Fox obfuscates for jihad

The text of an e-mail sent to Tampa Bay's Fox television station in response to their piece bullying a responsible, aware, and courageous member of Congress (how rare are these kinds of politicians at any level of government!), Ginny Brown-Waite:

Judging from your segment on Congresswoman Brown-Waite's refusal to condemn the Hogans, it seems not unreasonable to assume that if you had covered World War II after Pearl Harbor you would have poked and prodded FDR about other fascists besides the Nazis ("Why are you such a Germanophobe"?); you would have quizzed him about other monarchies (Why must you dwell on Imperial Japan?), and you would have uncritically broadcast blurbs from Nazi propagandists denying the Holocaust.

The Hogans and Brown-Waite are correct: Islam's authoritative texts (Qur'an, Sira, and Hadith) require the fighting against, subduing and humiliating, and killing of non-Muslims to make the world Islam.

Muslim apologists for Jihad seeking to deceive naive Western Infidels try to discredit and demonize those critical of their god and prophet as "Islamophobes," "racist," or "extreme." Other times, they accuse them of taking Islamic "holy" texts "out of context."

Such accusations are shown to be only pitiful, deceptive, and false ad hominem attacks when Allah and his apostle are allowed to speak for themselves.

Rather than mock a responsible public servant and swallow whole the jihadist propaganda fed to you by Ahmed Bedier, why don't you ask him why he worships a god and follows a prophet who state:

"...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).

"...fight them [Unbelievers] on until...there prevail...faith in Allah altogether and everywhere..." (Qur'an 8:38, 39).

"Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not" (Qur'an 2:216).

"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).

“Muhammad said, ‘A single endeavor of fighting in Allah’s Cause is better than the world and whatever is in it’” (Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 50).

“A man came to Allah’s Apostle and said, ‘Instruct me as to such a deed as equals Jihad in reward.’ He replied, ‘I do not find such a deed’” (Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 44).

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

"Allah’s Apostle said, ‘I have been made victorious with terror. The treasures of the world were brought to me and put in my hand’” (Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 220).

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

"War is deceit" (Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 268).

"Ye have indeed in the Messenger of Allah a beautiful pattern (of conduct) for any one whose hope is in Allah and the Final Day, and who engages much in the Praise of Allah" (Qur'an 33:21).

And a last bit on Mohammed's raping of his nine-year-old "wife" and justifying it by saying Allah ordained it:

“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).

“Allah’s Apostle told Aisha [his six-year-old bride and nine-year-old sexual "partner"], ‘You were shown to me twice in my dreams. I beheld a man or angel carrying you in a silken cloth. He said to me, “She is yours, 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 139-140).

Again, rather than mock Americans defending their Liberty, expose the corruption and/or ignorance of Western dhimmis like Governor Bush and the deception and malice of Muslim apologists like Ahmed Bedier.

When blindness leads otherwise smart people to draw false conclusions

In a post at the excellent Power Line, the West's fundamental inability (or unwillingness) to publicly admit and address the fact that the will of Allah and his false prophet--as revealed in Qur'an and Sunnah--inspires and sustains the global jihad against us (and all other non-Muslims) raises its ugly, decapitated head. Paul writes:

In my view, Iraqi participation in elections, sometimes at great personal risk, goes a long way towards answering those who say there's something in the Iraqi (or Arab) DNA that is incompatible with the administration's democracy project. Unfortunately, though, more was required of the Iraqi peoople than just voting. The situation called on them to elect leaders who would work in good faith for national reconciliation, rather than tilting substantially in the direction of one sectarian faction. The Iraqis failed to do this when they voted in the Shia-militia-friendly Malacki government, thereby making it difficult, if not impossible, for the U.S. to work with the current government to curb sectarian violence.

The Iraqis, of course, are not the first people to make a very bad decision at the polls. The fact that they did so is not necessarily evidence of some national 'genetic' flaw, much less a demonstration that democracy can't work in the Middle East. It just means that the Iraqi people did less than what a difficult situation required, and that we must face up to and deal with the consequences.

This analysis--as too that of the President and his administration, Old Media, and just about every other Infidel too unaware (how can one be unaware now over five years out from 9/11?) or too timid to admit it--fails to account for the role of Islam. It looks at the Global Jihad through the prism of its own belief system (or lack of one) and expects observant Muslims to think, vote, and act as Westerners would. This is naive and foolish, for the Religion of Peace is the defining factor in all calculations involving the Muslim world and our Global War of Self-Defense Against Allah, and it is diametrically opposed to the values and beliefs foundational to Western Civilization.

(A sad irony perpetuated by those who deny that we are engaged in a "clash of civilizations" is that Islam is fully exploiting to Allah's advantage the West's political, religious, legal, and moral weaknesses, but we do nothing to resist its advance. The West could utterly devastate any portion of the Ummah it wishes (in whole or in part), but jihadists, their sympathetic co-religionists, and their Useful Idiots in the West have intimidated and deceived us so thoroughly that one cannot even question Islam. So craven are we that our own politicians not only defend or deny in the public discourse the tyranny of Allah, they introduce legislation to impose it upon us.)

The fundamental issue on which American success in Iraq has always hinged is to what degree the Iraqi people embrace the will of Allah. The more devout, faithful, and religious its people, the less likely will it be that Iraq will achieve true Liberty and equality of rights for all its citizens (including religious minorities and women), and the greater the likelihood that its people will continue to contribute to jihad against us.

In effect, America and its friends are making our success in Iraq dependent upon the apostasy of its Muslims.

Jihad in Iraq is not the result of innate, unavoidable genetic factors, nor is it due to matters of nationalism. It is due to the belief system of too significant a percentage of the Muslim people: Islam.

Democracy means that the people vote for the government they desire. Iraqis voted for a tall glass of Shari'ah with a Shia twist (that's why fourteen year-old Christian boys are being beheaded at work). Clearly, democracy is working in Iraq, just not the way Infidels would prefer it.

How can we expect the Iraqi people vote for leaders who will work "in good faith" toward "reconciliation," when the nation is nearly entirely Muslim (non-Muslims are suffering more and more since Saddam was removed), and its people are divided along the ancient, historical, and religious lines of Shia versus Sunni? War, persecution, and humiliation is what they do to each other.

Neither can one be surprised when a nation that is majority-Shia vote for...a Shia! And since Allah and his apostle require that every able-bodied Muslim engage in jihad against the Infidel and Apostate to make the world Islam, it should not come as a shock that these Shia would be militia-friendly.

Iraq's decision at the polls is only "very bad" if you are non-Muslim or Sunni. For those who voted, they got what they wanted (or at least a step closer toward it, perhaps the establishment of an Iran/Shia-based caliphate).

Neither did the Iraqis "do less than what a difficult situation required," they did what the law allowed and their ideology demanded. They used the Western imposition of the democratic process to advance the establishment of Shari'ah, the rule of Islam.

Now the West must "face up to and deal with the consequences" of our failure to understand and address the source and sustenance of Muslim terrorism: the will of Allah and his messenger. It is they who require the fighting against, subduing and humiliating, and killing of non-Muslims to make the world Islam.

The President was right, and so is Charles Johnson

To any thinking person who has followed events leading up to and since our toppling of Saddam Hussein, it has been clear that the President did not lie about Saddam's WMD (everyone believed he had and would use them, including those Democrats who now condemn the President's decision to go into Iraq).

To remove the tyrant--whose WMD probably went to Syria (or some other holding place) during the year that President Bush tried to persuade the craven and corrupt Left in America, Europe, and Asia to support our efforts--was the only responsible thing to do under the circumstances.

After all the politically- (and financially-) motivated slander, libel, and treason, it turns out now that even the New York Times concedes (even if unintentionally) that Saddam was a real threat. It appears that had not the President sent in our best and bravest, Saddam would have had a nuclear weapon three years ago. From lgf:

Here’s the New York Times’ November surprise: U.S. Web Archive Is Said to Reveal a Nuclear Guide.

Apparently, in 1991 Saddam Hussein was about a year away from a nuclear bomb, and possessed detailed plans to build one. The Times wouldn’t be publishing this if they thought it would help the GOP, and the angle here is that the Bush administration was sloppy with intelligence secrets, since some of the plans were made publicly available on the Iraq documents web site.

