Darwin's creation myth

Here's another brief analysis of Darwin's creation myth. Couple it with the false dichotomy between the Word of Christ and Science, and you've got not only a great excuse for blasphemy, but ugly, anti-Christian bigotry also.

And nothing says, "Intelligent" like making things up to look down on Christians.

Posted in response to Charles's post here:

It's sad and ironic that one demanding truth of others would promote uncritically the pseudoscience of Neo-Darwinian Evolutionary Theory.

Abiogenesis and macroevolution are not only unsupported by the empirical (scientific) evidence we possess, they're contradicted by it.

"Science" is not the untestable assertions of fallible men, it is a process by which we study natural phenomena. It is a process that is testable and repeatable.

In other words, if you cannot observe the subject, test it, and repeat that process, it isn't Science.

What do you know is actually true about Evolution?

Apart from the random, minor genetic mutations occurring within organisms (usually resulting in severe illness and death, but never newer, more complex genetic program, structure, and function), what can be demonstrated to be true about Darwin's explanations for the origin of Life?

No scientist has observed abiogenesis or macroevolution occur.

We know empirically that Life arises only from Life and Life's programs. No scientist has ever observed otherwise.

We know that no machine or program has ever arisen apart from a designer or programmer, but a living cell is a complex, metabolic, Von Neumann-type machine. And according to one state university's biology textbook, one human cell contains enough program to fill hundreds of such textbooks (all text, no pictures).

The fundamental logical error into which Darwinism falls is mistaking similarities in design for a chain of causation.

What Darwinism asks us to believe -- despite Reason and experience to the contrary -- is not only that the first abacus appeared spontaneously by only random, natural processes, but that somehow that abacus replicated and naturally (accidentally!) developed new structure and function and that this process occurred over and over again for billions of years until the computer with which you're reading this comment appeared. (This analogy is a bit weak: A human being is much more sophisticated than any computer.)

Asserting truths beyond Science's ability to test -- or worse, contrary to what Science, Reason, and experience shows us -- results in science fiction, not Science.

A malevolent and capricious god

Allah owns no monopoly on heresy or blasphemy (though it's pretty much cornered the market on "religious" genocide, pedophilia, rape, and slavery).

John Calvin's god -- though he and his followers use the language of the Reformation and associate themselves with Luther at every opportunity -- is blasphemous, capricious, and malevolent.

How else can one describe a god that calls itself "Christ" but is His antithesis? The Scriptures state clearly that YHWH loves all humanity, that Christ's death was for all people, that He takes delight in the death of no one, that God wants all to trust in Him and to live. But Calvin's god?

According to the false reformer, Christ died for only those who would believe (Limited Atonement). How does one determine who these true believers are? Worse yet, how does one know if he or she is one of them? Calvinists make up nonsense about knowing that they possess saving faith by their works, but even then, what about those who fall away from the faith? What about their works? And how does one know he or she is not one of them?

Calvinists say they never were a true believer. Under Calvinism, no one can know that their good works are indicative of saving faith and not just makeup on a corpse hiding future apostasy. This does not reflect the language of Scripture, which warns Christ's people against unbelief and shows us that our confidence is not to be placed in our own works, but in the person and work of Christ, Who loved us all and gave Himself to take away all people's sins.

Calvin also taught Double Predestination, another vile doctrine contrary to Scripture. The Bible speaks only of believers being predestined to eternal life; nowhere does the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob speak of creating people for hell. Such a lie makes Him a capricious monster, which may be why Jefferson confessed that he could never believe in Calvin's god.

Both blasphemies, Limited Atonement and Double Predestination, teach and preach a false Christ. A false christ means necessarily also a false gospel. The Apostle Paul declares bluntly of anyone who preaches such a message: "Let him be eternally condemned (anathema)!"

There are other problems with Calvinism besides a mutant works righteousness and false god. It also makes the Means of Grace -- Baptism and the Lord's Supper -- into nothing more than symbols, which denies the power, immediacy, and incarnation of the Son of God.

I had recently the opportunity to observe elements of a children's program offered by a local, generic community church. It turns out that in addition to what appeared to be Decision Theology, the undershepherd responsible for this congregation's instruction also believes in Limited Atonement and Double Predestination.

I wrote to him of my concerns. As of this this writing, he has not replied. While it is possible that he has been busy, the Internet ate my note, or some other event has prevented him from replying, perhaps it is just that he has no satisfactory answers for the problems inherent to his theology.

My original note:

Hello, Pastor . . . ,

. . . I'd like to share with you a concern.

I noticed that Monday's thought of the day was "Choose to believe."

My concern is that many . . . will internalize the understanding that an unbeliever can choose to believe in Christ. Is that the message you intended?

The Scriptures state that we do nothing to save ourselves; even faith is the gift of God, which the Holy Spirit creates in us through the Gospel.

Christ told His apostles, "You did not choose Me, I chose you . . . ." John 1 states that believers are born again not of a "human decision," but "born of God." Paul states that we are "dead in trespasses," that while we were God's enemies Christ died for us, and that the Holy Spirit works in us "to will and to do."

When Christ says in Revelation that, "I stand at the door and knock," He's speaking to Christians, not unbelievers.

Looking forward to your reply . . . .

And here that is:

. . . The issue of salvation that you brought up seems to be one side of a two-sided coin.

The age old question is... "is one converted because of God's work of regeneration within, or does God regenerate the individual because of his or her repentance and belief"? I am assuming by your email, that you would hold that the many- especially children- are converted because of God's work of regeneration within. In other words, you hold that predestination is the act of God regenerating one from a consequence of sin (an inability to choose God or anything good...AKA total depravity). As a result of that regeneration (a work of God), the individual can not resist that call and will be saved. I am not trying to put words in your mouth... this is more of a restatement to make sure I understand your concern.

I believe in predestination... that God chooses those whom He will save. However, it also seems evident in Scripture that there is a need for a response.

Paul's response to the Philippian jailor was "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved-- you and your household" (Acts 16:31). Peter makes a similar statement in Acts 2:38 where he says "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the the Holy Spirit."

Your question... "can an unbeliever choose to believe in Christ?" My answer... "I believe we are all unbelievers when we choose to believe in Christ... however, those of us who repent and have faith have been elected by God (an inner working of God on the hearts of those whom He chose) prior to that decision".

As I started with... this is a question that has been discussed and argued by men much smarter than I for generations. I hope this issue is not one that places us as competitors, but as partners aiming to serve the same Lord and submit our lives to the same Savior.

To which I responded:

Hi, Pastor . . . ,

We have not met . . . .

My concern was that the message "Choose to believe" (and now, "Choose Christ") gives the false impression that we have something to do with our salvation.

A new concern is the idea that "the individual cannot resist that call and will be saved." Are you implying that God does not call all people? For if His call is irresistible, but only a few are saved, then He must call only those few.

Where do the Scriptures define "predestination" as "God choosing whom He will save"?

Are you implying that Christ only wants some people to be saved? Where does He say that?

Would you say also that Christ died only for some people?

What of those who fall away from faith?

Would you say that God predestined to hell those who end up there?

Cordially . . . .

Believers are commanded to teach and preach all of and only the Word of God. Anything else comes from the evil one.

Essential points on Neo-Darwinian Evolutionary Theory

In response to an debate on Evolution here:

The proper questions to ask are: Where's your proof? How do you know?

The fundamental weakness in Darwin's theory (besides the fact that it went against all reason, experience, and the Word of Christ) is that he based it on nothing more than the observation of some minor variations within a species. If you add to that his admission that the idea of a system as complex as an eye arising by chance was ridiculous, that he had no support from the fossil record, and that he knew nothing of genetics, it is clear that his explanation of Life's origins has always been science fiction, not Science.

Not only are abiogenesis (Life arising from non-life) and macroevolution (the sudden appearance of newer, more complex genetic program, structure, and function) unsupported by actual empirical evidence, they are contradicted by what we know.

For example, no evidence exists whatsoever that life arises apart from Life and Life's programs. Neither has anyone demonstrated that a genetic soup containing all the ingredients necessary for life can produce it by solely random, natural processes. And no, simulations don't count here, because a simulation is only as representative of reality as are the assumptions of its programmer(s).

Neo-Darwinian Evolutionary Theory mistakes similarity in concept/design/function for evidence of descent. It is asking us to believe that Von Neumann-type metabolic machines containing enough program to fill hundreds and hundreds of college-level biology textbooks (all text, no pictures) arose by chance, apart from a Designer. It's asking us to believe that an Xbox evolved accidentally into an Xbox 360 with its new program, hardware, and function. It's asking us to believe that a wheel arose accidentally and evolved eventually into the space shuttle by only random, natural processes.

Every machine is the work of a designer. Every program has at its origin a programmer.

On the other hand, microevolution (the minor, random genetic mutations that occur within living things) is something that is observable and testable. It is therefore a scientifically-valid concept. It is important to remember, however, that such changes usually kill an organism (or make it really, really sick), they don't create new, more complex program, structure, and function.

