Slavery acknowledged and abolished ultimately by Christianity

From here, in response to doubt about what the Scriptures say regarding slavery.

The spread of the Christian religion resulted in the abolition of Slavery as a global institution (it exists still under Islam).

The belief that all people have a Divine right to Liberty is powerfully expressed in the words of the American Declaration of Independence:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights; that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness."

God is not indifferent to the injustice of slavery. His word makes it clear that His intention for Man has always been Liberty:

-God created the first man and woman free.

-His Commandments protect an individual's life, reputation, and property.

-He came down to save His people from slavery in Egypt.

-The Mosaic Law recognized the ubiquitous and permanent nature of the "peculiar institution" and legislates to ameliorate its effects.

-The New Testament urges respect and dignity among fellow Christians, reminding the enslaved believer that he is truly free and the free believer that he is Christ's slave.

-Believers are to be content in whatever their circumstances at the time of their conversion (even if in slavery, for the goal of the Christian life is to bear witness to the Son of God; millions of slaves in armed rebellion would have done little to promote the Gospel).

-They are urged to gain their freedom, if possible.

-And though speaking of the greater freedom from sin, death, and the devil, we are told, "It is for freedom that Christ has set us free."

Those who seek to justify slavery from the Biblical texts must misrepresent them to do so.

Ezra Levant resists Islamic tyranny while UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon aids it

Add one to the list of those who understand there's a problem with Islam, and two to the other list, that of Muslims terrorizing those who refuse to submit to Allah and their Appeasing and Useful Idiot Dhimmis.

Even if Ezra Levant doesn't fully understand the theological foundation of Islamic violence against non-Muslims, women, and apostates, at least he has the sense to admit what his lyin' eyes tell him: Muslims are harming, killing, and threatening to harm and kill non-Muslims, and they're manipulating our own governmental bodies to silence those resisting the slow jihad against the West.

Here is an article on Muslims under attack by one of their co-religionists, Syed Soharwardy, founder of the Calgary-based Islamic Supreme Council of Canada, and founder of Muslims Against Terrorism (unsurprisingly, Soharwardly defines "terrorism" -- like so many Muslims -- as "non-Muslims defending themselves against Islamic tyranny" -- here's a taste of his perfidy). Syed filed a complaint against Levant with the Alberta Human Rights and Citizenship Commission (HRCC), hoping to decapitate Ezra's unalienable Rights to Freedom of Speech and of the Press.

Even better, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon:

"promised in Dakar to 'fight against those who want to justify violence against the religion.'

"'We will fight against those who want to justify violence against the religion and promote understanding among the Alliance of Civilisations. We will strengthen cooperation between the OIC (Organisation of the Islamic Conference) and the United Nations in this area (religion),' Ban said.

He delivered his speech at the opening of the two-day 11th Islamic Ummah summit in Dakar, Thursday.

The Alberta HRCC, the UN Secretary General, President Bush, and The Three Who Would Be King (his remaining potential replacements). By refusing to tell the truth about Islam and thereby preventing our taking proper steps to defend ourselves against it, the West's so-called leaders are complicit in Allah's crimes against humanity.

Why mock Islam? There are so many reasons, beginning with heresy, genocide, murder, pedophilia, rape, slavery, mutilation, deceit, theft . . .

Allah made "holy" Mohammed's most depraved, vile, and enthusiastic violations of God's Laws (for an interesting reflection on those, see the last three paragraphs of this article).

Another god before YHWH? Blaspheme His name? What Sabbath? Murder? Pedophilia, rape, polygamy, sex slaves, and homosexual rape? Theft? Deceit? Covet?

Mohammed got 'em all.

Not only did he violate these Commandments, Mohammed enslaved or slaughtered those who refused to submit to his heresy and he taught his followers to do the same.

What does Allah think of all this? He loves it: "Ye have indeed in the Messenger of Allah a beautiful pattern (of conduct) for anyone whose hope is in Allah and the Final Day, and who engages much in the Praise of Allah" (Qur'an 33:21).

Here are Ali Sina's comments:

Mocking is a very powerful way to convince those who are unwilling to think to do it. Shame is a great motivator.

Muhammad suffered from malignant narcissistic personality disorder. His followers, to the degree that they emulate him, think like him and try to behave like him, have entered into his narcissistic bubble universe and have become narcissists by extension. This happens to all cultists. In all cults, the insanity of the guru reflects on the followers who surrender their intelligence to him and follow him unquestioningly and brainlessly.

The narcissists feel grandiose and self-important. They want to be acknowledged without commensurate merit. They want recognition and preferential treatment. They expect respect without feeling any obligation to reciprocate. They get their sense of self- importance by putting you down, criticizing you, decrying your world and disparaging your values, but you are not allowed to slight them. It is okay for them to violate your rights, abuse you and even kill you, but you are not supposed to mistreat them in the slightest way. In fact, they demand privileges that are not available to others. What they want is your submission. That is what Islam is all about – submission.

Never comply

The narcissists are bullies. They should not get what they want or they become emboldened and demand more. They will never be satisfied. The more you give in, the more demanding they become. They can never have enough narcissistic supplies. It is a mistake to give in to their caprices and comply with their demands.

The narcissist takes himself too seriously. He lacks self-esteem and what he dreads most is humiliation. For him, image is everything. He attacks you, verbally, physically, or both. He highlights your faults and belittles you. By doing so he feels better about his own failures. He hides behind a false image of self righteousness. That image must be destroyed and the way to do that is through ridicule.

Charlie Chaplin knew the great power of ridicule. A strong opponent of racism, in 1937 Chaplin decided to make a film on the dangers of fascism. As Chaplin pointed out in his autobiography, attempts were made to stop the film being made: “Half-way through making The Great Dictator I began receiving alarming messages from United Artists. They had been advised by the Hays Office that I would run into censorship trouble. Also the English office was very concerned about an anti-Hitler picture and doubted whether it could be shown in Britain . But I was determined to go ahead, for Hitler must be laughed at.” (Charles Chaplin, My Autobiography- 1964)

Just like in the thirties, today there are many useful idiots who defend Islam, apply censorship and try to silence its critics. These fools must be put to shame too.

Do not underestimate the power of ridicule. This is not a laughing matter. Mock Muhammad and Islam as this will eventually help the Muslims get rid of their cult. They must feel embarrassed for calling themselves Muslim.

This therapy works. I have seen it work many times. Intelligent people, who at first defend Islam, feel embarrassed to be called Muslims, once they see the stupidity of this cult, and claim they are not Muslims. They try to dissociate themselves from it. At first this distancing may not be heartfelt, but the very fact that they prefer to hide their real sentiment about Islam because they are embarrassed of it is the first step -a very important one - for them to leave Islam in reality. It is just a matter of time that they cut their umbilical cords from it and get rid of this cult completely.

Today Muslims become angry if you ridicule their faith, but once they are free from this bondage of the mind they will thank you for it.

Ridicule Islam and ridicule those who defend it. Put to shame the appeasers and the useful idiots even if their name is Charles Windsor or Bill Clinton. Expose the stupidity of Islam and laugh at its ignorant supporters.

Islam will become history once the asininity of it becomes so obvious that any person with intelligence feels embarrassed associating himself with it or defending it.

In not a very distant future, calling a person "Muslim" will be seen as an insult and one could be seriously offended if he is called that, just as today one is offended if he is called a "Nazi."

Speaking of false information

A comment just submitted here in response to adel aldalali:

First of all, the Nazis were christians and not Muslims. The affair in the Darfur region of Sudan is among Muslims and not Muslims vs Christians. and after all the USA (Christian state) wiped out two million Vietnamese few decades ago, more than 600,000 Iraqis are dead and more to die, let alone the thousands in South America under the name of fighting communisim.

It's the the queen of Spain who forced people to change their faith or be expelled from their homes after eight hundreds years of peace and harmony under Islamic rule where mosques, synagogs, and churches stood next to each other. It's the cursaderes who butchered jews and muslims when they conquered jerusalem. and to the contrary Saladin the muslim warrior who won jerusalem back again shown nothing but mercy and peace even to those who had blood in their hands. and many more examples.

How dishonest of you!

First, that any of the Germans who supported Nazism were Christians means they should have known better, because Christ forbids the evil they committed. Second, when Christians commit such barbarity, it is contrary to their God's commands. When Muslims slaughter non-Muslims who refuse to submit to Allah, it is in accord with their god's commands and their false prophet's example. Third, Hitler was no Christian. He despised the faith for its "weakness," but admired Islam. [Fourth, Islam allied itself with Nazism, with even the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem touring Hitler's works and exhorting its agents to work diligently killing Jews.] Finally, the several millions killed by Nazism is what Islam calls, "a start."

