If you don't agree with "sacralized" genocide, pedophilia, rape, slavery, theft, deceit, and blasphemy, don't defend Muhammad's words and deeds

Mohamed Fadly worships a god which mandates or endorses genocide, pedophilia, rape, slavery, theft, deceit, and blasphemy, and he's worried about my words?

A brief reply to some comments here:

If a donkey says he's a donkey, looks like a donkey, sounds like a donkey, and acts like a donkey, he's probably a donkey.

All of which is irrelevant to my comments, since I am not making things up, I am not mischaracterizing, labeling falsely, stereotyping, or demonizing others, I am reporting what the donkey of Allah said and did.

If Mohamed doesn't agree with "sacralized" genocide, pedophilia, rape, slavery, theft, deceit, and blasphemy, he should stop defending Muhammad's words and deeds.

Actually, he's not defended them, he's only tried to explain why Islamic bloodlust, barbarity, and discrimination is good for us.

Mohamed protested against:

Since Muhammad used his "faith" as a tool to satiate his lusts

But Muhammad said Allah told him to rape Aisha:

“Narrated 'Aisha [Mohammed's six-year-old "bride" and nine-year-old sexual "partner"]: 'Allah's Apostle said (to me), "You were shown to me twice in (my) dream [before I married you]. Behold, a man was carrying you in a silken piece of cloth and said to me, 'She is your wife, so uncover her,' and behold, it was you. I would then say (to myself), 'If this is from Allah, then it must happen.'"'" (Bukhari Volume 9, Book 87, Number 139 and 140).

Mohamed took offense at:

you are those who "kill children and attack innocents."

In obedience to Allah's command and Muhammad's example, every day around the world, Muslims rape, enslave, and butcher non-Muslims, including children and other innocents:

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

If Mohamed does not like being a part of "you" (jihadists warring against non-Muslims), he should stop being a part of "you." Stop defending them.

Mr. Fadly didn't like this, either:

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

The Son of God died for the sins of all people (including you, Mohamed), so that all -- including Muslims -- might go to heaven.

On the other hand, Muhammad said that killing (or being killed trying to kill) non-Muslims gets you "paradise," with your perpetual virgins and boys "like pearls":

"Allah hath purchased of the believers their persons and their goods; for theirs (in return) is the garden (of Paradise): they fight in His cause, and slay and are slain: a promise binding on Him in truth, through the Law, the Gospel, and the Qur'an: and who is more faithful to his covenant than Allah?" (Qur'an 9:111).

Mohamed balked at this:

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

Muhammad did command and practice retaliation, including death for poetry:

"When the apostle heard what she had said he said, 'Who will rid me of Marwan's daughter?' Umayr bin Adiy al-Khatmi who was with him heard him, and that very night he went to her house and killed her. In the morning he came to the apostle and told him what he had done and he [Muhammad] said, "You have helped Allah and His apostle, O Umayr!" When he asked if he would have to bear any evil consequences the apostle said, 'Two goats won't butt their heads about her,' so Umayr went back to his people.

Now there was a great commotion among Banu Khatma that day about the affair of bint [daughter of] Marwan. She had five sons, and when Umayr went to them from the apostle he said, 'I have killed bint Marwan, o sons of Khatma. Withstand me if you can; don't keep me waiting.' That was the first day Islam became powerful among Banu Khatma; before that those who were Muslims concealed the fact . . .The day after Bint Marwan was killed the men of Banu Khatma became Muslims because they feared for their lives" (Ibn Ishaq, Sirat Rasul Allah).

And here's another clause that offended Mr. Fadly:

Here's what your false prophet Muhammad

Muhammad claimed to be a prophet of the God of the Bible, yet he calls the Son of God, YHWH in the Flesh, "unbeliever," "cursed by Allah," and "deluded," for Christians are stating only what Christ Himself, His Father, and the Holy Spirit testify:

"[. . .] Christians call Christ the son of Allah. That is a saying from their mouth; (in this) they but imitate what the unbelievers of old used to say. Allah's curse be on them: how they are deluded away from the Truth" (Qur'an 9:30)!

Either Allah is not YHWH-- contrary to Muhammad and Muslim's claims -- or Muhammad was a false prophet.

Perhaps instead of objecting to accurate, factual descriptions of Muhammad, Mohamed Fadly should be objecting to what Muhammad said and did.

Muhammad went to fight a Byzantine army that wasn't there; They weren't terrified, just absent

Mohamed, there are a few things wrong with your analysis:

Only those who misunderstand the Islamic mandate to enslave or slaughter all who refuse the "invitation" to Islam -- and those hoping to deceive non-Muslims into complacency -- discuss Muslims "make massacres and kill everyone on their way, or that Muslims are vampires who spill the blood of the enemy everywhere."

The key words are "everyone" and "everywhere."

The texts state clearly -- as do I, because I report what those documents say -- that if someone converts to Islam, leave them alone. If a "Person of the Book" -- Jew or Christian (or some other lucky souls depending on whom you ask) -- is willing to live as a slave and submit himself to vile degradation and humiliation in the name of Allah, then Muslims are not to kill him.

Brutalizing, disgracing, raping, extorting, and bullying him and his is "beautiful" though, since such behavior is consonant with Muhammad's Allah-pleasing example.

I told you an example for that "Terror". You see the Palestinian-Israeli conflict? Can you realize the obvious power hole between both sides?
*F22 vs ..(Palestinians don't have any air-fighters),
*Mirkava Tanks vs ..(Neither Palestinians have any tanks),
*Smart Rocks vs Local-Made Rocks,
*Most Recent Radars vs nothing equivalent.
Israelis can see every spot in Palestine, when Palestinians don't own any radars or small plans with cameras. But on the other side, can you see the excessive power that is always used by Israel? Thousands of tons of explosives, thousands of the most advanced technological F16, F22, tanks. Thousands of well-trained soldiers.

And yet they don't obliterate the "Palestinians," despite constant terrorism against their innocents.

They achieved nothing, they ran away in front of Palestinian resistance.
Why? That's because Muslims don't make victory in their battles against their enemies by the power or the weapons they own. Instead they make victory by the support of God even if they're weaker in physical power. It’s not about the tanks or air-fighters, but God’s support.

No, it's about human decency, something which, if the military advantage were reversed, you would not find among Muslims.

If during a time of impotence, Muslims maim and slaughter as much as they do (14,000 terrorist attacks since 9/11 alone, even using civilian planes as bombs), imagine what they'd do with actual military capability.

Another example from the prophet's life is; in a battle that was very hard to Muslims to enter, they had very few logistic support, it was very hot in the desert, but they had to face the enemy because of the preparing of the Byzants to attack Muslims. After thousands of miles towards the battle ground, Allah threw terror in the hearts of enemy leaders and soldiers that they left the battle ground even without facing Muslims.

When the Muslim army arrived there [. . . .]

. . . they found no one.

You're talking about the "Battle" of Tabuk, the time Muhammad went to fight a Byzantine army that wasn't there.

They weren't terrified, just absent.

Muhammad spun that one well, apparently.

If you don't like the "filthy language," don't blame me, blame Muhammad

So, quoting Muhammad and his allah is "poisoning the atmosphere of the discussion"?

If you don't like the "filthy language," don't blame me, blame Muhammad.

The last time we discussed [this topic], you tried to justify Muhammad's raping little nine-year-old Aisha.

She lamented, "The Prophet consummated his marriage with me in my house when I was nine years old” (Tabari 9:131).

You can't divorce what you haven't married [and this includes prepubescent girls]:

"And for such of your women as despair of menstruation, if ye doubt, their period (of waiting) shall be three months along with those who have it not . . . whosoever keepeth his duty to Allah, He maketh his course easy for him" (Qur'an 65:4).