The fact that microevolution occurs is not evidence of macroevolution having occurred.

In the matter of religion, the same questions apply: Where's your proof? How do you know?

The resurrection of Christ is the best attested-to fact of ancient history.

Modern, moderate, and most populace Muslim nation on Earth Indonesia persecuting Christians

Just as Mohammed commanded.

Instead of bombing Christians to aid Muslims (President Clinton) and establishing shari'a in Afghanistan and Iraq -- along with its concomitant persecution and purging of Christians and other non-Muslims -- (President Bush), why do not America's so-called leaders tell the truth about Islam, do everything possible to protect We the People, and help fellow non-Muslims escape Dar al-Islam?

Notice the "requisite permission from neighbors and civil authorities." Dhimmi regulations, perhaps?

Coming soon to a neighborhood near you. In fact, your neighborhood, courtesy of the nescient and craven politicians we continue to elect.

Islamic "tolerance" on display in Indonesia.

Quiet now.

Good dhimmi.

From here:

INDONESIA: PASTOR BATTLING ORDER TO DEMOLISH HOME

Neighbors threaten his family, demand destruction of house used for church services.

JAKARTA, July 24 (Compass Direct News) – Officials in Cipayung district, East Jakarta, have ordered Pastor Chris Ambessa of the Protestant Church of Indonesia to dismantle the newly constructed second floor of his home and to cease all religious activity in the area.

Ambessa’s lawyer, August Pasaribu, told Compass on Monday (July 21) that he planned to submit a letter to the Cipayung civil engineering department asking it to cancel the July 3 order to dismantle the second floor of the home, since the demand was in breach of local regulations. Authorities’ order to cease area religious activity for an indefinite period followed on July 13.

Pasaribu said he also hoped to file a report with the East Jakarta police department regarding an incident on May 21, in which Ambessa’s neighbors forced him to sign a document agreeing to cease religious activity.

Ambessa, however, is still weighing the likely consequences of legal action for his family and congregation.

The pastor’s home in Pondok Rangon village has functioned as a legally recognized house church for the past 12 years.

On June 6, authorities sent a letter ordering him to cease work on the second-floor extension. Construction, however, had already been completed on May 17.

When church services continued, approximately 20 young men led by a local resident approached the Cipayung district offices on June 25, demanding that Ambessa’s house be demolished.

On May 21, a similar neighborhood group had threatened Ambessa and forced him to sign a document stating that he would cease holding church services in his home. Ambessa told Compass that he had signed the document under duress, fearing attacks on his wife and daughters.

Having established his small congregation in 1996 with the requisite permission from neighbors and civic authorities, Ambessa said he was determined to protect the right of his church members to worship freely.

Christ gives His own Body and Blood for the life of the world

He offers Himself as the sacrifice that seals the New Covenant with YHWH. He makes us righteous through trusting in Him. And even that trust is God's gift to us.

We see also our ultimate end: Despite our sinful flesh, satan, and the world and all the evil they conjure, we will see God and live with Him forever.

We are victorious, because Christ has conquered all.

From Life Of The World:

John 6:47-51

"Most assuredly, I say to you, he who believes in Me has everlasting life. I am the bread of life. Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and are dead. This is the bread which comes down from heaven, that one may eat of it and not die. I am the living bread which came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread that I shall give is My flesh, which I shall give for the life of the world."

Revelation 7:9-17

"After these things I looked, and behold, a great multitude which no one could number, of all nations, tribes, peoples, and tongues, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, with palm branches in their hands, and crying out with a loud voice, saying, 'Salvation belongs to our God who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb!'

"All the angels stood around the throne and the elders and the four living creatures, and fell on their faces before the throne and worshiped God, saying: 'Amen! Blessing and glory and wisdom, thanksgiving and honor and power and might, be to our God forever and ever. Amen.'

"Then one of the elders answered, saying to me, 'Who are these arrayed in white robes, and where did they come from?'

"And I said to him, 'Sir, you know.'

"So he said to me, 'These are the ones who come out of the great tribulation, and washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb. Therefore they are before the throne of God, and serve Him day and night in His temple. And He who sits on the throne will dwell among them. They shall neither hunger anymore nor thirst anymore; the sun shall not strike them, nor any heat; for the Lamb who is in the midst of the throne will shepherd them and lead them to living fountains of waters. And God will wipe away every tear from their eyes.'"

An implausible interpretation of 300

Sent to Brandon Fibbs in response to a comment in his review of 300, here:

In reading your review of 300, I am struck by your assertion that interpretations for and against the war in Iraq are supported by the film.

In 300, you have the West defending Life and Liberty against a totalitarianism that enslaves or slaughters those who resist it.

Its relevance to today's conflict -- not only in Iraq, but Afghanistan, Iran, Somalia, Nigeria, the Philippines, Sudan, and increasingly, the countries of western Europe -- is obvious.

As you note, "the demarcation line between good and evil is vibrantly clear."

Americans continue to support politicians who rob them blind

Politicians use rhetoric about defending "average" Americans while they make themselves rich -- and protect their wealthy friends from their own poor choices -- on the backs of taxpayers.

Barack Hussein Obama and Chris Dodd put the lie to the story that they're for the "little guy." They're looking out for themselves.

On Obama and Dodd, by way of Michelle Malkin.

First, the man who would be president:

Today, The Washington Post Reported That Obama Received A Sweetheart Mortgage Deal For His Chicago Mansion:

Obama Received A Discounted Rate On His $1.32 Million Mortgage For His Georgian Mansion In Chicago. “Shortly after joining the U.S. Senate and while enjoying a surge in income, Barack Obama bought a $1.65 million restored Georgian mansion in an upscale Chicago neighborhood. To finance the purchase, he secured a $1.32 million loan from Northern Trust in Illinois. The freshman Democratic senator received a discount. He locked in an interest rate of 5.625 percent on the 30-year fixed-rate mortgage, below the average for such loans at the time in Chicago.” (Joe Stephens, “Obama Got Discount On Home Loan,” The Washington Post, 7/2/08)

* “The Loan Was Unusually Large, Known In Banker Lingo As A ‘Super Super Jumbo.’ Obama Paid No Origination Fee Or Discount Points, As Some Consumers Do To Reduce Their Interest Rates.” (Joe Stephens, “Obama Got Discount On Home Loan,” The Washington Post, 7/2/08)

Obama’s Discounted Rate Could Have Saved Him More Than $300 Per Month. “Compared with the average terms offered at the time in Chicago, Obama’s rate could have saved him more than $300 per month.” (Joe Stephens, “Obama Got Discount On Home Loan,” The Washington Post, 7/2/08)

The Obamas Secured Their Discounted Home Loan Despite The Fact That They Had “No Prior Relationship With Northern Trust When They Applied For The Loan.” “The Obamas had no prior relationship with Northern Trust when they applied for the loan. They received an oral commitment on Feb. 4, 2005, and locked in the rate of 5.625 percent, the campaign said. On that date, HSH data show, the average rate in Chicago for a 30-year fixed-rate jumbo loan with no points was about 5.94 percent.” (Joe Stephens, “Obama Got Discount On Home Loan,” The Washington Post, 7/2/08)

NOTE: Obama Also Has Received $71,000 In Campaign Contributions From Northern Trust Employees. “Since 1990, Northern Trust employees have donated more than $739,000 to federal campaigns, including $71,000 to Obama, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.” (Joe Stephens, “Obama Got Discount On Home Loan,” The Washington Post, 7/2/08)

FLASHBACK: Obama Paid $300,000 Less Than The Asking Price For His Mansion, While Tony Rezko’s Wife Paid Full Price For A Vacant Lot Next Door On The Very Same Day. “Two years ago, Obama bought a mansion on the South Side, in the Kenwood neighborhood, from a doctor. On the same day, [Antoin 'Tony'] Rezko’s wife, Rita Rezko, bought the vacant lot next door from the same seller. The doctor had listed the properties for sale together. He sold the house to Obama for $300,000 below the asking price. The doctor got his asking price on the lot from Rezko’s wife.” (Tim Novak, “Obama And His Rezko Ties,” Chicago Sun-Times, 4/23/07)

* The Seller Of Obama’s Home “Wanted To Sell Both Properties At The Same Time.” “On the same day Obama closed on his house, Rezko’s wife bought the adjacent empty lot, meeting the condition of the seller who wanted to sell both properties at the same time.” (Brian Ross and Rhonda Schwartz, “The Rezko Connection,” ABC News’ “The Blotter” Blog, abcnews.go.com, 1/10/08)

* Obama Later Purchased A Portion Of Rezko’s Land For $104,500; It Was Valued At $40,500. “Later, the Obamas bought a 10-foot-by-150-foot piece of the lot for $104,500. An appraisal put the value of the strip at $40,500, a spokesman said, but Obama considered it fair to pay one-sixth of the original price for one-sixth of the lot.” (Peter Slevin, “Obama Says He Regrets Land Deal With Fundraiser,” The Washington Post, 12/17/06)

