An actual answer to the question "Can Muhammad and Jefferson Coexist?"

[This post was begun June 17, 2007.

Since America faces an existential threat at the hands of its own “president,” his co-ideologues in one of our two major political parties, and his coreligionists waging war against us within and without our borders, the points it raises about Islam and its incompatibility with the principles of the American Republic are as timely as ever, especially as our own leadership accelerates our descent into oblivion.

All citizens must find the zeal for Liberty embodied by Jefferson and his fellow Founding Fathers.]

In an article entitled, "Can Muhammad and Jefferson Coexist?" the author raises several factors that relate to the answer to that question. Perhaps it is intended to serve as a starting point for discussion, because the essay never really answers the question clearly.

The answer is: Only if Jefferson were to convert, submit, or die, for that is all Muhammad and his allah allow the “infidel.”

The comments were interesting in that though there was the usual politically-correct, multiculturalist, morally-relative nonsense, quite a few posts were very clearly on the side of reality.

Being that most of my time in the Comments at Townhall is spent at Hugh Hewitt's site pointing out to him that his Islam is a false one (or to Mormons that their christ is a false messiah), it is refreshing and encouraging to see that others recognize the nature of Qur'anic, historical, traditional Islam.

Answering the question and refuting Jihad's apologists, from here:

Terror is fundamental to Islam

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

and,

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

Be happy, free, and wrong

Steve wrote:

"Obviously, someone can be a bad Muslim as easily as someone can be a bad Christian. The issue isn't what they claim to be, but rather what they are."

But "good" and "bad" must be defined in light of each religion's authoritative texts, not human opinion.

A "good" Christian will tell the truth, love, serve, do good, and refrain from harming others because that is what Christ commands.

A "good" Muslim will fight against, subdue and humiliate, and kill non-Muslims to establish the tyranny of Allah over all mankind because that is what his god requires and his prophet practiced:

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

Steve continues:

"America claims to have a separation of church and state . . . ."

The separation to which Jefferson referred was a protection of religion against government, not a protection of government against religion.

"Men have used violence to serve their own glory for thousands of years, and expect obedience and honor from those they rule over. A Nazi, a communist, an Islamist and a democratic imperialist are all wired the same way, the only difference is the self-satisfying text that they reference."

How naive. The difference between all those you name and a Muslim is that the followers of Mahomet have the permanent, unalterable, and "divine" commands to: ". . . fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war) . . . " (Qur’an 9:5), and:

"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).

Not only this, but the faithful Muslim also has the words and deeds of Mohammed -- described by Allah as a "beautiful pattern of conduct" -- to emulate. Mohammed 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).

"Christ and Socrates would be crucified for their pursuit of virtue . . . ."

Christ was killed for speaking the words and doing the work of His Father.

". . . Look at the resistance to amnesty for illegal aliens, for example. The door to the inn is still closed, and a child is born in a land with little compassion but with huge warehouses and grand houses of hypocrisy."

That hypocrisy exists is true. That our nation lacks virtue is for growing numbers of our people also true.

That defending one's borders and enforcing the rule of law (we still have quite generous legal immigration rules) is immoral or cruel is suicidally false.

To justify the destruction of American sovereignty and the end of the rule of law by conflating it with the birth of the Son of God is sacrilege.

In response to JFP

JFP observed:

"Theoretically, yes
Just as there are many interpretations of the Bible, so there can be many interpretations of the Qur'an."

The many interpretations are the fault of human error, arrogance, and carelessness.

They are not indicative of any weakness or ambiguity in the Biblical texts.

The same is true of Islam's authoritative documents. Qur'an, Hadith, and Sira say what they say. It is the ignorant and the liar who claim the texts say anything other than what they clearly do.

There is no indication from these *Islamic* records that Mohammad and his followers understood these texts should be taken in any way other than with fatal literalism.

The nearly fourteen centuries of Infidel blood spilled, their women and children raped and enslaved, and the destruction of their religions, cultures, and nations in obedience to those texts also demonstrate that Muslims traditionally take Allah and his apostle at their word.

"When this point is brought up to secularists, what do they say?
1. They call us racist, as though that solves the problem.
2. They say it is too remote a possibility to worry about . . . ."

Which should cause all thinking Infidels to question whether or not these people are really "secularists" in fear of non-Muslim over-generalizations or actually apologists for jihad deceiving ignorant and gullible people of good will.

In response to Phylo

Can Phylo's arguments co-exist w/ truth? He writes:

"Can Jesus coexist with Jefferson?"

The answer is, clearly, "yes," since Jesus commanded His people to "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and give to God what is God's."

(And in case this little fact eluded your apparently vigorous intellectual curiosity, the Founding Fathers were overwhelmingly Christians.)

Phylo continues:

"This article is pure demagoguery. It's nothing but a play on his audiences fears and prejudices. I swear the Republicans are aching to start a war with the Muslims. This is crazy."

And your argument here is an impassioned appeal to people's cowardice and ignorance.

What is truly crazy is that six years out from 9/11 (and centuries out from America's first taste of Muslim terror) so many people fail to realize that Islam is at war with us.

Phylo reinforces the impression he has no understanding of Christianity or Islam with:

"I wonder if any of you who read this article will recognize that the exact same question could be asked of Christians and Jews."

An implied equivalence in the answers betraying either your deficient knowledge, reason, moral judgment, or some combination of the three.

Find some Methodists beheading girls on their way to school, shouting "Christ is LORD!" and citing their Biblical justification for it. Then we can talk.

Phylo:

"So how can a good Christian still honor Jefferson?"

[Considering Jefferson’s self-professed preference for the doctrines of Christ above all others, “vigorously,” I’d say.]

That is a different question. Was the switch intentional or accidental?

Of course, a "good" Christian will honor what is honorable. Much of Jefferson's contribution to America and the world is quite remarkable.

Phylo continued:

"And how does Jesus' admonition to sell everything and follow him comport with capitalism? Can Jesus and Adam Smith co-exist?"

Another false comparison. But that's easy for one with little intellectual integrity to do.

The command from Matthew 19 (and the parallel accounts in Mark 10 and Luke 18) was given to a specific person, at a specific time, and for a specific purpose.

If ownership of property were immoral, Christ would not have forbidden stealing.

More from Phylo:

"And how can a good Jew live in a country that doesn't stone gays to death?"

Another command taken out of its proper context! Your lack of truthfulness is disappointing.

Capital punishment for homosexual behavior (and many other sins) was for the nation of Israel living under the Mosaic Covenant. It was not a universal command.

Shari'a in Dearborn, Michigan

Know your place, dhimmi, or else.

This is what happens once Muslims in a region reach critical mass. As bad as this is, it is nothing compared to what occurs in proto-shari'a states like the UK and France and every Muslim Hell-hole you can name.

What will the Abd-in-Chief say about this? He hasn't defended his "fellow" citizens' unalienable Rights to Freedom of Speech and Assembly in Dearborn, allowing Muslim terrorists and their Useful Idiot Dhimmis there to relegate a Christian group to an out-of-the-way corner in order to appease Islamic sensibilities -- and to soothe their fear of a free exchange of ideas.

If Islam is so great, why do Muslims fear open criticism of Muhammad? Other Muslims' hearing the Gospel?

If Obama defends the Islamic tyrants who murder their own people -- including Neda Soltani, another Christian victim of Islam -- what will he do for these Americans attacked on American soil? Sic Eric Holder on them? Order an audit?

The contrast between Christ and Allah, Heaven and Hell, stark and devastating

It is telling that Muslims never admit before non-Muslims what their god demands and their false prophet practiced (until it is too late, that is).

You'll notice in the comments from Mr. Fadly that he never addresses the sacralizing of depravity in Islam, he engages only in ad hominem attacks, false tu quoques and moral equivalences, and diversions from the fundamental issue, Islam's brutal and perverse totalitarian ideology.

Here's the latest in a series of posts pointing out what the typical Islamic apologist doesn't want you to know:

Mohamed wrote,

"you must 'love your enemies' . . . you love all terrorists , , , As for Islamic beliefs we Muslims don't have to love those who kill children and attack innocents"

No, you [Muslims] are those who "kill children and attack innocents."

"Allah only forbids you, with regard to those who fight you for (your) Faith . . . It is such as turn to them (in these circumstances), that do wrong." 60: 8, 9

There is a big difference between "loving" who fire off my brother, and "not loving" who fire off my brothers.

You said you were doing research, but not about Christ's teachings apparently, since you're grossly misrepresenting them. Does that bother you at all?