[This is because] Aisha had not yet reached puberty (as if that would make raping a nine-year-old acceptable):

"Narrated 'Aisha: I used to play with the dolls in the presence of the Prophet, and my girl friends also used to play with me. When Allah's Apostle used to enter (my dwelling place) they used to hide themselves, but the Prophet would call them to join and play with me. (The playing with the dolls and similar images is forbidden, but it was allowed for 'Aisha at that time, as she was a little girl, not yet reached the age of puberty.) (Fateh-al-Bari page 143, Vol.13)" (Bukhari Volume 8, Book 73, Number 151).

"'A'isha . . . reported that Allah's Apostle . . . married her when she was seven years old, and she was taken to his house as a bride when she was nine, and her dolls were with her; and when he [Mohammed] died she was eighteen years old" (Muslim Book 8, Number 3311).

Neither am I the one "accusing him of that filthy and dirty accusations," he's the one admitting it:

Allah's Apostle said (to me [Aisha]), "You were shown to me twice in (my) dream [before I married you]. Behold, a man was carrying you in a silken piece of cloth and said to me, 'She is your wife, so uncover her,' and behold, it was you. I would then say (to myself), 'If this is from Allah, then it must happen.'"'" (Bukhari Volume 9, Book 87, Number 139 and 140).

Will you now denounce that behavior as evil, Mohamed?

Will you now condemn Islam's "sacralizing" of pedophilia in imitation of Muhammad's example?

Or do you agree with Allah that such behavior is a "beautiful pattern of conduct for those who want to please" him?

***************************

Jesus Christ died for Muhammad's sins, too. By all accounts, he rejected that, to his doom.

"Love" does not mean lying for nor dismissing evil; rather, if you love someone, you'll warn them to avoid their own destruction in this world and condemnation in the world to come.

When someone's "deep belief-structure" includes an absolute prohibition of criticism of Muhammad, how can anyone tell the truth?

A few thoughts for all free men to consider:

the abrupt wording Mr "A" has chosen has apparently violated the sensitive nature and deep belief-structure of my friend Mohamed Fadly

Ironically, out of Christian concern for Mohamed, my "abrupt wording" is actually toned-down.

But this is where every honest examination of Islam's "sacred" texts -- the written records of Allah's commands and the words and deeds of Muhammad -- always lead, since Mr. Fadly's "deep belief-structure" includes an absolute prohibition of criticism of Muhammad.

When that's the case, how can anyone tell the truth?

In my last post on why a woman must cover up under Islam, the only adjectives I used about Muhammad were "paranoid" and "jealous."

Do those two words compare at all in harm to the actual rape, brutality, and degradation women and little girls suffered at Muhammad's own hands (and other body parts) and [in accord with his example] emulated by devout Muslim men for fourteen hundred years?

If anyone, including Mohamed, can demonstrate where I've written something false, I will retract it.

Mr. Fadly's reaction is nothing new personally for him (or among Muslims in general), and so adds to this discussion by providing some insight into the attitudes and thought processes Muhammad's words and example shape in his followers:

Once ascendant, when Allah's apostle heard someone say something he didn't like, he had them killed (the poetess Asma bint Marwan opposed Muhammad, so he had her murdered. At least her killer set her nursing baby aside before he ran her through).

The same sort of death-for-criticizing-Muhammad has been carried out against non-Muslims for 1400 years (see the Pact of Umar and modern blasphemy/Qur'an-desecration laws for two vivid examples . . . .).

Today, those faithful Muslims who find themselves in a position of strength in a society (lands in which some form of shari'a dominates) do the same thing: Behead someone here, burn down something there.

Those who are not in the dominant position in their host country (most Western nations) resort to -- besides violence -- name-calling, law suits, and playing the victim.

Sometimes they shoot nuns over cartoons.

[Or imprison teachers over teddy bears.]

If Muhammad beheaded 700-900 Jews who had surrendered to him, is it improper to call him a "butcher" (or worse)?

If Muhammad began raping little Aisha when she was nine -- at Allah's ordaining! -- is it rude to say so?

Is it moral to speak "nicely" about such depravity?

I agree that my presentation can be forceful at times, but is it ever inaccurate, disproportionate to the evil under discussion, or false?

This is another form of blaming the victim, of demonizing those who tell the truth about Muhammad.

Here's conclusive proof of that: Has Mr. Fadly denounced any of his god and prophet's commands to enslave, rape, and slaughter those who refuse the "invitation" to Islam?

If not, why not?

Is the problem, then, the style of my presentation, or its substance?

My tone, or Mr. Fadly's integrity?

Update: Two Observations from Mr. Reb:

(A) Because Mr Amillennialist's wording has given us his clear and unequivocal response to Mohamed's contentions, I feel it would be both inappropriate and unwise for this referee to say anything...

(B) Mr "A"s words literally jumped off the page (7/25/09) and presents a serious challenge for his opponent. Therefore, I choose to remain neutral...

1. "Mr. Fadly's 'deep belief structure' includes an absolute prohibition of criticism of (prophet) Muhammad...when that is the case, how can anyone tell the truth?"

2. "If anyone, including Mohamed, can demonstrate where I've written something false, I will retract it."

There's a lot we can do to stop the surging tide of Islamic oppression

A community can do a lot: Inform the public -- relatives, neighbors, co-workers, politicians, university presidents, media outlets -- about the texts and tenets of Islam. Halt and reverse where possible Muslim immigration (importing Somalian jihad into Minnesota, anyone?). Punish for treason and sedition all those committing it by working to replace our Constitution with shari'a.

Secure the borders.

Don't allow American organizations -- like the American Library Association -- to cater to Muslim sensibilities or cave in to pressure from jihad's agents (CAIR, ISNA, MPAC, MAS, etc.), as in the ALA's recent and shameful censoring of Robert Spencer.

End Obama's bankrupting and disarming the nation, apologizing to Islam, releasing terrorists, and demanding that we respect Muhammad's "sacralized" genocide, murder, pedophilia, rape, mutilation, slavery, anti-Semitism, theft, deceit, and blasphemy.

Challenge Muslims on what their god commands and what their "ideal man," the "beautiful pattern of conduct for those who want to please" Allah, Muhammad, said and did.

Exercise your God-given, unalienable Freedoms of Speech and Assembly, and the Right to Bear Arms.

Speak Law and Gospel clearly.

There's a lot we can do.

24 TRILLION

Obama and his minions are bankrupting and disarming the nation.

The constitutional law professor and his co-conspirators are expert at violating the Document they swore to defend, pushing us hard into Socialism:

They broke the economy under Bush 43 by sabotaging home ownership.

They've taken control of financial institutions.

They've taken control of domestic auto production.

They're trying to drive us into the Stone Age with Cap-and-Trade.

They're about to take control of your medical care.

Now, we the American taxpayer -- and our descendants into perpetuity -- are responsible for (potentially) at least $24 trillion.

And he and his fellow fascists work to silence dissent in media and online.

Freedom of assembly and the Right to bear arms are also under attack.

Obama can apologize to Islam, the most malevolent, vile, and perverse ideology in human history; let him apologize to the American people.

He can bow to the Islamic tyrant of Saudi Arabia; let him bow to the American people by obeying -- not "empathizing with" (usurping) -- our Constitution.

Make the thieves in Congress and the White House pay back every cent they've stolen from the American people.

Demand their immediate resignation -- or impeach -- every greedy and incompetent politician who by commission or omission have led us to the precipice.

And while we're at it, enforce our borders, abolish the Federal Reserve, the income, death, and all other oppressive taxes, all entitlement programs, and every other anti-Liberty law, code, provision, addendum, and executive order thrust upon us over the last century.