But it’s a weak last-minute play, that could just as easily be interpreted as a positive story for the Bush administration since it lends credence to fears of Iraqi WMD.

UPDATE at 11/2/06 10:17:02 pm:

Note paragraph 14 (hat tip: LGF readers):

Among the dozens of documents in English were Iraqi reports written in the 1990s and in 2002 for United Nations inspectors in charge of making sure Iraq had abandoned its unconventional arms programs after the Persian Gulf war. Experts say that at the time, Mr. Hussein’s scientists were on the verge of building an atom bomb, as little as a year away.

Is the New York Times actually conceding that Saddam was just a year away from having a nuclear weapon in 2002?

Charles Johnson is right: Thank you, President Bush. Thank you, American military.

Killing two fallacies with one poll

From Power Line:

Thomas asks Secretary Rice what evidence she has that the denizens of such an independent state would give up the dream that actually seems to drive them -- the dream of eliminating Israel:

SECRETARY RICE: Well, you can look at any opinion poll in the Palestinian territories and 70 percent of the people will say they're perfectly ready to live side by side with Israel because they just want to live in peace. And when it comes right down to it, yeah, there are plenty of extremists in the Palestinian territories who are not going to be easily dealt with. They have to be dealt with — Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas in the Palestinian territories — they're terrorists and they have to be dealt with as terrorists.

But the great majority of Palestinian people — this is — I've been with these people. The great majority of people, they just want a better life. This is an educated population. I mean, they have a kind of culture of education and a culture of civil society. I just don't believe mothers want their children to grow up to be suicide bombers. I think the mothers want their children to grow up to go to university. And if you can create the right conditions, that's what people are going to do.

QUESTION: Do you think this or do you know this?

SECRETARY RICE: Well, I think I know it.

QUESTION: You think you know it?

SECRETARY RICE: I think I know it.

I'd like to see the poll to which Secretary Rice is referring. I don't recall one with results as described. But what are we to make of the broader issue? I read Secretary Rice's responses as suggesting that she knows, or thinks she knows, she's peddling tripe.

That poll would be their last election, in which the "Palestianians" voted for a terrorist group sworn to Israel's destruction.

This fact kills two falsehoods: First, that "Palestinians" are a noble people desiring freedom and peaceful coexistence with Israel, and second, that democracy will benefit the Infidel when instituted among a people enslaved by Islam.

Christian Liberty versus the tyranny of Allah

"A culture that gave the world the novel; the music of Mozart, Beethoven, and Schubert; and the paintings of Michelangelo, da Vinci, and Rembrandt does not need lessons from societies whose idea of heaven, peopled with female virgins, resembles a cosmic brothel. Nor does the West need lectures on the superior virtue of societies in which women are kept in subjection under sharia, endure genital mutilation, are stoned to death for alleged adultery, and are married off against their will at the age of nine . . . ." -Ibn Warraq

Some cultures are better than others.

A variation on a decidedly tragic historical theme

Sticks and stones may break my bones,

but sometimes words are a very clear indicator of what is to come.

A little historical irony

The more things change, the more they stay the same.
It's time for another Crusade.

The undeniable, inexplicable, and stubborn ignorance of Hugh Hewitt

On matters of traditional national politics, there are few commentators as knowledgeable or perceptive as Hugh Hewitt.

On the subject of Islam and the threat it poses to free people everywhere, there are few more (undoubtedly innocently) obtuse.

The Moderate Muslim

There are Apostate Muslims, but Islam itself is not moderate. That's a variation of the insightful and succinct, "There are moderate Muslims, but Islam itself is not moderate."

Besides the untenable "Islamism has nothing to do with Islam," Hugh persists in attempting to (mis-) define the Religion of Peace in terms of those Muslims who (allegedly) reject forever offensive warfare against the Infidel and Apostate to make the world Islam.

"Alleged," for how can one have Islam without Allah and his Qur'an? Without Mohammed words and deeds? A true Muslim must obey Allah and his apostle who command the fighting against, subduing and humiliating, and killing of non-Muslims.

Establishing the Facts

Following are questions to which Hugh has never provided me the answers. These are questions he must avoid answering, for--as he delights in demonstrating with hostile callers to his radio program--establishing basic facts lead inextricably to certain conclusions. To avoid admitting these truths Hugh seems willing to sacrifice any amount of his intellectual integrity and moral courage:

1. Is Qur'an the perfect word of Allah?

2. Are all Allah's commands (that he has not abrogated) in Qur'an to be obeyed by faithful Muslims?

3. Are the words and example of Mohammed (Sira and Hadith) to be emulated by faithful Muslims (as their resources and circumstances allow)?

4. Does Allah command the faithful Muslim to "...kill the unbelievers wherever you find them"?

Does Allah require the faithful Muslim to "Fight...until all religion is for Allah"?

Did Allah command faithful Muslims to "Fight...the People of the Book until they feel themselves subdued and pay the jizya"?

5. Did Mohammed state that he had been ordered to "fight until all confess there is no god but Allah and Mohammed is his prophet"?

6. Did Mohammed say that no work is like Jihad?

7. Did Mohammed say that he had "been made victorious with terror"?

8. Did Mohammed say, "If anyone changes his religion, then kill him"?

9. Did Mohammed indulge his "marital impulse" with a nine-year-old child (marrying her when she was six and he in his fifties)?

Did he not attribute his raping this child (his favorite wife) to Allah by saying, "If this is from Allah, then it must happen"?

10. Have Muslims warred against humanity to make the world Islam (again, as their resources and will have allowed) for nearly fourteen centuries?

The answer to all these questions is, regrettably and tragically, "yes." These are unalterable facts of history, despite what deceitful apologists and gullible, ignorant infidels and apostates might say to the contrary.

Denying that the violence of Qur'an, Sira, and Hadith inspire and sustain jihad is like denying Hitler's ideology motivated the Holocaust. It is absurd.

That "Tiny Minority of Extremists"

You keep using that word ("tiny"). I do not think it means what you think it means.

How blind (or craven) must one be at this stage of the West's submission to Islam's bloody intimidation not only to deny still the commands of Allah and his false prophet for offensive warfare against the Infidel, but to persist in the absurdity that the jihad ideology receives support from only a "tiny minority of extremists"?

It is becoming increasingly difficult to avoid noticing that wherever Muslims protest in any significant (or insignificant) numbers, they do not protest against the "hijackers" of their religion, nor do they protest in favor of Liberty or human rights. Rather, they protest in favor of beheading, burning, and burying anyone who dares to point out Allah and his prophet from Hell's delight in evil, even when that involves merely citing their own "sacred" texts.

Recent opinion polls in the UK show growing support among Muslims for violence against their hosts (some even carry it out!). All over Europe, "youths" burn and break (and worse) Infidel personal property (and persons). In Pakistan, not only do you have nearly total (90%) lust for Infidel and Apostate blood, but you've got the government's intelligence agency aiding the jihadists! Indonesia's population is admitting more openly its support for holy war. One election after another within Dar al-Islam brings to its "perverters" of the "great world religion" ever-increasing political power. What of the Philippines? Somalia? Nigeria? Sudan?

Even if only one percent of the world's Muslims would actually engage in jihad (one percent of 1.2 billion is 12 million!), a majority of the ummah still support it financially, logistically, emotionally, and spiritually. And nearly all support the subjugation of the Infidel under Shari'ah.

They must, because their god and prophet require it.

In Conclusion

The challenge facing the West is not in strength of arms, but in strength of will and clarity of mind. If we lack the will or ability to admit against what we fight--the god that commands, "...kill the unbelievers wherever you find them"--how can we possibly deal effectively with its ideology of hate and the threat posed by its adherents?

The West commits suicide, and Islam is glad to lend a hand

What the "peaceful, moderate" Muslim practices is not Islam, for who has the ultimate authority to define that religion but its god and founder? What decent person can discover the command of Allah and the words and deeds of Mohammed and still profess such a faith? When will ignorant, cowardly Western dhimmis discover their brain, heart, and courage and expose the lie?

