The kingdom of God is within you

The kingdom of God is not what the world expects.  Human nature demands a theology of glory.  When the Anointed One came, His Apostles expected a champion who would defeat the Romans and liberate Israel, "restoring the kingdom." (The people seeing Christ endure humiliation and torture at the hands of Rome without putting up in resistance so much as a word may go far toward explaining why the throngs of Palm Sunday cheering "Hosanna to the Son of David!" were replaced in less than a week by a bloodthirsty mob jeering Him to His death.)

But the Messiah, the great King, chose a different way.  Even though He could have done so, rather than use His divine power to subjugate and conquer, Christ chose to suffer and die for the sins of the whole world.  His theology is a theology of the Cross.  Though Christ accomplished what He had promised, He did not do it in the way men expected.  Jesus liberated God's chosen people -- all who trust in Him are the true Israel, whether Jew or Gentile -- from enemies greater than Rome: sin, death, and the devil.

Many Christians today want a glorious Christianity, a "victorious Christian life."  They want health, wealth, and the good opinion of men.  They want their enemies punished.  And Jesus is an end to their means.  They want a theology of glory.

One way this is expressed is in their interpretation of Christ's "thousand-year reign" mentioned in Revelation.  In their opinion, this reign is literal, with them in positions of authority (just as the Apostles schemed for themselves!).  But as Jesus did during His first advent, so He continues to do: God Incarnate rules through His Word and Sacraments, through grace, through humility.  Though to the world it appears often as though God has abandoned His people, He has not.  Though mockers might boast that "God is dead," He is risen again and will return at the Last Day to judge the world, at which time He will establish His visible kingdom among His people forever.

Some of those Christians who want a theology of glory offer in support of their doctrine Biblical references to believers' ruling with Christ and judging angels and His thousand-year reign mentioned in Revelation.  These factors indicate something other than a literal, thousand-year reign of Christ on Earth:

-John uses many symbols -- including symbolic numbers -- in his Revelation;

-Christ declared that His kingdom is not of this world but within the believer;

-Jesus commanded His people to give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to give to God what is God's; and

-Jesus declared that if He had desired it, His followers would fight to establish His rule on Earth.

It is worth noting also that when Christ speaks to His Apostles regarding His return in Matthew 25, a plain reading of the text doesn't show a Rapture/Great Tribulation/Thousand-year Reign (you pick the order) preceding Judgment Day.  According to His own word, when Christ returns, He will judge us all:

"When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne. Before him will be gathered all the nations, and he will separate people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats" (Matthew 25:31-32).

Following are some passages relating to the nature of Christ's kingdom and the rule of believers with Him.  Note in the first that the Apostles will "sit on twelve thrones" and judge the "twelve tribes of Israel."  Note also that this will occur "in the regeneration."  His taking His throne occurs upon His return at the Last Day, as indicated in the Matthew 25 passage above.  This is when the regeneration occurs:

"Then Peter answered and said to Him, 'See, we have left all and followed You. Therefore what shall we have?'

"So Jesus said to them, 'Assuredly I say to you, that in the regeneration, when the Son of Man sits on the throne of His glory, you who have followed Me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. And everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or wife or children or lands, for My name's sake, shall receive a hundredfold, and inherit eternal life. But many who are first will be last, and the last first'" (Matthew 19:27-30).

Note in the next passage the contrast between the visible and glorious expression of God's power on Earth when Moses received the Former Covenant and what believers receive now under the New Covenant in Christ's precious blood.  It is no less than the kingdom of God:

"For you have not come to what may be touched, a blazing fire and darkness and gloom and a tempest and the sound of a trumpet and a voice whose words made the hearers beg that no further messages be spoken to them. For they could not endure the order that was given, 'If even a beast touches the mountain, it shall be stoned.' Indeed, so terrifying was the sight that Moses said, 'I tremble with fear.'

"But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to innumerable angels in festal gathering, and to the assembly of the firstborn who are enrolled in heaven, and to God, the judge of all, and to the spirits of the righteous made perfect, and to Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood that speaks a better word than the blood of Abel. See that you do not refuse him who is speaking. For if they did not escape when they refused him who warned them on earth, much less will we escape if we reject him who warns from heaven. At that time his voice shook the earth, but now he has promised, 'Yet once more I will shake not only the earth but also the heavens.' This phrase, 'Yet once more,' indicates the removal of things that are shaken--that is, things that have been made--in order that the things that cannot be shaken may remain. Therefore let us be grateful for receiving a kingdom that cannot be shaken, and thus let us offer to God acceptable worship, with reverence and awe, for our God is a consuming fire" (Hebrews 12:18-29).

Next the term "royal" is applied to the Church, much of which endured severe persecution at this time.  In other words, they didn't look like kings:

"But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light" (1 Peter 2:9).

Here's more on Christians judging.  Unlike the passage noted earlier, this is not addressing the Apostles judging the Twelve Tribes of Israel, but all believers judging the world and angels:

"Or do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if the world is to be judged by you, are you incompetent to try trivial cases? Do you not know that we are to judge angels? How much more, then, matters pertaining to this life" (1 Corinthians 6:2-3)!

And here's a passage illuminating the judgment of fallen angels.  Note when their judgment is to occur: "the great day":

"And the angels who did not stay within their own position of authority, but left their proper dwelling, he has kept in eternal chains under gloomy darkness until the judgment of the great day . . ." (Jude 1:6).

Here again is mentioned the "day of judgment":

"For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but cast them into hell and committed them to chains of gloomy darkness to be kept until the judgment; if he did not spare the ancient world, but preserved Noah, a herald of righteousness, with seven others, when he brought a flood upon the world of the ungodly; if by turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to ashes he condemned them to extinction, making them an example of what is going to happen to the ungodly; and if he rescued righteous Lot, greatly distressed by the sensual conduct of the wicked (for as that righteous man lived among them day after day, he was tormenting his righteous soul over their lawless deeds that he saw and heard); then the Lord knows how to rescue the godly from trials, and to keep the unrighteous under punishment until the day of judgment . . ." (2 Peter 2:4-9).

Next, more thrones.  Those who remain faithful to Christ come to life and reign with Him for a thousand years."  This is called "the first resurrection."  Verse 6 notes that those who "share in the first resurrection" will be unharmed by "the second death" (being cast into the lake of fire on Judgment Day), reigning with Christ for a thousand years (Revelation 20:6).

The rest of the dead (unbelievers) resurrect after the thousand years end, on Judgment Day:

"Then I saw thrones, and seated on them were those to whom the authority to judge was committed. Also I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded for the testimony of Jesus and for the word of God, and those who had not worshiped the beast or its image and had not received its mark on their foreheads or their hands. They came to life and reigned with Christ for a thousand years. The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were ended. This is the first resurrection.

"Blessed and holy is the one who shares in the first resurrection! Over such the second death has no power, but they will be priests of God and of Christ, and they will reign with him for a thousand years" (Revelation 20:4-6).

Next, the believer's throne is contemporaneous with eating and drinking at Christ's table in His kingdom (calling to mind the marriage supper of the Lamb in heaven), and it is tied also to Christ's ascending His throne on Judgment Day.  We see also twenty-four white-robed elders with thrones:

"You are those who have stayed with me in my trials, and I assign to you, as my Father assigned to me, a kingdom, that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel" (Luke 22:28-30).

"The one who conquers, I will grant him to sit with me on my throne, as I also conquered and sat down with my Father on his throne" (Revelation 3:21).

"Around the throne were twenty-four thrones, and seated on the thrones were twenty-four elders, clothed in white garments, with golden crowns on their heads" (Revelation 4:4).

"And the twenty-four elders who sit on their thrones before God fell on their faces and worshiped God" (Revelation 11:16).

And the Judgment of Matthew 25 expanded in Revelation 20:

"Then I saw a great white throne and him who was seated on it. From his presence earth and sky fled away, and no place was found for them. And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Then another book was opened, which is the book of life. And the dead were judged by what was written in the books, according to what they had done. And the sea gave up the dead who were in it, Death and Hades gave up the dead who were in them, and they were judged, each one of them, according to what they had done. Then Death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire. And if anyone's name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire" (Revelation 20:11-15).

A second American Revolution

Massachusetts.  What an appropriate place for it to begin!

Actually, public discontent has been building a long time, but it boiled over all around the nation last year, as evidenced by the numerous Tea Parties across the country, private citizens emasculating their elected officials in local events, and the huge political defeats for the Democrats in the gubernatorial elections in Virginia and New Jersey.