How many have been butchered by Allah over the last nearly one and one-half millennia? Hundreds of millions? Billions? How many enslaved? Maimed? Raped, just as Mohammed said and did?

With regard to Sudan, your comment is, unsurprisingly, only half the truth. Islam had been slaughtering Black Christians and animists [there] for years before concern about Darfur became fashionable.

As for the wars against Communism, those were wars against tyranny and for Liberty. Being Muslim, you naturally find that offensive.

In Iraq, Coalition forces removed a brutal dictator who oppressed, tortured, and exterminated many Muslims. Why do you not thank America and its allies? The deaths today of any innocent Musilms is due to their (and your) co-religionists.

Finally, Spain had to fight for nearly eight centuries to regain its freedom from Islamic tyranny, the first Crusade was called to defend fellow Christians under siege for centuries by Islam, and you can hardly call a monster serving his own self-interest "merciful."

ABC, Primetime, and John Quinones have a bad case of Islamophobia

What else can explain the fact that from their site they systematically remove comments containing the word of Allah and the example of Mohammed, quoted directly from Islamic sources, but allow misleading pro-Islamophobia comments to remain? What do they fear? What have they got to hide?

It has become a running joke regarding ABC's judgment when it comes to national security. After several stories exposing vulnerabilities in sensitive targets around America (including the ease with which a person can access nuclear facilities at several universities), it should come as no shock that Primetime aired recently a vile propaganda piece aiding those who would replace our God-given rights with sharia, just as their god and prophet command.

ABC is aiding the slow jihad in America.

This story begins a few days ago when John Quinones and ABC aired a Primetime: What Would You Do? segment in which two actors -- one a woman wearing a hijab and the other a non-Muslim employee behind a counter -- play out a scenario in which the Muslima is attacked verbally on racial and religious grounds and refused service. The reactions of bystanders are examined.

The only time one hears "jihad" during a network broadcast, and it's uttered by a (fictional) bigot. Such a caricature demonizes those (rightly) repulsed by the tyranny of Allah, and it makes victims out of Muslims wearing a symbol of tyranny and genocide more wretched, abhorrent, vile, and enduring than a swastika.

John Quinones has accomplished several things with this piece:

He has implied that those who understand and oppose jihad and the totalitarian, genocidal, and malevolent components of Islamic theology and law are ignorant and racist "Islamophobes."

He has implied that Muslims are innocent victims of intolerance and persecution just like -- as some commenting on the segment stated -- "blacks, fat people, and the handicapped."

He has attempted to suppress the viewer's reasonable and necessary defense response against Islam.

He has made it clear that he's never examined Qur'an, ahadith, and Sira (if he has, then he is either a closet Muslim, suicidal, or perverse).

He has made one wonder whether or not his Muslima co-ed from Illinois exploited his desire to uncover injustice.

As of this writing, ABC has allowed one or more of its administrators to remove over two thousand, two hundred comments exposing the depravity and brutality of an ideology which has waged war against non-Muslims for 1350 years. Accounts used to post those texts are blocked.

Allowed to remain have been numerous posts from one or more Muslims lying about their religion. Their comments -- even today's newest -- repeat the same misleading themes, sometimes almost verbatim. I wouldn't be surprised if it is the one with administration rights and one or two of their co-religionists doing the commenting.

(Coincidentally, a glowing article on Mr. Quinones appears in Cross & Crescent, which is ironic, since Muslim apologists for jihad often equate the two religions to make non-Muslims familiar with Christianity less resistant to -- and critical of -- Islam. The article notes his desire to uncover "social injustice." Unfortunately, that noble impulse combined with a multiculturalist, politically-correct fantasy about The Ideology Which Shall Receive No Criticism makes him susceptible to manipulation by apologists for it.)

Instead of aiding the slow jihad against America with Muslims-As-Victims propaganda, why not expose the commands of Allah and the example of Mohammed requiring offensive warfare against all who refuse to submit?

Why not interview regarding Islam Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Wafa Sultan, Ali Sina, Walid Shoebat, Brigitte Gabriel, or Robert Spencer?

Is it ABC's official policy to deceive the public regarding Islam? If so, why? If not, who is responsible for this propaganda effort?

Attempts to alert ABC to what is occurring have generated no response. Who will warn Mr. Quinones that by fabricating scenarios which demonize those who oppose Islamic tyranny and censoring those who expose it, he is aiding the usurpation of the very rights of freedom of speech and of the press which have provided him the success he enjoys?

For an American organization to air falsehoods about Islam and then silence those who expose the truth about that monstrous belief system is treason.

ABC should restore all deleted posts and fire publicly the persons responsible. It should dedicate an entire program examining who is misrepresenting Islam: those who point out the command of Allah and the example of Mohammed, or those who hide those "sacred" texts and attack those who expose them.

So far, ABC has given a victory to CAIR, the MSA, and other liars for Allah.

Clarity is what we need. ABC's obfuscation and censorship aids our enemies.

Freedoms of Speech and of the Press threatened by CAIR, apologists for Allah

A California judge cites Freedom of Speech to defend CAIR's efforts to destroy that very right.

Besides Larry Elder and Michael Savage, what major talk-show host has demonstrated the intellectual integrity and moral fortitude to tell the truth about Islam? Not Rush, not Hannity, not Glenn Beck, not Hugh Hewitt (though a good friend tells me he's getting closer to the truth).

What politician? Sue Myrick, Geert Wilders, and (formerly) Ayaan Hirsi Ali.

Whether or not you appreciate Savage, it is not one person or one radio program under attack by apologists for Allah.

Your very rights to Freedom of Speech and of the Press are threatened, and their enemies must be defeated decisively or every other Right you cherish will eventually fall.

How can CAIR and their cohorts (ISNA, MSA, MPAC, the 75% of American mosques preaching hate against non-Muslims, etc.) be allowed any quarter at all in any non-Muslim nation? How can any non-Muslim defend such tyrants?

A judge in California has taken under advisement a request by the Council on Islamic-American Relations to dismiss a lawsuit filed by radio talk show host Michael Savage.

The San Francisco-based talker originally accused the organization of copyright violations, but later amended the action to include allegations the group "has consistently sought to silence opponents of violent terror through economic blackmail, frivolous but costly lawsuits, threats of lawsuits and abuses of the legal system."

The action in U.S. District Court in Northern California also charges CAIR with using extortion, threats, abuse of the court system, and obtaining money via interstate commerce under false and fraudulent circumstances – calling it a "political vehicle of international terrorism" and even linking the group with support of al-Qaida.

The federal government, in fact, recently named CAIR, based in Washington, D.C., as an unindicted co-conspirator in an alleged scheme to funnel $12 million to the terrorist group Hamas.

The lawsuit was the subject of court hearing today, and according to a report from the Associated Press, U.S. District Judge Susan Illston said she was "leaning toward tossing out" the action.

She did say she likely would allow Savage's lawyer to submit a revised complaint to keep the case alive, the report said.

Savage's attorney Daniel Horowitz said the copyright claim was valid because CAIR used Savage's material "for purely commercial purposes," but the judge said she found free speech arguments persuasive.

As WND has reported, CAIR has been associated with a disturbing number of convicted terrorists or felons in terrorism probes, as well as suspected terrorists and active targets of terrorism investigations.

"Groups like CAIR have a proven record of senior officials being indicted and either imprisoned or deported from the United States," said U.S. Rep. Sue Myrick, R-N.C., co-founder of the House Anti-Terrorism/Jihad Caucus.

Savage and Horowitz, a celebrity civil rights attorney, are trying to use the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act to make the case that "CAIR and its co-conspirators have aided, abetted and materially sponsored al-Qaida and international terrorism."

CAIR launched a campaign against "The Savage Nation," as the program is called, using extended audio clips of the show to make the case that advertisers who supported the talker were actually endorsing "hate speech" against Muslims.

Savage turned the tables on the activist group by initially suing for copyright violation of the show's material, then expanding the case.

Among the charges is that CAIR is "part of a deliberately complex and deliberately confusing array of related organizations" and that its "organizational structure is part of a scheme to hide the illegal activities of the group, funding, the transfer of funds and to complicate investigation of the group."

Other highlights of the suit:

* "CAIR is not a civil rights organization and it never has been. - CAIR was and is a political organization that advocates a specific political agenda on behalf of foreign interests."

* "The copyright infringement was done to raise funds for CAIR so that it could perpetuate and continue to perform its role in the RICO conspiracy set forth in Count Two and to disseminate propaganda on behalf of foreign interests that are opposed to the continued existence of the United States of America as a free nation."