Jim Johnson, A Former CEO Of Fannie Mae And Former Top Campaign Adviser, Also Received Sweetheart Housing Deal:

Obama’s Former Top Adviser, Jim Johnson, Resigned “After His Favorable Countrywide Loan Became Public.” “Within Obama’s presidential campaign organization, former Fannie Mae chief executive James A. Johnson resigned abruptly as head of the vice presidential search committee after his favorable Countrywide loan became public.” (Joe Stephens, “Obama Got Discount On Home Loan,” The Washington Post, 7/2/08)

Johnson Received Special Loans From Countrywide Financial CEO Angelo Mozilo. “Countrywide Financial Corp. makes mortgage loans through a vast network of offices, brokers and call centers. But a few customers have gotten their loans a special way: through Countrywide Chief Executive Angelo Mozilo. These borrowers, known internally as ‘friends of Angelo’ or FoA, include two former CEOs of Fannie Mae, the biggest buyer of Countrywide’s mortgages, say people familiar with the matter. One was James Johnson, a longtime Democratic Party power and an adviser to Sen. Barack Obama’s campaign, who this past week was named to a panel that is vetting running-mate possibilities for the presumed nominee.” (Glenn R. Simpson and James R. Hagerty, “Countrywide Friends Got Good Loans,” The Wall Street Journal, 6/7/08)

* While CEO Of Fannie Mae, Johnson And Mozilo Worked Closely And Maintained A “Close Friendship.” “From 1991 to 1998, Mr. Johnson served as CEO of the Federal National Mortgage Association, also known as Fannie Mae, which worked closely with Countrywide, one of the nation’s leading lenders and loan servicing companies. In 1996, Mr. Johnson named Mr. Mozilo as chairman of Fannie Mae’s national advisory council. A 1999 article in the American Banker said the two men had a ‘close friendship.’” (Josh Gerstein, “Top Talent Scout For Obama Tied To Subprime Lender,” The New York Sun, 6/9/08)

“Property Records Show Mr. Johnson Has Received More Than $7 Million In Loans From Countrywide Since 1998, The First Coming In The Waning Days Of His Fannie Mae Tenure.” (Glenn R. Simpson and James R. Hagerty, “Countrywide Friends Got Good Loans,” The Wall Street Journal, 6/7/08)

* At Least Two Of The Mortgages Were At Rates “Below Market Averages.” “The Journal said at least two of the mortgages, among a series of loans made available to people Countrywide officials called ‘friends of Angelo,’ were at rates below market averages, though it is difficult to predict a market rate without access to nonpublic information about a borrower’s credit history and other factors that can reduce interest charges on a loan.” (Josh Gerstein, “Top Talent Scout For Obama Tied To Subprime Lender,” The New York Sun, 6/9/08)

NOTE: Penny Pritzker, Obama’s National Finance Chair And Campaign Bundler, Owned A Failed Bank That Specialized In Subprime Lending:

Penny Pritzker Is The National Finance Chairman For Barack Obama. “And Penny Pritzker, a Chicago philanthropist, serves as Mr. Obama’s national finance chairman even as her brother, Jay Robert, holds fund-raisers across town for Mrs. Clinton.” (Jodi Kantor, “In Democratic Families, Politics Makes For Estranged Bedfellows,” The New York Times, 2/4/08)

* Pritzker Is A Bundler For Obama’s Presidential Campaign And Has Committed To Raising Over $200,000. (Obama For America Website, www.barackobama.com, Accessed 5/19 /08)

The Pritzker Family Co-Owned Superior Bank FSB. “Ms. Pritzker, who declined to be interviewed, has confronted other challenges, including the 2001 collapse of Superior Bank FSB, which the Pritzker family co-owned, resulting in a $460-million payment to federal regulators, and a rift over family assets that settled out of court in 2005. She oversees the Pritzker family’s non-hotel real estate interests and chairs its TransUnion LLC credit bureau.” (Steven R. Strahler, “Penny Pritzker,” Chicago Crain’s Business, 5/7/07)

“Superior Bank Specialized In ‘Sub-Prime Lending,’ Which Is Making Loans To Underserved Borrowers, Who Are Often Poor Minorities.” (Kathleen Day, “Regulators Probe Bank Loan To Co-Owner,” The Washington Post, 7/31/01)

On Dodd:

Two weeks ago, the Banking Committee chairman was busy introducing a $300 billion rescue package for the subprime mortgage industry and its victims when news broke that Countywide Financial - subprime’s Enron - had given Dodd special “VIP” mortgage rates on homes in Connecticut and Washington, saving him $75,000 over the life of the mortgages. Dodd’s initial reaction was wounded outrage. How could anyone think that he’d done something wrong? After it became clear he’d known he was getting VIP handling (on orders from Angelo Mozilo, the chairman-founder of Countrywide), Dodd backtracked, insisting he hadn’t realized what “VIP” meant.

With 8,000 US families facing foreclosure daily, the $200 per month Dodd’s been saving doesn’t sound so small - and Mozilo’s own toxic reputation, especially after he admitted pocketing $142 million last year just as Countrywide started sinking like the Titanic, hasn’t helped.

Dodd hasn’t been the only one caught up in the scandal. Senator Kent Conrad, chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, also got Countrywide’s VIP treatment - as did former Clinton-era heavyweights Donna Shalala, Alphonso Jackson, Richard Holbrooke, and Jim Johnson. Conrad quickly mailed off a check for the estimated value of his VIP treatment to Habitat for Humanity, and announced he was taking out new mortgages. Shalala, Jackson, and Johnson meanwhile have ducked the press - though Johnson, who was heading the search for Obama’s vice presidential candidate, had to hastily resign that role.

Dodd, however, keeps insisting - despite growing statewide criticism and a sharp drop in his poll ratings - that he has no plans to give up his VIP benefits, because he has done nothing wrong.

…The $300 billion subprime rescues package Dodd is now managing may be in trouble, with critics tarring it as the “Dodd Countrywide bill.” We voters in turn need to do a little remembering ourselves here, because this bill is the latest “rescue package” in a long ignominious history that includes corporate bailouts such as the Chrysler and Lockheed salvage operations; the savings and loan rescue; the two Mexican rescues, the Asian rescue; the airline rescue after 9/11; the ongoing bailout of agribusiness; and lest we forget, the bailout of Wall Street and Bear Stearns just two months ago.

A chief beneficiary of the Dodd bill is Bank of America, which has just bought Countrywide. If Dodd’s bill passes, taxpayers will take on much of the Bank of America’s risk of further portfolio default - a move worth billions to the bank.

Washington desperately needs to stanch the forced liquidation of millions of American homeowners. Yet once again, the benefits of its rescue efforts will accrue unequally - stacked heavily in favor of the wealthy and the powerful - because in American politics, as in Orwell’s “1984,” some are more equal than others.

Especially the VIPs.

Our political, media, and academic elites affirm, "Je pense que oui."

When will the West use its overwhelming military, technical, financial, and moral superiority to defend itself against all who would impose on us the tyranny of Allah?

Here is Thomas Sowell on Western weakness:

Are We France?
Moral paralysis.

“Moral paralysis” is a term that has been used to describe the inaction of France, England, and other European democracies in the 1930s, as they watched Hitler build up the military forces that he later used to attack them.

It is a term that may be painfully relevant to our own times.

Back in the 1930s, the governments of the democratic countries knew what Hitler was doing — and they knew that they had enough military superiority at that point to stop his military buildup in its tracks. But they did nothing to stop him.

Instead, they turned to what is still the magic mantra today — “negotiations.”

No leader of a democratic nation was ever more popular than British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain — wildly cheered in the House of Commons by opposition parties as well as his own — when he returned from negotiations in Munich in 1938, waving an agreement and declaring that it meant “peace in our time.”

We know now how short that time was. Less than a year later, World War II began in Europe and spread across the planet, killing tens of millions of people and reducing many cities to rubble in Europe and Asia.

Looking back after that war, Winston Churchill said, “There was never a war in all history easier to prevent by timely action.” The earlier it was done, the less it would have cost.

At one point, Hitler could have been stopped in his tracks “without the firing of a single shot,” Churchill said.

That point came in 1936 — three years before World War II began — when Hitler sent troops into the Rhineland, in violation of two international treaties.

At that point, France alone was so much more powerful than Germany that the German generals had secret orders to retreat immediately at the first sign of French intervention.

As Hitler himself confided, the Germans would have had to retreat “with our tail between our legs,” because they did not yet have enough military force to put up even a token resistance.

Why did the French not act and spare themselves and the world the years of horror that Hitler’s aggressions would bring? The French had the means but not the will.

“Moral paralysis” came from many things. The death of a million French soldiers in the First World War and disillusionment with the peace that followed cast a pall over a whole generation.

Pacifism became vogue among the intelligentsia and spread into educational institutions. As early as 1932, Winston Churchill said: “France, though armed to the teeth, is pacifist to the core.”

It was morally paralyzed.

