Darwin's creation myth must be true, since scientists have observed bacteria involve into . . . bacteria!

An article on the significance of Lenski's E. Coli (subheadings and footnotes in the original).  After two decades and tens of thousands of generations, Darwinists still cannot show what they claim has been occurring for billions of years.  And that proves they're right!:

A New Scientist article proclaims:

'Lenski’s experiment is also yet another poke in the eye for anti-evolutionists, notes Jerry Coyne, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Chicago. "The thing I like most is it says you can get these complex traits evolving by a combination of unlikely events," he says. "That’s just what creationists say can’t happen."'

[. . .]

In 1988, Richard Lenski, Michigan State University, East Lansing, founded 12 cultures of E. coli and grew them in a laboratory, generation after generation, for twenty years (he deserves some marks for persistence!). The culture medium had a little glucose but lots more citrate, so once the microbes consumed the glucose, they would continue to grow only if they could evolve some way of using citrate. Lenski expected to see evolution in action. This was an appropriate expectation for one who believes in evolution, because bacteria reproduce quickly and can have huge populations, as in this case. They can also sustain higher mutation rates than organisms with much larger genomes, like vertebrates such as us. All of this adds up, according to neo-Darwinism, to the almost certainty of seeing lots of evolution happen in real time (instead of imagining it all happening in the unobservable past). With the short generation times, in 20 years this has amounted to some 44,000 generations, equivalent to some million years of generations of a human population (but the evolutionary opportunities for humans would be far, far less, due to the small population numbers limiting the number of mutational possibilities; and the much larger genome, which cannot sustain a similar mutation rate without error catastrophe; i.e. extinction; and sexual reproduction means that there is 50% chance of failing to pass on a beneficial mutation ).

As noted elsewhere (see ‘Giving up on reality’), Lenski seemed to have given up on ‘evolution in the lab’ and resorted to computer modelling of ‘evolution’ with a program called Avida (see evaluation by Dr Royal Truman, Part 1 and Part 2, which are technical papers). Indeed, Lenski had good reason to abandon hope. He had calculated that all possible simple mutations must have occurred several times over but without any addition of even a simple adaptive trait.


In a paper published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, Lenski and co-workers describe how one of 12 culture lines of their bacteria has developed the capacity for metabolizing citrate as an energy source under aerobic conditions.

This happened by the 31,500th generation. Using frozen samples of bacteria from previous generations they showed that something happened at about the 20,000th generation that paved the way for only this culture line to be able to change to citrate metabolism. They surmised, quite reasonably, that this could have been a mutation that paved the way for a further mutation that enabled citrate utilization.

This is close to what Michael Behe calls ‘The Edge of Evolution’—the limit of what ‘evolution’ (non-intelligent natural processes) can do. For example, an adaptive change needing one mutation might occur every so often just by chance. This is why the malaria parasite can adapt to most antimalarial drugs; but chloroquine resistance took much longer to develop because two specific mutations needed to occur together in the one gene. Even this tiny change is beyond the reach of organisms like humans with much longer generation times. With bacteria, there might be a chance for even three coordinated mutations, but it’s doubtful that Lenski’s E. coli have achieved any more than two mutations, so have not even reached Behe’s edge, let alone progressed on the path to elephants or crocodiles.

Now the popularist treatments of this research (e.g. in New Scientist) give the impression that the E. coli developed the ability to metabolize citrate, whereas it supposedly could not do so before. However, this is clearly not the case, because the citric acid, tricarboxcylic acid (TCA), or Krebs, cycle (all names for the same thing) generates and utilizes citrate in its normal oxidative metabolism of glucose and other carbohydrates.

Furthermore, E. coli is normally capable of utilizing citrate as an energy source under anaerobic conditions, with a whole suite of genes involved in its fermentation. This includes a citrate transporter gene that codes for a transporter protein embedded in the cell wall that takes citrate into the cell. This suite of genes (operon) is normally only activated under anaerobic conditions.

So what happened? It is not yet clear from the published information, but a likely scenario is that mutations jammed the regulation of this operon so that the bacteria produce citrate transporter regardless of the oxidative state of the bacterium’s environment (that is, it is permanently switched on). This can be likened to having a light that switches on when the sun goes down—a sensor detects the lack of light and turns the light on. A fault in the sensor could result in the light being on all the time. That is the sort of change we are talking about.

Another possibility is that an existing transporter gene, such as the one that normally takes up tartrate, which does not normally transport citrate, mutated such that it lost specificity and could then transport citrate into the cell. Such a loss of specificity is also an expected outcome of random mutations. A loss of specificity equals a loss of information, but evolution is supposed to account for the creation of new information; information that specifies the enzymes and cofactors in new biochemical pathways, how to make feathers and bone, nerves, or the components and assembly of complex motors such as ATP synthase, for example.

However, mutations are good at destroying things, not creating them. Sometimes destroying things can be helpful (adaptive), but that does not account for the creation of the staggering amount of information in the DNA of all living things. Behe (in The Edge of Evolution) likened the role of mutations in antibiotic resistance and pathogen resistance, for example, to trench warfare, whereby mutations destroy some of the functionality of the target or host to overcome susceptibility. It’s like putting chewing gum in a mechanical watch; it’s not the way the watch could have been created.

Unintentional Islamic truthfulness

Fighting, slaying, seizing, beleaguering, and lying in wait are, literally, what Muslims mean by "Muslim-Jewish Engagement."

Here's to a brief moment of honesty. Salud!

The bedfellows aren't strange when the bed is Islam

Bloodthirsty, rapacious, and rapist, yes, but unexpected?  At least Sunnis and Shiites can agree on something.

One Muslim leader of a formerly decent-because-it-was-Muslim-in-Name-Only state flaunts his close ties to a genocidal, nuclear, Muslim despot with American blood on his hands who happens to be harboring a wealthy, college-educated, revered-by-Muslims-around-the-world mass murderer responsible for slaughtering thousands of Americans with their own planes, all in order to taunt our allegedly-former-Muslim-in-Chief.

But he wants to investigate the Jews!

. . . senior Obama administration officials have been telling foreign governments that the administration intends to support an effort next week at the United Nations to set up an independent commission, under UN auspices, to investigate Israel's behavior in the Gaza flotilla incident. The White House has apparently shrugged off concerns from elsewhere in the U.S. government that a) this is an extraordinary singling out of Israel, since all kinds of much worse incidents happen around the world without spurring UN investigations; b) that the investigation will be one-sided, focusing entirely on Israeli behavior and not on Turkey or on Hamas; and c) that this sets a terrible precedent for outside investigations of incidents involving U.S. troops or intelligence operatives as we conduct our own war on terror.

While UN Ambassador Susan Rice is reported to have played an important role in pushing for U.S. support of a UN investigation, the decision is, one official stressed, of course the president's. The government of Israel has been consulting with the U.S. government on its own Israeli investigative panel, to be led by a retired supreme court justice, that would include respected international participants, including one from the U.S. But the Obama administration is reportedly saying that such a “kosher panel” is not good enough to satisfy the international community, or the Obama White House.

Osama hides in Iran while Obama hides from basic human decency. From here:

Osama bin Laden's hiding place was pinned down for the first time Monday, June 7, by the Kuwaiti Al-Siyassa Monday, June 7, as the mountainous town of Savzevar in the northeastern Iranian province of Khorasan, 220 km west of Mashhad. He is said to have lived there under Tehran's protection for the last five years, along with Ayman Al-Zawahiri and five other high-ranking al Qaeda leaders.

. . . Turkish prime minister Recep Erdogan and his intelligence chiefs are well aware that Bin Laden and Zawahiri are hiding in Iran. The leak to the Kuwait paper was intended to show the Obama administration that the Turkish leader's ties with Iran had grown intense enough for him to be fully in the picture of Iran's secret sanctuary for the authors of the 9/11 attacks on the United States.

Who sounds more like a prophet of God?

Compare the following terms of peace:

General MacArthur, on the occasion of the unconditional surrender of Imperial Japan:

"It is my earnest hope and indeed the hope of all mankind that from this solemn occasion a better world shall emerge out of the blood and carnage of the past-a world founded upon faith and understanding-a world dedicated to the dignity of man and the fulfillment of his most cherished wish-for freedom, tolerance, and justice."

