Math even an "academic" can do

A few lines in response to Timothy Behrend, a Muslim attacking those who rape, maim, and slaughter in Allah's name.  No, scratch that. He's attacking the Biblical God.

From here:

(Notice, dear readers, that Timmy isn't dealing with you honestly. He thinks you're idiots. Rather than address forthrightly the jihad ideology and its Source and Sustenance -- the command of Allah and the example of Muhammad -- he's deflecting, making a false moral equivalence between YHWH and Muhammad, and by implication, a false moral equivalence between Jews/Christians and his coreligionists, which is itself an admission of their depravity. Thanks, for helping out, Timmy!)

Are ancient Hebrews blowing up innocent Gentiles to shouts of "YHWH is great!"? Trying to equate the God of the Bible with your fellow Muslims . . . is that supposed to elevate Muslims, denigrate YHWH, or shame us into silence? (How sad.)

The God of Abraham is the God of Moses. The difference between the Exodus/Canaan and jihad is that the Creator of the universe has a right to punish sin and to preserve His people in anticipation of the coming Savior of all. The God of Moses is not a genocidal, pedophilic warlord promising fellow degenerates a cosmic brothel with perpetual virgins and "boys like pearls" if they kill or are killed fighting to expand his empire. The God of Moses is the one Who gave humanity the Ten Commandments and the Golden Rule, not the one who "sacralized" their violation. He is the One Who became flesh, committed no sin, spoke only the truth, healed the sick, raised the dead, died for the sins of the whole world, and resurrected, commanding His people to love even their enemies. He is not the one who made a sex slave out of a little, prepubescent nine-year-old girl and claimed, "Allah made me do it."

One God gave His life to give heaven to all; one god gives heaven to those who take others' lives. The God Who punished sin by taking the firstborn of Egypt paid for the sins of all by giving up His One and Only Son. Even an "academic" can do that math, Tim.

You hoped that we would confuse the means for the end by focusing on your coreligionists' auto-detonating, not on the reason for their slaughtering non-Muslims, whatever the tactic. Of course, when Muslim armies are stronger, they use more conventional weapons of war. Terrorism is not the issue -- jihad is.

But of course, you knew that.

Everyone gets angry, but only one group of people flies planes into buildings while praising their deity

More from here, this time in response to the claim that one can use Qur'an and Sunnah to persuade others that violence in Islam's name is illegitimate, a strategy effective with the uninformed but not with those who actually know Islam's texts, tenets, and timelines.

Every verse from Muhammad speaking of peace toward non-Muslims has been abrogated (the doctrine of Naskh) by the numerous later verses of blood:

Naskh. As long as Muslims read Islamic 'sacred' texts in-context, you lose -- we lose -- every time.

So, 'turmoil' causes jihad? Everyone gets angry. Only one group of people fly planes into buildings while praising their deity, finding ample scriptural justification for their atrocities.

Claiming that jihad has nothing to do with Islam -- some might call that "really stupid"

In another feeble attempt to excuse Muhammad from responsibility for the hell he unleashed, a Muslim refers ambiguously to what his coreligionists do "in the name of Islam" as "really stupid."

The last time I checked, "boys being boys" did not include genocide, pedophilia, slavery, or treason.

Of course, I asked for clarification:

What do you call "really stupid"? Were they sticking their tongues into electrical outlets? Jumping off of garage roofs? Voting Democrat?

Or is that just your extenuating the evil practiced in obedience to Allah's command and in emulation of Muhammad's example?

And if those 'really stupid' acts are actually things like 'killing pagans,' 'striking terror into the hearts' of non-Muslims, or 'being harsh to unbelievers' -- all of which are Muhammad's commands -- then how is attribution to Islam anything but "valid"?

Answering the unthinkable question

Offered in response to an apparent Muslim who answered "Islam is as Islam does" with "christianity is what christianity does...child molester," implying that Christianity is "just as bad as Islam," or worse:

Analogies can be helpful in showing the essence of a thing, and one might add clarity here: If this were 1943, you'd be arguing to firebomb London since murder occurs in the UK, too, rather than admitting the inhuman barbarism of National Socialism and the need to defeat it.

Evil is found in all societies: All non-Muslims sin and not all Muslims butcher, rape, and maim their neighbors to shouts of "Allahu akbar!" But the issue is not idiosyncratic religious expression which varies by knowledge, zeal, resources, and opportunity and may or may not reflect accurately the will of a particular deity, but what a god requires of its followers as defined by its authoritative texts.

If Islam really is a "religion of peace" no more likely to inspire violence than any other faith, then fine. Nuns must be patted-down by hijab-clad TSA employees, and we've all got to get body-scanned at the airport because there's just no way in the world of predicting who's going to explode until they're trying to land the plane.

If, however, Islam is a system of beliefs that requires the utter depravity committed in its name around the world for the last fourteen hundred years, then you're suggesting that we ignore that explosives-laden elephant-in-the-room and base our self-defense on your assertion that Christians are "just as bad." (At least that's an admission that Muslims rape children.)

This is the unthinkable question: Is Islamic "extremism" condoned, encouraged, or commanded by the religion, or not? If jihad and shari'a are legitimate expressions of Allah's will and Muhammad's life, then your moral equivalences and tu quoques are not only false, but murderous.

When a Christian does evil, he or she does so in violation of Christ's commands. When a Muslim rapes little, prepubescent nine-year-old girls, he does so in emulation of Muhammad's example and with Allah's approval, for Muhammad boasted that Allah not only willed his raping the baby but declared his actions to be a "beautiful pattern of conduct" for those who want to please him.

(Did you catch that? Allah calls Muhammad's raping little children "beautiful." Will you condemn Muhammad's making poor, little, prepubescent 'Aisha his sex slave beginning when she was only nine-years-old? If not, why not?)

Jesus committed no sin, spoke only the truth, healed the sick, raised the dead, died for the sins of the whole world, and resurrected, commanding His people to love even their enemies and warning that "anyone who causes a little one to sin" would be better off having a large stone tied around his neck and being thrown into the depths of the sea.

On the other hand, Muhammad "pleased Allah" by committing genocide, pedophilia, rape, mutilation, torture, slavery, theft, extortion, wife-beating (commanded, at least), polygyny, religious and gender apartheid, the murder of critics, deceit, blasphemy, sedition, and treason, claiming that "the devil made me do it, and so will you -- or else."

We face an existential threat, one that has devoured civilizations for nearly one and one-half millennia. Defending Islam by attacking Christianity is not only irrational and immoral, it sends more Muslim souls to hell and advances hell-on-Earth for non-Muslims and Muslim apostates, women, and little girls.

Whose side are you on?

Update: Amazon's courageously deleted the above post.  Whom does that aid?

First-century Jewish-Roman historian Flavius Josephus confirms essential elements of the Apostles' testimony regarding Jesus of Nazareth

Jesus declared that if someone won't believe Moses, they won't believe even if Someone rises from the dead. For those who care about the truth and question honestly, the Prophets' foretelling and the Apostles' reporting should be enough; but if you need more, below is an authoritative, non-Christian, Jewish, Roman, extra-biblical historical reference to Jesus. Note that all three versions of the passage (one "reconstructed" -- that's scholar-speak for "I made stuff up!") confirm what the first Christians reported regarding Jesus.

Here's the first version of the passage from a Greek translation in which Josephus describes Christ as "wise," "a doer of wonderful works," "a teacher of men who receive the truth," attracting "many" Jews and Gentiles, and that "he appeared to them alive again the third day" (end notes in the original):

Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.

Next is the same passage from an Arabic translation. This one adds "virtuous" to the descriptors. Even though a bit less personal in tone, it confirms the fact that His "many . . . disciples . . . reported that he had appeared to them after his crucifixion and that he was alive":

At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus. And his conduct was good, and he was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. And those who had become his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to them after his crucifixion and that he was alive; accordingly, he was perhaps the Messiah concerning whom the prophets have recounted wonders.

And for those who don't mind impugning the integrity of the Christian scribes who preserved Josephus' works, here is a "reconstruction" of the passage in a much more hostile tone. Even when mocking Christ and His followers, the same basic facts regarding Jesus are admitted: His miracles ("wizard of a man," "if indeed he may be called a man," "most monstrous of men," "having done wonders such as no man has ever done," "astonishing tricks"), His being called "Son of God" and "Messiah," His many followers ("seduced many Jews and many also of the Greek nation"), and His resurrection from the dead ("it seemed to them . . . he had appeared to them alive again"). Note also that even this fictional, antagonistic version of Josephus admits that the "divinely-inspired prophets had foretold -- these and ten thousand other wonderful things -- concerning him."

