Reading sacred texts and other inconveniences

More from you-know-where:

Elena,

“your analysis of Muslims is ill informed”

Where have I “analyzed Muslims”?

I have cited specific texts. Can you point out from those texts where I've erred?

"Have you read the Quran?" is as silly a question as "Have you read the Bible?"

By “read” I do not mean making up whatever meaning makes you happy; I mean understanding the texts as they were intended to be understood.

Words have meaning. Authors intend their work to be understood in a particular way. If you want to claim that it is impossible for reasonably-intelligent, intellectually-honest people to determine an author's intent, then every word you've ever written is utterly worthless.

“The same is true of a selective literal reading of the Quran. D.P's colleague got it right: there are many types of Christian and there are many types of Muslim”

By this it is clear that you do not understand how both major sects of Islam (Sunni and Shia, up to somewhere around 95% of Muslims or more, depending on whom you ask) officially interpret the word of Allah and the example of Mohammed. Of course individual practice and devotion varies, but I'm not talking about “all Muslims.” I've been addressing the texts and how Islam officially understands them.

Do you have actual knowledge of Islamic texts, doctrine, theology, and law? If you do, then this should be easy to answer: Which major school of Islamic jurisprudence rejects offensive warfare against non-Muslims?

(The answer is: None. Ask the Ahmadiyya Muslim Jama'at – who reject offensive warfare – what happens when you break ranks. Even “moderate” Indonesia calls them “heretics.”)

“Do you (either of you or anyone else for that matter) believe that the inspirational work of the Holy Spirit has stopped? Surely she (Sorry but she it will always be for me) did not stop her work of inspiration once the canon of scripture was set. The Bible is only one revelation and not the final word or we would all be living very different lives today.”

The Holy Spirit works continually through Word and Sacrament: “He saved us, not because of works done by us in righteousness, but according to his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit” (Titus 3:5).

Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is not a good way to prove that the Spirit works in you.

“We learn all the time about the nature and will of God.”

Not if you're denying His clear revelation.

“Of course C.S. Lewis isn't Christ but that does not mean he has not had inspiration from the Spirit. Theology exists outside the Bible and so does the Spirit.”

Theology that contradicts Christ is inspired, but not by God.

If someone's “revelation” contradicts the Word – which comes to us by inspiration of the Holy Spirit, then that “revelation” is false, for why would God contradict Himself?

“As I understand it the process of the construction of the Canon of Scripture would not stand up to much close scrutiny today and seems to have been dangerously arbitrary.”

That's a serious misunderstanding, since the Canon was set (for the most part; squabbling later over the Apocryphal texts was primarily political) by the brightest minds of the early Church, and they were guided by the Holy Spirit.

“I don;t think we help ourselves by a slavish reliance on scripture to the exclusion of the promptings of the Spirit. The Bible is 2000+ yrs old but the Spirit is with us today.”

What does God say?

To imply that one can have Scripture without the Holy Spirit is false, for, “no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit” (2 Peter 1:21), “the Holy Spirit fell on all who heard the word” (Acts 10:44), and “take . . . the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God” (Ephesians 6:17).

A slavish reliance on Scripture is the only prudent position, for Christ said, “everyone who hears these words of mine and does not do them will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand. And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell, and great was the fall of it” (Matthew 7:26-27).

And as for the efficacy of the Biblical texts, no matter their age:

“The grass withers, the flower fades, but the word of our God will stand forever” (Isaiah 40:8).

“so shall my word be that goes out from my mouth; it shall not return to me empty, but it shall accomplish that which I purpose, and shall succeed in the thing for which I sent it” (Isaiah 55:11).

“Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away” (Luke 21:33).

“Sanctify them in the truth; your word is truth” (John 17:17).

“the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and of spirit, of joints and of marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart” (Hebrews 4:12).

Sincerity saves, civil discourse, and xenophobic Islamophobes

More from here:

Doorman-Priest,

I. Civil discourse

I assure you that I never intended to harm or offend you with my earlier comments.

I did intend to prick your pride (Luther calls it “sharp mercy,” I think), because you entered the discussion at Steve’s with “There is only one God . . . Allah, YHWH, God the Father, Waheguru . . . I doubt she gives a stuff.” Couple that with claiming that all “moral” people worship the same god and that sincerity saves, and I recognized someone putting a stumbling block before others.

You might notice my first reply to you there began with, “On the chance that your comment is offered in good faith . . . ,” because what you wrote was not something that would be welcomed by anyone who believes Christ’s Word is true. What you posted subsequently did not indicate a desire for dialogue either. All of that is more appropriate to a place like belief.net.

Would you admit my “Doorman-Priest (Saddam Hussein? Walt Disney? Diana Ross? What does it matter? There is only one Man, and she doesn’t care what we call it, does he?)” was funny?

II. All gods are the same god

You’ll have to forgive me if I thought you meant all gods were the same god, since you wrote: “There is only one God . . . that God is Allah, YHWH . . . Waheguru and so on.”

There are several problems with saying that all religions worship the same God, however imperfectly:

1) YHWH doesn’t say that. Can you show us where He does?

2) YHWH speaks of many false gods, describing them as “demons.” Is it rude of God to call others’ sincere, if flawed, efforts at knowing Him, “demons”?

3) Saying that, “all who do the best they can, God will accept,” is contrary to Scripture, and leads to people’s destruction, for salvation is in Christ alone.

4) If people can be saved by the sincerity of their effort, then Christ died for nothing.

Unbelievers need to hear (just as we believers do) that their sin is great and leads to Hell (Law), but God has forgiven their sins in Christ (Gospel).

(By the way, have you noticed your supporters arguing for NOT trusting the Word of Christ? Do you support that?)

III. Freedom of speech

As to free speech, its only limitation should be where truth ends (and even then, you have to be careful). Freedom of Speech is one of the first unalienable, God-given rights to be curtailed and then extinguished by tyrants (along with the Right to Bear Arms). If you don’t have the freedom to say something that offends someone, then you don’t have freedom of speech at all.

I agree that we should not “incite hatred.” That phrase, though, raises a red flag, for I hear it used most often by Muslims and their Useful Idiots to silence criticism of those aspects of Islam that promote the enslavement or slaughter of all non-Muslims, the abuse and degrading of women, the violation of children, and the denial of freedom of speech and conscience to all.

So, is it “hatred” to point out error that leads to Hell? Is it “hatred” to warn others that an ideology which has warred against non-Muslims for 1400 years is coming to town (or, in the case of Europe, is now mayor)? Is it “hatred” to expose the fact that Islam’s god and founder require or endorse genocide, murder, rape, slavery, pedophilia, theft, and deceit against non-Muslims, apostates, women, and little girls?

Wouldn’t it be “hatred” toward God and Man to remain silent in the face of all this?

IV. Christ is Allah?

You’ll have to forgive me for thinking that you said Christ is Allah. It might have something to do with your writing, “God is Allah, YHWH . . . .”

V. Interpreting Scripture

Being a Lutheran, you understand the Analogy of Scripture. We use Scripture to interpret Scripture as its authors (and Author) intended. In this, we use our God-given Reason and our knowledge of language, culture, history, etc.

It would be misinterpreting the Word of God to take literally a excerpt intended as symbolic. It would be wrong to understand poetry as history (though there may be historical content within it). It would be heresy to take a portion of the Old Covenant and apply it to those under the New.

(And since you are a teacher and minister, you must be familiar with my understanding of Revelation, for what’s in a name?)

I would make one more point about the Old Testament: Jesus said that all of it testifies of Him.

VI. Xenophobic Islamophobes

You write that I “generalise and give the impression that all Muslims are fundamentalists who act as one.” I disagree strongly.

I have quoted Allah. I have noted Mohammed’s words and deeds according to Islam’s own authoritative documents, those very texts on which Islam is founded.

The fact that citing Qur’an and Sunnah sounds to you like demonizing all Muslims says more about those texts and your reaction to them than it does about my words.

I would ask again, where have I erred? These documents are easily available to the Infidel with an ISP. And I wouldn’t rely on Muslim friends. Just like Christians, there is much variability among Muslims in terms of their knowledge, zeal, and veracity.

Because it is unfair to paint with a broad brush, I do not attack all Muslims; I do expose their prophet from Hell and his Allah.

I’m curious. You repeat many of the propaganda points jihadists and their apologists use to deceive non-Muslims (not intentionally, I believe; President Bush did this all the time). Have you never investigated these texts for yourself?