PowerLine notes The Claremont Institute's interesting and insightful review of several books on our civilization's current state of decay in Suicide of the West:

...There is a crisis of meaning and purpose in Western European societies...They are almost entirely post-religious, but they have found no form of transcendence to replace religion, and none is on the horizon. An awareness of belonging, or of contributing to, a collectivity or endeavor of world-importance is no longer possible for them (the European Union is the creation of bureaucrats, by bureaucrats, for bureaucrats). Modern Europeans believe in very little, except in as comfortable and safe a life as possible.

Islam is on the horizon. Actually, its next door and down the street and in Parliament. It's dating your sister.

Such emphasis on pleasure is described by Scripture as characteristic of the godless ("their god is their stomach"). Those who have enjoyed so much affluence for so long (this includes us in America) must realize that comfort and pleasure are not our reason for being. Faith in Christ expressing itself in love is that to which the Creator of Man calls us.

That faith once made Europe great; its widespread rejection is tragic, not only because of its eternal consequences and the loss of past temporal glory, but because of the wholesale doom to come at the hands of Allah.

Indeed, health and safety have altogether replaced faith, hope, and charity as the cardinal desiderata. It is scarcely any wonder that, when faced by people who, quite mistakenly and with a combination of staggering ignorance and arrogance, believe themselves to be in possession of a truth that justifies almost any atrocity committed, if not by them, exactly, then by those whom they have indoctrinated, modern Western Europeans do not know how to react. They have either forgotten what it is to believe in anything, to such an extent that they cannot really believe that anyone else believes in anything, either; or their memories of belief are of belief in something so horrible—Communism, for example, or Nazism—that they no longer believe that they have the right to pass judgment on anything. This is not a strong position from which to fight people who, by their own admission, hate you and are bent upon your destruction, brought about preferably at your own expense. First, you can't take them seriously; second, you suspect they might in any case be right. European multiculturalism is self-hatred writ large..."

Not "almost" any atrocity. Any atrocity. When warring against the Infidel and Apostate, nothing is too evil or inhuman for the hordes of Allah. (Just ask Manuel Palaeologus. Ask the innocent and helpless men, women (including nuns), and children violated and slaughtered during the desecration of the Hagia Sofia and the fall of Constantinople.)

As for multiculturalism, respect for others is commanded by Christ; so is doing good toward, praying for, and loving our enemies. This does not mean that we are required (or even allowed) to aid evil by rejecting truth and exalting a lie.

Following are some disturbing words about Tony Blair. Considering his cooperation in establishing Shari'ah in the UK, how should President Bush's constant, inexplicable apologies for Islam be understood?

To their credit, President Bush and Prime Minister Blair have sent our militaries to destroy those actually carrying out jihad; regrettably, they have done nothing to address the widespread support for Allah's War Against Humanity among the world's Large Majority of Moderates, or the ideology that inspires it.

(It is impossible to win the hearts and minds of those whose god commands your conversion, submission, or death, who are taught that they are entitled to your wealth and person, the denial of which is an insult to their entire being, their entire worldview.)

In fact, when the situation (and our survival) call(s) for our leaders to tell the plain, obvious truth about Islam and its murderous ideology, they twist themselves and their listeners into all sorts of intellectual and semantic contortions. They have been courageous; they need the last bit of courage to admit publicly (and often) what Allah, Mohammed, and everyone else familiar with Islam's authoritative texts and history know: the source and sustenance of Islamic terrorism are the command of its god and the example of its false prophet.

Phillips draws our attention to the paradoxical nature of Britain's Prime Minister, who appears so resolute in foreign, and so utterly spineless in domestic, policy. While he is not in any straightforward way an opportunist, and genuinely if delusively believes himself to be a man of principle, the fact is that going to war with Mr. Bush was the only means by which he could achieve personal world importance. Given America's overwhelming military might, he did not risk military defeat; but he was vulnerable at home because several vital parliamentary seats, traditionally Labour-voting, were strongly Muslim. And therefore he did not scruple to allow his party to make use of scarcely concealed anti-Semitic images during an election in which his chief opponent was Jewish; permitted his wife to appear in court to defend the supposed right of Muslim schoolchildren to go to school completely covered, in the full knowledge of what this really meant; and corruptly permitted the extension of postal voting to Muslim constituencies, thereby in effect disenfranchising Muslim women. Phillips makes clear the many ways in which Mr. Blair's government has been complicit with Islamism, and I doubt she will be receiving many invitations to Downing Street as a reward for her efforts.

"Islamism." I recently heard a very popular, self-described "center-right," "evangelical" commentator actually use the term "Islamist-fascism." Both terms are redundant and used to make a false distinction between faithful Muslims who kill for Allah and faithful Muslims who haven't killed for Allah...yet but still support fighting against, subduing and humiliating, and killing Infidel and Apostate to make the world Islam.

"-ism " is defined variously as:

-a distinctive doctrine, system, or theory;

-a belief (or system of beliefs) accepted as authoritative by some group or school;

-a doctrine, philosophy, or school of thought;

-a theory developed by an individual (e.g. Mohammedanism);

-a political movement (e.g. Shari'ah and the caliphate);

-a process or practice (e.g. terrorism);

-a prejudice or bias (e.g. dhimmitude); and

-a religion.

What is Islam if none of the above? Obviously, the suffix is completely unnecessary, the adding of which is intended to convey (falsely) a distinction between Islam and the ideology of the jihadists.

As for "Islamist fascism," Muslims historically have fought to establish its reign over all humanity. Qur'an and Sunnah clearly show this to be the will of Allah and his apostle:

"...fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them..." (Qur’an 9:5),

"Fight...the People of the Book [Jews and Christians], until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued" (Qur'an 9:29),

"...fight them on until...there prevail...faith in Allah altogether and everywhere..." (Qur'an 8:38, 39),

"...fight the unbelievers who gird you about, and let them find firmness in you..." (Qur'an 9:123),

"Fighting is prescribed for you..." (Qur'an 2:216), and,

"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).

When will our leadership admit these facts? How long will the West tolerate the Religion of Death's intimidation and murder within its own borders?

Aid Christians suffering under Islam, not their oppressors

President Bush's Iraq strategy will succeed only to the degree that the religion of Mahomet is rejected by its people. Unfortunately, it appears we are squandering the brightest, best, and bravest of our citizens on a people whose god makes them not only unable--but violently unwilling--to appreciate their sacrifice.

Instead of creating a free Iraq that will inspire non-observant Muslims in other Islamic countries to fight for their own Liberty, we are supplying American blood and treasure to expand Shari'ah. Rather than enable a greater Iran, we ought to be aiding fellow Christians and other non-Muslims suffering under the tyranny of Allah.

More on the tolerance of Islam from International Christian Concern:

ANCIENT COMMUNITIES PERSECUTED

Iraq's Christians at risk of annihilation

By CHARLES TANNOCK

(Japan Times) -- The world is consumed by fears that Iraq is degenerating into a civil war between Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds. But in this looming war of all against all, it is Iraq's small community of Assyrian Christians that is at risk of annihilation.

Iraq's Christian communities are among the world's most ancient, practicing their faith in Mesopotamia almost since the time of Jesus Christ. The Assyrian Apostolic Church, for instance, traces its foundation back to 34 A.D. and St. Peter. Likewise, the Assyrian Church of the East dates to 33 A.D. and St. Thomas. The Aramaic that many of Iraq's Christians still speak is the language of those apostles -- and of Christ.

When tolerated by their Muslim rulers, Assyrian Christians contributed much to the societies in which they lived. Their scholars helped usher in the "Golden Age" of the Arab world by translating important works into Arabic from Greek and Syriac. But in recent times, toleration has scarcely existed.

In the Armenian Genocide of 1914-1918, 750,000 Assyrians -- roughly two-thirds of their number at the time -- were massacred by the Ottoman Turks with the help of the Kurds.