Ironically (sadly? encouragingly!), Democratic reaction to their stunning humiliation last night portends even more intransigence in the push toward Socialism. President Obama explained away Brown's victory to people's being upset about not just the last couple of years, but the last eight years. In effect, Mr. Obama is crediting George W. Bush with putting Scott Brown in "Ted Kennedy's seat"! How's that for self-awareness!

(Senator-elect Brown's reply that the seat he sought to fill was not Kennedy's but "the People's seat" illustrates perfectly the chasm between our elected officials and us: Contrary to what they think, they work for us.  We are not their slaves.)

It is true that without Republican malfeasance during much of President Bush's time in office (and his endorsement of it), there is no way B. Hussein Obama would have been elected president (his personal charisma, good looks, and skills notwithstanding).

While the awakening of the American people in defense of its Liberty is encouraging, it cannot stop now.  It must continue until every self-aggrandizing, pompous, condescending tyrant who believes that We the People exist to provide him position -- rather than his position existing to protect our Rights -- is removed from office.

We the People must know and cherish those self-evident truths articulated powerfully in the Declaration of Independence, America's creed.  We must understand and defend the principles of limited government and individual rights codified in our Constitution and the Bill of Rights.  And we must keep ourselves informed of what the foxes are doing -- especially in the federal hen house -- since traditional media will not tell the truth about their co-ideologues in office.

We must elect honest men and women who will obey our Constitution and actually serve the People, not themselves.

Is it too much to hope that We the People not only can prevent a national euthanasia (Leftists like killing, except when it involves punishing criminals and terrorists; why do mass murderers have a greater right to life than babies, again?), but even roll back decades of Leftist usurpations of individual Liberty?

A subtle enhancement to this site

In the Latin underneath the title banner at the top of this page I've embedded (and then modified) several links. They're time-savers:

The phrase "In principio erat Verbum et Verbum erat apud Deum et Deus erat Verbum" ("In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God") links to posts here on Justification, the work of Christ by which He makes righteous all men.

The phrase "Verbum Domini Manet in aeternum" ("The Word of the Lord abides forever") links to posts here on the trustworthiness of Scripture.

The phrase "Verbum diaboli Manet in Episcopis Calvinus et Mahometus" ("The word of the devil abides in the bishops, Calvin, and Muhammad") links to posts on, respectively, Roman Catholicism*, Calvinism, and passages from Islam's "sacred" texts.

Perhaps you'll find these links (and the content to which they lead) useful.

*No, I am indicating no moral equivalence between Roman Catholicism and the devil, Calvinism, and Muhammad. The phrase "Verbum diaboli Manet in Episcopis" was a clever retort by a Reformation-era domestic servant to a bishop who was mocking the phrase stitched on the former's shirt: "Verbum Domini Manet in aeternum."  Since Calvin and Muhammad's heresies are clearly from hell, adding their names to that lying bishop's seemed clever.

The Church of Rome's positions on Justification and Authority are contrary to the clear words of Scripture**. I pray that the Roman church will make the Word of God its sole Source of Authority; from that will flow naturally the pure Gospel, which is this: Sinful Man is saved by God's grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone, and not by any effort, will, decision, attitude, or act on our part.

**Ironically, those in Protestantism*** who would condemn Roman Catholics as heretics in need of salvation are guilty usually of the same error, they just dress up in more "Bible-based"-sounding language. We don't "choose God," He chooses us. We don't "give our hearts to Jesus," He creates faith in us through His Word and Sacraments. We don't "make a decision for Christ," He took on human flesh, endured our wretchedness, obeyed the Law in our stead, died for our sins, and resurrected in order to bring eternal life to us all.

***One branch of Protestantism (and its progeny) has had a death-grip on Luther's coattails since the 16th century and hasn't let go yet. (You know who you are.) You can't call yourself a Reformation church if you deny its Spirit -- making "Reason" equal to Scripture in authority is neither "reasonable" nor Scriptural. The essential point of the Reformation was Christ crucified, died, and risen from the dead for us.

We should speak the words of God; no more, no less.

Self-loathing Westerners align themselves with shameless apologists for Muhammad's "sacralized" evil

Posted at the 'Blog Which Shall Not Be Named, in response to Mohamed Fadly, that tireless (and tiresome) apologist for Muhammad's hellish depravity:

"Ask and you'll get the information at once, no research necessary . . . " (Mohamed Fadly, emphasis added).

Of course Mohamed doesn't want you to do any research, Moonlite. He wants you to swallow whole his half-truths and outright, bald-faced lies.

I can understand Rory falling for that nonsense -- he'd rather count words than pay attention to what they mean -- but you? And you're a Christian?

Do you care that Muhammad called Christ a "blasphemer"? That he "sacralized" violating all Ten Commandments and the Golden Rule?

That Muhammad practiced genocide, pedophilia, rape, mutilation, torture, slavery, theft, extortion, polygamy, and religious and gender apartheid, claimed that "allah made me do it," and commanded others to do the same?

Did you even notice that Mohamed's quote commands to refrain from killing "those with whom we have a treaty"?

Of course Muhammad didn't want everyone dead; he needed non-Muslims from whom to extract tribute, slave labor, and sexual gratification.

That "my enemy's enemy is my friend," may be true in many cases, but like Mohamed's post, there's more to it when it comes to Islam.

Leftists may welcome a rival to Christianity now, but what you don't realize is that once Christianity is marginalized or dead in the West, you're next.

And Islam is no gentle master. Just ask all those around the world today and from the past 1400 years who've endured Muslim obedience 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. 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).

And this:

"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).

"The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter . . . " (Qur'an 5:33).

Ibn Kathir says of this verse: "'Wage war' mentioned here means, oppose and contradict, and it includes disbelief, blocking roads and spreading fear in the fairways. Mischief in the land refers to various types of evil." So, Muhammad requires execution, crucifixion, or cutting off hands and feet from opposite sides for "disbelief."

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

"It is not for any prophet to have captives until he hath made slaughter in the land. Ye desire the lure of this world and Allah desireth (for you) the Hereafter, and Allah is Mighty, Wise" (Qur'an 8:67).

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

So, Mohamed,

You never answered my question (though you deleted it from your site): What is it about Muhammad that appeals to you, the genocide, the mutilation and torture, or the pedophilia?

Are you still defending mid-fifties-Muhammad's raping little, nine-year-old, prepubescent 'Aisha by claiming, "She liked it!"?

Moonlite, do you care at all that you're allying with someone who defends such vile filth? Who facilitates pedophilia, rape, (actual) torture, slavery, and genocide on religious grounds?

Do you care that Rory is unable to denounce such utter evil?

Will you?

It's only moments now until Rory Graycrow Underclass posts something vulgar and nescient.

Update 1/9: To his credit, Rory's posted only a threat to go "Incredable Hulk" [sic] on me.  (Does that mean physical violence, in which case he doesn't know where I live, or does it mean he's going to post in only short phrases and guttural noises?  "'Nuff said!  Arrrgh!")

Here's my reply:

I knew Bill Bixby. You're no Bill Bixby.

And the fact is, not only did you refuse to denounce those atrocities, but now you give Mohamed Fadly -- whose defense of Muhammad's pedophilia is, "But she liked it!" -- a platform here and whatever legitimacy that confers.

You can't justify uncritically endorsing evil by claiming that you "have little time for long winded religious debates." You have a responsibility to know the subject matter you're promoting.

Now's as good a time as any to do the right thing. Do you denounce Muhammad's "sacralizing" genocide, pedophilia, rape, mutilation, torture, slavery, theft, extortion, polygamy, religious and gender apartheid, and blasphemy, his claiming that "Allah made me do it," and his commanding others to do the same, or not?

Update 1/11: Unfortunately, Graycrow could not maintain even a modicum of dignity, creating an account for the sole purpose of agitating, complete with a vile avatar.

Here's the latest:

"Anonymous" was me, of course.

As for name-calling, I did not call you a "useless idiot" (still reading carefully, I see). I used the term "Useful Idiot Dhimmi."

A "Useful Idiot" is someone who allows himself to be used to advance his own demise by those who intend him harm.

A "dhimmi" is a Jew or Christian (and sometimes Hindu or Zoroastrian) under the "protection" of Muslims, as in: "Give us your money, your honor, and your women and little girls, and we'll protect you . . . from us."

You're committing treason against humanity by obfuscating for jihad.

I do not intend to offend you; I'm merely trying to wake you up, prick your conscience, stir your pride.

If you are a Catholic, act like one! Tell the truth. Defend what is good in this world. Stop aiding those who believe it honors God to enslave or slaughter all who refuse conversion to their religion.

As to Qur'an 8:67, Tafsir Ibn Kathir notes regarding the verse that permission to take ransom for prisoners of war (and other spoils) was granted here.