Muhammad:

"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); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practise regular charity, then open the way for them . . . " (Qur'an 9:5).

"Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued" (Qur'an 9:29).

"Allah's Apostle said: 'I have been ordered (by Allah) to fight against the people until they testify that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that Muhammad is Allah's Apostle . . . '" (Bukhari Volume 1, Book 2, Number 24).

The goal for MacArthur was "a world dedicated to the dignity of man . . . freedom, tolerance, and justice."  The goal for Muhammad?  That non-Muslims "(accept) Islam," pay "jizya," "repent, and establish regular prayers and practise regular charity" [i.e., convert to Islam], "pay the Jizya with willing submission," "feel themselves subdued," and "testify that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that Muhammad is Allah's Apostle."

So, one man warred to advance human dignity, freedom, justice, and tolerance; the other to advance his own power through the subjugation or slaughter of all who rejected his heresies.

Which was more a prophet of God?

Character greater than championships

Bill Walton remembers John R. Wooden:

UCLA can easily claim an endless list of alumni who have helped make the world a better place. But of all the special spirits who have given so much, it is John Wooden, who has truly had the greatest impact on the largest number of people.

It was Coach Wooden’s heart, brain and soul that put him in a position to inspire others to reach levels of success and peace of mind that none of us could ever dream of reaching by ourselves.

All of the UCLA basketball players that John Wooden taught knew that when he retired from coaching in 1975, it did not signify an end to his life-long commitment to teaching, merely a new beginning. He was just getting started.

Coach Wooden taught by example. He never asked or expected anyone to do anything that he hadn’t already done himself. He gave us the ability to learn how to learn, and to compete. His keen knowledge and foresight to always be about what’s next, always about the future, enabled him to lead an incredibly active, constructive, positive and contributing life.

Coach Wooden never talked about winning and losing, but rather about the effort to win. He rarely talked about basketball, but generally about life. He never talked about strategy, statistics or plays, but rather about people and character. Coach Wooden never tired of telling us that once you become a good person, then you have a chance of becoming a good basketball player.

It has been 36 years since I graduated from UCLA. I have spent those years trying to duplicate that incredible period in my life. Our family home, where it all began so many years ago in San Diego, to this day is still a shrine to John Wooden, with UCLA memorabilia, the "Pyramid of Success" and pictures of The Coach everywhere.

Over the years I’ve regularly taken our children to Coach’s Mansion on Margate in Encino, to get for them the timeless lessons of life, including how to put your shoes and socks on, just like he taught us 40 years ago.

John Wooden represents the conquest of substance over hype, the triumph of achievement over erratic flailing, the conquest of discipline over gambling, and the triumph of executing an organized plan over hoping that you’ll be lucky, hot or in the zone.

John Wooden also represents the conquest of sacrifice, hard work and commitment to achievement over the pipe dream that someone will just give you something, or that you can take a pill or turn a key to get what you want.

The joy and happiness in Coach Wooden’s life came from the success and accomplishments of others. He never let us forget what he learned from his two favorite teachers, Abraham Lincoln and Mother Theresa, "that a life not lived for others is not a life."

I thank John Wooden every day for all his selfless gifts, his lessons, his time, his vision and especially his faith and patience. This is why our eternal love for him will never fade away. This is why we call him ‘Coach.’"

Should we believe the media or our lyin' eyes?

You won't get any facts from the Islamophobic mainstream media or politicians. Here's what's really going on with flotilla jihad:

Another unintentional practitioner of Islamic irony

It'd be funny if it weren't so tragic.  T. Behrend slithers:

"someone filled with hatred finds it wherever they seek it, and projects it whenever they speak. There are few posters here more bilious or intense in expressing hatred for the Muslims of the world than you. It's a frightful thing to observe you on this unreflective crusade"

Rather than address the genocidal pedophile's crimes against humanity and their glorification in your texts, you attack . . . me. Dishonest, but typical.

Muhammad commanded the slaughter of all who refuse the "invitation" to Islam, but I'm "filled with hate"? Muhammad had those butchered those who wrote something he didn't like, but I'm "bilious"? I quote your own religious texts, which Muslims around the world have been fulfilling to the tune of more than 15,000 documented attacks since 9/11 alone, but I'm "expressing hatred for Muslims"? I condemn genocide, pedophilia, rape, and slavery in Allah's name and in accord with Muhammad's example, but I'm on a "crusade"?

(Actually, since the word "crusade" comes from cross, and since the first Crusade was called in defense of Christians victimized for centuries by Islam, I'll accept that as a compliment. And wait 'til the West wakes up. You'll wish for Medieval European Christians then.)

As for "unreflective"? That's the pot calling the ivory "black."

A. Hussien first denies Muhammad began raping little, prepubescent Aisha when she was nine, then he says child rape was "common in that time and was not non-familiar"

You can't have it both ways.  Either the Islamic texts mean what they say -- and Muslims have understood them to say for nearly one and one-half millennia -- or they do not.  If they do, then Allah is the devil and Muhammad is its apostle.

A. Hussien begins with:

"I've never called you a liar"

Suggesting that I've never read Qur'an but instead just copy-and-paste from "anti-Islam" sites is impugning my character and attributing to me dishonesty.

"I've adequate knowledge of my religion's instructions which allows me to assist you to understand what you may not understood correctly."

Great. Then you should acknowledge that what I've written of Muhammad and cited from your own "sacred" texts is accurate.

"I'm glad that you're using USC's MSA Compendium of Muslim Texts (Noble Qur'an) as it's the same one I use when I post translated verses"

USC's MSA's translations are by Pickthal, Shakir, and Yusuf-Ali. The "Noble" Qur'an I referenced is the translation by Muhammad Taqi-ud-Din Al-Hilali and Muhammad Muhsin Khan.

"my heart reassures when I read it and it doesn't derive from it but peace, knowledge, good and beauty"

How can you derive from "sacralized" slaughter, rape, and slavery anything but horror, revulsion, and rage?

"and how it has a negative impact on you"

You call commands to behead us and rape and enslave our wives and children "negative."

"Islam is not for everybody"

Not decent people, at least. Or non-Muslims or Muslim apostates, women, and little girls.

"and people do not think in the same way."

That's an basic difference between you and me: You think that people can disagree on whether or not to brutalize, violate, and vivisect "unbelievers." I don't.

"Who's the author of the copy you own of sirat rasul Allah?"

There's only one of author of that biography [Ishaq], of course. Being an expert on Islam, you should know that.

"I didn't lie, - now who's calling the other a liar?"

Anyone who claims to know Islam well enough to teach me but denies its barbarism and depravity is a liar.

"God revealed all these verses to Mohammed peace be upon him in times of war."

Are you so unfamiliar with the genocidal pedophile's history? You must know that Muhammad received his first "revelation" when he was out in solitude performing a pagan religious ritual. Terrified that he was possessed by a demon (he was right), it was Khadijah who assured him that Allah was going to protect him.

It is true that in the beginning Muhammad's message was not well-received, but neither name-calling nor rejection justify violence, and there was no "war" until Muhammad had an army and began waging it. Essentially, you're blaming non-Muslims for defending themselves against Muhammad.

"But do not forget that Islam prescribed a code of conduct in war which remains unsurpassed to this day."

Yes, today we slaughter any man who surrenders and rape and enslave his wife and children (our leaders getting first pick of whom to rape AND a fifth of the spoils -- greedy!). No, wait! That was Muhammad. Well, at least we wage offensive warfare on religious grounds. No, sorry again! That, too, was Muhammad. Okay, let me try one more time: We pin nursing mothers to the ground with large blades through their chests for mocking our prophets. Oh! That was Muhammad, too!

"Unsurpassed"? In hellishness? Yes.

"Part of his instructions to the Muslim army was: ". . . Do not kill an old man, a woman or a child. Do not injure date palms and do not cut down fruit trees . . . ."

An expert on Islam like yourself would know that Muhammad made exceptions to Allah's rules whenever it suited him, such as . . .

. . . killing women and children:

"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).