History may be interesting but it is the present and the future that pose the crucial question: Is America today the France of yesterday?

We know that Iran is moving swiftly toward nuclear weapons while the United Nations is moving slowly — or not at all — toward doing anything to stop them.

It is a sign of our irresponsible Utopianism that anyone would even expect the U.N. to do anything that would make any real difference.

Not only the history of the U.N., but the history of the League of Nations before it, demonstrates again and again that going to such places is a way for weak-kneed leaders of democracies to look like they are doing something when in fact they are doing nothing.

The Iranian leaders are not going to stop unless they get stopped. And, like Hitler, they don’t think we have the guts to stop them.

Incidentally, Hitler made some of the best antiwar statements of the 1930s. He knew that this was what the Western democracies wanted to hear — and that it would keep them morally paralyzed while he continued building up his military machine to attack them.

Iranian leaders today make only the most token and transparent claims that they are building “peaceful” nuclear facilities — in one of the biggest oil-producing countries in the world, which has no need for nuclear power to generate electricity.

Nuclear weapons in the hands of Iran and its international terrorist allies will be a worst threat than Hitler ever was. But, before that happens, the big question is: Are we France? Are we morally paralyzed, perhaps fatally?

"The evidence comes all from the lips and the pens of Mohammed's own devoted adherents"

Which has been one of my essential arguments: It is neither dishonest, racist, hateful, nor "Islamophobic" to condemn Mohammed for what he said and did (who can defend open-ended, universal commands for genocide and systematic rape, slavery, and terrorism on the basis of religion?), since we have his crimes against God and Nature recorded by his own people in Qur'an, ahadith, and Sira, Islam's "sacred" texts.

Allowing Allah and his apostle to speak for themselves is the most damaging thing one can do to Islam.

The Catholic Encyclopedia does a good job of highlighting some of the issues all but Muslim males should (or will) have with the doctrine of Mahomet (and this in an article from 1910!).

Note the echoes of Manuel Palaeologus II, quoted by Pope Benedict:

Quoting Johnstone, Zwemer concludes by remarking that the judgment of these modern scholars, however harsh, rests on evidence which "comes all from the lips and the pens of his own devoted adherents . . . And the followers of the prophet can scarcely complain if, even on such evidence, the verdict of history goes against him".

[. . .]

What is really good in Mohammedan ethics is either commonplace or borrowed from some other religions, whereas what is characteristic is nearly always imperfect or wicked.

[. . .]

In matters political Islam is a system of despotism at home and aggression abroad. The Prophet commanded absolute submission to the imâm. In no case was the sword to be raised against him. The rights of non-Moslem subjects are of the vaguest and most limited kind, and a religious war is a sacred duty whenever there is a chance of success against the "Infidel". Medieval and modern Mohammedan, especially Turkish, persecutions of both Jews and Christians are perhaps the best illustration of this fanatical religious and political spirit.

Mohammed is 1.2 billion Muslims, or Establishing Shari'a, one family at a time

She says they "misinterpret their texts," but he says they're "fanatical." Which is it?

He defends Mohammed, right or wrong.

Quoting Mohammed's own words is insulting 1.2 billion Muslims. I thought all Muslims were not the same.

Which is it? Or does it depend on whether or not Mohammed's words and deeds are being examined? What does that say about Mohammed? What does that say about those making such an "argument"?

A Christian family cannot discuss openly religious topics. A free man in a free society (and his wife!) must face character assassination, verbal abuse, and threats of violence over a factual statement (which is, coincidentally, no different than an American during World War II lamenting, "It's too bad Hitler made our boys' sacrifices necessary").

So this is the lay of the land: A non-Muslim is forbidden from quoting Mohammed.

If I can't quote Mohammed, and I can't quote the Bible, what can I quote? A cookbook?! [Hat tip to Zell Miller.]

One of the sad ironies here is that this is exactly one of the restrictions placed historically upon dhimmis, the Jews and Christians subjugated, humiliated, and oppressed under Islamic law, just as Mohammed commanded.

-Mention Mohammed and be bullied into silence.

-Everyone falls in line because the two tyrants throw a fit.

-Essentially, it's, "Shut up dhimmi. Don't talk about Mohammed, or else!"

It's insane.

Why are only the Muslim and his spouse apoplectic over quoting Mohammed? Why are not they being pressured into tolerance of others' freedoms of speech? Why must everyone submit to the bullies' sensibilities?

If the prophet from hell was such an "ideal man," what is wrong with looking at what he said and did? Of what are they afraid? Is not such rage at a non-Muslim looking at those texts an admission of shame over his words and deeds?

Why attack me for quoting what Mohammed said and did? Why not attack Mohammed for what he said and did?

How can a decent person defend universal, open-ended commands to slaughter, rape, and enslave?

So much for the thin veneer of false Muslim civility. I've seen it vaporize in online discussions over the word of Allah and the example of Mohammed, but I've not seen it in person and not from someone who previously had seemed decent.

Insane anger. Irrationality. And this, an observation intended to make the observer look good, or a threat? "If someone was fanatical about their religion, they'd kill you."

I will not be silent. I will not submit, for this is what they defend:

"Each of us was raped by between three and six men. One woman refused to have sex with them, so they split her head into pieces with an axe in front of us." This happened in Darfur, from which Sudanese military personnel actually airlifted women to Khartoum to serve as sex slaves. Meanwhile, Indira Dzetskelova, the mother of one of the child hostages in Beslan, Russia, reports that "several 15-year-old girls were raped by terrorists." Her daughter "heard their terrible cries and screams when those monsters took them away."

This indicates that there are two things the massacre in Beslan has in common with the ongoing massacres in Darfur: both, no less than the 9/11 attacks, are examples of Islamic jihad terrorism, and both are characterized by rape. The jihadist element has been made clear by the ringleaders of both atrocities. Sudanese General Mohamed Beshir Suleiman recently declared: "The door of the jihad is still open and if it has been closed in the south it will be opened in Darfur."

[. . .]

As for Beslan, the Chechen jihadist leader Shamil Besayev warned the Russian government last winter: "Praise Allah, we are dreaming of dying in jihad, we are dreaming of dying on the way of Allah, so that we could earn paradise and mercy of Allah."

What does rape, then, have to do with these religious conflicts? Unfortunately, everything. The Islamic legal manual 'Umdat al-Salik, which carries the endorsement of Al-Azhar University, the most respected authority in Sunni Islam, stipulates: "When a child or a woman is taken captive, they become slaves by the fact of capture, and the woman's previous marriage is immediately annulled."

Why? So that they are free to become the concubines of their captors. The Qur'an permits Muslim men to have intercourse with their wives and their slave girls: "Forbidden to you are ... married women, except those whom you own as slaves" (Sura 4:23-24). After one successful battle, Muhammad tells his men, "Go and take any slave girl." He took one for himself also. After the notorious massacre of the Jewish Qurayzah tribe, he did it again. According to his earliest biographer, Ibn Ishaq, Muhammad "went out to the market of Medina (which is still its market today) and dug trenches in it. Then he sent for [the men of Banu Qurayza] and struck off their heads in those trenches as they were brought out to him in batches." After killing "600 or 700 in all, though some put the figure as high as 800 or 900," the Prophet [sic] of Islam took one of the widows he had just made, Rayhana bint Amr, as another concubine. Emerging victorious in another battle, according to a generally accepted Islamic tradition, Muhammad's men present him with an ethical question: "We took women captives, and we wanted to do 'azl [coitus interruptus] with them." Muhammad told them: "It is better that you should not do it, for Allah has written whom He is going to create till the Day of Resurrection.'" When Muhammad says "it is better that you should not do it," he's referring to coitus interruptus, not to raping their captives. He takes that for granted.

With Muhammad revered throughout the Islamic world as al-insan al-kamil, the perfect man, the rapes of Darfur and Beslan are nothing surprising. What is surprising, or ought to be, is the silence from the Islamic world about the rapes in both cases.

Where are the reformers who will dare to say that Muhammad's example must not be followed in this case?

Certainly not where I was last night.

Christian children decapitated, crucified, and raped in the name of Allah, just as Mohammed commanded and practiced

Mohammed killed over religion:

"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).

"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).

Mohammed commanded and practiced terrorism to advance his religion:

"Against them make ready your strength to the utmost of your power, including steeds of war, to strike terror into (the hearts of) the enemies, of Allah and your enemies, and others besides, whom ye may not know, but whom Allah doth know. Whatever ye shall spend in the cause of Allah, shall be repaid unto you, and ye shall not be treated unjustly" (Qur'an 8:60).

“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).

Mohammed gave no thought to slaughtering innocents if they stood in his way:

"The Prophet passed by me at a place called Al-Abwa or Waddan, and was asked whether it was permissible to attack the pagan warriors at night with the probability of exposing their women and children to danger. The Prophet replied, "They (i.e. women and children) are from them (i.e. pagans)." (Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 256).

No crime was too unnatural for Mohammed:

"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).

This evil spreads unchecked throughout the West.