Here are four translations (Pickthall, Yusuf Ali, Hilali-Khan, and Shakir) considered "orthodox" by Yet Another Qur'an Browser, none of which makes jihad a peaceful inner struggle:

008:067

"It is not for any prophet to have captives until he hath made slaughter in the land. Ye desire the lure of this world and Allah desireth (for you) the Hereafter, and Allah is Mighty, Wise."

"It is not fitting for a prophet that he should have prisoners of war until he hath thoroughly subdued the land. Ye look for the temporal goods of this world; but God looketh to the Hereafter: And God is Exalted in might, Wise."

"It is not for a Prophet that he should have prisoners of war (and free them with ransom) until he had made a great slaughter (among his enemies) in the land. You desire the good of this world (i.e. the money of ransom for freeing the captives), but Allah desires (for you) the Hereafter. And Allah is All-Mighty, All-Wise."

"It is not fit for a prophet that he should take captives unless he has fought and triumphed in the land; you desire the frail goods of this world, while Allah desires (for you) the hereafter; and Allah is Mighty, Wise."

Nope, no religion of peace here. Just a religion of offensive warfare, terror, slaughter, and ransom.

Help those harmed by Ft. Hood jihad attack

From here:

LaRue Tactical here in Texas has put together a fund raiser for our soldiers that fell at Ft. Hood in November. Every penny of your money goes to the Chaplain's Fund Office in Fort Hood and is being used to help the families of those impacted by the murders.

2010 is the tenth year of this decade . . .

. . . not the first of the next.

Don’t think we’re not keeping score, brother

Let's go to Mr. Obama for his reaction:

The (literally) Undocumented-Worker-in-Chief threatens Americans, prosecutes those who "mistreat" agents of the genocidal pedophile Muhammad, calls the Founding Fathers "potential domestic terrorists," and bankrupts and disarms the Republic.

Rather than treating our enemies in such a manner, instead he bows, embraces, surrenders, and apologizes to Leftist and Muslim tyrants.

It looks like someone's noticing.

The foolishness of America's electorate, the treasonous malfeasance of its "leaders," the heroism of its warriors

A picture is worth a thousand 'blog posts.

Found at the great Diana West's site, a Muslim enjoys with a smirk armor, training, candy, and security bought and paid for with American blood and treasure, while the American goes to inspect an explosive-laden house.  As Ms. West notes in her post title, we get bombs.  They get lollipops.

Why wouldn't the Muslim laugh? His coreligionists -- his "people" -- maim, rape, and slaughter in Allah's name -- in obedience to its commands and in accord with Muhammad's example, including nearly three thousand civilians on 9/11 and several thousands of our best and bravest since then -- and what do we do?

Not a manly, morally-certain, full-throated, and vigorous self-defense as in the olden time. Instead of ushering the barbarians to their virgins-in-hell, we bow and apologize and bribe.  We pay them billions in jizya and blood, just as Muhammad commanded.

How can this do anything but embolden the enemy?

What began under President Bush as good-intentioned-but-suicidal wrongheadedness founded on chronic (and therefore inexcusable, for how can any American after 9/11, especially the one charged with the duty of defending our unalienable Rights against all enemies, foreign and domestic, be still so stubbornly unknowing?) and colossal ignorance of the texts, tenets, tactics, and timelines of jihad is now an accelerated demoralization and decimation of our military, led by someone who, raised and educated in Islam, must know that the Source and Sustenance of jihad are the commands of Allah and the example of Muhammad.

(If even an apparently-decent, obviously-Muslim-in-Name-Only Muslim living here since he was thirteen goes apoplectic when someone tells the truth about Muhammad from his own texts -- and he had only "some classes" back in his country growing up so he was "aware of some of that" -- how can the Allegedly Former Muslim, the "smartest president ever," not know?)

Our military are handicapped by the cluelessness (malfeasance?  treachery?) of its leaders: General McChrystal stated recently that our warriors are overseas not to kill our enemies, but to convince them.

How do you win hearts and minds devoted to Allah?

Lollipops will convince them only that we are idiots.



Ms. West sums it up well:

This AP picture pretty much says it all but just to make sure, let's read the original caption:

In this picture taken Tuesday, Dec. 8, 2009, an Afghan police trainee from the United States Marine police mentoring program eats a lollipop as Marines search a house that was thought to have explosives during a joint patrol in Khan Neshin, in the volatile Helmand province of southern Afghanistan....

Insert primal scream.

And mass impeachment proceedings.  Remove them all from office.

On the distance between Heaven and hell

It's the span between Christ and Allah.

If only we had leaders today with the clarity and courage of John Quincy Adams (link found here, emphases in the original).

Instead we have "great world religion of peace" and "Let's not jump to any conclusions."

"And he [Jesus] declared, that the enjoyment of felicity in the world hereafter, would be reward of the practice of benevolence here. His whole law was resolvable into the precept of love; peace on earth – good will toward man, was the early object of his mission; and the authoritative demonstration of the immortality of man, was that, which constituted the more than earthly tribute of glory to God in the highest . . . The first conquest of the religion of Jesus, was over the unsocial passions of his disciples. It elevated the standard of the human character in the scale of existence . . . On the Christian system of morals, man is an immortal spirit, confined for a short space of time, in an earthly tabernacle. Kindness to his fellow mortals embraces the whole compass of his duties upon earth, and the whole promise of happiness to his spirit hereafter. THE ESSENCE OF THIS DOCTRINE IS, TO EXALT THE SPIRITUAL OVER THE BRUTAL PART OF HIS NATURE.

[. . .]

“In the seventh century of the Christian era, a wandering Arab of the lineage of Hagar [i.e., Muhammad], the Egyptian, combining the powers of transcendent genius, with the preternatural energy of a fanatic, and the fraudulent spirit of an impostor, proclaimed himself as a messenger from Heaven, and spread desolation and delusion over an extensive portion of the earth. Adopting from the sublime conception of the Mosaic law, the doctrine of one omnipotent God; he connected indissolubly with it, the audacious falsehood, that he was himself his prophet and apostle. Adopting from the new Revelation of Jesus, the faith and hope of immortal life, and of future retribution, he humbled it to the dust by adapting all the rewards and sanctions of his religion to the gratification of the sexual passion. He poisoned the sources of human felicity at the fountain, by degrading the condition of the female sex, and the allowance of polygamy; and he declared undistinguishing and exterminating war, as a part of his religion, against all the rest of mankind. THE ESSENCE OF HIS DOCTRINE WAS VIOLENCE AND LUST: TO EXALT THE BRUTAL OVER THE SPIRITUAL PART OF HUMAN NATURE

[. . .]

"Between these two religions, thus contrasted in their characters, a war of twelve hundred years has already raged. The war is yet flagrant . . . While the merciless and dissolute dogmas of the false prophet shall furnish motives to human action, there can never be peace upon earth, and good will towards men” (Blunt, pp. 268-269).

And from page 300 (emphases added):

The fundamental doctrine of the Christian religion, is the extirpation of hatred from the human heart. It forbids the exercise of it, even towards enemies. There is no denomination of Christians, which denies or misunderstands this doctrine. All understand it alike—all acknowledge its obligations; and however imperfectly, in the purposes of Divine Providence, its efficacy has been shown in the practice of Christians, it has not been wholly inoperative upon them. Its effect has been upon the manners of nations. It has mitigated the horrors of war—it has softened the features of slavery—it has humanized the intercourse of social life. The unqualified acknowledgement of a duty does not, indeed, suffice to insure its performance. Hatred is yet a passion, but too powerful upon the hearts of Christians. Yet they cannot indulge it, except by the sacrifice of their principles, and the conscious violation of their duties. No state paper from a Christian hand, could, without trampling the precepts of its Lord and Master, have commenced by an open proclamation of hatred to any portion of the human race. The Ottoman lays it down as the foundation of his discourse.

Falsely equating Islam with Christianity? Now that's "egregious stupidity."

From here:

Great, more Jesusnazi horse[deleted]. Thankfully, Choadette McJesusstein won't get the cash and this [deleted] will be relegated to the trash can where it most rightfully belongs.

I can't wait until my grandchildren look back at history at religion and ask "People actually believed that egregious stupidity?"

Don't murder.

Don't commit adultery.

Don't steal.

Don't lie.

Don't want what belongs to another.

Love your neighbor as yourself.

Love your enemies.

The foundation of Western Civilization and its advances in the sciences, law, morality, music, art, and literature.

You call that "egregious stupidity," and you hope your children do too.

You've made any sardonic reply on my part superfluous.

Well-played.

And to those equating falsely "all religions" -- especially Islam and Christianity -- let's see if you're able to discern any contrast between Christ and Muhammad.