Jesus did not command, "Excuse immorality and reward the criminal." He made a distinction between "Two Kingdoms," the spiritual and civil realms (a distinction absent from Islam, since Muhammad used his "faith" as a tool to satiate his lusts).

The individual Christian is to love even his enemies. Christ forbids personal revenge. The state, on the other hand, is to punish evil and defend its citizens.

Jesus taught and practiced, "Love your enemies," even praying for those who were murdering Him. He died for the sins of all people, even those who hate Him.

Jesus taught that His Father causes the sun to shine on the just and unjust and the rain to fall on the just and unjust. He says that if we are only kind to those who are kind to us, we are no better than unbelievers. In this context, Jesus commands, "Be perfect, as your Father in Heaven is perfect."

Christ teaches His people to pray, "Forgive us our sins, as we forgive those who sin against us," and, "If you do not forgive others' sins, neither will yours be forgiven."

You don't understand that your sin makes you an enemy of Christ. He commanded, "love YHWH with all your heart, mind, and strength," "You believe in the Father; believe also in Me," and, "all must honor the Son as they honor the Father."

You break those commandments every day as a Muslim.

"The soul that sins is the one who will die." You justly deserve God's wrath because of your sin.

What hope do you have for eternal life? How can you think you will escape Hell?

What does Allah offer? The possibility that your good works might outweigh your sins? The only sure way for you to enter Paradise is to slaughter or be slaughtered for Allah (Qur'an 9:111).

Do you really think virgins wait there for you? Boys "like pearls"?

Loving one's enemies doesn't mean rewarding or excusing their evil. Nor are we to stand by in the face of evil. Self-defense and the defense of others are appropriate.

Christ also forbids "throwing one's pearls before swine, lest they trample them and turn again and rend you." We are not to give foolishly what is valuable to those who will not appreciate it.

Love means doing what is best for another person, and that is telling the truth, turning someone from evil. It is, ultimately, pointing to Christ and His forgiveness.

You don't understand love because your god is the inverse of it.

You defend revenge and retaliation because that is what Muhammad commanded and practiced.

It is ironic that you use your god as a point of reference in trying to -- what are you trying to do exactly, show Christ was wrong? -- since your god forbids "dealing kindly and justly with" non-Muslims when they "fight you for faith." Isn't that odd?

There is only one major world religion whose deity commands fighting others over religious belief. That would be Muhammad's, as his own texts demonstrate (to his shame).

You follow a god that calls killing unbelievers because they are unbelievers "just." A god that sanctions beating wives, valuing females at half the value of a male (if that), and raping nine-year-olds. A god that approves of lying if it aids the spread of shari'a. A god that demands slavery or death for all who refuse the "invitation" to Islam.

In effect, by choosing this topic, you've highlighted the fact that the God of the Bible, YHWH, loves all even though all sin, and proved this by becoming flesh and dying on a cross for us, while al-Ilah wants everyone who won't submit as a slave or dead.

You've highlighted the fact that Christ assures all of Heaven, but Allah gives Paradise to those who butcher unbelievers for him.

There's that stark contrast again, and it's devastating.

But the love of God in Christ for you and your co-religionists is greater.

Beheading Islamic falsehoods

Another lying apologist for Islam gets his head handed to him (figuratively, of course) here:

Anti Sniper wrote:

1. It seems that you are completely uniformed about Cristian terrorism both against Muslims the most recent in Bosnia and Kosovo and against Christians ( Northern Ireland, Croatia, Serbia)

2. In Islam there is no obligation of faith so theoretically a non Muslim can not be converted involuntary to Islam. Abuse of that is crime in Islam.

3. Theoretically in theological considerations Jihad today is reduced to defensive war

4. I agree that there is Islamic countries with low tolerance to Christians but as well there are some good examples . We need to point out both the good and bad.

5. Justice for everybody, respect and honesty are the principles that can build long term sustainable prosperity in the world

Well, Anti, your comments illustrate well the maxim that "Half the Truth is often a great Lie":

1) The only "Christian" terrorism in eastern Europe was Bill Clinton bombing Christians defending themselves against jihad.

Just as with Israel, charges of "war crimes" against those resisting Islamic terrorism were fabricated by Muslims and repeated by their Useful Idiot Dhimmis in the media.

2) Technically, "there is no compulsion in religion." That is speaking of internal belief, which no one can force.

A lot can be done about external behavior, though, right? What do you expect enslaving and slaughtering those who refuse the "invitation" to Islam will produce in non-Muslims? Is not such brutality in Allah's name coercive?

"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).

3) Theoretically, "jihad is reduced to defensive." Well, isn't that a careless admission? "Reduced" from what? From offensive warfare against all non-Muslims to make the world Islam, per Muhammad's dictum and example.

Yes, only the Caliph can call for offensive jihad, and since the caliphate was destroyed, offensive jihad is not permissible now.

Why don't you mention the fact that even "unbelief" is considered a crime against Islam? That defending oneself against its tyranny is an attack on Muslims?

Why do you think that so many jihadists try to couch their violence in these terms?

4) What Muslim nation under shari'a is a "good" example of tolerance toward Christians and other non-Muslims? Egypt? Turkey?

Turkey was secularized by Ataturk, and so it was decent place for a few decades. Not any longer.

Egypt increasingly persecutes its native Coptic population, murdering, raping, burning, and terrorizing in Allah's name.

5) You won't find "justice" for anyone but Muslim men under Islam. Women get to be chattel, little girls can be "married" at nine, non-Muslims get death or slavery, and non-Muslims who act like good dhimmis get to live another day to be abused at Muslims' pleasure.

Tell the truth.

An update:

Anti Sniper wrote:

In 1099, Jerusalem was conquered by the Crusaders, who massacred most of its Muslim inhabitants and the remnants of the Jewish inhabitants; the Crusaders later expelled the native Christian population and created the Kingdom of Jerusalem. By early June 1099 Jerusalem’s population had declined from 70,000 to less than 30,000.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerusalem#Crusad...

Yes, some Crusaders did commit crimes against other Christians and against Jews.

What you do not state is that the first Crusade was called by Pope Urban II in response to a desperate plea for help from Christians in the East under siege for centuries by ... you guessed it! Islam.

Neither do you acknowledge the fact that such crimes are "crimes" in Christianity.

In Islam, they're called, "a start."

Something is terribly wrong with B. Hussein Obama

Today at Jihad Watch:

"I sincerely hope that when the president goes in for his annual check-up, the doctors at Bethesda will do a brain scan. Surely something must be terribly wrong with a man who seems to be far more concerned with a Jew building a house in Israel than with Muslims building a nuclear bomb in Iran." -- Burt Prelutsky (thanks to Errol Phillips)

It's Leftist hatred of anyone decent, anyone friendly to America.

Or it's Islam.

A failure of Liberty or of government?

From here, in response to this:

how am I a "rupulsive piece of work"?

Is it because I dare to speak out against the great failure that is laissez-faire Capitalism. I know it's not politically correct to say that laissez-faire has failed, but reality and history have consistently shown laissez-faire to fail the people and the very system.

I don't see what either Cuba or China have to do with what I'm saying. I'm saying that a common sense system of regulation makes more sense than supply-side economics.

If you're talking about the current economic situation, the problem is the federal government's corrupt and incompetent manipulation of the free market.

This is not a failure of Capitalism, it is a failure of government (and of the people to monitor those whom we elect).

Every person has the right to use his time and talent as he sees fit and to enjoy the fruit of his labor. No politician has the right to steal from him.

Only tyrants and slaves would think otherwise.

A beautiful observation about Islam

Succinct, potent, beautiful.

From here:

ahm: also this is a bad site to learn anything about isalm ,full of islamic haters and truth fighters.

Pawn-King-Nine: True, they should visit the sites that only talk about nice things instead of what Muhammad said and did

Genuflecting to a Muslim tyrant

An American president bows to no one.

It used to be that standing up in defiance of tyranny was called "honor," "moral," "good," "duty."

"American."

Too many of our citizens are today perverse cowards. They despise such virtues. They appease murderers and rapists and lie in defense of the indefensible.

Naturally, the leaders they choose for themselves are no different.

America's Groveler-in-Chief demonstrated his Leftist (Islamic?) bona fides in bowing to the tyrant of Saudi Arabia, an act that should outrage (and alarm) every man, woman, and child who cherish (or long for) freedom.

Even those who paid no attention to our Slave-in-Chief's (that "abd" is Arabic for both "slave" and "Black man" reflects the Islamic attitude toward those of African descent and makes so many American Blacks' rejection of Christianity as the "White man's religion" in favor of Islam ironic, tragic, and ignorant; How do you think those African nations became Islamic?) Muslim and radical Leftist background, tendencies, and associations should realize now that the man who sits in the Oval Office is no friend of Liberty or America.