As to your friend, I will not accuse her of taqiyya (did you look that up yet?). It is notable that she uses several of the same “arguments” that jihad’s apologists do. I’d like to share with you what she didn’t say . . .

“Jihad” is Arabic for “struggle.” It is true that one use of jihad refers to the struggle against sin, unbelief, etc. What those Muslims Who Know (I’m not saying your friend is one of these) never tell non-Muslims is that this particular teaching is based on one hadith of questionable authority and that “jihad” is used usually to describe warfare against non-Muslims using any means necessary, including “qital” (combat) to establish the rule of Allah.

Are you aware that no major school of Islamic jurisprudence rejects warfare against non-Muslims?

As for “Christian fundamentalists,” what do they have to do with jihad? A Christian who thinks dancing is a sin is a far cry from a Muslim who carries out his Allah-given duty to separate your head from your body. Neither is a “Christian fundamentalist” who interprets literally even the symbolic parts of the Apocalypse going around blowing people up for Christ.

I notice also that you’re using (I don’t think intentionally) a common ad hominem attack used by Muslims to try to demonize those exposing their god and prophet: I must not know any Muslims.

This is a variant of the: “I’m not a racist because I have a [insert non-Caucasian ethnicity here] friend.” Who I know makes no difference to the truth of what I write, since I am not talking about people I don’t know, I’m talking about texts and history and current events that are available for study to all with the courage to examine them honestly.

And no, it isn’t pretty.

Again, I ask, where have I erred? Please show me from Qur’an, any of the ahadith collections considered most reliable by mainstream Islam, or Sirat Rasul Allah (I have a copy here in my bookcase; do you?).

A "good enough" gospel just isn't good enough

All gods are not the same god.

Christ is not Allah, for how can the One Who taught and practiced, "Love your enemies," be the same demon which commanded, "kill the unbelievers wherever you find them"?

God does not accept us on the basis of an imagined piety or reverence, but on the basis of the blood of Christ.

How can a faithful Christian contradict the Word and mislead those in need of salvation into thinking they're going to make it into Heaven because they're "reverent" and "pious"?

From here:

Doorman-Priest,

"You accuse me of multiculturalism. Thank you."

No, I speculated that the motivation for your “all gods are the same god” was “multiculturalist intellectual cowardice.”

If I am wrong, I apologize.

If I am right, will you admit it?

“According to my (albeit ENGLISH) English language dictionary”

In America, "multiculturalism" is often used to refer to the elevation of foreign cultures (in whole or in part) over traditional American culture whether or not they merit it.

Truth is sacrificed out of fear of offending others, and that fear is used by special interests for political advantage.

“the word you were so fruitlessly groping for in that context was PLURALISM as I suspect you felt I was arguing that in some way all religious roads lead equally to God.”

No, you were saying all gods are the same god. That is irrational on its face and contrary to Scripture.

When you say “Christ is Allah,” that is blasphemy.

“I am perfectly clear on the issue of repentance/confession and atonement following the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus who is Christ and Messiah and God’s guarantee of salvation. I am very sorry if you have misunderstood my position.”

I can only judge by what you write.

When you say everyone worships the same god (“Christ is Allah”) what interpretation can one reasonably make but that you believe all gods are the same god?

“I think where your confusion has arisen is over the universality of that salvation – not as a key doctrine itself but as a current reality or as an unrealised potential.”

Salvation is not universal, atonement is. Christ has paid for the sins of the whole world, but many reject this gift through unbelief.

“I have been able to accept Christ’s saving substitutionary sacrifice.”

Then why do you contradict Him?

“My Sikh, Muslim, Jewish, Buddhist, Agnostic and I suspect some Atheist friends (I know no Hindus) have certainly not understood and probably not properly heard. The odds are also stacked against those of a non-Christian background for a variety of reasons: not the least language, culture, family attitudes and religious upbringing. As someone who is an out and proud Christian and who works closely with people from a number of faith backgrounds I know how unlikely it is that they will truly hear or understand the gospel, although I do not seek to set limits on the working of the Spirit.”

First, I commend you for helping others.

Second, I would point out something that deserves your attention: You say that you have non-Christian friends and work closely with people “from a number of faith backgrounds” who are highly “unlikely” to hear the Gospel.

You are an “out and proud Christian,” teacher, and minister. How then can you have any friends who will never hear the Gospel proclaimed?

It is your duty to speak the truth (Law and Gospel) so that they might come to faith, even if some (or all) of those friends are offended, even if your co-workers start calling you names, even if your devoted fans at your site suddenly find you “intolerant.”

Jesus said that if we love anyone more than Him, we are not worthy of Him.

“I am wondering Amillennialist, if your concept of God’s justice requires him to judge people by the same standards.”

My concept?

Here we approach the essential conflict: Instead of speaking the Word of God as He has revealed it to us, you offer instead your own opinions.

What does God say about that? In Deuteronomy 29:29 Moses writes, "The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but the things that are revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may do all the words of this law.” Where's the room for speculation?

In Revelation 22:18 the Apostle John warns: “if anyone adds to them [the words of this book], 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.”

That should cause every man to be cautious in how he treats Divine Revelation, especially teachers, who will be judged more harshly (James 3:1).

“My understanding of scripture suggests that God does apply his standard consistently, but that he accepts a variety of pleas.”

Where does He say that?

Jesus said, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me” (John 14:6).

“1 Cor 15.22, 2 Cor 5.19, Col 1.20, 1Tim 2.6, 1Tim 4.10, Heb 2.9,1 Jn 2.2, Rom 11.32, Rom 3.23/24, Rom 5.18, Jn 1.9, Jn 1.29, Jn 12.32 and Jn 12.47 . . . the weight of which suggests that there is a universal salvation.”

No. In their entirety the declare the mercy that God has had on all people. Christ paid for the sins of the whole world.

(Great passages, by the way.)

That many through unbelief reject this gift is a fact stated by Christ Himself. In Matthew 23:37 He laments, “How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you would not!” In Chapter 22:14 He states, “many are called, but few are chosen."

“scripture is not clear cut here and . . . It won’t change the fact that scripture seems to suggest something which some Conservative Evangelicals are not comfortable with.”

Scripture is clear cut: Christ has reconciled the whole world to His Father, but through unbelief many reject that gift. In those cases, the only payment left for sin is the one a person must make himself, and that isn't pretty.

“Now, remember that I am not arguing that all spiritual roads lead to salvation. Some will clearly NOT be saved. However, as I have said before it is not for me to put limits on God’s grace.”

None of us should. But it is for you to say what He says, no more, no less.

“There ARE those who earnestly search for God who will never hear or fully understand the gospel through no fault of their own.”

What does Christ say? “Whoever believes in him [Christ] is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God” (John 3:18). In Romans 10: “faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ. But I ask, have they not heard? Indeed they have, for 'Their voice has gone out to all the earth, and their words to the ends of the world.'"

“Regardless of the mad and evil things some others may do in the name of the same religion – and they are probably not saved – we must not forget the many good, honest, decent, pious folk who seek to live with compassion and integrity and at peace with their neighbours. There are, after all, universal moral laws.”

Which we all violate.

We all do “mad and evil things.” No one is “good, honest, decent, or pious” in the sight of God, for He declares:

“None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God. All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one." "Their throat is an open grave; they use their tongues to deceive." "The venom of asps is under their lips." "Their mouth is full of curses and bitterness." "Their feet are swift to shed blood; in their paths are ruin and misery, and the way of peace they have not known.", "There is no fear of God before their eyes" (Romans 3:10-18).

You're promoting a “good enough” gospel, but that's not good enough. You remember what the Apostle Paul said about those who preach a false message of salvation (Galatians 1:8), right?

“if I were a Muslim, I would not find my way to the gospel via your particular witness. Your comments on Islam offended me and I am not a Muslim: they showed a crass prejudice and a simplistic desire to demonise others while failing to see the faults in front of our faces.”

Speaking of “simplistic prejudice”!

Your words here are an example of suicidal ignorance in service to multiculturalism, for what did I write that was untrue?

Have you studied Qur'an? Ahadith? Sira?

What did I say here about your Muslim friends? Or all Muslims?

According to Islam's own “sacred” texts, Allah and his apostle require the enslavement or slaughter of all who refuse to convert:

"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).