According to eyewitnesses of both men (as recorded in each religion's authoritative texts):

Christ spoke only the truth, committed no sin, healed the sick, raised the dead, died for the sins of the whole world, and resurrected. He commanded His people to love even their enemies, just as He prayed for those who murdered Him.

On the other hand, Muhammad committed genocide, pedophilia, rape, mutilation, slavery, theft, extortion, deception, and blasphemy and commanded his followers to do the same, claiming "allah made me do it."

In other words, Christ overcame sin, death, and the devil by His own precious blood, but the criminally-insane Muhammad "sacralized" the violation of all Ten Commandments and the Golden Rule.

Even suicidally-ignorant, anti-Christian bigots should be able to pick out a difference or two there.

Presidential treason, or The Emperor's New Niqab

A president's first job is to protect the American people, something President Bush -- despite his faults -- obviously took seriously.

Obama? Not so much.

Clare M. Lopez tells the truth about jihad at Ft. Hood and our national security leadership's inability -- or unwillingness, beginning with The Other Hussein -- to defend properly American life and limb.

It's because they refuse to tell the truth about the Emperor's New Niqab, Islam:

A week after a Muslim jihadi gunned down more than 40 fellow citizens at Ft. Hood, Texas, America’s national security leadership still won’t admit that the attack had anything to do with Islam. By failing to acknowledge that connection, those with a constitutional duty to defend this nation “against all enemies foreign and domestic” consistently substitute a policy of political correctness at the expense of military readiness. The fact is that the 5 November 2009 attack that took the lives of thirteen American patriots was not just an act of terrorism: it was an act of war. When a gunman from the ranks of Islamic Jihad mounts an armed assault against a military target in complete consistency with the enemy doctrine of war, it is time to recognize that the U.S. actually is at war -- not just in Afghanistan or Iraq, but with all those who follow the call of Jihad. These are the Jihad Wars and the stakes are clear: shall Americans live in security under the Constitution or shall the enemy within and without compel us to submit to Shari’a (Islamic law)?

The few courageous commentators, like Colonel Ralph Peters, Bill O’Reilly, and Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn.), who dare to notice that U.S. Army Major Nidal Malik Hasan was born and raised a Muslim, yelled “Allahu Akbar (“God is the greatest”) while shooting people in the back, and sought Islamic fatwas from American-born Yemeni al-Qa’eda cleric Anwar al-Awlaki (who’d been his imam at the Dar Al-Hijrah Islamic Center in Falls Church, Virginia), have been ignored. Hasan told colleagues, "I'm a Muslim first and an American second." He proselytized his psychiatric patients, many with PTSD, trying to convert them to Islam -- and they complained about it. He gave a Power Point presentation while at the military’s Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences entitled ‘Why the War on Terror is a War on Islam" in which a classmate says he “justified suicide bombing" and spewed "anti-American propaganda.”

The Army knew about all of this. Further, the 9/11 Commission, Congress, and the FBI had all focused on al-Awlaki’s links to al-Qa’eda eight year ago. DIA issued an internal report in 2003 warning that Muslim soldiers in the U.S. military pose a possible security threat after Sgt. Hasan Akbar, a Muslim convert, killed two and wounded 15 others at a military camp outside Baghdad.

But in the days since the Ft. Hood massacre, U.S. Army Chief of Staff General George Casey has appeared more worried about the possibility that diversity in the military could become “a casualty” than he has about his constitutional duty to ensure force protection within the ranks of this country’s military, unit cohesion, and readiness to defeat this nation’s enemies. The reality that Maj. Hasan and Sgt. Akbar should alert us to is that some of those enemies are already inside the gates. They do not wear an enemy uniform or fight within the bounds of the Geneva Convention code. They pose as loyal Americans but render their true allegiance to Islam and Shari’a.

Obama's grandmother a "Christian" . . .

. . . Just like Obama.

Which explains everything . . . The "prettiest sound on Earth" . . . twenty-years in his Jew-and-America-hating spiritual mentor's "church" . . . lying for Islam in Cairo . . . his trip to Pakistan . . . his bleed-'em-dry military "strategy" in Afghanistan . . . his strong-arming Israel . . . talking to Ahmadinejad while he plays with his nukes . . . his obviously ridiculous obfuscating for Nidal Hasan's terrorism . . . his bankrupting and disarming the Republic . . . his ties to Muslim and other terrorists . . . .

Why, Christians are often invited into Mecca by the Saudi tyrant, aren't they?

From here:

The grandmother of US president Barack Obama has arrived in Saudi Arabia for the 'Hajj' or Islamic pilgrimage to the holy cities of Mecca and Medina, a Saudi daily said on Wednesday. Sarah Obama, 87, is being accompanied by a nephew and Obama's cousin, Omran.

On Wednesday Sarah Obama was in the valley of Mina with an African delegation, according to the Saudi daily Okaz.

Obama, the mother of the American president's father, lives in a village in Kenya and is one of the many guests of Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah bin Abdul Aziz al-Saud . . . .

America's suicidal self-loathing and the malice of the enemy within

Mark Steyn puts America's suicidal self-loathing and the malice of the enemy within into perspective here:

For the purposes of argument, let's accept the media's insistence that Major Hasan is a lone crazy.

So who's nuttier?

The guy who gives a lecture to other military doctors in which he says non-Muslims should be beheaded and have boiling oil poured down their throats?

Or the guys who say "Hey, let's have this fellow counsel our traumatized veterans and then promote him to major and put him on a Homeland Security panel?

Or the Army Chief of Staff who thinks the priority should be to celebrate diversity, even unto death?

Or the Secretary of Homeland Security who warns that the principal threat we face now is an outbreak of Islamophobia?

Or the president who says we cannot "fully know" why Major Hasan did what he did, so why trouble ourselves any further?

Or the columnist who, when a man hands out copies of the Koran before gunning down his victims while yelling "Allahu akbar," says you're racist if you bring up his religion?

Or his media colleagues who put Americans in the same position as East Germans twenty years ago of having to get hold of a foreign newspaper to find out what's going on?

General Casey has a point: An army that lets you check either the "home team" or "enemy" box according to taste is certainly diverse. But the logic in the remarks of Secretary Napolitano and others is that the real problem is that most Americans are knuckledragging bigots just waiting to go bananas. As Melanie Phillips wrote in her book Londonistan:

Minority-rights doctrine has produced a moral inversion, in which those doing wrong are excused if they belong to a 'victim' group, while those at the receiving end of their behaviour are blamed simply because they belong to the 'oppressive' majority.

To the injury of November 5, we add the insults of American officialdom and their poodle media. In a nutshell:

The real enemy — in the sense of the most important enemy — isn’t a bunch of flea-bitten jihadis sitting in a cave somewhere. It’s Western civilization’s craziness. We are setting our hair on fire and putting it out with a hammer.

New site, same tired logical fallacies, historical revisions, and outright falsehoods in defense of jihad

Offered in response to a "rebuttal," from here.* I hope Ms. Siddiqi is sincere but misinformed.

Hello, Maheen,

“freedom does not protect you from looking ignorant when you quote sacred text out of context.”

Please, show me where I’ve misrepresented the Islamic texts I posted. It should be easy to do, since I am so “ignorant.” (Didn’t Mr. Appel say we were supposed to be nice?)

“I encourage you to educate yourself on the sacred tradition of hijab and follow it through its heritage in all of the Abrahamic faiths, including Christianity.”

What “sacred tradtion” has hijab outside of Islam?

It is true that propriety in worship in the ancient church included clear gender
distinctions, but that was completely devoid of the tyranny in Muhammad’s
“revelation” and practice.

“Christianity too has quite a violent past but one should not blame the religion for the work of the ignorant. I do not attribute the savage crusades to the peaceful Christian friends that I have, and likewise, you should not attribute the evil works of some Muslims to the beautiful faith of Islam and other Muslims.”

[At least she admits Islam's "violent past." Now, to address the Source and Sustenance of that bloodshed!]

That’s a false moral equivalence and a false tu quoque, two “arguments” offered often by jihad’s apologists in response to the genocidal content of their own authoritative texts.

Where have I blamed “other Muslims”? Where did I “attribute the evil works of some Muslims to . . . Islam”?

I quoted Allah and his apostle.

Ironically (and tragically, for non-Muslims) enough, so do those Muslims practicing the “evil works.”

How are you going to convince them that they too are “ignorant” and taking passages “out-of-context”?

How will you persuade ["]all four Sunni schools of jurisprudence, Sahih Muslim, Sahih Bukhari, Sunan Abu Dawud, Ibn Kathir, Ibn Juzayy, Tafsir al-Jalalayn, Ibn Taymiyya, Ibn Khaldun, Muhammad Muhsin Khan, S. K. Malik [. . .] Averroes, al-Ghazzali, numerous Shi’ites,[" (credit Robert Spencer)] etc. of their grievous error?

