Amillennialist

Archive for May, 2006|Monthly archive page

+ Word of the Day +

In Uncategorized on May 30, 2006 at 12:39 AM

Though there will be consequences, we speak the truth. From Life Of The World:

‘Also I say to you, whoever confesses Me before men, him the Son of Man also will confess before the angels of God. But he who denies Me before men will be denied before the angels of God. And anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man, it will be forgiven him; but to him who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit, it will not be forgiven. Now when they bring you to the synagogues and magistrates and authorities, do not worry about how or what you should answer, or what you should say. For the Holy Spirit will teach you in that very hour what you ought to say’ (Luke 12:8-12).

‘Behold, I send you out as sheep in the midst of wolves. Therefore be wise as serpents and harmless as doves. But beware of men, for they will deliver you up to councils and scourge you in their synagogues. You will be brought before governors and kings for My sake, as a testimony to them and to the Gentiles. But when they deliver you up, do not worry about how or what you should speak. For it will be given to you in that hour what you should speak; for it is not you who speak, but the Spirit of your Father who speaks in you’ (Matthew 10:16-20).

+ Word of the Day +

In Uncategorized on May 30, 2006 at 12:39 AM

Though there will be consequences, we speak the truth. From Life Of The World:

‘Also I say to you, whoever confesses Me before men, him the Son of Man also will confess before the angels of God. But he who denies Me before men will be denied before the angels of God. And anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man, it will be forgiven him; but to him who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit, it will not be forgiven. Now when they bring you to the synagogues and magistrates and authorities, do not worry about how or what you should answer, or what you should say. For the Holy Spirit will teach you in that very hour what you ought to say’ (Luke 12:8-12).

‘Behold, I send you out as sheep in the midst of wolves. Therefore be wise as serpents and harmless as doves. But beware of men, for they will deliver you up to councils and scourge you in their synagogues. You will be brought before governors and kings for My sake, as a testimony to them and to the Gentiles. But when they deliver you up, do not worry about how or what you should speak. For it will be given to you in that hour what you should speak; for it is not you who speak, but the Spirit of your Father who speaks in you’ (Matthew 10:16-20).

Mohammed was a feminist

In Uncategorized on May 29, 2006 at 11:49 PM

Apparently the false prophet’s exaltation of females extended to the over 10 crowd. A brief excerpt from Ali Sina: Gender Apartheid and Islam:

A couple of months ago we heard of the tragic story about an Iranian woman who had gone to the court asking the judge to tell her husband to beat her only once a week and not every day. All she wanted was to live and she was willing to be beaten once a week for that privilege which kafir women take for granted. She knew if her husband divorced her, she had nowhere to go except to end up as beggar in the street. This reminded all of us of the painful reality of the Muslim women trapped in Islamic countries. Ms. Roach has no understanding of, or is completely and heartlessly indifferent to, how a typical Muslim woman lives and what she has to endure.

Ms. Roach says “There is nothing anywhere in any of the texts that tells women to take beatings from anyone,” So what does she think of Q 4:34? This denial is mind boggling. Even more mind boggling is when she says: “There is no real Islamic society today on the national level, there is no real and complete implementation of Sharia law.” That is an amazing statement. After 1400 years 1.2 billion Muslims have not managed to implement the Sharia law in any of the 57 Islamic countries. Isn’t it reasonable to conclude that such a utopian Islamic paradise exists nowhere except in Ms. Roach’s fantasies?

No dear Ms. Roach, I do not condemn Islam because of “some people’s backward interpretation of it”. I condemn Islam for what Muhammad did and said. I condemn Islam because he assassinated those who criticized him including a 120 year old man and a poetess, mother of five small children. I condemn him for raiding civilians without any warning for killing unarmed men who had gone after their daily business and for enslaving their women and children, for selling humans and for looting innocent people. I condemn Muhammad for traitorously beheading 750 innocent Jews of Bani Quraiza after they surrendered to him without a fight. I condemn him for torturing and blinding people with red hot bars of iron to force them to reveal where they had hidden their treasures and then after killing them he showed their beheaded corpses to their wives and took one of them (Safiyah) to the tent and slept with her on the same day. I condemn him for introducing religious intolerance in a very tolerant Arabian society and for inaugurating religious wars and killings that has lasted up to this day and is still taking its tolls.

Mohammed was a feminist

In Uncategorized on May 29, 2006 at 11:49 PM

Apparently the false prophet’s exaltation of females extended to the over 10 crowd. A brief excerpt from Ali Sina: Gender Apartheid and Islam:

A couple of months ago we heard of the tragic story about an Iranian woman who had gone to the court asking the judge to tell her husband to beat her only once a week and not every day. All she wanted was to live and she was willing to be beaten once a week for that privilege which kafir women take for granted. She knew if her husband divorced her, she had nowhere to go except to end up as beggar in the street. This reminded all of us of the painful reality of the Muslim women trapped in Islamic countries. Ms. Roach has no understanding of, or is completely and heartlessly indifferent to, how a typical Muslim woman lives and what she has to endure.

Ms. Roach says “There is nothing anywhere in any of the texts that tells women to take beatings from anyone,” So what does she think of Q 4:34? This denial is mind boggling. Even more mind boggling is when she says: “There is no real Islamic society today on the national level, there is no real and complete implementation of Sharia law.” That is an amazing statement. After 1400 years 1.2 billion Muslims have not managed to implement the Sharia law in any of the 57 Islamic countries. Isn’t it reasonable to conclude that such a utopian Islamic paradise exists nowhere except in Ms. Roach’s fantasies?

No dear Ms. Roach, I do not condemn Islam because of “some people’s backward interpretation of it”. I condemn Islam for what Muhammad did and said. I condemn Islam because he assassinated those who criticized him including a 120 year old man and a poetess, mother of five small children. I condemn him for raiding civilians without any warning for killing unarmed men who had gone after their daily business and for enslaving their women and children, for selling humans and for looting innocent people. I condemn Muhammad for traitorously beheading 750 innocent Jews of Bani Quraiza after they surrendered to him without a fight. I condemn him for torturing and blinding people with red hot bars of iron to force them to reveal where they had hidden their treasures and then after killing them he showed their beheaded corpses to their wives and took one of them (Safiyah) to the tent and slept with her on the same day. I condemn him for introducing religious intolerance in a very tolerant Arabian society and for inaugurating religious wars and killings that has lasted up to this day and is still taking its tolls.

Mohammed was a feminist

In Uncategorized on May 29, 2006 at 11:49 PM

Apparently the false prophet’s exaltation of females extended to the over 10 crowd. A brief excerpt from Ali Sina: Gender Apartheid and Islam:

A couple of months ago we heard of the tragic story about an Iranian woman who had gone to the court asking the judge to tell her husband to beat her only once a week and not every day. All she wanted was to live and she was willing to be beaten once a week for that privilege which kafir women take for granted. She knew if her husband divorced her, she had nowhere to go except to end up as beggar in the street. This reminded all of us of the painful reality of the Muslim women trapped in Islamic countries. Ms. Roach has no understanding of, or is completely and heartlessly indifferent to, how a typical Muslim woman lives and what she has to endure.

Ms. Roach says “There is nothing anywhere in any of the texts that tells women to take beatings from anyone,” So what does she think of Q 4:34? This denial is mind boggling. Even more mind boggling is when she says: “There is no real Islamic society today on the national level, there is no real and complete implementation of Sharia law.” That is an amazing statement. After 1400 years 1.2 billion Muslims have not managed to implement the Sharia law in any of the 57 Islamic countries. Isn’t it reasonable to conclude that such a utopian Islamic paradise exists nowhere except in Ms. Roach’s fantasies?

No dear Ms. Roach, I do not condemn Islam because of “some people’s backward interpretation of it”. I condemn Islam for what Muhammad did and said. I condemn Islam because he assassinated those who criticized him including a 120 year old man and a poetess, mother of five small children. I condemn him for raiding civilians without any warning for killing unarmed men who had gone after their daily business and for enslaving their women and children, for selling humans and for looting innocent people. I condemn Muhammad for traitorously beheading 750 innocent Jews of Bani Quraiza after they surrendered to him without a fight. I condemn him for torturing and blinding people with red hot bars of iron to force them to reveal where they had hidden their treasures and then after killing them he showed their beheaded corpses to their wives and took one of them (Safiyah) to the tent and slept with her on the same day. I condemn him for introducing religious intolerance in a very tolerant Arabian society and for inaugurating religious wars and killings that has lasted up to this day and is still taking its tolls.

+ Word of the Day +

In Uncategorized on May 29, 2006 at 11:39 PM

Though there will be consequences, we speak the truth. From Life Of The World:

‘Also I say to you, whoever confesses Me before men, him the Son of Man also will confess before the angels of God. But he who denies Me before men will be denied before the angels of God. And anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man, it will be forgiven him; but to him who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit, it will not be forgiven. Now when they bring you to the synagogues and magistrates and authorities, do not worry about how or what you should answer, or what you should say. For the Holy Spirit will teach you in that very hour what you ought to say’ (Luke 12:8-12).

‘Behold, I send you out as sheep in the midst of wolves. Therefore be wise as serpents and harmless as doves. But beware of men, for they will deliver you up to councils and scourge you in their synagogues. You will be brought before governors and kings for My sake, as a testimony to them and to the Gentiles. But when they deliver you up, do not worry about how or what you should speak. For it will be given to you in that hour what you should speak; for it is not you who speak, but the Spirit of your Father who speaks in you’ (Matthew 10:16-20).

Sina’s new book

In Uncategorized on May 29, 2006 at 10:57 PM

Go here to sign up. This message needs to get out:

My book, Understanding Islam and the Muslim Mind (I thought this is a more appropriate name) is finished. I believe this book is a devastating blow to Islam. Thousands of people, both Muslims and non-Muslims have changed their views about Islam after reading faithfreedom.org. It is time to take this message to a bigger audience.

I have been called an extremist. I accept this charge with honor. Islam is sheer evil. It must be opposed completely. Anything less would be to compromise with evil. How do you nullify a total lie? With half-truths? To say we should adopt a moderate stance vis-à-vis Islam is a logical fallacy. Islam says, kill the unbelievers. How can one be moderate in the face of that? Does moderation mean accepting that Muslims only jail or beat the unbelievers? Islam teaches one man can have four wives. Should we compromise and say two wives are okay? Either Allah is God or else he is the figment of a sick mind. Does moderation mean recognizing him as real but asking Muslims not to pay heed to his hateful and violent teachings in the Quran?

I vehemently reject any recognition of Islam as a legitimate religion and call for its total denunciation and ban. Seventy years ago, if someone had called for a total denunciation of Nazism, he probably would have been called an extremist as well, yet a decade later everyone adopted that view. Should we not learn from history? Evil must be rejected completely and without reservation.

Sina’s new book

In Uncategorized on May 29, 2006 at 10:57 PM

Go here to sign up. This message needs to get out:

My book, Understanding Islam and the Muslim Mind (I thought this is a more appropriate name) is finished. I believe this book is a devastating blow to Islam. Thousands of people, both Muslims and non-Muslims have changed their views about Islam after reading faithfreedom.org. It is time to take this message to a bigger audience.

I have been called an extremist. I accept this charge with honor. Islam is sheer evil. It must be opposed completely. Anything less would be to compromise with evil. How do you nullify a total lie? With half-truths? To say we should adopt a moderate stance vis-à-vis Islam is a logical fallacy. Islam says, kill the unbelievers. How can one be moderate in the face of that? Does moderation mean accepting that Muslims only jail or beat the unbelievers? Islam teaches one man can have four wives. Should we compromise and say two wives are okay? Either Allah is God or else he is the figment of a sick mind. Does moderation mean recognizing him as real but asking Muslims not to pay heed to his hateful and violent teachings in the Quran?

I vehemently reject any recognition of Islam as a legitimate religion and call for its total denunciation and ban. Seventy years ago, if someone had called for a total denunciation of Nazism, he probably would have been called an extremist as well, yet a decade later everyone adopted that view. Should we not learn from history? Evil must be rejected completely and without reservation.

Mohammed was a feminist

In Uncategorized on May 29, 2006 at 10:49 PM

Apparently the false prophet’s exaltation of females extended to the over 10 crowd. A brief excerpt from Ali Sina: Gender Apartheid and Islam:

A couple of months ago we heard of the tragic story about an Iranian woman who had gone to the court asking the judge to tell her husband to beat her only once a week and not every day. All she wanted was to live and she was willing to be beaten once a week for that privilege which kafir women take for granted. She knew if her husband divorced her, she had nowhere to go except to end up as beggar in the street. This reminded all of us of the painful reality of the Muslim women trapped in Islamic countries. Ms. Roach has no understanding of, or is completely and heartlessly indifferent to, how a typical Muslim woman lives and what she has to endure.

Ms. Roach says “There is nothing anywhere in any of the texts that tells women to take beatings from anyone,” So what does she think of Q 4:34? This denial is mind boggling. Even more mind boggling is when she says: “There is no real Islamic society today on the national level, there is no real and complete implementation of Sharia law.” That is an amazing statement. After 1400 years 1.2 billion Muslims have not managed to implement the Sharia law in any of the 57 Islamic countries. Isn’t it reasonable to conclude that such a utopian Islamic paradise exists nowhere except in Ms. Roach’s fantasies?

No dear Ms. Roach, I do not condemn Islam because of “some people’s backward interpretation of it”. I condemn Islam for what Muhammad did and said. I condemn Islam because he assassinated those who criticized him including a 120 year old man and a poetess, mother of five small children. I condemn him for raiding civilians without any warning for killing unarmed men who had gone after their daily business and for enslaving their women and children, for selling humans and for looting innocent people. I condemn Muhammad for traitorously beheading 750 innocent Jews of Bani Quraiza after they surrendered to him without a fight. I condemn him for torturing and blinding people with red hot bars of iron to force them to reveal where they had hidden their treasures and then after killing them he showed their beheaded corpses to their wives and took one of them (Safiyah) to the tent and slept with her on the same day. I condemn him for introducing religious intolerance in a very tolerant Arabian society and for inaugurating religious wars and killings that has lasted up to this day and is still taking its tolls.

An anniversary that must be marked

In Uncategorized on May 29, 2006 at 10:04 PM

And as long as the West’s leaders persist in the suicidal fantasy that we can have any sort of lasting, peaceful co-existence with Islam, there will be many more. Black Tuesday on a Monday:

On Tuesday, May 29, 1453, the armies of the Ottoman Sultan Mehmet II entered Constantinople, breaking through the defenses of a vastly outnumbered and indomitably courageous Byzantine force. Historian Steven Runciman notes what happened next: the Muslim soldiers “slew everyone that they met in the streets, men, women, and children without discrimination. The blood ran in rivers down the steep streets from the heights of Petra toward the Golden Horn. But soon the lust for slaughter was assuaged. The soldiers realized that captives and precious objects would bring them greater profit.” (The Fall of Constantinople 1453, Cambridge University Press, 1965, p. 145.)

It has come to be known as Black Tuesday, the Last Day of the World.

Some jihadists “made for the small but splendid churches by the walls, Saint George by the Charisian Gate, Saint John in Petra, and the lovely church of the monastery of the Holy Saviour in Chora, to strip them of their stores of plate and their vestments and everything else that could be torn from them. In the Chora they left the mosaics and frescoes, but they destroyed the icon of the Mother of God, the Hodigitria, the holiest picture in all Byzantium, painted, so men said, by Saint Luke himself. It had been taken there from its own church beside the Palace at the beginning of the siege, that its beneficient presence might be at hand to inspire the defenders on the walls. It was taken from its setting and hacked into four pieces.” (P. 146.)

The jihadists also entered the Hagia Sophia, which for nearly a thousand years had been the grandest church in Christendom. The faithful had gathered within its hallowed walls to pray during the city’s last agony. The Muslims, according to Runciman, halted the celebration of Orthros (morning prayer); the priests, according to legend, took the sacred vessels and disappeared into the cathedral’s eastern wall, through which they shall return to complete the divine service one day. Muslim men then killed the elderly and weak and led the rest off into slavery.