That Muslims slaughter non-Muslims to shouts of “allahu akbar” is a common occurrence. Are you really unaware of Indonesian Muslims beheading Christian schoolgirls on their way to school? These are not random psychotic or sociopathic episodes; these acts are committed in obedience to Allah and in accord with Mohammed's example.

As for his raping little Aisha, that fact is amply attested to by numerous ahadith. Here's one:

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

The reason Mohammed's example is such a problem for non-Muslims, apostates, women, and little girls is because Allah says of him: "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).

What does that imply for the faithful Muslim?

Instead of being offended at my telling the truth, why are you not offended at Islam's “divinely”-sanctioned barbarism and depravity?

“My Muslim friends say “Not in my name” to the lunatic fringe”

There may be moderate Muslims, but Islam itself is not moderate. If you'd like to know if your friends are truly not “lunatic,” share with them the passages I've posted here. A decent person can only be horrified at such filth.

Based on my experience, odds are their heads will explode, or you'll get a good dose of taqiyya (look it up).

“just as I do to the historic Crusaders”

Every atrocity committed by Crusaders should be condemned. At the same time, it should be remembered that the original call was made in response to desperate pleas for help from eastern Christians enduring centuries of jihad.

“quisling clergy in Nazi occupied Europe”

And every act of un-Christian cowardice should be condemned.

You might also want to recall that many Christians – including Lutherans – risked and gave their lives to save their fellow human beings.

And it wasn't “Hitler's pope,” it was, “Hitler's mufti.”

“the IRA and on to the Topeka Baptists, all who have done untold evil in the name of Christ. There is no monopoly on evil.”

That is true.

Taken individually, the crimes commanded by Allah and committed by Mohammed – and therefore mandatory for faithful Muslims – are not unusual. What makes Mohammed's “religion” especially vile is that he took all of the worst of Man's impulses, made them “divine,” indulged them, and required others to do the same.

“In my personal experience unless someone has made it clear to me by word or deed, that he is my enemy, he remains my friend.”

That is commendable.

“If someone earnestly seeks God in the only way they know how, and have no chance of hearing with understanding the saving works of Christ, Does God condemn them?”

What does God say?

The soul that sins is the one who will die (Ezekiel 18).
No one seeks God (Romans 3).
Christ is the only way to the Father (John 14).
We are saved through faith alone (Ephesians 2).
Faith comes by hearing the Word of Christ (Romans 10).
Whoever does not believe in Christ is condemned already (John 3).

“If you believe he does, I must ask you: Is that the God of Christianity or the God of Right Wing Republican Evangelicalism, given that the two may not be the same?”

What did Jesus say? “Whoever believes in [Christ] is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God” (John 3:18).

You've implied that I'm a “Conservative Evangelical” and a “Republican.” Neither are true in the sense that you intend.

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but here I sense again the antagonism toward Christianity that led me in my first reply to you at Steve's to say, “On the chance that your comment is offered in good faith . . . .”

“Unless someone has shown in word or deed that he is God’s enemy is not God right to ascribe righteousness to him as a friend as he did to Abraham?”

But we are by nature God's enemies (Romans 5:10).

And as for Abraham, what does God say? “Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness" (Romans 4:3).

“Of course Christ is the benchmark and standard of our salvation”

That sounds like something we do, in which case it is again a false gospel.

Christ is neither a “benchmark” nor “standard,” He is Our Salvation.

“but the Biblical passages above reveal to me that while God indeed judges us on our discipleship of Christ it is possible to be an unknowing or anonymous disciple.”

God judges us either on the basis of Christ's payment for sin, in which case we are declared “just,” or He judges us on the basis of our own sin, in which case we are doomed.

Your option is contrary to Scripture.

“I leave the last word to the theologian and writer C.S. Lewis and his Narnia stories:”

I like and admire C.S. Lewis.

He is not Christ.

“Lewis is suggesting that God’s grace is, indeed, extended beyond the limits we might expect. But that is down to God’s grace and not our judgement. God may well choose to act towards others in ways which surprise us and it is not for us to question God’s grace. We do not know the mind of God.”

Yes. That is another reason you should say only what God has said, and not contradict His clear word.

Making things up to suit your sensibilities is not faith.

“those who we reject because they don’t fit into our self imposed pigeonholes of who God accepts.”

Whom have I rejected? Pointing out error is not limiting God; He calls us to that. Both Law and Gospel must be preached.

What was Christ's message? “Repent, for the Kingdom of God is at hand.”

“we approach God by the name we have been taught and if that isn't the "correct" or given name, God doesn't care providing we approach in reverence and penitence.”

But God says, “Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart from the faith by devoting themselves to deceitful spirits and teachings of demons” (1 Timothy 4:1), and:

“what pagans sacrifice they offer to demons and not to God. I do not want you to be participants with demons. You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons. You cannot partake of the table of the Lord and the table of demons. Shall we provoke the Lord to jealousy? Are we stronger than he” (1 Corinthians 10:20-22)?

A last encouragement to say only and all of what God has said:

Thus says the LORD of hosts: "Do not listen to the words of the prophets who prophesy to you, filling you with vain hopes. They speak visions of their own minds, not from the mouth of the LORD. They say continually to those who despise the word of the LORD, 'It shall be well with you'; and to everyone who stubbornly follows his own heart, they say, 'No disaster shall come upon you.'" For who among them has stood in the council of the LORD to see and to hear his word, or who has paid attention to his word and listened? Behold, the storm of the LORD! Wrath has gone forth, a whirling tempest; it will burst upon the head of the wicked” (Jeremiah 23:16-19).

Peace be with you.

More Muslim moral inversion

In response to comments here:

"you don't leave a predator with the prey surrounding it and expect that nothing would happen."

The predator is Islam, the prey Israel.

"There is no such thing as antisemitism infusing Islam. That you still insist on this baseless argument after my previous reply implies that either you didn't went through my replies or else are blind to rational thought."

Or, I can read, think for myself, and tell the truth.

What about:

"And well ye knew those amongst you who transgressed in the matter of the Sabbath: We said to them: "Be ye apes, despised and rejected" (Qur'an 2:65).

"Shall I point out to you something much worse than this, (as judged) by the treatment it received from Allah? Those who incurred the curse of Allah and His wrath, those of whom some He transformed into apes and swine, those who worshipped evil; these are (many times) worse in rank, and far more astray from the even path" (Qur'an 5:60)!

"Allah's Apostle said, 'The Hour will not be established until you fight with the Jews, and the stone behind which a Jew will be hiding will say, "O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, so kill him"'" (Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 177).

That's funny. I quote Allah and Mohammed's murderous tirades against Jews (and other non-Muslims), but you say I don't read or reason.

"If you are so insistent on badmouthing Islam and Muslims"

I insist on telling the truth to save lives in this world and souls for the world to come. If telling the truth is "badmouthing Islam and Muslims," then what does that say about what you defend?

"history reveals that the Jews from the time of Prophet Muhammad lived peacefully with Muslims until the time they went back on the treaties they had with Muslims of the time."

No, turning the pages of Qur'an, ahadith, and Sira show that Mohammed coexisted with Jews until they rejected his false revelation and he had the martial force to make them pay.

Have you not read your own texts?

"It is also a fact that the Jewish scriptures don't even accept Christianity or Islam as being valid religions when both Islam and Christianity validate Moses as a Prophet. Which is the religion here which is deliberately creating differences?"

Does that line of "reasoning" actually work on anyone?

The Jewish Scriptures are the Christian Scriptures. Jesus is a Jew. The Apostles were all Jews. The first Christians were Jews. Traditional Christian worship still maintains elements of its ancient Hebrew/Jewish roots.

The religion causing problems is the one that commands its adherents to enslave or slaughter all who refuse to convert:

"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).

Please, tell the truth.

"You talk about the Turks and their predecessors. Tell me; is the land Israel occupies only significant to Jews?"

Non sequitur. The fact that the Turks possessed the area for centuries before the West crushed the caliphate was mentioned only to point out that the victor had the right to do with the land as it wished. Israel did not invade and occupy, Islam was humiliated and the land dealt with as the victors [chose].

"The sites are equivalently important to Christians and Muslims"

False. The land only became significant to Muslims after modern Israel was formed. Before that, it was a arid wasteland.

But to a Muslim, once part of Dar al-Islam, always part of Dar al-Islam, right?

"but Israel wants to systematically deny Muslims any right to the holy sites."

