder, would John and Ken have have been so tolerant of a Nazi congressman swearing his oath on a copy of Mein Kampf during World War II? For that is nearly perfectly analogous to our present situation.

(In fact, there are only two significant differences between the two situations. First, most of contemporary America's media, political, and academic elite are so thoroughly etiolated by multiculturalism and political correctness--and so thoroughly ignorant of the enemy's history and religious motivation for that history--that not only do we tolerate those who desire our conversion, submission, or death, we punish those who question the wisdom of such credulity! Second, Hitler did not appeal to deity, but Mohammed did.)

So, one must ask, as I hope all of John and Ken's listeners will ask of them, which of the following of Allah's commands and Mohammed's words and deeds (as found in Qur'an, Hadith, and Sira) do they find so innocuous? And if Allah's apostle is considered the perfect or ideal man in Islam whose example is to be followed religiously (he is and it is), what does this mean for the billion practitioners of his faith (and for us who allow their presence within the lands of the Infidel)?

Can John and Ken know which Muslims will never support in any way jihad against "unbelievers"? Who among them will always and unconditionally support equal rights for non-Muslims and women in all spheres of society, never supporting the overthrow of the constitutions of free nations for Shari'a, the rule of Allah?

Here is just a small sampling of that which Representative Goode resists, that which John and Ken find as harmless as a catalog:

...the Messenger of Allah [Mohammed]...would say: Fight in the name of Allah and in the way of Allah. Fight against those who disbelieve in Allah. Make a holy war, do not embezzle the spoils; do not break your pledge; and do not mutilate (the dead) bodies; do not kill the children. When you meet your enemies who are polytheists, invite them to three courses of action. If they respond to any one of these, you also accept it and withhold yourself from doing them any harm. Invite them to (accept) Islam; if they respond to you, accept it from them and desist from fighting against them...If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya. If they agree to pay, accept it from them and hold off your hands. If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah's help and fight them...'" (Muslim, Book 019, Number 4294).

Can the implications of such a religious creed be any more horrifying for non-Muslims? Can the source and sustenance of Islamic terrorism be more plainly stated? Can it be any more obvious why Qur'an and Islam are seditious, why they are enemies of our Constitution, our Life and Liberty, and have no place in a free society?

But because we are so easily deceived--when the truth is too terrible to comprehend, we easily and eagerly accept any lie to assuage our fears--here is a small sampling of Allah and his false prophet on warfare to make the world Islam:

"...fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practise regular charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful" (Qur’an 9:5).

"Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued" (Qur'an 9:29).

"Say to the Unbelievers, if (now) they desist (from Unbelief), their past would be forgiven them; but if they persist, the punishment of those before them is already (a matter of warning for them). And fight them on until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah altogether and everywhere; but if they cease, verily Allah doth see all that they do" (Qur'an 8:38, 39).

"O ye who believe! fight the unbelievers who gird you about, and let them find firmness in you: and know that Allah is with those who fear Him" (Qur'an 9:123).

"Allah's Apostle said: 'I have been ordered (by Allah) to fight against the people until they testify that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that Muhammad is Allah's Apostle, and offer the prayers perfectly and give the obligatory charity, so if they perform at that, then they save their lives and property from me except for Islamic laws and then their reckoning (accounts) will be done by Allah'" (Bukhari Volume 1, Book 2, Number 24).

“Muhammad said, ‘A single endeavor of fighting in Allah’s Cause is better than the world and whatever is in it’” (Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 50).

“A man came to Allah’s Apostle and said, ‘Instruct me as to such a deed as equals Jihad in reward.’ He replied, ‘I do not find such a deed’” (Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 44).

"Allah hath purchased of the believers their persons and their goods; for theirs (in return) is the garden (of Paradise): they fight in His cause, and slay and are slain: a promise binding on Him in truth, through the Law, the Gospel, and the Qur'an: and who is more faithful to his covenant than Allah? then rejoice in the bargain which ye have concluded: that is the achievement supreme" (Qur'an 9:11).

"O ye who believe! what is the matter with you, that, when ye are asked to go forth in the cause of Allah, ye cling heavily to the earth? Do ye prefer the life of this world to the Hereafter? But little is the comfort of this life, as compared with the Hereafter. Unless ye go forth, He will punish you with a grievous penalty, and put others in your place; but Him ye would not harm in the least. For Allah hath power over all things" (Qur'an 9:38, 39).

Allah and Mohammed on terrorism:

"Remember thy Lord inspired the angels (with the message): 'I am with you: give firmness to the Believers: I will instill terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers: smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them'" (Qur'an 8:12).

“Allah’s Apostle said, ‘I have been made victorious with terror. The treasures of the world were brought to me and put in my hand’” (Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 220).

Islam on Mohammed's raping of his nine-year-old "wife" and justifying it by saying Allah ordained it:

“My mother came to me while I was being swung on a swing between two branches and got me down. My nurse took over and wiped my face with some water and started leading me. When I was at the door she stopped so I could catch my breath. I was brought in while Muhammad was sitting on a bed in our house. My mother made me sit on his lap. The other men and women got up and left. The Prophet consummated his marriage with me in my house when I was nine years old” (Tabari 9:131).