R. Eisler's "scholarly reconstruction":

Now about this time arose an occasion for new disturbances, a certain Jesus, a wizard of a man, if indeed he may be called a man, who was the most monstrous of men, whom his disciples call a son of God, as having done wonders such as no man has ever done.... He was in fact a teacher of astonishing tricks to such men as accept the abnormal with delight.... And he seduced many Jews and many also of the Greek nation, and was regarded by them as the Messiah.... And when, on the indictment of the principal men among us, Pilate had sentenced him to the cross, still those who before had admired him did not cease to rave. For it seemed to them that having been dead for three days, he had appeared to them alive again, as the divinely-inspired prophets had foretold -- these and ten thousand other wonderful things -- concerning him. And even now the race of those who are called 'Messianists'[*] after him is not extinct.

*"Christ" is Greek for the Hebrew "Messiah."

Why shouldn't his magnum opus receive the same honor as its author?

While I am not generally in favor of burning books, if any text does deserve a fiery end, it's Qur'an. Poetically, that's where Muhammad is, too.

Would anyone oppose a public burning of Mein Kampf? In 1943? Both Muhammad and Hitler were genocidally-anti-Semitic, wanted to rule the world, and preached a murderous, totalitarian, tribal supremacism. Yet Hitler was only a cheap, secular imitation of Muhammad. Adolf's six million Jews? Muhammad would call that "a start."

The only real difference between the two is that Hitler lacked Muhammad's "spirit" and imagination.* Since the genocidal pedophile cloaked his depravity in a stupid, paper-thin, obviously-false "religious" veneer, his hateful ideology has had a staying power that the fuhrer's lacked. In fact, Hitler lamented Germany's being a Christian nation rather than an Islamic one.

How can anyone call burning hell-in-a-book "disrespectful" or "boneheaded"? Why are both Left and Right trying to suppress anyone's defiance of evil? If "Americans" can burn American flags in acts of "patriotism," then why can't current and potential victims of Islam burn the book which slays them? When the epithet "Muslim" elicits the same shame, derision, and revulsion as does "Nazi," then the West will have preserved what is left of Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, of equality under the law for all regardless of creed or gender.

*Since Muhammad feared that his first audience with the demon "Gabriel" indicated that he was demon-possessed, I do not doubt that the idea for Allah and Islam did not come originally from within. Considering the completely self-serving nature of later "revelations" -- Mu' wants a new wife, so Allah gives him permission -- it's hard to know just what was from his allah and what was his own creation. Of course, with sin, all one needs is a gentle nudge to get the ball rolling. Each time it gets a little bit easier to violate your conscience until eventually, you end up being something entirely different from what you thought or wished you were.

Sarah Palin protests burning the inspiration for 9/11, calling for tolerance of "sacralized" genocide, pedophilia, rape, slavery, and treason

Though I doubt she understands the implication of her advice.  Demonstrating the same well-intentioned but suicidal ignorance of Islam infecting so many in the West, Sarah Palin calls burning the text singularly responsible for 9/11 an "insensitive and . . . unnecessary provocation."  Funny, I thought putting a monument to the slaughter of innocents over their graves was "insensitive and unnecessary," not to mention the attack itself.

Would anyone complain about a public burning of Mein Kampf?  Why, then, are so many distressed about a public condemnation of the single most hateful document in human history?  Both Hitler and Muhammad were genocidally anti-Semitic, both wanted to rule the world, both sold their nations on the supremacy of their own tribes.  Muhammad's genius (if you can call a genocidal pedophile "smart") -- and Hitler's failure of imagination -- was that the murderous prophet couched his totalitarian and totally-depraved ideology of rape and murder in the garb of "religion," which has given Islam a staying power that no secular system can equal.

And Fox 11 News unintentionally aided the cultural jihad today by hosting two guests -- a progressive rabbi and a conservative legal expert -- who also defended Qur'an.  The "rabbi" equated the Florida pastor with Hitler, dredged up the Inquisition and Crusades, and referenced Maimonides as an example of a Jew persecuted by Christians but befriended by Muslims.  This is the height of self-destructive moral inversion, historical illiteracy, and tragic irony since Maimonides lamented the severe persecution of Jews carried out by Muslims, the first Crusade was called in response to a desperate plea for help from eastern Christians under siege for centuries by jihad, and the pastor is protesting the ne plus ultra of murderous hatred and intolerance, the source and sustenance of a "religion" commended by Hitler.

Time to cross off another completely nescient politician.  What can you expect when even our "experts" on Islam like Daniel Pipes, smart people on the Right like Newt Gingrich, and talk radios' stars like (the guests hosts for) Sean Hannity and Mike Gallagher continue to perpetuate the nonsensical and nonexistent distinction between Islam and "Islamism"?  There may be moderate Muslims, but Islam itself is not moderate.

Sarah Palin protests against defying tyrants and destroying copies of the inspiration for 9/11:

"Book burning is antithetical to American ideals. People have a constitutional right to burn a Koran if they want to, but doing so is insensitive and an unnecessary provocation – much like building a mosque at Ground Zero"

So, building a monument to the slaughter of three thousand innocents is the moral equivalent of destroying copies of the book which inspired, informed, and mandated their murder?

If that's the best we've got, we're doomed.

"It will feed the fire of caustic rhetoric and appear as nothing more than mean-spirited religious intolerance," she continued. "Don’t feed that fire."

The fire is fed by Qur'an, which contains open-ended, universal commands to use any means necessary -- including violence -- to make the world Islam, mandates death for apostates, and along with Sunnah encourages the murder of anyone who criticizes Islam.

You know, "mean-spirited religious intolerance."

Ms. Palin and the others cowering in the corner pleading, "Don't call Islam violent, or Muslims might kill someone!" are behaving in a very un-American way -- Why is anyone encouraging a free man to self-censor in deference to murderous tyrants, again?  What are we, French?  (At least they're banning something Islamic.)

"If your ultimate point is to prove that the Christian teachings of mercy, justice, freedom, and equality provide the foundation on which our country stands, then your tactic to prove this point is totally counter-productive."

That's a logical fallacy in the first place: Proving someone else intolerant doesn't prove yourself tolerant.  In the second, there was a time when Americans considered it a sacred duty to oppose tyranny.  And now our media, politicians, and even our military are telling us to compromise our freedom to burn stuff because our enemies might get mad.  What's next?  Shari'a courts in the U.S.?  Polygymy?  Jizya?  In that case, we're already following the mandates of shari'a, and the jihadists have won.

And as for General Petraeus's argument that burning Qur'ans will endanger our troops?  Don't they have guns?  Remove your suicidal Rules of Engagement and let the greatest military the world has ever known do its job.  Have our warriors bled and died so that Muslims can threaten us into silence?

As long as the Democrats' hope is in "People are fickle," there's "a glimmer of hope" for the Republic

Now that enough of the American people have awakened, Democrats appear to be distancing themselves from their core values, running away from the real-world effects of their shameless Statism and its Agent in the White House.

Don't be deceived: These politicians are not concerned about what's best for the nation, how many people they hurt with their oppressive, immoral, and irresponsible policies, enslaving our posterity, or what is morally good. They care only about maintaining their power.

In that respect, our elected tyrants are acting in perfect accord with their beliefs. White House Panicking Over Elections:

"Not only are they running away from President Obama, they're running away from being Democrats in some cases. In some races you actually see the Democratic candidates not really mentioning that they're a Democrat in their campaign ads," Cordes said.

Smith asked his guests to try to identify the source of the discontent: "From your experience on the Hill, have you heard any Democrats in private conversations say, 'You know what? We went down the wrong road. We went after health care. We went after so many other things on the Obama agenda as opposed to, in the end of the day, it's all about creating jobs?'"

The Obama agenda is our enemy's. It is bankrupting and disarming the Republic.

"Not only have we heard that, but we've been hearing it for months," said Cordes. "We heard it during the health care debate that dragged on for a year when the economy was so bad; they focused on health care and they focused on financial regulation.

Also known as "implementing socialism."

"Americans don't feel the impact of those pieces of legislation yet," she said. "There's a lot of frustration on Capitol Hill among Democrats who feel like the President led them down this path. They didn't all necessarily want to deal with health care. This was on the president's agenda, and then they felt like he kind of hung them out to dry."