B. Hussein Obama is a friend to and demands that we respect Islam and all that entails, including "sacralized" genocide, honor killings, rape, pedophilia, female genital mutilation, slavery, wife-beating, gender discrimination, and religious persecution.

(Sounds like a Christian to me.)

Parvin Darabi, a woman born into Islam, whose sister died in the Islamic paradise of Iran struggling for equality of rights for women under shari'a, lays out clearly why genuflecting to the Saudi wretch was a monumental act of cowardice (or worse) here:

An open letter to President Obama

Dear Mr. President, the Bow Was Wrong.

Today I watched the news about the establishment of Sharia laws in Afghanistan and the demonstrations by Afghani women against the barbaric laws of Islam which makes one member of the society subjugated and enslaved to the other.

Like you I grew up Muslim, unlike you I was a woman, and it is as a woman that I would like to tell you why the bow to the Saudi King and the Olive Branch to the Islamic world is wrong.

Why would you bow to a man who is the custodian of such horrible and outdated laws? Why should a man have the right to rape his wife? Why should a woman have to require her husband’s, father’s, son’s or even her grandson’s permission to leave her house as it is customary in Saudi Arabia? Why shouldn’t women in Saudi Arabia be able to drive a car, go to work, run for office or be elected or even vote? Why should a woman’s life worth, testimony and inheritance be half of her male [counterpart]? A law in all Islamic countries.

Why would you, the representative of the free world bow to the leader and custodian of a religion that allows men to beat, maim and even kill their female siblings for crimes such as falling in love? Haven't you heard about honor killings? I am sure you have seen the horrific news [reel] of the seventeen year old girl being held down by her brother and slashed by a Talib.

Why are you appeasing Muslims and why do you say that we have no animosity to Islam. Why not? What part of Sharia law you admire? The age of maturity for female, which is 9 years of age? The law that women have to be totally subjugated to their male relatives? Or the law that makes father or his family the custodian of young children in the case of death or divorce with no visitation rights for the mother? Or do you honor the law that allows men to have four permanent wives, or honor killing, or the law that women have to be wrapped in fifty yards of fabric when in presence of their male [counterpart]? Is Secretary Clinton going to wear an abaya, a chador or a burka when she meets with her [counterparts] in the Islamic world?

What was there to honor with the king of Saudi Arabia? Weren’t Saudi Arabia and Pakistan the only two countries that recognized Talibans as the legitimate government of Afghanistan? Weren’t the Talibans nurtured, helped and protected by the king of Saudi Arabia? Isn't Saudi Royal family the major contributor to the Muslim Brotherhood?

I am just so baffled[,] so are millions of women in the Islamic world. Thousands of women commit suicide every year in the Islamic world due to the Sharia laws. One such woman was my sister, Dr. Homa Darabi, who self-immolated on February 21st. 1994 in Tehran protesting the inhumane treatment of women under the Sharia laws. She was an American citizen and her story is published in the book, Rage Against the Veil, Prometheus, 1999.

Yes Mr. President, your bow to this dictator was and is an offense to all the women who cherish freedom and long for it in the Islamic world. This is not the change we voted for.

Mr. President, we must help the Islamic world to have their renaissance. We must make them to leave the 7th century and enter into the 21st. Koran must be rewritten. Sharia laws must be banned and freedom and democracy must be our goal in these forsaken places known as Islamic countries. We must help Muslim women to find life, liberty and the pursuit of their happiness not to bow to the Islamic dictators. Now this would be a change I could believe in.

I worked very hard to get you elected as my president and leader and to see you bow to such dictator as king of Saudi Arabia is an offense to me and my dead sister, Dr. Homa Darabi, the [well-known] Iranian Pediatrician, Child and Adolescent Psych[ia]trist.

Parvin Darabi
Co-author, Rage Against the Veil
President
Dr. Homa Darabi Foundation
http://www.homa.org/

Mistaking the bondage of the will for evidence of a god that creates people for Hell

Offered in reply to Ken's defense of Calvin's Unconditional Election, Limited Atonement, and Irresistible Grace, which begins by claiming that the verses from Romans 3 that I did not include in my last response means that God predestines people for Hell:

Romans 3:23-24; but you left out verse 22 and 25-26 . . . The text does not say that "every single individual was justified in Christ by His death on the cross".

But it does: "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified by his grace . . . ."

Do only some sin? Do only some fall short?

"All" is the subject of the second part of the compound predicate also. Paul was good with words. If he meant to limit the number of people justified (declared "innocent") by Christ's blood, he would have.

In Paul's Ministry of Reconciliation "God was reconciling the world to Himself" in Christ's body on the cross.

"World" means "world."

I think that part of the problem here is a confusion between Objective and Subjective Justification.

What does Scripture say?

God declares the whole world "justified" in Christ (Objective Justification). Only those who trust in Christ will experience this gift (Subjective Justification).

Do you believe that many people do go to hell because of their sin and their unbelief in Jesus?

Again, what does Scripture say?

All die because all sin. All of us are, by nature, sinful and unclean. We justly deserve God's temporal and eternal punishment.

Everyone in Hell deserves to be there, including every Christian.

Judging from his sermon, Piper's fundamental error is in mistaking his realization that we play no part in our salvation for a confirmation of the un-Biblical elements of Calvin's theology.

The fundamental concept of Total Depravity is taught in Scripture, but the idea that God does not call all, send His Spirit to all, seek the salvation of all, long for all to be saved, atone for the sins of all, and justify the "all" who have sinned and fallen short of His glory makes Him a liar.

Jesus warned us that unless we become like little children, we will not enter the Kingdom of God. Part of that is just believing what He said.

It is our duty as Christians to speak all of and only His Word.

Can anyone produce Scripture that says Christ died for only "some"? That He sends His Spirit to only "some"? That Jesus came to save only "some"? That YHWH is willing that "some" perish?

If not, then Calvin's heresies must be rejected as such.

If not, then one can hardly extol God's "sovereignty."

Troubling truths about Islam

An interfaith dialogue on the Religion of Peace, the kind that our political, media, and academic elites ought to be having, not the suicidal, politically-correct, Saudi-funded, jihad-enabling, ignorant nonsense going on today.

A response to Mohamed Fadly, from here, with slight modifications in format and some added, bracketed commentary:

1) Falsely equating Christ and Allah

Mohamed equates Christ's command to “Love your enemies” with Allah's not forbidding dealing “kindly and justly” with those who do not fight Muslims nor drive them from their homes.

How are those equivalent? How does being kind to someone not harming you even approach loving one's enemies?

To be remotely comparable, Allah would have to state something along the lines of “Allah does not forbid you from being kind and just to those who fight against you for faith or drive you from your homes.”

Even then, that would only allow kindness to one's enemies, not command love toward them, as Christ does.

2) Qur'anic contradictions? Yes, Naskh, the doctrine of Abrogation.

Mohamed talks about the “apparent” contradictions in Qur'an. They exist.

Later “revelations” that contradict earlier ones abrogate them. This is called “naskh”:

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

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

The abrogations most troubling to non-Muslims concern the proper Muslim stance toward them.

Unfortunately for millions (billions?) of “infidels” over the last fourteen hundred years, Muhammad's position on the subject evolved from one of cooperation with non-Muslims, to allowing self-defense, to requiring self-defense, to demanding offensive warfare against those who refuse the “invitation” to Islam (or slavery under it).

3) The tried-but-not-true, "Out-of-context! Out-of-context!"

[The only problem is, no one ever shows how my citations are actually, out-of-context.]

Mohamed makes an argument for understanding passages in their context. I agree.

I've never done otherwise, contrary to his implication.

Mohamed does neglect to make one point regarding context: Since Qur'an is a series of often disjointed, independent sayings – its chapters arranged by size, not chronology – to find the context of many passages it is necessary to go to ahadith (the sayings of Muhammad) and sira (his biographies).

4) Pulling the wool over the eyes of those unfamiliar with the Islamic texts commanding jihad

[Those new to Muhammad's hellish doctrines often jump naturally from The Verse of the Sword (9:5) to the conclusion that Muhammad and his allah want(ed) every non-Muslim dead. This misunderstanding provides the opportunity for the more experienced among jihad's apologists to score points in the eyes of the gullible, foolish, and perverse. Worse, it can confuse and demoralize those rightly alarmed at what they understand intuitively as the threat posed by Islam to all humanity.

Non-Muslims should be aware that yes, Muhammad and his allah love(d) infidel blood, but he also likes converts, which are one good way to swell the ranks of Hell.