More falsehood. Considering there is a mosque where the Temple used to stand, who is denying whom?

"Who really is propagating the hatred here? It is pretty obvious who wants a perpetual cycle of hate here."

Yes, that would be Mohammed and his allah:

"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).

"It is not for any prophet to have captives until he hath made slaughter in the land. Ye desire the lure of this world and Allah desireth (for you) the Hereafter, and Allah is Mighty, Wise" (Qur'an 8:67).

[Asad continues:]

"My analogy is not flawed. Your arguments are based on false presumptions."

I quote Allah, Mohammed, and historical fact, all of which make Islam and Muslims look hellish, so you don't like it.

It's a whole lot easier to tell the truth. The pain is temporary, the benefits eternal.

"Who exactly is supposed to pay penance for crimes against another entity? Is it the perpetrator of the crime or some totally unrelated entity. The genocide of Jews was committed by Europe and Hitler, not Muslims or Arabs in particular."

Again with the Hitler/European Guilt. As I mentioned before, Islam has been committing genocide against Jews, Africans, Europeans, and Asians for more than a millennium.

"Is it that Israel cannot face off against Europe and wants to subjugate Muslims of Middle East in an attempt to get same misdirected sense of revenge?"

That doesn't even make sense. Considering Europe's cowardice and Muslim bloodlust, it looks like Israel will be facing off against two continents soon.

I implore you to be honest. Rather than serve a god which offers you Paradise for killing for it, turn to the Son of God Who loved you and gave His life for your sins.

What does it mean when one names himself proudly after a genocidal butcher and homosexual, pedophilic rapist?

It means you've got a Muslim, since Allah calls the monster Mohammed a "beautiful pattern of conduct for those who want to please" him (Qur'an 33:21).

Yes, that warning screaming in your head is telling you the truth. Listen to it. Don't suppress it. And don't blame me. Yes, a Muslim who wants to please Allah should slaughter, rape (including little girls as young as nine), enslave, lie, steal, and teach others to do the same and call it "divine."

Not too long ago I found a review of a game dealing with a conflict in the Middle East (also known as the jihad against Israel) here. I left a comment wondering if the game touches on the Source and Sustenance of Islamic bloodlust against our only ally in the region.

A comment from one calling himself Mehmed II appeared asking:

İs it here the right place to make comments about political sitıations?

or

write reviews about games, which will be played by all the people from all religions?

Here is my reply:

Mehmed,

You name yourself after the perverted butcher and boy-rapist who sacked Constantinople in 1453. That's the kind of class I expect from a Muslim.

Nice touch. You really get a kick out of insulting non-Muslims when they don't know it, don't you?

As to your question, until people of one religion stop slaughtering members of other religions at their god and prophet's command, games like this will be made.

On Mehmed II and the fall of Constantinople:

"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."

What's in a name? When looking for clarity about God, everything

My first comment here in response to the person below was offered with the thought that perhaps he was well-intentioned but confused. From his response, it seemed necessary to demonstrate to him his error a little more emphatically.

His basic argument consists of three parts: 1) Since every religion calls its deity "god," then all gods must be the same being; 2) Since so many contradictory religious opinions exist, it must be that no one really knows who God is; and 3) Since so many contradictory religious opinions exist, every religious opinion is as good as every other (except of course, the one that says they aren't).

The essential answer comes in my last comment:

“Only one of those is his given name but he answers to them all.”

You’re confusing multiple names for one person to mean that one name for many persons makes them all the same person.

My first reply:

Doorman-Priest,

On the chance that your comment is offered in good faith . . .

If your wife were to indulge her marital urge with Bob or Kevin or Derek, would that be a problem? Would her defense of, “They’re all men” satisfy you?

You are confusing the use of the common noun “god” for all deities being the same one.

Christ is not Vishnu is not Allah is not Abaangui.

And later . . .

Doorman-Priest (Saddam Hussein? Walt Disney? Diana Ross? What does it matter? There is only one Man, and she doesn’t care what we call it, does he?),

That’s quite a few errors for so brief a post. I’ll address each one:

“There is only one God”

According to you, but as you admit, you don’t really know, so why should we listen, right?

YHWH says there are many gods. And none of them shall you have before Him.

Only one god is true, and He has revealed Himself to us. His name is I AM That I AM.

His Son, Jesus, claimed that name for Himself also.

“therefore whatever name we call him/her”

As I just noted, He told us His name. At least have the decency to respect what Someone wants to call Himself.

“whatever we perceive that God to be”

Here, as later, you imply that everyone’s opinions of god(s) are equally true. Even if our knowledge of God came only from Nature and Conscience, that would be false.

Since YHWH has revealed Himself to Humanity as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, you’ve gone past natural, human ignorance and self-deception and into outright blasphemy.

You call YHWH a liar.

So, you claim that Christ ordains genocidal prophets marry their best friend’s daughters when they’re six-years-old and begin raping them when they’re nine.

You’re a liar.

“and however inadequate that revelation”

YHWH’s revelation is sufficient. The only inadequacy is your willingness or ability to tell the truth about it.

“(or perhaps more to the point in this context however inadequate we believe that revelation to others to be), it can only be the same God.”

Equating a god commanding the slaughter of all who refuse to submit to its rule with the Christ Who taught, “Love your neighbor as yourself,” is not “inadequate revelation,” it is [a] lie straight from the pit of Hell.

“Why do we think God cares what we call him”

Something along the lines of, “You shall not take the name of [the LORD your God] YHWH in vain,” perhaps?

“when people are trying to have communion with him”

So, monsters ripping Christian schoolgirls’ heads from their bodies to shouts of “allahu akbar!” is “communion” with the one, true god?

You’re sick.

“and are approaching in reverence and faith?”

So, was Mohammed approaching the one, true god in “reverence and faith” when he began raping little nine-year-old Aisha? He said he was: “If this is from Allah, then it must happen.”

“We may not believe “others” have got it quite right”

What does Christ say?

“it’s a good job God isn’t bound by our prejudices and shortsightedness”

Isn’t denying the clear word of Christ, isn’t denying the truth, “prejudiced and shortsighted”?

“and can apply his grace wherever he chooses. I am not going to put limits on the grace of God.”

Your lies limit the grace of God by denying it to billions.

True humility would say what Christ says. It would definitely *not* blaspheme YHWH by equating Him with deities from Hell.

True humility, true religion, would say what Christ says, not multiculturalist, intellectual cowardice.

“You have made God in your own image when his enemies are exactly the same as yours.”

The faithful Christian makes Christ’s enemies — the devil, all his works, and all his ways — his own. The devil was a liar and a murderer from the beginning. And sons of hell bar Heaven to those who want to enter it.

Presidential transparency from the Hypocrite-in-Chief

So, let me get this straight: President Hussein won't release his birth certificate, but he will release secret memos from the previous administration?

When Obama talked about transparency and ethics, he meant that he'd be transparent with other people's affairs because he lacks any ethics. Shame on voters for thinking otherwise.

Deceitful wretch.

The Justice Department has released a long-secret legal document from 2001 in which the Bush administration claimed the military could search and seize terror suspects in the United States without warrants.

The legal memo was written about a month after the Sept. 11 terror attacks. It says constitutional protections against unlawful search and seizure would not apply to terror suspects in the U.S., as long as the president or another high official authorized the action.

Even after the Bush administration rescinded that legal analysis, the Justice Department refused to release its contents, prompting a standoff with congressional Democrats.

The memo was one of nine released Monday by the Obama administration.

Christ our Righteousness

Offered in response to a friend:

"I have read all of the Gospels . . . and understand what is required of one who is seeking salvation of the Christian variety."

Respectfully, this indicates a lack of understanding of the faith. The Bible's clear teaching is that by observing the Law, no one will be saved, but because of God's great mercy, Christ died for us. There is nothing required of us, for God's Son has done everything.

"what I read in both the Bible and the New Testament and do not find a seamless thread connecting the two."

The one unifying theme of the Old Testament writings is the Messiah-to-Come; the New Testament writings all testify to the Messiah-Who-has-Come-and-Will-Come-Again.

Jesus said, "You search the Scriptures [the Old Testament] because in them you think you have life, but they testify of Me."

A post-Resurrection account describes Jesus showing to two Christians that the Law and Prophets ([the] Old Testament) all spoke of Him.