That's poetic: Obama blamed Bush, and now Democrats are blaming Obama. It's too bad that these politicians' constituencies elected to Congress self-serving, unscrupulous sheep, rather than citizens.

And we are starting to "feel the impact of those pieces of legislation." That's why we're paying attention, and we're not happy.

"Not a single Democrat has run an ad in support of the health care bill since April," VandeHei noted. Cordes pointed out that Democrats are very unhappy about Mr. Obama's speech last week, only the second Oval Office prime time address in his presidency.

"What does he talk about? Not the economy, but Iraq," Cordes said. "And they say, 'No, we need to own the economy. If you’re going to use the power of your office to give a speech like that, talk about the economy."

VandeHei said the Republicans feel more powerful today than they've felt at any point in the last five or six years.

When Republicans had control of the White House and Congress, they behaved like Democrats. That's why those Republicans-in-Name-Only are out of power now and cannot be allowed back in office.

"On top of that, you have this enthusiasm gap that is killing Democrats."

Most Americans -- including Independents and some Democrats -- are not enthusiastic about destroying the greatest nation in the history of Man.

"If you look at the polling data from Gallup and from others, it shows that Republicans are fired up about this election. The liberal Democrats are not. They're not enthusiastic about it. When you have races that are decided by a couple hundred votes, in a House that can be very, very close, that matters," VandeHei said.

He also suggested that Democrats are much more pessimistic than they were merely three or four weeks ago. He cited a recent Gallup poll that showed Republicans with a 10-point generic edge. "They've been polling for 60 years. We've not seen a number like that."

That's good. The Republic's been around for more than two and one-quarter centuries, and it's never seen numbers like the Liberals have brought upon us, either.

Cordes pointed out that predictions show the Republicans can win 45 to 50 seats in the House, and they only need 39 seats to take control.

But VandeHei offered a glimmer of hope for President Obama and the Democrats.

"It's never too late," he said. "Think about how fickle we are in everything in life now, whether it's the cell phone that we choose or what we think about politics or what we do in our daily life. People are fickle.

"I still think you can start to pull people back," VandeHei said. "At the end of the day, it has to be that Obama has to find that magic. How can he get liberals to be as excited about him and about Democratic change as they were two years ago?"

Obama and his Congressional co-conspirators have gotten a lot of people excited about "Democratic change" this November.

And in 2012.

Obama's desire to use the fruits of your labor to increase his political power should come as no surprise

In 2001, the future president confused protecting the rights of the individual with stealing your property.  Notice his regret over the Supreme Court's not "break[ing] free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution," restrictions put in place to protect us from government.

Notice also his use of the mob ("political and community organizing and activities on the ground [. . .] the actual coalition of powers") to "bring about redistributive change."  If one gang in black robes doesn't get us, the other gang in street clothes will. Tyrants dress up their malice and greed as "serving the people," but they're really only serving themselves.

Watch out for socialists' ideas of "political and social justice."  It's anything but "just":

If you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement and its litigation strategy in the court, I think where it succeeded was to invest formal rights in previously dispossessed people, so that now I would have the right to vote. I would now be able to sit at the lunch counter and order and as long as I could pay for it I’d be OK.

But, the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society. To that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn't that radical. It didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution, at least as it's been interpreted, and the Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can't do to you. Says what the federal government can't do to you, but doesn't say what the federal government or state government must do on your behalf.

And that hasn't shifted and one of the, I think, tragedies of the civil rights movement was because the civil rights movement became so court-focused I think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change. In some ways we still suffer from that.

Suicidally-ignorant bigots align with their future Islamic overlords in calling ivory "black" and agitating for freedom of beheading, child-rape, and slavery

An obviously principled defense of religious liberty . . . if you call "sacralized" genocide, pedophilia, rape, slavery, and treason "religion"

What more than blind hatred of Christianity -- and of America for retaining vestiges of its Christian founding principles, along with no small number of Christians -- spurs the godless left to rally in defense of "religious freedom" when the "religion" they're defending will take away not only their freedom, but their heads, their wives, and their daughters?

The truth is, when it is Christians or Jews expressing their religion freely (or engaging in just plain self-preservation, as in Israel's defense of its very existence or the effort to stop the Islamic house of ill-repute at Ground Zero) those defending the mosque now foam at the mouth about separation of church and state.

What in the world do socialists have in common with pseudo-religious, murdering tyrants?

And what race is Islam, anyway?

Deep down inside, many of these craven traitors must understand that when push comes to shove, and they've succeeded in diminishing the influence of Christianity in America so that Islam reigns, they'll be forced to make a choice: Convert, submit, or die.  And they must know that when that time does come, they're going to convert.  When faced with tyranny, cowards submit.  And being the tyrants that many of them are, they'll delight in having a chance finally to stick it to "Good white Christian folk" of every ethnicity.

But these Useful Idiot dhimmis and their Muslim puppet masters misunderstand the American spirit because they are not American in any meaningful sense of the word.  Americans do not submit. We do not surrender.  We will not stand by idly while the rabidly-ignorant-and-vicious savage those we love.

Look, she misspelled "dead."
Good Muslims make "dead" neighbors.

Notice how the treasonous, clueless media support the cultural jihad in America, a movement which will do away ultimately with their freedom of the press (not that they're using it lately for anything other than undermining the Republic): "which would include a prayer room;" as if having one means that Muslims obeying the word of Allah and emulating Muhammad's example didn't bring down the towers and exterminate the three thousand.

In other words, what comfort to non-Muslims is a "prayer room" when its occupants will be praying for our subjugation and humiliation or slaughter?  The mujahideen media gins up opposition to defense of the Republic by Americans opposing a monument to the nineteen and their murderous "god" at Ground Zero:

Opponents of the center, which would include a prayer room, say its proposed location is insensitive and fear it will harbor religious extremism. Those who back it cite the right to religious freedom and a need to promote tolerance and understanding.

Hundreds of opponents on Sunday chanted 'No Mosque,' sang patriotic songs and waved photographs of violent attacks by Islamic extremists.

One sign read: 'Not all Muslims are terrorists, but all the terrorists were Muslim.'

Around the corner, supporters chanted: 'We don't care what bigots say, religious freedom is here to stay.'

A supporter, retired school teacher Ilene Kahn, said: 'This has become a political tool to preach hatred. The peace-loving Muslims did not attack us.'

What Ms. Kahn doesn't realize is what every Muslim knows: The mosque represents imperialistic, triumphalist, militant Islam.  Also known as "just Islam."  Yet, besides Miss America -- who adds treason to lewdness in Muslim eyes; I can hear that fatwa coming, it's coming 'round the bend -- where are the "peace-loving Muslims" opposing the mosque?

Ali Akram, a local doctor who supports the project, said: "The people who say the mosque is too close to Ground Zero, those are the same people that protest mosques in Brooklyn and Staten Island and Tennessee and Wisconsin and California. What radius will they go for?

How 'bout Mecca?  But even then, that city belongs to the pagans from whom it was stolen.

Many in the crowd opposing the center were firefighters and construction workers, who carried signs reading: "This is Sacred Ground to New Yorkers."

And it should be to all non-Muslims of every religion and nationality.

One sign read: "Everything I Ever Needed to Know about Islam I Learned on 9/11."

That's pretty much it.

The mushroom cloud over Tel Aviv? Obama says, "Let's not jump to conclusions."

Just hours after a report declaring that, "The Obama administration has assured Israel that Iran's process of converting nuclear material into a working weapon would take at least a year," the little caliph has a reactor.

Bolton was right:

Iranian and Russian nuclear technicians made final preparations to start up Iran's first reactor on Saturday after years of delays, an operation that will mark a milestone in what Tehran considers its right to produce nuclear energy.

Nationwide celebrations are planned for the fuel loading at the Bushehr facility in southern Iran, while Russia pledges to safeguard the plant and prevent spent nuclear fuel from being shifted to a possible weapons program.

Well, there's nothing to worry about then, is there?

And how much you wanna bet those celebrations included shouts of "Allahu akbar!" and "Khaybar! Khaybar!"?

'The startup operations will be a big success for Iran,' conservative lawmaker Javad Karimi said in Tehran. 'It also shows Iran's resolve and capability in pursuing its nuclear activities.'