I'd guess that Muhammad preferred non-Muslims as sex slaves and punching bags, because they just keep giving and giving and giving.

And attractive infidel women reproduce Muslims just fine.]

Regrettably, it appears that Mohamed is implying that I've claimed that Allah commands Muslims to kill “all non-Muslims.” Or, perhaps, he's hoping someone else who isn't paying attention will think I have.

Mohamed admits (unintentionally, I'd wager) that Allah commands warfare against non-Muslims (“every other verse that clarified how and when to fight against them and when to give peace”).

So, let's look at one of those chronically-taken-out-of-context verses and its actual context[:] Qur'an 9:5.

This is called “The Verse of the Sword,” and with it, Muhammad opened up the entire non-Muslim world to Islamic conquest, making all non-Muslims targets for either conversion, slavery, or slaughter.

Here is The Verse:

"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).

A non-Muslim unfamiliar with the context of that verse would be alarmed (rightly) and may make the logical leap to “all Muslims are commanded to kill all non-Muslims.” This would not be true, and here is why: Muhammad ordered slaughter for those non-Muslims who refuse the “invitation” to Islam and subjugation as dhimmis (an option for the “People of the Book;” pagans are not usually so “lucky”):

"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).

So, no, “all Muslims” are not ordered to kill “all non-Muslims.” Just the ones who resist.

One other important consideration: Since the goal of Islam is the establishment of Allah's tyranny over all mankind, the use of any means necessary is fine. If Islam can subjugate the entire world without firing a shot or lighting a fuse, it will.

This is why you see demographics, media, schools, prisons, politics, the courts, and money used successfully in establishing Islam in Western nations.

If anything, bin Laden and his buddies may have set back the spread of Islam in America.

5) Isn't it ironic (in a sad, suicidal, end-of-civilization-kind-of-way) that you have to take Islamic texts out-of-context to get a message of peace?

Mohamed brings up two passages to illustrate that Qur'anic verses should be taken in context.

Again, I agree, they should.

The first is 2:191, “slay them wherever ye catch them.” Though I have not taken this verse out-of-context, Muslims dealing with inexperienced non-Muslims often use this verse to mislead their audiences.

Yes, the command here is given in the context of retaliation, retribution, even self-defense.

The only problem is, the same command is uttered in the context of offensive warfare against non-Muslims in Sura 9 (quoted above) on the basis of religion, the only “immunity” granted to those “infidels” who've kept their treaties with Muhammad, and only until those treaties expire.

Sura 4 mentions self-defense in verse 91, but look at verse 89: “Do not consider them friends, unless they mobilize along with you in the cause of Allah. If they turn against you, you shall fight them, and you may kill them when you encounter them in war. You shall not accept them as friends, or allies.”

Exempted from this violence are those who join groups with extant peace treaties with Muhammad (verse 90).

So the default state according to Mr. Fadly is – without considering the later verses requiring offensive warfare – one of hostility toward non-Muslims on religious grounds.

Again, Mohamed states that, “It's not an absolute permission to annihilate all and everyone who disbelieve in Islam.”

I've never said otherwise.

And isn't it curious that Mohamed doesn't volunteer the rest of the story?

6) "Peace." Muslims keep using that word. I do not think it means what they think it means.

[Non-Muslims should be aware that Islam uses words that we find comforting, reassuring.

The only problem is that Islam uses its own dictionary.

Consider "peace," "innocent," and "terrorism."

In Islam, "peace" means that state or condition when all non-Muslims have converted, are enslaved, or dead. It's not hard to be "the world's fastest growing religion" when you're killing the competition. (Microsoft must be mad at the double standard.)

Whatever "innocent" means (usually "Muslim"), it cannot be applied to any non-Muslim, for, by virtue of their unbelief, they are friends of Satan and enemies of Allah (which is ironic, because in the Real World, the two are indistinguishable).

And "terrorism" is whatever a non-Muslim does in defense of himself or others against Allah, especially if they're Jews.]

Instructively, Mohamed concludes this section of his comments with this:

“it's an exceptional solution to treat with those who oppress, fight, and don't aim at establishing peace and maintaining stability. It's restricted by treaties that Muslims held with others.”

With self-defense (“those who fight”) I have no problem. With retaliation, I understand (I don't agree, but I understand).

I do have a problem with “oppress,” and “don't aim at establishing . . . and maintaining stability.” Too often, Muslims – following Muhammad's example – consider non-Muslims not immediately lying down and making every concession demanded of them by the faithful as committing “oppression” or causing “instability.”

Not being Muslim is a threat to the Islamic state!

Here, “disbelief” in Allah is the cause for war:

"Say to the Unbelievers, if (now) they desist (from Unbelief), their past would be forgiven them; but if they persist, the punishment of those before them is already (a matter of warning for them). And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and polytheism: i.e. worshipping others besides Allah) and the religion (worship) will all be for Allah Alone (in the whole of the world)" (Qur'an 8:38; ayah 39 from Noble Qur'an).

Another declares execution, crucifixion, and amputation appropriate punishments for . . . “mischief”:

"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).

[Ibn Kathir says of it: `Wage war' mentioned here means, oppose and contradict, and it includes disbelief, blocking roads and spreading fear in the fairways. Mischief in the land refers to various types of evil."]

I always slaughter those with whom I have no peace treaty.

7) Dhimmi "rights," an exemplar of Islam's sick sense of humor

Mohamed makes a passing reference to “dhimmi” rights. That's an oxymoron to any honest person whose done his homework!

Dhimma is “protection” for the “People of the Book,” Jews and Christians (and at times, certain other groups).

Protection from whom? This is the kind of “protection” mobsters offer: You pay us, and we'll protect you – from ourselves!

In fact, mafia look like angels next to what Islam has traditionally offered dhimmis, per Muhammad's command in Qur'an 9:29, which reads: “Fight those who believe not in Allah . . . nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.

“Subdued” is translated variously as “brought low” and “subjection.”

What does this mean in practice? One model of Islamic “protection” is the Pact of Umar, which states in part:

“We [Christians] shall not build, in our cities or in their neighborhood, new monasteries, Churches, convents, or monks' cells, nor shall we repair, by day or by night, such of them as fall in ruins or are situated in the quarters of the Muslims.

We shall keep our gates wide open for passersby and travelers. We shall give board and lodging to all Muslims who pass our way for three days.

We shall not give shelter in our churches or in our dwellings to any spy, nor [h]ide him from the Muslims.

We shall not teach the Qur'an to our children.

We shall not manifest our religion publicly nor convert anyone to it. We shall not prevent any of our kin from entering Islam if they wish it.

We shall show respect toward the Muslims, and we shall rise from our seats when they wish to sit.

We shall not seek to resemble the Muslims by imitating any of their garments, the qalansuwa, the turban, footwear, or the parting of the hair. We shall not speak as they do, nor shall we adopt their kunyas.

We shall not mount on saddles, nor shall we gird swords nor bear any kind of arms nor carry them on our persons.

We shall not engrave Arabic inscriptions on our seals.

We shall not sell fermented drinks.

We shall clip the fronts of our heads.

We shall always dress in the same way wherever we may be, and we shall bind the zunar round our waists

We shall not display our crosses or our books in the roads or markets of the Muslims. We shall use only clappers in our churches very softly. We shall not raise our voices when following our dead. We shall not show lights on any of the roads of the Muslims or in their markets. We shall not bury our dead near the Muslims.

We shall not take slaves who have been allotted to Muslims.

We shall not build houses overtopping the houses of the Muslims.

(When I brought the letter to Umar, may God be pleased with him, he added, "We shall not strike a Muslim.")

We accept these conditions for ourselves and for the people of our community, and in return we receive safe-conduct.

If we in any way violate these undertakings for which we ourselves stand surety, we forfeit our covenant [dhimma], and we become liable to the penalties for contumacy and sedition.

Umar ibn al-Khittab replied: Sign what they ask, but add two clauses and impose them in addition to those which they have undertaken. They are: "They shall not buy anyone made prisoner by the Muslims," and "Whoever strikes a Muslim with deliberate intent shall forfeit the protection of this pact."

Can't you feel the love?

8) Israelis defending themselves against animals who target innocents (from among their own people) because Allah told them to do so? The Israelis are the terrorists!

Mohamed tries to ameliorate the utter barbarity of Muhammad's being made “victorious with terror” and the implications of that declaration and example for today's non-Muslims concerned with Islamic terrorism with this verse:

“And they thought that their fortresses would defend them from Allah. But the (Wrath of) Allah came to them from quarters from which they little expected (it), and cast terror into their hearts ..” 59:2

They were hiding in their fortresses.