“Allah’s Apostle told Aisha [his six-year-old bride and nine-year-old sexual "partner"], ‘You were shown to me twice in my dreams. I beheld a man or angel carrying you in a silken cloth. He said to me, “She is yours, so uncover her.” And behold, it was you. I would then say to myself, “If this is from Allah, then it must happen”’” (Bukhari Volume 9, Book 87, Number 139-140).

The "divine" command for beheading:

"Remember thy Lord inspired the angels (with the message): 'I am with you: give firmness to the Believers: I will instill terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers: smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them'" (Qur'an 8:12).

"Therefore, when ye meet the Unbelievers (in fight), smite at their necks; At length, when ye have thoroughly subdued them, bind a bond firmly (on them): thereafter (is the time for) either generosity or ransom: Until the war lays down its burdens. Thus (are ye commanded): but if it had been Allah's Will, He could certainly have exacted retribution from them (Himself); but (He lets you fight) in order to test you, some with others. But those who are slain in the Way of Allah,- He will never let their deeds be lost" (Qur'an 47:4).

How Allah deals with prisoners of war:

"The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter..." (Qur'an 5:33).

Mohammed on the immutability of Islam (apart from what he himself decides to change):

"I heard the Prophet saying...'Far removed (from mercy), far removed (from mercy), those who changed (the religion) after me!'" (Bukhari Volume 9, Book 88, Number 174).

“The Prophet said, ‘If I take an oath and later find something else better than that, then I do what is better and expiate my oath'" (Bukhari Volume 7, Book 67, Number 427).

On the abrogation of earlier, more peaceful "revelations" in favor of the numerous Verses of Blood (the first reason "There is no compulsion in religion" is meaningless):

“Whatever communications We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, We bring one better than it or like it. Do you not know that Allah has power over all things” (Qur'an 2:106)?

Mohammed on freedom of religion:

"Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him" (Bukhari Volume 9, Book 84, Number 57).

The false prophet on truthfulness:

"War is deceit" (Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 268).

And why what Mohammed says matters so much to Muslims:

"Ye have indeed in the Messenger of Allah a beautiful pattern (of conduct) for any one whose hope is in Allah and the Final Day, and who engages much in the Praise of Allah" (Qur'an 33:21).

Praising "a beautiful pattern" of murdering, thieving, lying, heretical pedophile. This is what John and Ken find so harmless. Rather than indulging their pettiness with mock southern accents, they ought to be working on their Arabic.

Promoting uninspired falsehood as serious criticism

Such is commonplace among Islam's apologists, whether they are Muslims defending the faith or Allah's Useful Idiots blinded by their ill-conceived (and suicidal) notions of "tolerance" and their rabid hatred for Christ and the civilization built upon His teachings.

Following is what one brave soul left as a rebuttal to this, along with my comments.

Anonymous said...

you say that "Allah's War Against Humanity has been ongoing and global for almost fourteen hundred years." Does that include colonialism that was the ruling factor since the 1300's?

In just these few words, Anonymous demonstrates the relatively complete historical and textual ignorance and the really poor reasoning skills one must firmly possess in order to defend Islam. Whether such malformed falsehood is propaganda intended to deceive gullible and unwitting non-Muslims, or it is only an expression of the utter lack of intellectual integrity and the abundance of civilizational self-loathing bred by the West's academic, media, and political elites, is hard to say.

Whether or not "colonialism" was the "ruling factor since the 1300's" is irrelevant to the point, which is that Allah has been waging war against non-Muslims through Mohammed and his followers for nearly one and one-half millennia. It is a fact that Qur'an and Sunnah--the unalterable word of Allah and the words and deeds of his false prophet--require the faithful, good, observant Muslim to fight against, subdue and humilate, and kill "unbelievers" to make the world Islam. Anyone who denies this is either ignorant of Islam's core, authoritative texts and history, or they are a liar. Which is Anonymous?

And if you would like to argue about the Ottooman empire, u can read some history and learn that the Ottoman Empire was no more a Moslem Empire than the British and French Christian Empires.

Besides what do you say for the Portugese and Spanish inquisitions? All the Western Empires?

Again, more poor "reasoning." The Ottomans expanded, conquered, killed, raped, and enslaved in the name of Allah. If not, why did they steal, enslave, and forcibly convert young Christian, European boys, making them into savage Muslim warriors who eventually were used to brutalize their own people? Why is it that when the Hagia Sofia was taken it was desecrated and turned into a mosque? Perhaps Anonymous can explain why it is the Ottomans committed genocide against Christians for generations.

Though it might be impossible to tell by looking at them today, the British and the French were once Christian nations. The critical distinction to make here (and I'm a bit surprised that Anonymous didn't pummel this deceased equine) is that a Christian nation's carrying out expansive, offensive warfare is in no way obedient to Scripture; Muslim nations executing offensive jihad against non-Muslims is in fulfillment of their "holy" texts.