The West has not sought to block the reactor startup as part of its confrontations over Iran's nuclear agenda, a clash that has resulted in repeated rounds of U.N. sanctions against Tehran. Washington and other nations do not specifically object to Tehran's ability to build peaceful reactors that are under international scrutiny."

What does it mean when your allegedly-former-Muslim-in-Chief agrees with Muslim terrorists (Hamas) about a mosque at Ground Zero?

A devout Muslim believes that Qur'an is the perfect word of Allah and that Muhammad is a "beautiful pattern of conduct" for those who want to please him.  Since Muhammad and his deity commanded the imposition of Islamic law (shari'a) over all mankind -- using force when necessary -- then a devout Muslim must support the overthrow of all non-Muslim governments.  That includes our Constitution.

Being a former Muslim who attended Qur'an' classes for the best ("most devout") students and the "smartest president ever," then B. Hussein Obama knows exactly what he praises here:

Mr. Obama recalled the opening lines of the Arabic call to prayer, reciting them with a first-rate accent. In a remark that seemed delightfully uncalculated (it’ll give Alabama voters heart attacks), Mr. Obama described the call to prayer as “one of the prettiest sounds on Earth at sunset.”

The Republic has elected to defend our Constitution and our borders someone who hearts Islam.  Here is what Barack Hussein Obama, our Chief Executive, the Commander-in-Chief of the most powerful military the world has ever known, the Most Powerful Man on Earth, recites with "a first-rate accent" and describes as "one of the prettiest sounds on Earth . . . .":

Allah u Akbar
Ash-hadu alla ilaha illallah
Ash-hadu anna Muhammadan rasulullah
Hayya ‘alas-salat
Hayya ‘alal-falah
Allah u Akbar
La ilaha illallah

Allah is The Greatest
I bear witness that there is no lord except Allah
I bear witness that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah
Make haste towards prayer
Make haste towards welfare [success]
Allah is The Greatest
There is no lord except Allah

"Allahu akbar!"; Where have I heard that before?*

*Muslims shout this when slaughtering non-Muslims.

Allegedly-former-Muslim-in-Chief aids jihad by playing into the hands of the little caliph

Imagine the prime minister of Great Britain negotiating with Hitler on the eve of World War II. What's that? He did? How did that work out?

Notice below the "fair-and-balanced" tone the author uses: "Mr. Ahmadinejad." It's a good thing our media treat the Iranian butcher with the derision he deserves.

Assuming that the allegedly-former-Muslim-in-Chief is not merely aiding the little dictator, Ahmadinejad will run circles around Obama and expose him for the pretender he is, here on the eve of a new Holocaust.

Barack Obama 'may be prepared to meet Iranian president’:

Earlier this month, Mr Ahmadinejad requested face-to-face talks with Mr Obama during the UN General Assembly meeting in New York. The White House had appeared to rule out any meeting.

However, in an interview with CNN, Gen Jones said “the door’s open” if the Iranians agree to resume talks with the International Atomic Energy Agency.

When asked whether Mr Obama may meet the Iranian leader, Gen Jones said: “Ultimately if we find a convergence of paths all things are possible.

With Obama "all things are possible"? The general certainly has a high opinion of his commander-in-chief.

More on the mosque at Ground Zero

Pat Condell offers his perspective here:



Wafa Sultan observes here.

A new mosque is now being planned in New York near "Ground Zero," two blocks from where the World Trade Center used to be. This mosque is headed by an Imam, Feisal Abdul Rauf, founder of the Cordoba Initiative, who proposes to convert the now-shuttered Burlington Coat Factory on Park Place into an Islamic Cultural Center which would contain a mosque.

It is crucial to study the supremacist ideology of Islam and to recognize, for example, that the building of a mosque especially at Ground Zero is viewed by Muslims as a decisive victory over the infidels in Islam's march to establish its ultimate goal: the submission of all others to Islam and to Sharia Law.

On a daily bases, in so many parts of the world, deadly attacks are perpetrated by Jihadists either against non Muslims or, frequently, against Muslims -- especially Muslim women. The terror type of Jihad, however, is only one way for Islamists to accomplish their mission of making the "Kafir," or infidels, submit to Sharia Law. Another method is, as the author Robert Spencer calls it, an insidious, creeping "Stealth Jihad."

While Mr. Shahzad is the impatient Jihadist who attempts to destroy the West through terror, there is also the second type of Jihadist, who is much more patient, and who employs the "Stealth Jihad." The Stealth Jihadis are subtle in their approach and take their time to accomplish the same objective of submitting us all under Islam and under Sharia Law.

Recently, two separate episodes highlight this gloomy reality. The first is the attempted bombing of Times Square by the Pakistani terrorist, Faisal Shahzad, called by Leon de Winter "The Foreclosure Terrorist" from an anchor at CNN who said, "It can be confirmed that his house has been foreclosed in recent years. I mean, one would have to imagine, that brought a lot of pressure and a lot of heartache on that family."

To someone who grew up in a Muslim country, as I did, this can only be seen as ludicrous. Perhaps there should be a formal Fatwa, or religious edict called the "Foreclosure Jihad." No doubt, those at Al Azhar University in Cairo - the epicenter of Islamic jurisprudence -- might like this idea: It is an effective way to conceal the true narrative of Islam.

According to the Center of the study of Political Islam (www.politicalislam.com), over the last 1400 years, Muslims have murdered roughly 270 million kafirs [non-Muslims]; 60 million Christians, 80 million Hindus, 10 million Buddhists and around 120 million African slaves. Until today, as far as we know, there has not been any official acknowledgement or official apology by any official Islamic organization for these atrocities. This calamity is not a modern day phenomenon. It has been taking place since Islam's inception 1400 years ago.

This is what Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, a few years ago, said at the Chautauqua Institution in New York:

"Seven centuries before the Declaration of Independence was written Shari'a Law was intended to protect life, religion, property, family and mental well being. This is why I assert that America is in fact a Shari'a compliant state".

The Imam avoids mentioning that Islamic Sharia allows, among other ruthless practices, to beat women to discipline them, and that Sharia also still sanctions slavery. Is that not a bit different from American set of laws? Does the Imam recommend that the US implement the previous two practices into our system to be a more "Sharia compliant state"?

The Imam also said, in Sydney, Australia, that "The US and the West must acknowledge the harm they have done to Muslims before terrorism can end."

The declaration of war on the West -- as Bin Laden declared initially -- was not, bear in mind, based on this "harm" allegedly done to Muslims, but on Hadith, [reports on the sayings and activities of Mohammed and his companions] of Mohammed in Al-Buchary:

"I have been ordered to fight and kill all mankind until they say no God except Allah and Mohammed is the prophet of Allah."

Read it all.

And found at Diana West's excellent site:

A little levity

From here:

"A Jewish Rabbi and a Catholic Priest met at the town's annual 4th of July picnic. Old friends, they began their usual banter. 'This baked ham is really delicious,' the priest teased the rabbi.

'You really ought to try it. I know it's against your religion, but I can't understand why such a wonderful food should be forbidden! You don't know what you're missing. You just haven't lived until you've tried Mrs. Hall's prized Virginia Baked Ham. Tell me, Rabbi, when are you going to break down and try it?'

The rabbi looked at the priest with a big grin, and said, 'At your wedding.'"

Elected tyrants strengthen their Court of Last Resort

What do you do when reasonable people reject your efforts to enact into law your suicidal and perverse policies? Implement them by judicial fiat! B. Hussein and his Democrat persons of hench have strengthened the statists by confirming Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court. Paul Mirengoff explains why this is another cement block hanging from Harrison Bergeron:

"To get a sense of what it means, think of the three big constitutional decisions rendered by district courts in the past week or two. They are: (1) Judge Bolton's grant of a preliminary injunction blocking key portions of Arizona's immigration enforcement law, (2) Judge Hudson's ruling permitting the Commonwealth of Virginia to proceed with its lawsuit challenging the portion of Obamacare that requires individuals to purchase insurance, and (3) Judge Walker's outrageous ruling that California's Proposition 8, which bans gay marriage, is unconstitutional.

If these matters reach the Supreme Court, as seems likely, I have no doubt that Kagan will side with those who challenge the Arizona immigration law and Proposition 8, and with the government in the case of Virginia's challenge to Obama care. But that's just the tip of the iceberg -- probably less than one year's worth of bad jurisprudence. Kagan is only 50 years old, so we can expect at least 25 years of the same sort of leftist assault on our traditional freedoms and the rights of our states.