Are you honestly unaware of Islam’s traditional understanding and practice of offensive jihad against non-Muslims? If not, will you engage in honest discourse? If you are unaware, how can you engage in intelligent discourse?

Christians did commit great sins during the Crusades. (Do you know why the first was called by Pope Urban II? It was for the defense of Christians under siege by . . . Islam.)

When Christians murder, do they do so in fulfillment of Christ’s commands and in accord with His example or not? Since you are expert enough in Christian theology to claim that the hijab is a sacred tradition in Christianity, you must know the answer.

Produce one verse that has Christ commanding believers to enslave or slaughter non-Christians.

Since you are so well-versed in Islamic theology that you can say that I am “ignorant” and taking passages “out-of-context,” when Muslims slaughter innocent non-Muslims in Allah’s name, is that in fulfillment of his commands and Muhammad’s example, or not?

When, “Allah’s Apostle said, ‘I have been made victorious with terror . . . ’” (Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 220), did he really mean, “I’ve succeeded by love and good deeds”?

“If you go so far as to denigrate the Prophet Muhammad”

“denigrate”?

Muhammad married little Aisha when she was six and began raping her when she was nine. What “context” makes that okay? Does that not deserve “denigration”? Are you aware that one of Khomeini’s first acts when he came to power was to lower the marriageable age of girls in Iran to nine? Why is that?

What about Muhammad’s assassinations of those who mocked him — Asma bint Marwan, Abu Akaf? The beheading of the 600-900 bound prisoners of the Banu Qurayza? Muhammad and his followers raping women whose brothers, fathers, and husbands they had just slaughtered? The attack on the innocent Jewish farmers, tilling their fields in the Khaybar Oasis [(credit Hugh Fitzgerald)]? What decent person should not feel rage at such evil?

That is the “Perfect Man,” “uswa hasana[,]” you defend.

If someone who commits theft, slavery, rape, pedophilia, genocide, and blasphemy — and commands others to do the same, calling it “divine” — does not deserve to be denigrated, who does?

More importantly, how can any decent person aware of what Muhammad said and did not condemn his words and deeds?

You claim respect for the Prophets of YHWH and His Christ — how then can you defend Muhammad? For he stated that whoever claims Allah has a son is a blasphemer. If Allah is YHWH (He is not), then Muhammad is calling Jesus a “blasphemer,” since Christ called Himself the Son of God.

“Just look at Spain. Muslims, Christians, Jews, and agnostics/atheists all lived peacefully under the Muslim rule of Spain for hundreds upon hundreds of years; however, the moment Christians overthrew the Muslims, they slaughtered every Muslim man, woman, elderly and child.”

If things were so peaceful, why did the Spaniards slaughter “every Muslim” as soon as they regained their freedom? Why did they overthrow them in the first place?

So, is that what you’ve been taught, or is that what you’ve been taught to offer as a rebuttal to non-Muslims who discover Islam’s texts and history?

“Do a little more reading with the aid of understanding of what you read in a historical context, and you will find a lot of your false notions answered.”

You’re going to have to show from Qur’an, ahadith, and sira that:

-When Muhammad commanded, “Invite . . . demand the jizya . . . then fight,” he really meant, “Invite . . . make small talk . . . befriend.”

-When Muhammad told some Jews, “accept Islam and you’ll be safe,” he really meant, “Let’s have a potluck! How ’bout those Greeks?”

-When Muhammad began raping little nine-year-old Aisha, he was really only giving the local kids a puppet show.

-When Muhammad commanded that whomever leaves Islam should be murdered, he really only meant to exclude him from Bingo.

Here’s a final quotation for you; perhaps [Moses ben Maimon] didn’t really mean what he said, just like Muhammad:

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

[Although we were dishonored by them beyond human endurance, and had to put up with their fabrications, yet we behave like him who is depicted by the inspired writer: “But I am as a deaf man, I hear not, and I am as a dumb man that openeth not his mouth (Psalm 38: 14).

Similarly our sages instructed us to bear the prevarications and preposterousness of Ishmael in silence . . .

We have acquiesced, both old and young, to inure ourselves to humiliation . . .

All this notwithstanding, we do not escape this continual maltreatment which well nigh crushes us.

No matter how we suffer and elect to remain at peace with them [Muslims] they stir up strife and sedition . . .]

-Maimonides, victim of Islam in conquered Spain[, Iggeret Taiman (Epistle to Yemen), edited by A S Halkin; translated by B. Cohen, New York, 1952]

Al-Andalus [or any other Muslim-dominated land] was no paradise for non-Muslims. It was — to varying degrees — just what Allah requires (Qur’an 9:29). Pact of Umar, anyone? You know what that requires, right?

Again, please show from the Islamic texts where I’ve erred. Show me where I’ve been false or unfair.

I encourage you to put your faith in Christ, the Son of God, Who reconciled you to His Father in His body on the cross. True religion is in Him alone.

And here is how Maimonides ended up in Cairo:

Moses was only thirteen years old when Cordova fell into the hands of the fanatical Almohades, and Maimon and all his coreligionists there were compelled to choose between Islam and exile. Maimon and his family chose the latter course, and for twelve years led a nomadic life, wandering hither and thither in Spain.

In 1160 they settled at Fez, where, unknown to the authorities, they hoped to pass as Moslems. This dual life, however, became increasingly dangerous. Maimonides' reputation was steadily growing, and the authorities began to inquire into the religious disposition of this highly-gifted young man.

He was even charged by an informer with the crime of having relapsed from Islam, and, but for the intercession of a Moslem friend, the poet and theologian Abu al-'Arab al-Mu'ishah, he would have shared the fate of his friend Judah ibn Shoshan, who had shortly before been executed on a similar charge. These circumstances caused the members of Maimonides' family to leave Fez. In 1165 they embarked, went to Acre, to Jerusalem, and then to Fostat (Cairo), where they settled.

Death or Islam?  Wandering for twelve years?  Trying to pass as Muslims?  Shared the fate of his friend, executed for "relapsing from Islam"?

So much for that "Golden Age of Islam in Al-Andalus."

*Updated November 16, 2009 a.D.  Originally posted 05/11/09 at 12:28 AM

A visit to Ms. Siddiqi's  site shows that she never had the decency to post my incisive and irrefutable rebuttal.

Link between Ft. Hood terrorist Hasan and other Muslim killers discovered

Islam.

"We can never know why"? Everyone knows why . . .

Only the ignorant, treacherous, and perverse argue otherwise.

Hugh Hewitt rejects the monitoring of American mosques, even though at least three-fourths teach Islamic supremacism in accord with Qur'an and sunnah.

John and Ken finally find the voice to denounce Islam, though they still moderate the truth with "-isms" and "-ists."

Both are more truthful than the allegedly former-Muslim Obama.

And after so many lives taken, broken, and destroyed in the name of Allah, some referred (sarcastically, in the beginning) to the cause of Hasan's slaughtering as "Pre-Traumatic Stress Disorder."

How stupid. How treacherous.

Muslims like Muslims Against Shari'a and M. Zuhdi Jasser excepted -- I commend their honesty and decency -- every Muslim who knows what their god and prophet require regarding offensive and retaliatory jihad against non-Muslims but does not denounce those teachings publicly and permanently is a terrorist or terrorist-supporter.

For every one who actually carries out violence against "unbelievers," how many more support, approve of, or appreciate jihad attacks like Hasan's?

If you want to claim that most Muslims are peace-loving, law-abiding, faithfully-serving-in-the-Armed-Forces kinds of Muslims, then I have a question for you: How do you distinguish between those who actually reject permanently offensive warfare against "unbelievers," the rape and degradation of women and little girls, and death for apostates and those who instead obey Allah?

Would you have us wait until blood is spilled again?  That may soothe your false sense of self-righteousness, your rotting facade of "tolerance," but what about the dead and wounded?  What about lives which in this world cannot be mended?

And when your sons and daughters are the ones raped, beheaded, or vaporized in Allah's name, what will you say?  "How could I have known?"

The truth is, as long as you persist in the pernicious lie that Islam is a "great world religion of peace," you can have no sure way of determining who is sympathetic (or worse) to jihad.

But I have a way: Point out to your decent, he's-a-swell-fellow, wouldn't-hurt-a-fly, he's-just-like-us Muslim what Allah commands and what Muhammad said and did.

Do they admit, condemn, and denounce those teachings, or do they explode?