Nowhere in the Bible will you find commands for Christians to torture, imprison, or in any other way coerce non-Christians on matters of faith. In contrast, Qur'an and Sunnah are replete with exhortations to war against, mutilate, crucify, and decapitate those who do not submit to Allah's rule. Any violations of (the true) God's commands by Christians are evil. However, they in no way justify, ameliorate, or deny Mohammed's bloodlust.

[It is worth noting that unlike Islam, Christianity grew up (truly) persecuted and remained non-violent for centuries. After hundreds of years of enduring Islam's Allah-ordained fusion of religion and state and its merciless application of force on the Apostate/Infidel, would it be unreasonable to assume that perhaps the practice of Christianity in those nations had been warped by its unwelcomed role model?]

It is not Allah who has waged war against humanity, it's humans that waged war against humans. Greed and hate are the reason, religion the means (no matter what religion it is).

It is true that greed and hate motivate offensive warfare. In the case of Islam, greed, hate, deceit, and lust (and every evil that serve them) are made divine.

Your hate blogging is so full of holes and illogical arguments, it's ridiculous! If u were'nt so blindid by hate, u would have done better unbiased research. No matter, your ignorance has wasted enough of my time.

Telling the truth about a faith's founding personality, foundational texts, and its history is "hate"? Yes, many of the words here are hateful, but they are not mine. They belong to Allah and the prophet from Hell.

The Left's icon of virtue and integrity strikes another blow against...virtue and integrity

But what does it matter when it hurts only Jews?

When you have to appeal to Dan Rather, Michael Moore, and President Jimmy "I'm anti-Semitic enough to be Muslim" Carter as your models of honest intellectual inquiry, it's time to put your hand down and hope no one noticed you wanted to speak. (You're right: Carter is not as bad as Clinton--yet. Carter only allowed faithful Muslims to overcome an American ally in Iran with an almost-nuclear Ahmadinejad as the result; Clinton actually bombed Christians to help Islamic terrorists in Yugoslavia).

Now Carter is jeopardizing Clinton's claim to the "distinction" of being America's First Muslim President by his most recent effort to totally rewrite and misrepresent the Islam-Israeli Conflict. (Why is it that when the Left makes a "misstatement," it always leans in favor of the enemies of Liberty?)

Below is an excerpt of an announcement from an expert on the Middle East closely-affiliated with President Carter trying to distance himself from the former Chief Executive's latest mutilation of the truth. From Errors, omissions, inventions and falsehoods:

President Carter's book on the Middle East, a title too inflammatory to even print, is not based on unvarnished analyses; it is replete with factual errors, copied materials not cited, superficialities, glaring omissions, and simply invented segments. Aside from the one-sided nature of the book, meant to provoke, there are recollections cited from meetings where I was the third person in the room, and my notes of those meetings show little similarity to points claimed in the book. Being a former President does not give one a unique privilege to invent information or to unpack it with cuts, deftly slanted to provide a particular outlook. Having little access to Arabic and Hebrew sources, I believe, clearly handicapped his understanding and analyses of how history has unfolded over the last decade. Falsehoods, if repeated often enough become meta-truths, and they then can become the erroneous baseline for shaping and reinforcing attitudes and for policy-making. The history and interpretation of the Arab-Israeli conflict is already drowning in half-truths, suppositions, and self-serving myths; more are not necessary. In due course, I shall detail these points and reflect on their origins.

The decade I spent at the Carter Center (1983-1993) as the first permanent Executive Director and as the first Fellow were intellectually enriching for Emory as an institution, the general public, the interns who learned with us, and for me professionally. Setting standards for rigorous interchange and careful analyses spilled out to the other programs that shaped the Center's early years. There was mutual respect for all views; we carefully avoided polemics or special pleading. This book does not hold to those standards. My continued association with the Center leaves the impression that I am sanctioning a series of egregious errors and polemical conclusions which appeared in President Carter's book. I can not allow that impression to stand.

But I bet President Carter will and so will his anti-American, anti-Israeli minions.

And neither will the hordes of Allah who benefit from his propaganda complain.

The Religion of Non-Violence threatening...more violence

A warning of the Golden Age of Islamic Tolerance being revived in Alexandria from our friend Neferteeti.

It is worth noting that a deceiver in the Comments is taking advantage of what many Western leftists provide: an uncritical and craven echoing of Islam's propaganda.

It is always the "unbeliever's" fault for Muslim violence. It is always Israel, or Iraq, or insert-name-of-victim-of-Islam's-violence-here's fault.

What Islam's propagandists (and the Left's Useful Idiots) fail to consider is that Allah's War Against Humanity has been ongoing and global for almost fourteen hundred years. Iraq is three years old. Israel is nearly sixty.

The West's leaders have failed. In their slavish devotion to political correctness, they have not prepared their people for what is to come, and they allow our Christian brothers and sisters (and other non-Muslims--our natural allies in this War of Self-Defense Against the Malevolence of Allah) to suffer and die needlessly.

Will the West continue to handicap itself in its defense against Islam? Will it continue to turn a blind eye to those in dire need? Must the tragedy of Constantinople be played out again forever?