The crisis is upon us. Restore Liberty.

As the Cat Meat sheikh in Australia explained, an uncovered woman is just uncovered meat to a Muslim [cat]

Originally, women had to cover up so that the paranoid and jealous Muhammad could make sure no one was looking at his property.

Later, it was so that the women wouldn't be raped by their coreligionists. As the Cat Meat sheikh in Australia explained, an uncovered woman is just uncovered meat to a Muslim (cat).

Why women must cover themselves (and why non-Muslim women are increasingly being targeted by Muslims for rape and other atrocities):

"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).

That's like saying Winston Churchill recruited Nazis by telling the truth about Hitler

A commenter posted:

It is far more certain that China and Russia will act towards their self preservation against radical threats than the certainty of your thinking. What evidence suggests they will not act and have not acted already?

What is "my thinking" exactly?

Judging from your careful attention to detail and command of basic facts, I doubt you're able to articulate it.

I was agreeing that China and Russia have their own jihads about which to worry. My "short-sighted" comment was pointing out that in Russia's case, even though they've got Chechnyan Muslims slaughtering and raping their schoolchildren, they still see fit to aid Iran.

China has one advantage as a totalitarian Communist regime: It can do what is necessary to stop its butchers without worrying about world opinion.

And now you are more of an expert than Jamal? Gee, can I attend your lectures probably filled with your reciting the Koran. What does the death of Hindus at the hands of the Taliban prove in denying his claim? In fact, he says they were created for this purpose, yes?

The Taliban have been around since the 1990's. I was referring to Islam's jihad invasions of India over the last 1400 years. You know all about them, obviously.

In 638, the jihad invasions of Hindu India began. What was Kashmir then? India.

So were Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Bangladesh.

In that case, the "Kashmir problem" is that India didn't give it up yet.

In effect, you're blaming India for defending itself against jihad.

If all you can imagine that will defuse the Kasmir conflict is death or conversion of Muslims

Where did I write that? You are not honest.

no wonder your talking points are so repetitive and lack resonation in the Free world.
That is probably your final solution? Ah, now I see the connection to the neo-Nazis.

Keep it up. You do understand you are one of the best recruitment tools the jihadists have.

How deceitful -- how shameless and disgusting -- to appropriate the language used against the victims of the Holocaust in order to benefit those who'd like to carry out another one.

As if Muslims will listen to and obey a "ludicrous infidel."

That's like saying Winston Churchill recruited Nazis by telling the truth about Hitler.

Who represents more accurately the command of Allah and the example of Muhammad, the jihadist or the truly moderate?

Maxtrue added:

Your thinking and declarations are counterproductive as you move from reasonable threat assessment of the spread of radicalism into extremism that denies the reality of hundreds of millions of Muslims seeking no Jihad, no death to infidels. Perhaps you should get out more and see the world.

If it wasn't bad enough that Maxtrue falsely accuses me of "denying the reality of hundreds of millions of Muslims seeking no jihad, no death to infidels" (from where does he get "hundreds of millions"? Has Michael interviewed that many "real people on the street"? If so, were they honest?), he misses the simple fact that I've not been talking about "all Muslims."

How is that both he and Michael Totten both wrongly conflate "sacred" texts with individual believers?

An individual Muslim necessarily represents Islam the way Muhammad and his allah intended no more than a "Christian" necessarily represents Christ accurately.

So, who represents Islam more faithfully, the Muslim who seeks to establish shari'a over all the earth using any means necessary, including violence, or the Muslim who truly rejects offensive warfare against the non-Muslim world and actually believes in equal rights for all people regardless of religion or gender?

Who represents more closely the command of Allah and the example of Muhammad, the jihadist or the "moderate"?

This leads to the question, who has the right to define "Islam"?

Just as Christ and His Apostles are the final word on what Christianity is and should be, so too Allah and its apostle define Islam.

Since Muhammad commanded and practiced offensive warfare against the non-Muslim world, the answer is clear.

"Radicals" aren't "exploiting" Qur'an, they're just reading it

Maxtrue, in his impassioned defense of Islam, doesn't quite live up to his name.

Perhaps "MaxPropaganda" or "MaxGullible" or "MaxUsefulIdiotDhimmi" or "MaxPoliticalCorrectness" or "MaxLogicalFallacies" -- though not as eloquent -- would be more accurate (and less tragically-ironic).

He observes:

your analogy is ludicrous. Hitler wasn't governed by a religious doctrine but by HIS false interpretation of reality and history. He exploited national greivences following the defeat in WW1 and directed them towards Jews and his neighbors who he claimed either took German land or imposed unfair terms of surrender.

Muhammad was governed -- or rather, governed others -- by "HIS false interpretation of reality and history." He exploited Man's vilest impulses and directed them at Jews, Christians, the rest of the non-Muslim world, apostates, women, and little girls.

What do you know about the "religious" doctrines of Islam?

Are you going to plead, "But I have a Muslim dentist, and he's a real nice guy"? Or, as Hugh Hewitt told Brad Thor recently, "I did a special on so-and-so and interviewed typically-good-natured-erudite-and-charming-moderate-Muslim-what's-his-name? and he asked, 'When are you going to give us our due?'" implying that you can define Islam by its apostates.

By what was Hitler governed? What did he seek to accomplish? Who were his allies in that effort?

Hitler sought total domination, the eradication of the Jews, and it was Hitler's mufti, not Hitlers' Pope.

Here's your buddy Muhammad's desire for total domination:

"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). But if they cease (worshipping others besides Allah), then certainly, Allah is All-Seer of what they do" (Qur'an 8:38; ayah 39 from Noble Qur'an).

Here's his desire to eradicate the Jews:

"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)."

Maxtrue continues:

There is not one dictator directing more than a billion Muslims, nor do Islamic despots even have clear control of their populations as Hitler did. We see tonight not "death to Israel" but "death to Russia" and "death to China" on the streets of Tehran. Neda who many Muslims have made the poster girl of resistance was wearing a cross when she died.

Muhammad and his allah "direct [potentially] more than a billion Muslims."

What do they command? Nothing less than slavery and death for those who refuse the "invitation" to Islam:

"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).

And those people protesting in Iran do so with various goals in mind. Many of them protest against the Islamic rule that you (apparently unknowingly) defend here.

With regard to Neda Soltani, were you aware that media had removed the cross from photos of her?

Why is that, I wonder?

Max adds:

What Muslim nation poses such enormous risk to the Western world as Hitler did?

9/11.

7/7.

3/11.

Mumbai, repeatedly.

Constantinople, 1453.

Gates of Vienna, 1683.

The Battle of Tours, 732.

Iran with a nuke.

Jihadists gain control of Pakistan's nukes.

Threat? What threat?

Who's killed more American civilians, Hitler or Muhammad?

Muslims obeying Allah's commands and his prophet's example to wage war against "those who disbelieve" took more American civilian lives in one morning than Hitler could in four years.

And that Tuesday was only one morning's work.

Devout Muslims emulating Muhammad's example have carried out nearly 14,000 terrorist attacks since 9/11 alone.

Do you honestly think that the US, Russia and China are no match for Iran, HIzb'Allah or Hamas? Your comparisons while couched in selective history completely ignore the historical differences between Germany and a Greater Islam. Certainly Jews would prefer the Muslim Spain they experiance to the Catholic one they were thrown out of.

Such a conclusion shows your ignorance of dhimma and what Jews endured under your "Islamic Golden Age."

You've been propagandized, Max, and you don't even know it.