Once the Muslims had thoroughly subdued Constantinople, they set out to Islamize it. According to the Muslim chronicler Hoca Sa’deddin, tutor of the sixteenth-century Sultans Murad III and Mehmed III, “churches which were within the city were emptied of their vile idols and cleansed from the filthy and idolatrous impurities and by the defacement of their images and the erection of Islamic prayer niches and pulpits many monasteries and chapels became the envy of the gardens of Paradise.”

Tuesday has been regarded as unlucky by superstitious Greeks ever since.

Why did this happen?

It had been a long time coming. The once-great Empire had been by the time of this last siege of Constantinople reduced to little more than the city itself. But a few chief causes can be isolated:

1. Realpolitik. Short-sighted Byzantine Emperors such as John VI Cantacuzenes made ill-advised alliances with the Ottomans; in 1347 he invited them into Europe to aid them in a dynastic dispute, and they haven’t left yet.

2. Disunity. The Western European powers were themselves disunited and preoccupied with their own affairs. Compounding that was the fact that they couldn’t rally much support for a bailout of the Byzantines without an ecclesiastical unity that, when it was affected on paper by the Patriarch of Constantinople and the Emperor, was rejected by the people of the Empire. The force the West finally sent was too small, and it was annihilated by the Muslims at Varna in Bulgaria in 1444. Far too many Westerners didn’t see the peril of Constantinople as their peril, and far too many Easterners subscribed to the Byzantine official Lukas Notaras’ quip: “Better the turban of the Sultan than the tiara of the Pope.”

Yes, well, Notaras found out otherwise when the Sultan took a liking to the official’s teenage boys (“like pearls,” Qur’an 52:24) and had them beheaded before his eyes when Notaras refused to give his blessing to the Sultan’s taking them for his pleasure. The Pope, for all his enormities, was not likely to have done that.

Meanwhile, the world has forgotten what happened on Black Tuesday, and so many other days like it from India to Spain, and persists in the fantasy that Islam does not contain an imperialist impulse and that Muslims can be admitted without limit into Western countries without any attempt to determine how many would like ultimately to subjugate and Islamize their new countries, the way their forefathers did to Constantinople so long ago.

And today we see the same ill-informed games of realpolitik, pragmatic alliances made with those who would conquer and subjugate us, and the same disunity and finger-pointing at each other instead of unity in the face of this threat to our common survival. It is the same sentiment Pastor Niemöller bewailed in his famous poem — may we be spared from discovering when they come for us that there is no one left to speak for us, for they have all already been taken.

I know that may be too much to ask. After all, you are a _____. What possible accord could you have with ______s? Fill in the blanks yourself. And remember when you do, that both groups you filled the blanks in with are on the list of those the mujahedin wish to subjugate.

It is fitting that Black Tuesday coincides this year with Memorial Day. For only a strong defense — not just military, but cultural and spiritual, a civilizational defense — will conquer the forces of jihad and keep there from being many more Black Tuesdays, many more Last Days of the World. May we mount that defense, and speedily.

An anniversary that must be marked

In Uncategorized on May 29, 2006 at 10:04 PM

And as long as the West’s leaders persist in the suicidal fantasy that we can have any sort of lasting, peaceful co-existence with Islam, there will be many more. Black Tuesday on a Monday:

On Tuesday, May 29, 1453, the armies of the Ottoman Sultan Mehmet II entered Constantinople, breaking through the defenses of a vastly outnumbered and indomitably courageous Byzantine force. Historian Steven Runciman notes what happened next: the Muslim soldiers “slew everyone that they met in the streets, men, women, and children without discrimination. The blood ran in rivers down the steep streets from the heights of Petra toward the Golden Horn. But soon the lust for slaughter was assuaged. The soldiers realized that captives and precious objects would bring them greater profit.” (The Fall of Constantinople 1453, Cambridge University Press, 1965, p. 145.)

It has come to be known as Black Tuesday, the Last Day of the World.

Some jihadists “made for the small but splendid churches by the walls, Saint George by the Charisian Gate, Saint John in Petra, and the lovely church of the monastery of the Holy Saviour in Chora, to strip them of their stores of plate and their vestments and everything else that could be torn from them. In the Chora they left the mosaics and frescoes, but they destroyed the icon of the Mother of God, the Hodigitria, the holiest picture in all Byzantium, painted, so men said, by Saint Luke himself. It had been taken there from its own church beside the Palace at the beginning of the siege, that its beneficient presence might be at hand to inspire the defenders on the walls. It was taken from its setting and hacked into four pieces.” (P. 146.)

The jihadists also entered the Hagia Sophia, which for nearly a thousand years had been the grandest church in Christendom. The faithful had gathered within its hallowed walls to pray during the city’s last agony. The Muslims, according to Runciman, halted the celebration of Orthros (morning prayer); the priests, according to legend, took the sacred vessels and disappeared into the cathedral’s eastern wall, through which they shall return to complete the divine service one day. Muslim men then killed the elderly and weak and led the rest off into slavery.

Once the Muslims had thoroughly subdued Constantinople, they set out to Islamize it. According to the Muslim chronicler Hoca Sa’deddin, tutor of the sixteenth-century Sultans Murad III and Mehmed III, “churches which were within the city were emptied of their vile idols and cleansed from the filthy and idolatrous impurities and by the defacement of their images and the erection of Islamic prayer niches and pulpits many monasteries and chapels became the envy of the gardens of Paradise.”

Tuesday has been regarded as unlucky by superstitious Greeks ever since.

Why did this happen?

It had been a long time coming. The once-great Empire had been by the time of this last siege of Constantinople reduced to little more than the city itself. But a few chief causes can be isolated:

1. Realpolitik. Short-sighted Byzantine Emperors such as John VI Cantacuzenes made ill-advised alliances with the Ottomans; in 1347 he invited them into Europe to aid them in a dynastic dispute, and they haven’t left yet.

2. Disunity. The Western European powers were themselves disunited and preoccupied with their own affairs. Compounding that was the fact that they couldn’t rally much support for a bailout of the Byzantines without an ecclesiastical unity that, when it was affected on paper by the Patriarch of Constantinople and the Emperor, was rejected by the people of the Empire. The force the West finally sent was too small, and it was annihilated by the Muslims at Varna in Bulgaria in 1444. Far too many Westerners didn’t see the peril of Constantinople as their peril, and far too many Easterners subscribed to the Byzantine official Lukas Notaras’ quip: “Better the turban of the Sultan than the tiara of the Pope.”

Yes, well, Notaras found out otherwise when the Sultan took a liking to the official’s teenage boys (“like pearls,” Qur’an 52:24) and had them beheaded before his eyes when Notaras refused to give his blessing to the Sultan’s taking them for his pleasure. The Pope, for all his enormities, was not likely to have done that.

Meanwhile, the world has forgotten what happened on Black Tuesday, and so many other days like it from India to Spain, and persists in the fantasy that Islam does not contain an imperialist impulse and that Muslims can be admitted without limit into Western countries without any attempt to determine how many would like ultimately to subjugate and Islamize their new countries, the way their forefathers did to Constantinople so long ago.

And today we see the same ill-informed games of realpolitik, pragmatic alliances made with those who would conquer and subjugate us, and the same disunity and finger-pointing at each other instead of unity in the face of this threat to our common survival. It is the same sentiment Pastor Niemöller bewailed in his famous poem — may we be spared from discovering when they come for us that there is no one left to speak for us, for they have all already been taken.

I know that may be too much to ask. After all, you are a _____. What possible accord could you have with ______s? Fill in the blanks yourself. And remember when you do, that both groups you filled the blanks in with are on the list of those the mujahedin wish to subjugate.

It is fitting that Black Tuesday coincides this year with Memorial Day. For only a strong defense — not just military, but cultural and spiritual, a civilizational defense — will conquer the forces of jihad and keep there from being many more Black Tuesdays, many more Last Days of the World. May we mount that defense, and speedily.

Sina’s new book

In Uncategorized on May 29, 2006 at 9:57 PM

Go here to sign up. This message needs to get out:

My book, Understanding Islam and the Muslim Mind (I thought this is a more appropriate name) is finished. I believe this book is a devastating blow to Islam. Thousands of people, both Muslims and non-Muslims have changed their views about Islam after reading faithfreedom.org. It is time to take this message to a bigger audience.

I have been called an extremist. I accept this charge with honor. Islam is sheer evil. It must be opposed completely. Anything less would be to compromise with evil. How do you nullify a total lie? With half-truths? To say we should adopt a moderate stance vis-à-vis Islam is a logical fallacy. Islam says, kill the unbelievers. How can one be moderate in the face of that? Does moderation mean accepting that Muslims only jail or beat the unbelievers? Islam teaches one man can have four wives. Should we compromise and say two wives are okay? Either Allah is God or else he is the figment of a sick mind. Does moderation mean recognizing him as real but asking Muslims not to pay heed to his hateful and violent teachings in the Quran?

I vehemently reject any recognition of Islam as a legitimate religion and call for its total denunciation and ban. Seventy years ago, if someone had called for a total denunciation of Nazism, he probably would have been called an extremist as well, yet a decade later everyone adopted that view. Should we not learn from history? Evil must be rejected completely and without reservation.

An anniversary that must be marked

In Uncategorized on May 29, 2006 at 9:04 PM

And as long as the West’s leaders persist in the suicidal fantasy that we can have any sort of lasting, peaceful co-existence with Islam, there will be many more. Black Tuesday on a Monday:

On Tuesday, May 29, 1453, the armies of the Ottoman Sultan Mehmet II entered Constantinople, breaking through the defenses of a vastly outnumbered and indomitably courageous Byzantine force. Historian Steven Runciman notes what happened next: the Muslim soldiers “slew everyone that they met in the streets, men, women, and children without discrimination. The blood ran in rivers down the steep streets from the heights of Petra toward the Golden Horn. But soon the lust for slaughter was assuaged. The soldiers realized that captives and precious objects would bring them greater profit.” (The Fall of Constantinople 1453, Cambridge University Press, 1965, p. 145.)

It has come to be known as Black Tuesday, the Last Day of the World.

Some jihadists “made for the small but splendid churches by the walls, Saint George by the Charisian Gate, Saint John in Petra, and the lovely church of the monastery of the Holy Saviour in Chora, to strip them of their stores of plate and their vestments and everything else that could be torn from them. In the Chora they left the mosaics and frescoes, but they destroyed the icon of the Mother of God, the Hodigitria, the holiest picture in all Byzantium, painted, so men said, by Saint Luke himself. It had been taken there from its own church beside the Palace at the beginning of the siege, that its beneficient presence might be at hand to inspire the defenders on the walls. It was taken from its setting and hacked into four pieces.” (P. 146.)

The jihadists also entered the Hagia Sophia, which for nearly a thousand years had been the grandest church in Christendom. The faithful had gathered within its hallowed walls to pray during the city’s last agony. The Muslims, according to Runciman, halted the celebration of Orthros (morning prayer); the priests, according to legend, took the sacred vessels and disappeared into the cathedral’s eastern wall, through which they shall return to complete the divine service one day. Muslim men then killed the elderly and weak and led the rest off into slavery.

Once the Muslims had thoroughly subdued Constantinople, they set out to Islamize it. According to the Muslim chronicler Hoca Sa’deddin, tutor of the sixteenth-century Sultans Murad III and Mehmed III, “churches which were within the city were emptied of their vile idols and cleansed from the filthy and idolatrous impurities and by the defacement of their images and the erection of Islamic prayer niches and pulpits many monasteries and chapels became the envy of the gardens of Paradise.”

Tuesday has been regarded as unlucky by superstitious Greeks ever since.

Why did this happen?

It had been a long time coming. The once-great Empire had been by the time of this last siege of Constantinople reduced to little more than the city itself. But a few chief causes can be isolated:

1. Realpolitik. Short-sighted Byzantine Emperors such as John VI Cantacuzenes made ill-advised alliances with the Ottomans; in 1347 he invited them into Europe to aid them in a dynastic dispute, and they haven’t left yet.

2. Disunity. The Western European powers were themselves disunited and preoccupied with their own affairs. Compounding that was the fact that they couldn’t rally much support for a bailout of the Byzantines without an ecclesiastical unity that, when it was affected on paper by the Patriarch of Constantinople and the Emperor, was rejected by the people of the Empire. The force the West finally sent was too small, and it was annihilated by the Muslims at Varna in Bulgaria in 1444. Far too many Westerners didn’t see the peril of Constantinople as their peril, and far too many Easterners subscribed to the Byzantine official Lukas Notaras’ quip: “Better the turban of the Sultan than the tiara of the Pope.”

Yes, well, Notaras found out otherwise when the Sultan took a liking to the official’s teenage boys (“like pearls,” Qur’an 52:24) and had them beheaded before his eyes when Notaras refused to give his blessing to the Sultan’s taking them for his pleasure. The Pope, for all his enormities, was not likely to have done that.

Meanwhile, the world has forgotten what happened on Black Tuesday, and so many other days like it from India to Spain, and persists in the fantasy that Islam does not contain an imperialist impulse and that Muslims can be admitted without limit into Western countries without any attempt to determine how many would like ultimately to subjugate and Islamize their new countries, the way their forefathers did to Constantinople so long ago.

And today we see the same ill-informed games of realpolitik, pragmatic alliances made with those who would conquer and subjugate us, and the same disunity and finger-pointing at each other instead of unity in the face of this threat to our common survival. It is the same sentiment Pastor Niemöller bewailed in his famous poem — may we be spared from discovering when they come for us that there is no one left to speak for us, for they have all already been taken.

I know that may be too much to ask. After all, you are a _____. What possible accord could you have with ______s? Fill in the blanks yourself. And remember when you do, that both groups you filled the blanks in with are on the list of those the mujahedin wish to subjugate.

It is fitting that Black Tuesday coincides this year with Memorial Day. For only a strong defense — not just military, but cultural and spiritual, a civilizational defense — will conquer the forces of jihad and keep there from being many more Black Tuesdays, many more Last Days of the World. May we mount that defense, and speedily.

Mohammed loved little children

In Uncategorized on May 27, 2006 at 9:29 PM

And the littler, the better, apparently.

Islam’s own authoritative texts admit to Mohammed’s multitudinous crimes against humanity. In the Internet Age, our political, academic and media elites’ obfuscation on Islam is completely inexcusable and bordering on treason/criminal negligence.

His lack of clarity on the source and sustenance of Islamic terrorism (the command of Allah and the example of its false prophet) is one of President Bush’s great failures and a major reason his poll numbers are failing (of course, aiding foreign agents’ invasion of the United States and reckless domestic spending are also important factors).

From Dr. Homa Darabi Foundation, on Allah’s apostle’s “special tenderness for children”:

Mohammad The Pedophile

PEDOPHILIA : [NL] (1906): sexual perversion in which children are the preferred sexual object.

[Scriptural Evidence] Volume 7, Book 62, Number 64: Sahih Bukhari [the most venerated and authentic Islamic source]
Narrated ‘Aisha: that the Prophet married her when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old, and then she remained with him for nine years (i.e. till his death).

Mongomerry Watts states: “Muhammed seemed to have felt a SPECIAL TENDERNESS towards children.”

The Moral Standard Muslims look upto, Prophet Mohammad : ” … Sounds like child molestation to me. It does not appear to me that the founder of Islam was a man of peace or good moral character. “ – Anonymous.

Muslims Practising Islam :

Compilation of Ishaq b. Mansur al-Kasaj, … found in Chapters on Marriage and Divorce, translated by Spectorsky, in the ruling that a woman “IS OF AGE WHEN SHE HAS REACHED HER NINTH YEAR !”