The only way Kagan's confirmation doesn't become a disaster is if we are able to elect Republicans presidents pretty consistently during the next 22 years or so, starting in 2012, and thus can keep Kagan busy writing dissents."

No more excuses, folks. It's time to restore the Republic.

Deception and censorship: A Muslim apologist's only friends*

Because Islam's apologists can't win on the facts -- even with their own people; that's why Muhammad prescribed death for those who leave Islam -- they resort to other, less forthright tactics.  Two of those are on display below.

Fazeel Gareeboo obfuscates in defense of Islam:

. . . I still don't understand how because some followers of a religion are criminals and claim that their religion gives them justification for the crimes they commit, that means that the religion itself, and the overwhelming majority of its followers is criminal. It seems to me that you go from 'A large majority of (claimed) religiously motivated crimes are committed by Muslims these days... therefore their religion must be criminal'. Is that the gist of your argument/reasoning?

To which I replied:

Refusing to answer my question, Fazeel? I'm not surprised.

As for your straw man: Is your gross misstatement of my position due to a lack of reading comprehension or honesty? (Now, before you pretend to be offended, you and I both know that Muhammad declared that "War is deceit," and had no qualms at all about lying to advance his goals.) Since Allah called him a "beautiful pattern of conduct" (according to Muhammad himself -- how convenient!), the faithful Muslim should not only obey Allah's commands to enslave and slaughter, but also imitate the genocidal pedophile's example. And what is that example, exactly?

Your "Ideal Man" committed genocide, kept a prepubescent nine-year-old as a sex slave, and raped, mutilated, tortured, enslaved, stole, extorted, practiced polygyny, beat his wives (endorsed wife-beating, at least), instituted religious and gender apartheid, deceived, and blasphemed the living God. Even worse, Muhammad claimed that "the devil made me do it" and demanded that his followers do the same, or else.

That's the "gist of my argument."

So, back to my question: Do you support jihad against and the imposition of shari'a on non-Muslims or not?

Seeing someone defending Western Civilization, the valiant Dennis rode in to save the day with:

Reported as inappropriate. Please take your hate someplace else.

He did not escape unscathed:

That's what Muslims and other tyrants do, isn't it? When you can't win on the facts, silence your opposition using whatever means you can.

Dennis, you defend genocide, rape, and slavery on "religious" grounds, but accuse *me* of "hate"?

Instead of resorting to censorship in order to silence the facts about your genocidal pedophile-as-prophet, why don't you expose and condemn his perverse and murderous ideology?

You ought to report yourself as "inappropriate."

*Unless you count the mainstream media, Bill O'Reilly, every Democrat, and most Republicans.

Muslim apologists don't engage in horrific violence, typically.  That's reserved for their more "courageous" coreligionists.

"So, should the guy with halal cart not be allowed within a certain radius of Ground Zero? Just curious..."

So asks someone to whom the obvious answer apparently is, "No, he should be allowed . . . ."

I disagree:

That depends, Ryan.

If it’s 1942, should the guy with the hibachi and a tattoo of “I heart Hirohito” be allowed anywhere near Pearl Harbor?

If it’s 1944, should the dude wearing the swastika armband and goosestepping down the sidewalk to his bratwurst stand be allowed anywhere near D.C.?

Today, should a registered sex offender wearing a t-shirt that declares “I like little girls” be allowed near your daughter?

Just curious.

Do you realize that the Muslims who flew our own planes into our own buildings did so because they believed that it pleased their god to kill non-Muslims? That they would earn “paradise,” a cosmic brothel populated by dozens of perpetual virgins and “boys like pearls” for killing or being killed while fighting in Allah’s cause (Qur’an 9:111; no, that citation is not a joke)?

Tragically, contrary to what the unaware, incurious, and possibly-compromised President Bush would have us believe (not to mention the “smartest president ever” who grew up Muslim, took Qur’an classes for the best students, received aid during his college years from an adviser to a member of the Saudi royal family, “vacationed” in Pakistan when Americans could not, described the Muslim call to prayer as “one of the prettiest sounds on Earth,” and “misspoke” in an interview by referring to “my Muslim faith”), Islam is not a “religion of peace,” and the 9/11 butchers were not “hijacking” a “great world religion.”

“Islam” means “submission,” not “peace,” and its founder Muhammad and his allah commanded the establishment of Islamic rule over all mankind by any means necessary, including violence: “kill the pagans wherever you find them . . . Fight against those who disbelieve in Allah . . . even if they are the People of the Book [Jews and Christians, primarily] until they pay the jizya [oppressive poll tax required of conquered "dhimmi" survivors] willingly and feel themselves subdued” (Qur’an 9).

So, Ryan, should the guy whose heart and mind belongs to Allah and his apostle Muhammad — who boasted, “I have been made victorious with terror” — be allowed anywhere near the site of one of his coreligionists’ bloodiest crimes?

Just curious.

Newt Gingrich radically misnames Islam

At least he's getting the "fundamentals" right, so to speak.

Andrew McCarthy credits Newt Gingrich with "dramatically refocusing our understanding of the threat to the West posed by Islamism," which he does, but he allows Newt to fall into and rot in the semantic quicksand of referring to what is essential (not "essentially") Islam with the misnomer "radical Islamism."

The existential threat facing Western Civilization and all non-Muslim societies is not "radical Islamism" -- or any other fact-denying, falsely-comforting, misleading euphemism you can conjure -- it is just plain, simple, everyday, historical, Qur'anic, traditional, Islam-as-Muhammad-practiced-it Islam.

When asked what is the greatest deed, Muhammad replied that to believe in Allah and his apostle is the greatest, and that jihad is second. And unlike Christianity, which promises eternal life to all who trust in the Son of God, in Islam, "paradise" (a cosmic brothel with dozens of perpetual virgins and boys "like pearls" waiting to satisfy the faithful Muslim) is promised to those who kill and are killed "fighting in Allah's cause" (Qur'an 9:111).

Those who doubt that Islam poses a threat to the non-Muslim world should consider Muhammad's own words and how Muslims have understood them traditionally. Consider this passage:

"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, one of the most respected Qur'anic exegetes in Islam 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."

Why is Muhammad's preaching and practice a problem for non-Muslims?  If you are a faithful Muslim, you want to please Allah.  Allah called Muhammad a "beautiful pattern of conduct" for those who want to please him.  That means that the faithful Muslim will want to imitate Muhammad's conduct.

That this belief system is just plain Islam and not the aberration implied by the modifiers "radical," "fundamentalist," "extremist," and the suffix "-ism" is shown also by the authors' own words: If shari'a is "Islam's legal and political framework," and the movement to implement shari'a throughout the entire world is "mainstream," then it is not the "moderate" Muslim who recognizes individual liberty and a distinction between the political and religious realms who represents Islam, but the "radical Islamist" who seeks to establish Allah's rule over all humanity.

And that is just what Muhammad and his deity commanded their followers. In Surah 9, its last major revelation on offensive jihad, Muhammad's god commanded: "Fight those who disbelieve in Allah . . . nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book [Jews and Christians, primarily], until they pay the jizya [the oppressive Islamic poll tax imposed on conquered, "dhimmi" populations] with willing submission and feel subdued" (Qur'an 9:29).  There's no "live and let live," with Islam.  If you beg and plead and grovel and apologize, if you struggle desperately to make it love you, you'll only die frustrated.

There is good news: That Robert Spencer and Pamela Geller are welcomed by Fox as legitimate voices in the public square, that Newt Gingrich and Sarah Palin denounce the jihad trophy mosque proposed for Ground Zero (however weakly in the latter's case), that thousands of Americans protest against it in the streets, that Andrew McCarthy participates in Sean Hannity's Great American panel bringing along with him his latest work, The Grand Jihad -- all are signs that America is awakening to the truth about Islam.

And not a moment too soon, for Muhammad who boasted, "I have been made victorious with terror," demanded:

"Say to the Unbelievers . . . if they persist [in unbelief], the punishment of those before them is already (a matter of warning for them). And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and polytheism: i.e. worshipping others besides Allah) and the religion (worship) will all be for Allah Alone (in the whole of the world) . . . " (Qur'an 8).

We must defeat jihad, but we can't defeat an enemy we can't (or won't) name.