Under the Iraqi Hashemite monarchy, the Assyrians faced persecution for co-operating with the British during World War I. Many fled to the West, among them the Church's patriarch. During former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein's wars with the Kurds, hundreds of Assyrian villages were destroyed, their inhabitants rendered homeless, and dozens of ancient churches were bombed. The teaching of the Syriac language was prohibited and Assyrians were forced to give their children Arabic names in an effort to undermine their Christian identity. Those who wished to hold government jobs had to declare Arab ethnicity.

In 1987, the Iraqi census listed 1.4 million Christians. Today, only about 600,000 to 800,000 remain in the country, most on the Nineveh plain.

As many as 60,000, and perhaps even more, have fled since the beginning of the insurgency that followed the U.S.-led invasion in 2003. Their exodus accelerated in August 2004, after the start of the terrorist bombing campaign against Christian churches by Islamists who accuse them of collaboration with the allies by virtue of their faith.

A recent U.N. report states that religious minorities in Iraq "have become the regular victims of discrimination, harassment, and, at times, persecution, with incidents ranging from intimidation to murder," and that "members of the Christian minority appear to be particularly targeted."

Indeed, there are widespread reports of Christians fleeing the country as a result of threats being made to their women for not adhering to strict Islamic dress codes. Christian women are said to have had acid thrown in their faces. Some have been killed for wearing jeans or not wearing the veil.

This type of violence is particularly acute in the area around Mosul. High-ranking clergy there claim that priests in Iraq can no longer wear their clerical robes in public for fear of being attacked by Islamists. Last January, coordinated car-bomb attacks were carried out on six churches in Baghdad and Kirkuk; on another occasion, six churches were simultaneously bombed in Baghdad and Mosul. Over the past two years, 27 Assyrian churches have reportedly been attacked for the sole reason that they were Christian places of worship.

These attacks go beyond targeting physical manifestations of the faith. Christian-owned small businesses, particularly those selling alcohol, have been attacked, and many shopkeepers murdered. The director of the Iraqi Museum, Donny George, a respected Assyrian, says that he was forced to flee Iraq to Syria in fear of his life, and that Islamic fundamentalists obstructed all of his work that was not focused on Islamic artifacts.

Assyrian leaders also complain of deliberate discrimination in the January 2005 elections. In some cases, they claim, ballot boxes did not arrive in Assyrian towns and villages, voting officials failed to show up, or ballot boxes were stolen. They also cite the intimidating presence of Kurdish militia and secret police near polling stations. Recently, however, there are signs the Iraqi Kurdish authorities are being more protective of their Christian communities.

Sadly, the plight of Iraq's Christians is not an isolated one in the Middle East. In Iran, the population as a whole has nearly doubled since the 1979 revolution; but, under a hostile regime, the number of Christians in the country has fallen from roughly 300,000 to 100,000. In 1948, Christians accounted for roughly 20 percent of the population of what was then Palestine; since then, their numbers have roughly halved. In Egypt, emigration among Coptic Christians is disproportionately high; many convert to Islam under pressure, and over the past few years violence perpetrated against the Christian community has taken many lives.

The persecution of these ancient and unique Christian communities, in Iraq and in the Middle East as a whole, is deeply disturbing. Last April, the European Parliament voted virtually unanimously for the Assyrians to be allowed to establish (on the basis of section 5 of the Iraqi Constitution) a federal region where they can be free from outside interference to practice their own way of life. It is high time now that the West paid more attention, and took forceful action to secure the future of Iraq's embattled Christians.

+ Word of the Day +

From Life Of The World:

At that time the disciples came to Jesus, saying, "Who then is greatest in the kingdom of heaven?" Then Jesus called a little child to Him, set him in the midst of them, and said, "Assuredly, I say to you, unless you are converted and become as little children, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven. Therefore whoever humbles himself as this little child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. Whoever receives one little child like this in My name receives Me.

"But whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to sin, it would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck, and he were drowned in the depth of the sea. Woe to the world because of offenses! For offenses must come, but woe to that man by whom the offense comes! If your hand or foot causes you to sin, cut it off and cast it from you. It is better for you to enter into life lame or maimed, rather than having two hands or two feet, to be cast into the everlasting fire. And if your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out and cast it from you. It is better for you to enter into life with one eye, rather than having two eyes, to be cast into hell fire.

"Take heed that you do not despise one of these little ones, for I say to you that in heaven their angels always see the face of My Father who is in heaven. For the Son of Man has come to save that which was lost" (Matthew 18:1-11).

Islam isn't violent...except in Nigeria

Fulfilling their god's commands and emulating their false prophet, Muslim youths destroy 10 churches over a comment:

...A mob of Muslim youths injured six Christians – one critically – and set fire to 10 churches last week in Dutse, capital of Jigawa state in northern Nigeria.

The attacks on September 19 and 20 were sparked by allegations that a Christian woman had blasphemed the Muslim prophet Muhammad.

Angered Muslims demanded that the woman, identified only as a tailor named Jummai, be stoned to death for her comments.

“Muslims believed that the Christian woman would not be stoned to death, and that is why they decided to vent their anger on Christians and their churches,” Malam Isa Hussani told Compass.

Rumors spread rapidly, and after a few skirmishes on the evening of the dispute, a rampage broke out the following morning against the churches, homes and businesses of local Christians.

Hundreds of Muslims assembled on September 20 at 10 a.m. at Dutse’s Central Mosque, with another group congregating at the district Muslim leader’s residence. Christian leaders said the mobs were addressed by the Emir (Muslim leader) of Dutse, Dr. Nuhu Muhammadu Sanusi, his defense minister, and Jiwaga State Governor Ibrahim Saminu Turaki.

According to the South Korean online “OhmyNews” website, all three officials as well as State Police Commissioner Abubakar Sardauna were trying to “keep the protest from getting out of hand,” but failed when police fired teargas into the crowd, enraging the protestors and sending them on a rampage. Sardauna declined to speak to Compass about the incident.

The Rev. Joseph Hayab, secretary of the North-Western Nigerian chapter of the Christian Association of Nigeria, confirmed that 10 churches were torched in the attack, although a police spokesman told Reuters that a total of 11 churches had been burned.

...Hussani, one of the Dutse Muslims protesting against the woman, said that Jummai’s argument with an unidentified Muslim man on September 19 had started over controversial statements about Islam attributed to Pope Benedict XVI the previous week.

But persons who witnessed the verbal dispute stated that Jummai was reacting to a blasphemous remark against Jesus Christ made by the Muslim man.

“Such a minor incident between a Muslim man and a Christian woman should not have led to the destruction of churches,” Hayab told Compass. “This is a heinous crime in the name of religion.”

According to sources in the Anglican congregation, which lost St. Peter’s Anglican Cathedral in the attack, the Anglican bishop’s residence was also partially destroyed, forcing BishopYusufu Lumu to seek shelter with his wife and children at a local police station.

In addition, an Assemblies of God church, the Living Faith Church and three Evangelical Church of West Africa churches were confirmed among those demolished.

At least 20 Christian homes were also looted and destroyed during the rampage, along with 40 shops belonging to Christian traders. More than 1,000 local Christians who were displaced during the attack fled to the police barracks and schools to escape from the mob.

The Jigawa state government imposed an 8 p.m. to 6 a.m. curfew after the violent attacks.

On September 22, the federal government sent armored tanks and truckloads of armed soldiers and anti-riot police into Dutse to patrol the town during Friday Muslim prayers.

Police reported that six Christians injured in the attacks received treatment at Dutse General Hospital. One victim is in critical condition, with local doctors saying they lack adequate facilities to treat his injuries.

Another Christian identified only as Mr. Friday, a security officer for the governor, was slashed across his face with a machete before being rescued from the mob by police.

...Police authorities in Dutse have detained Jummai for questioning on the incident. There was no confirmation whether the Muslim who had argued with her was also in custody, although police spokesman Nwakalor Ejike confirmed on September 22 that more than 20 people had been arrested over the incident.

Ejike, a police public relations officer, attributed the riots to “a little misunderstanding,” which he said the police were working to contain.

An estimated 80 percent of Dutse’s population are Muslim. In a previous outbreak of violence in the town nearly two years ago, heavily armed Muslim militants attacked Christian evangelists during an open-air preaching event.