If someone believes that their god commands, "kill the pagans wherever you find them . . . Fight against . . . the People of the Book until they feel themselves subdued and pay the jizya . . . Paradise [belongs to those who] kill and are killed [fighting in Allah's cause]" (Qur'an 9), then that person is an agent of jihad, whether they contribute to it with their actions, "charitable contributions," litigation, materiel, logistics, votes, letters to the editor, prayers, or reproductive organs.

Since Allah commands and Muhammad practiced offensive warfare against non-Muslims in order to make the world Islam, what EXACTLY is the difference between an "Islamo-fascist, fundamentalist, extremist, fanatical, radical, jihadist, Islamicisi-cisi-cisi-cist" and a "moderate" Muslim?

And B. Hussein Obama aids jihad by outright lying about Islam in general (the Cairo Address) and Hasan's motivations in particular ("We can never know why.").

America, you've surrendered the keys to the kingdom -- you've given defense of the kingdom -- to the Muslim barbarian hordes.

Devout Muslim slaughters and wounds dozens of Americans, and what is our government's response?

Protect Muslims.

That would be like protecting Imperial Japanese pilots in America the week after Pearl Harbor.

It is not enough that our politicians are bankrupting and disarming the nation.

They work now with the Organization of the Islamic Conference, the United Nations, and the Department of Homeland Security to criminalize telling the truth about Islam.

Just so we're clear about this: Muslims butcher innocent people in obedience to Allah and in accord with Muhammad's example, but when free men state that simple fact, we're the criminals.

From here:

The U.S. Homeland Security secretary says she is working to prevent a possible wave of anti-Muslim sentiment after the shootings at Fort Hood in Texas.

Janet Napolitano says her agency is working with groups across the United States to try to deflect any backlash against American Muslims following Thursday's rampage by Army Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, a Musim who reportedly expressed growing dismay over the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Would those "groups" include CAIR?  MPAC?  ISNA?  Hizb'allah?  Al Qaeda?  The Taliban?

You wouldn't want Americans thinking.  They might start getting ideas, putting two and two together, start defending themselves . . . .

Socialism or shari'a?

First one:

 Then the other:

These are the faces of the enemy.

This is the decline and fall of the American republic.

Considering Muhammad's rabid feminism, why would a woman -- or little girl -- ever want to leave?

In response to more Muslim misrepresentation of Muhammad's malignant malice and misogyny here:

Hey, Bob, Leigh14 is practicing taqiyya. You've just been had.

If you define Islam as a religion based on the Qur'an, these men are not Muslims, either. The Qur'an is the most liberal and supportive toward women of the three Abrahamic religious books.

This is true only if the definition of "liberal and supportive" includes rape, child-rape, wife-beating, considering a woman's testimony worth only half of a man's, valuing a daughter so little that she receives half the inheritance of a son, and requiring a rape victim to have four witnesses -- which, of course, she will not, and so will she be executed for [admitting to] sexual intercourse outside of marriage.

[On the other hand, Christ commands His people to "Love your neighbor as yourself," and, "Treat others the way you want to be treated." He declares through His apostle: "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus" (Galatians 3:28).]

Here is what Sunni Islam has to say about "honor killings":

"A manual of Islamic law certified by Al-Azhar as a reliable guide to Sunni orthodoxy says that 'retaliation is obligatory against anyone who kills a human being purely intentionally and without right.' However, 'not subject to retaliation' is 'a father or mother (or their fathers or mothers) for killing their offspring, or offspring's offspring.' ('Umdat al-Salik o1.1-2)."

Speaking of 'Umdat al-Salik:

"There is no doubt that this translation is a valuable and important work, whether as a textbook for teaching Islamic jurisprudence to English speakers, or as a legal reference for use by scholars, educated laymen, and students in this language." Dr. Taha Jabir al-'Alwani, International Institute of Islamic Thought (Herndon, VA; December 1990).

"...We certify that this translation corresponds to the Arabic original and conforms to the practice and faith of the orthodox Sunni community (Ahl al-Sunnah wa al-Jama'a)." al-Azhar, the Muslim world's most prestigious institution of higher Islamic learning (Cairo; February, 1991).

Leigh14 is correct about the "Christians" noted above; no one can murder, rape, or torture in obedience to Christ's commands.

On the other hand, not only the command of Allah -- Qur'an -- but the life of Muhammad -- recorded in [a]hadith and sira -- [is] considered authoritative by Islam.

Following is some of what Qur'an says regarding the treatment of females [. . .]

"Paradise" is a cosmic brothel:

"As to the Righteous (they will be) in a position of Security, Among Gardens and Springs; Dressed in fine silk and in rich brocade, they will face each other; So; and We shall join them to fair women with beautiful, big, and lustrous eyes" (Qur'an 44:51-54).

Allah-ordained child-rape:

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

Beat your wives if "you fear desertion." Considering Muhammad's vile sadism, why would a woman -- or little girl -- ever want to run?

". . . good women are therefore obedient, guarding the unseen as Allah has guarded; and (as to) those on whose part you fear desertion, admonish them, and leave them alone in the sleeping-places and beat them . . . " (Qur'an 4:34).

Rape your wife at will:

"Your women are a tilth for you (to cultivate) so go to your tilth as ye will" (Qur'an 2:223).

A woman's testimony is worth only half of a man's:

"Get two witnesses, out of your own men, and if there are not two men, then a man and two women, such as ye choose, for witnesses, so that if one of them errs, the other can remind her" (Qur'an 2:282).

Polygamy, and raping your female slaves:

"If ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly with the orphans, marry women of your choice, two or three or four; but if ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly (with them), then only one, or (a captive) that your right hands possess, that will be more suitable, to prevent you from doing injustice" (Qur'an 4:3).

Murdering women accused of "lewdness":

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

A daughter receives only half of what a son does:

"Allah (thus) directs you as regards your children's (inheritance): to the male, a portion equal to that of two females" (Qur'an 4:11).

Why women must be hidden like someone's property:

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

Raping married slaves:

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

Here are a couple of ahadith regarding Muhammad's favorite wife Aisha. He was in his fifties when he "married" her.

She was six.

And Aisha was a little, prepubescent nine-year-old when he began raping her:

"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).

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

But Christ warned:

"whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened around his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea" (Matthew 18:6).

Muhammad must be in a special part of hell.

Muslim butchers Americans at Ft. Hood; U.S. president and media obfuscate regarding motive

Here's a hint, feckless cowards, perfidious liars: Islam.

And why is an unindicted coconspirator in a federal terrorism funding trial with umbilical cords still attached to the Muslim Brotherhood -- whose stated purpose is to accomplish what the Muslim devil executed today -- being treated as anything other than enemies of humanity?

As long as America's "leaders" continue to obfuscate and outright lie for Islam, the bloodletting is only going to get worse.

A U.S. soldier opened fire Thursday at Fort Hood, Texas, killing at least 11 people and wounding 31 others, military officials said. The gunman was shot to death, and two other soldiers were in custody.

Lt. Gen. Robert W. Cone, commanding general of the Army’s III Corps, who briefed President Barack Obama on the shootings, said the gunman used two handguns.

NBC News’ Pete Williams reported that a U.S. official identified the gunman as Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, who was 39 or 40. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchinson, R-Texas, said military officials told her that the gunman was about to be deployed to Iraq and was “upset about it.” The Associated Press reported that Hasan was a mental health professional.

A senior administration official told NBC News that the shootings could have been a criminal matter rather than a terrorism-related attack and that there was no intelligence to suggest a plot against Fort Hood.

Yes, there is "no intelligence," since the only "plot" a Muslim needs to slaughter "the worst of creatures" is the command of Allah and the example of Muhammad.

Military and local hospital official said the victims were a mixture of men and women, military and civilian. At least one of those killed was a civilian police officer, Cone said. At least four local SWAT officers were among those wounded, NBC affiliate KCEN-TV of Waco reported.

Fort Hood, one of the largest military complexes in the world, was on lockdown, as were schools in the area. Dozens of agents of the FBI and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives responded to the post, federal officials said.

Muslim group condemns shootings
Speaking in Washington, Obama called the shootings a “horrific incident.”

Obama's part of a "Muslim group"?  Isn't that racist?

And it wasn't a "horrific incident," it was jihad.

If The Other Hussein is such a smart guy -- the smartest president we've ever had, according to Michael Beschloss -- and since he was educated in Islam as a devout Muslim, he ought to know jihad when he sees it.

That he won't admit that fact -- and thereby warn the American people and enable an effective and vigorous self-defense -- tells us all we need to know about where his allegiances lie.

“It’s difficult enough when we lose these great Americans in battles overseas,” Obama said at the Interior Department. “It’s horrifying that they should come under fire at an Army base on American soil.”

