Mohammed is 1.2 billion Muslims, or Establishing Shari'a, one family at a time

She says they "misinterpret their texts," but he says they're "fanatical." Which is it?

He defends Mohammed, right or wrong.

Quoting Mohammed's own words is insulting 1.2 billion Muslims. I thought all Muslims were not the same.

Which is it? Or does it depend on whether or not Mohammed's words and deeds are being examined? What does that say about Mohammed? What does that say about those making such an "argument"?

A Christian family cannot discuss openly religious topics. A free man in a free society (and his wife!) must face character assassination, verbal abuse, and threats of violence over a factual statement (which is, coincidentally, no different than an American during World War II lamenting, "It's too bad Hitler made our boys' sacrifices necessary").

So this is the lay of the land: A non-Muslim is forbidden from quoting Mohammed.

If I can't quote Mohammed, and I can't quote the Bible, what can I quote? A cookbook?! [Hat tip to Zell Miller.]

One of the sad ironies here is that this is exactly one of the restrictions placed historically upon dhimmis, the Jews and Christians subjugated, humiliated, and oppressed under Islamic law, just as Mohammed commanded.

-Mention Mohammed and be bullied into silence.

-Everyone falls in line because the two tyrants throw a fit.

-Essentially, it's, "Shut up dhimmi. Don't talk about Mohammed, or else!"

It's insane.

Why are only the Muslim and his spouse apoplectic over quoting Mohammed? Why are not they being pressured into tolerance of others' freedoms of speech? Why must everyone submit to the bullies' sensibilities?

If the prophet from hell was such an "ideal man," what is wrong with looking at what he said and did? Of what are they afraid? Is not such rage at a non-Muslim looking at those texts an admission of shame over his words and deeds?

Why attack me for quoting what Mohammed said and did? Why not attack Mohammed for what he said and did?

How can a decent person defend universal, open-ended commands to slaughter, rape, and enslave?

So much for the thin veneer of false Muslim civility. I've seen it vaporize in online discussions over the word of Allah and the example of Mohammed, but I've not seen it in person and not from someone who previously had seemed decent.

Insane anger. Irrationality. And this, an observation intended to make the observer look good, or a threat? "If someone was fanatical about their religion, they'd kill you."

I will not be silent. I will not submit, for this is what they defend:

"Each of us was raped by between three and six men. One woman refused to have sex with them, so they split her head into pieces with an axe in front of us." This happened in Darfur, from which Sudanese military personnel actually airlifted women to Khartoum to serve as sex slaves. Meanwhile, Indira Dzetskelova, the mother of one of the child hostages in Beslan, Russia, reports that "several 15-year-old girls were raped by terrorists." Her daughter "heard their terrible cries and screams when those monsters took them away."

This indicates that there are two things the massacre in Beslan has in common with the ongoing massacres in Darfur: both, no less than the 9/11 attacks, are examples of Islamic jihad terrorism, and both are characterized by rape. The jihadist element has been made clear by the ringleaders of both atrocities. Sudanese General Mohamed Beshir Suleiman recently declared: "The door of the jihad is still open and if it has been closed in the south it will be opened in Darfur."

[. . .]

As for Beslan, the Chechen jihadist leader Shamil Besayev warned the Russian government last winter: "Praise Allah, we are dreaming of dying in jihad, we are dreaming of dying on the way of Allah, so that we could earn paradise and mercy of Allah."

What does rape, then, have to do with these religious conflicts? Unfortunately, everything. The Islamic legal manual 'Umdat al-Salik, which carries the endorsement of Al-Azhar University, the most respected authority in Sunni Islam, stipulates: "When a child or a woman is taken captive, they become slaves by the fact of capture, and the woman's previous marriage is immediately annulled."

Why? So that they are free to become the concubines of their captors. The Qur'an permits Muslim men to have intercourse with their wives and their slave girls: "Forbidden to you are ... married women, except those whom you own as slaves" (Sura 4:23-24). After one successful battle, Muhammad tells his men, "Go and take any slave girl." He took one for himself also. After the notorious massacre of the Jewish Qurayzah tribe, he did it again. According to his earliest biographer, Ibn Ishaq, Muhammad "went out to the market of Medina (which is still its market today) and dug trenches in it. Then he sent for [the men of Banu Qurayza] and struck off their heads in those trenches as they were brought out to him in batches." After killing "600 or 700 in all, though some put the figure as high as 800 or 900," the Prophet [sic] of Islam took one of the widows he had just made, Rayhana bint Amr, as another concubine. Emerging victorious in another battle, according to a generally accepted Islamic tradition, Muhammad's men present him with an ethical question: "We took women captives, and we wanted to do 'azl [coitus interruptus] with them." Muhammad told them: "It is better that you should not do it, for Allah has written whom He is going to create till the Day of Resurrection.'" When Muhammad says "it is better that you should not do it," he's referring to coitus interruptus, not to raping their captives. He takes that for granted.

With Muhammad revered throughout the Islamic world as al-insan al-kamil, the perfect man, the rapes of Darfur and Beslan are nothing surprising. What is surprising, or ought to be, is the silence from the Islamic world about the rapes in both cases.

Where are the reformers who will dare to say that Muhammad's example must not be followed in this case?

Certainly not where I was last night.

Christian children decapitated, crucified, and raped in the name of Allah, just as Mohammed commanded and practiced

Mohammed killed over religion:

"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).

"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).

Mohammed commanded and practiced terrorism to advance his religion:

"Against them make ready your strength to the utmost of your power, including steeds of war, to strike terror into (the hearts of) the enemies, of Allah and your enemies, and others besides, whom ye may not know, but whom Allah doth know. Whatever ye shall spend in the cause of Allah, shall be repaid unto you, and ye shall not be treated unjustly" (Qur'an 8:60).

“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).

Mohammed gave no thought to slaughtering innocents if they stood in his way:

"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).

No crime was too unnatural for Mohammed:

"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).

This evil spreads unchecked throughout the West.

And what of all those Christians and other non-Muslims, women, and apostates tormented around the world by Allah's minions?

In Iraq, Pakistan, and Egypt, Christians suffer unspeakable atrocities at the hands of Muslims, just as Allah and his false prophet demand.

Where is President Bush? He's established Sharia in several nations now, he brings in millions of Muslims without questioning whether or not they actually believe their god's commands to convert, subjugate and humiliate, or kill his fellow citizens, people he's sworn to defend, and he gives no thought to either the thousands of Americans sacrificing life and limb to protect Muslims who may or may not want them dead or to those Christians and other non-Muslims experiencing Islamic revival.

Could President Bush have done more to aid the global jihad and the persecution of the Church if he had tried?

Whose behavior more closely matches the word of Allah and the example of Mohammed, the apparently decent, secular, "moderate" Muslim, or the monsters below?

Muslim militants are crucifying children to terrorize their Christian parents into fleeing Iraq, a parliamentary committee studying the persecution of religious minorities heard yesterday.

Since the war began in 2003, about 12 children, many as young as 10, have been kidnapped and killed, then nailed to makeshift crosses near their homes to terrify and torment their parents.

One infant was snatched, decapitated, burned and left on his mother's doorstep, the committee was told.

Filham Isaac, speaking for the Nineveh Advocacy Committee, told the human rights committee that Iraqi Christian churches were bombed, clergy murdered and unveiled Iraqi women raped or scarred with acid.

It's part of a systemic -- and very effective -- campaign to ethnically cleanse the area of any non-Muslims, he said. Chaldean and Assyrian Christians, known as Chaldo-Assyrians, were once the largest Christian minority in Iraq. They are also the oldest, descendants of ancient Mesopotamians who adopted Christianity in the first century.

The Chaldean Catholic Church, the Syrian Catholic Church, the Syriac Orthodox Church and the Church of the East are among the Christian churches in Iraq.

Today, about 300,000, or one in three, is a refugee, he said.

"It's at a crisis point," Mr. Isaac's colleague, Zaya Oshana, said later. "Christians will be completely annihilated."

Yet, the Chaldo-Assyrians do not want to leave their country en masse.

Instead, they are asking for help to settle the Nineveh Plains, in northwest Iraq, where they can have some independence and form their own state. The land is rich there, and there may be oil, too.

There is some support in the United States and Europe for this independent area, and international news reports indicate more than 700 police officers have begun training to protect the Christians in Iraq, but another 4,000 would be needed to fully secure the region and establish checkpoints on all highways and roads leading into the villages.