. . . slaughtering the elderly:

"Then occurred the "sariyyah" [raid] of Salim Ibn Umayr al-Amri against Abu Afak, the Jew, in [the month of] Shawwal in the beginning of the twentieth month from the hijrah [immigration from Mecca to Medina in AD 622], of the Apostle of Allah. Abu Afak, was from Banu Amr Ibn Awf, and was an old man who had attained the age of one hundred and twenty years. He was a Jew, and used to instigate the people against the Apostle of Allah, and composed (satirical) verses [about Muhammad].

Salim Ibn Umayr who was one of the great weepers and who had participated in Badr, said, 'I take a vow that I shall either kill Abu Afak or die before him.' He waited for an opportunity until a hot night came, and Abu Afak slept in an open place. Salim Ibn Umayr knew it, so he placed the sword on his liver and pressed it till it reached his bed. The enemy of Allah screamed and the people who were his followers, rushed to him, took him to his house and interred him" (Ibn Sa'd, Kitab al Tabaqat al Kabir, Volume 2, (2), p.32).

. . . murdering women for mocking him:

"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).

"Then (occurred) the sariyyah of Umayr ibn adi Ibn Kharashah al-Khatmi against Asma Bint Marwan [. . .] She used to revile Islam, offend the prophet and instigate the (people) against him. She composed verses. Umayr Ibn Adi came to her in the night and entered her house. Her children were sleeping around her. There was one whom she was suckling. He searched her with his hand because he was blind, and separated the child from her. He thrust his sword in her chest till it pierced up to her back. Then he offered the morning prayers with the prophet at al-Medina.

The apostle of Allah said to him: "Have you slain the daughter of Marwan?" He said: "Yes. Is there something more for me to do?" He [Muhammad] said: "No . . . " (Ibn Sa'd's Kitab al-Tabaqat al-Kabir).

"A blind man had a slave-mother who used to abuse the Prophet [. . .] and disparage him. He forbade her but she did not stop. He rebuked her but she did not give up her habit. One night she began to slander the Prophet [. . .] and abuse him. So he took a dagger, placed it on her belly, pressed it, and killed her. A child who came between her legs was smeared with the blood that was there.

When the morning came, the Prophet [. . .] was informed about it. "He assembled the people and said: 'I adjure by Allah the man who has done this action and I adjure him by my right to him that he should stand up.'

Jumping over the necks of the people and trembling the man stood up. "He sat before the Prophet [. . .] and said: 'Apostle of Allah! I am her master; she used to abuse you and disparage you. I forbade her, but she did not stop, and I rebuked her, but she did not abandon her habit. I have two sons like pearls from her, and she was my companion. Last night she began to abuse and disparage you. So I took a dagger, put it on her belly and pressed it till I killed her.'

"Thereupon the Prophet [. . .] said: 'Oh be witness, no retaliation is payable for her blood'" (Abu-Dawud Book 38, Number 4348).

. . . destroying trees:

"It is narrated on the authority of 'Abdullah that the Messenger of Allah . . . ordered the date-palms of Banu Nadir to be burnt and cut. These palms were at Buwaira. Qutaibah and Ibn Rumh in their versions of the tradition have added: 'So Allah, the Glorious and Exalted, revealed the verse: "Whatever trees you have cut down or left standing on their trunks, it was with the permission of Allah so that He may disgrace the evil-doers"'" (Muslim Book 19, Number 4324).

A. Hussien continues with Muhammad allowing those he'd conquered to "Go your way, for you are free," Which, of course, does nothing to negate his beheading 600-900 who had surrendered to him [or the plethora of verses commanding blood].  Then . . .

"Those are the people who tortured him, insulted him, tried to assasinate him, chased him out of Mecca, and caused the killing of many of his followers, would you do the same thing if you were in his place?"

Would I slaughter, rape, and enslave over insults? No. And if my greed, bloodlust, and just-lust led me to war against my neighbors, I would NOT claim victim status and blame them for resisting. A problem with your relations at Mecca? Fine. Keep it all in the family. But expanding your "revelations" to include offensive warfare against all non-Muslims who refuse the "invitation" to convert or submit is evil.

"Yes I know the Doctrine of Abrogation, but would you please provide some of these passages?"

You're an expert. You know that 9:5 abrogates all the former, more peaceful verses that contradict it.

Here's Muhammad admitting that he changed his story to suit his immediate goals:

"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)?

Hussien continues:

"Once again, read the verses before and after the ninth verse and you'll find the answer."

Fifth verse. And no, I'm not taking the verse "out-of-context." (Remember, I asked you to save time by refraining from trying the Top Ten Ways to Trick Ignorant and Gullible Non-Muslims into Thinking that "'Islam" Means 'Peace.'")

"Honestly, I still haven't developed a complete opinion on that matter yet. As there're a lot of debates going on right now on the issue of Jihad and its provisions. So I really can't give an answer to that question."

That's more honest than most Muslim apologists will admit. I commend you.

"Nope, because none of that happened" [in response to my asking, "Is it Muhammad's genocide or his pedophilia that scream out "prophet of god!" to you?"].

Except when it did.

"who were those with the most enmity to the Prophet? The non-believers is not it?"

Because he was raping, enslaving, and decapitating them.

"why history never tells us that the non-believers denounced the Prophet's mirriage to Aisha?"

The Islamic texts brag about it, Muslims endorse it. Do you think the fact that Muslims kill non-Muslims for merely telling the truth about Muhammad might have something to do with an alleged lack of criticism?

"these marriages were common in that time and was not non-familiar."

Which is it, Hussien? First, you deny Muhammad raped little Aisha, then you're saying it was common. You can't have it both ways. Now you're justifying raping prepubescent nine-year-olds and claiming "the devil made me do it." What are you going to write next? Aisha liked it?

"These things come under the customs and traditions and not religion."

Being an expert on Islam, you must know that whatever Muhammad said and did -- or saw and allowed -- is "religion."

"Of course, our time is changed now, and this kind of marriages must not be allowed at all."

Thank you for stating that. Again, I commend you. What will you do to convince your coreligionists to remove that from shari'a?

"And what kind of genocide are you talking about?"

Killing non-Muslims on religious grounds. Since no society was Muslim before Islam warred against it, massive numbers of people of various ethnic backgrounds were murdered by Islam.

That's genocide.  Religiocide.

The fall of the Great City, Constantinople, 1453: Past is prelude

The "smartest president ever" grew up Muslim, yet he lies about Islam to those who elected him.  He warns us to avoid "jumping to conclusions" about his (former?) fellow coreligionists-of-peace slaughtering Americans to shouts of "Allahu akbar!" The mayor betrayer of New York, Michael Bloomberg, green-lights the Green Plague's latest jihad factory in what would have been the shadow of the Twin Towers, except that Muslims obliterated them, slaughtering thousands of innocents in the process. And here is the governor of Massachusetts Deval Patrick and Boston mayor Thomas Menino facilitating jihad in the land of the Adamses and Revere:

Certainly not what the Sons of Liberty had in mind.

Where's Paul Revere when you need him?

What does any of this have to do with the fall of Constantinople so many centuries ago?  Only that, just as petty rivalries, incompetence, and betrayal weakened the Great City so that it could no longer resist the jihad waged against it, so today we face the same uncompromising, relentless evil.

At least the Romans knew enough to fight back. Our leaders usher the Ottomans into the city. This is what awaits the West:

The Turks had sought to enter the city with a fanatic spirit because the Prophet, in the Qur’an, offered them a special place in paradise. Sultan Mehmet only mimicked the Prophet Muhammad when he said, “…even if some of us should die, as is natural in war, and meet our destined end, you know well from the Qur’an what the Prophet says, ‘that he who dies in battle shall dine whole in body with Mahomet, and drink with him in paradise and he shall take his rest in a green spot and fragrant with flowers, enjoying the company of women and lovely boys and virgins and he will bathe in gorgeous baths. All these things he will enjoy in that place by God’s favor.’” Despite facing such great odds, the Byzantines would defend their ancient Christian capital with great tenacity against the armies of Mehmet.

[. . .]

When they were finished, with their preparations, the Ottomans began blowing trumpets throughout their camp, along with sounding the castanets and tambourines, to announce that the Sultan would make a proclamation to his soldiers. Mehmet said to his men, “Children of Mahomet, be of good cheer. Tomorrow we shall have so much wealth that we shall be all of gold, and from the beards of Greeks we shall make leashes to tie up our dogs, and their wives and their sons shall be our slaves; so be of good cheer children of Mahomet, and be ready to die with a stout heart for the love of our Mahomet.” That night so many fires were lit in the Turkish camp that it appeared to the defenders as if the very walls were on fire, thus causing more panic in the city.