Noting the Arabic nature of the gunman’s name, the Council on American-Islamic Relations, a Washington interest group, condemned “this cowardly attack in the strongest terms possible and ask that the perpetrators be punished to the full extent of the law.”

Just like Hasan's fellow soldiers, who took his comment about wishing that "Muslims would rise up against the aggressors" to mean that he wanted Muslims to aid America against the terrorists, you probably think that CAIR is referring to Hasan and anyone who helped him as "the perpetrators."

They're actually referring to those who stopped Hasan.

”No political or religious ideology could ever justify or excuse such wanton and indiscriminate violence,” the council said in a statement. “The attack was particularly heinous in that it targeted the all-volunteer army that protects our nation. American Muslims stand with our fellow citizens in offering both prayers for the victims and sincere condolences to the families of those killed or injured.”

No ideology except their own, they mean.

Wake up, America

Pat Condell understands Islam (it's too bad he wrongly equates Christianity with Islam and the freedom Christ gives with tyranny and violence. Pat, Western notions of Liberty have at its core the teachings of Christ.  "For freedom Christ has set us free" (Galatians 5:1).)

If we do not defend our liberties against Islamic and Domestic Tyranny, we will lose them.

On the nature and name of the Triune God

On challenges from a decent Muslim to the nature and name of the Triune God:

As to "how often he is referred to as 'YHWH' in the Bible?"

Almost 6700 times.

It's hard to find anything in the Bible about the 'Holy Spirit.'

That's funny, because "Holy Spirit" is found in 92 verses, and "Spirit of God" turns up in 26:

Psalms 51:11; Isaiah 63:10,11; Matthew 1:18,20; 3:11; 12:32; 28:19; Mark 1:8; 3:29; 12:36; 13:11; Luke 1:15,35,41,67; 2:25,26; 3:16,22; 4:1; 10:21; 11:13; 12:10,12; John 1:33; 14:26; 20:22; Acts 1:2,5,8,16; 2:4,33,38; 4:8,25,31; 5:3,32; 6:5; 7:51,55; 8:15,17,19; 9:17,31; 10:38,44,45,47; 11:15,16,24; 13:2,4,9,52; 15:8,28; 16:6; 19:2,6; 20:23,28; 21:11; 28:25; Romans 5:5; 9:1; 14:17; 15:13,16; 1 Corinthians 6:19; 12:3; 2 Corinthians 6:6; 13:14; Ephesians 1:13; 4:30; 1 Thessalonians 1:5,6; 4:8; 2 Timothy 1:14; Titus 3:5; Hebrews 2:4; 3:7; 6:4; 9:8; 10:15; 1 Peter 1:12; 2 Peter 1:21; Jude 1:20

and

Genesis 1:2; 41:38; Exodus 31:3; 35:31; Numbers 24:2; 1 Samuel 10:10; 11:6; 19:20,23; 2 Chronicles 15:1; 24:20; Job 27:3; 33:4; Ezekiel 11:24; Matthew 3:16; 12:28; Romans 8:9,14; 15:19; 1 Corinthians 2:11,14; 7:40; 12:3; Ephesians 4:30; Philippians 3:3; 1 John 4:2

And no, "Father, Son, and Holy Spirit" are the direct words of Christ:

"Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit . . ." (Matthew 28:19).

"We believe that Christ (Isa) was a prophet, not the Son of God. But again, that's just an opinion."

Jesus called Himself the "Son of God" and, "I AM," the name by which YHWH revealed Himself to Moses.

Every Surah in the Koran starts with "In the name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful." Sometimes it's translated as "Most Merciful, Most Compassionate."

Sura 9 does not.

Of the rest, several contain the commands for violence against non-Muslims, apostates, and women; Suras 4,5, and 8 come immediately to mind

In the ESV, NIV, and King James (at least; I haven't looked at other translations), YHWH in the Old Testament is translated into English as "The LORD." In the New Testament, which was written in Greek, rather than use "YHWH," the authors used Kurios, which is also translated "LORD" (all caps).

No man can produce a chapter equal to Qur'an's Sura 9

Not even Hitler, and I'm sure he would have if he could have.

No, the source of Sura 9 and its supporting texts is something more . . . diabolical.

(Notice the red herring introduced slyly by the Muslim below.)

akhter wrote:

produce a chapter similar to the one in the glorious,you say Mohammad wrote the book

No, Muhammad was illiterate.

And a chapter like Sura 9?

You're right. I cannot produce anything approaching the level of "glory" to which Qur'an 9 descends.

Unlike Allah (and all other gods, in fact), YHWH's miracles were done in plain sight, in history; no secret Moon-splitting, midnight flights, nor "divine revelations" on the word of one, utterly-depraved criminal

A few thoughts on religious matters, offered to a friend . . .

It is wise to be skeptical.

Unlike Allah (and all other gods, in fact), YHWH's miracles were done in plain sight, in history; no secret Moon-splitting, midnight flights, nor "divine revelations" on the word of one, utterly-depraved criminal.

From a plain reading of the Joshua passage you note (an historical account not necessarily devoid of symbolic meaning; when you're the Author of the universe, you can have both), the day standing still was intended primarily to allow Israel to defeat its enemies.

On the other hand, YHWH's defeating Egypt when He delivered Israel from slavery there and their preservation during forty years of wandering were intended to show His power and mercy.

Christ's miracles too were intended as signs so that Israel (and we) would believe that He was (is) the Promised Messiah, but even those were considered by Him as secondary; His person and words should be enough:

Philip said to him, "Lord, show us the Father, and it is enough for us."

Jesus said to him, "Have I been with you so long, and you still do not know me, Philip? Whoever has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, 'Show us the Father'? Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me?

The words that I say to you I do not speak on my own authority, but the Father who dwells in me does his works. Believe me that I am in the Father and the Father is in me, or else believe on account of the works themselves" (John 14:8-11).

Unlike Muhammad's self-serving fusion of the "religious" and the political, Christ made a careful distinction between the two.

Faith in Him has nothing to do with societal majorities or being acceptable to friends, neighbors, or countrymen.

Jesus came to make us sinners acceptable to God. He came to bear our sins and be our Savior, to reconcile us to His Father in His body on the cross.

Christ does not demand that anyone believe, "Because I said so," or, "Believe, or else!"

He proved His power and love over and over again in public, in front of the whole world, in full view of multiple eyewitnesses (including hostile ones), in history.

As He did with Unbelieving (not "Doubting") Thomas -- who would not believe in the Resurrected Christ unless he saw and touched His wounds -- so Jesus does with us:

Now Thomas, one of the Twelve, called the Twin, was not with them when Jesus came. So the other disciples told him, "We have seen the Lord."

But he said to them, "Unless I see in his hands the mark of the nails, and place my finger into the mark of the nails, and place my hand into his side, I will never believe."

Eight days later, his disciples were inside again, and Thomas was with them. Although the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, "Peace be with you." Then he said to Thomas, "Put your finger here, and see my hands; and put out your hand, and place it in my side. Do not disbelieve, but believe."

Thomas answered him, "My Lord and my God!"

Jesus said to him, "Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."

Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name" (John 20:24-31).

Will he argue -- as he did for Muhammad's raping little, prepubescent Aisha beginning when she was only nine-years-old -- that that camel liked it?

Posted at a patriot's site:

(Bukhari Volume 8, Book 82, Number 794): Narrated Anas:

Some people from the tribe of 'Ukl came to the Prophet and embraced Islam. The climate of Medina did not suit them, so the Prophet ordered them to go to the (herd of milch) camels of charity and to drink, their milk and urine (as a medicine). They did so, and after they had recovered from their ailment (became healthy) they turned renegades (reverted from Islam) and killed the shepherd of the camels and took the camels away. The Prophet sent (some people) in their pursuit and so they were (caught and) brought, and the Prophets ordered that their hands and legs should be cut off and that their eyes should be branded with heated pieces of iron, and that their cut hands and legs should not be cauterized, till they die.

Hello, Mohamed.

I've had a lot of time to think over what I might have done wrong in order for you to forbid my posting at your site and to delete my comments quoting your allah and its prophet.

If what I was saying was false or in error or just plain nonsense, that should have been easy to demonstrate. You could have left up my words and your refutations of them in order to shame me publicly into perpetuity.

But you didn't. Why not?

It's a little ironic, isn't it? I disallowed Underclassed's comments for gratuitously and undeservedly insulting Reb and for his virulent use of profanity-as-argumentation, but you ban me for . . . telling the truth?

What does that say about you, Mohamed? Your arguments? Your god? Your prophet?