Alhaji Muhammadu Maccido, the Sultan of Sokoto and spiritual head of Nigeria’s Muslims, declared after last week’s attacks that religion should not be used as a tool of violence. “No religion will support violence, harassment, victimization and all vices, let alone murdering of innocent people,” Maccido told Nigeria’s The Guardian.

Jigawa state is one of 12 northern Nigerian states that have imposed Islamic law in the past six years. Repeated outbreaks of religious violence have erupted ever since, claiming thousands of lives. In a similar incident in Jigawa state’s Kazaure town in November 2003, Muslim militants burned 10 churches and destroyed 100 Christian properties.

"Innocent"? Muslims keep using that word. I do not think it means what they think it means.

Will they so easily dismiss the Pentagon?

President Bush edged toward the truth with "Islamofascism" before backtracking. It appears the Pope has (mostly) retreated from Palaeologus's accurate assessment of Mohammed's heresy.

But what will the liars and the stubbornly ignorant say now?

As many who have examined the Religion of Death's "holy" texts and history with their own eyes attest, it is the will of Allah and his false prophet as revealed in Qur'an and Sunnah that provides the source and sustenance of Islam's fighting against, subduing and humiliating, and killing non-Muslims and Apostates to make the world Islam.

Though it is too late for those whose life and limb have been wasted in an attempt to "win the hearts and minds" of millions of Fausts, it is not too late for the rest of us. Individuals in the United States government appear to be realizing that Suicide bombers follow Quran:

With suicide bombings spreading from Iraq to Afghanistan, the Pentagon has tasked intelligence analysts to pinpoint what's driving Muslim after Muslim to do the unthinkable.

Their preliminary finding is politically explosive: it's their "holy book" the Quran after all, according to intelligence briefings obtained by WND.

In public, the U.S. government has made an effort to avoid linking the terrorist threat to Islam and the Quran while dismissing suicide terrorists as crazed heretics who pervert Islamic teachings.

"The terrorists distort the idea of jihad into a call for violence and murder," the White House maintains in its recently released "National Strategy for Combating Terrorism" report.

But internal Pentagon briefings show intelligence analysts have reached a wholly different conclusion after studying Islamic scripture and the backgrounds of suicide terrorists. They've found that most Muslim suicide bombers are in fact students of the Quran who are motivated by its violent commands – making them, as strange as it sounds to the West, "rational actors" on the Islamic stage.

In Islam, it is not how one lives one's life that guarantees spiritual salvation, but how one dies, according to the briefings. There are great advantages to becoming a martyr. Dying while fighting the infidels in the cause of Allah reserves a special place and honor in Paradise. And it earns special favor with Allah.

"Suicide in defense of Islam is permitted, and the Islamic suicide bomber is, in the main, a rational actor," concludes a recent Pentagon briefing paper titled, "Motivations of Muslim Suicide Bombers."

..."His actions provide a win-win scenario for himself, his family, his faith and his God," the document explains. "The bomber secures salvation and the pleasures of Paradise. He earns a degree of financial security and a place for his family in Paradise. He defends his faith and takes his place in a long line of martyrs to be memorialized as a valorous fighter.

"And finally, because of the manner of his death, he is assured that he will find favor with Allah," the briefing adds. "Against these considerations, the selfless sacrifice by the individual Muslim to destroy Islam's enemies becomes a suitable, feasible and acceptable course of action."

The briefing – produced by a little-known Pentagon intelligence unit called the Counterintelligence Field Activity, or CIFA – cites a number of passages from the Quran dealing with jihad, or "holy" warfare, martyrdom and Paradise, where "beautiful mansions" and "maidens" await martyr heroes. In preparation for attacks, suicide terrorists typically recite passages from six surahs, or chapters, of the Quran: Baqura (Surah 2), Al Imran (3), Anfal (8), Tawba (9), Rahman (55) and Asr (103).

CIFA staffs hundreds of investigators and analysts to help coordinate Pentagon security efforts at U.S. military installations at home and abroad.

The Pentagon unit is especially concerned about a new wave of suicide bombings hitting Afghanistan.

Suicide bombings have killed more than 200 people in Afghanistan this year, up from single digits two years ago. On Tuesday, a suicide bomber detonated his explosive vest and killed 18 outside an Afghan government compound. Last week, a suicide bomber riding a bike killed at least four NATO soldiers. And earlier this month, a suicide car bomber rammed into a U.S. military convoy near the U.S. Embassy in Kabul, killing 16 people, including two American soldiers.

...The U.S. command in Afghanistan now warns that a suicide bombing cell is operating inside the Afghan capital. Meanwhile, the Taliban's top military commander told ABC News he has 500 suicide bombers at his disposal.

"We have so many of them that it is difficult to accommodate and arm and equip them," Mullah Dadullah Akhund said. "Some of them have been waiting for a year or more for their turn to be sent to the battlefield."

The emergence of a suicide cell in Kabul troubles military analysts because suicide attacks are the most effective weapon Muslim terrorists can use against the West. The Rand Corp. predicts they'll pose a serious and constant threat to the U.S. for years to come.

The U.S. intelligence community is growing increasingly worried, as well.

"Most jihadist groups will use suicide attacks focused primarily on soft targets to implement asymmetric warfare strategy," warns the just-declassified executive summary of the National Intelligence Estimate on the global terror threat. "Fighters with experience in Iraq are a potential source of leadership for jihadists pursuing these tactics."

Many scholars and media pundits, however, insist Muslim suicide bombers are not driven by religion.

"Beneath the religious rhetoric with which [such terror] is perpetrated, it occurs largely in the service of secular aims," claims Professor Robert A. Pape of the University of Chicago. "Suicide terrorism is mainly a response to foreign occupation rather than a product of Islamic fundamentalism."

He says U.S. foreign policy is more a factor than faith.

"Though it speaks of Americans as infidels, al-Qaida is less concerned with converting us to Islam than removing us from Arab and Muslim lands," Pape said.

But what about the recent video by Adam Gadahn, the American al-Qaida, warning fellow Americans to convert to Islam before al-Qaida attacks again?

"He never mentions virgins or the benefits Islamic martyrs receive in Heaven," Pape asserted.

In fact, Gadahn notes 36 minutes into his speech that Allah reserves the highest rewards – "honors and delights" – for martyrs in Paradise.

"[He] promised the martyr in his path the reward over and above the reward of the believer," Gadahn said. "He has promised them honors and delights too numerous to go into here."

The 9/11 hijackers and the London bombers made martyrdom videos. In their last testaments, they recite the Quran while talking of their "love of death" and "sacrificing life for Allah." Seven martyrdom videotapes also were recovered by British authorities in the foiled transatlantic sky terror plot.

Before the 9/11 attacks, the hijackers shaved and doused themselves with flower water in preparation for their weddings with the beautiful virgins in Paradise. "Know that the women of Paradise are waiting, calling out 'Come hither, friend of Allah,'" according to a four-page letter circulated among them titled "THE LAST NIGHT." "They have dressed in their most beautiful clothing."

But are the virgins scriptural or apocryphal? French documentarian Pierre Rehov, who interviewed the families of suicide bombers and would-be bombers in an attempt to find out why they do it, says it's not a myth or fantasy of heretics.

He says there's no doubt the Quran "promises virgins" to Muslim men who die while fighting infidels in jihad, and it's a key motivating factor behind suicide terrorism.

"It's obviously connected to religion," said Rehov, who features his interviews with Muslims in a recently released film, "Suicide Killers." "They really believe they are going to get the virgins."

He says would-be Muslim suicide bombers he's interviewed have shown him passages in the Quran "in which it's absolutely written that they're going to get the girls in the afterlife."

Muslim clerics do not disavow the virgins-for-martyrs reward as a perverted interpretation of the Quran.

And even Muslim leaders in the West condone suicide bombings. British scholar Azzam Tamimi recently told 8,000 Muslims in Manchester, England, that dying while fighting "George Bush and Tony Blair" is "just" and "the greatest act of martyrdom." Earlier, he said it's "the straight way to pleasing Allah."