Here's what one of those lucky Jews had to say about legendary (literally) Islamic tolerance in glorious Al-Andalus:

“Remember, my coreligionists, that on account of the vast number of our sins, God has hurled us in the midst of this people, the Arabs [Muslims], who have persecuted us severely, and passed baneful and discriminatory legislation against us … Never did a nation molest, degrade, debase, and hate us as much as they….”

-Maimonides, victim of Islam in conquered Spain

Here begins the flood of Max's logical fallacies:

Are you trying to tell us that more than 1 million Muslim Israelis embrace your literal interpretation of the Koran?

And what about the Old Testament? Are you suggesting that Jews around the world accept a literal interpretation of the Old Testament? Are jews of a singular mind? Ultra Orthodox Jews are against Israel whereas some Jews are for a greater Israel.

A straw man and red herring: I've never mentioned what "1 million Muslim Israelis embrace" nor what "Jews around the world accept."

Argumentum ad hominem: It's not "my literal interpretation" of Islam's "sacred" texts that matter. It's how Muslims have interpreted them traditionally, which is, literally, the way Muhammad intended.

Where have I claimed that anyone is of a "singular mind"?

I focus on the Source and Sustenance of nearly one and one-half millennia of global jihad, which is the word of Allah and the example of Muhammad. When I mention individual Muslims from history or current events it is to illustrate Muslim obedience to those dictates and emulation of that example.

And you can't analyze Islam as you would analyze Judaism, for they are directed by diametrically-opposed moral standards.

Max continues with a stunningly ignorant -- and false -- moral equivalence:

Do you accept the literal interpretation of the New Testament? And if you do, why are you not as equal a threat to Jews as you say Muslims are?

Perhaps because Jesus commanded, "Love your neighbor as yourself" (every person is my "neighbor"), "Treat others the way you want to be treated," and, "Love your enemies."

On the other hand, Allah says:

"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).

So, it's not me saying "Muslims are a threat to Jews" . . . it's Muhammad.

Here comes utter cluelessness, bad logic, and an outright lie:

How many Muslim nations help us in our struggle with radical Islam? How many Muslims serve in our military forces and don’t you insult them by characterizing them falsely?

Where have I "characterized falsely" Muslims in our military?

Paper is not people. Texts are not human beings.

You're lying. Retract it.

Which Muslim nations actually "help" us? Saudi Arabia, whose royals fund "radical" Islam here and abroad and supported the 9/11 attack? Pakistan, which takes our money gleefully while falling to shari'a? Iraq, whose prime minister celebrated our departure as a "victory"?

Some friends you've got there, Max.

Here's a false tu quoque:

And what slaughter was carried out in the name of Jesus or by communist regimes? Did they not kill, rape and murder far more human beings than all killed by Muslims?

Speaking of "peddling nonsense under the pretense of a lecturing historian"!

No Christian ever murdered, raped, or enslaved in obedience to Christ's commands, only in violation of them, proving themselves criminals.

Communism has slaughtered scores of millions, but only in the last century.

On the other hand, in obedience to Allah's command and in emulation of Muhammad's example, Islam has been enslaving, raping, and butchering non-Muslims, apostates, women, and little girls for nearly one and one-half millennia.

Here's another false moral equivalence from Max:

Again, shall I quote for you from the Bible?

Please do.

I guarantee you'll find no command from Christ (or Moses) to enslave, rape, or slaughter those who refuse the "invitation" to Christianity (or Judaism).

It is one thing to say that the literal interpretation of the Koran is used by radicals to promote jihadist thinking, but quite another in extending such thought to all of Islam thus proving to the critical "moderates" that Westerners are just as crazed as Islamic radicals.

Where have I tried to "extend such thought to all of Islam"? The texts say what they say. Muhammad did what he did. His followers conquered, enslaved, raped, brutalized, and butchered whomever they could. Do you know nothing of the spread of Islam?

Talk to the more than ninety-percent of official Islam which upholds offensive jihad against non-Muslims to make the world Islam.

More historical illiteracy from Max:

You prove to them an equivalency of ideology when the way we will eventual triumph against radicalism is not by killing a billion Muslims, but through reformation.

How are you going to "reform a billion Muslims"?

What are you waiting for? You'd better get started!

Quoting their own texts does not "prove an equivalency of ideology."

Neither did I say, "kill a billion Muslims." Do you lie habitually?

If you're referring to the European "Reformation," that was a return to obedience (more or less, depending on the confession) to the Biblical texts.

You are seeing a comparable Islamic "reformation" in those Muslims who seek to obey Allah's commands to convert, subjugate and humiliate, or slaughter the non-Muslim world.

And what do you do with the fact that in the Islam Mr. Obama demands we respect, no major school of Sunni jurisprudence (nor Shi'ite) rejects offensive warfare against the non-Muslim world?

Another ad hominem, this time in the form of guilt-by-association:

And your remarks on Hitler are astounding given the apparent alliance between many on your flank with neo-Nazis.

You have no apparent moral reservations about committing libel.

At least you imply (accidentally!) that I despise Hitler.

You're lying again. Retract it, if you have any integrity.

My comments about Hitler are "astounding" only to the ignorant and the malicious, for I hate tyranny from wherever it comes, whether from a twentieth-century psychotic anti-Semite, or a seventh-century one.

A silly non sequitur from Max:

Do you believe all who do not accept Jesus Christ are going to Hell? Do you believe that woman was created from the rib of Adam? Do you believe Homosexuals sin? Do you believe Jews killed Christ? Why cannot Muslims ask this of Christians? Why cannot Muslims ask if YOU see them as heathens regardless of Jihad?

I am happy to address everyone's theological questions, since I desire all people to trust in Christ for their salvation.

For the purposes of this discussion, I am concerned less about what Muslims wonder is going on in my head than what they believe their god and prophet require them to do with my head.

You do realize Muhammad commanded beheading non-Muslims for as little as "mischief," right?

And this is the worst part. Your mindset so angers centrist Westerners like myself, you divide the consensus needed to address the real threat which is the ability of radicals to exploit the Koran in an effort to extend THEIR hegemony. In this struggle we unquestionably need the many moderate Muslims on our side.

Yes, fairy tales are much more effective in winning wars.

Which "mindset," telling the truth? If that's so, then you've got bigger problems than the ramblings of a "lecturing nonsense peddler."

Your ignorance of Islamic doctrine and historical practice retards our efforts at self-defense, for you accept unquestioningly the existence of "many moderate Muslims on our side."

Let's suppose for the sake of argument that your numbers are correct ("many") and that they truly are "on our side." How do those "many" moderates convince their coreligionists-in-doubt that theirs is the "true" Islam when the "radicals" can point to what Muhammad actually said and did?

If the texts say, "demand the jizya . . . subdue . . . kill . . . until all religion is for Allah," then how are the radicals "exploiting" Qur'an? Aren't they just reading it?

Your thinking and declarations are counterproductive as you move from reasonable threat assessment of the spread of radicalism into extremism that denies the reality of hundreds of millions of Muslims seeking no Jihad, no death to infidels.

They're not my declarations, they're Allah and Muhammad's.

You are confusing what Muhammad said and did for what Muslims say and do.

Are you unable to make that simple distinction?

How does confusing the underlying ideology of jihad for those who do not adhere to it help us?

Here comes another tired ad hominem. It seems as though Max is reading from Islamic Apologetics for Dhimmis:

Perhaps you should get out more and see the world. Instead you point to unquestionable Islamic militancy and then spin it to impose your simplistic dialectic on history rather than see history for what it is. How do you explain that the world has more liberty today than it did a thousand years ago? Are you really claiming that human nature does not conspire to be free?

Anyone who can read will see that I've not "pointed to unquestionable Islamic militancy," but the words and works of Muhammad and his allah.