* "CAIR would have to register as a foreign agent if their activities were not hidden under the false claim that they are a civil rights organization that enjoys tax-exempt status."

* "CAIR was tied to terror from the day it was formed. The group was incorporated on or about 1994 by Omar Ahmad and Nihad Awad. Both men were officers of a terror organization known as the 'Islamic Association of Palestine.'"

* "CAIR's parent group, IAP, was founded in or about 1982 by Musa Abu Marzook. Marzook was IAP's ideological leader and controlling director from the date of its founding until shortly after his deportation from the United States in 1997. At all time relevant, Marzook was an operative of, and/or affiliated with, the 'Harakat al-Muqawamah al-Islamiyyah,' or 'Hamas.' Hamas is an international terrorist organization."

* In 1998, "CAIR demanded the removal of a Los Angeles billboard describing Osama bin Laden as 'the sworn enemy,' asserting that this depiction [was] 'offensive to Muslims.'"

* In 1998, "CAIR denied bin Laden's responsibility for the two al-Qaida bombings of American embassies in Africa. CAIR's leader Ibrahim Hooper claimed the bombings resulted from 'misunderstandings on both sides.'"

* "On October 5, 2001, just weeks after 9/11, CAIR's New York office sent a letter to The New York Times arguing that the paper had misidentified three of the hijackers and suggesting that the attacks may have been committed by people who were impersonating Arab Muslims."

* "CAIR further exploited 9/11 as it put on its website a picture of the World Trade Center in flames and below it a call for donations that was linked to the Holy Land Foundation website." The Holy Land Foundation, the suit charges, is "a terror organization."

* "CAIR receives significant international funding. For example, in 1999 the Islamic Development Bank gave a $250,000 grant to CAIR to purchase land for a national headquarters. In 2002, the World Association for Muslim Youth, a Saudi government-funded organization, financed distributing books on Islam free of charge and an advertising campaign in American publications. This included a quarter page in USA Today each Friday, for a year, estimated to cost $1.04 million. In 2003, Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal donated $500,000 to distribute the Koran and other books about Islam in the United States. In 2005, CAIR's Washington branch received a donation of $1,366,466 from a Saudi Arabian named Adnan Bogary. In 2006, Sheikh Hamdan bin Rashid Al Maktoum, deputy ruler of Dubai and UAE minister of finance and industry, financed the building of a property in the U.S. to serve as an endowment for the organization. This gift is thought to generate income of approximately $3 million a year."

* "The role of CAIR and CAIR-Canada is to wage PSYOPS (psychological warfare) and disinformation activities on behalf of Wahabbi-based Islamic terrorists throughout North America. They are the intellectual 'shock troops' of Islamic terrorism."

* "The Council on American-Islamic Relations is a Muslim Brotherhood front organization. It works in the United States as a lobby against radio, television and print media journalists who dare to produce anything about Islam that is at variance with their fundamental agenda."

* "CAIR has links to both Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood. Terrorism expert Steven Emerson has stated before Congress that CAIR is a front for Hamas."

Savage's case also cites another suit against CAIR filed by the estate of John P. O'Neill, the former head of security for the World Trade Center. It alleged a RICO conspiracy involving CAIR led to the 9/11 attack.

"Throughout this period," the Savage suit alleges, "CAIR conspired to support terrorism and to obfuscate the roles of the various participants and conspirators in Radical Muslim Terrorism, and/or al-Qaida and/or the International Islamic Front for the Jihad Against Jews and Crusaders, which conspiracy culminated in the 9/11 attack."

It continues: "The pattern of racketeering activity conducted by CAIR is separate from the existence of Radical Muslim Terrorism, and/or the al-Qaida, and/or the International Islamic Front for the Jihad Against Jews and Crusaders, but was a necessary component of the 9/11 attack. The RICO enterprise conducts terrorism all over the world; the racketeering activity conducted by CAIR funds that activity, which activity culminated in the 9/11 attack."

CAIR has claimed a host of companies have stopped advertising on Savage's show as a result of its boycott campaign.

However, an investigation by WND shows some of those boycott victories are questionable. In one announcement claiming Universal Orlando Resorts "drops 'Savage Nation' ads," CAIR stated: "Advertisers that have already stopped airing, or refuse to air commercials on 'Savage Nation' include AutoZone, Citrix, TrustedID, JCPenney, OfficeMax, Wal-Mart and AT&T."

But AutoZone told WND the CAIR campaign had nothing to do with its advertising decision, and it had chosen not to advertise on any radio talk shows – of all parts of the spectrum – years before the CAIR effort.

CAIR officials declined to respond to WND queries about why it is listing companies as part of its boycott campaign that say they have not participated in the boycott.

Officials of Talk Radio Network, Savage's syndicator, confirmed to WND that companies including AutoZone and JCPenney never advertise on such programs.

"We do not sponsor syndicated radio talk shows," AutoZone spokesman Ray Pohlman told WND. "We have customers of all shapes and sizes and political persuasions. For us to sponsor [any radio talk shows] wouldn't make any sense."

But that policy is years old, and wasn't changed at all by CAIR's effort, he said.

"What I will tell you is the CAIR organization did, in fact, contact the marketing department [of AutoZone.] We responded with our full advertising policy which clearly states that we do not advertise on radio talk shows," he told WND.

The clip used by CAIR from Savage's material included: "I'm not gonna put my wife in a hijab. And I'm not gonna put my daughter in a burqa. And I'm not getting' on my all-fours and braying to Mecca. And you could drop dead if you don't like it. You can shove it up your pipe. I don't wanna hear any more about Islam. I don't wanna hear one more word about Islam. Take your religion and shove it up your behind. I'm sick of you."

The Savage suit says comments like that are taken out of context.

The suit seeks damages equal to the ongoing donations from CAIR supporters "who expect CAIR to act in this manner in exchange for continuing financial support" as well as "actual damages according to proof."

Perhaps this is the context to which Savage's suit alludes:

"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 19, Number 4294).

"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 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).

"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).

The West's so-called leaders are self-seeking, ignorant cowards in service to Allah

President Bush pressures Israel to show "restraint" in punishing those responsible for killing their innocents.

Our media remain silent as the Religionists of Peace use their own children as shields against Israeli self-defense.

European politicians and media line up against Geert Wilders's exposing the truth about Islam.

Our FBI extends the brainwashing of its agents for Allah.

The West's so-called leaders are self-seeking, ignorant cowards. Doing what our political, media, and academic elites should be doing, here is Wafa Sultan on Al-Jazeera telling the truth about Islam:

"All religions and faiths, throughout the history of humanity, have been subject to criticism and affronts. With time, this has helped in their reform and development. Any belief that chops off the heads of its critics is doomed to turn into terrorism and tyranny. This has been the condition of Islam, from its inception to this day. Islam has sentenced [its critics] to prison, and whoever crosses the threshold of that prison meets his death. The Danish cartoons have managed to break down the first brick in the wall of that prison, and to open up a window, through which the sunrays enter, after a lengthy darkness. The Danish newspaper exercised its freedom of speech. Liberties are the holiest thing in the West, and nothing is more important. But if Islam were not the way it is, those cartoons would never have appeared. They did not appear out of the blue, and the cartoonist did not dig them out of his imagination. Rather, they are a reflection of his knowledge. Westerners who read the words of the Prophet Muhammad 'Allah has given me sustenance under the shadow of my sword' cannot imagine Muhammad's turban in the shape of a dove of peace rather than in the shape of a bomb. The Muslims must learn how to listen to the criticism of others, and maybe then they will reexamine their terrorist teachings. When they manage to do so, the world will view them in a better light, and consequently, it will draw them in a better light. The reactions of the Muslims, which were characterized by savageness, barbarism, and backwardness, only increased the value of these cartoons, and gave them more importance than they merited, simply because they proved that these cartoons were true, and that the message they were conveying was true. The Muslim is an irrational creature ruled by instincts. Those teachings have deprived him of his mind, incited his emotions, and reduced him to the level of an inferior creature that cannot control himself or react to events rationally."

[. . .]

"Why are they ["Palestinian" Muslims] upset about what is going on in Gaza, while the Koran says to them: 'They shall kill and be killed.' So here they are – killing and being killed. What's wrong with that?"

". . . you know that you cannot separate Islam from politics. Islam is not a religion, but politics. You must let me express my views the way I want. When you called me, you didn't say I was not allowed to discuss Islam or the Koran. Islam says to them that they will 'kill or be killed', and here they are—killing and being killed. So what's wrong with that? They want to be martyred and to meet their black-eyed virgins, and Israel is merely helping them get what they want. What's wrong with that? If you want to change the course of events, you must reexamine your terrorist teachings, you must recognize and respect the right of the other to live, you must teach your children love, peace, coexistence, and productive work. When you do that, the world will respect you, will consider you in a better light, and will draw you in a better light."

