Butchering the not-yet-born in ways that animals can't be is not "health care"

Whether or not the brief Tim Tebow Super Bowl spot for Focus on the Family was lighthearted is unimportant, for the topic it addresses is so grave (the ad directs viewers where to go to hear his family's story).  That subject? Whether or not to murder your baby before it's born.

How in the world can that cause controversy, except with bloodthirsty ghouls?  Abortion is the latest holocaust.

Offered in response to someone disgusted with preserving the lives of the innocent:

Disgusted's disgusting projection:

The fuss was about CBS Kowtowing to a group that promotes murder yet they won't air ads from any group sponsoring a public option and true health care reform. Maybe if Les Moonves lost a family member to a right wing murdering psychopath he might think twice next time. CBS has long since abrogated the right to use our airwaves.

You defend the slaughter of tens of millions of children as a "constitutional right," and you're calling others "murdering psychopaths"?

Butchering the not-yet-born in ways that animals can't be is not "health care."

Shame on you, murderous tyrant.

"Slaughter the Muslims!"*

Robert Spencer reports on a Muslim who, after disrupting an address by an Israeli minister at Oxford with shouts of "Slaughter the Jews!" claims that he was "misunderstood" and explains why that defense is more offensive and ominous than it might appear at first glance.  Note the vile filth Muhammad's depravity and barbarism, which included raping the wife of a man he had tortured and decapitated earlier that day:

another sleazy Islamic supremacist claims he was "misunderstood." You would think that after awhile they'd be too embarrassed to bring out this tired, lame excuse yet again, but they seem to be immune from embarrassment.

And compounding the problem here is that his explanation hardly makes matters better. He is counting on his audience not knowing anything about Khaybar. Among jihadis the slogan is familiar: "Khaybar, Khaybar, ya Yahoud, jaish Muhammad sa yaoud" -- that is, "Khaybar, Khaybar, O Jews, the army of Muhammad will return."

Khaybar. As I explain in my book The Truth About Muhammad, Muhammad led a Muslim force against the Khaybar oasis, which was inhabited by Jews -- many of whom he had previously exiled from Medina. When he did so, he was not responding to any provocation. One of the Muslims later remembered: "When the apostle raided a people he waited until the morning. If he heard a call to prayer he held back; if he did not hear it he attacked. We came to Khaybar by night, and the apostle passed the night there; and when morning came he did not hear the call to prayer, so he rode and we rode with him....We met the workers of Khaybar coming out in the morning with their spades and baskets. When they saw the apostle and the army they cried, 'Muhammad with his force,' and turned tail and fled. The apostle said, 'Allah Akbar! Khaybar is destroyed. When we arrive in a people's square it is a bad morning for those who have been warned.'"

The Muslim advance was inexorable. "The apostle," according to Muhammad's earliest biographer, Ibn Ishaq, "seized the property piece by piece and conquered the forts one by one as he came to them." Another biographer of Muhammad, Ibn Sa'd, reports that the battle was fierce: the "polytheists...killed a large number of [Muhammad's] Companions and he also put to death a very large number of them....He killed ninety-three men of the Jews..." Muhammad and his men offered the fajr prayer, the Islamic dawn prayer, before it was light, and then entered Khaybar itself. The Muslims immediately set out to locate the inhabitants' wealth. A Jewish leader of Khaybar, Kinana bin al-Rabi, was brought before Muhammad; Kinana was supposed to have been entrusted with the treasure of on of the Jewish tribes of Arabia, the Banu Nadir. Kinana denied knowing where this treasure was, but Muhammad pressed him: "Do you know that if we find you have it I shall kill you?" Kinana said yes, that he did know that.

Some of the treasure was found. To find the rest, Muhammad gave orders concerning Kinana: "Torture him until you extract what he has." One of the Muslims built a fire on Kinana's chest, but Kinana would not give up his secret. When he was at the point of death, one of the Muslims beheaded him. Kinana's wife was taken as a war prize; Muhammad claimed her for himself and hastily arranged a wedding ceremony that night. He halted the Muslims' caravan out of Khaybar later that night in order to consummate the marriage.

Muhammad agreed to let the people of Khaybar to go into exile, allowing them to keep as much of their property as they could carry. The Prophet of Islam, however, commanded them to leave behind all their gold and silver. He had intended to expel all of them, but some, who were farmers, begged him to allow them to let them stay if they gave him half their yield annually. Muhammad agreed: "I will allow you to continue here, so long as we would desire." He warned them: "If we wish to expel you we will expel you." They no longer had any rights that did not depend upon the good will and sufferance of Muhammad and the Muslims. And indeed, when the Muslims discovered some treasure that some of the Khaybar Jews had hidden, he ordered the women of the tribe enslaved and seized the perpetrators' land. A hadith notes that "the Prophet had their warriors killed, their offspring and woman taken as captives."