A picture is worth a thousand words, but one ounce of common human decency would have been more appreciated

Muslim outreach after prayer. Coming to a sidewalk near you, sooner or later.

From here, by way of Atlas. Be sure to learn the lesson Muslims and their Useful, Idiot Dhimmis like Mayor Bloomberg demand of you: It is not the rape, slavery, and slaughter in Allah's name and in accord with Muhammad's example that is the problem, it's you for resisting it.

In response to those who've learned that lesson well, I ask:

What sort of religion inspires its followers to murder after prayer? This kind:

"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).

So don't blame the victim or those reporting the evil. Stop the evil Muhammad preached and practiced.

"Chemical Sister" wrote:

"why don't you highlight the evils of Hinduisms as well like untouchability?"

If only Islam would stop "touching" non-Muslims, there'd be no atrocities like the one above to photograph.

Stop trying to divert attention from the anthropophagic elephant in the room. Tu quoques, straw men, red herrings will do nothing to stop jihad.  The problem is Islam.

[. . .]

How does denying the evil in which your coreligionists-of-peace engage "heal" anyone or anything (except, perhaps, your cognitive dissonance)? In effect, your strategy is: If we deny it, they won't come."

Fourteen hundred years of barbarity in Allah's name and in accord with Muhammad's example -- including more than 15,000 documented jihad attacks since 9/11 alone -- prove otherwise.

And to Nashbloom:

I quote Muhammad, yet you chastise: "We have had enough of you spreading hatred messages towards one religion."

That's why I quote Muhammad. I want Islamic hatred toward all other religions to end. I want non-Muslims to realize what motivates the global jihad against them so that they might defend themselves. I want truly decent Muslims to confront and denounce the evil which they worship (and perhaps, save themselves).

If I quote Muhammad and you call that "hate," what does that say about what YOU believe regarding Muhammad's words?

And when you write, "Killing someone in name of religion is mindset of poor ignorant people who don't know the true God," aren't you calling Muslims "poor ignorant people", and aren't you denying that Allah is "the true God"? Because Muslims who butcher non-Muslims in Allah's name and in accord with Muhammad's example have ample justification from their "sacred" texts for doing so.

Being an Islamic scholar, you already knew that.

A rat in the White House

Note the dark grey coat, the beady eyes, the gaunt face, the ravenous glare, the long, thin tail:

(Wait . . . That's a microphone cord . . . .)

"Rat? What rat? Let's not jump to any conclusions."

In an ironic and completely avoidable twist on "The Pied Piper of Hamelin," this time the rat is leading the children to their doom. The Pied Piper of Hafiz*:

-has spent more than a million dollars in legal fees to hide his personal records (including a birth certificate, if it exists). If I have to produce documentation to obtain a passport, qualify for a home loan, or use a credit card -- if a war hero like John McCain has to prove his citizenship to the Senate in order to be eligible for the presidency, as our Constitution requires -- why can't Obama? Why won't Obama?

-has done nothing to secure our borders, but he does invite (other?) foreign-born, tin-pot, third-world, aspiring dictators to our capital to denounce Americans' enforcing extant federal law in defense of its citizens;

-had his grandmother admit that she witnessed his birth in Kenya;

-had his own wife refer to Kenya as his "home country;"

-is the biggest recipient of contributions over the last twenty years from Goldman-Sachs, while using their little "drama" to tighten the government's grip on our financial institutions;

-uses a leaking well as a distraction and a bludgeon with which to punish the American people for its use of oil (quadruple the tax?);

-devours one private industry after another and looks for more;

-succeeded in socializing medicine, which means politicians will decide who's worthy to receive what treatments, when;

-burdens America and its posterity with crushing, enslaving debt and wants to add to that a European-style Vassal-Added-Tax (VAT), the end result being gargantuan inflation, bankruptcy, and military inferiority;

-lives like a king at our expense -- "ready to rule from Day 1" -- while insisting that We the People tighten our belts and inflate our tires;

-defunds our space program and advanced weapons systems development, disarms our military, and uses suicidal Rules of Engagement to bleed our warriors (medals for restraint?);

-has been such a weakling toward America's enemies that the insane despot in North Korea has attacked South Korea, breaking a hard-won ceasefire for which many in this nation bled and died;

-has allied himself for decades with America's enemies -- including leftist terrorists, Muslims, and Islamophilic, racist, America-hating, anti-Semitic pseudo-Christians;

-bows to Muslim and Communist tyrants and submits to Islamic supremacism in the United Nations;

-lies repeatedly for Islam, the "religion" in which he was raised and training which "the smartest president ever" ought to recall;

-appoints those who defend terrorists to inform policy and enforce the law, sexual predators to care for our children's well-being, and anti-Semitic, Useful, Idiot Dhimmis and closet jihadists to "deal" with Israel;

-betrays our European allies to their Muslim and Soviet neighbors and the only decent nation in the Middle East, Israel, to Islam;

-eats ice cream while Iran slaughters its own people and arms itself for genocide in Israel and metrocide in America;

-urges restraint in "jumping to conclusions" when Muslims shout "Allahu akbar!" and gun down Americans or when they try to detonate their SUVs, their shoes, and their underwear, but patriotic Americans, including returning military? They are "potential terrorists;"

-seeks to give those waging jihad against America the rights of citizens;

-he relies on Muslim incompetence to foil Islamic terrorism in America.

*or not. "Hafiz" is a term for those who have memorized Qur'an.

Reports I've read suggest that though Obama was in Qur'an classes for serious students, he was not a good student. So, the current president is either a serious student of Islam and is deceiving the American people about his knowledge of it, or he's a poor student. A case of, "Damned if you do, damned if you don't."

Or, if you ask Obama's "spiritual mentor" of twenty-plus years, just "damned," America.

Michelle Obama admits B. Hussein's "home country" is Kenya

Oh no, she didn't . . .

There's got to be a perfectly logical excuse explanation for this one, too.  From here, hat tip to The Sheriff:

Now, can we impeach the treasonous, allegedly-former-Muslim, Illegal-alien-in-Chief?

Elena Kagan another jihad-abetting, elitist, liberal tyrant and the spitting-image of her employer

So, Kagan not only wants to restrict freedom of speech, and denies the unalienable right to bear arms, but she also defends jihad's sponsors. Is anyone surprised that Obama nominated her?

President Obama's nominee for the Supreme Court, Elena Kagan, helped shield Saudi Arabia from lawsuits filed by families of 9/11 victims seeking to target countries and leaders who helped finance al-Qaida.

"I'm very concerned about her views on executive power and her views with respect to the separation of power," Stephen A. Cozen, the lead attorney in the case for 9/11 victims, told WND.

"I believe she must be asked questions about whether or not citizens who are attacked inside the U.S. have the right to file suits domestically against terrorism financiers," said Cozen, the founder and chairman of Cozen O'Connor, a Philadelphia-based law firm with 24 offices throughout the country.

Cozen recounted to WND an April 2009 meeting he held with Kagan to present the case for his clients – thousands of family members and others affected by the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks who sought damages from the Saudi kingdom, Saudi high commissioners and the country's rulers.

Cozen's suit documented evidence the Saudis funneled millions of dollars to al-Qaida prior to the 9/11 attacks and that the kingdom continued to finance terrorism thereafter.

He was arguing to bring his case to the Supreme Court after it was dismissed by a lower court and an appeals circuit, which had cited the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976 as barring lawsuits against leaders of foreign governments.

Cozen, however, documented how both the Supreme Court and U.S. government briefs allowed for such lawsuits in the past, finding the Immunities Act did not hold in similar cases.

Kagan's friend-of-the-court brief argued Cozen's case would interfere with U.S. foreign policy. She urged the Supreme Court not to hear the case.

So, in Kagan's mind, punishing those fueling jihad is "interfering with U.S. foreign policy."

Obama using a fraudulent social security number?

Speaking of "fraud," anyone find that birth certificate yet?

This isn't the first time "Obama" and "fraud" appear in the same breath.  It won't be the last.