(By the way, it is not a good idea to bring up Israel and their Muslim neighbors in defense of Islam. If Israel were as bad as Islamic and other anti-Semites claim, they'd have “taken care” of the “Palestinians” a long time ago.

The truth is, since its inception, modern Israel has had to defend itself continually against jihad.)

9) Islamic ideals of tolerance, justice, and safety? Muslims only, please.

Mohamed notes a punishment carried out in Saudi Arabia for heinous crimes. I have no problem with that.

I do have a problem with this: Mr. Fadly does not mention that the way in which the “Islamic religion maintain[s] the safety of the people” applies only to Muslims, even in his beloved Egypt, where Copts are attacked and killed and their daughters kidnapped and raped routinely by Muslims.

Under Islamic law – which is derived from Qur'an and Sunna – non-Muslims, apostates, women, and little children are not afforded the same consideration as Muslim males.

Consider the following passages regarding just non-Muslims; perhaps Mohamed can explain how these texts don't say what they actually say:

"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)."

"Yahya related to me from Malik that he heard that Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz gave a decision that when a [J]ew or [C]hristian 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).

"Muhammad - the messenger of GOD - and those with him are harsh and stern against the disbelievers, but kind and compassionate amongst themselves" (Qur'an 48:29).

And, of course, all the passages regarding offensive warfare to make the world Islam.

Theology shapes ideology

For better in the case of Christianity and the American Republic.

For worse in the case of Islam and non-Muslims, apostates, women, and children everywhere.

Spurred by a patriot:

Freedom of speech is an excellent point at which to begin comparing and contrasting YHWH and His Christ -- the God of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, and the Prophets -- with Allah, Muhammad's deity.

The American conviction expressed in the Declaration of Independence -- that all rights come from YHWH and are therefore, unalienable (cannot be transferred, sold, stolen, or given away), belong to all equally, and include Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness – is derived directly from the teachings of the Bible, especially the words and work of Christ.

In the Ten Commandments we find YHWH's protection of human life (and other rights), and in the words of the Apostles we find that, "It is for freedom that Christ has set us free."

We also receive from Jesus the concept of "Two Kingdoms" -- civil government versus God's rule in the Church, the invisible body of all Christians everywhere. Christ taught, "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's [in context, money for taxes, and this to the Roman tyrant!], and give to God what is God's” [faith, obedience, loyalty, everything else].

Because of these doctrines, under the American Constitution all citizens are guaranteed the right to practice freely the non-genocidal, non-totalitarian religion of their choosing, without government interference.

Compare and contrast Christ's doctrines and the form of government derived from them with Allah's:

First, according to Muhammad, Allah's final revelations (these abrogate all previous statements allowing peaceful cooperation with non-Muslims) do not allow freedom of speech or religion. Muhammad slaughtered those who spoke against him (see, for example, Asma bint Marwan, whose murder at Muhammad's instigation is recorded by Ibn Ishaq in his Sirat Rasul Allah). He also commanded that if anyone changes his Islamic religion, “then kill him” (Bukhari Volume 9, Book 84, Number 57).

Second, according to Muhammad, he was ordered (and so are his followers) to fight against the people “until all religion is for Allah.” Muslims are to use any means necessary to establish the rule of Allah over all mankind. This means that unless a non-Muslim accepts the “invitation” to Islam – or slavery under it if they're “lucky” enough to be a Jew or Christian (or perhaps, Zoroastrian, though they've been mostly wiped out by Islam) -- he is to be slaughtered by the faithful:

"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).

Consider the stark contrast between any shari'a state in history and America. Even today's Islamic nations, though not fully shari'a-compliant, are prime examples of utter barbarism, discrimination, and tyranny, while the United States of America (once the most Christian nation on Earth) is still the most free, even to the point of ending slavery within its borders (something of which Muhammad and his allah approve, especially if the infidel slave woman is really “desirable”).

Clearly, when human beings obey the principles found in the religion taught by Christ, freedom results.

Allah's religion results only in slavery and death.

Calvin's lonely god

Christ said that "many" enter destruction, and few find the way to eternal life.

If, as Calvin and some of his defenders argue, God denies the "many" reprobate who end up in Hell knowledge of Him and His grace -- they are "justly left in their sin" by His "sovereignty" -- then Calvin's god is lonely by choice. It chose to save only a few.

The Christian God calls all people to eternal life, not just the "lucky" few.

Offered in response to some thoughts from a kind sir concerned about my understanding of Calvin's unique doctrines:

I realize now that "God's Sovereignty" is code for "I'm a Calvinist."

I did not intend to "go for the throat;" I got the sense that you were someone who was perhaps Lutheran and had moderated your original views on Calvin's doctrines.

Apparently, you have crossed over fully into Calvinism.

As for what Calvin taught and Calvinism teaches, I did not invent, “TULIP.”

With Total Depravity (“T”), I have no problem (the teaching, not the condition!), since Scripture says that we are by nature sinful and unclean. We are dead in our trespasses and sin.

With that Luther would agree, I think.

Perseverence of the Saints (“P”), though contrary to Scripture, does not make God a monster.

It is with the heart of Calvinism (the center of "t U-L-I p") that I have a problem. It contradicts the Word of God and perverts His nature. (That's the nicest way I can say that without lying by omission.)

With respect to Unconditional Election (“U”), yes, Scripture states that God predestines believers to eternal life, and yes, It does make clear that those who end up in Hell deserve it (as do we all).

But judging from the Calvin quote I offered previously -- according to the Modern History Sourcebook, "from John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, translated by John Allen" (sorry, no page number), found here -- it does not seem that he is saying what you are saying he's saying.

Calvin states that God "exclud[es] the reprobate from the knowledge of his name and the sanctification of his Spirit."

God does not say that He “justly leaves us in our sins” (your words). Christ came to save “the world.”

Jesus puts the lie to Calvin's claim by observing, “many are called, but few are chosen.” How many is “many,” according to the context? Those who were invited refused, so the King's servants were commanded to go out into the streets and "invite . . . as many as you find." They “gathered all whom they found.”

Not “some” of whom they found. All were invited. All were called.

No one was "justly left in their sin," alone and helpless.

Similarly, with regard to Limited Atonement (“L”) you wrote, "An atonement that actually saves and purchases us out of sin."

Jesus actually saves. Christ is – “actually” -- the atoning sacrifice not only for our sins, but for the sins of “the whole world.” God was actually reconciling “the world” to Himself in Christ's body on the cross.

Not “some” of the world.

Jesus did not lament, "I longed to gather only 'some' of you." Nor did He declare that His mission was to save "only some." Christ came to seek and to save “the lost.”

Not “some” of the lost.

Lastly, concerning Irresistible Grace (“I”), if God's grace is “irresistible,” then – as Calvin observes above – God does not send His Holy Spirit to those “many” who end up in Hell, or they wouldn't be there.

You call that, "justly leaving people in their sin."

Calvin's god creates people for Hell.

Calvin's god died for only some people.

Calvin's god denies the Holy Spirit to many.

Calvin's god justly leaves many in their sin, helpless and alone.

Christ opened the kingdom of Heaven to all people, but Calvin and his god shut it in people's faces.

They are "denied the knowledge of God and His grace." They are "justly left in their sin."

The justice of God is not how a holy and righteous God punishes sin, but how the merciful God justifies all in Christ: "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus . . . ."

Christ died for all so that all might live.

Update: It was recommended I read Piper's, The Justification of God. Here is my reaction to that:

I had a chance to read the sermon. Piper quotes Jonathan Edwards:

"the doctrine of God’s sovereignty, in choosing whom he would to eternal life, and rejecting whom he pleased; leaving them eternally to perish, and be everlastingly tormented in hell."

"in God’s shewing mercy to whom he will show mercy, and hardening whom he will."

You (plural) are taking Paul's rhetorical argument -- a hypothetical -- and making out of it a doctrine that contradicts the rest of Scripture.

That hardly seems wise.

Piper says that "Romans 9 is an explanation for why the word of God has not failed even though God’s chosen people, Israel, as a whole, are not turning to Christ and being saved."

He claims that the reason for their not turning to Christ is "God's sovereignty."

But Paul says it is because of unbelief in Christ:

"but that Israel who pursued a law that would lead to righteousness did not succeed in reaching that law. Why? Because they did not pursue it by faith, but as if it were based on works. They have stumbled over the stumbling stone, as it is written, "Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offense; and whoever believes in him will not be put to shame" (Romans 9:31-33).

Piper's misunderstanding of Romans 9 comes from his misidentifying "Israel." They do not have "conditions they must me[e]t to be the 'children of promise.'"