The committee also heard from the Ahmadiyya, an offshoot of Islam that began in India about 100 years ago. Ahmadi Muslims differ from mainstream Muslims on their views of Jesus, and on their interpretation of jihad, which they say must be non-violent.

However, they told the committee that they are increasingly persecuted in Pakistan, where they are told they are not Muslim at all and, therefore, their beliefs are an insult to Islam.

Nadeem Siddiq, general counsel for the Ahmadiyya Muslim Jama'at Community of Canada, told the committee the Pakistani government has been capitulating to mullahs who call them a "cancer" and forbid them from carrying out their prayers, or even mentioning Allah on their wedding invitations.

"They say by 'posing' as Muslims, we hurt real Muslims. The mullahs are still not happy. They want our properties confiscated and they want us charged."

Coptic Christians from Egypt had much the same story, with young girls regularly kidnapped, raped or forced to marry Muslim men. Despite these difficulties, there is no mechanism to claim refugee status in the beleaguered countries. Sam Fanous, of the Canadian Coptic Association, told the MPs that the Canadian Embassy in Cairo needed Canadian, not area Muslim, staff to evaluate refugee claims.

The committee passed a motion to research the issue further and to call for more testimony from minorities suffering religious persecution worldwide.

What do Muslims call those who reject offensive warfare against non-Muslims to make the world Islam?

Ahmadiyya Muslim Jama'at are called, "heretics."

Moderate Indonesia stepped-up efforts recently to coerce them into orthodoxy; now a publisher in Texas is threatened by their non-heretical -- that is, traditional, orthodox -- coreligionists for calling the Ahmadiyya "Muslims."

In the comments on that post I note an essential distinction which must be made when discussing Islam: Muslim and non-Muslim alike attempt often to equate Islam with Christianity, either to demean Christianity or to deceive the ignorant and gullible into thinking that Islam is harmless.

It is essential that we understand the difference between the two. Clarity on this point can save not only one's neck (literally), but also one's soul.

"I appreciate your arguing against the Religion of Inveterate Sadism, but I would like to offer another perspective on what makes Christianity and Islam so different from each other.

If you approach the Biblical texts objectively and in the way in which they were intended to be taken by their authors (symbolism as symbolism, poetry as poetry, history as history, eyewitness account as eyewitness account), you find a Christ Who died for the sins of even His enemies and Who commands His people to imitate His example.

If you approach the Islamic core texts objectively and in the way in which its god and prophet intended, you find Muslims commanded to use any means necessary -- including offensive violence -- to subjugate all people to the tyranny of Allah.

Adherents of Christianity (and those who've grown up in a society influenced by it) differ from the faithful of Islam -- to the degree that both behave in ways consistent with their gods' commands -- because Allah is the moral inverse of Christ."

Great figures from history recognizing the depravity of Islam

If great men like Thomas Jefferson, John Adams and his son John Quincy, George S. Patton, Jr., and Winston Churchill understood Islam, why can't their lesser successors today?

Here's John Quincy Adams observing that jihad progresses not only by violence, but also by fraud -- by preaching, demographics, economics, and the subversion of non-Muslim societal institutions from within (jihad by stealth).

". . . he [Muhammad] declared undistinguishing and exterminating war, as a part of his religion, against all the rest of mankind…The precept of the Koran is, perpetual war against all who deny, that Mahomet is the prophet of God…the faithful follower of the prophet may submit to the imperious necessities of defeat: but the command to propagate the Moslem creed by the sword is always obligatory, when it can be made effective. The commands of the prophet may be performed alike, by fraud, or by force."

Following is General George S. Patton, Jr., on the retarding effects of Islam.

A few things to keep in mind: First, by "Arab" Patton clearly meant "Muslim," since many Arabs were Christian. Second, by 700 much of the West was Christian; to the degree that its people obeyed the commands of Christ, the West was already morally advanced. Finally, it's not just a lack of development, it's making "divine" the violation of Christ's commands that destroys human souls.

"One cannot but ponder the question: What if the Arabs had been Christians? To me it seems certain that the fatalistic teachings of Mohammed and the utter degradation of women is the outstanding cause for the arrested development of the Arab. He is exactly as he was around the year 700, while we have kept on developing. Here, I think, is a text for some eloquent sermon on the virtues of Christianity."

--from War As I Knew It, by General George S. Patton, Jr., 1947

Facts do not intimidate the truthful

Only liars and tyrants fear the truth.

Throughout Western lands, Muslims, their apologists, and Useful Idiot Dhimmis work to silence more than just mockery of Mohammed, they demonize and dismiss those who cite accurately his own words and actions as recorded in Islam's core texts.

This censorship is part of the non-violent -- but still tyrannical, fascist, supremacist, and fatal -- "striving" to make the world Islam. Robert Spencer refers to these more subtle efforts as the "stealth jihad," of which using the West's own legal, social, economic, and political systems to destroy it from within are all a part.

John Quincy Adams seems to have recognized this non-violent jihad, referring to it as performing Mohammed's commands "by fraud."

Osama bin Laden erred in using violence too soon against us; exploiting the civilizational self-loathing of the West's enemies within still advances Islam and kills far fewer Muslims.

Here are two questions to ask "moderate" Muslims and those Infidels foolishly defending the prophet from hell:

1. If Mohammed was such a great guy, what's the problem with looking at his words and deeds?

2. If Islam's "sacred" texts don't command offensive warfare against non-Muslims to make the world Islam, then what have you got to hide?

Tantrums and other arguments in defense of Islam

If you kick and scream loudly enough, you may just get Shari'a.

What do you do when you're told to be quiet because you'll make an emotional tyrant upset?

In other words, you can lie about me and mine, but don't dare quote Mohammed!

Nevermind that a soul under Allah is in danger of Hell, or that non-Muslim, female, and apostate apologists for Islam will not escape the evil which they defend, the onset of which they hasten.

You find lying apologists for Islam even in the jungle

In response to several threadbare lies in defense of Islam from a "review" at Amazon.com of Robert Spencer's Religion of Peace, Why Christianity Is and Islam Isn't, found here.

Faruk Ekmekci is subtle. Unfortunately for him, his half-truths and other falsehoods are effective only with the ignorant and gullible, and their numbers thin every day.

In attempting to defend Mohammed, he attacks Moses and Spencer. Rather than addressing what the prophet from hell actually said and did, he engages in ad hominem attacks and straw man arguments (that seems familiar!).

Alleging that both Islam and Christianity/Judaism have "obscure sides" -- as if the commands of YHWH and His Christ are morally equivalent to the utter depravity of Mohammed and his allah -- is absurd.

He argues:

"But you shall destroy their altars, break their sacred pillars, and cut down their wooden images (For you shall worship no other god, for the Lord, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God.)" Exodus 14 [sic]

That was a command for Ancient Israel under Moses, not a universal, open-ended command for offensive warfare against Gentiles to make the world Hebrew, as is found in Islam (and it's not Exodus 14).

"When the Lord your God brings you into the land you are entering to possess and drives out before you may nations...then you must destroy them totally. Make no treaty with them and show them no mercy." Deuteronomy 7:1-2 [sic]

A judgment against those nations for their evil and limited to that time, place, and people. Again, not a universal, open-ended command for offensive warfare against Gentiles to make the world Hebrew, as is found in Islam.

"...do not leave alive anything that breaths. Completely destroy them...as the Lord your God has commanded you..." Deuteronomy 20:16

Same as previous; It should be noted that Israel itself faced the same judgment for adopting the same evil practices. Still, this is not a universal, open-ended command for offensive warfare against Gentiles to make the world Hebrew, as is found in Islam.

"And they warred against the Midianites, as the Lord commanded Moses; and they slew all the males." Numbers 31:7 (estimated 100,000 Midianites were killed in just one war)

That was war in retaliation for Midian's attacks against Israel when it was helpless. It was also to prevent future apostasy by Israel. Still no universal, open-ended command for offensive warfare against Gentiles to make the world Hebrew, as is found in Islam.

"Now king Solomon loved many foreign women, besides the daughter of Pharaoh, women of the Moabites, Ammonites, Edomites, Zidonians, and Hittites;" / "And he had seven hundred wives, princesses, and three hundred concubines; and his wives turned away his heart." I Kings 1,3.

Recording Solomon's sin is not an endorsement of it. Clearly, his behavior was contradicted by Divine law.

The Texts also record Solomon's worshiping false gods; does that mean that the Bible wants us to worship false gods?