And the founder of an allegedly mainstream Muslim group in Washington – the Council on American-Islamic Relations – also has given his blessing to suicide bombings.

Addressing a youth session at the 1999 Islamic Association for Palestine's annual convention in Chicago, CAIR founder Omar Ahmad praised suicide bombers who "kill themselves for Islam," according to a transcript provided by terror expert Steve Emerson's Investigative Project.

"Fighting for freedom, fighting for Islam, that is not suicide," Ahmad asserted. "They kill themselves for Islam."

Osama bin Laden has encouraged "Muslims brothers" to defeat the U.S. and U.K. with suicide attacks.

"I tell you to act upon the orders of Allah," he said in 2003, "be united against Bush and Blair and defeat them through suicide attacks so that you may be successful before Allah."

Islam's wounds and other ironies

Is it possible for the West to grovel any more shamelessly at the feet of the Religion of Death?

In a disgusting inversion of truth, a television news report today expressed concern over whether "Islam's wounds would be healed."

They were talking about Muslim rage over Pope Benedict's citing a Byzantine emperor's demonstrably true statement that Mohammed espoused the use of violence in spreading his religion. (For an irony within an irony: Emperor Palaeologus's city, Constantinople, was besieged by Islam during his reign, finally falling to the Religion of Peace within just a few decades of making the infamous remark. I guess he knew what he was talking about!)

Rather than patronize those whose feelings are hurt by the truth, Western media should be talking about the actual, irreparable wounds caused by fourteen hundred years of fighting against, subduing and humiliating, and killing non-Muslims to establish the reign of Allah and his false prophet.

It is not "Islam's wounds," but Islam wounds (humanity).

On a related note: The federal government can ban spinach within hours over three deaths, but it does nothing except apologize for Islam which has raped, enslaved, and slaughtered millions upon millions.

A tangential hypocrisy: Liberals ignore or deny the stifling effect of taxes on human behavior until they want to use your vote to control others. In this case, they argue that raising taxes on cigarettes will reduce smoking.

That they would be so honest in their other tax-induced suffocations of human creativity and industry.

Baseless conspiracy theories only weaken our defenses

Whether that consequence is intended or not. Doesn't he realize we're at war with an ancient and merciless foe?

Unfortunately, his willingness to attack the single person most responsible for America's defense is characteristic of too many in the West.

From here:

New evidence of deliberate White House cover-ups

...looks a lot like evidence of a detachment from reality.

The recordings from the planes that supposedly hit the WTC have the last words of the hijackers as being "Allah ahkbar" or "God is great". But a Muslim wouldn't say that if he knew he were about to die. Instead he'd recite a blessing stating that Allah is God and Mohammed is his prophet.

Obviously, you know all about Muslims who are about to die. What about when they kill?

That phrase is often uttered when slaughtering Infidels.

Scientists and chemists who have analyzed the metal pools left behind at Ground Zero doubt a plane hit the building....

Despite millions of eyewitnesses to the second plane's impact.

As for the collapse, how likely is it that "untrained" Muslim terrorists would be able to fly the planes into exactly the locations where the explosives had been set ahead of time? For it is clear from the footage of the attack that the Towers collapsed exactly where the planes hit them.

I simply reiterated what other more prominent and educated people than myself have determined.

An appeal to authority rather than evidence...interesting.

OBL has admitted to his organization's planning and carrying out 9/11; for your intellectually-irresponsible "simple reiterations" to be true, President Bush would have to have been at least cooperating with him. Reason would dictate that Osama would have brought up that fact sometime during the last five years of his people being killled by American and other Coalition forces.

We need clarity if we are to prevail in Allah's War Against Humanity

From here:

'Wacko Christians vs. Wacko Islamists = Bush Republicans'

This demonstrates an embarrassing (and suicidal) lack of intellectual and moral clarity.

One group devoutly believes in a God Who commands: "Love your enemies," and "Love your neighbor as yourself."

The other devoutly believes in a god that requires: "Kill the unbelievers wherever you find them," and "I [Mohammed] have been ordered 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."

Misapplying "Essential Liberty"

Did America's revolutionaries do any sort of monitoring of the enemies' communications during the War? Did they seek to discover those within the Colonies who were helping the Crown? Is it prudent, during a time of war, to know what your enemy is planning and their contacts within the nation's borders?

Benjamin Franklin on Liberty:

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.

This statement of defiance in the cause of Freedom has lately been misused by some in the context of the United States government's surveillance of terrorists and their accomplices within the country. On the surface it may seem applicable; upon closer inspection, it clearly is not analogous.

When Franklin and other patriots stated this simple but profound truth, they were facing a mortal threat from England: Stand down and submit, or else. The trade-off here for Americans was that if they were to avoid martial conflict with the Crown, they were going to have to sacrifice their God-given Liberty and their dignity as men. The temptation to acquiese to England's tyranny in an effort to avoid harm to their bodies and property must have been great.

Today, the aforementioned quotation is used not to encourage Americans to fight against the murderous Tyranny of Allah, which has maimed and killed thousands of Americans in its effort to subdue and humiliate us in accord with Islam's "sacred" texts (indeed, "Islam" means "submission" not "peace"). It is not used to ignite patriots' love of Liberty against those who would subject us to the vile state of abject abasement and humiliation called dhimmitude. Neither is it used to inspire courage against those who would take and use our sons, daughters, wives, and lives to gratify their "divinely-sanctioned" sadistic and imperialistic predilections.

Instead, this indictment of those who love safety more than Freedom is misapplied to a government seeking to identify those who would kill us (and worse) in the name of their false god and prophet.

The West is now in the latest phase of Allah's one and one-half millennia-old War Against Humanity; it needs to make every effort to defend itself, and that includes using every technological advantage at its disposal to discover and monitor the jihadists and their accomplices. The intellectually lazy and morally bankrupt should not handicap our struggle by taking the Founders' comments out of context.

Those who have nothing to hide have nothing to fear.

We must defend our Lives, Liberty, and sacred honor against the malevolent, tyrannical evil seeking to them in the name of Allah. Anything less is cowardice. We are better than that, and we have much that is worth defending.

Only the ignorant, the liar, and the coward

Where is the moderate Muslim?

Why does the papal citation of a Byzantine emperor's empirically-true statement result in murder, fire bombings, and death threats around the Muslim world, but Islamic "extremists" like bin Laden are considered heroes of the faith?

Why do the West's political and media elites bend over (not backwards) to offer the "Islam is a religion of peace hijacked by a tiny minority of extremists" lie despite all scriptural and historical evidence to the contrary?

Emperor Palaeologus's accurate observation was made while his Great City was under siege by Mohammed's minions. Islam's bloody rage in reaction to it is one more proof that only the ignorant, the liar, and the coward can utter phrases like, "Islamism has nothing to do with Islam."

The New Mecca Times continues the fight for Islam

It used to seem that the Times were just such God-hating, anti-American leftists that they couldn't help but try to hurt politically a socially-conservative, Christian, Republican president.

The Times revealed our surveillance of terrorists' calls into the United States. It exposed our monitoring of the banking transactions of our enemy. Now the Times has denounced the Pope for quoting a factually-true statement on Allah's mandate for violence against non-Muslims, made by an emperor whose Great City was about to fall to Islam.

The Times has gone so far past typical liberal sabotage and unwittingly treasonous behavior that it almost appears to be actively and intentionally serving the Jihad against the West. Even if it isn't intentional, the effect is the same: Say what you want of Christians. Do what you want to Jews. But never, ever, under any circumstances say anything less than complimentary about the Religion of Peace, even if it's true.

I thought the New York Times liked exposing impropriety. Why does it not demonstrate some of the intellectual vigor and moral clarity of which it is undoubtedly so proud by exposing the base doctrine of Mahomet and the blood-soaked history of his followers? Why does it not denounce and call for apologies from those who fight against, subdue and humiliate, and kill Infidels and Apostates to make the world Islam (and those who support them), just as their god and false prophet require?

Cowards. And it's not just the Times.

From here:

The New York Times on Saturday joined other newspapers that have denounced latest remarks by Pope Benedict XVI and demanded an immediate apology from him.