Thus when modern-day jihadists invoke Khaybar, as this hate mailer did indirectly by echoing the familiar chant about Muhammad's Army, they are doing much more than just recalling the glory days of Islam and its prophet. They are recalling an aggressive, surprise raid by Muhammad which resulted in the final eradication of the once considerable Jewish presence in Arabia. To the jihadists, Khaybar means the destruction of the Jews and the seizure of their property by the Muslims.

That's what Noor Rashid is now claiming that he did say. This is supposed to reassure us.

*If you think you read, "Slaughter the Muslims!" then clearly, you misunderstood.
It's okay to threaten and actually harm and kill Jews, but don't tell the truth about Muhammad!

If you think that the second class status forced on the dhimmi peoples under Islamic tyranny was a "golden age," then you've got good times ahead

Since all people are born with a natural knowledge of God, why is it that only Muslims think it is a holy thing to enslave, rape, and slaughter for their deity?

In response to someone who needs to work on his social skills, here:

Being neither Greek, Turkish nor a believer in any of the 3 middle Eastern religions I would like to make the admittedly trite point that which if any of those faiths you happen to follow depends almost entirely upon where you happen to be born. (This observation is not an invitation for Amillennialist to give me a theological treatise on why the Creator chooses to separate the righteous from the infidels at birth.)

On a purely factual point, the Ottoman Empire did not require its citizens to convert to Islam. The Millet system gave a large degree of autonomy to other cultural and religious groups. That is why the Orthodox Church and the Greek culture survived intact during 500 years or so of Turkish domination and kept the dream of Byzantium alive.

That's an interesting rhetorical technique. Do you find that insult as a form of introduction is effective in making friends and influencing people?

If not an invitation to a dissertation, your uncharitable and arrogant nescience is certainly an invitation to correction.

First, the God of the Bible does not "separate the righteous from the infidels at birth." YHWH gives life to all, Christ died to pay completely for the sins of all, and the Holy Spirit brings the saving Gospel message to all. So, it is not God who separates and condemns, it is those who persist in evil who condemn themselves. Since all people are born with a conscience, an innate understanding of right and wrong (even though it is fallible in all of us, it's there), there's no way on Earth that a Muslim doesn't know that it's wrong to enslave, rape, and butcher others solely on the basis of religious belief.

Second, the whole "3 middle eastern religions" nonsense is a false construct set up by Muhammad and Muslims in order to confuse, propagandize, and deceive non-Muslims into either conversion or submission, for how can you criticize another religion just like yours, unless you're some kind of "Islamophobe," some kind of racist?

Finally, considering the history of jihad, its resurgence, and the fact that you reject the "3 middle eastern religions," you should know that when Islam comes to town in full force, you'll be one of the first under the sword. As a pagan/atheist/agnostic (?) you will not be afforded the "protections" (against Muslims) granted the "People of the Book," those mythological creatures you've been propagandized into thinking enjoyed such a golden age under Ottoman rule.

I suppose if you think that the second class status forced on the dhimmi peoples under Islamic tyranny -- which includes constant degradations, humiliations, oppressions, and violations of you and yours, including genocide and rape -- is acceptable, then you've got good times ahead.

He'll be enjoying them alone.

How can those who humiliate, enslave, rape, and butcher the Bride of Christ please her Groom?

A little more in reply to this:

I have serious problems with what Islam teaches, as you do. We must resist jihad and its attempts to attack, subvert and convert. That said we must resist the the human response of demonizing our adversaries or even more importantly, ALL Muslims.

Thank you for your courteous reply, Stavros.

I must ask, where did I "demonize ALL Muslims"? I referenced merely what Muhammad said and did and what his followers have done (and do) in obedience to him.  I even noted, "to the degree that his followers' knowledge, zeal, and resources allow."

If that's "demonizing ALL Muslims," then what does that say about their god? About those who knowingly follow such a demon?

You believe in Jesus. Then you have a responsibility to say what He says. Jesus did not preach that "living according to Christian principles" earns any favor with Him. Christ and His Apostles declared, "No one comes to the Father but by Me," and "all have sinned and . . . are justified freely by His grace . . . it is by grace you have been saved . . . not by works . . . ."

