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 Appeasers and Useful Idiot Dhimmis, Deceiving non-Muslims, Ignorant and gullible Infidels, Non-violent jihad, The truth about Islam on June 29, 2010 at 12:58 AM

Anthropophagic alien invaders or Islamic spokesmen?
Six of one, half-dozen of the other

When Muslims wage soft jihad (with words, not weapons), the more skilled practitioners require a translator for the benefit of most non-Muslim audiences.  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 won’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?

In Apostolic succession, Roman Catholicism on June 28, 2010 at 11:23 AM

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 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.”

It’s what isn’t said but everyone knows that says it all . . .

In Jihad, Media jihad, Pakistan, The truth about Islam on June 24, 2010 at 9:02 AM

A headline from Yahoo! News and AP:

Pakistani anti-terror court convicts 5 Americans

Were they Tea Party members?  Returning military?  Conservative Christians?  Octogenarians?

Not only do you know from only the headline that the convicted were Muslim, you know right away that the editors wanted to hide the reason for their terrorism.  It wasn’t “Americanism” that made them do it.

The first sentence reveals what the title’s trying to hide. That the word “Muslim” wasn’t hidden until the last paragraph (or at all) is progress, I suppose.

Five young American Muslims were convicted of plotting terrorist attacks and sentenced to 10 years in jail Thursday in a case that highlights concerns about Westerners traveling to Pakistan to link up with al-Qaida and other extremist groups.

“Westernism” doesn’t cause jihad.  Neither are their efforts to “cause terror in the hearts” of non-Muslims “extremism.” It’s just plain, simple, traditional, historical, Qur’anic, What-Would-Muhammad-Do Islam.