"I did not get from the last prophet in the Bible the same impression that is expounded upon by Paul about Jesus as the Messiah as well as other topics."

By "last prophet," do you mean an Old Testament prophet? In that case, John the Baptist was the last prophet, and he said of Jesus, "Behold, the Lamb of God Who takes away the sin of the world!"

If you meant the last book written, Revelation, then that was the Apostle John, author also of one gospel and three epistles.

Every author has his own style, audience, and purpose for writing.

Revelation, as apocalyptic (and therefore highly-symbolic) literature gives an overview of the New Testament period. Basically, the Church will suffer terrible persecution, but those who remain faithful to the end will receive eternal life.

(I'd be happy to discuss Revelation further with you. Do not expect it to be like any other book except Daniel and Ezekiel.)

"for the Jews there is a criteria that is to be fulfilled by the Messiah and ALL OF IT was to be fulfilled."

Yes, except for those parts that have to do with the End of the World.

"Christianity and Judaism are religions each in their own right and not connected in any way.

That is not true.

Again, Jesus is the Messiah promised since Adam, His Scriptures [are] all Hebrew/Jewish, His Apostles were all Jews, the first Christians were Jewish, [and] traditional Christian worship comes from its Hebrew/Jewish roots.

The faithful Jew -- as Paul points out powerfully; see his comments on the true Israel, the true children of Abraham who are circumcised in the heart and not necessarily in the flesh -- is the one who believes in the Messiah, Jesus of Nazareth. It is the unfaithful, rebellious, and apostate (or ignorant) Jew who rejects the Messiah.

Jesus made that clear when He said, "Before Abraham was born, I AM."

"Christians would be Jews--and not the other way around since the Messiah is intended to bring the all of God's people to the Jews either in righteousness or conversion, while the Jews fulfill their covenant with God as the intended priests of the world."

And the Jews did not keep their part of that covenant. Recall the conditions of that agreement: Israel had to keep all of YHWH's commandments. They did not. They broke the Covenant, which is why the Messiah came to institute a New Covenant, a New Testament in His blood for the forgiveness of sins!

As I noted above, Christ came to reconcile the whole world to His Father, both Jew and Gentile. Paul actually describes Gentile Christians being grafted into the plant (of God's people): If God does not spare natural branches for their unbelief in the Messiah, then neither will He spare those grafted-in branches.

Again, Paul talks about all who trust in Christ -- whether Jew or Gentile -- as being the true Israel. Peter also makes the same point calling Christians -- Jew and Gentile -- ["]a chosen people, a holy nation, a royal priesthood, a people belonging to God [. . . ."]

I hope you will look into these things more deeply. Jesus said, "salvation is of the Jews," and "I AM the way, the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father except by Me."

Seven hundred years before the Messiah appeared, the prophet Isaiah wrote, "He was wounded for our transgressions; He was bruised for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon Him, and by His wounds we are healed."

At least Hitler didn't claim the devil made him do it

An excerpt from a response to a liar, from here:

That you feel the need to misrepresent Robert's comments, engage in tu quoque, and falsely equate the commands of Christ with Mohammed's depravity shows that you know your position is indefensible.

When a Christian commits evil, it is in violation of Christ's command. When a Muslim commits acts of utter depravity, it is often in accord with Allah's command and Mohammed's example.

Taken individually, the atrocities demanded by Allah, practiced by Mohammed, and endorsed by all of traditional Islam are not unusual. What makes Islam especially vile is that Mohammed wrapped up all of Man's most [abominable], barbaric, and sadistic impulses and made them "divine."

At least Hitler didn't claim the devil made him do it.

Next presidential election, vote for the American

. . . or someone who has America's best interests at heart.

A few days ago, I wrote that the fate of our nation could be either Socialism or shari'a. Looking at what President Hussein and his minions in the Congress have been doing, it looks like Obama is not making just the suicidally-stupid policy decisions and appointments that all Liberals make. He seems to be going out of his way to bankrupt and disarm the country (and whom does that benefit?).

Trillions of dollars of debt, socialized medicine, cabinet members who believe it is politicians' responsibility to raise your children, tyrants who think arrogantly and foolishly that it is their right to decide when and if free men can exercise their Right to Bear Arms, billions to terrorists and their supporters (what's the difference?), reducing our nuclear armament and military, releasing his co-religionists from terrorist prisons, closing those prisons, and putting into important positions in his administration Islam-abetting Jew-haters.

I wrote once of President Bush that his advancing Islam in so many ways almost seems intentional, but Barry Soetoro has it in for Uncle Sam.

If we can have an illegal immigrant possessing British (Kenyan) and Indonesian citizenship as Commander-in-Chief, then why can't we have a Geert Wilders/John Bolton/Allan West presidency?

Why Islam? I can offer billions of reasons why not

For example, every man, woman, and child enslaved, raped, and butchered over the last 1400 years in obedience to Allah's command and in accord with Mohammed's example.

I'm wondering if the Islamic Circle of North America is going to tell anyone about their connections to the Muslim Brotherhood and other terrorist groups or their mandate to kill for Allah.

Probably not.

Stealth bus jihad advances to San Francisco:

WhyIslam Bus Ad campaign, YOU DESERVE TO KNOW!, is started on February 9, 2009, with ads on more than 140 San Francisco MUNI buses

Q: What do we mean by 'You Deserve to Know'? Is this an engaging, unique, project name? Is it a publicizing technique? What does 'You Deserve to Know' refer to? What do I deserve to know?

A: 'You Deserve to Know' refers to the right of every person to know what Islam is really about. It also refers to the idea that everyone should be aware that in an age when popular stereotypes about Muslims are undermining a faith and an entire civilization, explaining and clarifying the religion is a moral obligation on Muslims.

Every non-Muslim, woman, and little girl deserves to know this (but I doubt they'll tell them until it's too late):

"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).

"It is not for any prophet to have captives until he hath made slaughter in the land. Ye desire the lure of this world and Allah desireth (for you) the Hereafter, and Allah is Mighty, Wise" (Qur'an 8:67).

“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).

Ode to the little green ostrich behind the curtain

What should a free people do about those whose ideology demands that they enslave or slaughter you and yours? Who believe that in imitation of their "Ideal Man," raping your nine-year-old daughter -- and your wife just after they've beheaded you -- pleases their deity? Who consider Beethoven, Shakespeare, and the Sistine Chapel examples of jahiliya? Who would replace the Declaration of Independence and the United States Constitution with totalitarian and discriminatory laws regulating every aspect of life? Who consider submission to edicts of hell preferable to the freedoms of speech and conscience and the equality of rights for all people?

Deportation of those who refuse to renounce in word and deed such seditious, treasonous, and murderous positions is not "mass murder," it is self-defense. It is common sense. And it is certainly much less violent than free people having to exercise their Second Amendment right in defense of hearth and home.

Would the little green ostrich behind the curtain have defended two million Nazis moving freely within America's borders during World War II? Based on the acuity of his thought on today's jihad and how to defend ourselves against it, the answer is obvious.

Islam is an ideology, not a race.

So, here is a tribute to the self-appointed arbiter of all things "American" (apologies to Emma Lazarus):

Unlike the brazen giant of Greek fame,

With conquering limbs astride from land to land;

Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates did stand

A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame

was the imprisoned lightning, her name now

Mother of Infidels. From her amputated hand once

Glowed world-wide welcome; her mild eyes

above and below by black cloth framed.

"Keep ancient lands, your sympathy!" cries she

With silent lips. "Keep your tired, your poor,

I've got huddled masses drowning in shari'a;

The wretched refuse of my teeming shore

Did nothing while the mujahideen, Tempter-tost to me,

Lifted my head beside the golden door!"

Muslims deny the Holocaust except when they want to have another one

In the ongoing effort to deceive people of good will into remaining inert while the world burns and the New Holocaust begins, devout Muslims use a number of semantic games when discussing jihad and Jews. Though Muslims in the West seem less reticent to hide their true feelings ("Kill the Jews," calls for bigger ovens, and actual violence defile cities in the West now, even in America), many still hide their true sentiments. One of the terms I've seen used in this blood game -- one recently popular with Islam's Useful Idiots among the Radical Left -- is "anti-Zionism."

I suppose their thinking is that too many people will object to obvious calls for killing or otherwise harming Jews, but if you cloak anti-Semitic bloodlust in the language of politics, that's nothing to get upset about, right?