"There is obviously a case of fraud going on here," Daniels maintained. "In 15 years of having a private investigator's license in Ohio, I've never seen the Social Security Administration make a mistake of issuing a Connecticut Social Security number to a person who lived in Hawaii. There is no family connection that would appear to explain the anomaly."

[. . .] 

Another anomaly in the law enforcement databases searched by Daniels and Sampson is that the date 1890 shows up in the field indicating the birth of the number holder, along with Obama's birth date of 08/04/1961. A third date listed is 04/08/1961, which appears to be a transposition of Obama's birth date in an international format, with the day before the month.

Daniels disclosed to WND the name of the database she searched and produced a computer screen copy of the page that listed 1890 as a date associated with the 042 Social Security number.

Daniels said she can't be sure if the 1890 figure has any significance. But she said it appears the number Obama is using was previously issued by the Social Security Administration.

After an extensive check of the proprietary databases she uses as a licensed private investigator, Daniels determined that the first occurrence of Obama's association with the number was in 1986 in Chicago.

Daniels assumes, but cannot prove, that Obama took on a previously issued Social Security number that had gone dormant due to the death of the original holder.

Speaking of birth certificates, what does Obama have to hide?  A lot, apparently.

Obama’s high-priced lawyers have built walls around various records or simply made them disappear. It is estimated that Obama’s legal team has now spent well over $1.4 million dollars blocking access to documents every American should have access to. The question is why would he spend so much money to do this?

The president who campaigned for a more “open government” and “full disclosure” will not unseal his medical records, his school records, his birth records or his passport records. He will not release his Harvard records, his Columbia College records, or his Occidental College records—he will not even release his Columbia College thesis. All his legislative records from the Illinois State Senate are missing and he claims his scheduling records during those State Senate years are lost as well. In addition, no one can find his school records for the elite K-12 college prep school, Punahou School, he attended in Hawaii.

Isn't there some hospital in Hawaii now a national historical site for having been the birthplace of our nation's latest president?

Something much more important than a game

And one more beautiful, little reason to preserve Western Civilization and its many blessings:

What can you expect from someone spending millions to avoid proving he's an American citizen?

Where's the birth certificate, B. Hussein? The college records? The master's thesis? The journal articles? Anything? What are you trying to hide?

The natural alliance that exists between the National Socialist Greater Germany and the freedom-loving Muslims of the whole world

Leftists/Socialists/Marxists/Communists,

In allying yourselves with Muslims and against decent, free people everywhere, you've aligned yourselves with Nazis. Anti-Semitism makes strange cellmates, I suppose.

From a caption to a reproduction of a November 2, 1943 telegram from Heinrich Himmler to Hitler's Mufti, Mohammad Amin al-Husseini, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem. Note the language straight from protesters on a college campus near you:

To the Grand Mufti:

The National Socialist movement of Greater Germany has, since its inception, inscribed upon its flag the fight against the world Jewry. It has therefore followed with particular sympathy the struggle of freedom-loving Arabs, especially in Palestine, against Jewish interlopers. In the recognition of this enemy and of the common struggle against it lies the firm foundation of the natural alliance that exists between the National Socialist Greater Germany and the freedom-loving Muslims of the whole world. In this spirit I am sending you on the anniversary of the infamous Balfour declaration my hearty greetings and wishes for the successful pursuit of your struggle until the final victory.

Reichsfuehrer S.S. Heinrich Himmler

Hitler to al-Husseini, al-Husseini to his Coreligionists of Peace, and Muhammad to the world . . . and to his everlasting shame and condemnation

Miami-Dade Transit first banned and then allowed ads offering help to those trying to free themselves from Islam. One commenter here suggested that rather than focus on Islam (he doesn't like its mingling of religion and state), we should focus instead on freedom of speech. To which I replied:

That’s like saying World War II shouldn’t have been about Hitler and Nazism, but about respecting borders. That’s great, but whom do you shoot?

(In other words, how do you defend yourself against an enemy you’re either too ignorant or too cowardly to name?)

Which inspired this reply from another commenter:

What a Godwinesque way to miss the entire point!

So I offered a few observations:

"Godwinesque"? In pointing out the suicidal foolishness of avoiding confronting Islam directly, I made what's called an "analogy." Trying to dismiss its relevance demonstrates your ignorance, not your wit, and it proves my point.

The ties between Islam and Nazism are several and profound:

First, both Hitler and Muhammad shared a deep and abiding passion for killing Jews, though Adolf's six million Muhammad would call only "a start."

Second, both sought to subjugate the world. (Muhammad's been considerably more successful.)

Third, recognizing their natural fit, Hitler and the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem worked together to exterminate Jews as efficiently as possible, with al-Husseini not only collaborating on the concentration camps and encouraging the Nazis staffing them to do their work diligently, but also recruiting his coreligionists to serve in the Nazi's Bosnian Muslim SS divisions.

Here's a bit on Hitler to al-Husseini:

"Hitler . . . asked al-Husayni to 'to lock ...deep in his heart [that] . . . Germany has resolved, step by step, to ask one European nation after the other to solve its Jewish problem, and at the proper time, direct a similar appeal to non-European nations as well'. When Germany had defeated Russia and broken through the Caucasus into the Middle East, it would have no further imperial goals of its own and would support Arab liberation... But Hitler did have one goal. 'Germany’s objective would then be solely the destruction of the Jewish element residing in the Arab sphere under the protection of British power.' . . . In short, Jews were not simply to be driven out of the German sphere but would be hunted down and destroyed even beyond it."

Here's a morsel on al-Husseini to his Coreligionists of Peace:

"On March 1, 1944, while speaking on Radio Berlin, al-Husayni said: 'Arabs, rise as one man and fight for your sacred rights. Kill the Jews wherever you find them. This pleases God, history, and religion. This saves your honor. God is with you."

And here's the genocidal pedophile Muhammad to the world . . . and to his everlasting shame and condemnation:

"The last hour would not come unless the Muslims will fight against the Jews and the Muslims would kill them until the Jews would hide themselves behind a stone or a tree and a stone or a tree would say: Muslim, or the servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me; come and kill him . . ." (Muslim Book 41, Number 6985).

Fourth, Hitler lamented Germany's being a Christian nation rather than an Islamic one.

Fifth, Hitler wrote of his "struggle," Mein Kampf. Muhammad commanded his followers to wage jihad against the world "until all religion is for Allah." "Jihad" means "struggle."

Sixth, just as Chamberlain and other ignorant cowards sought to appease a monster who'd made his intentions clear -- in writing -- so today we have a multitude of Chamberlains running around attempting to silence those telling the truth about jihad and shari'a through prosecutorial persecution (Geert Wilders), violence and the threat of violence (Theo Van Gogh, the Muhammad cartoons, and yes, South Park), and name-calling ("Islamophobe," "racist," and "Godwin").

There's one aspect in which Muhammad and Hitler differed dramatically: At least Hitler didn't claim "the devil made me do it."

So, no. The reference to Nazism was not gratuitous.

We know how it ends

We will endure evil in this life, but the good news is, we know all ends well.  From here:

He will swallow up death forever, and the Lord GOD will wipe away tears from all faces; the rebuke of His people He will take away from all the earth; for the LORD has spoken. And it will be said in that day: "Behold, this is our God; we have waited for Him, and He will save us. This is the LORD; we have waited for Him; we will be glad and rejoice in His salvation" (Isaiah 25:8-9).

A non-Muslim’s stating plainly what Muhammad’s followers were too shameless to hide isn’t “fear mongering,” it’s self-defense

Offered in response to another lying Muslim here:

ihsaan,

You call a genocidal pedophile "the best example to mankind," and I'm the "nutjob"?

(Don’t think that we all didn’t notice your inability to deny Muhammad’s genocide and pedophilia. There’s a kind of honesty in your silence on that, at least.)

Just in case anyone is tempted to give any credence to your mendacity . . .

Ibn Kathir is my source for Ibn Kathir, of course.

As for implying that I am misrepresenting or are unfamiliar with your "sacred" texts, I posted several passages demonstrating Muhammad's wanton bloodlust, along with specific citations. Anyone who can read can determine for themselves whether or not I’m “ignorantly fear mongering.”