How can you think that anyone who calls Christ a "blasphemer" -- for Muhammad declared that anyone who claims that allah has a son is a blasphemer, and Christ called Himself the Son of God -- can please Him? How can anyone who extols as the "Ideal Man" (Muhammad) someone who committed genocide, pedophilia, rape, and slavery in his god's name please the Living God? How can those who humiliate, enslave, rape, and butcher the Bride of Christ please her Groom?

Muhammad lied. He was a liar and murderer from (almost) the beginning of his "prophetic" career. When he claimed to represent the God of the Bible, he did so in order to gain credibility among the Jews and Christians of Arabia. When they rightly rejected his blasphemy -- and after he had achieved sufficient military capacity -- he went to war against them.

When you equate Muhammad's allah with the Son of God, you blaspheme Him. To someone who knows Jesus' words and works that should be obvious, unless you're unfamiliar with what Muhammad actually said and did. If that's the case, then here's a bit on that (linked previously):

"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).

The history of Greeks and Turks has always been the history of Islamic supremacism and jihad

In reflecting on the conflict between Greeks and Turks, one author observes:

"I'm not sure why I am telling you this story except to point out that we share the same God and he listens to our prayers even when they are coming from those we consider our adversaries."

While searching for images of Black Tuesday, I discovered this site. I've had a chance to read only this post and all its comments, but I have to agree with a poster there, its author's content and style is top-notch.

A few thoughts in response to several of the points raised there:

The reason there will never be peace between Greeks and Turks is because one adheres to an ideology commanding the enslavement or slaughter of all who refuse the "invitation" to convert. The other is one of its many victims.

This goes a long way toward explaining not only the deep-seated animosity of Greeks toward Turks (how can you not feel some dissonance at 1400 years of Islamic rape, slavery, and slaughter?), but also the condescension, sense of entitlement, arrogance, and denial-of-wrongdoing by Muslims in general, and Turks in particular.

Of course, predators want to "forgive and forget" the past -- once their victims can defend themselves. That's why Muslim memories go back only a few decades and only to when they finally met "infidels" who were able to stand up for themselves. Muslims forget conveniently their nearly one and one-half millennia of genocide, slavery, rape, kidnap, and forcible conversion of non-Muslims -- including Greeks -- in obedience to Allah and in accord with Muhammad's example.

. . . With all due respect, we Christians and Muslims do not worship the same god. Jesus Christ committed no sin, healed the sick, raised the dead, spoke only the truth, died for the sins of the whole world, and resurrected. He commanded His people to love even their enemies, going so far as to pray (and die!) for those who were murdering Him.

On the other hand, Muhammad committed genocide, pedophilia, rape, torture, mutilation, slavery, theft, extortion, wife-abuse, polygamy, religious and gender apartheid, deceit, and blasphemy and taught others to do the same, claiming, "Allah made me do it." In other words, Muhammad violated all Ten Commandments and the Golden Rule and demanded under penalty of death that you should, too.

One should not be surprised when -- to the degree that his followers' knowledge, zeal, and resources allow -- Muslims wage war against their non-Muslim neighbors. Since conquering Rum (the Rome of the East, Byzantium) was one of Muhammad's personal goals -- and it was finally achieved on Black Tuesday, the Last Day of the World, May 29, 1453, it is clear that the history of Greeks and Turks has always been the history of Islamic supremacism and jihad.

Burying your head in the sand just presents to the enemy a larger and more attractive target

Denial and obfuscation worked for 1930's Europe, didn't it?

Notice the pastor's reaction to the truth about Islam: "It's people like you who are responsible for an escalation of the violence." Good thing he isn't jumping to any conclusions.

Let's be perfectly clear: Those who commend, command, and commit genocide, pedophilia, rape, mutilation, torture, slavery, theft, extortion, wife abuse, polygamy, religious and gender apartheid, deceit, and blasphemy in the name of Allah and in accord with Muhammad's example aren't the problem, it is those who point out those commands and that example who "escalate the violence."

In other words, non-Muslims' reading of Islamic texts causes jihad.

Apparently, this "pastor" believes that if we bury our heads in the sand, then the problem will just go away, when what we're really doing is just presenting a larger and more attractive target to Allah.

Educate yourselves in Islam's texts, tenets, and timelines. Educate others. We cannot defeat an enemy we do not know and our "leaders" refuse to name.

From here (emphasis added):

An expert on the advance of radical Islam in the United States says the Muslim Brotherhood is effectively employing a strategy of presenting 'Islam lite' to organizations, including Christian churches.