Paul is making the point in Romans 9 that it is by faith -- not works -- that both Jew and Gentile become a part of the true Israel.

This chapter is not about God denying His grace to anyone -- justly leaving people in their sin -- it is about how a person receives the forgiveness of sins and eternal life: Faith in Christ.

Piper concludes by asking:

"Are all Israel the "children of promise" or only some? If only some, what makes one person a child of promise and another not?"

Paul answers -- God answers: "Faith in Christ" -- which is "the gift of God" -- makes a person a child of the Promise.

Support those defending Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness

Here is the site.

Murderer of tens of thousands gets a taste of his own medicine

George Tiller received more consideration from his executioner than he offered to his victims.

Perhaps abortion supporters should consider his death just a really, really, late-term abortion.

To them, if it's a baby being slaughtered, it's a "Constitutional right," but if it's one of their own on the receiving end of a "procedure," it's a crime.

What is it that abortionists like George Tiller, Barack Hussein Obama, Notre Dame, and the Democratic Party defend(ed)?

The fiends at Planned Parenthood describe common abortion this way:

"[e]ither a hand-held suction device or a suction machine gently empties your uterus. Sometimes, an instrument called a curette is used to remove any remaining tissue that lines the uterus. It may also be used to check that the uterus is empty. When a curette is used, people often call the abortion a D&C — dilation and curettage.

"gently," "empties," "any remaining tissue." That "tissue" is what's left of the baby.

Euphemisms for cruel slaughter.

Abortionists butcher not only the unborn, but the English language as well, because this is what they're trying to hide:

Suction Abortion Also called vacuum aspiration, this is the most common abortion technique in use today. In this procedure a suction tube is inserted through the dilated cervix into the womb. A powerful vacuum tears the placenta from the uterus and dismembers the body of the developing child, sucking the pieces into an attached jar. There is a risk that the uterus can be punctured during the procedure. Also, the abortionist must take care that all the body parts are removed from the womb, as infection and hemorrhage can occur if fetal or placental tissue is left in the uterus.

You certainly wouldn't want someone dismembering their baby to feel any discomfort.

Dilation and Curettage: In a D&C abortion, usually performed between seven and twelve weeks of pregnancy, the doctor inserts a curette, a loop-shaped steel knife, into the womb through the dilated cervix. As the curette scrapes the wall of the uterus, the baby is cut into pieces. Bleeding can be considerable. As with a suction abortion, there is a risk of infection or hemorrhage, so the abortionist must reassemble the body parts to make sure the uterus is empty.

Can't leave any baby laying around, can we?

Dilation and Evacuation: This method is similar to a D&C, except that forceps must be used to grasp the baby's body because of the child's advanced development. The baby is dismembered as the abortionist twists and tears the parts of the body and slices the placenta away from the uterus. Bleeding is profuse. Although relatively safe for the mother, the procedure is devastating to the hospital staff and many doctors refuse to do advanced D&E abortions.

How bad must it be that exercising this fundamental, Constitutional right is "devastating" to human beings who otherwise have no qualms about butchering younger, more helpless babies?

George Tiller had no problem with any of this.

Neither does B. Hussein Obama, since he opposed protecting those who survived their murderers' vacuums and blades.

Instead of offering assurances of special protection to abortionists, he ought to be fulfilling his oath of office and defending Life.

Here's what made George Tiller a "hero":

Salt Poisoning (Saline Injection): "Salting out" is the second most common method of inducing abortion and is usually used after sixteen weeks. The doctor inserts a long needle through the mother's abdomen and injects a saline solution into the sac of amniotic fluid surrounding the baby. The baby is poisoned by swallowing the salt and his skin is completely burned away. It takes about an hour to kill the baby. After the child dies, the mother goes into labor and expels the dead baby. Saline injections have been outlawed in some countries because of the risks to the mother, which can include lung and kidney damage if the salt finds its way into her bloodstream. In spite of the horrible burning effect, some babies have survived "salting out" and been born alive.

Hysterotomy; Similar to the Cesarean section, the hysterotomy abortion is a surgical procedure whereby the baby is removed from the mother's womb and allowed to die by neglect or killed by a direct act. This method offers the highest risk to the mother and produces the most number of live births. Hysterotomy is used only for late term pregnancies, and is sometimes used if the salt poisoning or prostaglandin abortion has failed.Just as Hitler's mufti -- the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem -- exhorted Nazis at a concentration camp he visited during The War, slaughtering innocents takes diligence!

Prostaglandin Abortion: Prostaglandin is a chemical hormone which induces violent labor and premature birth when injected into the amniotic sac. Since prostaglandin results in an unusually high percentage of live births, salt, urea or another toxin is often injected first. The risk of live birth from a prostaglandin abortion is so great that its use is recommended only in hospitals with neonatal intensive care units. The risk to the mother is also greater with the use of prostaglandin; complications can include cardiac arrest.

Utter barbarity.

Ann Coulter has it right:

Tiller bragged about performing 60,000 abortions, including abortions of viable babies, able to survive outside the mother's womb. He made millions of dollars performing late-term abortions so gruesome that only two other abortionists – not a squeamish bunch – in the entire country would perform them.

Abortionists have murdered tens of millions of innocent, helpless babies. What do those killers receive in return?

Not justice, not condemnation, not even a strongly-worded note. Instead, they get apologies, supplications, and assurances of special protection.

The unborn receive . . . only support for their butchers.

What kind of church allows a monster like that in their congregation? Those are no Lutherans. They're no Christians. They're hypocrites and cowards.

The Canaanites who worshiped Molech sacrificed their children no less brutally than Tiller and his coreligionists.

Who can hope to escape judgment?

Twisting Divine revelation to in order to make YHWH a monster

Just like the prophet from hell Mohammed/Mohammad/Muhammad.

Another odd and hostile comment from someone enamored with Calvin's capricious and malevolent deity (must have struck a nerve!), this time from Go Share Your Faith (the author did not leave a link; I assume that is his/her site. If not, let me know, and I'll fix it).

He/she writes:

It would be nice if your bias was a little less severe so that you could quote scripture accurately:

"I longed to gather you like a hen gathers her chicks, but you were not willing."But it's actually:

"I longed to gather your children like a hen gathers her chicks, but you were not willing."what's the difference?

One is a false proof text taken out of context.

The other is Jesus rebuking the pharisees for their behavior and pronouncing woe's upon them...no mention of Him weeping over their ability to "resist his attempts at saving them"

You accuse others of bias but you have a streak of bias a mile wide and it's showing.

The woes precede the lament.

Here is Matthew 23:37 according to the English Standard Version:

"O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it! How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you would not!"

Jesus said, "I longed to gather your children . . . but you were not willing."

You make Christ a liar.

If you want to make a distinction, what is the difference between "Jerusalem" and "your children" in this verse?

Jesus said, "the city" murdered prophets. How? Parking fines?

Cities don't kill prophets, people do.

(Would its "children" be suburbs?)

Or are you claiming that the Pharisees and their fellow hypocrites are "Jerusalem"? If so, when Jesus warns the "Daughters of Jerusalem" to weep for themselves and their children, is He actually calling them, "Daughters of the Pharisees"?

If you limit Jesus' comments to the hypocritical religious authorities He was condemning, who are their "children"? The people of Jerusalem, or just their converts -- "twice the children of hell"?

Even under that misinterpretation, Christ longed to gather the Pharisees' proselytes, but the Pharisees were not willing. (The Pharisees were able to disbelieve for their converts?)

Does not "Jerusalem" here represent the people of Israel in general?

The point of my citing that verse is that YHWH longed to save unbelievers, but they refused.

And that's why you don't like the passage.

You and your buddy John Calvin are like the older brother in the Parable of the Prodigal Son. You think that you alone deserve Heaven, and you're mad that anyone else is going to be there.

God's mercy should not be a source of anguish for you. His love extends to all people. Christ died for all. He is the atoning sacrifice not only for our sins, but for the sins of the whole world.

In trying to prove that God creates people for hell, you twist an expression of God's grace into an expectation of perdition.

You make Gospel into Law and His words meaningless.

Just like Rome. Just like much of Evangelicalism.

Just like . . . the Pharisees.

In your zeal to make God a monster, you jump to conclusions regarding the verse not necessarily supported by the rest of Scripture.

You are correct that here in Matthew, the preceding verses have Jesus pronouncing condemnation against the religious authorities opposing Him (the condemnation brought on them by their own refusal of His "gathering," not "divine" whim!).

But what do you do with Luke 13?

Here the same lamentation follows a number of different topics, including Christ's teaching and preaching.