Nowhere do I claim that Muslims are commanded to kill non-Muslims indiscriminately as you seem to suggest. Everyone knows that Allah has rules for how to butcher "infidels": First, "invite" them to convert; if they refuse, then demand the jizya; if they refuse that, then war. If that sounds familiar, then that’s because I posted it above, along with the special “accommodation” for the “People of the Book” (Qur’an 9:29). Perhaps you ought to read before ranting about my “ignorance” of exceptions for Jews and Christians (and later, other non-Muslims).

As for "later peace agreements," demanding money from non-Muslims in order to protect them from yourselves is not a “peace agreement;” it’s extortion. (Those “agreements” were "later" because Muhammad realized that slaves are more profitable than corpses, and most Muslims preferred raping the living rather than the dead -- even Muhammad.)

And thanks for admitting (accidentally, no doubt) that your texts are vile, murderous refuse: The fact that your pedophile prophet was ordered to fight against ANYONE AT ALL because of their “unbelief” proves incontrovertibly that Muhammad served hell. Claiming that the order to kill was abrogated by "later peace agreements" demonstrates that the obvious reading of the text is the correct one: It was an order to war over religious belief. How do "later peace agreements" make commands to genocide on religious grounds acceptable, again?

It is absurd in the highest degree to argue that "The passage doesn’t say to kill because later texts replaced (abrogated) it saying 'Don’t kill them!'" You realize that a command to genocide’s being limited by later “peace agreements” proves that the former command is murderous, don’t you?

Finally, you defend “kill the pagans wherever you find them” (Qur’an 9:5) and then lie to everyone here about it, but then claim that I’m the one “increasing hate for non-muslims from muslims.” How sad. A non-Muslim’s stating plainly what your coreligionists were too shameless to hide isn’t “fear mongering,” it’s self-defense. Just because you don’t like it doesn’t mean it isn’t true.

You think that you’re serving God, but you’re serving hell. Christ committed no sin, spoke only the truth, healed the sick, raised the dead, died for the sins of the whole world, and resurrected. He commanded His people to love even their enemies.

On the other hand, Muhammad practiced genocide, pedophilia, mutilation, torture, rape, slavery, extortion, theft, wife-beating (endorsed only?), polygamy, religious and gender apartheid, deceit, and blasphemy, claimed “allah made me do it!” and commanded others to do the same. In other words, Muhammad “sacralized” the violation of all Ten Commandments and the Golden Rule.

Turn from hell and trust in the Son of God, Who died for all your sins to give you peace with His Father.

Regards,

Amillennialist

Multiculturalism and craven self-censorship as the path to the Islamization of the West

For centuries, Islam has been impotent, unable to use its preferred method of "persuasion" against the West (slaughter) -- its last best chance having been obliterated on the first September 11th at the gates of Vienna in 1683 (thank you, Jan III Sobieski) -- so it's found another way: Aided both by trillions in blood for oil for the funding of indoctrination and propaganda centers within our own borders and the West's suicidal self-loathing in the guise of Multiculturalism, Europe -- and soon America, bankrupted and disarmed by the allegedly-former-Muslim in the White House -- is at the precipice of a new Dark Ages.  A new Inquisition has begun, this time in defense of Islam rather than in defense against it.

Pat Condell condemns the cowardice of establishment Europe in persecuting (prosecuting) Geert Wilders for telling the truth about Islam (thanks to Dan for posting this; be sure to visit his excellent site).

Western Civilization hangs by a thread:

Not all religions are created equal

When someone tries to equate Christianity and Islam, point out the words and deeds of each religion's founders; the contrast couldn't be greater.  One's created the most free, most prosperous, most moral society in the history of Man, the other's wrought for non-Muslims, apostates, women, and little girls fourteen hundred years of hell-on-Earth.

Christ commanded:

"So whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets" (Matthew 7:12).

"But I say to you who hear, Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who abuse you [. . .] as you wish that others would do to you, do so to them.

"If you love those who love you, what benefit is that to you? For even sinners love those who love them. And if you do good to those who do good to you, what benefit is that to you? For even sinners do the same. And if you lend to those from whom you expect to receive, what credit is that to you? Even sinners lend to sinners, to get back the same amount. But love your enemies, and do good, and lend, expecting nothing in return, and your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High, for he is kind to the ungrateful and the evil. Be merciful, even as your Father is merciful" (Luke 6).

On the other hand:

"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 this verse: "'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." So, Muhammad requires execution, crucifixion, or cutting off hands and feet from opposite sides for "disbelief."]

"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).

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

Common Sense, Addressed to the non-Muslim Inhabitants of America

In an article that should be titled "Muslim Students want "Our Lord" phrase off diplomas," the efforts by several students -- including two Muslims named in the piece -- are noted. Several comments from readers (cbc13 in particular) regurgitate the same politically-correct poison: If you criticize Islam or resist its advance, you're a hateful, bigoted, racist xenophobe. Such "critiques" are obliterated easily with basic facts and a little . . .

COMMON SENSE;

Addressed to the non-Muslim

INHABITANTS

of

AMERICA

on the following interesting

SUBJECTS

To oppose Hate is not "hate." Instead of insulting those resisting genocide, pedophilia, rape, mutilation, torture, slavery, theft, extortion, wife-beating, polygamy, religious and gender apartheid, deceit, and blasphemy in Allah's name (all of which are commanded or endorsed by Muhammad and his allah), you ought to be joining them.

Islam sends Muslim souls to hell and creates for non-Muslims (and Muslim apostates, women, and little girls) hell-on-Earth. Why do you tolerate, obfuscate, and apologize for such barbarity?

If you are a Christian, how can you defend blaspheming the Son of God?  (If you're not, do you think your god gets treated any better?)

"In blasphemy indeed are those that say that Allah is Christ the son of Mary. Say: "Who then hath the least power against Allah, if His will were to destroy Christ the son of Mary, his mother, and all every - one that is on the earth? For to Allah belongeth the dominion of the heavens and the earth, and all that is between. He createth what He pleaseth. For Allah hath power over all things" (Qur'an 5:17).

"They do blaspheme who say: Allah is one of three in a Trinity: for there is no god except One Allah. If they desist not from their word (of blasphemy), verily a grievous penalty will befall the blasphemers among them" (Qur'an 5:73). "The Jews call 'Uzair a son of Allah, and the 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)!

Why do you support murderous anti-Semitism?

"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)."

Why do you advocate dismembering non-Muslims?  Ibn Kathir says of the following verse: "'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." So, Muhammad requires execution, crucifixion, or cutting off hands and feet from opposite sides for "disbelief":

"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)?

Why do you defend murdering those who would leave Islam?

"Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him" (Bukhari Volume 9, Book 84, Number 57)?

Why do you support raping the wives of non-Muslims who've been made into sex slaves?

"Also (prohibited are) women already married, except those whom your right hands possess . . . " (Qur'an 4:24)?

Why do you tolerate Allah-ordained pedophilia?

"Narrated 'Aisha: that the Prophet married her when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old, and then she remained with him for nine years (i.e., till his death)" (Bukhari Volume 7, Book 62, Number 64 and 65)?

Why do you defend genocide on religious grounds?

"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)?

Why do you obfuscate for those advancing an ideology that would take your heads and rape and enslave your wives and daughters?  Instead, defend our unalienable, God-given rights to Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.

Where's your Common Sense, America?

The Minnesota Daily denying access to the truth, or Refuting common Islamic deceptions

All accounts "moderated" now (saw an "Access Denied" message once), indicating either that all posts are now being censored or the site is filtering my IP address (there are ways around that!)

Update 3/30: Moderation was disabled, so the post below is up on the site.  The truth will out, anyway.  In response to the inaptly named justice786:

In your zeal to serve Allah, you do a disservice to God and Man. Below are (again) refutations of your many half-truths, logical fallacies, and outright lies.

"It is interesting that you quote the verse that you did because it shows again that you only use English translations."

Arabic is a human language. "kill the pagans wherever you find them" (Qur'an 9:5) is not a mistranslation.

"In the Quran (chapter 3, verse 28) . . . The term God is using in this verse . . . is "aulia" which actually means "supporter" . . . ."

"helper" is synonymous with "supporter," none of which negates verse after verse of brutality toward non-Muslims, including Jews and Christians. Besides that: "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), and, "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).