"If your brother, the son of your mother, or your son, or your daughter, or the wife of your bosom, or your friend who is as your own soul, entices you secretly, saying, `Let us go and serve other gods,' . . . your hand shall be first against him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people." Deuteronomy 13:6-9

For Ancient Israel under the Mosaic Law only; not a universal, open-ended command for offensive warfare against Gentiles to make the world Hebrew, as is found in Islam.

"...and your desire shall be to your husband, and he shall rule over you." Genesis 3:16

Descriptive, not prescriptive, and not the institutionalized brutalization and degradation of women and girls found in Islam's core texts.

"If a man is found lying with the wife of another man, both of them shall die, the man who lay with the woman, and the woman; so you shall purge the evil from Israel. / "If there is a betrothed virgin, and a man meets her in the city and lies with her, / then you shall bring them both out to the gate of that city, and you shall stone them to death with stones, the young woman because she did not cry for help though she was in the city, and the man because he violated his neighbor's wife; so you shall purge the evil from the midst of you." Deuteronomy 22:22-24

Again, only for Ancient Israel under the Mosaic Law, not a universal, open-ended command for offensive warfare against Gentiles to make the world Hebrew, as is found in Islam

To conclude, assuming the textual accuracy of the Bible, and even assuming the correctness of Spencer interpretations, Muhammad would still be an average Biblical prophet. It does not make sense to me, therefore, to welcome Biblical prophets and curse Muhammad.

That is an outright lie.

No prophet of YHWH claimed that their sin was His revelation. On the other hand, whatever perverse, reprehensible, or bloodthirsty impulse Mohammed had, he always received a convenient revelation justifying or requiring it.

We have to understand that the problem is common. Extremism in general is the enemy, not the jihad of a specific people. Let's face and address it sincerely and without bigotry.

By "bigotry," Mr. Ekmekci means "looking at the evidence," and the problem is "common" -- among Muslims, since it is Mohammed who commanded the faithful to "slay the pagans wherever you find them" (Qur'an 9:5).

"Extremism" following Christ would result in Christians loving their enemies, doing good to others, and truth-telling. "Extremism" following Allah gets slavery, slaughter, pedophilia, and rape. In other words, "extremism" in a religion just gets you more of what its god commands.

As a final note on Spencer besides his inconsistency, he is also a twister of facts, and convenient ignorer of counter data.

Mr. Ekmekci can provide (mostly accurate) citations of Biblical passages (even as he misrepresents their meaning), but he can't demonstrate specifically where Spencer has erred?

Just like Mohammed.

How convenient.

Fitzgerald on fun, and indispensable, learning

The good news is, more and more of us know and continue to learn about the Religion of Gratuitous Decapitation.

Reflections on knowing Islam the way Allah and the prophet from hell define it, by Hugh Fitzgerald:

Up and down the coasts of Europe one can find ruins, the remnants of ancient watchtowers and fortifications. One is seldom provided with any explanation; when something is written very occasionally in a guidebook, there is mention of "invaders." Who were these “invaders”? The history of Muslim raiders, up and down those European coasts, the pillaging and razing of villages and towns, the murders, the vandalism, the seizure and enslavement of, over time, at least a million people from Western Europe, with the raiders even getting as far as Ireland and, in one celebrated case, Iceland, is hardly known to the Western world.

Giles Milton's book White Gold focuses on one Cornishman, Thomas Pellow, who was seized and brought back to Morocco in the mid-18th century. There the vast palace complex of Moulay Ismail, which Western tourists come to admire, was built on the sites of, and making use of the stone taken from, the prior non-Muslim structures. So many of the so-called "wonders of Muslim architecture" were built in this way, including the celebrated Omayyad Mosque in Damascus, which is on the site of, and makes use of, the St. John the Baptist Church that was previously on the same site. And who do you think built the Taj Mahal? Muslim soldiers, or enslaved Hindus?

When you begin, as many Infidels have, to study Islam, and then extend your study beyond the texts, and then add the behavior of Muslims today, and then go still further and begin to study the history of Islamic conquest, and the Islamic exaggerated claims to achievement, and the Islamic treatment of all non-Muslims subjugated by Muslims and Muslim rule, all sorts of the dark past become necessarily illuminated. How many of us, a few years ago, had any idea about when the Turks arrived in Byzantium, or why Constantinople fell, or when? Who knew about the Seljuk Turks, or the Ottomans? Who was aware of where Aramaic was spoken, or that the Maronites were a non-Arab people living in present-day Lebanon long before the Arab Muslims arrived? Who knew, even -- why Tom Friedman has just in the last week or two discovered -- that there are Sunni and Shi'a Muslims, and that the difference is not a minor one, and did not originate with the Americans clumsily undoing all that splendid harmony that naturally reigned in Iraq just a few pre-Saddam years ago? This is all nonsense, of course, but it is predictable nonsense.

It is wonderful, isn't it, to begin to study the history of the Middle East, and the history of Byzantium, and the history of Europe, all because it now has an immediacy and a significance that we who were not history-haunted did not previously ascribe to it all. But now that we are menaced by those who are haunted not so much by history as their own crazed version of history, we are forced to study -- and we are forced to be quick studies.

. . . studying that history is now essential. It is necessary to learn what taqiyya is, and what constitutes an acceptable isnad-chain, and the details of Muhammad's life (as Muslims accept it). It is essential to find out that Muslims do not accept the principle of Pacta sunt servanda, but follow instead the model of the Treaty of al-Hudaibiyya. All this is all the more essential seeing how even the most reasonable westernized semi-truth-telling Muslim will continue to skitter around the central question . . . .

Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil of Mohammed or his allah

Be deaf, dumb, and blind about Islam, or else, which makes her a tyrant and you a coward.

Ominously, one of the restrictions placed upon non-Muslims enslaved as dhimmis over centuries of Islamic conquest, annihilation, and oppression was the proscription against speaking of Allah or Mohammed. Many in the West today censor themselves voluntarily, and many out of fear.

My latest reply to one defending Mohammed at the expense of everything else. Note her use of one of the tactics employed typically by Muslims and their Useful Idiot Dhimmis against criticism of Islam -- unjustified and ugly personal attacks. If you can't refute the facts, attack the person citing them!

Perhaps it's only justifying of one's own sin.

Facts do not intimidate the truthful.

Speaking of "chasing tails," you spend many words below attacking my integrity (again), my honesty, my compassion, and my judgment, and you attribute to me positions I've never held (argumentum ad hominem and "straw man" arguments -- both are logical fallacies and inherently dishonest), but you do not address what I actually wrote.

I attributed to Mohammed responsibility for today's jihad. In support of this, I cited accurately Islam's own "sacred" texts -- documents at which you admit you've never even looked. How is it "insensitive" to quote Mohammed's own words?

Instead of addressing my words, you accuse me falsely of:

"all follow the fanatical radical ways of those Muslims"

"condemn every religion for their followers actions?"

"all catholics and Christians alike are murderers?"

"all Latin, or Hispanic males are murderers?"

"are all catholic priests pedophiles?"

"you are not more sensitive when speaking and emailing about groups of people"

"It only gives us all I'm sure insight on how you feel, truly feel about them..."

" . . . belongs to this group you speak so poorly of"

"hasn't he shown you otherwise?"

"do all the guests seem to wage holy war against you"

"My Husband and his family ( Non murderers- as you have referred to them(muslims, not specifically his family, but since they are part of that group it is equally offensive)"

"Muslims who do not wage "holy war" LOL on anyone."

"I know it's hard for you, you have never walked a mile in anyone else's shoes and see only your ways and ideas as truths, perhaps someday you will have to see others in a different light"

"WHO then are you to look down and judge anyone?"

When have I written anything negative about your husband or his family? When have I written of anything being true about "all Muslims"? You're lying about me; prove it, or apologize.

If by "the past" you are referring to old articles about Islamic murder, those were news reports. Blame Muslims who kill for Allah, not me for being able to read.

A religion's adherents are not [necessarily representative of] its god/founder. You are conflating the two, not me.

For example, a pedophile priest is not representative of Christ, since He warned that anyone who causes a little child to sin would be better off if he had a large stone tied around his neck and were thrown into the depths of the sea. On the other hand, a Muslim who begins raping his six-year-old "bride" when she's nine does imitate Mohammed's example.

Speaking of Christ, did He approve of or excuse the sin of His dinner companions? Did Christ tell them that they've just chosen alternative lifestyles and Moses was insensitive with all those Commandments? No, He told them to stop sinning.

Whom did Christ condemn? Whom did He call a "brood of vipers" and "white-washed tombs"? Liars. Christ was harsh with those who lied about their sin and used religion as a cover for evil.