Rather than a series of woes, the last part preceding the lament is a comment intended for Herod. Notice its conclusion:

At that very hour some Pharisees came and said to him, "Get away from here, for Herod wants to kill you."

And he said to them, "Go and tell that fox, 'Behold, I cast out demons and perform cures today and tomorrow, and the third day I finish my course. Nevertheless, I must go on my way today and tomorrow and the day following, for it cannot be that a prophet should perish away from Jerusalem.'

O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it! How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you would not!

Behold, your house is forsaken. And I tell you, you will not see me until you say, 'Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord'" (Luke 13:31-35)!

An observation about Israel's tradition of murdering God's messengers is followed by an expression of the sorrow that that God feels for (even) His rebellious people.

Jesus takes Herod's bloodlust (and the Pharisees' warning) as an opportunity to foreshadow His own Passion and the events of Holy Week, which leads into His lament for those whom He longed to save and for whom He was about to die.

But that's not good enough for you. You have to make this about Christ creating on a whim people for destruction.

In your effort to defend your heresy, you make the Son of God a son of hell.

So, I have a question for you: According to your theology, how do you know whether or not you're going to Heaven?

For if Calvin's god arbitrarily chose before the foundation of the world some for Life and some for Hell, how can you know of which group you are a part? You know that some will be sent to destruction who worked in Christ's name, to which defense He will reply, "I never knew you."

You can't be good enough, you can't try hard enough, you can't resist sin enough or do enough good works to know that you've been picked, because you still sin.

The Scriptural answer to my question is this:

Christ has died for the sins of the whole world, so I know that He died for mine, too.

Thanks be to God!

B. Hussein Obama only cares about school kids when they advance his agenda

Pomona high school students make a video articulating how the failing economy hurts them (just about everyone is affected), and Obama rushes out to the West Coast like a lawyer chasing an ambulance.

Why not waste thousands of taxpayer dollars even though we're facing "the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression"? It's a chance for a photo-op and an opportunity to bash the former president! You might even find a female, Hispanic-with-hyphenated-surname superintendent for your administration.

But little kids from Virginia coming to the White House for a visit, a trip they've planned for a year?

No, he can't.

It's good to see that the Chief Executive has his priorities straight: Terrorists can get into the U.S., but five- and six-year-old schoolchildren can't get into the White House:

Parents say they tried to make it on time, but their chartered buses hit heavy traffic that slowed them down substantially. They thought they were supposed to show up by 10:15, but they say they arrived at 10:25 instead, and couldn’t get in.

"The person who headed this White House trip up came out and said, 'I’m sorry, the White House tour's off.' There were a lot of crying kids," parent Barbara Stine said.

. . . "Here we have President Obama and his administration saying, 'Here we are for the common, middle class people,' and here he is not letting 150 5- and 6-year-olds into the White House because he’s throwing a lunch for a bunch of grown millionaires," Stine said.

FDR to extend hand in friendship to world's Nazis in speech from Hitler's bunker this June 4th, 1943

The following weekend, he'll be in Japan attempting to repair relations with the island nation through a talk delivered from Emperor Hirohito's palace.

This comes on the heels of the President's comments made outside Auschwitz that Nazism deserves "respect." Mr. Roosevelt also suggested that the nations of Europe and Asia should advance the Peace Process by making sacrifices, including "Land for Peace."

"We must dialogue with the moderate elements of the Waffen-SS, kamikaze, and banzai units," he declared.

The White House has announced details of Mr. Roosevelt's charm offensive. He plans to bow deeply to both Hitler and Hirohito as a sign of mutual respect, apologize for Pearl Harbor, Midway, and the Holocaust, and reassure both empires of his continued commitment to bankrupting and disarming America in the name of "Main Street."

As a sign of the United States' good will, the President will release members of the German and Japanese militaries captured in combat into American society at taxpayers' expense.

Additionally, American successes in Doolittle's Raid, the Battle of the Coral Sea, and Midway have now been redesignated "Embarrassing Failures of Diplomacy;" the methods used to decipher Japanese communications leading to the American "victory" at Midway have been published in the New York Times, and the Cryptanalytic Unit responsible for the intelligence that gave America the advantage there has been accused of lying by one of Mr Roosevelt's closest allies in Congress.

Plans for actions at Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Dresden, and Normandy have all been postponed and await Nazi and Japanese approval.

President Roosevelt also unveiled Executive Order #12071941 establishing "Overseas Contingency Operations Relocation Camps." Americans opposing the President's policies will be designated "extremists" and evaluated for the confiscation of their First through Tenth Amendment Rights.

The Order also gives the president the authority to monitor and suspend all radio, telegraph, and pen-and-paper communications.

Allied leaders could not be reached for comment.

No genetic basis to homosexuality

Whether homosexuality is genetic or not -- and it appears now that there is no evidence of a genetic component -- it is an expression of our sinful human nature.

The Sixth Commandment (in the Roman Catholic and Lutheran traditions), "You shall not commit adultery" is speaking not only of the physical union of one person with another who is not their spouse. This fact Christ makes clear in His Sermon on the Mount: Even looking at a woman lustfully, a man is guilty of breaking the commandment in his heart. The Apostles wrote also by inspiration of the Holy Spirit that the body is His temple; therefore, we should honor God with our bodies. Numerous passages relate God's expectations for holiness, purity, and decency.

The Sixth Commandment not only restricts behavior, it shows us that we are to use our bodies as gifts from God for His glory and according to His will, and that is within one marriage between one man and one woman.

For those who want to argue that "they can't help it," yes, who can help sin? All of us break God's commandments, we all violate His will in thought, word, and deed every day. None of us is innocent. None of us has the right to condemn others for their sin. However a desire contrary to God's design enters into the human heart -- whether through an accident of biology, indoctrination, victimization, or the desire to do evil -- we must tell the truth.

All honest people have a responsibility to tell speak God's Word, to uphold His commands, to obey them, and to encourage others to do the same. Christians especially.

The APA is an interesting case. Homosexuality and other perversions of God's design used to be classified as mental illnesses; with enough political pressure, it removed the designation. What will they say now that there is no evidence of a genetic basis?

A publication from the American Psychological Association includes an admission that there is no "gay" gene, according to a doctor who has written about the issue on the website of National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality.

A. Dean Byrd, the past president of NARTH, confirmed that the statement from the American Psychological Association came in a brochure that updates what the APA has advocated for years.

Specifically, in a brochure that first came out about 1998, the APA stated: "There is considerable recent evidence to suggest that biology, including genetic or inborn hormonal factors, play a significant role in a person's sexuality."

However, in the update: a brochure now called, "Answers to Your Questions for a Better Understanding of Sexual Orientation & Homosexuality," the APA's position changed.

The new statement says:

"There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles. ..."

"Although there is no mention of the research that influenced this new position statement, it is clear that efforts to 'prove' that homosexuality is simply a biological fait accompli have failed," Byrd wrote. "The activist researchers themselves have reluctantly reached that conclusion. There is no gay gene. There is no simple biological pathway to homosexuality."

Byrd said the APA's documents both new and old "have strong activist overtones," but the newer document "is more reflective of science and more consistent with the ethicality of psychological care."

"On the question of whether or not therapy can change sexual orientation, the former document offered a resounding 'no,'" Byrd wrote. "However, the current document is much more nuanced and contains the following statement: 'To date, there has been no scientifically adequate research to show that therapy (sometimes called reparative or conversion therapy) is safe or effective.'"

A spokesman for NARTH said the change in statements, although not new, is considered significant for the organization. The APA declined to return a WND call requesting comment.

Byrd questioned whether the APA now plans to study the effectiveness of a variety of therapies for homosexuality.

"Many are entirely without validation, yet practitioners regularly receive Continuing Education credits for teaching these same therapies through APA-approved courses. Perhaps it is time for APA to hold all therapies and all therapists to the standard which they advocate for reorientation therapy," he said.

But he wrote that the changes are substantial, with even a change in the APA's recommendations for additional information.

"Most intriguing are the recommended resources for further reading. The former brochure referred readers to the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force; to Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays, and to Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States (SIECUS), all activist groups," Byrd wrote. "The current brochure refers readers to the American Psychological Association, Mental Health America, and the American Academy of Pediatrics."

NARTH documents other evidence of a lack of a "gay" gene, too.

For example, Douglas Abbott, a University of Nebraska professor, concluded, "If homosexuality was caused by genetic mechanisms, their children would be more likely to choose same-sex interaction. But they aren't more likely, so therefore it can't be genetic."

NARTH also rebuts some of the advocacy positions taken by homosexual proponents.