Dorothy Cutter, coordinator for the Hartford, Conn., chapter of Aglow Islamic Awareness, part of a national chain of Christian fellowships that study how Islamic law motivates Muslims to participate in jihad, said she heard of a United Church of Christ congregation where an Islamic speaker was a guest.

She contacted the church to see if she would be allowed to present some of the harsher truths about Islam.

'The pastor pushed the material back at me and said, 'It's people like you who are responsible for an escalation of the violence,'' Cutter said.

[. . .]

The Muslim disinformation methodology is illustrated by the 2006 controversy over a speech by Pope Benedict XVI in Regensberg, Germany.

The pope quoted from Manuel II Palaiologos, a Byzantine emperor who was one of the last Christian rulers before the fall of Constantinople to the Muslim Ottoman Empire.

"Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached," the pope said, citing the emperor.

Objecting vehemently to the pope's remarks, a group of 38 imams wrote an open letter to the pontiff.

"We would like to point out that 'holy war' is a term that does not exist in the Islamic languages," the imams said. "Jihad, it must be emphasized, means struggle, and specifically struggle in way of God. This struggle may take many forms, including the use of force."

That makes it all better, doesn't it?

One of the imams was the Islamic scholar Nuh Ha Mim Keller, who translated the classic book on Islamic Law, "Reliance of the Traveler." The book states in section 09.0, "Jihad means to war against non-Muslims, and it is etymologically derived from the word mujahada, signifying warfare to establish the religion."

Dismissing existential threats to Western Civilization: It's the only thing many of today's Europeans do better than Jew-hatred

Geert Wilders is today's Winston Churchill in a world full of Neville Chamberlains and Grima Wormtongues, clueless cowards and treasonous snakes typified by people like Rory Graycrow Underclass, who asks in response to the heroic Wilders' warnings to the West regarding its Islamic Enemy Within:

In 1400 years Islam has failed to take over Europe. Why is he so afraid it will happen now?

Such a question betrays a suicidal ignorance of nearly one and one-half millennia of jihad in Europe.

After Muhammad's death, his armies exploded out of Arabia and into the Holy Land, North Africa, Persia, Greater India, etc., nation after nation throughout Africa and Asia falling to Allah's butchers.  Formerly Christian, Jewish, Buddhist, Hindu, Zoroastrian, animist, and other non-Muslim societies were obliterated, consumed, mutilated, and subsumed by the Religion of Insatiable Bloodlust.

Neither was Europe spared.  The fact is, Islamic tyranny in Europe goes back to its beginnings.  In the west, Spain fought for eight hundred years to regain its freedom from its Islamic overlords, succeeding finally in 1492.  If not for Charles Martel ("The Hammer"), who stopped Islam's advance into France and the heart of Europe at the Battle of Tours/Poitiers in 732, western Europe would have fallen to Allah.  (And that would have meant no Michelangelo, no Beethoven, no Isaac Newton, no Albert Einstein, no Christopher Columbus, no George Washington, no Magna Carta, no Mayflower Compact, no Declaration of Independence, no Bill of Rights.)

The coastal areas of the British Isles and the Mediterranean also suffered jihad's depredations, both directly and by proxy.  Part of the Vikings' notorious malevolence was due to their contribution to the Islamic slave trade.  Italy, Sicily, Greece, and other coastal European regions suffered at the hands of Muslims themselves.

Eastern Europe fared no better than the rest.  Turkey is the epitome of why Geert Wilders is concerned about Islam.  Before it was forcibly secularized by Kemal Ataturk, Turkey was the Ottoman Empire; before that it was part of Byzantium, the great Christian empire.  After centuries of jihad, the Byzantine Empire was overthrown finally in 1453 when its great city Constantinople -- the "Rome of the East" -- and its magnificent church Hagia Sofia -- the jewel of Christendom -- fell to jihad.

And that doesn't include centuries of jihad in the Balkans.  Christian boys were kidnapped by Muhammad's monsters, forcibly converted, twisted into devils, and sent back to enslave and slaughter their own people.  Forget neither the Siege of Vienna in 1683, where Jan Sobieski repelled the last flagrant attempt by the ummah to conquer Europe.

What does any of that have to do with today?  Only this: Islam has not changed, its adherents are rediscovering what their god and prophet require of them, and rather than champions like Charles Martel and Jan Sobieski crushing jihad and halting the Islamization of their homelands, people like Rory Graycrow Underclass import the Religion of Pedophilia, Female Genital Mutilation, and Wife-beating.  They implement shari'a courts.  They obfuscate for, and punish criticism of, the barbaric ideology.

Why is Geert Wilders "so afraid it will happen now"?

Because it is happening now.

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.