Christ exposed evil. He condemned lies.

One last item. Jesus says that He is the only way to heaven. Does He have "tunnel-vision"?

Your comments to [. . . ] were not only undeserved and uncharitable, but foolish and faithless. She is honest and considerate to a fault, and she's willing to endure your pettiness and insults because she loves you.

You should be ashamed of yourself.

Will you have the decency and integrity to apologize? Will you salvage your credibility, or will you persist in unfounded and scurrilous ad hominem attacks against those who love you and want the best for you and yours?

The days have gone down in the West

While some Muslims "striving in the cause of Allah" have discovered that warfare against the U.S. just gets them new and better infrastructure, billions of American tax dollars, Sharia enshrined in their new nations' constitutions, and a lot of dead mujahideen, others have found subverting American institutions from within to be more effective, safer, and a whole lot of fun.

As our politicians, academics, and media ignore (or accelerate) the collapse of the West, we ordinary citizens are doing our part. Just today, I witnessed a sure sign that the end is near. An elementary school held a Talent Show with Michael Jackson's Thriller as its theme. One of the performances was a dance routine set to "Beat It."

A pedophile singing about gang warfare is now mainstream.

We are doomed.

The Verse of the Sword, straight from the pit of hell

It would be nice if the appeasers and useful idiot dhimmis who spend much of their time and energy trying to convince us that Islam is a "religion of peace" would actually do a little reading for themselves.

Below is an authoritative interpretation of the Verse of the Sword.

Ali Eteraz, are you listening? President Bush? Hugh Hewitt? Anyone? Is this thing on?

This is the Ayah of the Sword

Mujahid, `Amr bin Shu`ayb, Muhammad bin Ishaq, Qatadah, As-Suddi and `Abdur-Rahman bin Zayd bin Aslam said that the four months mentioned in this Ayah are the four-month grace period mentioned in the earlier Ayah,

[فَسِيحُواْ فِى الاٌّرْضِ أَرْبَعَةَ أَشْهُرٍ]

(So travel freely for four months throughout the land.) Allah said next,

[فَإِذَا انسَلَخَ الأَشْهُرُ الْحُرُمُ]

(So when the Sacred Months have passed...), meaning, `Upon the end of the four months during which We prohibited you from fighting the idolators, and which is the grace period We gave them, then fight and kill the idolators wherever you may find them.' Allah's statement next,

[فَاقْتُلُواْ الْمُشْرِكِينَ حَيْثُ وَجَدتُّمُوهُمْ]

(then fight the Mushrikin wherever you find them), means, on the earth in general, except for the Sacred Area, for Allah said,

[وَلاَ تُقَـتِلُوهُمْ عِندَ الْمَسْجِدِ الْحَرَامِ حَتَّى يُقَـتِلُوكُمْ فِيهِ فَإِن قَـتَلُوكُمْ فَاقْتُلُوهُمْ]

(And fight not with them at Al-Masjid Al-Haram, unless they fight you there. But if they attack you, then fight them. )[2:191] Allah said here,

[وَخُذُوهُمْ]

(and capture them), executing some and keeping some as prisoners,

[وَاحْصُرُوهُمْ وَاقْعُدُواْ لَهُمْ كُلَّ مَرْصَدٍ]

(and besiege them, and lie in wait for them in each and every ambush), do not wait until you find them. Rather, seek and besiege them in their areas and forts, gather intelligence about them in the various roads and fairways so that what is made wide looks ever smaller to them. This way, they will have no choice, but to die or embrace Islam,

[فَإِن تَابُواْ وَأَقَامُواْ الصَّلَوةَ وَءاتَوُاْ الزَّكَوةَ فَخَلُّواْ سَبِيلَهُمْ إِنَّ اللَّهَ غَفُورٌ رَّحِيمٌ]

(But if they repent and perform the Salah, and give the Zakah, then leave their way free. Verily, Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.) Abu Bakr As-Siddiq used this and other honorable Ayat as proof for fighting those who refrained from paying the Zakah. These Ayat allowed fighting people unless, and until, they embrace Islam and implement its rulings and obligations. Allah mentioned the most important aspects of Islam here, including what is less important. Surely, the highest elements of Islam after the Two Testimonials, are the prayer, which is the right of Allah, the Exalted and Ever High, then the Zakah, which benefits the poor and needy. These are the most honorable acts that creatures perform, and this is why Allah often mentions the prayer and Zakah together. In the Two Sahihs, it is recorded that Ibn `Umar said that the Messenger of Allah said,

«أُمِرْتُ أَنْ أُقَاتِلَ النَّاسَ حَتَّى يَشْهَدُوا أَنْ لَا إِلَهَ إِلَّا اللهُ وَأَنَّ مُحَمَّدًا رَسُولُ اللهِ وَيُقِيمُوا الصَّلَاةَ وَيُؤْتُوا الزَّكَاة»

(I have been commanded to fight the people until they testify that there is no deity worthy of worship except Allah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, establish the prayer and pay the Zakah.) This honorable Ayah (9:5) was called the Ayah of the Sword, about which Ad-Dahhak bin Muzahim said, "It abrogated every agreement of peace between the Prophet and any idolator, every treaty, and every term.'' Al-`Awfi said that Ibn `Abbas commented: "No idolator had any more treaty or promise of safety ever since Surah Bara'ah was revealed. The four months, in addition to, all peace treaties conducted before Bara'ah was revealed and announced had ended by the tenth of the month of Rabi` Al-Akhir.''

[وَإِنْ أَحَدٌ مِّنَ الْمُشْرِكِينَ اسْتَجَارَكَ فَأَجِرْهُ حَتَّى يَسْمَعَ كَلاَمَ اللَّهِ ثُمَّ أَبْلِغْهُ مَأْمَنَهُ ذَلِكَ بِأَنَّهُمْ قَوْمٌ لاَّ يَعْلَمُونَ ]

(6. And if anyone of the Mushrikin seeks your protection then grant him protection so that he may hear the Word of Allah (the Qur'an) and then escort him to where he can be secure, that is because they are men who know not.)

Nope, no compulsion in religion there.

Democrats clueless on, or in collusion with, jihad

So, let me get this straight:

Obama gives a speech that sounds pro-Israel; the next day his people "clarify," making his comments nothing more than political subterfuge;

He's discussed previously his belief that Hamas and Hezbollah have "legitimate" claims;

Yee, the Muslim ex-Army imam charged with espionage but released without trial for reasons of national security is one of Obama's superdelegates;

Barack Hussein Obama wants to talk with terrorists, rather than eliminate them; and,

Obama's got America-hating, racist friends and spiritual mentors who are friends of Jew-haters, not the least of which among these is Louis Farrakhan.

How can the Democrats be so wrong so often in the same direction?

Do Liberals hate America this much?

Patrick Henry on Slavery

Since Henry makes a clear distinction between "Christianity" and Christ, the Bible, and historical Christian practice, it is clear the term refers to the practice of the churches of his day, not to the religion of Christ.

From here:

"It is not a little surprising that Christianity, whose chief excellence consists in softening the human heart, in cherishing & improving its finer Feelings, should encourage a Practice so totally repugnant to the first Impression of right & wrong. What adds to the wonder is that this Abominable Practice has been introduced in the most enlightened Ages, Times that seem to have pretensions to boast of high Improvements in the Arts, Sciences, & refined Morality, have brought into general use, & guarded by many Laws, a Species of Violence & Tyranny, which our more rude & barbarous, but more honest Ancestors detested. Is it not amazing, that at a time, when the Rights of Humanity are defined & understood with precision, in a Country above all others fond of Liberty, that in such an Age, & such a Country we find Men, professing a Religion the most humane, mild, meek, gentle & generous, adopting a Principle as repugnant to humanity as it is inconsistent with the Bible and destructive to Liberty. . . .

I cannot but wish well to a people whose System imitates the Example of him whose Life was perfect. And believe me, I shall honour the Quakers for their noble Effort to abolish Slavery. It is equally calculated to promote moral & political Good.

Would any one believe that I am Master of Slaves of my own purchase! I am drawn along by the general inconvenience of living without them. . . .

I believe a time will come when the oppo. will be offered to abolish this lamentable Evil. Every thing we can do is to improve it, if it happens in our day, if not, let us transmit to our descendants together with our Slaves, a pity for their unhappy Lot, & an abhorrence for Slavery. If we cannot reduce this wished for Reformation to practice, let us treat the unhappy victims with lenity, & it is the furthest advance we can make toward Justice."