” Two iraqi men, aged 28 amd 34, who live in lincoln, nebraska, married two iraqi girls, aged 13 and 14, in a private Islamic ceremony attended by family and friends. The two men have been arrested, charged with the sexual assault of a child and could be sentenced to 50 years of prison because the marriage age in nebraska is at least 17 years of age. Their attorney argued that the men didn’t know about the law and that they were merely following their religious custom of courtship and marriage. Do they really do such things in today’s Iraq? “ – Abdul Abdi

” The point I would like to make is that The Muslim world has been exploiting younger girls a quite sometime now in the name of Islam. These are child abuse and it does occurred in a daily basis throughout Islamic world, including your birth place, Somalia. Rich Arab Muslims have been caught on the exit ports of India and Malaysia leaving with clueless, helpless girls clutching onto their dolls and other meager belongings. “ -Faisal Hassan.

“Now you want to clebrate American man made system while ignoring one of the things islamic shariah APPROVES. What a shameful statement?!!. Please note: Islamically, there is NOTHING wrong of marrying fifteen OR LESS as long as they have period and full feminhood signs. Any women reach the age of period can be married if and when she decided to ratify the contract of marraige.. That was the way our Prophet peace upon him got marry Caasha [ Ayesha ] . And that was the way our great Somali women delivered the majority of us. I DON’T THINK YOU WILL DARE TO SAY OUR PROPHET (PBUH) EXPLOITED ON CAASHA. [ Ayesha / Aisha ]” – daud7@aol.com (Daud7)

Inspired By Islam (What the most famous cleric has to say):

From Khomeini’s book, “Tahrirolvasyleh”, fourth volume, Darol Elm, Gom, Iran, 1990 :

A man can have sexual pleasure from a child as young as a baby. However he should not penetrate, sodomising the child is OK. If the man penetrates and damages the child then he should be responsible for her subsistence all her life. This girl, however does not count as one of his four permanent wives. The man will not be eligible to marry the girls sister.
[…]
It is better for a girl to marry in such a time when she would begin menstruation at her husband’s house rather than her father’s home. Any father marrying his daughter so young will have a permanent place in heaven.

How it all began ( a long time ago in the isolated deserts of Arabia) :

Already, when Aisha (the daughter of Abu Bakr, Mohammad’s closest friend and unquestioning ally) was about 4-5 years old Muhammad started dreaming of a union with her [Ref: SAHIH BUKHARI, 5:235] and he wasted no time in realizing his dreams, inspite of the fact that object of his dreams was a mere child.Perhaps you want to assume that it is “normal” for a 50+ year old man to dream of marrying a 4-5 old child, and then ACTUALLY ask for her hand at 6?

Is it normal for an oversexed old man (Muhammad had over 9 wives and concubines) to dream of a union with a 4-5 year old girl?

Muhammad ( SAW ) was basically oversexed, his sexual relationship with Aisha is a special case, which fits his strong need for a larger latitude to satisfy his sexual urge, as is witnessed by:
“The Prophet used to visit all his wives in a round, during the day and night and they were eleven in number.” I asked Anas, “Had the Prophet the strength for it?” Anas replied, “We used to say that the Prophet was given the strength of thirty (men).” And Sa’id said on the authority of Qatada that Anas had told him about nine wives only (not eleven).” [Bukhari.1:268]

When she was 6, Muhammad asked Abu Bakr, Aisha’s father, for her hand. Abu Bakr thought it was improper, because, as he said “I am your brother”; Muhammad brushed aside Abu Bakr’s reservation by saying that it was perfectly lawful for him to marry Aisha [ Ref: SAHIH BUKHAR I7:18].

What happened to ” there is no compulsion in matters of religion ?” Anyway what compulsion did Muhhammad need being a prophet his word was law, he restricted men to only four wives when he himself had more than four, that was a convenient exemption for Muhhammad.

So, Aisha was betrothed to Muhammad, and 3 years later, i.e. when Aisha was 9, the marriage was consumed. And Muhammad was 53 then [SAHIH BUKHARI 5:236,7:64,7:65,7:88] .

The 3 year waiting period probably had to do with the fact that at that time Aisha had contracted some disease, whereby she, temporarily lost her hair. Aisha was then socially and psychologically still a child as is evidenced by the fact that she was still given to her toys, she was unaware of what was happening around her, and her playmates behave as would the children at present times [Sahih Bukhari 8:151,5:234].

Aisha became Muhammad’s favourite wife. And the sexuality in the relationship was predominant [ SAHIH BUKHARI .1.270, 3:36, 7:6, 3:148, 3:149, 3:150, 7:142, IbnSa’d 1pg165 ]. Later, Aisha was to be called the “mother of believers”.

If you are wandering, yes, the relationship was pedophilic.

When did the sexual relations between Prophet Mohammad and his child bride begin?

Unfortunately we do not have any video recordings of such events. Neither can we expect that there would be any explicit statements regarding this. In any case it is certain that she had NOT reached puberty when she moved into Muhammad’s house, which in itself, contrary to the prevailing social norms, is a tacit implication that he may indulge in whatever fantasies he may have had when he asked for Aisha’s hand. And Muhammad did have fantasies.

Volume 8, Book 73, Number 151:

Narrated ‘Aisha: I used to play with the dolls in the presence of the Prophet, and my girl friends also used to play with me. When Allah’s Apostle used to enter (my dwelling place) they used to hide themselves, BUT the Prophet would call them to join and play with me. (The playing with the dolls and similar images is forbidden, but it was allowed for ‘Aisha at that time, as she was a little girl, not yet reached the age of puberty.) (Fateh-al-Bari page 143, Vol.13)

It is, however, very unlikely that Muhammad would have waited for the onset of the menses; or at most it could have been just after the 1st drops. The evidence is necessarily indirect.

# His strong desire to “graze of the (tree) of which nothing has been eaten before”, as his other wives had not been virgins.

# Menses or fasting do not reduce Muhammad’s desire and potency for sex. His nightly rounds to his wives(lastly 12-13) did require more than average potency.

# New additions to his harem lead to intensive sexual activity, e.g. arrival of Maria lead to increased, initial spurt of sexual activity to the neglect of others .

# The intervals between prayers are used for quick stands “I used to wash the traces of Janaba (semen) from the clothes of the Prophet and he used to go for prayers while traces of water were still on it.”

# Other wives try to please Muhammad by sacrificing their turns in favor of Aisha.

# During his last fatal illness he cries: “Where will I be tomorrow? Where will I be tomorrow?”, seeking Aisha’s turn.


Prophet Say: Marry Young Virgins

Volume 7, Book 62, Number 17:

Narrated Jabir bin ‘Abdullah:

When I got married, Allah’s Apostle said to me, “What type of lady have you married?” I replied, “I have married a matron’ He said, “Why, don’t you have a liking for the young virgins and for fondling them?” Jabir also said: Allah’s Apostle said, “Why didn’t you marry a young girl so that you might play with her and she with you?’

Silent Children :

Volume 7, Book 62, Number 67:

Narrated Abu Huraira:

The Prophet said, “A matron should not be given in marriage except after consulting her; and a virgin should not be given in marriage except after her permission.” The people asked, “O Allah’s Apostle! How can we know her permission?” He said, “Her silence (indicates her permission).”

Where sex is akin to a crime, silence is admission of your guilt. What a corruption of “fitrah” ( human nature).

What religion condones the destruction of childhood? What are we who daily avow our undying love for Allah to do against a system that ruthlessly oppresses its youngest and brightest ?


  • What was Aisha’s age? I have heard other figures … (A question also known as: How many of your own sources will you deny ? )

All the relevant sources (Bukhari, Ibn Hisham, Tabari, Ibn al-Athir, Ibn Sa’d, Ibn Hanbal, etc.) maintain that Aisha was bethroted to Mohammed when she was 6, and the marraige was consummated 3 years later.

‘Mahommad – The Word of Allah’ written by Anne-Marie Delcambre. (Anne-Marie Delcambre has a doctorate in ‘Islamology’, and taught Islamic Civilisation at the Saint Joseph University of Beyrouth in Lebanon). On page 69, it says that he was married to her when she was 9 years old.

Dates commonly accepted by scholars: Birth Muhammad(570), birth Aisha(614 or 615). Bethrothal(620 or 621), Consummation of marriage(623 or 624). In particular the “consummation” of marriage is said to have taken place after the hidjra in Shawwal 1 or 2. Between 621 and 623 Asiha is said to have contracted a disease whereby she temporarily lost her hair. (Ref 1)

She could not have been more than 10 years when she went to live in Muhammad’s house. The fact that she took her toys with her to her new home indicates that she was psychologically and socially still a child. And the fact that she was allowed to play with DOLLS indicates that she had NOT reached puberty by this time. (“The playing with the dolls and similar images was(is) forbidden, but it was allowed for Aisha at that time, as she was a little girl, not yet reached the age of puberty.”Fateh-al-Bari page 143, Vol.13). Besides, there is also Aisha’s own statement which implies that she had NOT reached puberty when she moved into Muhammad’s house[Sahih Bukhari 7.163]. I am sure she would have been able to recount accurately as to when and where she got her first menses. Most girls do remember such events rather accurately. (Refs 2)

What is “sick” is that Muhammad had started to dream of a union with Aisha already when she was 4-5 years old: “You were shown to me twice (in my dream) before I married you…(and) I said (to myself), ‘If this is from Allah, then it must happen.” He was to use a similar tactic when he wanted to marry his step son’s wife. A tactic which Aisha later came to understand as fraud, as in: “Aisha said: O Allah’s Apostle! I do not see, but, that your Lord hurries in pleasing you.” (Refs 2)

Muhammad wasted no time in realizing what he had been dreaming. Already when Aisha was 6 “The Prophet asked Abu Bakr for ‘Aisha’s hand in marriage. Abu Bakr said “But I am your brother.” The Prophet said, “You are my brother in Allah’s religion and His Book, but she (Aisha) is lawful for me to marry.” Here it does not seem that Abu Bakr consented to the marriage wholeheartedly.

REFERENCES (1) Les femmes du Prophete Prof.Magali Morsi, Professor of History, University of Muhammed V, Rabat, Morocco.

(2) Shahih Bukhari: [1.229] [1.230] [1.231] [1.232] [1.233] [1.258] [1.263] [1.267] [1.270] [1.294] [1.296] [1.298] [1.299] [3.148] [3.149] [3.150] [3.853] [4.736] [5.235] [5.236] [5.731] [7.14] [7.15] [7.57] [7.48] [7.57] [7.64] [7.65] [7.86] [7.88] [7.90] [7.144] [7.163] [8.151] [9.139] [9.140]

* “And if a woman is sexually mature I see nothing wrong with her marriage in general, with a man of any age… “- A muslim.

For those Muslims who approve of the above statement ( and hold similar views ): Would you let your daughters go through this ?


Pedophile ?

What are the essential features of pedophilia.?

Professors of psychiatry, Harold I.Kaplan MD and Benjamin J.Sadock MD. of New York University Medical School states the essential features to diagnose pedophilia are:

1.Identification with and narcissistic investment in immature sexual objects.

Muhammad’s infatuation and relationship with Aisha fits this criterion. And Mohammad was vain too – he liked to use perfume and dye his hair (even as an old man).

2. Control, domination and seduction of children.

A slight recalcitrance on the part of his wives was met by intolerant threats like: “if he (Muhammad) divorce you, (Allah) will give him in your place wives better than you, submissive, faithful, obedient, penitent, adorers, fasters, widows and virgins.” [K 66.5]

3. Sexual activity with children is preferential and occur repeatedly.

Aisha was ever present, right up to his last fatal breath and he preferred spending his nights with her. Aisha became Muhammad’s favorites wife. And the sexuality in the relationship was predominant. [Sahih Bukhari 1.270,3:36,7:6,3:148,3:149,3:150,7:142,IbnSa’d 1pg165]


Is menses necessary indicator of sexual maturity ?

Sexual maturity is NOT PURELY RELATED TO MENSES as for some peculiar reasons many Muslims have tried to say.

In the first place having or not having menses is not the criterion for sexual maturity, and thus of pedophilic behaviour. We have cases here, of abducted girls, 12, 13, 14, well past their mens, and yet preferred by pedophiles as sexual objects.

Besides when Aisha was about 4-5 years old Muhammad started dreaming of a union with her [Sahih Bukhari 5:235]- I am sure Ayesha was not menstruating then . Or do Arab girls menstruate at the age of 4-5 ?

Mohammed loved little children

In Uncategorized on May 27, 2006 at 9:29 PM

And the littler, the better, apparently.

Islam’s own authoritative texts admit to Mohammed’s multitudinous crimes against humanity. In the Internet Age, our political, academic and media elites’ obfuscation on Islam is completely inexcusable and bordering on treason/criminal negligence.

His lack of clarity on the source and sustenance of Islamic terrorism (the command of Allah and the example of its false prophet) is one of President Bush’s great failures and a major reason his poll numbers are failing (of course, aiding foreign agents’ invasion of the United States and reckless domestic spending are also important factors).

From Dr. Homa Darabi Foundation, on Allah’s apostle’s “special tenderness for children”:

Mohammad The Pedophile

PEDOPHILIA : [NL] (1906): sexual perversion in which children are the preferred sexual object.

[Scriptural Evidence] Volume 7, Book 62, Number 64: Sahih Bukhari [the most venerated and authentic Islamic source]
Narrated ‘Aisha: that the Prophet married her when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old, and then she remained with him for nine years (i.e. till his death).

Mongomerry Watts states: “Muhammed seemed to have felt a SPECIAL TENDERNESS towards children.”

The Moral Standard Muslims look upto, Prophet Mohammad : ” … Sounds like child molestation to me. It does not appear to me that the founder of Islam was a man of peace or good moral character. “ – Anonymous.

Muslims Practising Islam :

Compilation of Ishaq b. Mansur al-Kasaj, … found in Chapters on Marriage and Divorce, translated by Spectorsky, in the ruling that a woman “IS OF AGE WHEN SHE HAS REACHED HER NINTH YEAR !”

” Two iraqi men, aged 28 amd 34, who live in lincoln, nebraska, married two iraqi girls, aged 13 and 14, in a private Islamic ceremony attended by family and friends. The two men have been arrested, charged with the sexual assault of a child and could be sentenced to 50 years of prison because the marriage age in nebraska is at least 17 years of age. Their attorney argued that the men didn’t know about the law and that they were merely following their religious custom of courtship and marriage. Do they really do such things in today’s Iraq? “ – Abdul Abdi

” The point I would like to make is that The Muslim world has been exploiting younger girls a quite sometime now in the name of Islam. These are child abuse and it does occurred in a daily basis throughout Islamic world, including your birth place, Somalia. Rich Arab Muslims have been caught on the exit ports of India and Malaysia leaving with clueless, helpless girls clutching onto their dolls and other meager belongings. “ -Faisal Hassan.

“Now you want to clebrate American man made system while ignoring one of the things islamic shariah APPROVES. What a shameful statement?!!. Please note: Islamically, there is NOTHING wrong of marrying fifteen OR LESS as long as they have period and full feminhood signs. Any women reach the age of period can be married if and when she decided to ratify the contract of marraige.. That was the way our Prophet peace upon him got marry Caasha [ Ayesha ] . And that was the way our great Somali women delivered the majority of us. I DON’T THINK YOU WILL DARE TO SAY OUR PROPHET (PBUH) EXPLOITED ON CAASHA. [ Ayesha / Aisha ]” – daud7@aol.com (Daud7)

Inspired By Islam (What the most famous cleric has to say):

From Khomeini’s book, “Tahrirolvasyleh”, fourth volume, Darol Elm, Gom, Iran, 1990 :

A man can have sexual pleasure from a child as young as a baby. However he should not penetrate, sodomising the child is OK. If the man penetrates and damages the child then he should be responsible for her subsistence all her life. This girl, however does not count as one of his four permanent wives. The man will not be eligible to marry the girls sister.
[…]
It is better for a girl to marry in such a time when she would begin menstruation at her husband’s house rather than her father’s home. Any father marrying his daughter so young will have a permanent place in heaven.