In an editorial published Saturday, the Times called Pope's remarks about Islam as 'tragic and dangerous' and urged him to apologize.

...The Times recalled that this was 'not the first time the pope has fomented discord between Christians and Muslims.'

In 2004 when he was still the Vatican's top theologian, he spoke out against Turkeys joining the European Union, because Turkey, as a Muslim country was in permanent contrast to Europe, the paper recalled.

At the recent comments, Turkey's ruling party likened the pope to Hitler and Mussolini and accused him of reviving the mentality of the Crusades.

"A doctrinal conservative, his greatest fear appears to be the loss of a uniform Catholic identity, not exactly the best jumping-off point for tolerance or interfaith dialogue," the editorial said.

"The world listens carefully to the words of any Pope," The Times continued. "And it is tragic and dangerous when one sows pain, either deliberately or carelessly. He needs to offer a deep and persuasive apology, demonstrating that words can also heal."

Exactly how will lying about the malevolence of Allah heal Infidel wounds?

If the Pope doesn't give us a better apology for saying we're violent, we'll become...violent!

As long as groups like Hamas do not consider the Pope's statement an apology, there is hope. Once they're satisfied, this will just have been another instance of a Western leader's vile submission to the most successful thug in history.

From here:

Pope Benedict said on Sunday he was deeply sorry Muslims had been offended by his use of a medieval quotation on Islam and violence, but failed to quell the fury of some Islamic groups demanding a full apology.

Good.

The head of the world's 1.1 billion Roman Catholics, whose comments on Tuesday sparked worldwide Muslim anger because they were seen as portraying Islam as a religion tainted by violence, said the quotation did not represent his personal views.

"In Hamas we do not view the statement attributed to the Pope as an apology," said Sami Abu Zuhri, spokesman for the militant group which controls the Palestinian government.

Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood, the main opposition force, initially said the Pope made a "sufficient apology". But deputy leader Mohammed Habib said later: "It does not rise to the level of a clear apology and ... we're calling on the Pope to issue a clear apology that will decisively end any confusion."

It will be a tragedy if he does.

By the way, has anyone noticed that the two groups here unsatisfied with the Pope's cited a Byzantine emperor are terrorists?

Before the Pope spoke and mollified some Muslims, there were attacks on churches in the West Bank and a protest in Iran. In Somalia, an Italian nun was killed in an attack one Islamist source said could be linked to the dispute.

But I thought Islam was "untainted by violence."

"I am deeply sorry for the reactions in some countries to a few passages of my address at the University of Regensburg, which were considered offensive to the sensibility of Muslims," the Pope told pilgrims at his Castelgandolfo summer residence.

That's a good non-apology.

"These in fact were a quotation from a medieval text, which do not in any way express my personal thought," he said at his weekly Angelus prayer.

Leaving out the words "in any way," would go a long way to confirming the Pope's courage and intellectual honesty. In fact, he ought to come out with a much more explicit statement. Something like that posted here or here.

"The heads of Muslim countries had expressed dismay at what they saw as an offensive comment and religious leaders had called it the start of a new Christian crusade against Islam.

Considering that the first Crusade began as a response to a desperate call for help from Eastern Christendom suffering at the hands of Allah and his false prophet, a new Crusade is entirely appropriate, about eight hundred years too late, five years too late, and too much to hope for from today's flaccid Western "leaders."

Vatican spokesman Father Federico Lombardi hoped the death of a nun working at a Mogadishu children's hospital was 'an isolated event'. The nun's order said there was no evidence to suspect it was related to the Pope's speech last Tuesday.

Where I come from, nuns are shot all the time.

Didn't the article just note above that an "Islamist" source attributes the nun's murder to Muslim anger over the citation?

In the speech, the Pope, a former theology professor and enforcer of Vatican dogma, referred to criticism of the Prophet Mohammad by 14th century Byzantine Emperor Manuel II Palaeologus.

The emperor said everything the Prophet Mohammad brought was evil 'such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached'.

That's not what he said. The emperor said that Mohammed brought nothing "new" except that which was evil and inhuman. That's a fact.

...But angry Muslim leaders flung what they saw as allegations of violence back at the West, referring to the medieval crusades against Islam and to the U.S.-led wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, which have fanned the flames of Muslim resentment.

Both the Crusades and our Global War of Self-Defense Against Islam are instances of Infidels fighting back against the jihadist onslaught, so basically, Islam resents its victims defending themselves against it. That's typical of Islam's moral clarity and intellectual honesty.

In Iran, about 500 theological school students protested in the holy city of Qom and hardline cleric Ahmad Khatami said that if the Pope did not apologize, 'Muslims' outcry will continue until he fully regrets his remarks'.

One al Qaeda umbrella group in Iraq, the Mujahideen Shura Council, threatened in an unauthenticated Internet statement to 'break the cross and spill the wine' in revenge, referring to Christian symbols and sacraments."

That certainly sounds like a religion of peace to me!

Let's hope Turkey's State Minister Mehmet Aydin, who said that the Pope seemed to be saying he was sorry for Muslim rage but not his actual comments, is correct.

Speaking of Turkey, has anyone in the media noted that within only a few decades, Palaeologus's comments on Islam were finally and brutally proven true with the fall of Constantinople?

Now what will Western dhimmis do?

For here is a voice that can not be so easily dismissed by deceitful apologists for Jihad and their (sometimes) unwitting dhimmi accomplices in government and the media.

Immediately after 9/11, President Bush defended Islam as a "great" world religion of "peace" and "tolerance." He visited an outpost of that murderous ideology, showing the proper dhimmi submission to Islam just hours after its adherents had slaughtered with zeal thousands of his countrymen. The President religiously refrained from using the terms "Islam" and "terrorism" in the same time zone.

Since then, President Bush has been growing in his realization of the breadth and depth of the Islamic threat to the point that he is finally identifying our temporal (and mortal) enemy as "Islamofascists." By this he acknowledges their global effort to subdue the world under the tyranny of Allah.

Regrettably, five years after 9/11, the President has still to admit publicly the fact that Islam itself--as defined by Allah and his false prophet Mohammed in Qur'an and Sunnah, that religion's "sacred" texts--is the source and sustenance of Islamic terrorism and has been for nearly one and one-half millennia. The failure of our nation's leadership to comprehend this fact--combined with the media's compliance in the "Islam is a religion of peace hijacked by a tiny minority of extremists" propaganda game--prevents us from defending ourselves as fully and effectively as we must, it cripples our ability to correctly implement effective measures to contain the enemy, and it makes impossible (if it is possible) to finally end once-for-all-time the threat posed by Allah's bloody ideology.

Apparently providing the leadership the West has been wanting, Pope Benedict and Emperor Manuel II Palaeologus have made the statement of fact the West has needed to hear, needs to hear, and needs to continue hearing, until the religion of Mahomet is recognized as the vile, malevolent evil it is.

Here's from where Islam's latest excuse for its bloodlust comes:

...In the seventh conversation..., the emperor touches on the theme of the holy war. The emperor must have known that surah 2, 256 reads: "There is no compulsion in religion". According to the experts, this is one of the suras of the early period, when Mohammed was still powerless and under threat. But naturally the emperor also knew the instructions, developed later and recorded in the Qur'an, concerning holy war. Without descending to details, such as the difference in treatment accorded to those who have the "Book" and the "infidels", he addresses his interlocutor with a startling brusqueness on the central question about the relationship between religion and violence in general, saying: "Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached".

Undoubtedly, Emperor Palaeologus was referring to those commands and statements found in the perfect word of Allah and the words and deeds of his apostle, of which the following are only a small (but representative) sampling:

"...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 [Jews and Christians] until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued" (Qur'an 9:29).

"Say to the Unbelievers, if (now) they desist (from Unbelief), their past would be forgiven them...And fight them on until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail...faith in Allah altogether and everywhere..." (Qur'an 8:38, 39).

"Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not" (Qur'an 2:216).

"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).

“Muhammad said, ‘A single endeavor of fighting in Allah’s Cause is better than the world and whatever is in it’” (Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 50).