I discovered here Islamic anti-Semitism wrapped up in this deceptive language. Following are excerpts of the author's original post, his follow-ups, and my responses. As you read through you'll note Mr. Asif's healthy doses of logical fallacies, half-truths, outright falsehoods, and misrepresentations of Islam.

In my original comments, I gave the author the benefit of the doubt -- perhaps he was a victim of years of Islamic propaganda. Based on his further comments, it appears rather that he is a practitioner of it.

Subtle Muslim misdirection and rabid Islamic anti-Semitism cloaked in anti-Zionist's clothing, from Asad Asif, freshly dissected:

Israel has been an arrogant little child crying wolf over the last few years. There was the attack on Lebanon some time back and now there has been an attack on Palestine. Both attacks were marked by an overt and disproportionate use of force and an over the top response vis-a-vis the killing of children and women by Israel, apart from the number of deaths involved on both sides.

Who is responsible for the deaths of Muslim innocents? What the author fails to note is that in both cases, Israel was responding to months and years of terrorist attacks against its own women, children, and men, its innocent civilians suffering rocket attacks, suicide bombings, shooting sprees, and bulldozers crushing mothers in their cars with their babies in the back seat.

Neither does the author address the fact that Islam's monsters fire at Israelis from among their own women and children so that when Israelis respond, Arab women and children get hurt. As if that isn't enough, the "Palestinians" stage faux-atrocities for Western consumption, all of it cynical propaganda. (How sick are these worms that in order to kill Jews, they sacrifice their own women and children? If a Muslim wants to argue that it is not Jew-hatred, but love of Allah, that motivates them, then that only proves that their god and apostle come straight from the pit of Hell.)

As for Israel's "overt, disproportionate, and over the top" response, apparently the author would prefer that Israel launch a secret non-response. If it were Muslims who possessed the military advantage over Israel, is there any doubt about what would be Israel's fate?

To an obedient Muslim, the only thing worse than a Jew is a Jew who fights back.

I am not stating here that Israel is the only party to be blamed but the minimal response potential of both targets of Israel is not a winning argument in Israel's favor. The settlements in Palestinian lands annexed by Israel were a deliberate provocation and puts the residents of those settlements at risk. It's as if one knows that an area is prone to severe earthquakes and still makes sky scrapers on that land and then selling it off as being a safe place. This kind of provocation is designed to get a response and Israel is no stranger to crying wolf. Only a fool would be lured by this again and again.

Here is more evidence of the author's lack of both basic moral decency and historical literacy. Israel isn't to be blamed. They are not targeting innocents; their enemies are. Land that Israel has taken over the years came into their possession because their Muslim enemies waged war against them repeatedly and were humiliated each time. This land Israel has been returning to its enemies in the suicidal hope that land will buy peace.

Words like "crying wolf" and "fool" are only attempts to shame into silence those who would state basic truth.

Hamas' rockets definitely didn't kill as many Israelis compared to how many Palestinians were killed by Israel. Some would rightly call it a genocide; ironic considering that Jews themselves faced a genocide at the hands of Hitler. Is it a psychotic dysfunction that has Israel blaming the Palestinians and Arabs, by extension, for the Jewish genocide and consequently committing a counter genocide? Lest Israelis are forgetting, they were persecuted by Europeans. And Hitler certainly wasn't a Muslim!

No, but he wished he were, and all of Germany, too. (Considering impending Eurabia, perhaps his dream will be realized.)

If Israel kills more Muslims in self-defense than Muslims kill Israelis in service to Allah, then that only demonstrates the stupidity of those seeking paradise by killing or being killed for their false god.

As for "genocide," this is a typical case of Muslims attributing to their victims that of which they are guilty. Genocide is what Allah, Mohammed, and Hamas demand: All those who refuse conversion or slavery are to be slaughtered without mercy.

There's also a glaring bit of Islamic Illogic here: The Jews possess overwhelming military might so that anything they do in self-defense is "disproportionate," and they are committing genocide against the "Palestinians," but only a relatively small number of terrorists and their human-shields have died. You can't have it both ways.

With regard to Hitler, he lamented the fact that Germany had been a Christian nation. Hitler believed that under Islam, his dreams of domination would have been fulfilled. As noted by Winston Churchill, Geert Wilders, and any honest person familiar with Mein Kampf and the Islamic authoritative texts, comparisons between Hitler and Mohammed's texts and ideologies are appropriate.

To be fair, Hitler never claimed "the devil made me do it," as did Mohammed. Neither was he as "successful" as the prophet from Hell.

It's no wonder that Israel is hated so much by the Muslim world. Take note of the use of the word "Israel" and not "Jews". Muslims don't really have that much of a beef with Jews. After all, according to Islamic scriptures, Jews, Christians and Muslims are folloowers of the the three religions of the Books. There are Jews in Iran; plenty of them but they aren't hated, unlike the Jews in Israel. The same is true for the most part, for Jewish communities in America and elsewhere. The oppression created by Israel is a major cause for the hate against it.

Again, Muslims hate Israel because -- according to Mohammed -- Allah commands them to do so. Additionally, since Mohammed is the "ideal man," a "beautiful pattern of conduct for those who want to please" their god -- and he butchered Jews with glee, slaughtering hundreds of prisoners of war in a day, then raping those whose husbands, fathers, and brothers he'd just beheaded -- Muslims also must hate Jews. Also an offense to Islam is the fact that since Israel is a non-Muslim state on land that had been conquered by Allah's minions, its very existence is an insult. Finally, as noted above, Muslims hate those who defend themselves against Allah's tyranny.

Unfortunately, America's unending support for Israeli oppression results in America being tarred with the same brush as Israelis.

So, Muslims hate America because of Israel?

This is a common Muslim (and now, Leftist) deceit. When American ships and sailors were attacked, captured, enslaved, and slaughtered by the Barbary Pirates, was that because of our support for an Israel which would not exist for another 150 years?

That is unfortunate and unfair but the reasoning for it is understandable. Supporting a wrong incriminates you with being a a part of the wrong itself.

So, Israel's existence is a wrong? Sounds just like Hamas.

the "Change" Obama promised will certainly not be applicable in this instance unless the American public opts for looking after their own interests rather than those of Israel's which is earning them global dislike. That's a thing that has been long overdue.

"unless the American public opts for looking after their own interests"? And that sounds like a threat.

On a positive note, changes and realizations seem to be coming forth from within the Jewish communities themselves about Israel. This is very encouraging.

During the recent protests over Israeli self-defense, some Jews were siding publicly with those slaughtering Israelis, so perhaps this is a reference to liberal Jews' tendency to self-loathe (as Leftists tend to do). I wonder what the author thinks of the recent electoral success of Israel's more sensible elements.

Here is the reply I posted originally at the author's site:

How familiar are you with the history of modern Israel?

In the decades since it was formed after World War II, Israel has endured attacks by its Muslim neighbors. The "Palestinians" are Arab Muslims who were told that as soon as Israel was wiped out, they would take over. The only problem was, Israel defeated its enemies repeatedly.

Why haven't the Muslim nations surrounding Israel taken in their co-religionists?

The truth is that Islamic anti-Semitism is as old as Islam, since Allah and his apostle command it:

"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).

"And well ye knew those amongst you who transgressed in the matter of the Sabbath: We said to them: "Be ye apes, despised and rejected" (Qur'an 2:65).

"Allah's Apostle said, 'The Hour will not be established until you fight with the Jews, and the stone behind which a Jew will be hiding will say, "O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, so kill him"'" (Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 177).

". . . We were (sitting) in the mosque when the Messenger of Allah . . . came to us and said: (Let us) go to the Jews. We went out with him until we came to them. The Messenger of Allah . . . stood up and called out to them (saying): O ye assembly of Jews, accept Islam (and) you will be safe.

[. . .]

"he killed their men, and distributed their women, children and properties among the Muslims, except that some of them had joined the Messenger of Allah . . . who granted them security. They embraced Islam. The Messenger of Allah . . . turned out all the Jews of Medlina. Banu Qainuqa' (the tribe of 'Abdullah b. Salim) and the Jews of Banu Haritha and every other Jew who was in Medina.

[. . .]

"It has been narrated by 'Umar b. al-Khattib that he heard the Messenger of Allah . . . say: I will expel the Jews and Christians from the Arabian Peninsula and will not leave any but Muslim" (Muslim Book 19, Number 4363-4366)."