". . . I can denounce the Palestinians and the Israelis alike. Hamas chose this path, and you have to pay the price for your choices. When you decide you want peace – I am sure that Israel wants peace, but as long as you keep reciting those teachings, which are full of hatred, rancor, and terrorism, you will be unable to make peace with others. You must recognize and respect Israel's right to live. You must teach your children love, peace, and coexistence. Only then will there be peace."

[. . .]

"Why do you want me to deny historical documents that confirm that the Holocaust took place? If there was no proof, I would deny it. But I cannot deny history, knowledge, and documents confirming that the Holocaust indeed took place. Why do you want me to deny the facts?"

[. . .]

"Can you as a Muslim deny the massacre of the Jews of the Bani Qureyza tribe, by Muhammad and his followers?"

[…]

"How can someone who believes in killing people who do not pray possibly criticize liberties in the West? This is a farce. What past is he [apologist for Allah] defending? Is he defending the invasions and lootings?"

". . . polygamy, beheadings, chopping of heads and feet on alternate sides, accusing people of heresy, and drinking camel urine, as a cure for all ailments – is this the past he is defending?"

Would that our president spoke as plainly.

Declaration Against Genocide

From here. Sign it.

Declaration Against Genocide

There is a genocidal movement afoot in the world. Its advocates are legion, its resources prodigious, its atrocities mounting. But Americans still pretend that it doesn't exist.

Genocidal outrages are now an everyday occurrence in Africa. In the Middle East the murder of entire ethnic and religious groups is an obsession that inspires terrorist armies and heads of state. In the full glare of the global spotlight, Iran's Ahmadinejad, Hezbollah's Nasrallah, and Palestinian leaders are calling for the obliteration of the Jewish state. From the goose-stepping soldiers of Hezbollah, Syria and Iran to the broadcasts of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion on al-Jazeera and Egyptian TV, homage is paid to the Nazi past by radicals in the Muslim world. In their sermons and public proclamations the most virulent Jew-hatred is trumpeted since the dark of days of the Second World War. And unlike the Nazis they do not conceal their malevolent goal.

Yet there is little or no response from the rest of us: no universal condemnation and outrage, no common call for resistance. Worse, excuses are made for the bearers of the hate. If only the "Great Satan," which is America, and the "Little Satan," which is Israel, will but change their policies, then the death sentences that have been pronounced against their citizens will be rescinded and the world can be at peace. Thus is blame transferred to the targets of the hate. It is time to oppose the complicity of silence. It is time to unite in condemning the hatred that is a blight on our times; it is time to repudiate the calls for genocide that darken our human horizon. Therefore we are submitting this Declaration Against Genocide to student governments, to campus human rights organizations, to Muslim Students Associations and to individuals in the academic community, to join us in drawing a collective line in the sand against barbarism and to declare ourselves for civilization and hope.

Whereas genocide – the murder, or plan to murder, an entire people – is a crime against all humanity;

Whereas genocide is a crime that has metastasized in the modern era, leading to the murders of millions of Armenians, Cambodians, Tutsis, Sudanese, Bosnian Muslims and others;

Whereas the largest and most devastating genocide on record is the Holocaust of European Jews;

Whereas a new genocide of the Jews is being called for by Islamic leaders in the Middle East;

Whereas global forces are being mobilized by the Iranian regime to eliminate the Jewish state;

Whereas the genocide of the Jews is called for in texts understood by some Muslims as authoritative and echoes through sermons in some mosques today, and is proclaimed by certain leaders of the Islamic religion;

Whereas Catholicism and other Christian denominations have condemned the Holocaust and repudiated anti-Jewish pronouncements that have stained their religious past;

We call on all Student Governments and campus Muslim groups to:

1. Condemn and repudiate the Hadith which reads: "The prophet, prayer and peace be upon him, said: The time [of judgment] will not come until Muslims will fight the Jews and kill them; until the Jews hide behind rocks and trees, which will cry: O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, come on and kill him!" Sahih Muslim book 41, no. 6985

2. Condemn and repudiate the Hamas Charter which says: “Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it”

3. Condemn Ahmadinejad who has said “The accomplishment of a world without America and Israel is both possible and feasible."

4. Condemn Hezbollah and its leader Hassan Nasrallah who has said:

"The Jews are a cancer which is liable to spread again at any moment."

"There is no solution to the conflict except with the disappearance of Israel."

“If they all gather in Israel, it will save us the trouble of going after them worldwide.”

5. Affirm:

* The right of all people to live in freedom and dignity

* The freedom of the individual conscience: to change religions or have no religion at all

* The equal dignity of women and men

* The right of all people to live free from violence, intimidation, and coercion

We call upon all campus political, cultural, ethnic and religious groups to stand with us in opposing all forms of religious supremacism, violence and intimidation.

The American Presidency going from bad to bad, or worse

It is very frustrating watching the most powerful man on earth use that power to advance Islam.

It seems to me that even the most uninformed Christian would refuse to equate The Religion of Death with his Christ. How much sense must one possess to know: Don't aid Muslims killing non-Muslims and stealing their land?

(At this point, Power-At-All-Costs-Republicans, Hugh Hewitt, liberals, and everyone else with their heads in . . . the sand should recall that in President Bush's second inaugural address he referenced the words of "the Ten Commandments, the Sermon on the Mount, and the Qur'an.")

Unfortunately, the Three Replacements remaining in our current presidential race look to be no better in telling the truth about Allah's War Against Humanity.

At best, we will end up with GWB 2.0, a man who can't help but add at least three modifiers to the words "Islam" and "jihad" when uttering them. (Okay, using "jihad," even with modifiers, is an improvement.)

At worst, we'll get either a nominally-Christian liberal (whose church is led by a supporter of racism) with an Islamic education and devout Muslim family members and strong-man allies (who ally themselves with jihad), or a godless liberal with the Muslim daughter of a Saudi imam acting as her closest aide (and paramour, if the reports are true).

Dark days are coming.

First Afghanistan, then Iraq, and now Kosovo

Is Israel next?

At least Afghanistan was previously in the hands of the Taliban, so Allah gains little there.

But in the others? President Bush has used American Blood and Treasure to establish Sharia in Iraq, he has rewarded jihad in Kosovo by having our government recognize it as an independent state, and he continues to pressure Israel to commit suicide.

If the United States is truly a "government of the people, by the people, and for the people," then I want to make it clear that this part of the American government condemns vehemently his treachery.

What do you call a "Christian" who aids Allah?

I've given the President the benefit of the doubt for many years now, but how can an uninterrupted chain of betrayals of Liberty in the cause of jihad continue to be explained away as the by-product of his ignorance of Islam?

It begins now to look like dhimmitude, bribery, or perversion.

Telling the truth about our nation's enemy in a time of war -- in this case, Islam -- is his job as Commander-in-Chief.

Telling the truth about the latest phase in the nearly 1400-year-old jihad that Allah has waged against humanity is what our President, Congress, clergy, universities, and media (especially the "Conservative" pundits) ought to be doing.

Unfortunately, all of them are groveling in the muck at Mohammed's feet.

It's not even a matter of indifference. They actually obfuscate for Islam.

This week, Hugh Hewitt and a guest were patting themselves on the back for their vast knowledge of "Islamofascism," proud that they knew that the "extremist Islamist jihadists" had been warring with us not since 9/11, but since 1979.

And now, President Bush has established another Muslim state, this time in Europe.

Bill Clinton bombed Christians to aid the mujahideen against Serbia, and George W. Bush is finishing what his predecessor began. Under the UN's protective gaze, Muslims have burned churches, destroyed property, and brutalized, raped, and slaughtered Christians in the name of Allah.

I imagine the President will want now to finance with our tax dollars the KLA. (Instead, he ought to use some of that Saudi money he and his father have received over the years to do it.)

What's next? Will he bomb Israel to help Hamas?

Apart from Geert Wilders, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Diana West, and Sue Myrick, can you think of any leaders in the West telling the truth about the Most Hateful Ideology the World Has Ever Seen?

Abraham never did what Mohammed preached and practiced

From here, in response to an Islamic lie commonly repeated by ignorant dhimmis:

As a post-Vatican II Catholic myself, I share the ecumenical beliefs of most modern Christians. One of these is that Islam, being one of the three "Abrahamic" religions, has a great deal in common with Christianity, and that these common roots should be cultivated. It contains truth, and wisdom, and has built civilisations.