Marking the anniversary of a horrific event

Five hundred fifty-five years ago, Constantinople fell, an atrocity the responsibility for which lies dead at the feet of the prophet from hell.

And those who seek to imitate Mohammed, that "beautiful pattern of conduct," labor today so that New Constantinople and many more Infidel kingdoms fall to the armies of Allah.

Here's your "Religion of Peace." I guess these Muslims were "misinformed," too:

". . . the great church of Hagia Sophia was filled to capacity. Thousands of people were moving towards the church. Inside, Orthodox and Catholic priests were holding liturgy, the last Christian service after almost 1,000 years. People were singing hymns . . . .

"Bands of Ottoman soldiers began now looting. Doors were broken, private homes were looted, their tenants were massacred. Shops in the city markets were looted. Monasteries and Convents were broken in. Their tenants were killed, nuns were raped; many, to avoid dishonor, killed themselves. Killing, raping, looting, burning, enslaving, went on and on . . . .

"The great doors of Hagia Sophia were forced open, and crowds of angry soldiers came in and fell upon the unfortunate worshippers. Pillaging and killing in the holy place went on for hours. Similar was the fate of worshippers in most churches in the city . . . .

"Thousands of civilians were enslaved, soldiers fought over young boys and young women . . . the invaders broke the heads of those women who resisted on the floor of the churches and they raped them dead. The famous icon of Apostole Loukas was totally destroyed.

"The sultan asked for the young sons of Duke Loukas Notaras. Their father refused and Mehmed was ready to take their heads. Notaras asked him to kill him after his sons so that he was sure that they were dead and not disgraced from the . . . sultan.

"And this is what happened."

Government is the problem, not the solution

Actually, politicians are the problem. Still, Reagan was right.

An accident of geology has led to the greatest transfer of wealth in human history over the last forty years, and this from non-Muslims to Allah. The demand for oil has financed the resurgence of traditional, Qur'anic Islam and its concomitant global jihad against us.

In other words, we are financing our own slaughter.

Our politicians' decades-old refusal to discover and develop our own traditional and alternative sources of energy (especially nuclear) has kept us dependent on Muslim oil. And certainly -- as demonstrated by Saudi Arabia's recent blow to President Bush's face when he asked for more oil to flow (why are we aiding their nuclear program, exactly?) -- the global jihad uses more than just suicide belts, rockets, and civilian airliners to "fight in the cause of Allah."

There is another way in which American politicians harm their employers, keeping us busy just treading water (after all, citizens who have to spend all their energy working just to survive don't have time to hold politicians accountable for their decisions, and people struggling to get by must be a bit more susceptible to the influence of election-year promises from someone "fighting for them"), and our Republican in the White House has been as guilty as any big-government liberal of it.

With one hand, the President and Congress reduced taxes, but with the other, they continue to print money as needed to buy votes.

What is the effect of increasing the supply of something? Its value lessens. As everything becomes more expensive, the American people become poorer. I have not received recently a thirty-percent raise to cover inflation, and I know no one who has.

In other words, 0ur politicians are impoverishing slowly and subtly all but the wealthiest.

If the American people allow this to continue, a young person saving today for their retirement will find when they get there -- just as everyone who's ever told a story about ten-cent hamburgers when they were a kid has found -- that the dollar they saved will be worth only pennies.

On our own politicians increasing the cost of oil, from here:

"a recent analysis of oil prices over the past 50 years adjusted for the increase in the money supply as measured by a gauge known as M3 lays the blame for surging petro prices squarely at the feet of Uncle Sam particularly the Federal Reserve. 'By rapidly increasing the money supply and thereby decreasing the value of the dollar the government is solely responsible for the increase in the oil price ' writes Paul van Eeden president of Toronto-based Cranberry Capital a private investment company"

Winston Churchill was a misinformed Islamophobe

He was also a Naziphobe.

In both cases, he was right.

Churchill recognized his people's submission to tyranny in creeping self-censorship. Whether yesteryear's Nazis or today's Muslims, the effect is the same.

Do not be intimidated into silence. Expose evil. Tell the truth.

Those who love darkness rather than light do so because their deeds are evil. If what they do is of God, why do they lie?

From Jihad Watch:

"In a very few years, perhaps in a very few months, we shall be confronted with demands with which we shall no doubt be invited to comply. Those demands may affect the surrender of territory or the surrender of liberty. I foresee and foretell that the policy of submission will carry with it restrictions upon the freedom of speech and debate in Parliament, on public platforms, and discussions in the press, for it will be said--indeed, I hear it said sometimes now - that we cannot allow the Nazi system of dictatorship to be criticized by ordinary, common English politicians. Then, with a press under control, in part direct but more potently indirect, with every organ of public opinion doped and chloroformed into acquiescence, we shall be conducted along further stages of our journey."

Here is Churchill on the heresy and bloodlust of Mahomet:

"How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live.

"A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property -- either as a child, a wife, or a concubine -- must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men.

"Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities. Thousands become the brave and loyal soldiers of the Queen; all know how to die; but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science -- the science against which it had vainly struggled -- the civilisation of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilisation of ancient Rome."

Relatives in defense of jihad

Recently a family member shared photos of the honoring of Marines who've made the ultimate sacrifice in defense of Western Civilization and our God-given, unalienable rights.

To that e-mail I replied, "It's too bad Mohammed made their sacrifice necessary."

This is what was sent in response to that observation by another family member:

. . . it is indeed even worse that . . . people continue to be misinformed.

The author appears to argue that worse than Americans dying in defense against jihad are the imagined misinterpretations of Islamic texts by jihadists and the plain reading of those texts by non-Muslims.

This ad hominem attack was sent to several family members, but not to me.

Impugning someone's integrity behind their back does not a healthy dialogue make.

Also, her position is inherently dishonest. If someone claims to know enough about Islam's "holy" book (there are actually several texts considered authoritative in traditional Islam besides Qur'an) to absolve Mohammed of responsibility for 1400 years of global jihad against non-Muslims, then they must know the commands of Allah and the example of his apostle requiring that slaughter.

On the other hand, if they don't know the texts well enough to admit from where Allah's monsters derive the justification for their murders (and worse), if they are so completely ignorant of Qur'an, ahadith, and Sira so that they defend Mohammed and his book as "holy," then how can they call anyone else "misinformed"?

I am confident that the author is incorrect in her assertions regarding Islam's authoritative documents, since I've actually read them.

Rather than assume that one or more sessions in the People of the Desert School of Islamic Propaganda makes her an expert on Islam, she ought to open a book.

Regrettably, this is the same line of "argumentation" used by jihad's agents in the West. Considering that even the Commander-in-Chief repeats the same canard, the wide dissemination throughout non-Muslim lands of the facts regarding the word of Allah and the example of Mohammed is needed now.

What are these facts? Did Mohammed command offensive warfare against non-Muslims or not? If so, why defend him?

Allah and the prophet from hell demand (and boasted, among other things):

"fight and slay the unbelievers 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 in the name of Allah and in the way of Allah. Fight against those who disbelieve in Allah. Make a holy war . . . When you meet your enemies who are polytheists, invite them to three courses of action . . . Invite them to (accept) Islam . . . If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya [poll tax]. . . If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah's help and fight them . . . " (Muslim Book 019, Number 4294).

"Fight those who believe not in Allah . . . 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).

"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).

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

In defending Mohammed, this is what she defends.

Why not instead attack the monster?

Honor our fallen heroes by telling the truth about the enemy we face

Our best and bravest sacrifice life and limb to defend us.

At the same time, they are being sacrificed to the President's woeful misunderstanding of Islam, a misunderstanding echoed by nescient cheerleaders/dhimmis/appeasers like Hugh Hewitt.

The religion of Mohammed is no "religion of peace." There may be moderate Muslims, but Islam itself is not moderate.

How can any Infidel sacrifice enough to win hearts and minds which already belong to this:

"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 [the poll tax demanded of subjugated and humiliated non-Muslims]. 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).

“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).

"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).

Since Myrick's plan defends America, what does that reveal about those who oppose it?

This article raises three troubling points. First, why would a truly moderate Muslim object to anything in Representative Myrick's plan? Second, why does this piece's author regurgitate uncritically jihadist propaganda?

Most disturbingly, why is it necessary -- nearly seven years after 9/11 -- for a lone member of the House of Representatives to propose such common sense actions in defense of Western Civilization? Why have not President Bush and the Department of Homeland Obfuscation made such a plan redundant sometime during the last half-decade?