You're not calling Muhammad an "unquestionable Islamic militant," are you?

What are you, some kind of Islamophobe?

Or perhaps you're just unable to admit what your lyin' eyes are telling you when you read those texts.

As for human liberty? It is true that people want freedom for themselves.

Their neighbors? Not so much.

More often than not, they desire power over their fellows. Even in Ancient Greece, only some men were free.

The Liberty that the world enjoys today is the direct result of the teachings of Christ as embodied in the Declaration of Independence and of the courage and self-sacrifice of the American soldier, Marine, sailor, and airman.

Our Founding Fathers were nearly all orthodox Christians; even Thomas Jefferson -- often brought up as a contrary example -- confessed that he preferred Christ's teachings to all others.

He stated:

"The Christian religion, when divested of the rags in which they [the clergy] have enveloped it, and brought to the original purity and simplicity of it's benevolent institutor, is a religion of all others most friendly to liberty, science, and the freest expansion of the human mind."

-Thomas Jefferson to Moses Robinson, 1801

An illuminating double-standard, subtle propaganda, and the apparently-coordinated effort to silence dissent

Mr. Obama can apologize to the single greatest force for evil in human history -- Islam -- but he can't apologize to American law enforcement?

Something that may have gone unnoticed: Pamela Geller points out that at his "press conference," BHO intended to end with the question about the arrest of his "good friend," the race-bating Gates, coming back to the "journalist" (propagandist) set up to deliver the prompt.

What was the purpose of that question during a discussion of socialized medicine? Only this: To set up in the minds of unwary viewers the idea that anyone who opposes Obama's tyrannical push into socialism must be a racist.

"Break him"? "His Waterloo"? The defamatory "Teabagger" cartoon?

This is what despots do: They demonize their opponents.

Don't let Obama and his co-conspirators succeed. Oppose their unconstitutional power grab. Vote for actual Americans who will defend and obey our Constitution and our God-given Rights to Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.

One last, related note: Joseph Farah was on Savage this week, revealing that overnight WND's articles on Obama's failure to produce his birth certificate had been pushed several pages deep in the major search engines' (Google, Bing, Yahoo) results.

As of this writing, WND turns up late (if at all) on the first page of results in a search for "Obama birth certificate."

Farah noted that suddenly leftist sites attempting to dismiss the issue were the top hits.

Here's why: CNN's president is trying today to explain away why Obama refuses to produce the birth certificate, spending millions of dollars in court to do so:

CNN/U.S. President Jon Klein told staffers of "Lou Dobbs Tonight" on Thursday that the controversy regarding the legitimacy of President Obama's birth certificate -- a topic Dobbs has avidly pursued on the air -- is a "dead" story.

[. . .]

That appeared to be a step back from the stance Klein took in his e-mail Thursday, in which he wrote that CNN researchers had determined that Hawaiian officials discarded paper documents in 2001. Because of that, Obama's long-form birth certificate no longer exists and a shorter certificate of live birth that has been made public is the official record, they reported.

After all these months, the hospital just "threw it away"?

Isn't that like Obama's not-knowing-about-the-TEA-Parties-except-when-he-knew-about-them? Or his never-being-Muslim-except-when-he-was-one?

B. Hussein promised transparency; what he didn't explain was that he'd be transparently dishonest.

This subtle form of censorship appears to be a coordinated effort between Obama, his allies in media, and his supporters at (at least) Google to make the controversy disappear (just as sites purportedly answering questions about Obama's background have disappeared, and the letter from him to his "birth" hospital went hidden).

What's next, Obama's political opponents disappearing? Being set up to appear involved in some unsavory and/or illegal activities?

When a megalomaniacal, Ready-to-Rule-from-Day-1, demagogue controls the media, you no longer have a "shining city on a hill;" rather, you're on the descent into third-world, banana-republican, Soviet-style tyranny.

America, you're on the verge of slavery.

Beware treasonous CAIR and their affiliates

A quick reminder from Jihad Watch regarding CAIR.

That any government official or media outlet does anything less than expose, shame, and denounce them publicly is incompetence bordering on malfeasance, or worse.

CAIR is an unindicted co-conspirator in a Hamas terror funding case. Its operatives have repeatedly refused to denounce Hamas and Hizballah as terrorist groups. Several of its former officials have been convicted of various crimes related to jihad terror. Several of its other officials have made Islamic supremacist statements. CAIR also was involved in the Flying Imams' intimidation suit against the passengers who reported their suspicious behavior.

Besides CAIR and their buddies ISNA, MPAC, and MAS (and coreligionists Jamaat ul-Fuqra, with compounds all over the United States, and the Islamic Thinkers Society), add to your watch-list:

Minaret of Freedom Institute (MFI)

International Institute of Islamic Thought (IIIT)

Association of Muslims Social Scientists—North America (AMSS-NA)

Whichever politicians are responsible for importing (Somali) jihad into Minnesota

And Hizb-ut-Tahrir, which has gone public in Chicago.

They'll be conducting mandatory public re-education sessions soon at a community center near you.

I wonder, When will Obama pronounce the shahada, during a press conference or a State of the Union address?

Just like Muhammad: Harass and attack a target, and when they finally defend themselves against you, call it "aggression."

Which puts the lie to a lot of those claims by jihad's apologists that Muhammad butchered [insert non-Muslim farmers caught working their crops, 120-year-old man, or poetess nursing her baby here] in "self-defense."

How much of a threat are bound prisoners of war who've surrendered, again?

In response to a list of incidents offered as evidence that Israel's getting what it deserves, events in which it appears that Israel was either fighting for its independence from the British or defending itself against Islamic jihad, posted here:

If Muslims want Israelis to stop killing them, they should stop committing terrorist acts against them.

And if they want their civilians unharmed, stop firing at the Israelis from among them.

It's just like Muhammad: Harass and attack a target, and when they [finally] defend themselves against you, call it "aggression."

Briefly with regard to your list, you do realize that some Israelis carried out bombings against the British, pre-independence, right?

Unlike your coreligionists, they were not following a "divine" mandate to enslave or slaughter all who refuse the "invitation" to Judaism, they gave prior warning to avoid innocents dying in at least one bombing (the King David Hotel), they were not targeting civilians, and your Sharon-led mission was condemned by Israel.

(No, not the fingers-crossed-behind-the-back, double-speaking, "We-denounce-terrorism-in-all-its-forms[-but-killing-Jews?-That's-not-terrorism!"] kinds of "condemnations" in which Islamic spokesmen engage.

Since you do not provide any background regarding the "attacks" you list, nor did I see any links, I looked up one of your events that occurred some time after statehood.

It doesn't look good for you.

Here* is what I found about your "Qibya massacre" and why it happened: It was in response to more Islamic barbarism:

"The attack took place in the context of border clashes between Israel and neighbouring states, which had begun almost immediately after the signing of the 1949 Armistice Agreements

[. . .]

"between June 1949 and the end of 1952, a total of 57 Israelis, mostly civilians, were killed by infiltrators from Jordan. The Israeli death toll for the first 9 months of 1953 was 32

[. . .]

"The specific incident which the Israeli government used to justify the assault on Qibya occurred on October 12, 1953, when a Jewish mother, Suzanne Kinyas, and her two children were killed by a grenade thrown into their house in the Israeli town of Yehud, some 10 kilometers (6 mi) inside Israel's border.

[. . .]

"Force had to be used to demonstrate to the Arabs that Israel was in the Middle East to stay, Ben Gurion believed, and to that end he felt strongly that his retaliatory policy had to be continued."

So, yes, it was self-defense [against Muhammad's anti-Semitism].