Islam shares nothing in common with Christianity.

That Mohammed transmitted (or fabricated) perversions of Biblical characters and events does not make Islam a continuation, completion, or correction of Christianity.

Neither can Islam be called an "Abrahamic" faith. When combating the heresy and apostasy of His own day, Christ told an unbelieving audience that if they were truly children of Abraham, they would do what Abraham did. Abraham never did what Mohammed preached and practiced. The prophet from Hell made the most vile and barbaric violations of the Ten Commandments "divine."

The words and actions of Mohammed prove clearly that Allah is no Christ. For example, Jesus said, "Love your enemies," but according to Mohammed, Allah commands, "kill the unbelievers wherever you find them . . . ." Jesus said that He is the Son of God, but Mohammed taught that whoever says Allah has a son blasphemes. Third, Jesus warned that whoever causes a little child to sin would be better off if a large stone were tied around his neck and he were thrown into the depths of the sea, but Mohammed said of his raping little nine-year-old Aisha, "If this is from Allah, then it must happen."

Mohammed may have received revelations from a "deity" (even the grotesquely self-serving ones), but there is no way that his god was the Biblical One.

Another light in the dark struggle against the malevolence of Allah

While the Archbishop of Capitulation shills still for the Religion of Death, another bishop refuses to bend the knee.

We need more leaders with the sense and courage to tell the truth about Islam. Michael Nazir-Ali is the Bishop of Rochester. According to this article, he's received much criticism (and veiled threats to himself and the non-Muslim public) for refusing to genuflect to the Prophet from Hell.

Imagine that! Someone has the nerve to admit publicly that "people of a different race or faith face physical attack if they live or work in communities dominated by a strict Muslim ideology."

But doesn't "Islam" mean "peace"?

No, it means "submission," just as Mahomet professed:

"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 19, Number 4294).

"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).

"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).

Nazir-Ali lays the blame where it belongs for allowing a formerly-Christian land to sink so far into the Islamic Abyss -- multiculturalism and faithless clergy:

Bishop Nazir-Ali, who was born in Pakistan, gives warning that attempts are being made to give Britain an increasingly Islamic character by introducing the call to prayer and wider use of sharia law, a legal system based on the Koran.

In an attack on the Government's response to immigration and the influx of "people of other faiths to these shores", he blames its "novel philosophy of multiculturalism" for allowing society to become deeply divided, and accuses ministers of lacking a "moral and spiritual vision".

And here's one of the veiled threats issued typically by Muslims, this from Ibrahim Mogra of the Muslim Council of Britain:

"It's irresponsible for a man of his position to make these comments."

Where are our leaders?

Apart from a few half-hearted refusals to outright disagree with Nazir-Ali, the replies to his observations either favor submission ("Sit down and shut up!") or obfuscate by putting the blame where it doesn't belong (it's not "religions" harming Britain, it's Islam).

We the People must use our Freedoms of Speech and of the (key)Press while there is time. If we do not, we may find too late that our only option left is the exercising of our Right to Bear Arms.

Many great civilizations before us faced the bloodlust of Allah, and are no more.

Winston Churchill observed:

"Still, if you will not fight for the right when you can easily win without bloodshed; if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than live as slaves."

Geert Wilders and Ayaan Hirsi Ali warn the West against encroaching Islam

What major political leaders in the West have the sense and courage to confront the bloodlust of Allah? Certainly not President Bush.

Here is Geert Wilders with a proper warning against encroaching jihad and what motivates it, in two parts.

Notice the interviewer's suggestion for dealing with the unsurprising death threats coming from Muslims -- sacrifice your freedom of speech:

And here's the first part of Submission, the film written by Ayaan Hirsi Ali, for which Theo van Gogh was butchered by Allah (some images unsuitable for children):

Mohammed irrationally fearful of his own religion

Those who say, "Islam requires violence against non-Muslims," are demonized as "Islamophobes."

Mohammed transmitted Allah's command to, "kill the unbelievers wherever you find them" (Qur'an 9:5), and confessed, "I have been made victorious with terror . . . ." (Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 220).

Clearly, Mohammed was an Islamophobe.

Reuters obfuscating for jihad

Like almost everyone else in Western government and media, the author and editor responsible for this piece of jihad-friendly Newspeak bend over backwards to avoid laying the blame where it lies -- the command of Allah and the example of Mohammed.

At least they used "Islam" in the piece; in some countries, that'll get you arrested.

A few lines from their report on some Religionists of Peace planning to wage that "peaceful inner struggle" in various locations across Europe:

MADRID (Reuters) - Islamist extremists were planning attacks across Europe . . . .

Just say "Muslims."

Adding "-ist" to "Islam" here is deceptive, for it implies that the bloodletting in which these animals were about to engage is inconsistent with the command of Allah and the example of Mohammed.

Adding "extremist" provides another layer of opaqueness.

Reuters must supply their reporters and editors with Internet access. That Allah and his false prophet command offensive warfare against those who refuse to convert or submit to their tyranny is quickly discoverable to anyone with a search engine.

The Al Qaeda-inspired cell planned to attack the Barcelona metro and other targets in Spain, Germany, France, Portugal and the United Kingdom, said the bomber turned police informant.

And by whom or what are these monsters inspired? Only their god and prophet who command,

"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 19, Number 4294).

Continuing with Reuters:

In testimony that led to the arrest of 14 South Asians last Saturday, the informant told police the group had a preference for attacks on public transport, especially metro systems, El Pais newspaper reported. "If we attack the metro, the emergency services can't get there . . . ."

They think of everything, don't they?

Notice the term, "South Asians." Indians? Roma? Nepalese? Must be Sri Lankans.

The problem is neither race, ethnicity, nor national origin, it is an ideology.

It is Islam.

[. . . ] Spain's government said the Barcelona cell was preparing to carry out the metro attack either last weekend or in the following 15 days. Two other pairs of suicide bombers had been assigned targets elsewhere in Spain, another was to attack Germany, three were given objectives in France and two more were to strike Portugal. The informant said the Barcelona cell had six suicide bombers and other members responsible for preparing explosives and planning attacks in other European states.

. . . after the first attack, but if they are not carried out, there will be a second attack, a third in Spain. And next Germany, France, Portugal, United Kingdom," the head of the cell told the police informer, El Pais reported. The Barcelona bombings could have taken place less than two months before Spain's March 9 general election. Islamic militants attacked Madrid commuter trains days before Spain's last general election in March 2004, killing 191 people and wounding 1,800. They said the attacks were made in revenge for Spain sending troops to Afghanistan and Iraq.

And the Spanish proved the efficacy of their efforts.

Admission by omission

Muslims Against Sharia -- a group working against those aspects of Islamic theology and law which "promote divisiveness and religious hatred, bigotry and discrimination" against non-Muslims and females -- is publicizing their efforts at removing the Qur'anic foundation for such evil.

The list of verses -- including, it appears, entire surahs -- can be found here. There are also numerous ahadith that need purging. And most of Mohammed's latter years.

It is instructive to note that in order to demolish the Islamic justifications for such barbarity, one must remove numerous passages of Islam's foundational texts.

(So much for the idea that "Islam is peace," though MAS would say that those passages requiring violence and oppression are not from Allah.)

The fact that this group of heroic Muslims is a tiny minority when compared to their orthodox coreligionists demonstrates also the fundamental error of the President's public statements on the legitimacy of those who maim and kill for Allah.

Perhaps he didn't know all that much about European politics in the first place

Which calls into question his judgment regarding the "experts" in whom he put his trust.

You can't hide what happened here by calling it a "typo." It's called, "ignorance," and it should have served as a caution against rushing to judgment and condemning as Nazi-sympathizers -- absent conclusive evidence -- those opposing jihad.

If Charles can err regarding Lionheart's sympathies, if Lionheart can err regarding the nature of the BNP, if Pamela can err regarding Charles's intentions, then all should be able to step back, take a deep breath, and admit where they went wrong.

This whole 'blog fight (that's silly, isn't it?) has been four months of friendly-fire among people of good will who should never have been arguing in the first place.

An important question regarding a political group led to an overreaction by a fellow anti-jihadist. Since then, it's been one spiteful, vindictive ad hominem after another, sustained by the statements of experts some of whom would not have been trusted perhaps but for the fact that their posts supported the 'blogger's position against their opponents. (Extreme leftists would never demonize their political opponents, would they?)

Charles wants to avoid allying with racists and Pamela denounces the "British Nazi Party" (BNP). Both oppose the tyranny of Allah.

So regrettable. Will either admit their error(s)? Will either apologize? Who will take the first step toward reconciliation?