Here are excerpts of the author's three-part reply with my commentary:

How familiar are you with the history of Israel? The very creation of Israel in the Middle East was a fool's errand. I find it astounding that the Allied forces of WWII thought that giving the Jews of that time, a wedge of land smack dab in the middle of Middle East was wise. One is led to wonder why they didn't place Israel somewhere in Europe. The most obvious answer seems to be Europe's guilt over the holocaust which is evidenced even today in numerous laws against any discussion on the academic debate regarding the holocaust. As the situation existed post-WWII, the Palestinian Arabs were the native residents of that area but were displaced by the influx of Jews worldwide heading to their illegally created "homeland".

If the creation of modern Israel in its ancient location was a "fool's errand" or "unwise," why is that? It is because of the hatred of its Muslim neighbors. More than the natural resentment that any people would have at a new nation moving in, what is the reason for that hatred? It is due to the anti-Semitism that infuses Islam (an attitude so pervasive that even Arab Christians living among Muslims often adopt it).

Are the repeated mentions of the Holocaust an attempt at exploit European (or Western, or White) guilt? Or is the author just dying to deny that it ever occurred?

That's one of the aspects of Islamic anti-Semitism that would be funny if it weren't so sick: Muslims deny the Holocaust except when they want to have another one.

As to your contention that Israel has faced attacks, I would contend that the very residents whose homes were stolen from them [through the creation of Israel] have faced a far higher number of attacks and casualties at the hands of Israeli forces. A thing perceived as a threat by Israeli minds might be just that; a perception with no grounds in reality.

"might be"? Liar or coward.

Innocent Jewish men, women, and children as victims of Muslim bloodlust are the results of Muslim imagination, not figments of anyone's. The only reason there is any violence between Israel and its Muslim neighbors is because one side seeks to obey Allah and imitate Mohammed, the genocidal anti-Semite.

Again, Israel stole no one's land -- Muslim Turks lost it to the West, which then gave (less than they had promised) to Israel.

If Muslims stop committing terrorism against Israel, there would be peace.

You ask why haven't Muslim states around Israel taken in their "co-religionists". I ask you; why haven't the Christians and Jews of Europe taken in the Jews from Israel? In fact, there are plenty of successful followers of Judaism in America. Why haven't they taken in Israeli Jews?

Bald dishonesty here in several respects. First, a false tu quoque: Alleging that Europeans are guilty of excluding Jews does nothing to address the fact that the Arab/Muslim nations surrounding Israel have not only excluded their co-religionists, they've done little more than use the "Palestinians" as tools to incite other Muslims against Israel (and to extort jizya from Western nations). Second, a false analogy: Europeans have not excluded Jews -- who in general contribute greatly to the well-being of any nation of which they are a part -- they don't even exclude Muslims. Finally, why take in Jews in Israel when they are . . . in Israel?

Israel without Jews? More Muslim wishful thinking, it appears.

And there you go with the word 'anti-semitism'. Cry me a river, why don't you? I do not consider questioning or criticizing anything Jewish as being anti-semitism. Crying out 'anti-semitism' on every issue is just begging for pity but I haven't got any to spare this time around, particularly after the recent attack on Palestinians.

Now misrepresenting my comments. Perhaps this works with the ignorant, gullible, and intellectually-lazy. It will not work with those who are paying attention.

Pointing out that Muslims slaughter Jews for Allah is not "crying anti-semitism over questioning or criticizing anything Jewish and on every issue." Shameful.

Hating Jews because they are Jews is anti-Semitism. Commanding the enslavement or slaughter of Jews because they are Jews is anti-Semitism. Firing rockets into homes and schools and blowing up innocent civilians shopping, dining, and worshiping is anti-Semtism. Calling for "bigger ovens" in a second Holocaust is anti-Semitism. Slaughtering 700 Jewish men who had surrendered and then raping their women is anti-Semitism. Exhorting Nazi soldiers manning concentration camps to kill Jews with diligence is anti-Semitism. Stoking Muslim zeal for Jewish blood by declaring that a tree will shout, "O Muslim, there is a Jew behind me, so kill him!" is anti-Semitism.

Of all these things Muslims, their false prophet, and their allah from hell are guilty.

So, the mask of false Muslim civility begins to slip.

This "Islamic anti-semitism" is a myth you propagate to justify inhumane actions by the state of Israel.

So, I am responsible for the contents of Qur'an, ahadith, and Sira. I made Mohammed do it.

Allah will not be pleased.

Unless there is a perpetual cycle of hate mongering, Israel won't get the dole-out from the US and the undeserved pity from the rest of the world.

"Palestinians" receive billions for supporting terrorism and getting their hats handed to them over and over again. Speaking of "undeserved pity."

Here comes some deception regarding Islam's core texts:

You quote:

"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).

You didn't include the context of this verse of the Quran derived from the previous verses. It's like you say a single sentence out of an entire story and that becomes the basis of any claim you make. This is deliberately twisting the meaning.Here is the common Muslim canard "Out of context! Out of context!" which should be easy to demonstrate. Strangely, the author offers not one word of context, just lies.

The truth is, the context of this verse is that (according to Mohammed, and he wouldn't lie, right?) Allah was granting immunity from slaughter to only those tribes under contract to Mohammed who had not violated the terms of their extortion.

Of course, the intent is not to go out and decapitate imprudently; Mohammed had rules about under what circumstances to butcher non-Muslims. "Unbelievers" had to be offered first conversion to Islam. Those who refused were then offered slavery (jizya, slavery as dhimmis), since you can't extort money from nor rape the dead (though I did read that Mohammed used to "lie" on a corpse). Those who refused humiliating slavery were offered death.

That's the context Muslims don't want you to know.

More falsehood from Mr. Asif:

This verse says that if the People of the Book (Christians & Jews) deny God, the Day of Judgment and the injunctions of the Divine, and reject belief in the truth (literally, "the Religion of the Truth" -- the Truth being another name for God in Arabic) they must pay a tax; fight them until they pay it freely.

If you have to fight someone so that they'll pay, then they are not paying it "freely."

By definition, Christians do not reject God, they believe in YHWH and His Messiah.

Christians do reject Mohammed's allah. And no, Christians and Muslims do not worship the same deity, for if they did, Muslims would worship Christ and condemn Mohammed and his allah for their blasphemies against Him.

(At this point comes another common Muslim "argument" -- No, using the same common noun "god" for more than one deity does not mean they are the same deity. Besides that, Allah says that it has no son; YHWH calls Christ His One and Only Son, and Christ confirms that, taking the Divine name "I AM" for Himself.)

When you consider the verse itself, it mentions belief in God and the Day of Judgment. These two beliefs are found in both Christian and Jewish scriptures [particularly the older, less corrupted versions].

What are those "older, less corrupted versions"? Nothing but another Islamic lie, for the Biblical texts we possess today are reliable copies of the original documents. Manuscript copies of Isaiah dating to before the time of Christ demonstrate that the manuscripts used for centuries by translators are reliable copies.

About Jizya; it is a tax. Can you tell me why you think non-Muslims in an Islamic shouldn't pay taxes when the Muslims themselves are paying Zakat (enforced by the state) as one tax amongst other taxes?

Zakat is charity. Since when is charity "enforced by the state"? Shouldn't that set off warning bells in one's mind that perhaps Allah is a tyrant?

As for jizya, it is "protection money" (as in extortion) imposed (along with many other unjust restrictions and degradations) on non-Muslims enslaved under Islam.

Why should non-Muslims be exempted from a tax when the very Muslims living in an Islamic state are paying taxes? Don't you think it as being discriminatory?

Mr. Asif ought to be embarrassed by his slight-of-keyboard here. Jizya is imposed on conquered non-Muslims. That is discriminatory.

Perhaps now would be a good time for Mr. Asif to stop lying.

Do you protest in the same manner when Muslims have to pay taxes in non-Islamic states just like the other citizens? There is a lot of hue and cry over assimilating in the host country these days. Why isn't it applicable to non-Muslims in an Islamic state?

And yet Muslims won't assimilate. Why is that?

The apparent eagerness with which this author twists facts is astounding. And evil.

If unlike non-Muslims in a non-Muslim state, Muslims had to pay extortion money to prevent their being slaughtered, I am sure this author would complain. If Muslims were subjected to the same disgraceful barbarism which non-Muslims have been forced to endure under the dhimma for millennia, I'm sure Mr. Asif would say something.