How it all began ( a long time ago in the isolated deserts of Arabia) :

Already, when Aisha (the daughter of Abu Bakr, Mohammad’s closest friend and unquestioning ally) was about 4-5 years old Muhammad started dreaming of a union with her [Ref: SAHIH BUKHARI, 5:235] and he wasted no time in realizing his dreams, inspite of the fact that object of his dreams was a mere child.Perhaps you want to assume that it is “normal” for a 50+ year old man to dream of marrying a 4-5 old child, and then ACTUALLY ask for her hand at 6?

Is it normal for an oversexed old man (Muhammad had over 9 wives and concubines) to dream of a union with a 4-5 year old girl?

Muhammad ( SAW ) was basically oversexed, his sexual relationship with Aisha is a special case, which fits his strong need for a larger latitude to satisfy his sexual urge, as is witnessed by:
“The Prophet used to visit all his wives in a round, during the day and night and they were eleven in number.” I asked Anas, “Had the Prophet the strength for it?” Anas replied, “We used to say that the Prophet was given the strength of thirty (men).” And Sa’id said on the authority of Qatada that Anas had told him about nine wives only (not eleven).” [Bukhari.1:268]

When she was 6, Muhammad asked Abu Bakr, Aisha’s father, for her hand. Abu Bakr thought it was improper, because, as he said “I am your brother”; Muhammad brushed aside Abu Bakr’s reservation by saying that it was perfectly lawful for him to marry Aisha [ Ref: SAHIH BUKHAR I7:18].

What happened to ” there is no compulsion in matters of religion ?” Anyway what compulsion did Muhhammad need being a prophet his word was law, he restricted men to only four wives when he himself had more than four, that was a convenient exemption for Muhhammad.

So, Aisha was betrothed to Muhammad, and 3 years later, i.e. when Aisha was 9, the marriage was consumed. And Muhammad was 53 then [SAHIH BUKHARI 5:236,7:64,7:65,7:88] .

The 3 year waiting period probably had to do with the fact that at that time Aisha had contracted some disease, whereby she, temporarily lost her hair. Aisha was then socially and psychologically still a child as is evidenced by the fact that she was still given to her toys, she was unaware of what was happening around her, and her playmates behave as would the children at present times [Sahih Bukhari 8:151,5:234].

Aisha became Muhammad’s favourite wife. And the sexuality in the relationship was predominant [ SAHIH BUKHARI .1.270, 3:36, 7:6, 3:148, 3:149, 3:150, 7:142, IbnSa’d 1pg165 ]. Later, Aisha was to be called the “mother of believers”.

If you are wandering, yes, the relationship was pedophilic.

When did the sexual relations between Prophet Mohammad and his child bride begin?

Unfortunately we do not have any video recordings of such events. Neither can we expect that there would be any explicit statements regarding this. In any case it is certain that she had NOT reached puberty when she moved into Muhammad’s house, which in itself, contrary to the prevailing social norms, is a tacit implication that he may indulge in whatever fantasies he may have had when he asked for Aisha’s hand. And Muhammad did have fantasies.

Volume 8, Book 73, Number 151:

Narrated ‘Aisha: I used to play with the dolls in the presence of the Prophet, and my girl friends also used to play with me. When Allah’s Apostle used to enter (my dwelling place) they used to hide themselves, BUT the Prophet would call them to join and play with me. (The playing with the dolls and similar images is forbidden, but it was allowed for ‘Aisha at that time, as she was a little girl, not yet reached the age of puberty.) (Fateh-al-Bari page 143, Vol.13)

It is, however, very unlikely that Muhammad would have waited for the onset of the menses; or at most it could have been just after the 1st drops. The evidence is necessarily indirect.

# His strong desire to “graze of the (tree) of which nothing has been eaten before”, as his other wives had not been virgins.

# Menses or fasting do not reduce Muhammad’s desire and potency for sex. His nightly rounds to his wives(lastly 12-13) did require more than average potency.

# New additions to his harem lead to intensive sexual activity, e.g. arrival of Maria lead to increased, initial spurt of sexual activity to the neglect of others .

# The intervals between prayers are used for quick stands “I used to wash the traces of Janaba (semen) from the clothes of the Prophet and he used to go for prayers while traces of water were still on it.”

# Other wives try to please Muhammad by sacrificing their turns in favor of Aisha.

# During his last fatal illness he cries: “Where will I be tomorrow? Where will I be tomorrow?”, seeking Aisha’s turn.


Prophet Say: Marry Young Virgins

Volume 7, Book 62, Number 17:

Narrated Jabir bin ‘Abdullah:

When I got married, Allah’s Apostle said to me, “What type of lady have you married?” I replied, “I have married a matron’ He said, “Why, don’t you have a liking for the young virgins and for fondling them?” Jabir also said: Allah’s Apostle said, “Why didn’t you marry a young girl so that you might play with her and she with you?’

Silent Children :

Volume 7, Book 62, Number 67:

Narrated Abu Huraira:

The Prophet said, “A matron should not be given in marriage except after consulting her; and a virgin should not be given in marriage except after her permission.” The people asked, “O Allah’s Apostle! How can we know her permission?” He said, “Her silence (indicates her permission).”

Where sex is akin to a crime, silence is admission of your guilt. What a corruption of “fitrah” ( human nature).

What religion condones the destruction of childhood? What are we who daily avow our undying love for Allah to do against a system that ruthlessly oppresses its youngest and brightest ?


  • What was Aisha’s age? I have heard other figures … (A question also known as: How many of your own sources will you deny ? )

All the relevant sources (Bukhari, Ibn Hisham, Tabari, Ibn al-Athir, Ibn Sa’d, Ibn Hanbal, etc.) maintain that Aisha was bethroted to Mohammed when she was 6, and the marraige was consummated 3 years later.

‘Mahommad – The Word of Allah’ written by Anne-Marie Delcambre. (Anne-Marie Delcambre has a doctorate in ‘Islamology’, and taught Islamic Civilisation at the Saint Joseph University of Beyrouth in Lebanon). On page 69, it says that he was married to her when she was 9 years old.

Dates commonly accepted by scholars: Birth Muhammad(570), birth Aisha(614 or 615). Bethrothal(620 or 621), Consummation of marriage(623 or 624). In particular the “consummation” of marriage is said to have taken place after the hidjra in Shawwal 1 or 2. Between 621 and 623 Asiha is said to have contracted a disease whereby she temporarily lost her hair. (Ref 1)

She could not have been more than 10 years when she went to live in Muhammad’s house. The fact that she took her toys with her to her new home indicates that she was psychologically and socially still a child. And the fact that she was allowed to play with DOLLS indicates that she had NOT reached puberty by this time. (“The playing with the dolls and similar images was(is) forbidden, but it was allowed for Aisha at that time, as she was a little girl, not yet reached the age of puberty.”Fateh-al-Bari page 143, Vol.13). Besides, there is also Aisha’s own statement which implies that she had NOT reached puberty when she moved into Muhammad’s house[Sahih Bukhari 7.163]. I am sure she would have been able to recount accurately as to when and where she got her first menses. Most girls do remember such events rather accurately. (Refs 2)

What is “sick” is that Muhammad had started to dream of a union with Aisha already when she was 4-5 years old: “You were shown to me twice (in my dream) before I married you…(and) I said (to myself), ‘If this is from Allah, then it must happen.” He was to use a similar tactic when he wanted to marry his step son’s wife. A tactic which Aisha later came to understand as fraud, as in: “Aisha said: O Allah’s Apostle! I do not see, but, that your Lord hurries in pleasing you.” (Refs 2)

Muhammad wasted no time in realizing what he had been dreaming. Already when Aisha was 6 “The Prophet asked Abu Bakr for ‘Aisha’s hand in marriage. Abu Bakr said “But I am your brother.” The Prophet said, “You are my brother in Allah’s religion and His Book, but she (Aisha) is lawful for me to marry.” Here it does not seem that Abu Bakr consented to the marriage wholeheartedly.

REFERENCES (1) Les femmes du Prophete Prof.Magali Morsi, Professor of History, University of Muhammed V, Rabat, Morocco.

(2) Shahih Bukhari: [1.229] [1.230] [1.231] [1.232] [1.233] [1.258] [1.263] [1.267] [1.270] [1.294] [1.296] [1.298] [1.299] [3.148] [3.149] [3.150] [3.853] [4.736] [5.235] [5.236] [5.731] [7.14] [7.15] [7.57] [7.48] [7.57] [7.64] [7.65] [7.86] [7.88] [7.90] [7.144] [7.163] [8.151] [9.139] [9.140]

* “And if a woman is sexually mature I see nothing wrong with her marriage in general, with a man of any age… “- A muslim.

For those Muslims who approve of the above statement ( and hold similar views ): Would you let your daughters go through this ?


Pedophile ?

What are the essential features of pedophilia.?

Professors of psychiatry, Harold I.Kaplan MD and Benjamin J.Sadock MD. of New York University Medical School states the essential features to diagnose pedophilia are:

1.Identification with and narcissistic investment in immature sexual objects.

Muhammad’s infatuation and relationship with Aisha fits this criterion. And Mohammad was vain too – he liked to use perfume and dye his hair (even as an old man).

2. Control, domination and seduction of children.

A slight recalcitrance on the part of his wives was met by intolerant threats like: “if he (Muhammad) divorce you, (Allah) will give him in your place wives better than you, submissive, faithful, obedient, penitent, adorers, fasters, widows and virgins.” [K 66.5]

3. Sexual activity with children is preferential and occur repeatedly.

Aisha was ever present, right up to his last fatal breath and he preferred spending his nights with her. Aisha became Muhammad’s favorites wife. And the sexuality in the relationship was predominant. [Sahih Bukhari 1.270,3:36,7:6,3:148,3:149,3:150,7:142,IbnSa’d 1pg165]


Is menses necessary indicator of sexual maturity ?

Sexual maturity is NOT PURELY RELATED TO MENSES as for some peculiar reasons many Muslims have tried to say.

In the first place having or not having menses is not the criterion for sexual maturity, and thus of pedophilic behaviour. We have cases here, of abducted girls, 12, 13, 14, well past their mens, and yet preferred by pedophiles as sexual objects.

Besides when Aisha was about 4-5 years old Muhammad started dreaming of a union with her [Sahih Bukhari 5:235]- I am sure Ayesha was not menstruating then . Or do Arab girls menstruate at the age of 4-5 ?

A must read for Muslims and non-Muslims alike

In Uncategorized on May 27, 2006 at 9:15 PM

As has become abundantly and painfully clear over the last few years (the rapid dissemination of information is a blessing!), leaving Islam is only for the courageous. One site that offers important information on the destructive and false nature of Islam is Apostates of Islam. Below are two excerpts that can be read in their entirety at their home page. Be sure to follow the links there to more of the ugly truth about the prophet of death and his religion from hell.

From “Why We Left Islam”:

One who claims to be a messenger of God is expected to live a saintly life. He must not be given to lust, he must not be a sexual pervert, and he must not be a rapist, a highway robber, a war criminal, a mass murderer or an assassin. One who claims to be a messenger of God must have a superior character. He must stand above the vices of the people of his time. Yet Muhammad’’s life is that of a gangster godfather. He raided merchant caravans, looted innocent people, massacred entire male populations and enslaved the women and children. He raped the women captured in war after killing their husbands and told his followers that it is okay to have sex with their captives and their ““right hand possessions”” (Quran 33:50) He assassinated those who criticized him and executed them when he came to power and became de facto despot of Arabia. Muhammad was bereft of human compassion. He was an obsessed man with his dreams of grandiosity and could not forgive those who stood in his way. Muhammad was a narcissist like Hitler, Saddam or Stalin. He was astute and knew how to manipulate people, but his emotional intelligence was less evolved than that of a 6-year-old child. He simply could not feel the pain of others. He brutally massacred thousands of innocent people and pillaged their wealth. His ambitions were big and as a narcissist he honestly believed he is entitled to do as he pleased and commit all sorts of crimes and his evil deeds are justified.

…Muhammad produced no miracles and when pressed he claimed that his miracle is the Quran. Yet a cursory look at the Quran reveals that this book is full of errors. Quran is replete with scientific heresies, historic blunders, mathematical mistakes, logical absurdities, grammatical errors and ethical fallacies. It is badly compiled and it contradicts itself. There is nothing intelligent in this book let alone miraculous. Muhammad challenged people to produce a ““Surah like it”” or find an error therein, yet Muslims would kill anyone who dares to criticize it. In such a climate of hypocrisy and violence truth is the first casualty.

And a sober note of warning as to why President Bush’s failure to admit the truth about Islam limits our effectiveness in the War on a Technique, wasting America’s most noble blood and the people’s treasure:

Today the humanity is facing a great danger. Islamic fundamentalism is on the rise and the hatred is brewing in the minds of millions of Muslims. This hatred must be contained or there would be disastrous consequences. We believe that the education is the only answer. Muslim intellectuals must realize that Islam is a false doctrine and they must let the rest of Islamic world know the truth. Islam is a religion that thrives on the arrogant assumption that it is the most logical, the most scientific and the most perfect religion. While the fact is that it is the stupidest doctrine — the most backward and absurd belief. Once the truth about Islam becomes common knowledge, it will be weakened and the Islamic fanaticism will lose its fangs. Hundreds of billions of dollars are being expended to combat Islamic terrorism, yet no effort is made to contain the ideology behind this terrorism. It is our belief that Islamic terrorism will not be eliminated unless and until the ideology behind it is exposed and eradicated. This is what we intend to do.

A must read for Muslims and non-Muslims alike

In Uncategorized on May 27, 2006 at 9:15 PM

As has become abundantly and painfully clear over the last few years (the rapid dissemination of information is a blessing!), leaving Islam is only for the courageous. One site that offers important information on the destructive and false nature of Islam is Apostates of Islam. Below are two excerpts that can be read in their entirety at their home page. Be sure to follow the links there to more of the ugly truth about the prophet of death and his religion from hell.

From “Why We Left Islam”:

One who claims to be a messenger of God is expected to live a saintly life. He must not be given to lust, he must not be a sexual pervert, and he must not be a rapist, a highway robber, a war criminal, a mass murderer or an assassin. One who claims to be a messenger of God must have a superior character. He must stand above the vices of the people of his time. Yet Muhammad’’s life is that of a gangster godfather. He raided merchant caravans, looted innocent people, massacred entire male populations and enslaved the women and children. He raped the women captured in war after killing their husbands and told his followers that it is okay to have sex with their captives and their ““right hand possessions”” (Quran 33:50) He assassinated those who criticized him and executed them when he came to power and became de facto despot of Arabia. Muhammad was bereft of human compassion. He was an obsessed man with his dreams of grandiosity and could not forgive those who stood in his way. Muhammad was a narcissist like Hitler, Saddam or Stalin. He was astute and knew how to manipulate people, but his emotional intelligence was less evolved than that of a 6-year-old child. He simply could not feel the pain of others. He brutally massacred thousands of innocent people and pillaged their wealth. His ambitions were big and as a narcissist he honestly believed he is entitled to do as he pleased and commit all sorts of crimes and his evil deeds are justified.

…Muhammad produced no miracles and when pressed he claimed that his miracle is the Quran. Yet a cursory look at the Quran reveals that this book is full of errors. Quran is replete with scientific heresies, historic blunders, mathematical mistakes, logical absurdities, grammatical errors and ethical fallacies. It is badly compiled and it contradicts itself. There is nothing intelligent in this book let alone miraculous. Muhammad challenged people to produce a ““Surah like it”” or find an error therein, yet Muslims would kill anyone who dares to criticize it. In such a climate of hypocrisy and violence truth is the first casualty.

And a sober note of warning as to why President Bush’s failure to admit the truth about Islam limits our effectiveness in the War on a Technique, wasting America’s most noble blood and the people’s treasure:

Today the humanity is facing a great danger. Islamic fundamentalism is on the rise and the hatred is brewing in the minds of millions of Muslims. This hatred must be contained or there would be disastrous consequences. We believe that the education is the only answer. Muslim intellectuals must realize that Islam is a false doctrine and they must let the rest of Islamic world know the truth. Islam is a religion that thrives on the arrogant assumption that it is the most logical, the most scientific and the most perfect religion. While the fact is that it is the stupidest doctrine — the most backward and absurd belief. Once the truth about Islam becomes common knowledge, it will be weakened and the Islamic fanaticism will lose its fangs. Hundreds of billions of dollars are being expended to combat Islamic terrorism, yet no effort is made to contain the ideology behind this terrorism. It is our belief that Islamic terrorism will not be eliminated unless and until the ideology behind it is exposed and eradicated. This is what we intend to do.