Here was Charles's unsteady first step into the unfamiliar world of European politics (emphasis mine):

#13 Charles 10/24/07 12:07:46 pm . . .

re: #11 Defeater of Defeatism

"Dutch Vlaams Belang party"? Dutch-speaking perhaps. They're Belgian, or more specifically, Flemish. But Dutch, not so much.

Will add additional thoughts later on (being a Dutch citizen residing in Belgium and all).

Thanks. Typo corrected.

Here's more evidence that perhaps a little more research is needed, in response to a post by Charles gloating that "Lionheart drops the mask" regarding the BNP:

#489 Amillennialist 1/20/08 2:28:07 am . . .

re: #486 Pickle

re: #476 gunjam

Well said. We are kicking a guy who has taken a bullet -- not for being a fascist -- but for CRITICIZING JIHADISTS!

No. Charles defended him for doing that, and so do I. We're all excoriating him for his association with the BNP, which is not mitigated by his anti-jihadism.

Following links I found this from Lionheart:

I have written posts in support of the BNP in the past which I will explain . . .

. . . within the BNP there is an internal struggle between what has been termed the modernizers and traditionalists.

The modernizers want to reform the party to take it away from its anti-semetic and white supremacist roots and make it more inclusive for the British people and thus make it a respectable electable political party within Great Britain.

. . .

Being non-political a year ago I never knew the complexities of political parties and their origins, but now I am becoming aware of some critical things that I cannot support which is why in my mind since this rebellion started I removed my support of the present BNP which can be proved with documented evidence.

Articles on my blog supporting the BNP were written months ago when the only people out there doing anything about the Islamification of Great Britain were the people of the BNP. I support any good and decent British citizen who is a BNP member who is not a racist, neo-Nazi fascist . . . .

I personally reject, racism, fascism and neo-Nazism and would never knowingly support those traits because it is not who I am as a person.

To answer your question; do I support the BNP? No.

. . .

Q. . . . The BNP charter claims that membership should be limited to whites only, do you support that?

A. No I do not support that because being whites only makes you a racist organization, I never wrote posts in support of the BNP because of this issue, I wrote posts in support of the BNP regarding other issues like the Islamification of my homeland, uncontrolled immigration and the injustice that is aimed at people like Mark Walker.

Q. Nick Griffin the party leader for the BNP has made some very anti-semitic statements. What are your views on Jews and on Isreal?

A. Putting my life on the line twice for Israel and its Jewish residents within the Holy Land, [?] and being a very vocal supporter through my blog should speak for itself.

. . .

Q. And the holocaust?

A. The Holocaust happened during the Second World War and we should not let it happen again as is stated throughout my blog . . .

Too much jumping to conclusions, too much mob mentality, too much uninformed, hair-triggered self-righteousness.

We need to stop the friendly-fire.

Private clarifications ought to precede public eviscerations.

In defense of amillennialism

To one trying to link amillennialism to the Holocaust, from here:

falsehood . . . making noise . . . demonizing . . . libel . . . defensive . . . quibble . . . over a typo . . . petty . . . quote us chapter and verse and identify your translation or you're just making noise . . . dangerous and not Biblical.

A "typo"? Does that mean you had to search online to find out what amillennialism is? If so, then how can you accuse me of "noise" when you don't even know what the term means?

Out of all the possible articles available to humanity, how do you select one that misrepresents the idea that badly? What does that say about your judgment? Your intentions?

Still I will address your comments.

Speaking of "noise," this is from your link:

"The Church Stands in Proxy of Christ"

"Amillennialism is a belief . . . that the literal return of the Messiah . . . is not true . . . ."

". . . the rule of the church body politic . . . ."

". . . no millenial reign of Christ at all."

"Amillennialism lends itself to a diminishing of the Judaic birthright as firstborn of the chosen of God."

". . . the church "replaces" Israel . . . ."

"and in essence replaces even Christ himself on earth, becoming a self-ordained Christ -in -Proxy."

". . . the Church . . . sets itself in the stead of Christ and the Jewish nation, this position leads to the denigration of both . . . ."

"Instead of a millenium of the reign of Christ on earth, there becomes a "Messianic age" with a church and its figureheads as ushering in a utopian age, reinterpreting scripture in terms of church-initiated doctrine and dogma."

". . . the church replaces Christ as "decision maker" and the church replaces the Word of God as the final authority . . . the church confuses the sovereignty of God's dominion with the dominion given man."

That's a significant majority of the beginning o[f] your article.

It's all false.

Depending on whom you ask (someone trying to link the Biblical understanding of amillennialism with the Holocaust is either a malicious liar or stupendously ignorant), amillennialism is the belief (derived from Scripture) that Christ does reign on Earth through His word, the Church (all believers in Christ) endures the Great Tribulation, and Christ will return to deliver His people at the Last Day. The Biblical distinction between the Spiritual and Civil Kingdoms is recognized and upheld.

This understanding comes directly from the clear testimony of Scripture.

In Matthew 24, Jesus answers His disciples' questions about the destruction of the Temple and the End of the Age. Regarding the end, Christ says that it will come unexpectedly, and He notes the signs that will precede it. His description of it indicates that life will be going on as it always has, that Christians will be persecuted, and that His return will come without warning.

From the ESV:

"For as in those days before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day when Noah entered the ark, and they were unaware until the flood came and swept them all away, so will be the coming of the Son of Man" (Matthew 24:38, 39).

Or from the King James, 1611:

"For as in the dayes that were before the Flood, they were eating, and drinking, marrying, and giuing in mariage, vntill the day that Noe entred into the Arke, And knew not vntill the Flood came, and tooke them all away: so shall also the comming of the Sonne of man be" (Matthew 24:38, 39).

On the "true Israel," straight from the Apostle Paul who described himself as a "Hebrew of Hebrews," was an expert in the Law of Moses (he was a Pharisee), and who persecuted the Early Church.

Just before these comments Paul laments that he would go to hell in place of his fellow Jews:

"not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel, and not all are children of Abraham because they are his offspring, but 'Through Isaac shall your offspring be named.'

"This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as offspring" (Romans 9:6-9).

This echoes John the Baptist and his Cousin's charges against the Jewish religious leadership who counted their genetic history as sufficient for salvation, even though they rejected their God and His Messiah.

From John:

"do not presume to say to yourselves, 'We have Abraham as our father,' for I tell you, God is able from these stones to raise up children for Abraham" (Matthew 3:9).

From his Cousin, the Son of God:

"They answered him, 'Abraham is our father.'

"Jesus said to them, 'If you were Abraham's children, you would be doing what Abraham did, but now you seek to kill me, a man who has told you the truth that I heard from God. This is not what Abraham did'" (John 8:39, 40).

And again back to Paul:

"For no one is a Jew who is merely one outwardly, nor is circumcision outward and physical. But a Jew is one inwardly, and circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter. His praise is not from man but from God" (Romans 2:28, 29).

On God's Chosen People, from the Apostle Peter, to Christians (who by this time were not only Jewish, but also Gentile):

"it stands in Scripture: 'Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone, a cornerstone chosen and precious, and whoever believes in him will not be put to shame.'

. . .

But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light" (1 Peter 2:6, 9).

On Jew and Gentile being now one man in Christ, from Paul:

"Therefore remember that at one time you Gentiles in the flesh, called 'the uncircumcision' by what is called the circumcision, which is made in the flesh by hands--remember that you were at that time separated from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world.

"But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ.

"For he himself is our peace, who has made us both one and has broken down in his flesh the dividing wall of hostility by abolishing the law of commandments and ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace, and might reconcile us both to God in one body through the cross, thereby killing the hostility" (Ephesians 2:11-16).

And, "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus" (Galatians 3:28).

As for the Tribulation, it's not some future event:

"I, John, your brother and partner in the tribulation and the kingdom and the patient endurance that are in Jesus, was on the island called Patmos on account of the word of God and the testimony of Jesus" (Revelation 1:9).

A place at which confusion (and outright deception) comes is in misreading Revelation. Reading the New Testament texts regarding the end without Revelation leads to the commonsense understanding noted above from Matthew. People see the numbers and signs in Revelation -- which are intended to be understood symbolically, not literally -- and make up all sorts of nonsense.

Demonstrating that the visions John received by revelation contained symbolism:

"Write therefore the things that you have seen, those that are and those that are to take place after this.

"As for the mystery of the seven stars that you saw in my right hand, and the seven golden lampstands, the seven stars are the angels of the seven churches, and the seven lampstands are the seven churches" (Revelation 1:19, 20).