And what of all those Christians and other non-Muslims, women, and apostates tormented around the world by Allah's minions?

In Iraq, Pakistan, and Egypt, Christians suffer unspeakable atrocities at the hands of Muslims, just as Allah and his false prophet demand.

Where is President Bush? He's established Sharia in several nations now, he brings in millions of Muslims without questioning whether or not they actually believe their god's commands to convert, subjugate and humiliate, or kill his fellow citizens, people he's sworn to defend, and he gives no thought to either the thousands of Americans sacrificing life and limb to protect Muslims who may or may not want them dead or to those Christians and other non-Muslims experiencing Islamic revival.

Could President Bush have done more to aid the global jihad and the persecution of the Church if he had tried?

Whose behavior more closely matches the word of Allah and the example of Mohammed, the apparently decent, secular, "moderate" Muslim, or the monsters below?

Muslim militants are crucifying children to terrorize their Christian parents into fleeing Iraq, a parliamentary committee studying the persecution of religious minorities heard yesterday.

Since the war began in 2003, about 12 children, many as young as 10, have been kidnapped and killed, then nailed to makeshift crosses near their homes to terrify and torment their parents.

One infant was snatched, decapitated, burned and left on his mother's doorstep, the committee was told.

Filham Isaac, speaking for the Nineveh Advocacy Committee, told the human rights committee that Iraqi Christian churches were bombed, clergy murdered and unveiled Iraqi women raped or scarred with acid.

It's part of a systemic -- and very effective -- campaign to ethnically cleanse the area of any non-Muslims, he said. Chaldean and Assyrian Christians, known as Chaldo-Assyrians, were once the largest Christian minority in Iraq. They are also the oldest, descendants of ancient Mesopotamians who adopted Christianity in the first century.

The Chaldean Catholic Church, the Syrian Catholic Church, the Syriac Orthodox Church and the Church of the East are among the Christian churches in Iraq.

Today, about 300,000, or one in three, is a refugee, he said.

"It's at a crisis point," Mr. Isaac's colleague, Zaya Oshana, said later. "Christians will be completely annihilated."

Yet, the Chaldo-Assyrians do not want to leave their country en masse.

Instead, they are asking for help to settle the Nineveh Plains, in northwest Iraq, where they can have some independence and form their own state. The land is rich there, and there may be oil, too.

There is some support in the United States and Europe for this independent area, and international news reports indicate more than 700 police officers have begun training to protect the Christians in Iraq, but another 4,000 would be needed to fully secure the region and establish checkpoints on all highways and roads leading into the villages.

The committee also heard from the Ahmadiyya, an offshoot of Islam that began in India about 100 years ago. Ahmadi Muslims differ from mainstream Muslims on their views of Jesus, and on their interpretation of jihad, which they say must be non-violent.

However, they told the committee that they are increasingly persecuted in Pakistan, where they are told they are not Muslim at all and, therefore, their beliefs are an insult to Islam.

Nadeem Siddiq, general counsel for the Ahmadiyya Muslim Jama'at Community of Canada, told the committee the Pakistani government has been capitulating to mullahs who call them a "cancer" and forbid them from carrying out their prayers, or even mentioning Allah on their wedding invitations.

"They say by 'posing' as Muslims, we hurt real Muslims. The mullahs are still not happy. They want our properties confiscated and they want us charged."

Coptic Christians from Egypt had much the same story, with young girls regularly kidnapped, raped or forced to marry Muslim men. Despite these difficulties, there is no mechanism to claim refugee status in the beleaguered countries. Sam Fanous, of the Canadian Coptic Association, told the MPs that the Canadian Embassy in Cairo needed Canadian, not area Muslim, staff to evaluate refugee claims.

The committee passed a motion to research the issue further and to call for more testimony from minorities suffering religious persecution worldwide.

What do Muslims call those who reject offensive warfare against non-Muslims to make the world Islam?

Ahmadiyya Muslim Jama'at are called, "heretics."

Moderate Indonesia stepped-up efforts recently to coerce them into orthodoxy; now a publisher in Texas is threatened by their non-heretical -- that is, traditional, orthodox -- coreligionists for calling the Ahmadiyya "Muslims."

In the comments on that post I note an essential distinction which must be made when discussing Islam: Muslim and non-Muslim alike attempt often to equate Islam with Christianity, either to demean Christianity or to deceive the ignorant and gullible into thinking that Islam is harmless.

It is essential that we understand the difference between the two. Clarity on this point can save not only one's neck (literally), but also one's soul.

"I appreciate your arguing against the Religion of Inveterate Sadism, but I would like to offer another perspective on what makes Christianity and Islam so different from each other.

If you approach the Biblical texts objectively and in the way in which they were intended to be taken by their authors (symbolism as symbolism, poetry as poetry, history as history, eyewitness account as eyewitness account), you find a Christ Who died for the sins of even His enemies and Who commands His people to imitate His example.

If you approach the Islamic core texts objectively and in the way in which its god and prophet intended, you find Muslims commanded to use any means necessary -- including offensive violence -- to subjugate all people to the tyranny of Allah.

Adherents of Christianity (and those who've grown up in a society influenced by it) differ from the faithful of Islam -- to the degree that both behave in ways consistent with their gods' commands -- because Allah is the moral inverse of Christ."

Great figures from history recognizing the depravity of Islam

If great men like Thomas Jefferson, John Adams and his son John Quincy, George S. Patton, Jr., and Winston Churchill understood Islam, why can't their lesser successors today?

Here's John Quincy Adams observing that jihad progresses not only by violence, but also by fraud -- by preaching, demographics, economics, and the subversion of non-Muslim societal institutions from within (jihad by stealth).

". . . he [Muhammad] declared undistinguishing and exterminating war, as a part of his religion, against all the rest of mankind…The precept of the Koran is, perpetual war against all who deny, that Mahomet is the prophet of God…the faithful follower of the prophet may submit to the imperious necessities of defeat: but the command to propagate the Moslem creed by the sword is always obligatory, when it can be made effective. The commands of the prophet may be performed alike, by fraud, or by force."

Following is General George S. Patton, Jr., on the retarding effects of Islam.

A few things to keep in mind: First, by "Arab" Patton clearly meant "Muslim," since many Arabs were Christian. Second, by 700 much of the West was Christian; to the degree that its people obeyed the commands of Christ, the West was already morally advanced. Finally, it's not just a lack of development, it's making "divine" the violation of Christ's commands that destroys human souls.

"One cannot but ponder the question: What if the Arabs had been Christians? To me it seems certain that the fatalistic teachings of Mohammed and the utter degradation of women is the outstanding cause for the arrested development of the Arab. He is exactly as he was around the year 700, while we have kept on developing. Here, I think, is a text for some eloquent sermon on the virtues of Christianity."

--from War As I Knew It, by General George S. Patton, Jr., 1947

Facts do not intimidate the truthful

Only liars and tyrants fear the truth.

Throughout Western lands, Muslims, their apologists, and Useful Idiot Dhimmis work to silence more than just mockery of Mohammed, they demonize and dismiss those who cite accurately his own words and actions as recorded in Islam's core texts.

This censorship is part of the non-violent -- but still tyrannical, fascist, supremacist, and fatal -- "striving" to make the world Islam. Robert Spencer refers to these more subtle efforts as the "stealth jihad," of which using the West's own legal, social, economic, and political systems to destroy it from within are all a part.

John Quincy Adams seems to have recognized this non-violent jihad, referring to it as performing Mohammed's commands "by fraud."

Osama bin Laden erred in using violence too soon against us; exploiting the civilizational self-loathing of the West's enemies within still advances Islam and kills far fewer Muslims.

Here are two questions to ask "moderate" Muslims and those Infidels foolishly defending the prophet from hell:

1. If Mohammed was such a great guy, what's the problem with looking at his words and deeds?

2. If Islam's "sacred" texts don't command offensive warfare against non-Muslims to make the world Islam, then what have you got to hide?

Tantrums and other arguments in defense of Islam

If you kick and scream loudly enough, you may just get Shari'a.

What do you do when you're told to be quiet because you'll make an emotional tyrant upset?

In other words, you can lie about me and mine, but don't dare quote Mohammed!

Nevermind that a soul under Allah is in danger of Hell, or that non-Muslim, female, and apostate apologists for Islam will not escape the evil which they defend, the onset of which they hasten.

You find lying apologists for Islam even in the jungle

In response to several threadbare lies in defense of Islam from a "review" at Amazon.com of Robert Spencer's Religion of Peace, Why Christianity Is and Islam Isn't, found here.

Faruk Ekmekci is subtle. Unfortunately for him, his half-truths and other falsehoods are effective only with the ignorant and gullible, and their numbers thin every day.

In attempting to defend Mohammed, he attacks Moses and Spencer. Rather than addressing what the prophet from hell actually said and did, he engages in ad hominem attacks and straw man arguments (that seems familiar!).

Alleging that both Islam and Christianity/Judaism have "obscure sides" -- as if the commands of YHWH and His Christ are morally equivalent to the utter depravity of Mohammed and his allah -- is absurd.