"So you see my dear friend Muhammad, if you understood the original arabic of the Qur'an, you would know that you can still be my friend, though not my ally."

I pointed out that you are not my “friend,” because however one might define the term, butchery and slavery are not elements of its definition.

"I have many friends from the Christian and Jewish religions as well as other faith-based communities, and we have a great relationship."

The master-dhimmi relationship is great . . . for the master. If Islam ever gains the ascendancy here, I doubt they’ll share your opinion.

"Yes, several posts ago, Muslims were told to go home."

Not by me, which is what you said. Changing your language to “were told” from “you told” is a tacit admission that you were wrong, but you don’t have the decency to admit that.

"My wife is a former born again Christian"

Whatever the deficiencies of American Evangelicalism, that’s still a fall from heaven to hell.

"and native American . . . my Navy son . . . ."

And if we were in Australia, they'd be aborigines. You must be quite a fisherman, since that’s another a red herring: The issue is not national origin or ancestry, but your genocidal pedophile's commands to enslave or slaughter all who refuse the "invitation" to Islam and your eagerness to advance that by deceiving others.

"Actually, you have changed the topic everytime I clarified a point"

I was responding to comments made here, including yours. Don't be silly.

"Your comments on the above article had nothing to do with Muslims in business in Minnesota."

Your comments here are obfuscations for jihad. Jihad and shari'a are "Muslim business," in Minnesota and everywhere. That's the problem.

"You love quoting from the Qur'an or from Hadiths without any understanding of the original arabic, or the context of the hadith, or actually of the Seerah (life and example of the Prophet (s)."

It should be clear that I understand your religion very well. Using Islamic translations of Islamic texts written in a human language is legitimate. And you've yet to demonstrate where I've taken anything "out-of-context."

What context makes "kill the pagans wherever you find them" (Qur'an 9:5) not murderous refuse, again?

"You do not unfortunately have any understanding of fiqh or of the Shari'ah. It is easy when one uses a cut and paste approach to anything to show what you perceive to be total contradictions when in fact there are not."

A false ad hominem and an outright lie. Apparently, you confuse “basic human decency” with “understanding.” Just because I don’t agree with Allah’s bloodlust, doesn’t mean I don’t understand it.

Neither do I "perceive total contradictions;" you're only hoping to create in the minds of those unfamiliar with Islamic texts, tenets, and timelines the perception of misunderstanding.

As for contradictions, naskh, the doctrine of abrogation, is your false prophet's idea, not mine: “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), and, “Whatever communications We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, We bring one better than it or like it . . .” (Qur'an 2:106)?

And those are proof texts, so that non-Muslims (and Muslims of good will) can see just what it is that Allah requires.

"I have already answered your question about apostasy. Again, no one was killed only for being an apostate during the life of the Prophet (s). Traitors were killed and some of them happened to be apostates. Killing someone for "apostasy" would be against verse 2: 256 in the Qur'an, the final source of revelation and the word of God."

Two problems there: Leaving Islam is considered treason because Muhammad was a totalitarian warlord, and Muhammad ordered the deaths of those who committed apostasy: "Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him" (Bukhari Volume 9, Book 84, Number 57).

"Islam itself is tolerant of other faiths. Look at how Islam talks about the "People of the Book", Jews and Christians, allows Muslims to eat of the food of the People fo the Book, and even get married to people of the book without their having to change their faith. Some of my best friends are Muslims married to Christians or Jews."

You even get to rape the People of the Book. Muslim men marry non-Muslim women (making them stupidly “Muslim-Christians,” etc.), but the opposite is not allowed.

I've posted several passages showing Muhammad's special love for Jews and Christians, which you cannot refute. Murdering and enslaving those who refuse to convert to Islam is not "tolerance."

"Arabic is the language of the Qur'an. How many versions of the bible do you have?"

One Bible. I use several translations, all of which are good. None of them contradict the others on points of doctrine. Regardless, that’s just another red herring.

"There is only one correct version of the Qur'an and it is the Arabic version ."

After the other, competing versions were destroyed. And don’t forget the Satanic Verses. (Shouldn’t verses commanding genocide on religious grounds be considered “incorrect”?)

"I demonstrated to you in #1 above that your ignorance of Arabic"

No, you demonstrated your contempt for the non-Muslims who frequent this site, and what you presume is our ignorance.

Unfortunately, like so many in the West, I'm too familiar with Arabic. Islam is just like Nazism: two murderous cults ruining perfectly good human languages (Arabic and German) used for centuries by Christians. What a shame.

You’re assertion is irrational and self-contradictory: Either you grew up speaking Arabic or you did not. If you did and accurate translation is impossible as you claim, then how can you know that the English is in error, since you know English only through translation? If you grew up NOT speaking Arabic and accurate translation is impossible as you claim, then you don't know what the Arabic actually says.

And that’s the unintentional irony of the murderous and deceitful. Well done!

"and reliance on translations has led you to misinterpret what the Qur'an says, and to castigate Muslims when it is inappropriate."

You’ve not demonstrated that I’ve misinterpreted anything. And I’ve only castigated you for lying in defense of genocide, pedophilia, and slavery. If instead of obfuscating for Allah’s tyranny you oppose it, I’ll commend you.

"Islam has a very clearcut etiquette when it comes to war. No killing of old people, children and women."

Except when it doesn’t: "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). And not to mention Abu Afak, Asma bint Marwan, and others.

"No scorched earth approach. War is only for two reasons: defense or to free people from oppression."

You hope that no one here knows that "unbelief in Allah" is considered "oppression" by Muslims. The mere existence of non-Muslims is considered an obstacle to Islam and an oppression of Muslims.

And there is, of course, this: "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).

"There is no pedophilia in Islam (some cultures marry women at a younger age than the US where the age of sexual consent is as low as 12 years old in some states)."

That’s a clumsy tu quoque. Allah’s “beautiful pattern of conduct” Muhammad did it, so you should too: "Narrated 'Aisha: that the Prophet married her when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old, and then she remained with him for nine years (i.e., till his death)" (Bukhari Volume 7, Book 62, Number 64 and 65).

And don’t forget the Qur’anic stipulations on divorcing prepubescent females: "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. And for those with child, their period shall be till they bring forth their burden. And whosoever keepeth his duty to Allah, He maketh his course easy for him" (Qur'an 65:4).

"Show me a verse in the Qur'an where rape, mutiliation, or torture are allowed."

I have, repeatedly. Clearly, you don't care to deal with this subject matter or me truthfully, or you would not lie shamelessly, even when I've already exposed your mendacity.

Raping sex slaves (not to mention Muhammad''s raping numerous captives, and little prepubescent 'Aisha): “If ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly with the orphans, marry women of your choice, two or three or four; but if ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly (with them), then only one, or (a captive) that your right hands possess, that will be more suitable, to prevent you from doing injustice” (Qur'an 4:3).

Mutilation and torture (not to mention Muhammad's torturing a captive Jew for the location of hidden wealth): "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 this verse: "'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." So, Muhammad requires execution, crucifixion, or cutting off hands and feet from opposite sides for "disbelief."

"Islam came to put an end to slavery, and there are many examples of the Prophet (s) freeing slaves. This is contrast to even my country the US where it took a civil war to put an end to slavery."

Freeing his own slaves (he was entitled to one-fifth of the booty from a razzia. Which means he was a practitioner. And what do you think the dhimma system was but a system of religious discrimination, humiliation, and extortion?

And playing a tu quoque meant to shame into silence is dishonest and ineffective. You ought to be embarrassed. But I suppose that in worshiping a bloodthirsty devil, one must compromise not only one’s intellect but one’s conscience.

"Show me where the Qur'an advocates theft and extortion."

Jizya and dhimma are extortion (“Pay us and we’ll protect you . . . from ourselves!”): "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).

“Misinterpreting the verse about disciplining your wife is a favorite hobby of people who attack Islam.”

But not something of which I am guilty. Your own authorities teach it. “Beat” is “beat.”

“There is no record of the Prophet (s) ever laying a hand on any of his wives”

Which is why I use the words “commanded” and “endorsed.” But he did teach beating wives from whom you fear disobedience, and ‘Aisha, the pedophile prophet’s favorite “wife,” lamented at the suffering of Muslim women.

“there are hadiths where he talks about the best of Muslims being those who are the best to their women.”