We know from Scripture that Christ resurrected physically, so this bit from Chapter 5 contains symbolism:

"And between the throne and the four living creatures and among the elders I saw a Lamb standing, as though it had been slain, with seven horns and with seven eyes, which are the seven spirits of God sent out into all the earth" (Revelation 5:6).

If you want to argue that Revelation does not use symbolism, would you say that Jesus in Heaven has a sword in His mouth? Or that there's only 144,000 people in Heaven?

As for the Apostles' expecting Christ's imminent return, here's a little from Paul:

"the hour has come for you to wake from sleep. For salvation is nearer to us now than when we first believed.

"The night is far gone; the day is at hand" (Romans 13:11, 12).

From Peter:

"But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, and then the heavens will pass away with a roar, and the heavenly bodies will be burned up and dissolved, and the earth and the works that are done on it will be exposed.

"Since all these things are thus to be dissolved, what sort of people ought you to be in lives of holiness and godliness, waiting for and hastening the coming of the day of God" (2 Peter 3: 10-12).

And from John:

"I, Jesus, have sent my angel to testify to you about these things for the churches. I am the root and the descendant of David, the bright morning star.

"The Spirit and the Bride say, "Come." And let the one who hears say, "Come." And let the one who is thirsty come; let the one who desires take the water of life without price.

"I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book, and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book.

"He who testifies to these things says, 'Surely I am coming soon.' Amen. Come, Lord Jesus" (Revelation 22:16-20)!

And from the author of the Letter to the Hebrews (possibly Paul):

"And let us consider how to stir up one another to love and good works, not neglecting to meet together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another, and all the more as you see the Day drawing near" (Hebrews 10:24, 25).

*Finally, Christ said regarding His kingdom:

"My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have been fighting, that I might not be delivered over to the Jews. But my kingdom is not from the world" (John 18:36).

"nor will they say, 'Look, here it is!' or 'There!' for behold, the kingdom of God is in the midst of you" (Luke 17:21).

*Added 1/20

Romney's plan to defeat jihad? Pay the jizya!

Jizya is the humiliating and oppressive head tax inflicted upon populations conquered by Islam -- just like Mohammed and his god commanded.

It is essentially what Mitt Romney has proposed to defeat jihad.

From here:

Hugh Hewitt is a conservative talk show host and author with a national audience. He likes to think he knows the intricacies of any particular issue relating to national politics.

Not too long ago, before the general public knew of CAIR's perfidy, Hugh invited one of their propagandists to appear on his show to spread their deception. Hugh was bombarded with phone calls and e-mails informing him of what his guest was.

If the cluelessness of those who are supposed to be our leaders weren't so tragic, what followed would be funny: Hugh scrambled desperately for an "expert" to counter his guest.

The best he could do was Frank Gaffney who, though he is knowledgeable in many areas regarding national security, knows only "radical extremist jihadism," not jihad and not Islam.

And Hugh was revulsed at the number of Neanderthals in his audience claiming that Islamic terrorism has something to do with Islam.

Since that time, Hugh has read several books on terrorism and interviewed on his program many "experts" on the subject, but (to my knowledge) he runs from Robert and his work like the plague. Whenever I've suggested him to Hugh as a guest, I've received no reply.

The same Hugh Hewitt who invited CAIR to speak on his national radio show is the same Hugh Hewitt who insists that it is the mujahideen who pervert Islam, not those who reject jihad.

He now throws around authoritatively terms like "radical jihadism" (sound familiar?), "Salafist," and "Qutb" (this too should sound familiar!), but he still denies the core fact that Allah and his false prophet command the enslavement or death of all who refuse to convert to Islam.

Despite numerous e-mails and phone calls, Hugh Hewitt continues to define Islam in terms of its heretics, apostates, and apologists. He believes that it is a "tiny minority of radically-extreme Islamo-fascist fundamentalist jihadism-ists" who've "hijacked a great world religion."

So, what does Hugh Hewitt have to do with Mitt Romney's position on jihad?

Hugh Hewitt wrote a book to help Romney get elected. Mitt is Hugh's guy. They use the same vocabulary on "jihadism." Mitt wants to throw unlimited Infidel money and manpower at jihad in hoping to "win [Muslim] hearts and minds."

If Romney really understands the Source and Sustenance of the global jihad, how can he propose such suicidal nonsense?

And how can Hugh cheerlead so vigorously for him?

Romney's "strategy" is both jizya and proof of a complete ignorance of what motivates Allah's War Against Humanity.

To assume otherwise is wishful thinking. All those suffering under the tyranny of Allah have had enough make-believe.

Unless a candidate makes and adheres to a public statement identifying the cause of the global jihad as the command of Allah and the example of Mohammed, it would be foolish to assume knowledge or judgment any better than we've had the last six years.

Rather than mock Mohammed, let Mohammed mock himself

Noted here at Dhimmi Watch is another attempt by jihad's agents and their Useful Idiot Dhimmis to make anything less-than-complimentary of Mohammed a "hate crime." Only this time, it's not in the United (Islamic) Kingdom (UiK), where a blogger is being arrested for "inciting racial hatred" because he dares to tell the truth about Islam. Neither is this in Canada, where the target is Mark Steyn.

This is in America.

How tyrannical. How dishonest. How treacherous. How un-American. Those pushing for this ought to be dealt with in the harshest manner possible within the limits of the law. Does New England still tar-and-feather?

Mocking someone who takes himself so seriously his followers have to kill you does provide the mocker a sense of satisfaction at having defied tyranny and stupidity, but here's one alternative to simplistic taunting that can aid The War of Self-Defense Against Islam:

Islam is the religion that keeps on giving, because it boasts about those very texts that reveal its utter depravity.

I understand the visceral satisfaction to be enjoyed at mocking publicly the false prophet, but it would be much more productive to have -- instead of drive-by-derision -- quick, clear, concise citations of Islam's more unpalatable (for non-Muslims) "divine" mandates and statements and actions from and by Mohammed.

Recently, in the Comments for a MEMRI video at YouTube in which a Muslim scholar discusses the proper Islamic way to beat one's wife, an apparently Muslim poster dared someone to write anything more critical of Islam.

Naturally, I complied.

I posted only statements directly from Islam's "sacred" texts showing the prophet from hell to be a genocidal, enslaving, butchering, pedophile.

(It's hard to call it "abuse" when it comes straight from their own texts.)

There's been no reply yet from that poster.

The effect of distributing such quick, informational blurbs in American cities would be several. Uninformed non-Muslims who are ill-at-ease with Islam but are unable to articulate why will be emboldened to learn and share that learning. Uninformed Muslims will have to decide whether or not such a deity deserves their fealty. Informed Muslims will be put on alert that their nonsense will no longer continue under the cover of multiculturalist ignorance. Dhimmis -- especially in leadership positions in government, media, and academia -- will be able to spread their ignorance unchallenged no longer.

And here is an example of letting Islam speak for itself:

Mohammed as genocidal maniac:

"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).

Mohammed as terrorist:

"Allah's Apostle said, 'I have been made victorious with terror . . . '" (Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 220).

Mohammed as butcher:

"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 . . . " (Qur'an 5:33).

Mohammed as pedophile:

"My mother came to me while I was being swung on a swing between two branches and got me down . . . 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).

It's hard to call it "abuse" when it comes straight from your own "sacred" texts.

The American and British governments betraying to Islam those whom it is their duty to defend

A jihadist manages to secure the firing of one of the apparent few in our government who appear to understand Islam, a British citizen is being arrested for telling the truth about the Religion of Peace, and the adult candidates for President of the United States of America twist their tongues and intellects condemning "radical jihadist Islamofascist extremism" while assuring us that they have "great respect for Islam," a religion "perverted" by those wanting to establish the worldwide tyranny of Allah.

It was a tragic and horrifying scene at the debate tonight: Ron Paul running back and forth, his hair aflame yelling, "Islamophobe!" Rudy obliterating Paul's nonsense about America's foreign policy being the cause of the Greater Jihad but then destroying any hope for clarity from him on what motivates it, and Mitt actually using the word "jihad" but with a modifier.

McCain and Huckabee were no better.

Where's Fred?

Note below that now, over six years since 9/11, we're only "preparing" to wage the ideological war against Islam.

On treason in D.C.:

Infiltration Update. Here is a travesty for which Gordon England should be held accountable.

"Coughlin sacked," by Bill Gertz in the Washington Times:

Stephen Coughlin, the Pentagon specialist on Islamic law and Islamist extremism, has been fired from his position on the military's Joint Staff. The action followed a report in this space last week revealing opposition to his work for the military by pro-Muslim officials within the office of Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England.