He argues:

"But you shall destroy their altars, break their sacred pillars, and cut down their wooden images (For you shall worship no other god, for the Lord, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God.)" Exodus 14 [sic]

That was a command for Ancient Israel under Moses, not a universal, open-ended command for offensive warfare against Gentiles to make the world Hebrew, as is found in Islam (and it's not Exodus 14).

"When the Lord your God brings you into the land you are entering to possess and drives out before you may nations...then you must destroy them totally. Make no treaty with them and show them no mercy." Deuteronomy 7:1-2 [sic]

A judgment against those nations for their evil and limited to that time, place, and people. Again, not a universal, open-ended command for offensive warfare against Gentiles to make the world Hebrew, as is found in Islam.

"...do not leave alive anything that breaths. Completely destroy them...as the Lord your God has commanded you..." Deuteronomy 20:16

Same as previous; It should be noted that Israel itself faced the same judgment for adopting the same evil practices. Still, this is not a universal, open-ended command for offensive warfare against Gentiles to make the world Hebrew, as is found in Islam.

"And they warred against the Midianites, as the Lord commanded Moses; and they slew all the males." Numbers 31:7 (estimated 100,000 Midianites were killed in just one war)

That was war in retaliation for Midian's attacks against Israel when it was helpless. It was also to prevent future apostasy by Israel. Still no universal, open-ended command for offensive warfare against Gentiles to make the world Hebrew, as is found in Islam.

"Now king Solomon loved many foreign women, besides the daughter of Pharaoh, women of the Moabites, Ammonites, Edomites, Zidonians, and Hittites;" / "And he had seven hundred wives, princesses, and three hundred concubines; and his wives turned away his heart." I Kings 1,3.

Recording Solomon's sin is not an endorsement of it. Clearly, his behavior was contradicted by Divine law.

The Texts also record Solomon's worshiping false gods; does that mean that the Bible wants us to worship false gods?

"If your brother, the son of your mother, or your son, or your daughter, or the wife of your bosom, or your friend who is as your own soul, entices you secretly, saying, `Let us go and serve other gods,' . . . your hand shall be first against him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people." Deuteronomy 13:6-9

For Ancient Israel under the Mosaic Law only; not a universal, open-ended command for offensive warfare against Gentiles to make the world Hebrew, as is found in Islam.

"...and your desire shall be to your husband, and he shall rule over you." Genesis 3:16

Descriptive, not prescriptive, and not the institutionalized brutalization and degradation of women and girls found in Islam's core texts.

"If a man is found lying with the wife of another man, both of them shall die, the man who lay with the woman, and the woman; so you shall purge the evil from Israel. / "If there is a betrothed virgin, and a man meets her in the city and lies with her, / then you shall bring them both out to the gate of that city, and you shall stone them to death with stones, the young woman because she did not cry for help though she was in the city, and the man because he violated his neighbor's wife; so you shall purge the evil from the midst of you." Deuteronomy 22:22-24

Again, only for Ancient Israel under the Mosaic Law, not a universal, open-ended command for offensive warfare against Gentiles to make the world Hebrew, as is found in Islam

To conclude, assuming the textual accuracy of the Bible, and even assuming the correctness of Spencer interpretations, Muhammad would still be an average Biblical prophet. It does not make sense to me, therefore, to welcome Biblical prophets and curse Muhammad.

That is an outright lie.

No prophet of YHWH claimed that their sin was His revelation. On the other hand, whatever perverse, reprehensible, or bloodthirsty impulse Mohammed had, he always received a convenient revelation justifying or requiring it.

We have to understand that the problem is common. Extremism in general is the enemy, not the jihad of a specific people. Let's face and address it sincerely and without bigotry.

By "bigotry," Mr. Ekmekci means "looking at the evidence," and the problem is "common" -- among Muslims, since it is Mohammed who commanded the faithful to "slay the pagans wherever you find them" (Qur'an 9:5).

"Extremism" following Christ would result in Christians loving their enemies, doing good to others, and truth-telling. "Extremism" following Allah gets slavery, slaughter, pedophilia, and rape. In other words, "extremism" in a religion just gets you more of what its god commands.

As a final note on Spencer besides his inconsistency, he is also a twister of facts, and convenient ignorer of counter data.

Mr. Ekmekci can provide (mostly accurate) citations of Biblical passages (even as he misrepresents their meaning), but he can't demonstrate specifically where Spencer has erred?

Just like Mohammed.

How convenient.

Fitzgerald on fun, and indispensable, learning

The good news is, more and more of us know and continue to learn about the Religion of Gratuitous Decapitation.

Reflections on knowing Islam the way Allah and the prophet from hell define it, by Hugh Fitzgerald:

Up and down the coasts of Europe one can find ruins, the remnants of ancient watchtowers and fortifications. One is seldom provided with any explanation; when something is written very occasionally in a guidebook, there is mention of "invaders." Who were these “invaders”? The history of Muslim raiders, up and down those European coasts, the pillaging and razing of villages and towns, the murders, the vandalism, the seizure and enslavement of, over time, at least a million people from Western Europe, with the raiders even getting as far as Ireland and, in one celebrated case, Iceland, is hardly known to the Western world.

Giles Milton's book White Gold focuses on one Cornishman, Thomas Pellow, who was seized and brought back to Morocco in the mid-18th century. There the vast palace complex of Moulay Ismail, which Western tourists come to admire, was built on the sites of, and making use of the stone taken from, the prior non-Muslim structures. So many of the so-called "wonders of Muslim architecture" were built in this way, including the celebrated Omayyad Mosque in Damascus, which is on the site of, and makes use of, the St. John the Baptist Church that was previously on the same site. And who do you think built the Taj Mahal? Muslim soldiers, or enslaved Hindus?

When you begin, as many Infidels have, to study Islam, and then extend your study beyond the texts, and then add the behavior of Muslims today, and then go still further and begin to study the history of Islamic conquest, and the Islamic exaggerated claims to achievement, and the Islamic treatment of all non-Muslims subjugated by Muslims and Muslim rule, all sorts of the dark past become necessarily illuminated. How many of us, a few years ago, had any idea about when the Turks arrived in Byzantium, or why Constantinople fell, or when? Who knew about the Seljuk Turks, or the Ottomans? Who was aware of where Aramaic was spoken, or that the Maronites were a non-Arab people living in present-day Lebanon long before the Arab Muslims arrived? Who knew, even -- why Tom Friedman has just in the last week or two discovered -- that there are Sunni and Shi'a Muslims, and that the difference is not a minor one, and did not originate with the Americans clumsily undoing all that splendid harmony that naturally reigned in Iraq just a few pre-Saddam years ago? This is all nonsense, of course, but it is predictable nonsense.

It is wonderful, isn't it, to begin to study the history of the Middle East, and the history of Byzantium, and the history of Europe, all because it now has an immediacy and a significance that we who were not history-haunted did not previously ascribe to it all. But now that we are menaced by those who are haunted not so much by history as their own crazed version of history, we are forced to study -- and we are forced to be quick studies.

. . . studying that history is now essential. It is necessary to learn what taqiyya is, and what constitutes an acceptable isnad-chain, and the details of Muhammad's life (as Muslims accept it). It is essential to find out that Muslims do not accept the principle of Pacta sunt servanda, but follow instead the model of the Treaty of al-Hudaibiyya. All this is all the more essential seeing how even the most reasonable westernized semi-truth-telling Muslim will continue to skitter around the central question . . . .

Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil of Mohammed or his allah

Be deaf, dumb, and blind about Islam, or else, which makes her a tyrant and you a coward.

Ominously, one of the restrictions placed upon non-Muslims enslaved as dhimmis over centuries of Islamic conquest, annihilation, and oppression was the proscription against speaking of Allah or Mohammed. Many in the West today censor themselves voluntarily, and many out of fear.

My latest reply to one defending Mohammed at the expense of everything else. Note her use of one of the tactics employed typically by Muslims and their Useful Idiot Dhimmis against criticism of Islam -- unjustified and ugly personal attacks. If you can't refute the facts, attack the person citing them!

Perhaps it's only justifying of one's own sin.

Facts do not intimidate the truthful.

Speaking of "chasing tails," you spend many words below attacking my integrity (again), my honesty, my compassion, and my judgment, and you attribute to me positions I've never held (argumentum ad hominem and "straw man" arguments -- both are logical fallacies and inherently dishonest), but you do not address what I actually wrote.

I attributed to Mohammed responsibility for today's jihad. In support of this, I cited accurately Islam's own "sacred" texts -- documents at which you admit you've never even looked. How is it "insensitive" to quote Mohammed's own words?

Instead of addressing my words, you accuse me falsely of:

"all follow the fanatical radical ways of those Muslims"

"condemn every religion for their followers actions?"

"all catholics and Christians alike are murderers?"

"all Latin, or Hispanic males are murderers?"

"are all catholic priests pedophiles?"