You can't wage offensive warfare against non-Muslims and then cry "Foul!" when they defend themselves.

At least, not honestly.

*A note: I don't like to use Wikipedia as a source, but considering that it is often used by apologists for jihad (so there's [usually] a pro-Islam slant), and I don't have a desire to chase Mohamed down every rabbit hole, there you go.

More non sequiturs, ad hominem attacks, false moral equivalences, half-truths, and outright lies offered in defense of Islam -- and against Israel

In other words, we have here more of the typical Muslim blame game: "This conflict is your fault for defending yourselves!"

I realize that to know and believe in Islam as it is defined by the words of Allah and the example of Muhammad requires the dulling or disuse of one's reason (and conscience), but it is difficult to believe some people's persistence in malicious falsehood, even after having those lies exposed and refuted repeatedly.

Yet, here we go again. Mohamed writes:

But ... did "Islam" committed the Babylonian captivity in 586 BCE.?

What about Qana massacre in 1996 and 2006 [. . .] Bahr el-Baqar massacre in 1970 [. . .] Kafr Qassim massacre in 1956 [. . .] King David Hotel bombing in 1946 [. . .] Deir Yassin massacre in 1946 [. . .] bombing crowded Arab markets since 1938?

Were these really about Islam?

If those events are "not really about Islam" as you imply, that makes them non sequiturs and irrelevant to the question of whether or not Islam is the root cause of the conflict between Israel and its neighbors.

The Religion of Slaughter requires the slavery or death of all who refuse its "invitation" to convert; though you still will not admit this fact outright, you concede it by explaining how we "infidels" should appreciate Islam's rules for when and how to butcher us.

In the incidents you mention in which Israel was at fault, they apologized and punished their own people. This is diametric to Islam; when a Muslim murderer butchers innocent Jews, they're celebrated as heroes, especially if they die doing so.

I have news for you: Your suhada aren't enjoying their perpetual virgins and boys "like pearls;" they're burning in Hell.

The one report of Israelis claiming they were told to ignore the risk to civilians doesn't help you either, since not only do your alleged "Zionist pigs" state that they were going after terrorists, but those sources were also anonymous.

Experience has shown that Muslims not only attack Israelis from among their own (usually non-Muslim) civilians or mosques, but that they also fabricate Israeli "atrocities" to try to influence world opinion.

Be honest.

When there have been more than 1300 victims in the last Israeli (Jewish for now) war against Palestinians in Gaza strip, HALF OF THEM ARE CHILDREN, and the other half are mainly civilians.

Please convince us that Israelis were just defending themselves [. . .] Palestinians were using THEIR CHILDREN as human shields [. . .] When Israeli soldiers testified that they had clear order to SHOOT WITHOUT ANY DISCRIMINATION [. . .] Can you please convince us how Israelis are kind-hearted, peaceful guys who want to express their love to Palestinians [. . .] When Israeli government is changing the Arabic names of streets. Can you convince us how Israelis are welcoming Arabs as citizens among them [. . . .]

You can't have it both ways. You want Israel to be a massive, overpowering, ruthless, military juggernaut that delights in innocent Muslim blood yet -- according to your own words -- they've killed barely more than a thousand "civilians."

Your coreligionists more than doubled that output in only one sunny morning here a few years ago.

You've got a few more logical fallacies here; whether or not Israelis are "nice" has nothing to do with the Islamic mandate to convert, enslave, or kill Jews and other non-Muslims.

Neither does the way in which Israel treats its Muslim citizens have anything to do with Muhammad's utterly depraved lust for Jewish blood, so that is also a red herring.

You've also got a false moral equivalence here since while Israel might -- change a street name, seriously? -- Muslims change the placement of Jewish body parts.

Most importantly, any Israeli "crimes" (real or imagined; mostly imagined, but when real, admitted and atoned for) do nothing to negate the fact that Muhammad was a raving, foaming-at-the-mouth, lunatic anti-Semite, as I've pointed out to you before from your own "sacred" texts:

". . . 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 real problem is -- as even Hamas states in their charter -- that Israel exists. You and your fellow Muslims will not be satisfied until the Jews are no more.

You want to blame the conflict in Israel on Israel, but when Muhammad was beheading hundreds of Jews who had surrendered, raping their wives, and leaving "none but Muslim," how many "indiscriminate acts" had the Israelis committed?

Since Ancient Israel (Judea) had been destroyed five hundred years before Muhammad was born, and modern Israel wouldn't be formed for another 1300 years after he died, the answer is . . .

None at all.

Stop blaming the victim.

Have the decency to tell the truth about what your god and prophet require.

Then have the courage to denounce their pure hate.

Our learned analysts need to recognize Islam's fundamental semantic flaw: "Peace"

It does not mean what we think it means.

In response to my comment here:

What you are doing is the equivalent of interviewing Germans "on the street" during World War II and drawing conclusions about what should be done to win the war from only those interactions, while ignoring the ideology motivating and sustaining the greater Nazi effort.

Michael Totten replied:

That may well have been the case a few years ago. Apparently you missed it when every insurgent militia and terrorist group in the country got its ass kicked not only by Americans but by Iraqis. Iraqis "vomited out" Al Qaeda, as Charles Krauthammer accurately put it.

Here's my follow-up:

That's quite a non sequitur.

I was talking about your attacks on individuals for their pointing out that you are apparently unfamiliar with Islam's authoritative texts and history, and in "refutation" of that you offer . . . Muslims fighting other Muslims?

Each Iraqi who's fought with our military against foreign terrorists has done so for their own reason(s). I don't doubt some of those motives were good.

None of them, however, involve Muhammad's legendary religious tolerance.

So, are the terrorists in Iraq now, in only the last "few years," no longer Muslim?

In that case, who's doing the bombing today, Mennonites? Are the Iraqis returning to their own vomit?

Will there be more or less vomit once America is out?

Sunni and Shi'ite have been slaughtering each other -- when not enslaving and butchering non-Muslims -- since Muhammad died.

You are also apparently unaware of the fact that the U.S. has and has had terrific relations with Iraq's Kurds even while the rest of Iraq was on fire. And the Kurds are just as Islamic as the Arabs, though they are less strident and bigoted about their religion.

I don't recall mentioning the Kurds. Another non sequitur.

Is your point that not all Muslims are terrorists?

I've never said otherwise.

A variety of explanations exist for why Muslim nations refrain from attacking us directly.

One would be the large sums of taxpayer-funded jizya we send to several of those countries. Another is the fact that we are still -- despite "President" Obama's best efforts -- the only superpower in the world. To openly attack us would be suicide for that government.

(Perhaps you've noticed terrorism being carried out by small groups of "misunderstanderers of Islam" so that Muslim governments -- the Saudis, anyone? -- can maintain plausible deniability. Of course, with Obama apologizing to, dialoguing with, and releasing terrorists, no one will fear our strength for long.)

With regard to the Kurds specifically, they are by definition not as "Islamic" as "the Arabs," since they're -- in your own words -- "less strident and bigoted about their religion."

After all, Muhammad mandated, "Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him" (Bukhari Volume 9, Book 84, Number 57). You can't get more "bigoted" than that.

The Kurds' relatively greater emphasis on their ethnic identity rather than their religion is paralleled in other lands conquered by Islam, even among some Iranians (but I bet if you cite Muhammad's words or actions disapprovingly to a devout Kurd, that facade of Muslim civility will vaporize instantaneously!). Add to that their desire for a greater Kurdistan and having to contend with both Sunni and Shi'ite Arabs and "Persians," and you've gone a long way toward explaining relatively "good" relations with America.

There may even be some decent people there but again, that is in spite of Islam as defined by Muhammad, not because of it.