Nevertheless, this tax doesn't exist these days in most Islamic countries so it is a moot point.

It is only moot in "most" countries because the Caliphate was destroyed and faithful Muslims are not yet powerful enough to enforce sharia.

Isn't it interesting that this Muslim knows just enough about Islam to tell only the half of the truth that, if believed by non-Muslims, would make them vulnerable to jihad?

Don't base your thinking on reading something for 10 minutes after searching for it on the internet and then twisting it out of context.

A false ad hominem attack, and another statement which, if it were true, should be easy to demonstrate, yet the author makes no attempt to do so. Why is that?

Those who believe, those who are Jews, Christians, and Sabaeans, all who believe in God and the Last Day and act rightly will have their reward with their Lord. They will feel no fear and will know no sorrow. (Qur'an, 2:62)

And who are "those who believe"? Those who convert to Islam, for here is some of what this propagandist is not quoting:

"It has been narrated by 'Umar b. al-Khattib that he heard the Messenger of Allah . . . say: I will expel the Jews and Christians from the Arabian Peninsula and will not leave any but Muslim" (Muslim Book 19, Number 4363-4366)."

"Abu Burda reported on the authority of his father that Allah's Apostle . . . said: No Muslim would die but Allah would admit in his stead a Jew or a Christian in Hell-Fire. 'Umar b. Abd al-'Aziz took an oath: By One besides Whom there is no god but He, thrice that his father had narrated that to him from Allah's Messenger . . ." (Muslim Book 37, Number 6666).

"Those who disbelieve, neither their possessions nor their (numerous) progeny will avail them aught against Allah: They are themselves but fuel for the Fire" (Qur'an 3:10).

"Yahya related to me from Malik that he heard that Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz gave a decision that when a Jew or Christian was killed, his blood-money was half the blood-money of a free muslim.

"Malik said, 'What is done in our community, is that a muslim is not killed for a kafir unless the muslim kills him by deceit. Then he is killed for it.'

[. . .]

"Malik said, 'The blood-monies of the Jew, Christian, and Magian in their injuries, is according to the injury of the muslims in their blood-moneys. The head wound is a twentieth of his full blood-money. The wound that opens the head is a third of his blood-money. The belly-wound is a third of his blood-money. All their injuries are according to this calculation'" (Muwatta Book 43, Number 43.15.8b).

"O ye who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends and protectors: They are but friends and protectors to each other. And he amongst you that turns to them (for friendship) is of them. Verily Allah guideth not a people unjust" (Qur'an 5:51).

"Those who believe fight in the way of Allah, and those who disbelieve fight in the way of the Shaitan. Fight therefore against the friends of the Shaitan; surely the strategy of the Shaitan is weak" (Qur'an 4:76).

"Those who reject (Truth), among the People of the Book and among the Polytheists, will be in Hell-Fire, to dwell therein (for aye). They are the worst of creatures" (Qur'an 98:6).

The lies continue:

How do you justify your hatred in light of this verse?

"Hatred"?

I hate genocide. Slavery. Rape. Pedophilia. Lies. Religious (and secular) tyranny.

The question should be, why don't Muslims? Because Mohammed and his allah will it so.

Following on, you quote Sahih Bukhari:

"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).

You are again taking things out of context. This is directed at the idol worshipers of Makkah; the Quraish tribe amongst others, a tribe to which Prophet Muhammad . . . himself belonged before he was given the task to spread Islam.

So, Mohammed was ordered to slaughter his own people until they submitted to Allah?

Perhaps it is unwise for Muslims to try to argue for Mohammed and his god from their own texts. Stick to the logical fallacies, outright fabrications, and violent intimidation. They're more effective.

In fact, at the conquest of Makkah, no one who stayed at home was killed and the idols inside the Kaaba were smashed. Nothing more needs to be said in light of this, about Islam as a religion of peace... A conquest with no bloodshed and pardon to all who had tortured the early followers of Islam.

The kind of peace Islam desires is the kind that occurs when all the competition is dead or in chains.

Don't imply that just because Mohammed may not have butchered those who "stayed at home" this time meant that he did not slaughter enthusiastically and often any and all who refused to submit to his plans.

Just ask Asma bint Marwan.

"And well ye knew those amongst you who transgressed in the matter of the Sabbath: We said to them: "Be ye apes, despised and rejected" (Qur'an 2:65).

It should be borne in mind that the expression “like an ape” is often used in classical Arabic to describe a person who is unable to restrain his gross appetites or passions. The verse is directed at Sabbath-breakers, not Jews in general so I don't know where you are coming from on this one trying to portray it as being something against all Jews.

It is strange that this author doesn't know "where [I'm] coming from," since I state explicitly that Islamic anti-Semitism comes directly from the command of Allah and the example of Mohammed:

"Allah's Apostle said, 'The Hour will not be established until you fight with the Jews, and the stone behind which a Jew will be hiding will say, "O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, so kill him"'" (Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 177).

Feigned Muslim ignorance in service to Islamic barbarity in 3 . . . 2 . . . 1 . . .

The sign of the Day of Judgment you mention in your next quote is not now so I don't see any reason for all this hatred.

If only he had had a heart-to-heart with Mohammed before things got out-of-hand.

The remaining quotes are not complete. Chosen phrases whose incomplete meaning satisfies your lame argument do not constitute as being a valid argument.

Again, it ought to be easy to demonstrate my error. I'll be waiting.

I fail to see the reasoning behind the hatred Israel has for Muslims. History should speak for itself regarding the uneven hand dealt to the Palestinians by Israel.

Only if history is a liar like Mr. Asif.

If Israel were hateful, the "Palestinians" would have been relocated about six feet underground.

If anything, Israel has been too accommodating to its enemies.

Mr. Asif's assaults on God and Man end with this:

In fact, at the time of the Prophet Muhammad [. . .] Jews were included as part of the Muslim community...they were part of the "ummah," so to speak . . . They were equal members of the city, one "community with the believers," with the freedom to practice their religion. At one time in history, Muslims and Jews were one nation under God.

This must explain:

". . . We were (sitting) in the mosque when the Messenger of Allah . . . came to us and said: (Let us) go to the Jews. We went out with him until we came to them. The Messenger of Allah . . . stood up and called out to them (saying): O ye assembly of Jews, accept Islam (and) you will be safe.

[. . .]

"he killed their men, and distributed their women, children and properties among the Muslims, except that some of them had joined the Messenger of Allah . . . who granted them security. They embraced Islam. The Messenger of Allah . . . turned out all the Jews of Medlina. Banu Qainuqa' (the tribe of 'Abdullah b. Salim) and the Jews of Banu Haritha and every other Jew who was in Medina.

[. . .]

"It has been narrated by 'Umar b. al-Khattib that he heard the Messenger of Allah . . . say: I will expel the Jews and Christians from the Arabian Peninsula and will not leave any but Muslim" (Muslim Book 19, Number 4363-4366)."

The Illegal Immigrant-in-Chief is doing just what he promised

How has the President done his first few days in office?

Well, the least harmful thing he's done is try to enter the White House through a window.

B. Hussein has been running the White House thermostat at Torch, which is ironic considering his condescending sermonizing over American energy consumption during the campaign. Today he chastised Wall Street executives for their profligate spending -- right after spending more on his inauguration than any of his peers. On top of that, immediately after his Congress approved nearly a trillion dollars in spending (most of it not going to immediate job creation or keeping allegedly essential financial institutions afloat), he celebrated with steak that costs $100 per serving.

It's good to see that he's being frugal with the American Taxpayer's hard-earned dollars.

As for transparency, he still hasn't released his birth certificate. Since the President claims he was born here, there is no way he would have been naturalized. But his grandmother says she saw him born in Kenya. That means B. Hussein is a citizen of the world but not the United States of America.

Thank goodness for those patriots in the Media defending our Constitution!

[The oath of loyalty to the Office of the President story is false, so it is removed.]

As for improving America's standing in the world while defending us from our enemies, President Hussein is closing a terrorist prison, trying to bring its prisoners into the U.S., and groveling at the feet of the Islamic world in his first television interview as President, bad-mouthing America along the way. Iran's Terrorist-in-Chief demonstrated immediately the effectiveness of Obama's Tough Diplomacy by demanding that B. Hussein apologize to the Islamic world for America's defending itself and supporting Israel.

Not all Change is good.