"you are not more sensitive when speaking and emailing about groups of people"

"It only gives us all I'm sure insight on how you feel, truly feel about them..."

" . . . belongs to this group you speak so poorly of"

"hasn't he shown you otherwise?"

"do all the guests seem to wage holy war against you"

"My Husband and his family ( Non murderers- as you have referred to them(muslims, not specifically his family, but since they are part of that group it is equally offensive)"

"Muslims who do not wage "holy war" LOL on anyone."

"I know it's hard for you, you have never walked a mile in anyone else's shoes and see only your ways and ideas as truths, perhaps someday you will have to see others in a different light"

"WHO then are you to look down and judge anyone?"

When have I written anything negative about your husband or his family? When have I written of anything being true about "all Muslims"? You're lying about me; prove it, or apologize.

If by "the past" you are referring to old articles about Islamic murder, those were news reports. Blame Muslims who kill for Allah, not me for being able to read.

A religion's adherents are not [necessarily representative of] its god/founder. You are conflating the two, not me.

For example, a pedophile priest is not representative of Christ, since He warned that anyone who causes a little child to sin would be better off if he had a large stone tied around his neck and were thrown into the depths of the sea. On the other hand, a Muslim who begins raping his six-year-old "bride" when she's nine does imitate Mohammed's example.

Speaking of Christ, did He approve of or excuse the sin of His dinner companions? Did Christ tell them that they've just chosen alternative lifestyles and Moses was insensitive with all those Commandments? No, He told them to stop sinning.

Whom did Christ condemn? Whom did He call a "brood of vipers" and "white-washed tombs"? Liars. Christ was harsh with those who lied about their sin and used religion as a cover for evil.

Christ exposed evil. He condemned lies.

One last item. Jesus says that He is the only way to heaven. Does He have "tunnel-vision"?

Your comments to [. . . ] were not only undeserved and uncharitable, but foolish and faithless. She is honest and considerate to a fault, and she's willing to endure your pettiness and insults because she loves you.

You should be ashamed of yourself.

Will you have the decency and integrity to apologize? Will you salvage your credibility, or will you persist in unfounded and scurrilous ad hominem attacks against those who love you and want the best for you and yours?

The days have gone down in the West

While some Muslims "striving in the cause of Allah" have discovered that warfare against the U.S. just gets them new and better infrastructure, billions of American tax dollars, Sharia enshrined in their new nations' constitutions, and a lot of dead mujahideen, others have found subverting American institutions from within to be more effective, safer, and a whole lot of fun.

As our politicians, academics, and media ignore (or accelerate) the collapse of the West, we ordinary citizens are doing our part. Just today, I witnessed a sure sign that the end is near. An elementary school held a Talent Show with Michael Jackson's Thriller as its theme. One of the performances was a dance routine set to "Beat It."

A pedophile singing about gang warfare is now mainstream.

We are doomed.

The Verse of the Sword, straight from the pit of hell

It would be nice if the appeasers and useful idiot dhimmis who spend much of their time and energy trying to convince us that Islam is a "religion of peace" would actually do a little reading for themselves.

Below is an authoritative interpretation of the Verse of the Sword.

Ali Eteraz, are you listening? President Bush? Hugh Hewitt? Anyone? Is this thing on?

This is the Ayah of the Sword

Mujahid, `Amr bin Shu`ayb, Muhammad bin Ishaq, Qatadah, As-Suddi and `Abdur-Rahman bin Zayd bin Aslam said that the four months mentioned in this Ayah are the four-month grace period mentioned in the earlier Ayah,

[فَسِيحُواْ فِى الاٌّرْضِ أَرْبَعَةَ أَشْهُرٍ]

(So travel freely for four months throughout the land.) Allah said next,

[فَإِذَا انسَلَخَ الأَشْهُرُ الْحُرُمُ]

(So when the Sacred Months have passed...), meaning, `Upon the end of the four months during which We prohibited you from fighting the idolators, and which is the grace period We gave them, then fight and kill the idolators wherever you may find them.' Allah's statement next,

[فَاقْتُلُواْ الْمُشْرِكِينَ حَيْثُ وَجَدتُّمُوهُمْ]

(then fight the Mushrikin wherever you find them), means, on the earth in general, except for the Sacred Area, for Allah said,

[وَلاَ تُقَـتِلُوهُمْ عِندَ الْمَسْجِدِ الْحَرَامِ حَتَّى يُقَـتِلُوكُمْ فِيهِ فَإِن قَـتَلُوكُمْ فَاقْتُلُوهُمْ]

(And fight not with them at Al-Masjid Al-Haram, unless they fight you there. But if they attack you, then fight them. )[2:191] Allah said here,

[وَخُذُوهُمْ]

(and capture them), executing some and keeping some as prisoners,

[وَاحْصُرُوهُمْ وَاقْعُدُواْ لَهُمْ كُلَّ مَرْصَدٍ]

(and besiege them, and lie in wait for them in each and every ambush), do not wait until you find them. Rather, seek and besiege them in their areas and forts, gather intelligence about them in the various roads and fairways so that what is made wide looks ever smaller to them. This way, they will have no choice, but to die or embrace Islam,

[فَإِن تَابُواْ وَأَقَامُواْ الصَّلَوةَ وَءاتَوُاْ الزَّكَوةَ فَخَلُّواْ سَبِيلَهُمْ إِنَّ اللَّهَ غَفُورٌ رَّحِيمٌ]

(But if they repent and perform the Salah, and give the Zakah, then leave their way free. Verily, Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.) Abu Bakr As-Siddiq used this and other honorable Ayat as proof for fighting those who refrained from paying the Zakah. These Ayat allowed fighting people unless, and until, they embrace Islam and implement its rulings and obligations. Allah mentioned the most important aspects of Islam here, including what is less important. Surely, the highest elements of Islam after the Two Testimonials, are the prayer, which is the right of Allah, the Exalted and Ever High, then the Zakah, which benefits the poor and needy. These are the most honorable acts that creatures perform, and this is why Allah often mentions the prayer and Zakah together. In the Two Sahihs, it is recorded that Ibn `Umar said that the Messenger of Allah said,

«أُمِرْتُ أَنْ أُقَاتِلَ النَّاسَ حَتَّى يَشْهَدُوا أَنْ لَا إِلَهَ إِلَّا اللهُ وَأَنَّ مُحَمَّدًا رَسُولُ اللهِ وَيُقِيمُوا الصَّلَاةَ وَيُؤْتُوا الزَّكَاة»

(I have been commanded to fight the people until they testify that there is no deity worthy of worship except Allah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, establish the prayer and pay the Zakah.) This honorable Ayah (9:5) was called the Ayah of the Sword, about which Ad-Dahhak bin Muzahim said, "It abrogated every agreement of peace between the Prophet and any idolator, every treaty, and every term.'' Al-`Awfi said that Ibn `Abbas commented: "No idolator had any more treaty or promise of safety ever since Surah Bara'ah was revealed. The four months, in addition to, all peace treaties conducted before Bara'ah was revealed and announced had ended by the tenth of the month of Rabi` Al-Akhir.''

[وَإِنْ أَحَدٌ مِّنَ الْمُشْرِكِينَ اسْتَجَارَكَ فَأَجِرْهُ حَتَّى يَسْمَعَ كَلاَمَ اللَّهِ ثُمَّ أَبْلِغْهُ مَأْمَنَهُ ذَلِكَ بِأَنَّهُمْ قَوْمٌ لاَّ يَعْلَمُونَ ]

(6. And if anyone of the Mushrikin seeks your protection then grant him protection so that he may hear the Word of Allah (the Qur'an) and then escort him to where he can be secure, that is because they are men who know not.)

Nope, no compulsion in religion there.

Democrats clueless on, or in collusion with, jihad

So, let me get this straight:

Obama gives a speech that sounds pro-Israel; the next day his people "clarify," making his comments nothing more than political subterfuge;

He's discussed previously his belief that Hamas and Hezbollah have "legitimate" claims;

Yee, the Muslim ex-Army imam charged with espionage but released without trial for reasons of national security is one of Obama's superdelegates;

Barack Hussein Obama wants to talk with terrorists, rather than eliminate them; and,

Obama's got America-hating, racist friends and spiritual mentors who are friends of Jew-haters, not the least of which among these is Louis Farrakhan.

How can the Democrats be so wrong so often in the same direction?

Do Liberals hate America this much?

Patrick Henry on Slavery

Since Henry makes a clear distinction between "Christianity" and Christ, the Bible, and historical Christian practice, it is clear the term refers to the practice of the churches of his day, not to the religion of Christ.