Mohammed loved little children

In Uncategorized on May 27, 2006 at 8:29 PM

And the littler, the better, apparently.

Islam’s own authoritative texts admit to Mohammed’s multitudinous crimes against humanity. In the Internet Age, our political, academic and media elites’ obfuscation on Islam is completely inexcusable and bordering on treason/criminal negligence.

His lack of clarity on the source and sustenance of Islamic terrorism (the command of Allah and the example of its false prophet) is one of President Bush’s great failures and a major reason his poll numbers are failing (of course, aiding foreign agents’ invasion of the United States and reckless domestic spending are also important factors).

From Dr. Homa Darabi Foundation, on Allah’s apostle’s “special tenderness for children”:

Mohammad The Pedophile

PEDOPHILIA : [NL] (1906): sexual perversion in which children are the preferred sexual object.

[Scriptural Evidence] Volume 7, Book 62, Number 64: Sahih Bukhari [the most venerated and authentic Islamic source]
Narrated ‘Aisha: that the Prophet married her when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old, and then she remained with him for nine years (i.e. till his death).

Mongomerry Watts states: “Muhammed seemed to have felt a SPECIAL TENDERNESS towards children.”

The Moral Standard Muslims look upto, Prophet Mohammad : ” … Sounds like child molestation to me. It does not appear to me that the founder of Islam was a man of peace or good moral character. “ – Anonymous.

Muslims Practising Islam :

Compilation of Ishaq b. Mansur al-Kasaj, … found in Chapters on Marriage and Divorce, translated by Spectorsky, in the ruling that a woman “IS OF AGE WHEN SHE HAS REACHED HER NINTH YEAR !”

” Two iraqi men, aged 28 amd 34, who live in lincoln, nebraska, married two iraqi girls, aged 13 and 14, in a private Islamic ceremony attended by family and friends. The two men have been arrested, charged with the sexual assault of a child and could be sentenced to 50 years of prison because the marriage age in nebraska is at least 17 years of age. Their attorney argued that the men didn’t know about the law and that they were merely following their religious custom of courtship and marriage. Do they really do such things in today’s Iraq? “ – Abdul Abdi

” The point I would like to make is that The Muslim world has been exploiting younger girls a quite sometime now in the name of Islam. These are child abuse and it does occurred in a daily basis throughout Islamic world, including your birth place, Somalia. Rich Arab Muslims have been caught on the exit ports of India and Malaysia leaving with clueless, helpless girls clutching onto their dolls and other meager belongings. “ -Faisal Hassan.

“Now you want to clebrate American man made system while ignoring one of the things islamic shariah APPROVES. What a shameful statement?!!. Please note: Islamically, there is NOTHING wrong of marrying fifteen OR LESS as long as they have period and full feminhood signs. Any women reach the age of period can be married if and when she decided to ratify the contract of marraige.. That was the way our Prophet peace upon him got marry Caasha [ Ayesha ] . And that was the way our great Somali women delivered the majority of us. I DON’T THINK YOU WILL DARE TO SAY OUR PROPHET (PBUH) EXPLOITED ON CAASHA. [ Ayesha / Aisha ]” – daud7@aol.com (Daud7)

Inspired By Islam (What the most famous cleric has to say):

From Khomeini’s book, “Tahrirolvasyleh”, fourth volume, Darol Elm, Gom, Iran, 1990 :

A man can have sexual pleasure from a child as young as a baby. However he should not penetrate, sodomising the child is OK. If the man penetrates and damages the child then he should be responsible for her subsistence all her life. This girl, however does not count as one of his four permanent wives. The man will not be eligible to marry the girls sister.
[…]
It is better for a girl to marry in such a time when she would begin menstruation at her husband’s house rather than her father’s home. Any father marrying his daughter so young will have a permanent place in heaven.

How it all began ( a long time ago in the isolated deserts of Arabia) :

Already, when Aisha (the daughter of Abu Bakr, Mohammad’s closest friend and unquestioning ally) was about 4-5 years old Muhammad started dreaming of a union with her [Ref: SAHIH BUKHARI, 5:235] and he wasted no time in realizing his dreams, inspite of the fact that object of his dreams was a mere child.Perhaps you want to assume that it is “normal” for a 50+ year old man to dream of marrying a 4-5 old child, and then ACTUALLY ask for her hand at 6?

Is it normal for an oversexed old man (Muhammad had over 9 wives and concubines) to dream of a union with a 4-5 year old girl?

Muhammad ( SAW ) was basically oversexed, his sexual relationship with Aisha is a special case, which fits his strong need for a larger latitude to satisfy his sexual urge, as is witnessed by:
“The Prophet used to visit all his wives in a round, during the day and night and they were eleven in number.” I asked Anas, “Had the Prophet the strength for it?” Anas replied, “We used to say that the Prophet was given the strength of thirty (men).” And Sa’id said on the authority of Qatada that Anas had told him about nine wives only (not eleven).” [Bukhari.1:268]

When she was 6, Muhammad asked Abu Bakr, Aisha’s father, for her hand. Abu Bakr thought it was improper, because, as he said “I am your brother”; Muhammad brushed aside Abu Bakr’s reservation by saying that it was perfectly lawful for him to marry Aisha [ Ref: SAHIH BUKHAR I7:18].

What happened to ” there is no compulsion in matters of religion ?” Anyway what compulsion did Muhhammad need being a prophet his word was law, he restricted men to only four wives when he himself had more than four, that was a convenient exemption for Muhhammad.

So, Aisha was betrothed to Muhammad, and 3 years later, i.e. when Aisha was 9, the marriage was consumed. And Muhammad was 53 then [SAHIH BUKHARI 5:236,7:64,7:65,7:88] .

The 3 year waiting period probably had to do with the fact that at that time Aisha had contracted some disease, whereby she, temporarily lost her hair. Aisha was then socially and psychologically still a child as is evidenced by the fact that she was still given to her toys, she was unaware of what was happening around her, and her playmates behave as would the children at present times [Sahih Bukhari 8:151,5:234].

Aisha became Muhammad’s favourite wife. And the sexuality in the relationship was predominant [ SAHIH BUKHARI .1.270, 3:36, 7:6, 3:148, 3:149, 3:150, 7:142, IbnSa’d 1pg165 ]. Later, Aisha was to be called the “mother of believers”.

If you are wandering, yes, the relationship was pedophilic.

When did the sexual relations between Prophet Mohammad and his child bride begin?

Unfortunately we do not have any video recordings of such events. Neither can we expect that there would be any explicit statements regarding this. In any case it is certain that she had NOT reached puberty when she moved into Muhammad’s house, which in itself, contrary to the prevailing social norms, is a tacit implication that he may indulge in whatever fantasies he may have had when he asked for Aisha’s hand. And Muhammad did have fantasies.

Volume 8, Book 73, Number 151:

Narrated ‘Aisha: I used to play with the dolls in the presence of the Prophet, and my girl friends also used to play with me. When Allah’s Apostle used to enter (my dwelling place) they used to hide themselves, BUT the Prophet would call them to join and play with me. (The playing with the dolls and similar images is forbidden, but it was allowed for ‘Aisha at that time, as she was a little girl, not yet reached the age of puberty.) (Fateh-al-Bari page 143, Vol.13)

It is, however, very unlikely that Muhammad would have waited for the onset of the menses; or at most it could have been just after the 1st drops. The evidence is necessarily indirect.

# His strong desire to “graze of the (tree) of which nothing has been eaten before”, as his other wives had not been virgins.

# Menses or fasting do not reduce Muhammad’s desire and potency for sex. His nightly rounds to his wives(lastly 12-13) did require more than average potency.

# New additions to his harem lead to intensive sexual activity, e.g. arrival of Maria lead to increased, initial spurt of sexual activity to the neglect of others .

# The intervals between prayers are used for quick stands “I used to wash the traces of Janaba (semen) from the clothes of the Prophet and he used to go for prayers while traces of water were still on it.”

# Other wives try to please Muhammad by sacrificing their turns in favor of Aisha.

# During his last fatal illness he cries: “Where will I be tomorrow? Where will I be tomorrow?”, seeking Aisha’s turn.


Prophet Say: Marry Young Virgins

Volume 7, Book 62, Number 17:

Narrated Jabir bin ‘Abdullah:

When I got married, Allah’s Apostle said to me, “What type of lady have you married?” I replied, “I have married a matron’ He said, “Why, don’t you have a liking for the young virgins and for fondling them?” Jabir also said: Allah’s Apostle said, “Why didn’t you marry a young girl so that you might play with her and she with you?’

Silent Children :

Volume 7, Book 62, Number 67:

Narrated Abu Huraira:

The Prophet said, “A matron should not be given in marriage except after consulting her; and a virgin should not be given in marriage except after her permission.” The people asked, “O Allah’s Apostle! How can we know her permission?” He said, “Her silence (indicates her permission).”

Where sex is akin to a crime, silence is admission of your guilt. What a corruption of “fitrah” ( human nature).

What religion condones the destruction of childhood? What are we who daily avow our undying love for Allah to do against a system that ruthlessly oppresses its youngest and brightest ?


  • What was Aisha’s age? I have heard other figures … (A question also known as: How many of your own sources will you deny ? )

All the relevant sources (Bukhari, Ibn Hisham, Tabari, Ibn al-Athir, Ibn Sa’d, Ibn Hanbal, etc.) maintain that Aisha was bethroted to Mohammed when she was 6, and the marraige was consummated 3 years later.

‘Mahommad – The Word of Allah’ written by Anne-Marie Delcambre. (Anne-Marie Delcambre has a doctorate in ‘Islamology’, and taught Islamic Civilisation at the Saint Joseph University of Beyrouth in Lebanon). On page 69, it says that he was married to her when she was 9 years old.

Dates commonly accepted by scholars: Birth Muhammad(570), birth Aisha(614 or 615). Bethrothal(620 or 621), Consummation of marriage(623 or 624). In particular the “consummation” of marriage is said to have taken place after the hidjra in Shawwal 1 or 2. Between 621 and 623 Asiha is said to have contracted a disease whereby she temporarily lost her hair. (Ref 1)

She could not have been more than 10 years when she went to live in Muhammad’s house. The fact that she took her toys with her to her new home indicates that she was psychologically and socially still a child. And the fact that she was allowed to play with DOLLS indicates that she had NOT reached puberty by this time. (“The playing with the dolls and similar images was(is) forbidden, but it was allowed for Aisha at that time, as she was a little girl, not yet reached the age of puberty.”Fateh-al-Bari page 143, Vol.13). Besides, there is also Aisha’s own statement which implies that she had NOT reached puberty when she moved into Muhammad’s house[Sahih Bukhari 7.163]. I am sure she would have been able to recount accurately as to when and where she got her first menses. Most girls do remember such events rather accurately. (Refs 2)

What is “sick” is that Muhammad had started to dream of a union with Aisha already when she was 4-5 years old: “You were shown to me twice (in my dream) before I married you…(and) I said (to myself), ‘If this is from Allah, then it must happen.” He was to use a similar tactic when he wanted to marry his step son’s wife. A tactic which Aisha later came to understand as fraud, as in: “Aisha said: O Allah’s Apostle! I do not see, but, that your Lord hurries in pleasing you.” (Refs 2)

Muhammad wasted no time in realizing what he had been dreaming. Already when Aisha was 6 “The Prophet asked Abu Bakr for ‘Aisha’s hand in marriage. Abu Bakr said “But I am your brother.” The Prophet said, “You are my brother in Allah’s religion and His Book, but she (Aisha) is lawful for me to marry.” Here it does not seem that Abu Bakr consented to the marriage wholeheartedly.

REFERENCES (1) Les femmes du Prophete Prof.Magali Morsi, Professor of History, University of Muhammed V, Rabat, Morocco.

(2) Shahih Bukhari: [1.229] [1.230] [1.231] [1.232] [1.233] [1.258] [1.263] [1.267] [1.270] [1.294] [1.296] [1.298] [1.299] [3.148] [3.149] [3.150] [3.853] [4.736] [5.235] [5.236] [5.731] [7.14] [7.15] [7.57] [7.48] [7.57] [7.64] [7.65] [7.86] [7.88] [7.90] [7.144] [7.163] [8.151] [9.139] [9.140]

* “And if a woman is sexually mature I see nothing wrong with her marriage in general, with a man of any age… “- A muslim.

For those Muslims who approve of the above statement ( and hold similar views ): Would you let your daughters go through this ?


Pedophile ?

What are the essential features of pedophilia.?

Professors of psychiatry, Harold I.Kaplan MD and Benjamin J.Sadock MD. of New York University Medical School states the essential features to diagnose pedophilia are:

1.Identification with and narcissistic investment in immature sexual objects.

Muhammad’s infatuation and relationship with Aisha fits this criterion. And Mohammad was vain too – he liked to use perfume and dye his hair (even as an old man).

2. Control, domination and seduction of children.

A slight recalcitrance on the part of his wives was met by intolerant threats like: “if he (Muhammad) divorce you, (Allah) will give him in your place wives better than you, submissive, faithful, obedient, penitent, adorers, fasters, widows and virgins.” [K 66.5]

3. Sexual activity with children is preferential and occur repeatedly.

Aisha was ever present, right up to his last fatal breath and he preferred spending his nights with her. Aisha became Muhammad’s favorites wife. And the sexuality in the relationship was predominant. [Sahih Bukhari 1.270,3:36,7:6,3:148,3:149,3:150,7:142,IbnSa’d 1pg165]


Is menses necessary indicator of sexual maturity ?

Sexual maturity is NOT PURELY RELATED TO MENSES as for some peculiar reasons many Muslims have tried to say.

In the first place having or not having menses is not the criterion for sexual maturity, and thus of pedophilic behaviour. We have cases here, of abducted girls, 12, 13, 14, well past their mens, and yet preferred by pedophiles as sexual objects.

Besides when Aisha was about 4-5 years old Muhammad started dreaming of a union with her [Sahih Bukhari 5:235]- I am sure Ayesha was not menstruating then . Or do Arab girls menstruate at the age of 4-5 ?

A must read for Muslims and non-Muslims alike

In Uncategorized on May 27, 2006 at 8:15 PM

As has become abundantly and painfully clear over the last few years (the rapid dissemination of information is a blessing!), leaving Islam is only for the courageous. One site that offers important information on the destructive and false nature of Islam is Apostates of Islam. Below are two excerpts that can be read in their entirety at their home page. Be sure to follow the links there to more of the ugly truth about the prophet of death and his religion from hell.

From “Why We Left Islam”:

One who claims to be a messenger of God is expected to live a saintly life. He must not be given to lust, he must not be a sexual pervert, and he must not be a rapist, a highway robber, a war criminal, a mass murderer or an assassin. One who claims to be a messenger of God must have a superior character. He must stand above the vices of the people of his time. Yet Muhammad’’s life is that of a gangster godfather. He raided merchant caravans, looted innocent people, massacred entire male populations and enslaved the women and children. He raped the women captured in war after killing their husbands and told his followers that it is okay to have sex with their captives and their ““right hand possessions”” (Quran 33:50) He assassinated those who criticized him and executed them when he came to power and became de facto despot of Arabia. Muhammad was bereft of human compassion. He was an obsessed man with his dreams of grandiosity and could not forgive those who stood in his way. Muhammad was a narcissist like Hitler, Saddam or Stalin. He was astute and knew how to manipulate people, but his emotional intelligence was less evolved than that of a 6-year-old child. He simply could not feel the pain of others. He brutally massacred thousands of innocent people and pillaged their wealth. His ambitions were big and as a narcissist he honestly believed he is entitled to do as he pleased and commit all sorts of crimes and his evil deeds are justified.