You know as well as I that being “the best to their women” would include beating them, since the purpose would be to discipline them for Allah and Paradise (possibly).

“surely the protection afforded by a polygamous marriage is better than none or potential sexual promiscuity.”

Especially when victims of rape get murdered for adultery. (I”ll save you the need to lie about this one: Because Muhammad wanted to protect himself from an awkward situation with ‘Aisha, he required four witnesses to adultery. So a Muslim woman who reports being raped but lacks the witnesses is admitting to unlawful sexual intercourse. What’s a devout Muslim to do, but punish such “mischief”?

And there’s this: "If any of your women are guilty of lewdness, take the evidence of four (Reliable) witnesses from amongst you against them; and if they testify, confine them to houses until death do claim them, or Allah ordain for them some (other) way . . ." (Qur'an 4:15).

“There is no religious apartheid in Islam”

Dhimma. Pact of Umar.

“men and women have equal but not identical rights.”

Yes, women have the right to be raped beginning at age nine (even on a camel’s saddle!), to receive half the inheritance of a brother, to possess a lesser standing in court, to be beaten for “fearing” disobedience, etc.

“Deceit and blasphemy are not supported by any verse that I know in the Qur'an.”

Deceit in Qur’an: "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).

Deceit in ahadith: "War is deceit" (Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 268), and, "Allah's Apostle said, 'Who is willing to kill Ka'b bin Al-Ashraf who has hurt Allah and His Apostle?' Thereupon Muhammad bin Maslama got up saying, 'O Allah's Apostle! Would you like that I kill him?' The Prophet said, 'Yes,' Muhammad bin Maslama said, 'Then allow me to say a (false) thing (i.e. to deceive Kab).' The Prophet said, 'You may say it' (Bukhari, Volume 5, Book 59, Number 369).

Blaspheming YHWH: "In blasphemy indeed are those that say that Allah is Christ the son of Mary . . ." (Qur'an 5:17), "They do blaspheme who say: Allah is one of three in a Trinity: for there is no god except One Allah. If they desist not from their word (of blasphemy), verily a grievous penalty will befall the blasphemers among them" (Qur'an 5:73), and "the 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)!

“In the end, it is very easy to make accusations when one studies another person's faith at the surface, does not understand the language in which the Qur'an was revealed, and cobbles together their own cut and paste approach to Islam.”

Which has nothing to do with me. Stay on topic.

“When I talk to my Christian or Jewish friends, I don't talk to them about my perception of their faith. I let them tell me about how they perceive and practice their faith.”

If I want to know the truth about Islam, I’ll go to its god, founder, “sacred” texts, and history, not a maliciously-deceitful propagandist.

“Islam is the fastest growing religion in the USA, and will continue to be the fastest growing religion, God Willing.”

He is not.

“If you don't believe me, just go to the website, www.Islamicity.com, and watch how many American men and women of different faiths and backgrounds are embracing Islam every hour of every days.”

Muslims would never, ever lie, right?

“the Qur'an says in Chapter 109, "Say, O you that reject faith. I worship not that which ye worship, Nor will ye worship that which I worship. And I will not worship that which ye have been wont to worship, Nor will ye worship that which I worship. To you be your Way, and to me mine.'

But you said translations were useless.

The Minnesota Daily censoring and obfuscating for jihad

In an article detailing another step in sharia's advance here in the United States, a lively exchange between Muslims and their Useful Idiot Dhimmis and decent human beings got off to a good start.

Now, at least my comments are moderated. Whether or not my words exposing the vile dishonesty of jihad's agents will be censored remains to be seen; in the event that The Minnesota Daily lacks the decency to post my most recent comment in response to someone referring first to his "Muslim wife" serving in the military and then going into full Obfuscation Mode and revealing himself to be the most shameless of dhimmis or a Muslim himself, it is posted below (with minor editing).

[Update 11:38 PM: Using another account to post, no moderation.  So, apparently The Minnesota Daily only allows lies in service to Allah to go unmoderated.  Update 1:04 AM: Another account "moderated."  At least I got a few choice lines in.]

Here's justice786's falsehood-filled response to my earlier comments:

Actually you are wrong. It is not a non-sequitur. My wife, an American Muslima, served on the staff of an admiral during the Iran hostage crisis, and is of native American origin. When you tell her to go home, she is right at home. What about you? Which foreign country do your forefathers come from? Shouldn't you go back there?

You also changed subject from the topic of the article. That is all right. To answer your comment, Islam is for freedom of religion. If you read the Qur'an yourself and understood arabic (not the English translation) instead of cutting and pasting from websites, you would understand the verse, "Let there be no compulsion in religion" from Surah 2, verse 256. Islam through the Qur'an and the traditions of the Prophet (s) has never ordered Muslim to establish Islamic law over all humanity. Again you are misinterpreting the Qur'an because you do not understand the original arabic source.

My reply:

Where did I tell anyone to "go home"?

And my ancestors were here millennia before yours, so even if yours were not a silly and intellectually-vacuous "argument," you'd still lose on that point.

I see that you passed Obfuscation for Infidels 101, so let me expose your duplicity:

1. I did not "change subject from the topic of the article," I responded to several comments here, including yours, which is what you do in a Comments section. So my words are on-topic.

2. Islam is not "for freedom of religion." Muhammad declared, "If anyone changes his (Islamic) religion, then kill him" (Sahih Bukhari). Surahs 2, 8, 5, and 9 also put the lie to your claim.

3. Arabic is a human language, just like any other, so it can be translated. Sure, on occasion subtle nuances can be lost, but "kill the pagans wherever you find them" is not a mistranslation of "Love your neighbor as yourself." Besides that, numerous English translations by Muslims show your assertion to be nonsensical.

4. The "no compulsion" verse is trotted out often by apologists for jihad. The only problem is -- and you must know this since you're obviously practiced in lying for Allah -- that numerous other passages command or endorse violence against non-Muslims to make the world Islam. And even if that verse is not abrogated (the doctrine of naskh) by the later Verses of Blood, you know as well as I that inner belief cannot be forced, but outward obedience is another thing entirely, so technically, of course, "there is no compulsion in religion."

5. Your own "sacred" texts demonstrate your mendacity; since Muhammad is the "Ideal Man" and a "beautiful pattern of conduct" for those who want to please Allah, his words and actions are definitive:

"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,

"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).

6. The only website from which I "copy and paste" is my own. Every passage I post I've verified for myself. I provide specific citations so that honest readers can determine the facts for themselves and not be deceived by shameless dissemblers like you.

Even if your embarrassing ad hominem were true -- it is not, obviously -- that still doesn't take away from the fact that Muhammad commanded or endorsed and practiced genocide, pedophilia, rape, mutilation, torture, slavery, theft, extortion, wife-beating, polygamy, religious and gender apartheid, deceit, and blasphemy and claimed "Allah made me do it, and so must you!"

You may find a significant concentration of the ignorant and gullible in media and government, but the American people are educating themselves. Your days of pulling the niqab over non-Muslim eyes are at an end.

Their children were forced to watch

This is for what B. Hussein, Grover Norquist, the Left, CAIR, Hamas, Mohamed Fadly, and the rest apologize and obfuscate.  This is why the West's "leadership" betrays Israel.

Islam is pure evil. It is vile. It is hell.  Stop defending it. Stop lying for it. Stop excusing it.

If there ever were a time to use Western military might, this is it. Now.

Islam must be stopped.

Pakistani Christian burned alive, wife raped by police for refusing to convert to Islam (Jihad Watch):

RAWALPINDI, PAKISTAN (BosNewsLife)-- A Christian man was fighting for his life in Pakistan's Punjab province Saturday, March 20, after Muslim leaders backed by police burned him alive for refusing to convert to Islam, while his wife was raped by police officers, Christian and hospital sources familiar with the case told BosNewsLife.

Arshed Masih was burned Friday, March 19, in front of a police station in the city of Rawalpindi near Pakistan's capital Islamabad, following apparent death threats from his Muslim employer Sheikh Mohammad Sultan, an influential businessman, and religious leaders, said the Rawalpindi Holy Family Hospital.

His wife, Martha Arshed, was allegedly raped by police officers. Their three children -- ranging in age from 7 to 12-- were reportedly forced to witness the attacks against their parents.