Iraq does not need to convert to Christianity or atheism (or whatever it is you're implying here) for it to be at peace with itself and the West. We have peaceful and normal relations with most Muslim countries. Even Israel has peaceful and normal relations with some Muslim countries. We weren't at war with Tunisia or Oman or Mali or Kuwait (etc) last time I checked. (I trust I don't need to give you the whole list.)

A few points:

1) I guess I'm not writing clearly enough. I wasn't aware I was "implying" anything.

I was stating that you are either unaware of or denying the fundamental role Muhammad's words and example play in modern Islamic terrorism, which is just one expression of the jihad commanded by Allah and carried out in fits and starts over the last 1400 years, beginning with Muhammad and continuing to this very day (nearly fourteen thousand Islamic terror attacks since 9/11 alone).

Any analysis that fails to account for this is flawed and will only hamper our efforts at self-defense. Spencer and Bostom understand Islam's history and ideology.

It would be wise for you to do so also.

2) Iraq could possibly be truly at peace with the West, but that will be in spite of Islam, not because of it. How can anyone who obeys Allah's commands to wage war against all who refuse both the "invitation" to Islam and subjugation as slaves (dhimmis) be[,] by definition[,] "at peace"?

That is logically and linguistically impossible.

What do you know about Turkey? It was a model moderate Muslim state, but that was because Ataturk crushed public expression of political Islam. Now that Erdogan is in charge, in which way is the country moving? Toward shari'a.

Are you aware that just a few years ago (I haven't checked lately), Mein Kampf was a best-seller there?

Why is that, do you think?

Could it have anything to do with:

"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)"?

3) If you knew of Muhammad's practice -- which is exemplary for Muslims because Allah called him a "beautiful pattern of conduct for those who want to please" him -- you would know that when the Camp of Islam is weak, it seeks time to build or regain its strength (you see this in the truces for which Hamas calls whenever Israel finally gets serious about defending itself).

When strong enough, Muhammad violated his treaties and attacked his enemies ("enemies" because they would not submit to his "religion").

Iraq's problems have been catastrophic, and religious zealotry has been only one of its problems. If Iraq is doomed solely because it is Muslim, then every Muslim country should look like Iraq. Yet that's not the case

This is simplistic and inaccurate.

Iraq may be doomed for a variety of reasons; the main one is that once under the rule of Allah, always under the rule of Allah. Secular rule must be abolished.

You have two main threats to Iraq's viability. One is that those forces seeking to subjugate the country to full-blown shari'a (you are aware that shari'a is part of the Iraqi constitution, right?) will use any means necessary -- including terrorist bombings, kidnappings, and assassinations -- to accomplish this goal.

The second major threat is the conflict between Sunni and Shi'ite. Ahmadinejad's been courting Maliki. Considering Iraq's Shi'ite majority and Iran's nearing completion on its own nukes, it can't be long before the majority Sunni nations (or their agents) enter into more overt efforts against their historic rivals. Perhaps you've heard recently of Saudi Arabia's tacit consent for Israel's use of its airspace to take out the Iranian program.

What's happened to Iraq's Jews and Christians? Have you interviewed any of those people "on the street"? Probably not, since Iraq's ancient Jewish population has been largely driven out of the country and its Christians are routinely threatened, intimidated, and murdered. Their numbers are dwindling rapidly.

Why is that, do you think?

I hope that Iraq can become a nation truly free from Islam. You see in Iran among those protesting for an Islamic tyrant of their own choosing -- whatever the outcome was in that election, the theocrats were going to stay in power -- people protesting for real Liberty.

I'd like that for all Muslim lands and all Muslims. Whether it's a conversion to Christianity (the best outcome), Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism, animism, the cult of Artemis, I don't care -- as long as anyone believes their god commands them to "fight . . . until all religion is for Allah" (Qur'an 8), there can be no peace.

The only lasting "peace" Islam recognizes is that which arises when the competition is in either hijab, chains, or the grave.

And you're still conflating Allah's commands and Muhammad's example with individual Muslims.

Doctrine is not necessarily practice. Texts are not human beings. Paper is not people.

The command of Allah and the words and deeds of Muhammad are not individual Muslims.

How mendacious Muslim malevolence and intransigent Infidel ignorance combine to prove Sun Tzu not only a brilliant military strategist, but a prophet

Each of these statements applies to our current Overseas Contingency Operation/War on a Tactic.

Sun Tzu on what should be our War of Self-Defense Against Islam:

"It is said that if you know your enemies and know yourself, you will not be imperiled in a hundred battles; if you do not know your enemies but do know yourself, you will win one and lose one; if you do not know your enemies nor yourself, you will be imperiled in every single battle."

Totten, Hewitt, Bush, Obama . . . no one tells the truth about Islam.

And now the OIC, in conjunction with the UN, the United States' Congress, and the "president," will limit and then outlaw not criticism, but exposure, of Allah's command and Muhammad's example.

"It is the rule in war, if ten times the enemy's strength, surround them; if five times, attack them; if double, engage them; if equal, be able to divide them; if fewer, be able to evade them; if weaker, be able to avoid them."

Or take their planes, use them as bombs, cry "Islamophobia!" when someone points out why you did it, and then exploit their ignorance and good will to the tune of thousands more American lives and billions upon billions of our dollars.

And they'll celebrate your holidays. Maybe even hire one of your own to command their military.

"For to win one hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the acme of skill. To subdue the enemy without fighting is the acme of skill."

Something like the Muslim Brotherhood’s “Grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying Western Civilization from within,” perhaps?

Islam's success in America has been delayed by 9/11. If not for that, no one would have noticed until it was too late, just like a lobster in a pot of boiling water.

And don't forget the MB's buddies here in the United States: CAIR and ISNA (both unindicted co-conspirators in a federal terrorism trial), MPAC, Obama, his appointees, the American Library Association . . . .

"What is essential in war is victory, not prolonged operations."

1400 years of jihad, you say?

How long does it take to win hearts and minds, again?

What about dialogue? "Mutual" respect?

Just long enough for them to get a nuke and bleed us dry?

Sun Tzu continues:

"Be extremely subtle, even to the point of formlessness. Be extremely mysterious, even to the point of soundlessness. Thereby you can be the director of the opponent's fate"

and

"If your enemy is secure at all points, be prepared for him. If he is in superior strength, evade him. If your opponent is temperamental, seek to irritate him. Pretend to be weak, that he may grow arrogant. If he is taking his ease, give him no rest. If his forces are united, separate them. If sovereign and subject are in accord, put division between them. Attack him where he is unprepared, appear where you are not expected."

Or get yourself elected as the Great Satan's Commander-in-Chief and take up positions in its government, military, security, academic, and media apparatus.

Muslims would never deceive anyone on religious grounds, right? Right?

Muhammad said, "War is deceit."

Bukhari recorded that Abu Ad-Darda' said, "We smile in the face of some people although our hearts curse them.''

"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).

"Let not the believers take for friends or helpers Unbelievers rather than believers: if any do that, in nothing will there be help from Allah: except by way of precaution, that ye may Guard yourselves from them. But Allah cautions you (To remember) Himself; for the final goal is to Allah" (Qur'an 3:28).

The great military strategist continues:

"Victorious warriors win first and then go to war, while defeated warriors go to war first and then seek to win."

They also go to war without their political, media, and academic "elites" having a clue as to what motivates the enemy.

"Religion of Peace! Religion of Peace!"

"All men can see these tactics whereby I conquer, but what none can see is the strategy out of which victory is evolved."

"Terror" is only a tactic; Islam is the Source and Sustenance of 1400 years of global jihad.