From here:

"It is not a little surprising that Christianity, whose chief excellence consists in softening the human heart, in cherishing & improving its finer Feelings, should encourage a Practice so totally repugnant to the first Impression of right & wrong. What adds to the wonder is that this Abominable Practice has been introduced in the most enlightened Ages, Times that seem to have pretensions to boast of high Improvements in the Arts, Sciences, & refined Morality, have brought into general use, & guarded by many Laws, a Species of Violence & Tyranny, which our more rude & barbarous, but more honest Ancestors detested. Is it not amazing, that at a time, when the Rights of Humanity are defined & understood with precision, in a Country above all others fond of Liberty, that in such an Age, & such a Country we find Men, professing a Religion the most humane, mild, meek, gentle & generous, adopting a Principle as repugnant to humanity as it is inconsistent with the Bible and destructive to Liberty. . . .

I cannot but wish well to a people whose System imitates the Example of him whose Life was perfect. And believe me, I shall honour the Quakers for their noble Effort to abolish Slavery. It is equally calculated to promote moral & political Good.

Would any one believe that I am Master of Slaves of my own purchase! I am drawn along by the general inconvenience of living without them. . . .

I believe a time will come when the oppo. will be offered to abolish this lamentable Evil. Every thing we can do is to improve it, if it happens in our day, if not, let us transmit to our descendants together with our Slaves, a pity for their unhappy Lot, & an abhorrence for Slavery. If we cannot reduce this wished for Reformation to practice, let us treat the unhappy victims with lenity, & it is the furthest advance we can make toward Justice."

Marking the anniversary of a horrific event

Five hundred fifty-five years ago, Constantinople fell, an atrocity the responsibility for which lies dead at the feet of the prophet from hell.

And those who seek to imitate Mohammed, that "beautiful pattern of conduct," labor today so that New Constantinople and many more Infidel kingdoms fall to the armies of Allah.

Here's your "Religion of Peace." I guess these Muslims were "misinformed," too:

". . . the great church of Hagia Sophia was filled to capacity. Thousands of people were moving towards the church. Inside, Orthodox and Catholic priests were holding liturgy, the last Christian service after almost 1,000 years. People were singing hymns . . . .

"Bands of Ottoman soldiers began now looting. Doors were broken, private homes were looted, their tenants were massacred. Shops in the city markets were looted. Monasteries and Convents were broken in. Their tenants were killed, nuns were raped; many, to avoid dishonor, killed themselves. Killing, raping, looting, burning, enslaving, went on and on . . . .

"The great doors of Hagia Sophia were forced open, and crowds of angry soldiers came in and fell upon the unfortunate worshippers. Pillaging and killing in the holy place went on for hours. Similar was the fate of worshippers in most churches in the city . . . .

"Thousands of civilians were enslaved, soldiers fought over young boys and young women . . . the invaders broke the heads of those women who resisted on the floor of the churches and they raped them dead. The famous icon of Apostole Loukas was totally destroyed.

"The sultan asked for the young sons of Duke Loukas Notaras. Their father refused and Mehmed was ready to take their heads. Notaras asked him to kill him after his sons so that he was sure that they were dead and not disgraced from the . . . sultan.

"And this is what happened."

Government is the problem, not the solution

Actually, politicians are the problem. Still, Reagan was right.

An accident of geology has led to the greatest transfer of wealth in human history over the last forty years, and this from non-Muslims to Allah. The demand for oil has financed the resurgence of traditional, Qur'anic Islam and its concomitant global jihad against us.

In other words, we are financing our own slaughter.

Our politicians' decades-old refusal to discover and develop our own traditional and alternative sources of energy (especially nuclear) has kept us dependent on Muslim oil. And certainly -- as demonstrated by Saudi Arabia's recent blow to President Bush's face when he asked for more oil to flow (why are we aiding their nuclear program, exactly?) -- the global jihad uses more than just suicide belts, rockets, and civilian airliners to "fight in the cause of Allah."

There is another way in which American politicians harm their employers, keeping us busy just treading water (after all, citizens who have to spend all their energy working just to survive don't have time to hold politicians accountable for their decisions, and people struggling to get by must be a bit more susceptible to the influence of election-year promises from someone "fighting for them"), and our Republican in the White House has been as guilty as any big-government liberal of it.

With one hand, the President and Congress reduced taxes, but with the other, they continue to print money as needed to buy votes.

What is the effect of increasing the supply of something? Its value lessens. As everything becomes more expensive, the American people become poorer. I have not received recently a thirty-percent raise to cover inflation, and I know no one who has.

In other words, 0ur politicians are impoverishing slowly and subtly all but the wealthiest.

If the American people allow this to continue, a young person saving today for their retirement will find when they get there -- just as everyone who's ever told a story about ten-cent hamburgers when they were a kid has found -- that the dollar they saved will be worth only pennies.

On our own politicians increasing the cost of oil, from here:

"a recent analysis of oil prices over the past 50 years adjusted for the increase in the money supply as measured by a gauge known as M3 lays the blame for surging petro prices squarely at the feet of Uncle Sam particularly the Federal Reserve. 'By rapidly increasing the money supply and thereby decreasing the value of the dollar the government is solely responsible for the increase in the oil price ' writes Paul van Eeden president of Toronto-based Cranberry Capital a private investment company"

Winston Churchill was a misinformed Islamophobe

He was also a Naziphobe.

In both cases, he was right.

Churchill recognized his people's submission to tyranny in creeping self-censorship. Whether yesteryear's Nazis or today's Muslims, the effect is the same.

Do not be intimidated into silence. Expose evil. Tell the truth.

Those who love darkness rather than light do so because their deeds are evil. If what they do is of God, why do they lie?

From Jihad Watch:

"In a very few years, perhaps in a very few months, we shall be confronted with demands with which we shall no doubt be invited to comply. Those demands may affect the surrender of territory or the surrender of liberty. I foresee and foretell that the policy of submission will carry with it restrictions upon the freedom of speech and debate in Parliament, on public platforms, and discussions in the press, for it will be said--indeed, I hear it said sometimes now - that we cannot allow the Nazi system of dictatorship to be criticized by ordinary, common English politicians. Then, with a press under control, in part direct but more potently indirect, with every organ of public opinion doped and chloroformed into acquiescence, we shall be conducted along further stages of our journey."

Here is Churchill on the heresy and bloodlust of Mahomet:

"How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live.

"A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property -- either as a child, a wife, or a concubine -- must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men.

"Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities. Thousands become the brave and loyal soldiers of the Queen; all know how to die; but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science -- the science against which it had vainly struggled -- the civilisation of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilisation of ancient Rome."

Relatives in defense of jihad

Recently a family member shared photos of the honoring of Marines who've made the ultimate sacrifice in defense of Western Civilization and our God-given, unalienable rights.

To that e-mail I replied, "It's too bad Mohammed made their sacrifice necessary."

This is what was sent in response to that observation by another family member:

. . . it is indeed even worse that . . . people continue to be misinformed.

The author appears to argue that worse than Americans dying in defense against jihad are the imagined misinterpretations of Islamic texts by jihadists and the plain reading of those texts by non-Muslims.

This ad hominem attack was sent to several family members, but not to me.

Impugning someone's integrity behind their back does not a healthy dialogue make.

Also, her position is inherently dishonest. If someone claims to know enough about Islam's "holy" book (there are actually several texts considered authoritative in traditional Islam besides Qur'an) to absolve Mohammed of responsibility for 1400 years of global jihad against non-Muslims, then they must know the commands of Allah and the example of his apostle requiring that slaughter.

On the other hand, if they don't know the texts well enough to admit from where Allah's monsters derive the justification for their murders (and worse), if they are so completely ignorant of Qur'an, ahadith, and Sira so that they defend Mohammed and his book as "holy," then how can they call anyone else "misinformed"?

I am confident that the author is incorrect in her assertions regarding Islam's authoritative documents, since I've actually read them.

Rather than assume that one or more sessions in the People of the Desert School of Islamic Propaganda makes her an expert on Islam, she ought to open a book.

Regrettably, this is the same line of "argumentation" used by jihad's agents in the West. Considering that even the Commander-in-Chief repeats the same canard, the wide dissemination throughout non-Muslim lands of the facts regarding the word of Allah and the example of Mohammed is needed now.

What are these facts? Did Mohammed command offensive warfare against non-Muslims or not? If so, why defend him?

Allah and the prophet from hell demand (and boasted, among other things):

"fight and slay the unbelievers 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 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 refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya [poll tax]. . . If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah's help and fight them . . . " (Muslim Book 019, Number 4294).

"Fight those who believe not in Allah . . . nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book [Jews and Christians], 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).

“Allah’s Apostle said, ‘I have been made victorious with terror’” (Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 220).

In defending Mohammed, this is what she defends.

Why not instead attack the monster?

Honor our fallen heroes by telling the truth about the enemy we face

Our best and bravest sacrifice life and limb to defend us.

At the same time, they are being sacrificed to the President's woeful misunderstanding of Islam, a misunderstanding echoed by nescient cheerleaders/dhimmis/appeasers like Hugh Hewitt.

The religion of Mohammed is no "religion of peace." There may be moderate Muslims, but Islam itself is not moderate.

How can any Infidel sacrifice enough to win hearts and minds which already belong to this:

"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 [the poll tax demanded of subjugated and humiliated non-Muslims]. 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).

“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).

"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).