Mr. Coughlin was notified this week that his contract with the Joint Staff will end in March, effectively halting the career of one of the U.S. government's most important figures in analyzing the nature of extremism and ultimately preparing to wage ideological war against it.

He had run afoul of a key aide to Mr. England, Hasham Islam, who confronted Mr. Coughlin during a meeting several weeks ago when Mr. Islam sought to have Mr. Coughlin soften his views on Islamist extremism.

Mr. Coughlin was accused directly by Mr. Islam of being a Christian zealot or extremist "with a pen," according to defense officials. Mr. Coughlin appears to have become one of the first casualties in the war of ideas with Islamism.

The officials said Mr. Coughlin was let go because he had become "too hot" or controversial within the Pentagon.

Misguided Pentagon officials, including Mr. Islam and Mr. England, have initiated an aggressive "outreach" program to U.S. Muslim groups that critics say is lending credibility to what has been identified as a budding support network for Islamist extremists, including front groups for the radical Muslim Brotherhood.

Mr. Coughlin wrote a memorandum several months ago based on documents made public in a federal trial in Dallas that revealed a covert plan by the Muslim Brotherhood, an Egyptian-origin Islamist extremist group, to subvert the United States using front groups. Members of one of the identified front groups, the Islamic Society of North America, has been hosted by Mr. England at the Pentagon.

After word of the confrontation between Mr. Coughlin and Mr. Islam was made public, support for Mr. Coughlin skyrocketed among those in and out of government who feared the worst, namely that pro-Muslim officials in the Pentagon were after Mr. Coughlin's scalp, and that his departure would be a major setback for the Pentagon's struggling efforts to develop a war of ideas against extremism. Blogs lit up with hundreds of postings, some suggesting that Mr. England's office is "penetrated" by the enemy in the war on terrorism....

LTC Joseph C. Myers on this firing:

MAJ (USAR) Stephen Coughlin is to my knowledge the only Islamic Law scholar on the Joint Staff...

He is a lawyer by training and a reserve Military Intelligence Officer. His first interface with Islamic Law began in Pakistan where he was investigating and prosecuting an intellectual property rights case about 10 years ago. Reviewing Pakistani property rights law, he kept seeing footnoted references to the Quran and sharia law...

I have long argued and wondered why our military from senior leaders down to tactical level are so unread and unstudied on Islam, jihad in Islam, even the topic of terrorism. I have often contrasted this unconscionable wartime state of affairs, with the due diligence the US military showed since I was a cadet at West Point 30 years ago, where we lived, ate, slept and drank Soviet warfighting doctrine...it was the threat we oriented on and we developed our own doctrine around -- "AirLand Battle" in the early 1980's.

Can anyone show me where the equivalent of the Soviet threat doctrine series for the global war on terror is published?

It has not been done.

Yet today we are in the process of prosecuting war, that from doctrinal perspective, we fundamentally do not understand. Over two years I have had 90 of the Army's top majors come through ACSC, across all branches including MI and special operations forces, and only one had read a book with the title Understanding Terror Networks, that by Marc Sageman...

Just before Christmas I presented a lecture on Understanding Terrorist and Insurgent Support Systems to an interagency audience at the Joint Special Operations University, that included Joint Staff and Joint Command officers, DIA and other IC reps, DHS and law enforcement... there, two people had read Sageman's work...two out of the special ops community. The third individual was Sageman himself.

More importantly we have not studied Islamic Law and few have seen or heard of even the English translation of it that has been in print for years, none had at JSOU or had read a work titled Understanding Jihad, War and Peace in the Law of Islam or even The Quranic Concept of War...I can go on but let me be frank.

This failure of intellectual preparation is a leadership failure, and it is as the 9-11 Commission warned, a failure of vision.

We have spent much intellectual capitol revamping and analyzing our own doctrine as it relates to counterinsurgency...it's time we do our homework on the threat.

Coughlin has briefed senior Marine Corps leaders and staff and has presented his thesis in various military educational venues...by all accounts the veil of ignorance is lifted for all but only a few who are afraid to face what Islamic Law, doctrinal Islam, says and means with respect to jihad and how it plays out across the Islamic world from al Qaida, to the Saudi government, to Pakistan to the Muslim Brotherhood...

What Coughlin did was provide the epiphany in his over 300-page Joint Military Intelligence College thesis titled, "To Our Great Detriment: Ignoring What Extremists Say About Jihad" that is meticulously documented and powerfully argued.

In short, he argues we have in fact intellectually pre-empted our military decision making process and intelligence preparation of the battlefield process, the critical step 3-"evaluate the threat." Strategically we have failed to do that by substituting policy for military analysis, for substituting cliché for competent decision processes.

We began on September 12, 2001 with "Islam is a religion of peace," which soothed ideological sentiments of many but has failed us strategically, short-stopped the objective, sytstemic evaluation of the threat doctrine.

"Islam is a religion of peace" is fine for public policy statements, but is not and cannot be the point of departure for competent military or intelligence analysis...it is in fact a logical flaw under any professional research methodology...you have stated the conclusion before you have done the analysis.

If one has studied the implication of the Holy Land Foundation trial discovery documents as I have, as a former DIA senior military analyst, and understanding as even Bill Gertz has written in his book Enemies about the dismal record of our counter-intelligence one has to wonder and question the extent we are in fact penetrated in government and academia by foreign agents of influence, the Muslim Brotherhood, Islamists and those who truly in essence do not share our social compact.

The termination of Stephen Coughlin on the Joint Staff is an act of intellectual cowardice.

We can only hope he can be positioned in his next venue to continue to educate our military for the fight we are in -- if we don't understand the war and the enemy we are engaged against we remain vulnerable and we cannot win.

No victory in the war on terror.

And on treasonous dhimmitude by the British government:

. . . the government and the Islamic Kingdom are trying to silence me . . . Ask yourself why?

A murderous section of the Pakistani Moslem community of Bury Park – Luton threatened my life, as witnessed by two witnesses, and my blog which is my perception of truth based on facts is my response to those very serious credible death threats.

I would rather die a Christian man than a pathetic Dhimmi – What about you?

They have bombed my homeland and they are desecrating my Nation on a daily basis with their Islamic degradation, so I will not back down from them or their gullible Liberal Left Wing tools who are trying to silence me – They are the ones who are at war with my country, and who want to kill me personally – If they want a war based on the facts and they want to kill me, then is it not my right to protect myself? If I don’t who will, do I just let these people kill me or do I run away and leave this to someone else to deal with? And if they are at war with us which they are, as the facts clearly prove, then can we the British people not let them have a war?

Whose homeland is this, theirs or mine?

What is the result of doing nothing?

My Grandfather never fought for Queen and Country so that the blessed birthright he handed to me which was my part of the British homeland as an Englishman could be taken away in my generation and given to an alien Kingdom with its alien Islamic culture so that there will be nothing left for my children other than an Islamic way of life enforced upon them.

I would rather my children know I died a free man for them and their birthright, than a coward and a slave to the oppressors, no matter what form that oppression comes in.

Why should I be forced out of my home, forced out of my business, forced into bankruptcy and forced to become a vagabond in my own land because of murdering warmongering Moslems who are at war with the Nation – something wrong there don’t you think?

And now people are trying to ‘silence’ me from speaking out about this abomination that is happening to me and my fellow countrymen by this internal enemy whose ultimate intention it is to take over rule of the land and enforce ‘Sharia Law’ upon the population, no matter how long that takes them.

. . .

You want a fight with me to silence me then lets fight, but remember there is an army made up of millions of people the same as me throughout the World who are ready to fight you with me, this has been shown to me over the last two days, and these citizens of the free world stand shoulder to shoulder with me, because this attack on me is an attack on them, their children and grandchildren also!!!

You have started something that will never be stopped now!!!

We have had enough of the murderous Islamic threat against our daily lives, and our futures, and we have had enough of our traitorous leaders and their supporters who are bending over backwards to appease the Islamic Kingdom at the expense of us and our children.

Ken Livingstone the slimy devil driven racist is the worst of them all!

The time has now come to let people know the truth so that they can decide where they stand in the coming days – I am not calling for people to march in the streets murdering people, we are civilized people we do not need to, we carry the ‘sword of truth’, that is enough at this moment in time, it is time innocent people woke up to this imminent Islamic threat that surrounds them and their children before it is too late.

Just remember we outnumber Moslems in our Country 20 to 1, we never asked for this, but we sure will rise to the challenge of the 21st Century and repel this foreign Islamic invader that has invaded our shores and is now conducting a Holy War against us.

Hasham Islam and Ken Livingstone are their own governments' Grima Wormtongues.