Speaking of "out-of-context," some Qur'anic verses are not what they appear to be

Qur'an 5:32 is used often by Muslim apologists for Islam (and non-Muslims believing that they must be more enlightened than their fellows who for some strange reason see a connection between Islam and Islamic terrorism . . . perpetrated by Muslims . . . in Islam's name . . . while quoting Muhammad) in order to deceive non-Muslims into doubting their lyin' eyes. Even though Muslims maim, rape, and butcher non-Muslims (and Muslim apostates, women, and little girls) around the world every day in the name of Islam, Muslims want us to believe that Religionists of Peace are forbidden to kill non-Muslims (except in self-defense, of course). They quote just a portion of verse 32:

"Anyone who murders any person, it shall be as if he murdered all the people."

Sounds great, doesn't it? Islamic terrorism is just a crime that has nothing to do with Islam. Its practitioners are "perverting a great world religion." Nothing to worry about, right?

Despite Muslims' best efforts to let non-Muslims read into that little sound bite the tolerance and good will which we assume are naturally part of any decent religion, the actual verse is not a prohibition against Muslims killing non-Muslims, but a condemnation of Jews, Allah’s great “enemy”:

Because of this, we decreed for the Children of Israel that anyone who murders any person who had not committed murder or horrendous crimes, it shall be as if he murdered all the people. And anyone who spares a life, it shall be as if he spared the lives of all the people. Our messengers went to them with clear proofs and revelations, but most of them, after all this, are still transgressing.

Even more ominous (and tragic), the following verse is actually much worse for "infidels" than it appears at first glance:

"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).

A non-Muslim in a nation which has never sent troops into Afghanistan or Iraq might be thinking that they're safe. After all, they're not "warring against" Allah and Muhammad, even by way of their elected officials. But their comfort is illusory. Taking the verse in the context provided by Ibn Kathir in his highly respected tafsir (Qur’anic commentary), the horrific violence required by Muhammad against non-Muslims is to be carried out against them for their not being Muslim:

“‘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.”

Take Qur'anic verses in their proper context. Your civilization may depend on it.

The actual "siege" in Palestine

Like any good predator, Muslims justify their brutal depravity by blaming their victims.  It doesn't hurt that so many non-Muslims in the West today are not only ignorant of Islam, but easily manipulated through the use of implied charges of racism and feelings of civilizational guilt.

Offered in response to more of Mohamed Fadly's lies here (we'll see how long it takes for him to realize what I've posted.  That I've posted.):

You know that Allah forbids taking friends from among "unbelievers except as a precaution against them." You know that "submission to the state" is just your not-so-clever attempt to hide the fact that submission to the Islamic "state" is submission to Islamic law is submission to Islam is submission to the genocidal pedophile's base lusts, and IT IS NOT VOLUNTARY.

When the only choices you have are conversion, subjugation (slavery as dhimmis), or death, it's neither "religion" nor freedom of choice, it's hell-on-Earth.

And as for "Israeli Defense Ministry -which is responsible for the siege enforced against Palestinians inside Gaza," the responsibility for the "siege" (since when is self-defense a "siege"?) belongs solely to faithful Muslims obeying Allah's commands and emulating Muhammad's example in waging jihad.

Speaking of "siege's" this is the actual "siege" in "Palestine," as explained by Ibn Kathir:

[. . .]

Allah said next,

(So when the Sacred Months have passed...),

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

(then fight the Mushrikin wherever you find them)

means, on the earth in general, except for the Sacred Area, for Allah said, (And fight not with them at Al-Masjid Al-Haram, unless they fight you there. But if they attack you, then fight them. 2:191) Allah said here,

(and capture them)

executing some and keeping some as prisoners,

(and besiege them, and lie in wait for them in each and every ambush)

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

(But if they repent and perform the Salah, and give the Zakah, then leave their way free. Verily, Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.)

Abu Bakr As-Siddiq used this and other honorable Ayat as proof for fighting those who refrained from paying the Zakah. These Ayat allowed fighting people unless, and until, they embrace Islam and implement its rulings and obligations.

[. . .]

In the Two Sahihs, it is recorded that Ibn `Umar said that the Messenger of Allah said,

(I have been commanded to fight the people until they testify that there is no deity worthy of worship except Allah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, establish the prayer and pay the Zakah.)

This honorable Ayah (9:5) was called the Ayah of the Sword, about which Ad-Dahhak bin Muzahim said, "It abrogated every agreement of peace between the Prophet and any idolator, every treaty, and every term.'' Al-`Awfi said that Ibn `Abbas commented: "No idolator had any more treaty or promise of safety ever since Surah Bara'ah was revealed. The four months, in addition to, all peace treaties conducted before Bara'ah was revealed and announced had ended by the tenth of the month of Rabi` Al-Akhir . . . ."

So, the Verse of the Sword "abrogated every agreement of peace between the Prophet and any idolator, every treaty, and every term," leaving non-Muslims "no choice, but to die or embrace Islam."

Apes and pigs, right, Mohamed?

And to Moonlite, who's never met a "minority" who wasn't "oppressed" or a tyrant whom she didn't want to appease:

Every time there's a conflict, it's the more ignorant, more barbaric, "browner," non Judeo-Christians who must be the innocent victims, right? Right?

Wait 'til they're at your door, Ann Klein. You'll wish you had opposed the butchers instead of their [prey].

Return the Hagia Sophia and every other non-Muslim house of worship converted into a mosque, rebuild those you've destroyed, apologize for fourteen hundred years of enslaving, raping, and slaughtering non-Muslims, and then we can talk about a mosque at Ground Zero*

A mosque at Ground Zero? I’m against it.

Did the United States allow a shrine to the Emperor of Japan to be built at Pearl Harbor? Did the British allow the National Socialists to erect a führerhauptquartiere in London? How long was it after modern Israel’s creation that it allowed a Hitler memorial library in Jerusalem? If a non-Muslim nation were to erase the Ka'aba, would Saudi Arabia allow within a stone’s throw of its former location a cathedral, synagogue, fire temple, mandir, vihara, gurdwara, or spirit house? Will they do that now?  Why should we allow an altar to Islamic religiocide to be erected at the site of one of its bloodiest sacrifices, an outpost promoting the ideology directly responsible for 9/11?

Jihadist prime minister Erdogan of modern, moderate Turkey (elected after the law was changed to allow jihadists to run for office – now that’s progress! Let them into the EU!) on the true nature of a mosque:

"The mosques are our barracks, the domes our helmets, the minarets our bayonets and the faithful our soldiers...”

Unfortunately for non-Muslims, that line of “poetry” is descriptive and not merely metaphorical. Throughout its fourteen hundred years of conquest, slaughter, rape, and slavery, Islam has used the mosque to train, motivate, and sustain generation after generation of jihad’s agents, propagating the “faith” Muhammad spread by the sword:

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

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

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

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

"Allah's Apostle was asked, 'What is the best deed?' He replied, 'To believe in Allah and His Apostle (Muhammad).' The questioner then asked, 'What is the next (in goodness)?' He replied, 'To participate in Jihad (religious fighting) in Allah's Cause . . . .’” (Bukhari Volume 1, Book 2, Number 25).

"Say to the Unbelievers, if (now) they desist (from Unbelief), their past would be forgiven them; but if they persist, the punishment of those before them is already (a matter of warning for them). And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and polytheism: i.e. worshipping others besides Allah) and the religion (worship) will all be for Allah Alone (in the whole of the world) . . ." (Qur'an 8:38-39).

Not only would this mosque be another base of jihad recruitment and propaganda within our borders, but one at Ground Zero would be a tribute to jihad, a symbol of Islamic victory and non-Muslim subjugation. Islam has a long history of converting into mosques the non-Muslim religious buildings it doesn’t raze. A sick inside joke to Muslims, the proposed "Cordoba House" (part of the "Cordoba Initiative") recalls the conquering of the Iberian peninsula by Islam's armies in the eighth century, from whose rule it took Spain nearly eight hundred years to liberate itself.  Muslims built their famous mosque in Cordoba on the site of a Visigoth church.**

The most offensive example of the Cordoba Impulse is the taking of the greatest church in Christendom, the Hagia Sophia, desecrated and turned into a mosque when Constantinople fell to the Muslim horde laying siege to it in 1453:

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

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

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

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

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

"And this is what happened."

-Black Tuesday, The Last Day of the World, the twenty-ninth of May, anno Domini MCDLIII

The suggestion of a mosque at Ground Zero, our toleration of that suggestion, and the support for it from our own politicians and media (yes, you read that link right; can you imagine our media in the early 1940s running pieces sympathetic to Nazis?) is an affront to and shameful betrayal of those who perished on 9/11, our military who’ve sacrificed and who sacrifice now in our War of Self-Defense Against Allah, every civilization which has fallen under Muhammad’s sword over the last one and one-half millennia, and Islam’s current and future victims.