…Muhammad produced no miracles and when pressed he claimed that his miracle is the Quran. Yet a cursory look at the Quran reveals that this book is full of errors. Quran is replete with scientific heresies, historic blunders, mathematical mistakes, logical absurdities, grammatical errors and ethical fallacies. It is badly compiled and it contradicts itself. There is nothing intelligent in this book let alone miraculous. Muhammad challenged people to produce a ““Surah like it”” or find an error therein, yet Muslims would kill anyone who dares to criticize it. In such a climate of hypocrisy and violence truth is the first casualty.

And a sober note of warning as to why President Bush’s failure to admit the truth about Islam limits our effectiveness in the War on a Technique, wasting America’s most noble blood and the people’s treasure:

Today the humanity is facing a great danger. Islamic fundamentalism is on the rise and the hatred is brewing in the minds of millions of Muslims. This hatred must be contained or there would be disastrous consequences. We believe that the education is the only answer. Muslim intellectuals must realize that Islam is a false doctrine and they must let the rest of Islamic world know the truth. Islam is a religion that thrives on the arrogant assumption that it is the most logical, the most scientific and the most perfect religion. While the fact is that it is the stupidest doctrine — the most backward and absurd belief. Once the truth about Islam becomes common knowledge, it will be weakened and the Islamic fanaticism will lose its fangs. Hundreds of billions of dollars are being expended to combat Islamic terrorism, yet no effort is made to contain the ideology behind this terrorism. It is our belief that Islamic terrorism will not be eliminated unless and until the ideology behind it is exposed and eradicated. This is what we intend to do.

Another refutation of the Muslim lie that Islam’s god is the Bible’s YHWH

In Uncategorized on May 22, 2006 at 5:52 PM

Despite the common assertion (even from mainstream conservative Christians) that Islam worships the same God that Christians do, any even brief examination of each religion’s authoritative texts reveal that the god of Mohammed has much more in common with hell (from where it was spawned) than the great I AM.

Several of the fundamental contradictions between Christ and Allah (and his false prophet) have been noted here before; this article (links in the original) provides some additional detail that one might find interesting:

Aggressive Islam is on the march. Terror attacks; violent protests over cartoons; many pushes to establish Islamic courts in Europe and Canada; demands to silence free speech, to criminalize criticism of the messenger of Allah; the President of Islam threatening to wipe Israel off the map, and writing a long and confused rant, inviting the President of the US to accept Islam; the election of Hamas.

These actions are easy to detect and decipher. Islam wants its way, and no one should resist. It is the best religion, after all.

But there is something more subtle and gradual going on than this in-your-face aggression. In the name of peace and tolerance—which we all want—some lines are being blurred.

Some Muslims say that Jesus was a mere human messenger even within Islam—never mind that he lived six hundred years before Islam. He and Muhammad are virtually the same. Both preached peace, but called for the sword when necessary.

But in the final analysis Muhammad is the last and best prophet. He has the better revelation. If only we could see this! So goes the subtle strategy.

However, this list of fifteen differences between Jesus and Muhammad disagrees with this insidious message. The differences between the two are profound.

It is better to be clear than confused. The frequently preached message of Islam washes away clarity about Christianity and whitewashes its own message.

In fact, many well-meaning western scholars also muddy the waters. Some aspects and policies of the two religious leaders cannot be reconciled, and it is high time we acknowledge this. If some readers are disappointed about these irreconcilable differences, then at least they will not be confused by the time they reach the end of this list.

The first two differences set the stage for all the others.

One: Personal sin

One suffered from sin. The other was sinless.

Muhammad

In Mecca, he receives this command about his sin.

40:55 Then have patience (O Muhammad). Lo! the promise of Allah is true. And ask forgiveness of thy sin [dh-n-b] and hymn the praise of thy Lord at fall of night and in the early hours. (Pickthall)

The Arabic word dhanaba (verb form) come from the root dh-n-b and is defined below in this section. This verse is unambiguous. Muhammad has sin.

It is one of the great ironies in the Quran that the next sura can be titled either “Muhammad” or “War” (qital, root is q-t-l). This verse was revealed in Medina.

47:19 So know (O Muhammad . . .) that . . . none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and ask forgiveness for your sin, [dh-n-b] and also for (the sin of) believing men and believing women. And Allah knows well your moving about, and your place of rest (in your homes). (Hilali and Khan)

Note that Muhammad implores forgiveness from Allah not only for himself but for Muslim men and women. This means that average humans have dh-n-b, and so does Muhammad.

The final example of Muhammad’s sin comes from Sura (Chapter) 48, revealed in Medina.

48:2 That Allah may forgive you your sins [dh-n-b] of the past and the future and complete His Favour on you, and guide you on the Straight Path . . . (Hilali and Khan)

This verse was probably revealed in 628, barely four years before he died of a fever in AD 632. Does this mean that the messenger of Allah had sin before AD 628? This seems to be the case. To be forgiven of dh-n-b, one must have it first.

How is dh-n-b defined? Is it only a small weakness? Merely a minor fault?A Muslim scholar defines it thus: “Crime; Fault; Offence; Sin; Any act having an evil result” (Omar). A western scholar defines it as “a crime, fault, sin” (Penrice).

Go here for a list of verses in the Quran that describe other persons who suffer from dh-n-b. It means far more than simple errors, small mistakes, superficial weaknesses, minor faults, and brief lapses of memory. It may include these things (all humans do them), but it also has to signify sin, crime, offense, and any act having an evil result (all humans do this also, in one way or another).

What does this sin nature in Muhammad mean in practical and down-to-earth terms today? If a researcher points out an atrocity or a violent act that Muhammad committed, then for a devout Muslim the atrocity or act is not wrong or unjust or sinful. It must be right, just, and sinless, no matter what the facts say because Muhammad was sinless—again, no matter what the Quran says. And the vicious circle goes round and round….

Jesus

He poses this rhetorical question to his opponents and accusers in John 8:45-46:

Yet because I tell the truth, you do not believe me! Can you prove me guilty of any sin?

In his culture, “prove guilty of sin” refers to his keeping the Law. Did he deviate from it? His opponents do not take him up on his challenge.

Next, Peter lived and walked with Jesus for at least three years. If anyone could, then the chief Apostle surely saw some minor sin in the Lord, right?

21 To this you [Christians] were called because Christ suffered for you, leaving you an example, that you should follow in his steps. 22 He committed no sin, and no deceit was found in his mouth. (1 Peter 2:21-22)

In verse 22, Peter quotes from Isaiah 53:9, which Jesus fulfilled in his suffering and death. So the chief Apostle did not find even a minor sin in Jesus Christ—no sin at all.

Finally, the Apostle John also lived and walked with Jesus for three years. What is his assessment of Jesus from his own observations?

But you know that he appeared so that he might take away our sins. And in him is no sin. (1 John 3:5)

The verdict is in: John never saw a sin in the Lord, whom he saw up close and personal.

Both declarations by Peter and John are remarkable. It is one hundred percent certain that if we had followed these apostles for three years every day, then we would have seen at least one sin. But these two did not see even one sin in Jesus.

Two: Confronting Satan

One nervously seeks refuge from Satan. The other had complete confidence and authority.

Muhammad

Sura 113, a short one, revealed in Mecca, says in its entirety:

1 Say [Prophet], “I seek refuge with the Lord of daybreak 2 against the evil in what He has created, 3 the evil in the night when darkness gathers, 4 the evil in witches when they blow on knots, 5 the evil in the envier when he envies.” (MAS Abdel Haleem, The Qur’an, Oxford UP, 2004, his insertion; cf. Suras 7:200-201; 16:98; 41:36; and Sura 114, a short one, in its entirety)

The hadith consists of the traditions about Muhammad outside of the Quran. Bukhari is considered one of the most reliable collectors and editors. The following hadith indicates that Muhammad believes that some sort of knots on the head is the result of Satan and witchcraft.

Allah’s Apostle said, “Satan puts three knots at the back of the head of any of you if he is asleep” . . . (Bukhari; see a parallel hadith)

This next hadith demonstrates that Muhammad was so deeply influenced by magic that he believed that he was having sex with his wives, but in reality he was not.

Narrated Aisha: Magic was worked on Allah’s Apostle so that he used to think that he had sexual relations with his wives while he actually had not. (Bukhari, and read the hadith below this linked one.)

The highly respected conservative commentator Sayyid Abul A’La Maududi (d. 1979) says that the hadiths on Muhammad’s bewitchment are sound.

“As far as the historical aspect is concerned, the incident of the Holy Prophet’s being affected by magic is absolutely confirmed” . . . (Maududi scroll down to “Question of Holy Prophet being affected by magic”). Maududi is right. Muhammad was bewitched. And this is not part of true Prophethood.

Jesus

Throughout his three-year ministry, he exercised spiritual authority over the kingdom of darkness, wherever he went. After the Great Test (Luke 4:1-13; see no. seven, below) Luke records the first public encounter with a demon:

33 In the synagogue there was a man possessed by a demon, an evil spirit. He cried out at the top of his voice, 34 “Ha! What do you want with us, Jesus of Nazareth? Have you come to destroy us? I know who you are—the Holy One of God! 35 “Be quiet!” Jesus said sternly. “Come out of him!” Then the demon threw the man down before them all and came out without injuring him. (Luke 4:33-35)

Jesus cast the demons out without rituals and loud pleading. Instead, he speaks a stern command: “Come out of him!” This reveals spiritual authority and decisiveness, which is repeated time and again in Jesus’ ministry.

This article contrasts Muhammad’s fears and bewitchment with Christ’s commanding authority over Satan and dark powers. This index page references several articles and rebuttals and replies.

Three: Small-scale violence

One killed mockers and enemies. The other rises above such violence.

Muhammad

He assassinated (or threatened to murder) at least eleven men or women who insulted or threatened him. Several of his victims merely composed satirical poems.

These verses offer support of this policy. Medinan Sura 33:60-61 says:

60 If the hypocrites, the sick of heart, and those who spread lies in the city [Medina] do not desist, We shall arouse you [Prophet] against them, and then they will only be your neighbors in this city for a short while. 61 They will be rejected wherever they are found, and then seized and killed. (MAS Abdel Haleem, The Quran, Oxford UP, 2004)

Muhammad had already assassinated some opponents for their insults and mockery before these verses were sent down, but now they give him divine endorsement.

Jesus

During the last week of Jesus life, the tension between him and the religious establishment rises. The leaders look for a way to trap and then arrest him. So they ask him whether it is lawful to pay taxes to Caesar. Apparently, they saw him as a political revolutionary who opposed Roman occupation. Would he endorse the taxation of his fellow Jews for the benefit of unclean Gentiles? However, they did not know that he was a king, but that his kingdom was not of this world (John 18:36). So he replied with these famous words that are often quoted, though people may not know the exact reference and context (Luke 20:20-26; cf. Matthew 22:15-22; Mark 12:13-17). Jesus speaks first; his opponents reply.

24 “Show me a denarius. Whose portrait and inscription are on it?” 25 “Caesar’s,” they replied. He said to them, “Then give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.” 26 They were unable to trap him in what he said there in public. And astonished by his answer, they became silent. (Luke 20:20-26)

After this disarming reply, it is important to note what he did not do. He did not send Simon the Zealot, one of the Twelve, to follow an antagonistic leader, mingle in the large crowd of pilgrims during the Feast of Passover, sneak up on him, stab him, and disappear in the crowd again. These kinds of assassinations were not unknown in the decades before the destruction of the Temple in AD 70.

But violence was not necessary. God was with Jesus….

Four: Religious freedom

One suppressed it. The other permits it.

Muhammad

Polytheists controlled the Black Stone housed in the Kabah shrine. This was both a spiritual center (in pagan logic) and a financial center (in real terms). Muhammad eventually conquered it in early AD 630. After declaring amnesty for Meccan pagans, he changes his tone. He imposes this ultimatum on them and all other pagans. Sura 9:5 says:

9:5 Then, when the months made unlawful for fighting expire, kill the mushriks [polytheists] wherever you find them, and seize them, and besiege them, and lie in wait for them at every place of ambush. But if they repent, establish Salat [prayer five times a day] and pay the Zakat dues [charity tax], then let them go their way. (Abul A’La Maududi, The Meaning of the Qur’an, vol. 2, p. 175; insertions mine)

This verse says that unless pagans say their prayers the Muslim way and pay a forced “charity” tax, they will be killed.

Next, this hadith (record of the words and deeds of Muhammad recorded outside of the Quran) from Bukhari (a highly reliable collector and editor of hadith) says that Muhammad is called to fight until people acknowledge that only Allah is the right deity and Muhammad is his messenger. The people must also give the messenger their money (parallel hadith).

Malik (d. 795) is a founder of an Islamic school of law and a reliable collector and editor of hadith. He records this tradition about Muhammad’s policy on those who leave Islam:

Yahya related to me . . . that the Messenger of Allah . . . said, “If someone changes his religion—then strike off his head!” (Source )

Jesus

He let people go their own way, if they refuse to follow him. He said, “If anyone comes after [follows] me” . . . (Matthew 17:24). The little word “if” implies freedom to accept the way of Jesus or to walk away from it. He never raised a holy army to force anyone to convert. In John 6, some disciples decided to walk away from him. He had spoken difficult words.

66 From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him. 67 “You do not want to leave too, do you?” Jesus asked the Twelve. 68 Simon Peter answered him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. 69 We believe and know that you are the Holy One of God.” (John 6:66-69)

It is important to note what Jesus did not do or say. He did not threaten them with physical death. He did not send a disciple or two to assassinate one of the deserters (a leader, perhaps), to teach the rest and the Twelve a lesson. “Follow and obey me, or else!” “Or else what?” “Or else I’ll kill you!” Those words and others like them Jesus never spoke.

This article explores why the West and other free countries around the globe must protect freedom of speech. This article analyzes Muhammad’s policy on apostates in the Quran, hadith, and Islamic law.

Five: Large-scale Violence

One launched the first Crusade. The other ordains preaching alone.

Muhammad

It is true that the word “Crusade” comes from the word “cross,” but it is used here in the broad sense of “holy war.” Muslims today forget that Muhammad was the first to launch one, long before the western Europeans responded with theirs. In the ten years that he lived in Medina, he either sent out or went out on seventy-four raids, skirmishes and battles. Sura 9 is his last revelation in its entirety before he dies. He commissions his followers to wage war on Jews and Christians or the People of the Book or Scripture (= Bible). Sura 9:29 says:

9:29 Fight against those who believe not in Allah, nor in the Last Day, nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger (Muhammad) and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth (i.e. Islam) among people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians) until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued (Hilali and Khan, insertions in parentheses are theirs)

This verse that commands battle against Christians and Jews is all about theology and belief. It says nothing explicit about a real and physical harm done to Islam. Muhammad launched his Tabuk Crusade in late AD 630 against the Byzantine Christians. He had heard a rumor that an army was mobilizing to invade Arabia, but the rumor was false, so his 30,000 jihadists returned home, but not before imposing a jizya tax on northern Christians and Jews. They had three options: (1) fight and die; (2) convert to Islam; (3) or submit and pay the second-class-citizen jizya tax for the “privilege” of living under Islam.

Jesus

After he was resurrected from the dead and just before he ascended to rule on high, he sends forth his followers to preach the gospel without violence. In Evangelical Christianity this passage is known as the Great Commission.

18 Then Jesus came to them [the disciples] and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the end of the age.” (Matthew 28:18-20)

Nothing in these verses command warfare. For centuries after Christ’s resurrection and ascension, his disciples crisscrossed the Mediterranean world preaching without violence. Despite being persecuted, they turned the world right-side up and transformed it.

Here is an article which has a timeline of the Islamic Crusades. Two articles explain the differences between Muhammad’s wars of worldwide conquest and the Old Testament’s limited wars more than 3,000 years ago.

Six: Martyrdom

One promises earthly and heavenly rewards for dying in a holy war. The other says his “martyrdom” promises his followers heaven.