Instead of securing our borders, expelling jihadists and their sympathizers, and holding up to public ridicule the will of Allah and the example of Mohammed as recorded in Qur'an, ahadith collections, and Sira, the President and his fellow dhimmis hold iftar dinners, equate Allah's perversions with the words of Christ, and ban the use of the word "jihad" to describe jihad.

"Reporters" like this not only allow the President and his cronies to continue in such laziness (treason?), they also promote Islamic inanity.

There is little time left for non-Muslims to awake from their slumber.

"A spokesman for a Charlotte-area Islamic group Monday accused U.S. Rep. Sue Myrick of leading a 'fear campaign' with her proposal to curb the expansion of radical Islam.

Myrick, a Charlotte Republican, proposed a 10-point 'Wake Up America' plan this month that, among other things, calls for investigations into the selection of the Pentagon's Arabic translators and some Muslim military and prison chaplains.

"Myrick's latest attempt at fighting terrorism is nothing more than a fear campaign," said Jibril Hough, a spokesman for the Islamic Center of Charlotte. "It is nothing more than a new McCarthyism, or Myrickism. As Muslims, we have become expendable as politicians like Myrick seek political gain."

Myrick said she wants the group to give a point-by-point rebuttal of her plan.

"I'd be glad to have a dialogue with them," she said. "The whole point is that we're trying to get people to work together."

Myrick's proposal has also drawn criticism from the Washington-based Council on American-Islamic Relations. One of her proposals was to investigate the group's nonprofit status.

Joining Hough at a Monday news conference was Ross Overby, a Democrat hoping to challenge Myrick in the 9th District.

"There is no duty more important than securing our country," Overby said. "I believe we build our security when we focus on intelligence and engage the world, including Muslim communities here at home and abroad."

Hough said Overby's primary challenger, Harry Taylor, declined to participate in the news conference."

Islam may be "The Religion of Peace," but it is certainly not a religion of truth

More from here, since Muslims do not stop lying.

04/22/08 4:34 am

So much for legendary Muslim civility

Let's see, BK,

My comment's length was necessary to quickly but sufficiently orient readers here unfamiliar with Islamic "sacred" texts who might otherwise be deceived by the nonsense Eteraz asserts.

As to the other descriptors, my post was pointing out the perfect word of Allah, the example of Mohammed, and Muslim perfidy in their defense.

You call that "crazy."

Allah will not be pleased.

04/22/08 4:38 am

Not equivalent situations

If Christians were destroying property and lives over blasphemous depictions of Christ, it would make the news.

If Muslims want to stop receiving bad press, they ought to stop enslaving, slaughtering, and threatening to enslave or slaughter non-Muslims.

04/22/08 5:06 am

Speaking of masquerading haters . . .

That's quite a clumsy and transparent attempt to avoid addressing the fact that Allah and Mohammed require the slaughter of non-Muslims and apostates.

On the chance that a reader here might be tempted to give your or Eteraz's comments any credence, I will address a few of your "points."

I am not associated with Eteraz.

I remember you from a thread at his site. Different page, same tune.

I think it is impolite to bring vitriole to a blog I am not too
familiar with

False civility about to vanish in 3 . . . 2 . . . 1 . . .

Islamophobes

POOF!

False, ad hominem, and a red herring, since the issue is Allah and Mohammed's requiring the faithful to enslave or slaughter all who refuse the "invitation" to Islam.

How dishonest, but then Mohammed did declare, "War is deceit," didn't he?

What Wilders and other nuts at Jihadwatch, etc. do is pretend that Islam is a religion of 4 or 5 verses which should be interpreted by Wilders as absolute and throw out all other Chapters and Verses of the Holy Quran, especially the contradictory ones, and throw out the context and make everything relevant to European nativism, racism and isolationism.

Several falsehoods in just a few lines! Quite impressive, BK!

1) "nuts at Jihadwatch" is an ad hominem attack and again avoids the ugly truth of your ideology.

2) No one is pretending that Islam is "4 or 5 verses;" rather than misrepresent my or others' positions, why not deal with Allah's malevolence?

3) As for the "contradictory ones," doesn't the fact that your god contradicts itself concern you?

And aren't you familar with naskh, the doctrine of Abrogation? Surely you know that when a later passage contradicts an earlier one, the later revelation stands. That's why Mohammed's early tolerance and cooperation were replaced with murderous bloodlust.

4) False charges of "nativism, racism, and isolationism" are meant to distract attention from the fact that you worship a god and prophet who require the conversion, enslavement, or death of all non-Muslims to make the world Islam.

Why don't you do something about that?

Rabid anti-Muslim rhetoric is SUCH a bore.

I quote Mohammed, but you call it a "bore."

Allah will not be pleased.

Both of you have had you hand played for you for the past six or eight years by the neocons and to no avail. The middle east has not been recast in your image like a Golden Calf to worship.

Another false charge meant to avoid the real issue, which is: Islam kills.

On one side, we have al-Qaeda. And on
the other, we have these nuts.

Equating those who kill in Allah's name, at his command, and in accord with his apostle's example with those who report on those commands and example.

You have no shame, do you?

Hate speak and haters masquerading as human rights champions

I will continue to expose the perfidy of such people -- people like you -- as I have opportunity.

04/22/08 5:30 am

Last reply for the night

So many non-Muslim have become experts on quoting the Qarun to preach and condemn the violent and offensive parts of it. But these same peopl have not read the Bible (old and New Testament) and found the violent and offensive parts of it, otherwise they wouldn't be acting so sanctimonious.

That is an admission that Qur'an contains "violent and offensive parts." That's a step in the right direction.

However, your implication that the violence in Qur'an (and Sunnah) is of the same kind as that recorded in certain Biblical texts is a tu quoque argument. That's dishonest of you.

The Islamic texts require the enslavement or slaughter of all non-Muslims who refuse the "invitation" to Islam.

Violence recorded in the Bible includes: 1) Accounts of what people have done; 2) Capital punishment under the Mosaic Law for the people of Israel only; and 3) A one-time, narrowly-focused, limited command for Israel to wage war against several nations.

There is no Biblical command to war against anyone on the basis of their religion. In fact, Jesus said, "Love your enemies," and "treat your neighbor as yourself."

Where is that in Islam for non-Muslims? Instead, you have passages like 9:5: "kill the unbelievers wherever you find them . . . ."

like him have nothing to say about the fact that the Untied Statas accepts trillions of
dollars of investment money from the Saudis.

Spurious. That is a growing threat to America and serves to highlight the greed of our politicians.

the Untied States makes billions of dollars selling weapons to Saudi Arabia,

Arming those funding the global jihad is foolish.

You have nothing to say baout the fact that certain Western
coutnries while preaching human rights and democracy, go around
engaging in regime chage (even democratically ellected ones) and
support brutal dictators and kings who do their bidding?

Saddam was removed to protect American interests.

Was he not a "brutal dictator"?

As for Christians murdering and raping (another tu quoque!), it should be noted that when a Christian does such things, it is always in direct opposition to Christ's command and example.

However, when Muslims commit such crimes against non-Muslims who refuse conversion or submission, it is in obedience to Allah's command and Mohammed's example.

But I guess you and Geert Willders are not too concerned about these
Christians because the United Staes, Israel, and Europe benefit from
the diamonds and other natural resources, sales of weapons and the
slave labor.

As a matter of fact, I am currently enjoying [the] diamonds and natural resources prepared for me by my slave labor.

Another spurious ad hominem attack.

Renounce Mohammed's depravity and you will gain credibility.

Muslims who feign moderation in order to demonize critics of Islam are a threat to the West . . .

. . . not a courageous politician seeking to inform -- and thereby save -- his fellow citizens from an ancient and revitalized existential threat.

Ali Eteraz equates Geert Wilders -- a man documenting Islamic men preaching Islamic words and carrying out Islamic carnage -- with those very same malevolent monsters.

Disgusting.

And when Eteraz mentions the Dutch Parliament to legitimize his desire to censor Wilders, either he doesn't realize that that august body is teeming with cowards and appeasers who make Chamberlain look like Churchill (unlikely), or he hopes that his readers are too ignorant or lazy to do anything other than swallow what he's implying: If Wilders own government opposes him, he must be bad (and you are too, if you don't join the program).

Such an argument tells you all you need to know about on whose side Ali Eteraz and his ilk are in this civilizational struggle.

In response to more logical fallacies and half truths in defense of Allah from a promising practitioner of Islamic Newspeak:

Ali Eteraz still deceiving and hoping no one will notice, I see.