“A man came to Allah’s Apostle and said, ‘Instruct me as to such a deed as equals Jihad in reward.’ He replied, ‘I do not find such a deed’” (Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 44).

"O ye who believe! what is the matter with you, that, when ye are asked to go forth in the cause of Allah, ye cling heavily to the earth? Do ye prefer the life of this world to the Hereafter? But little is the comfort of this life, as compared with the Hereafter. Unless ye go forth, He will punish you with a grievous penalty, and put others in your place..." (Qur'an 9:38, 39).

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

“Allah’s Apostle said, ‘I have been made victorious with terror. The treasures of the world were brought to me and put in my hand’” (Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 220).

"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).

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

"War is deceit" (Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 268).

The Emperor was right. To the degree the Pope shares his conclusions, the Pope is right. They are right because they are merely stating the expressed will of Allah and his false prophet.

May the West have the courage to face this truth and act accordingly.

What went wrong in Islam? Allah and his false prophet, of course

For long, I have been arguing that the bigoted or violent religious interpretations we see in the Islamic world are results of not the Koran, but of the post-Koranic traditions that arose in the early centuries of the Islamic civilization. In other words, I have been claiming that the original message of the Koran, which was tolerant, humane and gracious, was overshadowed over time.

Yes, what we Muslims need is to return to the spiritual trajectory established by the Prophet...We should be wise enough to denounce them and reclaim the tolerant, humane and gracious essence of Islam.

--from What Went Wrong In Islam — An Excellent Analysis.

That's the urban legend repeated by many Western political, media, and academic elites.

Unfortunately for Infidels and Apostates, here is the "tolerant," "humane," and "gracious" "trajectory" established by Mohammed--and yes, modern Islamic terrorism is the result of Qur'an (and Sunnah):

"...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).

"Say to the Unbelievers, if (now) they desist (from Unbelief), their past would be forgiven them...And fight them on until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail...faith in Allah altogether and everywhere..." (Qur'an 8:38, 39).

"O ye who believe! fight the unbelievers who gird you about, and let them find firmness in you: and know that Allah is with those who fear Him" (Qur'an 9:123).

"Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not" (Qur'an 2:216).

"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).

“Muhammad said, ‘A single endeavor of fighting in Allah’s Cause is better than the world and whatever is in it’” (Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 50).

"Not equal are those believers who sit (at home) and receive no hurt, and those who strive and fight in the cause of Allah with their goods and their persons...those who strive and fight Hath He distinguished above those who sit (at home) by a special reward..." (Qur'an 4:95).

“A man came to Allah’s Apostle and said, ‘Instruct me as to such a deed as equals Jihad in reward.’ He replied, ‘I do not find such a deed’” (Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 44).

"Allah hath purchased of the believers their persons and their goods...they fight in His cause, and slay and are slain..." (Qur'an 9:11).

"O ye who believe! what is the matter with you, that, when ye are asked to go forth in the cause of Allah, ye cling heavily to the earth? Do ye prefer the life of this world to the Hereafter? But little is the comfort of this life, as compared with the Hereafter. Unless ye go forth, He will punish you with a grievous penalty, and put others in your place..." (Qur'an 9:38, 39).

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

“Allah’s Apostle said, ‘I have been made victorious with terror. The treasures of the world were brought to me and put in my hand’” (Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 220).

"My mother came to me while I [Aisha] 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).

“Allah’s Apostle told Aisha, ‘You were shown to me twice in my dreams. I beheld a man or angel carrying you in a silken cloth. He said to me, “She is yours, 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 139-140).

"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).

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

"War is deceit" (Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 268).

How can you consider one who is (according to your own "sacred" texts) a lying, thieving, malevolent, murderous pedophile someone whose example is to be emulated?

Don't say Islam is violent or we'll kill you

In response to Pope’s attack on Islam sparks anger:

Throughout Islam's "sacred" texts Allah and his false prophet Mohammed command the faithful to fight against, subdue and humiliate, and kill non-Muslims to make the world Islam.

The Pope angered Muslims not because he lied about their god or 'Ideal Man,' but because he told the truth without paying the proper dhimmi tribute to their murderous pedophile.

There's no pretty way to say it

Dear Mohamed,

In no way do I wish to offend you. However, to placate you would require my dishonesty. Since it is only through telling the truth that you might turn from your sin and believe in the Christ, that is what I must speak.

It seems proper to point out that apparently you consider citing your god's "sacred" texts is "a block stone," "reviling," and "insult."

I do understand your position. It is dangerous to Muslims' souls and Infidels' bodies, and that is why I must speak.

There is only one option for the decent person who answers the following questions truthfully.

1. Is Qur'an the perfect word of Allah?

2. Are all Allah's commands (that have not been abrogated) in Qur'an to be obeyed by faithful Muslims?

3. Are the words and example of Mohammed to be emulated by faithful Muslims (as their resources and circumstances allow)?

4. Does Allah command the faithful Muslim to "...kill the unbelievers wherever you find them"? Does Allah require the faithful Muslim to "Fight...until all religion is for Allah"? Did Allah command faithful Muslims to "Fight...the People of the Book until they feel themselves subdued and pay the jizya"?

5. Did Mohammed say that he had been ordered to "fight until all confess there is no god but Allah and Mohammed is his prophet"?

6. Did Mohammed say that there is no work like Jihad?

7. Did Mohammed say that he had "been made victorious with terror"?

8. Did Mohammed say "If anyone changes his religion, then kill him"?

9. Did Mohammed indulge his "marital impulse" with a nine-year-old child? Did he not "marry" her when she was six? Did he not attribute this child rape to Allah by saying, "If this is from Allah, then it must happen"?

10. Have Muslims warred against humanity to make the world Islam (in accord with their resources and will) for nearly fourteen centuries?

The answer to all these is, regrettably and tragically, yes. These are unalterable facts of history, despite what deceitful apologists and gullible, ignorant infidels and apostates might say to the contrary.

No decent person can discover the will of Allah and the words and work of Mohammed as revealed in Qur'an, Hadith, and Sira and do anything other than condemn them as evil.

I hope that you will admit the truth about the vile, wicked doctrine of Mahomet, reject it, and embrace the true God Who has revealed Himself to us in His Son.

There's not much fun (of any kind) to be had when you take this author's advice

From Clean fun: What are you judging?!!!:

"'Prophet Mohammad came with the message of Islam which is inviting to peace, love, cooperation, kindness among all people,his message was ordering not to hurt others'"

But Allah commanded, 'Kill the unbelievers wherever you find them,' and 'Fight...until all religion is for Allah.'

And his false prophet said, 'I have been ordered to fight until all confess there is no god but Allah and Mohammed is his prophet.'

'...not to steal, drink, harlot, oppress....

How is 'Fight...the People of the Book until they feel themselves subdued and pay the jizya' not oppression?

(And shall we mention Mohammed's six-year-old 'wife,' Aisha, with whom he consummated their 'marriage' when she was nine? Or that Allah required this pedophilia?)

'...said that it's a religion of terrorism.'

But Mohammed said, 'I have been made victorious with terror.' And remember Allah's promise to strike terror into the hearts of the Infidels.

'They didn't give themselves the opportunity to read teachings of Islam,and read Qur'an,and teachings of prophet Mohammad(PBUH).'

As made obvious in my comments above, consulting Islam's 'sacred' texts doesn't help your argument, it only justifies the intuition of those ignorant, prejudiced Infidels whom you condemn.

And no, there is no 'context' that makes those passages mean anything other than what their literal interpretation indicates.

'Judging a religion...And I insist in this point;you must look at what you're judging, if you're judging Islam so look at its teachings taken from Qur'an and Sunnah...'

Again, appealing to Allah's will and Mohammed's example won't really soothe the suspicions of wary Infidels.

'but if you're going to judge deeds of Muslims so look at deeds of good Muslims same like you look at deeds of bad Muslims.

The only trouble is that when evaluated in light of the words of Qur'an, Hadith, and Sira, the 'good' Muslims are those who fight against, subdue and humiliate, and kill non-Muslims to make the world Islam.

I don't think you'll persuade (deceive?) too many Infidels with that line of reasoning.