Muhammad

Sura 4 was revealed over a three year period in the middle of Muhammad’s career (AD 625-627). He is not quite as secure as he will be when he conquers Mecca in AD 630. For now, he needs to recruit jihadists for his raids, conflicts, and wars. One way to get them to join up is to promise earthly or heavenly rewards.

4:74 Let those fight in the cause of God Who sell the life of this world for the hereafter. To him who fighteth in the cause of God, – whether he is slain or gets victory – Soon shall We give him a reward of great (value) . . . . (Yusuf Ali)

Next, these two verses in Sura 4 teach that Allah has created at least a two-tier system in his Muslim ummah or community: (1) Those who “strive hard and fight with their wealth and their lives”; (2) those who sit at home. The disabled are in a separate category.

4:95-96 Not equal are those of the believers who sit (at home), except those who are disabled (by injury or are blind or lame, etc.), and those who strive hard and fight in the Cause of Allah with their wealth and their lives. Allah has preferred in grades those who strive hard and fight with their wealth and their lives above those who sit (at home). Unto each, Allah has promised good (Paradise), but Allah has preferred those who strive hard and fight, above those who sit (at home) by a huge reward; 96 Degrees of (higher) grades from Him, and Forgiveness and Mercy. . . . (Hilali and Khan)

At the end of Muhammad’s life, Muhammad reinforces this two-caste system: see Sura 9:38-39, 41, 44, 86, 87.

Finally, as seen in 4:74, an economic bargain is offered to jihadists in this next verse. Allah purchases their lives in exchange for Islamic paradise. Sura 9 is the last sura to be revealed in its entirety.

9:111 Verily, Allah has purchased of the believers their lives and their properties; for the price that theirs shall be the Paradise. They fight in Allah’s Cause, so they kill (others) and are killed. It is a promise in truth which is binding on Him in the Taurat (Torah) and the Injeel (Gospel) and the Qur’an. . . Then rejoice in the bargain which you have concluded . . . . (Hilali and Khan)

Allah and Muhammad are completely wrong about the Bible’s command to fight in bloody wars in order to bring heavenly rewards. Moses ordered wars that were time-specific (more than 3,000 years ago), location-specific (holy land), and purpose-specific. But Moses or Joshua or the judges did not promise heaven, automatically, for the express act of dying in wars.

All of these passages use win-win-win logic from Muhammad’s point of view. If a jihadist dies fighting, then he gets Islamic paradise. If he wins and lives, then he gets material spoils. If he is defeated but escapes with his life, then he gets to fight another day.

Jesus

Matthew 5:10 10:39, 19:29 speak of an uncompromising commitment to follow Christ, laying down one’s life mainly in a spiritual way, and possibly in a physical death under severe and fatal persecution. But the verses are not found in the context of a bloody religious war. Rather, Jesus calls his disciples to pick up their cross and follow him (Matt. 10:38, 16:24; Mark 8:34; Luke 9:23, 14:27), but he also says that they should do this daily (Luke 9:23). The image of the cross means that they must follow Jesus no matter what, on a daily basis, which precludes an earthly martyrdom, which is done only once; per contra, a “daily martyrdom” is continuous. A twisted love of physical death is not in view in those New Testament passages in the context of holy wars.

The following cannot be repeated too often because it diametrically opposes the Islamic doctrine of salvation, or how to get into heaven: only Christ’s “Martyrdom” guarantees a believer’s place in heaven; only his Ultimate Good Work on the cross paves the way to God. Thus, the Christian does not (or should not) have a psychological inducement to kill himself or to be killed in battle to achieve heaven. He needs only trust in Christ.

This article explores martyrdom in the Quran and early Christianity, beyond the New Testament.

Seven: Wealth

One took it by force. The other resisted this temptation.

Muhammad

Besides forcing religious conformity and the submission of non-Muslims, he was after wealth.

Sura 48 was revealed in AD 628, after a treaty with the Meccans and during his conquest of the Jews of Khaybar. This verse predicts future spoils of war for Allah’s beloved prophet. Sura 48:20 says:

48:20 Allah has promised you abundant spoils that you will capture, and He has hastened for you this, and He has restrained the hands of men from you, that it may be a sign for the believers, and that He may guide you to a Straight Path. (Hilali and Khan)

Maududi a respected traditional and conservative commentator, says that the clause “Allah has promised you abundant spoils that you will capture” refers to the conquests after Muhammad’s takeover of the city of Khaybar. It communicates a general promise of the spoils of any war that he embarks on. (The Meaning of the Qur’an, vol. 5, p. 62, note 35

However, Allah in this verse warns Muslims and Muhammad not to get attached to material things or to get ensnared by the “love of desires.”

3:14 The love of desires, of women and sons and hoarded treasures of gold and silver and well bred horses and cattle and tilth, is made to seem [beautiful] to men; this is the provision of the life of this world; and Allah is He with Whom is the good goal (of life). (Shakir, my insertion in brackets)

This verse teaches wisdom, but Muhammad did not follow it. He is the one who desired women and married many of them—a privilege of numbers reserved only for him (Sura 33:50); he is the one who traded in slaves, a lucrative business; he is the one who owned vast herds of livestock; he is the one who said that money will expiate or atone for sins; he is the one who bought off converts; he and his successors are the ones who conquered peaceful people who did not harm Islam in the slightest; he is the one who spread out recently collected tax money in his mosque, counting the most he had ever received; he is the one who promised his jihadists heaven if they died, and plunder if they lived. If anyone had the “love of desires,” it was the Prophet of Islam.

Jesus

Satan offers Jesus the whole world at the very beginning of his ministry. But he turned down this offer. Luke 4:1-2, 5-7 says:

4:1 Jesus, full of the Holy Spirit, returned from the Jordan and was led by the Spirit in the desert, 2 where for forty days he was tempted by the devil . . . 5 The devil led him up to a high place and showed him in an instance all the kingdoms of the world. 6 And he said to him, “I will give you all their authority and splendor, for it has been given me, and I can give it to anyone I want to. 7 So if you worship me, it will be yours.” 8 Jesus answered, “It is written, ‘Worship the Lord your God and serve him only.’” (cf. Deuteronomy 6:13)

In divine cooperation between Jesus and the Spirit, God allowed Satan to lead Jesus up to a high place and show him all the kingdoms of this world—their glory and political authority (exousia in Greek means political authority; cf. Luke 4:6 and 12:11, 20:20, 23:7). In addition to political authority, kingdom, by definition at the time of Christ, includes material resources, backed by a strong military. However, Jesus raises his and our vision to a spiritual transformation of the world, one soul at a time, without killing people and robbing their money by bloodshed.

Another refutation of the Muslim lie that Islam’s god is the Bible’s YHWH

In Uncategorized on May 22, 2006 at 5:52 PM

Despite the common assertion (even from mainstream conservative Christians) that Islam worships the same God that Christians do, any even brief examination of each religion’s authoritative texts reveal that the god of Mohammed has much more in common with hell (from where it was spawned) than the great I AM.

Several of the fundamental contradictions between Christ and Allah (and his false prophet) have been noted here before; this article (links in the original) provides some additional detail that one might find interesting:

Aggressive Islam is on the march. Terror attacks; violent protests over cartoons; many pushes to establish Islamic courts in Europe and Canada; demands to silence free speech, to criminalize criticism of the messenger of Allah; the President of Islam threatening to wipe Israel off the map, and writing a long and confused rant, inviting the President of the US to accept Islam; the election of Hamas.

These actions are easy to detect and decipher. Islam wants its way, and no one should resist. It is the best religion, after all.

But there is something more subtle and gradual going on than this in-your-face aggression. In the name of peace and tolerance—which we all want—some lines are being blurred.

Some Muslims say that Jesus was a mere human messenger even within Islam—never mind that he lived six hundred years before Islam. He and Muhammad are virtually the same. Both preached peace, but called for the sword when necessary.

But in the final analysis Muhammad is the last and best prophet. He has the better revelation. If only we could see this! So goes the subtle strategy.

However, this list of fifteen differences between Jesus and Muhammad disagrees with this insidious message. The differences between the two are profound.

It is better to be clear than confused. The frequently preached message of Islam washes away clarity about Christianity and whitewashes its own message.

In fact, many well-meaning western scholars also muddy the waters. Some aspects and policies of the two religious leaders cannot be reconciled, and it is high time we acknowledge this. If some readers are disappointed about these irreconcilable differences, then at least they will not be confused by the time they reach the end of this list.

The first two differences set the stage for all the others.

One: Personal sin

One suffered from sin. The other was sinless.

Muhammad

In Mecca, he receives this command about his sin.

40:55 Then have patience (O Muhammad). Lo! the promise of Allah is true. And ask forgiveness of thy sin [dh-n-b] and hymn the praise of thy Lord at fall of night and in the early hours. (Pickthall)

The Arabic word dhanaba (verb form) come from the root dh-n-b and is defined below in this section. This verse is unambiguous. Muhammad has sin.

It is one of the great ironies in the Quran that the next sura can be titled either “Muhammad” or “War” (qital, root is q-t-l). This verse was revealed in Medina.

47:19 So know (O Muhammad . . .) that . . . none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and ask forgiveness for your sin, [dh-n-b] and also for (the sin of) believing men and believing women. And Allah knows well your moving about, and your place of rest (in your homes). (Hilali and Khan)

Note that Muhammad implores forgiveness from Allah not only for himself but for Muslim men and women. This means that average humans have dh-n-b, and so does Muhammad.

The final example of Muhammad’s sin comes from Sura (Chapter) 48, revealed in Medina.

48:2 That Allah may forgive you your sins [dh-n-b] of the past and the future and complete His Favour on you, and guide you on the Straight Path . . . (Hilali and Khan)

This verse was probably revealed in 628, barely four years before he died of a fever in AD 632. Does this mean that the messenger of Allah had sin before AD 628? This seems to be the case. To be forgiven of dh-n-b, one must have it first.

How is dh-n-b defined? Is it only a small weakness? Merely a minor fault?A Muslim scholar defines it thus: “Crime; Fault; Offence; Sin; Any act having an evil result” (Omar). A western scholar defines it as “a crime, fault, sin” (Penrice).

Go here for a list of verses in the Quran that describe other persons who suffer from dh-n-b. It means far more than simple errors, small mistakes, superficial weaknesses, minor faults, and brief lapses of memory. It may include these things (all humans do them), but it also has to signify sin, crime, offense, and any act having an evil result (all humans do this also, in one way or another).

What does this sin nature in Muhammad mean in practical and down-to-earth terms today? If a researcher points out an atrocity or a violent act that Muhammad committed, then for a devout Muslim the atrocity or act is not wrong or unjust or sinful. It must be right, just, and sinless, no matter what the facts say because Muhammad was sinless—again, no matter what the Quran says. And the vicious circle goes round and round….

Jesus

He poses this rhetorical question to his opponents and accusers in John 8:45-46:

Yet because I tell the truth, you do not believe me! Can you prove me guilty of any sin?

In his culture, “prove guilty of sin” refers to his keeping the Law. Did he deviate from it? His opponents do not take him up on his challenge.

Next, Peter lived and walked with Jesus for at least three years. If anyone could, then the chief Apostle surely saw some minor sin in the Lord, right?

21 To this you [Christians] were called because Christ suffered for you, leaving you an example, that you should follow in his steps. 22 He committed no sin, and no deceit was found in his mouth. (1 Peter 2:21-22)

In verse 22, Peter quotes from Isaiah 53:9, which Jesus fulfilled in his suffering and death. So the chief Apostle did not find even a minor sin in Jesus Christ—no sin at all.

Finally, the Apostle John also lived and walked with Jesus for three years. What is his assessment of Jesus from his own observations?

But you know that he appeared so that he might take away our sins. And in him is no sin. (1 John 3:5)

The verdict is in: John never saw a sin in the Lord, whom he saw up close and personal.

Both declarations by Peter and John are remarkable. It is one hundred percent certain that if we had followed these apostles for three years every day, then we would have seen at least one sin. But these two did not see even one sin in Jesus.

Two: Confronting Satan

One nervously seeks refuge from Satan. The other had complete confidence and authority.

Muhammad

Sura 113, a short one, revealed in Mecca, says in its entirety:

1 Say [Prophet], “I seek refuge with the Lord of daybreak 2 against the evil in what He has created, 3 the evil in the night when darkness gathers, 4 the evil in witches when they blow on knots, 5 the evil in the envier when he envies.” (MAS Abdel Haleem, The Qur’an, Oxford UP, 2004, his insertion; cf. Suras 7:200-201; 16:98; 41:36; and Sura 114, a short one, in its entirety)

The hadith consists of the traditions about Muhammad outside of the Quran. Bukhari is considered one of the most reliable collectors and editors. The following hadith indicates that Muhammad believes that some sort of knots on the head is the result of Satan and witchcraft.

Allah’s Apostle said, “Satan puts three knots at the back of the head of any of you if he is asleep” . . . (Bukhari; see a parallel hadith)

This next hadith demonstrates that Muhammad was so deeply influenced by magic that he believed that he was having sex with his wives, but in reality he was not.

Narrated Aisha: Magic was worked on Allah’s Apostle so that he used to think that he had sexual relations with his wives while he actually had not. (Bukhari, and read the hadith below this linked one.)

The highly respected conservative commentator Sayyid Abul A’La Maududi (d. 1979) says that the hadiths on Muhammad’s bewitchment are sound.

“As far as the historical aspect is concerned, the incident of the Holy Prophet’s being affected by magic is absolutely confirmed” . . . (Maududi scroll down to “Question of Holy Prophet being affected by magic”). Maududi is right. Muhammad was bewitched. And this is not part of true Prophethood.

Jesus

Throughout his three-year ministry, he exercised spiritual authority over the kingdom of darkness, wherever he went. After the Great Test (Luke 4:1-13; see no. seven, below) Luke records the first public encounter with a demon:

33 In the synagogue there was a man possessed by a demon, an evil spirit. He cried out at the top of his voice, 34 “Ha! What do you want with us, Jesus of Nazareth? Have you come to destroy us? I know who you are—the Holy One of God! 35 “Be quiet!” Jesus said sternly. “Come out of him!” Then the demon threw the man down before them all and came out without injuring him. (Luke 4:33-35)

Jesus cast the demons out without rituals and loud pleading. Instead, he speaks a stern command: “Come out of him!” This reveals spiritual authority and decisiveness, which is repeated time and again in Jesus’ ministry.

This article contrasts Muhammad’s fears and bewitchment with Christ’s commanding authority over Satan and dark powers. This index page references several articles and rebuttals and replies.

Three: Small-scale violence

One killed mockers and enemies. The other rises above such violence.

Muhammad

He assassinated (or threatened to murder) at least eleven men or women who insulted or threatened him. Several of his victims merely composed satirical poems.

These verses offer support of this policy. Medinan Sura 33:60-61 says:

60 If the hypocrites, the sick of heart, and those who spread lies in the city [Medina] do not desist, We shall arouse you [Prophet] against them, and then they will only be your neighbors in this city for a short while. 61 They will be rejected wherever they are found, and then seized and killed. (MAS Abdel Haleem, The Quran, Oxford UP, 2004)

Muhammad had already assassinated some opponents for their insults and mockery before these verses were sent down, but now they give him divine endorsement.

Jesus

During the last week of Jesus life, the tension between him and the religious establishment rises. The leaders look for a way to trap and then arrest him. So they ask him whether it is lawful to pay taxes to Caesar. Apparently, they saw him as a political revolutionary who opposed Roman occupation. Would he endorse the taxation of his fellow Jews for the benefit of unclean Gentiles? However, they did not know that he was a king, but that his kingdom was not of this world (John 18:36). So he replied with these famous words that are often quoted, though people may not know the exact reference and context (Luke 20:20-26; cf. Matthew 22:15-22; Mark 12:13-17). Jesus speaks first; his opponents reply.