The author has conceded previously that Qur'anic verses requiring offensive violence against non-Muslims exist, but rather than address that fact in this forum and offer his "remedy" (his empty assertion that those commands were only for Mohammed; how can a mandate addressed to Muslims be only for Mohammed?), he employs an embarrassingly transparent ad hominem attack against Wilders.

Even if one or two of the passages in Fitna do not specifically apply to the carnage carried out in Allah's name with which they were connected (for example, burning is Allah's punishment, not for Muslims to use), the truth is that Wilders could have used so many others, for Qur'an and Sunnah demand slavery or death for all who refuse the "invitation" to Islam.

But again, just as in his misleading and stupidly disingenuous "refutation" of OBL's alleged misapplication of The Verse of the Sword," Ali Eteraz hopes that his charges of "Islamo-xeno-arabo-phobia!" and other red herrings will prevent non-Muslims from noticing that his god and prophet require the conversion, subjugation and humiliation, and death of all non-Muslims "until all religion is for Allah."

If only Muslims venerated Charlie and the Chocolate Factory rather than the word of Allah and the example of Mohammed. I'd trade "Oompa-Loompas" for "Allahu Akbars!" any time.

Here is what Ali Eteraz hopes to obfuscate:

Some of the Source and Sustenance of 1350 years of Allah's War Against Humanity:

"the Messenger of Allah . . . would say: 'Fight in the name of Allah and in the way of Allah. Fight against those who disbelieve in Allah. Make a holy war. . . . When you meet your enemies who are polytheists, invite them to three courses of action. . . . Invite them to (accept) Islam; if they respond to you, accept it from them and desist from fighting against them. . . . If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya. If they agree to pay, accept it from them and hold off your hands. If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah's help and fight them . . .'" (Muslim Book 19, Number 4294).

"fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war) . . . " (Qur’an 9:5).

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

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

"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).

[. . .]

There is much more to be found on th[is topic] (and others) from Islam's own "sacred" texts.

And in response to a comment by one of Eteraz's coreligionists:

04/20/08 4:40 am

I see Ali has brought along at least one of his hatchet men.

Let's look at Buzz Kill's "arguments," shall we?

Intelligent open free societies must constantly struggle to find the
right tension between absolute free speech and limited free speech.
Anyone that thinks American or European socities are built on the
bedrock of the first amendment or absolute free speech, which must be
doggedly protected, have never apparently heard of a libel suit, Bong
Hits 4 Jesus ( Morse v. Frederick ) or yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater."

Equating the reporting of the preaching and practice of religious texts with 1) lying and 2) a threat to public safety is accurate only when those texts are Islamic. But that's not what he meant, is it?

The blame lies not with the person reporting those facts, but with those commands and those who preach, defend, and seek to fulfill them today.

There are limits to free speech. Not every piece of grandstanding hate
speech deserves a soapbox in town hall. Sometimes, people must use the
judgement and exercise their free will to not allow hate into their
cities and towns.

Wilders opposes hate in his cities and towns, which is why he is exposing the word of Allah and the example of Mohammed.

In accord with Mohammed's example, Buzz Kill seeks to silence criticism of the pedophile prophet.

To demonize those exposing malice is perverse. He should be ashamed.

This has become particularly difficult with the internet and
something of a puzzle to solve.

Free speech is a problem only for tyrants and those with something to hide.

in this incident, at a time when anti-Muslim emotions have not been whipped up to the point of genocide, we can sit quietly and debate what we would and should do in times when political or religious hatred has become dangerously manipulated.

That's the pot calling the china "black." Nice try at "manipulating" the discourse.

Wilders exposes the genocidal impulse foundational to Islam, but Buzz Kill accuses those who would defend themselves against that impulse of harboring one!

Typical Muslim apologist: Blame the victim!

Apparently, Buzz Kill's shame knows no bounds.

Wilders is a Hitler with bad timing.

Ridiculous ad hominem.

I have an idea: Rather than libel someone exposing and denouncing the threat to humanity posed by the command of Allah and the example of Mohammed, why don't Ali Eteraz and Buzz Kill join him?

Some free speech doesn't promote freedom.

Not when it obfuscates for evil, as AE's column and BK's post do.

Man is saved by YHWH's grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone

Some thoughts in response to now-lost comments at Atlas Shrugs:

"Christianity is a simplified form of Judaism, originally designed for the Greek and Roman pagan masses."

The Christian Bible -- Old and New Testament -- was written by Jews. The Apostles were Jews. The first Christians were Jews. Jesus was (and is) the promised Messiah.

Christianity is for the Jews if it is for anyone.

"its little testament (the "New" testament) has superceded the Jewish testament (the "Old" testament)."

Israel did such a nice job upholding the Mosaic Covenant?

Christ came to fulfill all that was written about Him in the Law and Prophets.

The Old Covenant that came by way of Moses was one of works. The New Covenant, written in the Messiah's blood, is one of faith.

"the Muslims say they've superceded both Jews and Christians."

The perfect Lamb of God Who takes away the sin of the world on one hand, a lying, stealing, enslaving, raping, murderous, genocidal pedophile on the other.

The distinction is clear.

"All individuals who follow the Golden Rule have a "share in the world to come."

But YHWH says that the "soul that sins is the one who will die."

How can you possibly put your hope for eternal life in your works?

There is only one Sacrifice for sins, and that was made two thousand years ago by the true Paschal Lamb.

Islam: What the West needs to know

Another must-see video, from here.

We're at the last stage, the beginning of the end of the West

This will be our lament -- if there's anyone left to mourn.

From Alexander Fraser Tyler, warning the Founding Fathers of the dangers of democracy, since the Athenian republic had fallen because of an inherent weakness in democracy . . . allowing the ignorant, easily-manipulated [or selfish] common people to determine government policy:

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury.

"From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship.

"The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been two hundred years. These nations have progressed through this sequence: From bondage to spiritual faith; from spiritual faith to great courage; from courage to liberty; from liberty to abundance; from abundance to selfishness; from selfishness to complacency; from complacency to apathy; from apathy to dependence; from dependence back again into bondage."

And here is Aldous Huxley in the Forward to Brave New World, describing the end of the American experiment:

"Only a large-scale popular movement toward decentralization and self-help can arrest the present tendency toward statism . . . A really efficient totalitarian state would be one in which the all-powerful executive of political bosses and their army of managers control a population of slaves who do not have to be coerced, because they love their servitude. To make them love it is the task assigned, in present-day totalitarian states, to ministries of propaganda, newspaper editors and schoolteachers."

Socialism is slavery, in Jefferson's own words

Socialism is a form of statism that plays upon muddied, emotional misconceptions of charity and equality to justify appealing to others' greed and sense of entitlement for their votes.

The one who works and has the fruit of his labor taken from him at the point of a gun is made a slave to the State; the one who receives from the State the fruit of others' labor is made not only a dependent, but a thief.

The responsibility to earn one's daily bread is transferred to the State; the Christian responsibility for charity is transferred away also.

In matters of self-defense and national security, the same abdication of individual responsibility occurs. A citizen threatened by another calls for police rather than defend himself, and it is easy for a man to think to himself when his nation is at war, "Why should I go to fight? We have people who are paid to do that."

(What will become of that large, professional, standing army in the hands of a tyrant?)

The best solution for preserving Liberty is a militia, free men fulfilling their individual responsibilities to defend hearth and home, as our forefathers did.

From here:

On April 13, every American should raise a champagne glass high to toast the farmer, architect, scholar, revolutionary and American president born that spring day in 1743: Thomas Jefferson. One of our greatest Founding Fathers, Jefferson lovingly carved much of the government and character of his precious gem, America.

He penned numerous documents extolling the revolutionary ideas of his time, including the stirring words on the parchment that is the soul of America, "The Declaration of Independence." Yet how many of our current citizens – and elected officials – truly understand its meaning?

The Declaration launched the first country in history based on the principle that every individual possesses certain "unalienable" rights. According to Jefferson's writings, "free people [claim] their rights as derived from the laws of nature, and not as the gift of their Chief Magistrate." No tyrant can violate the rights of man, nor can any majority vote in Congress. "[T]he majority, oppressing an individual," says Jefferson, "is guilty of a crime ... and by acting on the law of the strongest breaks up the foundations of society."

Our rights belong to us as individuals, with each of us possessing the same rights. There are no "rights" of groups to any special favors or privileges. It is inappropriate, for example, for pizza eaters to lobby Congress for a "right" to a free pizza every Thursday. If Congress grants their wish, out of concern for their nourishment or their votes, it acts outside of its proper function. According to Jefferson, "Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare but only those specifically enumerated [in the Constitution]."