"The term 'homophobia' is often used inaccurately to describe any person who objects to homosexual behavior on either moral, psychological or medical grounds," NARTH explains. "Technically, however, the terms actually denotes a person who has a phobia – or irrational fear – of homosexuality. Principled disagreement, therefore, cannot be labeled 'homophobia.'"

WND has reported on those who have left the homosexual lifestyle, and the opposition they face, including when a homosexual advocate attributed the crime of rape to the "sickness" of the ex-"gay" movement.

Among other recent developments in the ongoing argument over the 'innateness" on homosexuality:

* A New England organization reports members of a transgender lobby promised to shadow grandmothers and others who will be collecting petition signatures on a traditional marriage amendment.

* Actions by members of the homosexual community prompted the American Psychiatric Association to cancel what was to be a discussion of the lifestyle.

* And prominent leaders of the homosexual community have stated that only they benefit from hate crimes laws, laws that enhance a penalty for crimes already covered by other statutes based on the thoughts that accompany the criminal act.

Regina Griggs, the executive director of Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays, said her organization and staff members repeatedly have been attacked simply because of their message: that there are such individuals as former homosexuals.

Some attacks have been physical, such as a 2007 incident at the Arlington County Fair. Police told WND, there was a confrontation between an individual who got upset over the PFOX message about leaving homosexuality and a volunteer at the fair booth.

"One officer told me today he was on patrol at the fair when a woman approached him and told him a man had knocked over pamphlets at the PFOX booth and assaulted another man there. The officer then spoke to the alleged victim. He did not want to press charges and therefore no written report was filed," said a statement issued by John Lisle, media relations officer for the Arlington County police department.

"Based on the description the officer was given, he located the suspect at the fair. Another officer escorted that gentleman off the fair grounds," his statement continued.

The result? Pro-homosexual activists vigorously condemned Griggs for "making up" the story when she alerted supporters about the situation.

"Regina Griggs has lost all credibility and must resign in shame for her dishonest behavior," wrote Wayne Besen, executive director of the homosexual advocacy group Truth Wins Out. "What PFOX did was warped, twisted and an insult (sic) real hate crime victims."

Those who condemn homosexual behavior also face electronic badgering. When Sally Kern, an Oklahoma lawmaker, vocally rejected the homosexual lifestyle, she was inundated with tens of thousands of e-mails in a coordinated attack on her beliefs. Some of the e-mails threatened her.

Brangelina and Muslim terrorists indistinguishable?

Disregarding the Left's general alliance with Islam in dismantling stone-by-stone the Judeo-Christian foundation of Western Civilization, the attempt below to transfer the Islamic predilection for child slavery to wealthy Western celebrities doing who-knows-what is ill-conceived.

It seems defensive.

Another reply to Mr. Appel here:

Adoption is not human-trafficking.

Even though I believe a lot of what “Hollywood celebrities” espouse is harmful, I don’t believe equating well-intentioned entertainers with wealthy Arab sheikhs is at all justified.

What’s the worst that can happen in either scenario? With Brangelina, you might develop a sense of entitlement (or retinal damage from the paparazzi). With a sheikh? How about being a nine-year-old “wife,” per Muhammad’s example with little nine-year-old Aisha?

That little [actress] was not offered as chattel because of Western tourists’ indifference. That was something her father chose.

(And even though it’s a bit of a tu quoque argument, and a false one at that) How many “Westerners” sell their children for any reason? At any price?

Hijabs on the move

Can you imagine individuals walking American streets, going about their business, proudly displaying swastikas or the Rising Sun of Imperial Japan?

In 1942?

Neither can I.

Something odd occurred this past Sunday. During an Arabian horse show's climactic demonstration, a group of brightly-clad Muslimas wheeled their strollers and hijabs from one side of the stadium to the other directly in the view of the entire audience, paused once they reached the other side of the stadium, and then left.

They were making a statement.

Islamophobic? Not in light of the Muslim Brotherhood's declared intention to subvert the American Constitution from within and subjugate the West to Allah.

Approaching eight years after 9/11, many Americans are ignorant still regarding Islam. How many Muslims are?

A "Christian" who married what I thought was a decent, Muslim-in-Name-Only Muslim once defended the hijab from my charge that it was a symbol of slavery and death by asserting stupidly that "Mary covered her head."

Lots of people cover their head. Only one covering symbolizes fourteen centuries of global slavery, rape, and slaughter.

From here:

Mr. Appel,

I disagree . . . kindly, openly, and nicely.

I quoted the words of Muhammad and his allah, yet you call them “cheap shots,” “anger,” and “prejudice.” What does that say about what you believe about those passages?

I was not attacking the author; the fact that my comment was allowed here speaks to her respect for freedom of speech and her generosity. I am attempting to alert all people of good will to the Source and Sustenance of fourteen centuries of suffering and death for billions of non-Muslims and Muslim women, children, and apostates.

With regard to the hijab, I realize that some Muslim women choose to wear it for their own reasons. That does not change the fact that since Muhammad practiced covering his property (wives, concubines, slaves), and Allah calls him “a beautiful pattern of conduct for those who want to please” him, the hijab/niqab/abaya are mandatory for the devout:

“And say to the believing women that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty; that they should not display their beauty and ornaments except what (must ordinarily) appear thereof; that they should draw their veils over their bosoms and not display their beauty except to their husbands, their fathers, their husband’s fathers, their sons, their husbands’ sons, their brothers or their brothers’ sons, or their sisters’ sons, or their women, or the slaves whom their right hands possess, or male servants free of physical needs, or small children who have no sense of the shame of sex . . .” (Qur’an 24:31).

“Aisha used to say: ‘When (the Verse): “They should draw their veils over their necks and bosoms,” was revealed, (the ladies) cut their waist sheets at the edges and covered their faces with the cut pieces’” (Bukhari Volume 6, Book 60, Number 282).

“Narrated ‘Aisha: ‘Allah’s Apostle used to offer the Fajr prayer and some believing women covered with their veiling sheets used to attend the Fajr prayer with him and then they would return to their homes unrecognized’” (Bukhari Volume 1, Book 8, Number 368).

[Explanatory note: Shaikh Ibn Uthaimin in tafseer of this hadith explains: "This hadith makes it clear that the Islamic dress is concealing of the entire body as explained in this hadith. Only with the complete cover including the face and hands can a woman not be recognized. This was the understanding and practice of the Sahaba and they were the best of group, the noblest in the sight of Allah . . . with the most complete Imaan and noblest of characters. so if the practice of the women of the sahaba was to wear the complete veil then how can we deviate from their path?"]

“Narrated ‘Aisha: ‘The wives of the Prophet used to go to Al-Manasi, a vast open place (near Baqia at Medina) to answer the call of nature at night. ‘Umar used to say to the Prophet “Let your wives be veiled,” but Allah’s Apostle did not do so. One night Sauda bint Zam’a the wife of the Prophet went out at ‘Isha’ time and she was a tall lady. ‘Umar addressed her and said, “I have recognized you, O Sauda.” He said so, as he desired eagerly that the verses of Al-Hijab (the observing of veils by the Muslim women) may be revealed. So Allah revealed the verses of “Al-Hijab” (A complete body cover excluding the eyes)’” (Bukhari Volume 1, Book 4, Number 148).

On a related note, I would ask you to produce from any other major religion’s sacred texts open-ended, universal commands to enslave or slaughter all who refuse the “invitation” to conversion. This is unique to Islam.

On the other hand, Jesus taught and practiced, “Love your neighbor as yourself,” and, “Love your enemies.”

Muhammad butchered those who resisted him. Christ died for the sins of all people, including Muslims.

There is no moral equivalence between the two.

Just whose side is he on?

If Allah and his apostle command the subjugation, humiliation, and slaughter of all who refuse the "invitation" to Islam, what is the difference between Islam and "militant" Islam?

The American "president"

-bows to the tyrant of Saudi Arabia,

-apologizes to Iran (for their taking American citizens hostage?),

-cajoles the radical Venezuelan dictator Chavez,

-and courts the murdering Castro brothers of Cuba,

but according to a report from his administration, it is patriotic Americans who believe in Individual Liberty and limited government -- especially heroes returning from war -- who pose a potential terrorist threat.

The Founding Fathers would be under house arrest, but jihadists are to be released into America itself?

Just in today's news:

Obama will release Uighur Muslim terrorists into the United States and release new photos of Americans being mean to bloodthirsty monsters; but Tony Blair calls for the world to wage war against "militant" Islam.

If an illegal immigrant from Kenya/Indonesia can be president, why can't Tony Blair? Even if his definitions need some refining, at least he wants to put up a fight.