Muhammad declared war against the non-Muslim world fourteen hundred years ago. His followers have renewed that call in our day. Acts like the atrocities carried out on 9/11 are a legitimate exercise of Islam.

When will we respond with something more forceful (and forthright) than a da'wah-practicing, allegedly-former Muslim hosting iftar dinners in the White House? Will we stand limp-wristed and helpless, braying stupidly about Muslims' right to the free exercise of “kill the pagans wherever you find them,” or will we tell the truth and defend ourselves?

No, no mosque at Ground Zero, or anywhere.

*Originally published in July, 2010; republished here with slight revisions.

**Is it an accident that the rise of Islam in Europe with Cordoba as the "Capital of Ummayid Caliphate, which makes Qurtuba [Cordoba] the leading economic, political and cultural center of Europe" coincided with the Dark Ages?

Islam shares "common roots" with Judaism and Christianity like a car thief "shares" other people's cars

The religion of ancient Israel and Christianity-as-the-Apostles-taught-it share more than common roots.  They are the same tree:

-Jesus, the Son of God, fulfilled the Old Testament prophecies regarding the Messiah.

-He was a Jew descended from King David.

-He declared Himself to be YHWH (the name by which the God of Israel revealed Himself to Moses).

-The Apostles were all Jews.

-The entire Christian Bible -- both Old and New Testaments -- is Hebrew/Jewish.

-The first Christians were Jews.

In fact, the Apostle Paul uses an olive tree as an analogy, saying that Gentile believers are "wild branches" grafted into an olive tree (God's people) where some of the "natural branches" (Jews) have been broken off (for rejecting the promised Messiah):

if the root is holy, so are the branches. But if some of the branches were broken off, and you, although a wild olive shoot, were grafted in among the others and now share in the nourishing root of the olive tree, do not be arrogant toward the branches. If you are, remember it is not you who support the root, but the root that supports you. Then you will say, "Branches were broken off so that I might be grafted in." That is true. They were broken off because of their unbelief, but you stand fast through faith. So do not become proud, but fear. For if God did not spare the natural branches, neither will he spare you. Note then the kindness and the severity of God: severity toward those who have fallen, but God's kindness to you, provided you continue in his kindness. Otherwise you too will be cut off. And even they, if they do not continue in their unbelief, will be grafted in, for God has the power to graft them in again (Romans 11:16-23).

In contrast, the illiterate pagan Muhammad had some contact with Jews and Christians, so he had only an incomplete knowledge of some of their traditions (which explains partly the obvious corruptions of Biblical stories in Qur'an). Add to that the fact that in the beginning of Muhammad's prophetic career -- when he was politically and militarily weak and his "revelations" were still nonviolent -- he tried to persuade Jews and Christians that he was a genuine prophet from their God by co-opting Abraham.  In the same way, today's Islamic propagandists want to lower the affective filters of Jews and Christians (and those familiar with Judaism and Christianity, for if Islam is basically the same as those religions, it can't be bad). That's why Muslims claim Islam as an "Abrahamic faith."

But any comparison of Christianity and Islam's sacred texts shows that the religions' two gods could not be more diametric: Jesus committed no sin, spoke only the truth, healed the sick, raised the dead, died for the sins of the whole world, and resurrected, teaching His people to love even their enemies. On the other hand, Muhammad sacralized the violation of all Ten Commandments and the Golden Rule.

If Muhammad had worshiped Abraham's God, he would have said and done what Abraham said and did.  He would have worshiped the Messiah. Islam shares "common roots" with Judaism and Christianity like a car thief "shares" other people's cars

While open hearts and minds are good, credulity is not, especially when the salesman making the pitch is selling the destruction of all you hold dear

Anthropophagic alien invader or Islamic propagandist?
Same message, same malevolence

Interesting parallels between V and Islam: Both Visitors and Muslim apologists present themselves as desiring only peace and the well-being of Man; both employ appealing, smooth-talking spokespersons; both manipulate media, politicians, and public opinion; both demonize, marginalize, and eliminate their opponents when possible. Both have apostates warning and working against their schemes.  They share the same message . . . and malice.

Unfortunately, only one is fictional.

When Muslims wage soft jihad (with words, not weapons), the more skilled practitioners require translation.  We wouldn't want any "infidels" to misunderstand the Religion of Pathological Deception, would we?

In response to Michal's lengthy propaganda effort.  He begins:

We are Muslims, Ambassadors of PEACE and we are NOT terrorists

The only problem is, our idea of "peace" means that you don't try to slaughter, rape, or enslave us, and we [d]on't have to defend ourselves against you. Unfortunately, Muhammad's idea of "peace" was the kind that comes from (literally) killing the competition:

"Say to the Unbelievers, if (now) they desist (from Unbelief), their past would be forgiven them; but if they persist, the punishment of those before them is already (a matter of warning for them). And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and polytheism: i.e. worshipping others besides Allah) and the religion (worship) will all be for Allah Alone (in the whole of the world). But if they cease (worshipping others besides Allah), then certainly, Allah is All-Seer of what they do" (Qur'an 8:38; ayah 39 from Noble Qur'an).

As for "terrorism"? Of course, not all Muslims carry out or condone terrorism. But what's the best you can expect when "Allah’s Apostle said, 'I have been made victorious with terror'" (Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 220)?

Who will define who a “sweet” person from other religions is?

How about Muhammad? He said of non-Muslims in general (and Jews and Christians, and perhaps Zoroastrians and others -- it depends on whom you ask):

"Those who disbelieve, neither their possessions nor their (numerous) progeny will avail them aught against Allah: They are themselves but fuel for the Fire" (Qur'an 3:10).

"Abu Huraira reported Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: The last hour would not come unless the Muslims will fight against the Jews and the Muslims would kill them until the Jews would hide themselves behind a stone or a tree and a stone or a tree would say: Muslim, or the servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me; come and kill him; but the tree Gharqad would not say, for it is the tree of the Jews" (Muslim Book 41, Number 6985).

"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).

Michal continues:

No-one needs to [define "sweet non-Muslims], as it is already defined by the socially accepted norms.

As evidenced by just the few citations above, Islam's "socially accepted norms" are not humanity's "socially-accepted norms."

All the things a decent person would not do in real life should also not be done sitting behind a computer.

Because how can a devout Muslim murder someone for insulting Muhammad when he doesn't have even an ip address? Makes one long for the Good Old Days, when an uppity infidel was just stone's throw or dagger thrust away:

"Then (occurred) the sariyyah of Umayr ibn adi Ibn Kharashah al-Khatmi against Asma Bint Marwan [. . .] She used to revile Islam, offend the prophet and instigate the (people) against him. She composed verses. Umayr Ibn Adi came to her in the night and entered her house. Her children were sleeping around her. There was one whom she was suckling. He searched her with his hand because he was blind, and separated the child from her. He thrust his sword in her chest till it pierced up to her back. Then he offered the morning prayers with the prophet at al-Medina. The apostle of Allah said to him: "Have you slain the daughter of Marwan?" He said: "Yes. Is there something more for me to do?" He [Muhammad] said: "No . . . " (Ibn Sa'd's Kitab al-Tabaqat al-Kabir).

Michal adds:

Islam has a fundamental principle that asks humans to treat their fellow humans just the way they would like to be treated themselves.

Michal's confusing Islam with Christianity. Jesus said, "Treat others the way you want to be treated." Muhammad said, "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).

Therefore we all should exercise our freedoms with care, consideration and concern for our fellow human beings. Freedom is not and therefore should not become an assault on others.

Which is Muslimspeak for: Don't say anything we don't like . . . or else:

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

"He assembled the people and said: 'I adjure by Allah the man who has done this action and I adjure him by my right to him that he should stand up.' Jumping over the necks of the people and trembling the man stood up.

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

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

Michal whines:

[Facebook] seems to allow mockery of religions it has an issue with… The caricatures of the prophet Mohammed were uploaded, and instead of taking any consideration and action, they came out and said they were supporting it.”

Do you think that nearly 16,000 documented jihad attacks since 9/11 alone might have something to do with the urge to mock Muhammad? I'm willing to bet -- I'm going out on a limb here -- that if your coreligionists stop blowing up, raping, and enslaving non-Muslims, non-Muslims will stop telling the truth about Muhammad.