"Treat your men as you would your own beloved sons. And they will follow you into the deepest valley."

Or you can elect a radical, America-hating, former Muslim who kowtows to Islamic tyrants and sends your best and bravest into a war they cannot win without obliterating mountain ranges.

"In the practical art of war, the best thing of all is to take the enemy's country whole and intact; to shatter and destroy it is not so good. So, too, it is better to recapture an army entire than to destroy it, to capture a regiment, a detachment or a company entire than to destroy them."

Da'wa.

Or jihad.

Or bankrupting and disarming the nation. Regardless:

"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). But if they cease (worshipping others besides Allah), then certainly, Allah is All-Seer of what they do" (Qur'an 8:38; ayah 39 from Noble Qur'an).

The Art of Fighting Blind: Perhaps Michael J. Totten should stick to interviewing "real people on the street," since he confuses friend and enemy

"It is said that if you know your enemies and know yourself, you will not be imperiled in a hundred battles; if you do not know your enemies but do know yourself, you will win one and lose one; if you do not know your enemies nor yourself, you will be imperiled in every single battle."

-Sun Tzu, The Art of War

"You might try to win their hearts and minds.

When that doesn't work, try dialogue and "mutual" respect!

-Presidents Bush and Obama

And then attack anyone who points out your missing the forest for the trees, your confusing friends for enemies and enemies for friends.

Michael J. Totten and commenters at his site have attacked the integrity, motives, and work of Robert Spencer and Andrew Bostom* over Spencer's pointing out -- and Bostom's defense of that criticism -- that since Iraq's Maliki called American withdrawal a "great victory" and Iraqis are chanting, "America has left! Baghdad is victorious," Totten's appraisal of things in Iraq is unrealistic.

Contrary to Michael's claim that Robert thinks we've already lost the war, Spencer observed:

"any "victory" the Americans won in Iraq was sure to be undone as soon as the troops were gone, and we are already seeing that. Sunni will go after Shi'ite and vice versa, the Iranians will press forward to create a Shi'ite client state, the non-Muslims will be victimized more than ever . . . ."

(You can't have a victory "undone" without having a victory in the first place. And anyone familiar with Islam's "theology" and history would see the reasonableness of his assessment.)

In reply, Totten sneered that Spencer, "has a bit of trouble telling the difference between friend and foe in Iraq."

How ironic, coming from someone not only blind to the fact that "It's the jihad, stupid!" but gullible enough to believe that Maliki actually wants to be America's friend.

In the hope Maliki meant something he didn't, Totten quotes him in an update:

The message will be to ensure the basis of our relations and our friendship, which is a long-term strategic relationship. There are many parts to that, like trade and investment. I will convey the wish of Iraq for friendship with the U.S.

So, is "Um Hussan" a clueless blowhard too? According to the Times:

“When the Americans get out of city centers, a big war will start,” a woman who identified herself as Um Hussan said amid the wreckage of a bombing on Monday outside her house in the Ur neighborhood of Baghdad. It has been months, she added, since she last saw American forces there.

The author of that article seems pretty sure Maliki's reference to "victory" was one of success against America, not with it against jihadists:

Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki has taken to calling the withdrawal of American combat troops from Iraq’s cities by next Tuesday a “great victory,” a repulsion of foreign occupiers he compares to the rebellion against British troops in 1920.

[. . .]

In his discussions with the Americans, officials said, Mr. Maliki has shown far more pragmatism than his public remarks about repulsing foreign occupiers might suggest, requesting, for example, that American explosive removal teams keep sweeping Baghdad’s streets.

"So, we'll take your money, and you take our bombs, okay, America!"

There's Maliki's "trade and investment."

Here is the Independent's version:

Mr Maliki, who was put into power by the US in 2006, spoke of the departure of the troops as if he had been leading an insurgency against them. "Foreign forces have to withdraw from the cities totally," he said in the course of an hour-long speech in which he mentioned America only once. "This is a victory that should be celebrated in feasts and festivals."

Totten deserves praise for his work; however, he does himself, his readers, and his countrymen a great disservice by both failing to recognize that the source and sustenance of 1400 years of global jihad are the commands of Allah and the example of Muhammad and by defaming those who do.

Following are my comments posted (if approved by Totten) here:

"Roseate" fits because you are apparently unaware of nearly one and one-half millennia of Islamic jihad against the non-Muslim world.

Because you are ignorant of (or unwilling to admit) this history -- and as importantly, its theological foundation in the word of Allah and the example of Muhammad as recorded in the texts of Qur'an, ahadith, and sira, Islam's "sacred" texts -- your analysis will always be limited, always unable to put interviews with "real people on the street" into their fuller historical, religious, political, and cultural contexts, always blind to "The Big Picture."

Every analogy breaks down eventually, but here's one:

It's World War II, and you're interviewing Germans "on the street." What would you find?

Some would be rabid Nazis who believe fervently that their duty is to make Europe Germany. Others would have joined the Nazis only out of fear, coercion, or convenience. Still others would be actually decent, moral human beings who oppose Hitler as a matter of conscience. A few would be risking their lives to save Jews and/or defeat Hitler.

From these hypothetical interviews, you might conclude that the majority of Germans were not devout supporters of Nazism.

Even if that were true, how would such a conclusion help in stopping Hitler? In saving Jews (and others) from Dachau and the other death camps? In informing Allied planning?

(Can you imagine FDR spending American blood and treasure trying to "win Nazi hearts and minds"? Can you conceive of him "apologizing and dialoguing in mutual respect" with Hitler?)

What you are doing is the equivalent of interviewing Germans "on the street" during World War II and drawing conclusions about what should be done to win the war from only those interactions, while ignoring the ideology motivating and sustaining the greater Nazi effort.

How can one defeat an enemy without naming it? Without knowing its history and beliefs? By denying 1400 years of clear, published statements of its motivations, tactics and goals?

The ideology of Islam as defined by Muhammad is the elephant in the room, the clothes the emperor left behind, the actual "inconvenient truth" that threatens humanity.

Islam is not a race.

Doctrines are not human beings.

Paper is not people.

However, the doctrines of Islam do motivate the global jihad, and this is why:

"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'" (Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 220).

And that's just a sampling.

Spencer is fair. Charles Johnson is not. Bostom is brilliant because he's thorough and accurate. Pamela Geller tells the truth. Yes, she can be forceful, and that can be shocking to someone who doesn't see what she sees; her fervor comes from an acute understanding of the threat to the world posed by traditional, historical, Islam-the-way-Muhammad-preached-and-practiced-it Islam.

How can someone not be outraged at slavery, brutality, rape, and slaughter carried out at Allah's command and in accord with Muhammad's example for the last 1400 years and currently?

By the way, Michael, Maliki just wants our "trade and investment" and someone to sweep for mines: "You give us your money, and we give you our bombs. You have to find them first, infidels."

*A note: Someone at Totten's 'blog cited Charles Johnson in support of their misplaced derision, which was one of the concerns regarding LGF's mendacity: Apologists for jihad and their Useful Idiot Dhimmis would use Johnson's libelous statements against those struggling in defense of Western Civilization.

Unintentionally recognizing the brilliance and integrity of Amillennialist Contra Mundum

I'm guessing this image is not an expression of someone's perverse sense of humor, but the result of Google's use of advanced, monetizing, irony-identifying algorithms.

Or, this is a misguided attempt at corrupting good Muslims, since that woman's chin is clearly visible.

I suppose it's only appropriate that a site which quotes accurately the perfect, immutable (by everyone but Muhammad) word of Allah and the words of its apostle would trigger ads for a Muslim dating service.

She looks too happy. I'm guessing she hasn't read the fine print yet.