I have a question about Muhammad the Physician: Since he prescribed drinking camel urine for medicinal purposes, do you also drink camel urine (when the climate doesn't suit you, that is. We mustn't take anything out-of-context!)?

If not, how can you defend him as the Perfect Man, as Allah's "beautiful pattern of conduct"?

If you do, will you argue that camel urine used to provide a health benefit, but that only Muslims, and not other civilizations, noticed?

Will you argue -- as you did for Muhammad's raping little, prepubescent Aisha beginning when she was only nine-years-old -- that that camel liked it?

Or will you argue that infidel science has yet to determine the salutary effects of that magic elixir?

As far as convincing proofs go, Jesus did not turn clay into doves; that is an apocryphal story, not historical fact (as in the canonical books).

But if He had, Jesus would not have needed "the help of God," as if He were not God Incarnate Himself, which is your implication, is it not?

Finally, since Christ spoke only the truth, committed no sin, healed the sick, raised the dead, died for the sins of the whole world (including you and me) -- and Himself resurrected and appeared to hundreds of eyewitnesses on many occasions over 40 days -- why do you not believe Him?

Instead you defend as "holy" Muhammad, who blasphemed the Living God you claim to worship, lied, stole, destroyed, enslaved, raped, mutilated, and slaughtered gratuitously. You defend all of it as "divine," going so far as to assert as scientific fact incidents that no one in the world ever witnessed.

What is it about Muhammad that convinces you to believe him? Is it the deceit? The genocide? The torture, The mutilation?

Is it his having assassinated poetesses while they nursed? His beheading prisoners of war? His murdering apostates?

Is it his anti-Semitism? His hatred for Christians? Animists? Hindus?

Is it the sex slaves? The rape?

Is it the Allah-ordained pedophilia that moves you so?

John and Ken's contempt for Christianity aids Muslim obfuscation for jihad

A (now open) letter:

John and Ken,

I have been a listener for several years. I admire your vigor in exposing and condemning corruption in government.

Thank you.

On the matter of Neo-Darwinian Evolutionary Theory and Islamic jihad, you hold yourselves to a lower burden-of-proof and demonstrate a profound lack of intellectual integrity, however.

During one show this week, you claimed that when a species needs to evolve, it does. Darwinism's mechanism of change is only random, minor genetic mutations. What do such copying errors produce?

Usually, death or severe illness.

Random, minor genetic mutations are not only unable to modify existing genetic program into newer, more complex code, it can do nothing to produce it from scratch in the first place.

When the first miraculous "evolved" bird hatched from a reptile's egg (how did that happen, again?) and soared up into the sky, what do you think went through its head when it realized it had no one with which to mate?

As for Islam, you asserted with regard to Muslim murder, "It doesn't matter which book you read!" Such a claim reveals an embarrassing lack of either education or moral clarity.

"Which book you read" matters absolutely.

Christ committed no sin, spoke only the truth, healed the sick, raised the dead, died for the sins of the whole world, and Himself resurrected. He taught, "Love your neighbors as yourself," and, "Love your enemies."

Muhammad and his allah commanded, practiced, and endorsed genocide, child-rape, rape, mutilation, torture, slavery, extortion, blasphemy, religious and gender discrimination, and anti-Semitism. They demand, "kill the pagans wherever you find them . . . Fight against . . . the People of the Book [Jews and Christians] until they feel themselves subdued and pay the jizya [oppressive poll-tax, part of the dhimma system] . . . Paradise [belongs] to those who slay and are slain fighting in Allah's cause" (Qur'an 9).

Such nescient, false moral equivalences condemn souls to hell and perpetuate hell-on-earth for non-Muslims, apostates, women, and little girls.

You owe your listeners the facts . . . .

Ali Gomaa's Common deception exploits non-Muslim ignorance and good will

Some pertinent information regarding A Common Word, another of jihad's weapons in exploiting Western ignorance and good will.

Review this.

This might also be helpful:

Certainly the "radicals" are recruiting among "traditional Muslims," and using American immorality as one among other pretexts. But while this argument looks impressive on its face, it dissolves among closer inspection -- chiefly because those "traditional Muslims" upon whom D'Souza places so much hope remain nebulous and elusive, even in his construction. Are they "moderates"? No: in his book he explains that they do not differ theologically or even politically from the jihadists. And in his book he doesn't name even one. When I asked him to name one, he named Ali Gomaa, the Mufti of Egypt. Ali Gomaa, however, has expressed support for Hizballah, whose leader, Hassan Nasrallah, has led chants of "Death to America!" This is an actual or potential ally?

Ali Gomaa has also ruled that statues are un-Islamic; when I mentioned this to D'Souza, he was contemptuously dismissive. But in fact it is an important point. Cultural conservatives are supposed to ally, in his view, with "traditional Muslims" who allegedly share the same values. But what about when they don't share the same values? What makes D'Souza think that "traditional Muslims" will ally with non-Muslims on cultural issues in opposition to the jihad being waged by their fellow Muslims -- when they have no theological differences with those fellow Muslims, and fewer cultural differences with them than they have with those non-Muslims?

This doesn't make sense. If they have no theological differences with the jihadists, then they believe in principle in the jihad, and also hold to the traditional Qur'anic prohibition against befriending non-Muslims. On what grounds will they set all this aside and join with non-Muslims against their fellow Muslims? D'Souza produces no evidence that the great majority of Muslims who are not waging jihad do not approve of that jihad, or that even if they don't approve, they will do anything to oppose it.

More on Gomaa:

He's a highly promoted champion of moderate Islam, but he supports Hizballah.

He is the kind of cleric the West longs for, because of his assurances that there is no conflict with democratic rule and no need for theocracy. Gomaa has also become an advocate for Muslim women, who he says should have equal standing with men.

He is an advocate for Muslim women who has spoken positively of wife-beating.

His forceful condemnations of extreme forms of Islam have made him an object of hatred among Islamists and an icon among progressives, whose voices have been overpowered by the thunder of the radicals.

His forceful condemnations of extreme forms of Islam have been accompanied by his denial of reports that he had rejected the traditional Islamic death sentence for apostates.

The door finally opened, and Gomaa emerged. He is fifty-five, tall and regal, with a round face and a trim beard. He wore a tan caftan and a white turban. He held a sprig of mint to his nose as an aide whispered to him my reasons for coming. On the wall behind his desk was a photograph of President Mubarak.

Gomaa was born in Beni Suef, the same town as Dr. Fadl. “I began going into the prisons in the nineteen-nineties,” he told me. “We had debates and dialogues with the prisoners, which continued for more than three years. Such debates became the nucleus for the revisionist thinking.”

Before the revisions were published, Gomaa reviewed them. “We accept the revisions conditionally, not as the true teachings of Islam but with the understanding that this process is like medicine for a particular time,” he said.

In other words, the true teachings of Islam include the mandate to wage violent jihad against unbelievers. But jihad violence can be set aside as "medicine for a particular time." That is, different times call for different tactics, but the overall objective remains the same.

Americans are generous by nature. We respect diversity, religious liberty, and freedom of conscience. Islam does not.

Sent to the Council Rock School Board, in response to their surrender to Islamic intimidation:

Dear Mr. Abramson, Dr. Anagnostakos, Mr. Donnelly, Mr. Grupp, Ms. Heenan, Mr. McKessy, Mr. McMenamin, Ms. Sexton, and Ms. Thomas,

I am distressed and alarmed to learn of your recent censorship of the films Obsession and The Third Jihad, succumbing to pressure from the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) in rejecting them.

Americans are generous by nature. We respect diversity, religious liberty, and freedom of conscience.

Islam does not.

Perhaps you are unaware that CAIR is an unindicted co-conspirator in a federal terrorism funding trial (and possesses many other links to terrorism, including being a front for the Muslim Brotherhood, whose stated goal is to bring down Western Civilization from within).

Why would you submit to any demands from such an organization?

In fact, wouldn't their opposition to the films suggest to you that they should be viewed, as soon as possible, with the widest audience, and repeatedly?

You are, in effect, denying your students -- your own children -- the opportunity to learn about a threat not only to their lives and Liberty, but to Western Civilization itself. (Any real student of history knows that Islam has waged war against the non-Muslim world for fourteen hundred years. Nearly all of the societies which fell under its sword lost their lives, their freedoms, and their very identities.)

Ignorance of Islam's texts, tenets, and history helps only whom?

Do you want your children blind to the motives, beliefs, strategies, and efforts of those who seek to convert, enslave, or butcher them?

Below my signature are just a few of the Islamic "sacred" texts requiring the slavery or slaughter of all who refuse the "invitation" to Islam.

I urge you: Educate yourselves. Then inform -- and prepare -- those in your charge.

I am happy to assist you in that critical work in any way I can . . . .