Our rights to life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness are rights to take action; they are not entitlements to the goods and services of others. Jefferson defined liberty as "unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others." This means we may act in our own behalf, for example, to earn money and buy a house, but we may not expect the government to tax others to provide us with a house for free.

Life requires productive work and effort to sustain it, a fact that Jefferson considered to be our glory. When his Monticello farm fell on hard times, he began producing nails, and did so proudly because "every honest employment is deemed honorable [in America]. ... My new trade of nail-making is to me in this country what an additional title of nobility ... [is] in Europe." He scorned the "idleness" of the European aristocracy, calling their courts "the weakest and worst part of mankind." What would he think of our current government's grants and handouts to countless special interest groups, a practice that rewards people for non-effort?

Our right to property means we have the right to keep the things we acquire. Does a rich person have less of a right to property than a poor person? According to Jefferson: "To take from one because it is thought his own industry ... has acquired too much, in order to spare others who ... have not exercised equal industry and skill is to violate the first principle of association, the guarantee to everyone the free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it." What would he think of the persistent cries of today's politicians to "tax the rich," thereby depriving them of their property and the pursuit of their happiness?

Jefferson ardently championed the spiritual and intellectual independence of the individual. He was so proud of authoring the "Bill for Establishing Religious Freedom" in Virginia that he had this fact etched on his tombstone. The bill ended the practice of paying the clergy with public funds because "to compel a man to furnish ... money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves is sinful and tyrannical." Jefferson believed that religion was a completely private matter and fought for a "wall of separation between church and state." He was "against all maneuvers to bring about a legal ascendancy of one sect over another"; and he swore "eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man." What would he think of today's attempts by religious lobbyists and elected officials to dictate public policy based on their faith?

Since, all laws are the codification of someone's morality, and American Liberty is founded upon the doctrines of Christ, the author's intent here is unclear. She continues:

Because we possess rights, governments are instituted. Wise government, explains Jefferson, "shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned." Government acts only to protect us from acts of force or fraud, apprehending perpetrators who pick our pockets or break our legs; otherwise, it does not regulate or control our lives in any way. Jefferson was "for a government rigorously frugal and simple ... and not for a multiplication of officers and salaries merely to make partisans. ..." What would he think of the 150,000-page Code of Federal Regulations and the swarms of agencies, commissions and departments that today swallow 40 percent of our national income?

Jefferson believed citizens to be capable of self-sufficiency because they possess reason. "Fix reason firmly to her seat and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion." He expected people to use their minds to overcome obstacles and control their own lives. He gently chastised his 15-year-old daughter when she had difficulty reading an ancient text on Roman history without the aid of her teacher. "If you always lean on your master, you will never be able to proceed without him. It is part of the American character to consider nothing as desperate – to surmount every difficulty. ..." Americans, he continued, "are obliged to invent and to execute; to find the means within ourselves and not to lean on others." To do otherwise, his daughter would be "thought a very helpless animal, and less esteemed." What would he think of today's entitlement programs, which destroy a person's capacity to think and act for himself, and transform him into a helpless dependent?

Within a mere page in the calendar of history, the powerful doctrine of individual rights led to the abolition of slavery, the suffrage of women and the spread of freedom to many countries around the globe. It all began with the founding of America.

Jefferson fought for a country in which the government had no power to encroach on the mind, the life, the liberty or the property of the individual. He fought for a country in which the individual was unshackled for the first time in history and could live for the pursuit of his own happiness, instead of being a pawn in the hands of the state. The way to pay tribute to Jefferson – and to ourselves – is to protest the hammering of our rights by officials who can't tell a diamond from a rhinestone, to hold dear the jewel that is America, and to polish the ideals for which Jefferson in the Declaration pledged his life, his fortune and his sacred honor.

Death by a thousand cuts

James Madison identified succinctly the strategy of many of our democratically-elected "public servants" (and their counterparts in the slow jihad):

"Since the general civilization of mankind, I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of freedoms of the people by gradual and silent encroachment of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations."

For several generations, American Education has been in the hands of those who despise Liberty and the God Who gave it to us. Science (fiction) and the Media have pounded the same rhythm, and the Church has cowered.

Since at least FDR (or Lincoln -- still thinking about that), the American president has violated (or done little to restore) the Constitutional limitations placed upon his power.

And not only the Executive, but also the Legislative and Judicial branches have gone far beyond the chains set upon them by the Constitution. What government official doesn't violate its principles in attempting to satiate his or her lust for power (McClintock, Thomas, and their few fellow patriots in power excepted)?

And in our ignorance, greed, and apathy, We the People not only allow this usurpation of our Rights won for us (and preserved today) by much better men (and women), we continue to vote for thieves and tyrants, surrender to them our birthright, and then thank them for the privilege of doing so.

[Seeing the success of America's own God-haters (mostly atheists, Communists, Socialists, and the sexually deviant), what approach has Islam adopted in its goal of establishing the tyranny of Allah over the United States?

Taking down our Towers has gotten many of them killed (have fun in Paradise, devils!), so most Muslims continue the slow jihad against us in our courts, legislatures, executive offices, financial institutions, and media.]

President Bush was supposed to be a Conservative. Considering the contempt for the Constitution and American sovereignty he shares with most Democrats, the only difference between President Bush and a liberal is that he expresses a muddled religiosity without supporting abortion or overtly hating the military.

On President Bush's perfidy, from here:

When President Bush expressed disappointment with the Supreme Court ruling that said neither he nor the World Court had the authority to order a Texas court to reopen a death penalty case involving a foreign national, I was a little puzzled.

I know it was Bush who sided with international law over U.S. sovereignty to set up the case. I know it was Bush who sided with a brutal murderer-rapist over state courts to set up the case. I know it was Bush who sided with Mexico and the World Court over common sense, decency and the rule of law.

But I was still a little taken aback by Bush's continued protests – even when the highest court in the land had rebuked him in a 6-3 decision.

Why was I surprised about Bush's reaction to the ruling in the case of Ernesto Medellin v. Texas that will clear the way for the execution for his part in a gang rape and murder attack on Jennifer Ertman, 14, and Elizabeth Peña, 15, as they walked home from a friend's home?

Well, I couldn't help think about the first time I met George W. Bush – before he became president. This was the one and only meeting I needed to know, without a doubt, Bush was clueless – destined, if elected, to be an inept leader faithless to the principles of American independence and self-government.

It was in that meeting that someone asked the former governor of Texas what he would do if a piece of legislation clearly unconstitutional arrived on his desk at the White House.

I will never forget Bush's chilling answer to that question.

"How will I know if it's unconstitutional?" he asked.

Perhaps in the last nine years Bush has realized that every American – and certainly every elected official – has an obligation to consider the Constitution, a duty to understand it and the intellectual integrity to determine whether our laws live up to the founding document of our republic.

Back then, he apparently thought only Supreme Court justices were qualified and empowered to make that determination. Last month, when the Supreme Court in convincing fashion stood up to Bush, the World Court, Mexico and the injustice they were all trying to ram down Americans' throats, apparently Bush believed the justices decided wrongly.

It was the right decision.

And it was a little surprising given the dangerous predilection of several members of the court to consider foreign laws in their deliberations.

While we should be encouraged by the ruling, Americans should be very concerned by the way elected leaders like Bush and appointed officials like some of our Supreme Court justices actually believe there are earthly, man-made laws higher that our own Constitution.

If that is so, then Americans are no longer a people in control of their own destiny. We are no longer a people empowered to govern ourselves. We no longer have a government of the people, by the people and for the people. We no longer have a government accountable to the will of the people and the rule of law.

Obviously, that is where globalists like Bush want to take America – where foreigners can dictate to Americans how they will mete out justice, where foreigners will tell Americans how to take care of their own property and manage their own environment, where foreigners will instruct Americans on how to conduct their foreign and domestic affairs.

This is the tragedy of the times in which we live. Our founders told us that only a moral people, only an educated people, only a freedom-loving people, only a people willing to sacrifice were suited to the kind of government they gave us. I'm no longer sure the American people are capable of self-government. I'm no longer sure the American people are worthy of the opportunity for self-government.

I'm reminded of what Judge Learned Hand wrote in 1944: "Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; when it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court can save it."

In the context of slavery, Thomas Jefferson said:

"can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with his wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just: that his justice cannot sleep for ever . . . ."

Americans make themselves slaves.