All Muslims love all humans including non-Muslims (Yes and you might be surprised at this due to popular misconceptions).

If "Muhammad - the messenger of GOD - and those with him are harsh and stern against the disbelievers, but kind and compassionate amongst themselves" (Qur'an 48:29), where's the "misconception"?

Now Muslims believe that our non-Muslim cousins are misguided yet are sensitive to their religious sensitivities.

Really? "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).

Nothing oozes "religious sensitivity" like warfare against all who refuse conversion or dhimmitude.

per Islamic orders non-Muslims are allowed to practice their faith freely non-publicly. This is because of the reasons mentioned below

As in the Pact of Umar?

As per Islam, Muslims DO NOT insult our non-Muslim cousins, their religion and Idol Gods (as applicable), despite knowing that they are misguided and their beliefs largely false, just for the sake of harmony and respecting their beliefs.

Like this? "And well ye knew those amongst you who transgressed in the matter of the Sabbath: We said to them: "Be ye apes, despised and rejected" (Qur'an 2:65).

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

Or this? "Those who believe fight in the way of Allah, and those who disbelieve fight in the way of the Shaitan. Fight therefore against the friends of the Shaitan; surely the strategy of the Shaitan is weak" (Qur'an 4:76).

All things considered, I'd take insults over genocide any day.

Islam and therefore Muslims love all humans and our non-Muslim cousins. Now as per Islam they are proceeding towards eternal failure and hell fire. Islam doesn’t want that for them.

So, enslaving, raping, and beheading those who refuse conversion might cause some to convert [anyway], which makes those crimes expression of "mercy," right?

Therefore Islam directs believers to spread the message of peace (Islam) and call all to the One true God (Allah) and eternal success.

Just like Muhammad, right?

"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."

there is no pressure in religion

No, of course not. It's either conversion, subjugation and humiliation, or war. No compulsion at all.

an environment needs to be created for our non-Muslim cousins so that they can find it less difficult socially to heed to the call of their True and ONLY creator.

Yes, removing a person's freedom, money, wife, daughters, limbs, and head tend to create that "environment," don't they, Michal? You're quite a liar for Allah.

This is the reason why Islam, though respects and allows the practice of the religion and beliefs of our cousins at personal levels, it is not allowed for them to do this publicly in an Islamic Country so that it is easier for those non-Muslim cousins who want to come to the true path to embrace success.

Of what are you so afraid? If Islam were as wonderful as you pretend, you wouldn't have to lie, obfuscate, or censor opposing viewpoints. Persuasion at the point of a sword, gun, or nuke is coercion, not faith.

as Devil’s best weapons include deception, false pretences and material & social fears.

That's ironic, coming from someone promoting "sacralized" genocide, pedophilia, rape, mutilation, torture, slavery, theft, extortion, religious and gender apartheid, wife-beating, polygyny, deceit, and blasphemy as "true religion."

Don't you see? How can someone promoting the violation of all Ten Commandments and the Golden Rule be from heaven and not from hell itself? What is it about Muhammad that screams out to you "prophet of god," the beheadings or the pedophilia?

I hope this answers your questions and that you will consider them with an open heart and mind. Once again thanks for your interest and the queries

Thank you for highlighting the fact that while open hearts and minds are good, credulity is not, especially when the salesman [making the pitch] is selling the destruction of all you hold dear in the name of his "religion."

Neither the Son of God nor the Apostle Paul were sufficiently credible. Will Augustine be?

Another post on whether or not Christ founded His Church on Peter himself or on Peter's Divinely-inspired, God-the-Father-given profession of who Jesus is ("You are the Christ, the Son of the living God").  I am gratified to find that Augustine agrees with me.

Found this below. Perhaps Kevin can consult his Aramaic originals* to verify Augustine's words as quoted.

(Note that Augustine came to the same conclusion as your obedient servant . . . Perhaps you can call him names too, Kevin.):

AUGUSTINE

Augustine is considered by many the most important theologian in the history of the Church for the first twelve hundred years. No other Church father has had such far reaching influence upon the theology of the Church. His authority throughout the patristic and middle ages is unsurpassed. He was the bishop of Hippo in North Africa from the end of the fourth century and on into the first quarter of the fifth, until his death in 430. William Jurgens makes these comments about his importance:

If we were faced with the unlikely proposition of having to destroy completely either the works of Augustine or the works of all the other Fathers and Writers, I have little doubt that all the others would have to be sacrificed. Augustine must remain. Of all the Fathers it is Augustine who is the most erudite, who has the most remarkable theological insights, and who is effectively most prolific (William Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers (Collegeville: Liturgical, 1979), Vol. 3, p. 1).

He was a prolific writer and he has made numerous comments which relate directly to the issue of the interpretation of the rock of Matthew 16:18. In fact, Augustine made more comments upon this passage than any other Church father. At the end of his life, Augustine wrote his Retractations where he corrects statements in his earlier writings which he says were erroneous. One of these had to do with the interpretation of the rock in Matthew 16. At the beginning of his ministry Augustine had written that the rock was Peter. However, very early on he later changed his position and throughout the remainder of his ministry he adopted the view that the rock was not Peter but Christ or Peter's confession which pointed to the person of Christ. The following are statements from his Retractations which refer to his interpretation of the rock of Matthew 16:

In a passage in this book, I said about the Apostle Peter: `On him as on a rock the Church was built'...But I know that very frequently at a later time, I so explained what the Lord said: `Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church,' that it be understood as built upon Him whom Peter confessed saying: `Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,' and so Peter, called after this rock, represented the person of the Church which is built upon this rock, and has received `the keys of the kingdom of heaven.' For, `Thou art Peter' and not `Thou art the rock' was said to him. But `the rock was Christ,' in confessing whom, as also the whole Church confesses, Simon was called Peter. But let the reader decide which of these two opinions is the more probable (The Fathers of the Church (Washington D.C., Catholic University, 1968), Saint Augustine, The Retractations Chapter 20.1).

Clearly Augustine is repudiating a previously held position, adopting the view that the rock was Christ and not Peter. This became his consistent position. He does leave the interpretation open for individual readers to decide which was the more probable interpretation but it is clear what he has concluded the interpretation should be and that he believes the view that the rock is Christ is the correct one. The fact that he would even suggest that individual readers could take a different position is evidence of the fact that after four hundred years of church history there was no official authoritative Church interpretation of this passage as Vatican One has stated. Can the reader imagine a bishop of the Roman Catholic Church today suggesting that it would be appropriate for individuals to use private interpretation and come to their own conclusion as to the proper meaning of the rock of Matthew 16? But that is precisely what Augustine does, although he leaves us in no doubt as to what he, as a leading bishop and theologian of the Church, personally believes. And his view was not a novel interpretation, come to at the end of his life, but his consistent teaching throughout his ministry. Nor was it an interpretation that ran counter to the prevailing opinion of his day. The following quotation is representative of the overall view espoused by this great teacher and theologian:

And I tell you...`You are Peter, Rocky, and on this rock I shall build my Church, and the gates of the underworld will not conquer her. To you shall I give the keys of the kingdom. Whatever you bind on earth shall also be bound in heaven; whatever you loose on earth shall also be loosed in heaven' (Mt 16:15-19). In Peter, Rocky, we see our attention drawn to the rock. Now the apostle Paul says about the former people, `They drank from the spiritual rock that was following them; but the rock was Christ' (1 Cor 10:4). So this disciple is called Rocky from the rock, like Christian from Christ...Why have I wanted to make this little introduction? In order to suggest to you that in Peter the Church is to be recognized. Christ, you see, built his Church not on a man but on Peter's confession. What is Peter's confession? `You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.' There's the rock for you, there's the foundation, there's where the Church has been built, which the gates of the underworld cannot conquer (John Rotelle, Ed., The Works of Saint Augustine (New Rochelle: New City Press, 1993), Sermons, Vol. 6, Sermon 229P.1, p. 327).

*Kevin Bold claims to know exactly what was said in a conversation the only account of which we have was written in Greek. Even if the same word were used in Aramaic, it still doesn't change the fact that Christ did not say, "You are Peter (petros) and on you Peter (petros) I will build my Church." Rather, Jesus declared, "You are Peter (petros), and this rock (petra) I will build my Church," in response to Peter's confession of Jesus as "the Christ, the Son of the living God."