24 “Show me a denarius. Whose portrait and inscription are on it?” 25 “Caesar’s,” they replied. He said to them, “Then give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.” 26 They were unable to trap him in what he said there in public. And astonished by his answer, they became silent. (Luke 20:20-26)

After this disarming reply, it is important to note what he did not do. He did not send Simon the Zealot, one of the Twelve, to follow an antagonistic leader, mingle in the large crowd of pilgrims during the Feast of Passover, sneak up on him, stab him, and disappear in the crowd again. These kinds of assassinations were not unknown in the decades before the destruction of the Temple in AD 70.

But violence was not necessary. God was with Jesus….

Four: Religious freedom

One suppressed it. The other permits it.

Muhammad

Polytheists controlled the Black Stone housed in the Kabah shrine. This was both a spiritual center (in pagan logic) and a financial center (in real terms). Muhammad eventually conquered it in early AD 630. After declaring amnesty for Meccan pagans, he changes his tone. He imposes this ultimatum on them and all other pagans. Sura 9:5 says:

9:5 Then, when the months made unlawful for fighting expire, kill the mushriks [polytheists] wherever you find them, and seize them, and besiege them, and lie in wait for them at every place of ambush. But if they repent, establish Salat [prayer five times a day] and pay the Zakat dues [charity tax], then let them go their way. (Abul A’La Maududi, The Meaning of the Qur’an, vol. 2, p. 175; insertions mine)

This verse says that unless pagans say their prayers the Muslim way and pay a forced “charity” tax, they will be killed.

Next, this hadith (record of the words and deeds of Muhammad recorded outside of the Quran) from Bukhari (a highly reliable collector and editor of hadith) says that Muhammad is called to fight until people acknowledge that only Allah is the right deity and Muhammad is his messenger. The people must also give the messenger their money (parallel hadith).

Malik (d. 795) is a founder of an Islamic school of law and a reliable collector and editor of hadith. He records this tradition about Muhammad’s policy on those who leave Islam:

Yahya related to me . . . that the Messenger of Allah . . . said, “If someone changes his religion—then strike off his head!” (Source )

Jesus

He let people go their own way, if they refuse to follow him. He said, “If anyone comes after [follows] me” . . . (Matthew 17:24). The little word “if” implies freedom to accept the way of Jesus or to walk away from it. He never raised a holy army to force anyone to convert. In John 6, some disciples decided to walk away from him. He had spoken difficult words.

66 From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him. 67 “You do not want to leave too, do you?” Jesus asked the Twelve. 68 Simon Peter answered him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. 69 We believe and know that you are the Holy One of God.” (John 6:66-69)

It is important to note what Jesus did not do or say. He did not threaten them with physical death. He did not send a disciple or two to assassinate one of the deserters (a leader, perhaps), to teach the rest and the Twelve a lesson. “Follow and obey me, or else!” “Or else what?” “Or else I’ll kill you!” Those words and others like them Jesus never spoke.

This article explores why the West and other free countries around the globe must protect freedom of speech. This article analyzes Muhammad’s policy on apostates in the Quran, hadith, and Islamic law.

Five: Large-scale Violence

One launched the first Crusade. The other ordains preaching alone.

Muhammad

It is true that the word “Crusade” comes from the word “cross,” but it is used here in the broad sense of “holy war.” Muslims today forget that Muhammad was the first to launch one, long before the western Europeans responded with theirs. In the ten years that he lived in Medina, he either sent out or went out on seventy-four raids, skirmishes and battles. Sura 9 is his last revelation in its entirety before he dies. He commissions his followers to wage war on Jews and Christians or the People of the Book or Scripture (= Bible). Sura 9:29 says:

9:29 Fight against those who believe not in Allah, nor in the Last Day, nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger (Muhammad) and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth (i.e. Islam) among people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians) until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued (Hilali and Khan, insertions in parentheses are theirs)

This verse that commands battle against Christians and Jews is all about theology and belief. It says nothing explicit about a real and physical harm done to Islam. Muhammad launched his Tabuk Crusade in late AD 630 against the Byzantine Christians. He had heard a rumor that an army was mobilizing to invade Arabia, but the rumor was false, so his 30,000 jihadists returned home, but not before imposing a jizya tax on northern Christians and Jews. They had three options: (1) fight and die; (2) convert to Islam; (3) or submit and pay the second-class-citizen jizya tax for the “privilege” of living under Islam.

Jesus

After he was resurrected from the dead and just before he ascended to rule on high, he sends forth his followers to preach the gospel without violence. In Evangelical Christianity this passage is known as the Great Commission.

18 Then Jesus came to them [the disciples] and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the end of the age.” (Matthew 28:18-20)

Nothing in these verses command warfare. For centuries after Christ’s resurrection and ascension, his disciples crisscrossed the Mediterranean world preaching without violence. Despite being persecuted, they turned the world right-side up and transformed it.

Here is an article which has a timeline of the Islamic Crusades. Two articles explain the differences between Muhammad’s wars of worldwide conquest and the Old Testament’s limited wars more than 3,000 years ago.

Six: Martyrdom

One promises earthly and heavenly rewards for dying in a holy war. The other says his “martyrdom” promises his followers heaven.

Muhammad

Sura 4 was revealed over a three year period in the middle of Muhammad’s career (AD 625-627). He is not quite as secure as he will be when he conquers Mecca in AD 630. For now, he needs to recruit jihadists for his raids, conflicts, and wars. One way to get them to join up is to promise earthly or heavenly rewards.

4:74 Let those fight in the cause of God Who sell the life of this world for the hereafter. To him who fighteth in the cause of God, – whether he is slain or gets victory – Soon shall We give him a reward of great (value) . . . . (Yusuf Ali)

Next, these two verses in Sura 4 teach that Allah has created at least a two-tier system in his Muslim ummah or community: (1) Those who “strive hard and fight with their wealth and their lives”; (2) those who sit at home. The disabled are in a separate category.

4:95-96 Not equal are those of the believers who sit (at home), except those who are disabled (by injury or are blind or lame, etc.), and those who strive hard and fight in the Cause of Allah with their wealth and their lives. Allah has preferred in grades those who strive hard and fight with their wealth and their lives above those who sit (at home). Unto each, Allah has promised good (Paradise), but Allah has preferred those who strive hard and fight, above those who sit (at home) by a huge reward; 96 Degrees of (higher) grades from Him, and Forgiveness and Mercy. . . . (Hilali and Khan)

At the end of Muhammad’s life, Muhammad reinforces this two-caste system: see Sura 9:38-39, 41, 44, 86, 87.

Finally, as seen in 4:74, an economic bargain is offered to jihadists in this next verse. Allah purchases their lives in exchange for Islamic paradise. Sura 9 is the last sura to be revealed in its entirety.

9:111 Verily, Allah has purchased of the believers their lives and their properties; for the price that theirs shall be the Paradise. They fight in Allah’s Cause, so they kill (others) and are killed. It is a promise in truth which is binding on Him in the Taurat (Torah) and the Injeel (Gospel) and the Qur’an. . . Then rejoice in the bargain which you have concluded . . . . (Hilali and Khan)

Allah and Muhammad are completely wrong about the Bible’s command to fight in bloody wars in order to bring heavenly rewards. Moses ordered wars that were time-specific (more than 3,000 years ago), location-specific (holy land), and purpose-specific. But Moses or Joshua or the judges did not promise heaven, automatically, for the express act of dying in wars.

All of these passages use win-win-win logic from Muhammad’s point of view. If a jihadist dies fighting, then he gets Islamic paradise. If he wins and lives, then he gets material spoils. If he is defeated but escapes with his life, then he gets to fight another day.

Jesus

Matthew 5:10 10:39, 19:29 speak of an uncompromising commitment to follow Christ, laying down one’s life mainly in a spiritual way, and possibly in a physical death under severe and fatal persecution. But the verses are not found in the context of a bloody religious war. Rather, Jesus calls his disciples to pick up their cross and follow him (Matt. 10:38, 16:24; Mark 8:34; Luke 9:23, 14:27), but he also says that they should do this daily (Luke 9:23). The image of the cross means that they must follow Jesus no matter what, on a daily basis, which precludes an earthly martyrdom, which is done only once; per contra, a “daily martyrdom” is continuous. A twisted love of physical death is not in view in those New Testament passages in the context of holy wars.

The following cannot be repeated too often because it diametrically opposes the Islamic doctrine of salvation, or how to get into heaven: only Christ’s “Martyrdom” guarantees a believer’s place in heaven; only his Ultimate Good Work on the cross paves the way to God. Thus, the Christian does not (or should not) have a psychological inducement to kill himself or to be killed in battle to achieve heaven. He needs only trust in Christ.

This article explores martyrdom in the Quran and early Christianity, beyond the New Testament.

Seven: Wealth

One took it by force. The other resisted this temptation.

Muhammad

Besides forcing religious conformity and the submission of non-Muslims, he was after wealth.

Sura 48 was revealed in AD 628, after a treaty with the Meccans and during his conquest of the Jews of Khaybar. This verse predicts future spoils of war for Allah’s beloved prophet. Sura 48:20 says:

48:20 Allah has promised you abundant spoils that you will capture, and He has hastened for you this, and He has restrained the hands of men from you, that it may be a sign for the believers, and that He may guide you to a Straight Path. (Hilali and Khan)

Maududi a respected traditional and conservative commentator, says that the clause “Allah has promised you abundant spoils that you will capture” refers to the conquests after Muhammad’s takeover of the city of Khaybar. It communicates a general promise of the spoils of any war that he embarks on. (The Meaning of the Qur’an, vol. 5, p. 62, note 35

However, Allah in this verse warns Muslims and Muhammad not to get attached to material things or to get ensnared by the “love of desires.”

3:14 The love of desires, of women and sons and hoarded treasures of gold and silver and well bred horses and cattle and tilth, is made to seem [beautiful] to men; this is the provision of the life of this world; and Allah is He with Whom is the good goal (of life). (Shakir, my insertion in brackets)

This verse teaches wisdom, but Muhammad did not follow it. He is the one who desired women and married many of them—a privilege of numbers reserved only for him (Sura 33:50); he is the one who traded in slaves, a lucrative business; he is the one who owned vast herds of livestock; he is the one who said that money will expiate or atone for sins; he is the one who bought off converts; he and his successors are the ones who conquered peaceful people who did not harm Islam in the slightest; he is the one who spread out recently collected tax money in his mosque, counting the most he had ever received; he is the one who promised his jihadists heaven if they died, and plunder if they lived. If anyone had the “love of desires,” it was the Prophet of Islam.

Jesus

Satan offers Jesus the whole world at the very beginning of his ministry. But he turned down this offer. Luke 4:1-2, 5-7 says:

4:1 Jesus, full of the Holy Spirit, returned from the Jordan and was led by the Spirit in the desert, 2 where for forty days he was tempted by the devil . . . 5 The devil led him up to a high place and showed him in an instance all the kingdoms of the world. 6 And he said to him, “I will give you all their authority and splendor, for it has been given me, and I can give it to anyone I want to. 7 So if you worship me, it will be yours.” 8 Jesus answered, “It is written, ‘Worship the Lord your God and serve him only.’” (cf. Deuteronomy 6:13)

In divine cooperation between Jesus and the Spirit, God allowed Satan to lead Jesus up to a high place and show him all the kingdoms of this world—their glory and political authority (exousia in Greek means political authority; cf. Luke 4:6 and 12:11, 20:20, 23:7). In addition to political authority, kingdom, by definition at the time of Christ, includes material resources, backed by a strong military. However, Jesus raises his and our vision to a spiritual transformation of the world, one soul at a time, without killing people and robbing their money by bloodshed.

Another refutation of the Muslim lie that Islam’s god is the Bible’s YHWH

In Uncategorized on May 22, 2006 at 4:52 PM

Despite the common assertion (even from mainstream conservative Christians) that Islam worships the same God that Christians do, any even brief examination of each religion’s authoritative texts reveal that the god of Mohammed has much more in common with hell (from where it was spawned) than the great I AM.

Several of the fundamental contradictions between Christ and Allah (and his false prophet) have been noted here before; this article (links in the original) provides some additional detail that one might find interesting:

Aggressive Islam is on the march. Terror attacks; violent protests over cartoons; many pushes to establish Islamic courts in Europe and Canada; demands to silence free speech, to criminalize criticism of the messenger of Allah; the President of Islam threatening to wipe Israel off the map, and writing a long and confused rant, inviting the President of the US to accept Islam; the election of Hamas.

These actions are easy to detect and decipher. Islam wants its way, and no one should resist. It is the best religion, after all.

But there is something more subtle and gradual going on than this in-your-face aggression. In the name of peace and tolerance—which we all want—some lines are being blurred.

Some Muslims say that Jesus was a mere human messenger even within Islam—never mind that he lived six hundred years before Islam. He and Muhammad are virtually the same. Both preached peace, but called for the sword when necessary.

But in the final analysis Muhammad is the last and best prophet. He has the better revelation. If only we could see this! So goes the subtle strategy.

However, this list of fifteen differences between Jesus and Muhammad disagrees with this insidious message. The differences between the two are profound.

It is better to be clear than confused. The frequently preached message of Islam washes away clarity about Christianity and whitewashes its own message.

In fact, many well-meaning western scholars also muddy the waters. Some aspects and policies of the two religious leaders cannot be reconciled, and it is high time we acknowledge this. If some readers are disappointed about these irreconcilable differences, then at least they will not be confused by the time they reach the end of this list.

The first two differences set the stage for all the others.

One: Personal sin

One suffered from sin. The other was sinless.

Muhammad

In Mecca, he receives this command about his sin.

40:55 Then have patience (O Muhammad). Lo! the promise of Allah is true. And ask forgiveness of thy sin [dh-n-b] and hymn the praise of thy Lord at fall of night and in the early hours. (Pickthall)

The Arabic word dhanaba (verb form) come from the root dh-n-b and is defined below in this section. This verse is unambiguous. Muhammad has sin.

It is one of the great ironies in the Quran that the next sura can be titled either “Muhammad” or “War” (qital, root is q-t-l). This verse was revealed in Medina.

47:19 So know (O Muhammad . . .) that . . . none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and ask forgiveness for your sin, [dh-n-b] and also for (the sin of) believing men and believing women. And Allah knows well your moving about, and your place of rest (in your homes). (Hilali and Khan)

Note that Muhammad implores forgiveness from Allah not only for himself but for Muslim men and women. This means that average humans have dh-n-b, and so does Muhammad.

The final example of Muhammad’s sin comes from Sura (Chapter) 48, revealed in Medina.

48:2 That Allah may forgive you your sins [dh-n-b] of the past and the future and complete His Favour on you, and guide you on the Straight Path . . . (Hilali and Khan)

This verse was probably revealed in 628, barely four years before he died of a fever in AD 632. Does this mean that the messenger of Allah had sin before AD 628? This seems to be the case. To be forgiven of dh-n-b, one must have it first.

How is dh-n-b defined? Is it only a small weakness? Merely a minor fault?A Muslim scholar defines it thus: “Crime; Fault; Offence; Sin; Any act having an evil result” (Omar). A western scholar defines it as “a crime, fault, sin” (Penrice).

Go here for a list of verses in the Quran that describe other persons who suffer from dh-n-b. It means far more than simple errors, small mistakes, superficial weaknesses, minor faults, and brief lapses of memory. It may include these things (all humans do them), but it also has to signify sin, crime, offense, and any act having an evil result (all humans do this also, in one way or another).

What does this sin nature in Muhammad mean in practical and down-to-earth terms today? If a researcher points out an atrocity or a violent act that Muhammad committed, then for a devout Muslim the atrocity or act is not wrong or unjust or sinful. It must be right, just, and sinless, no matter what the facts say because Muhammad was sinless—again, no matter what the Quran says. And the vicious circle goes round and round….

Jesus

He poses this rhetorical question to his opponents and accusers in John 8:45-46:

Yet because I tell the truth, you do not believe me! Can you prove me guilty of any sin?

In his culture, “prove guilty of sin” refers to his keeping the Law. Did he deviate from it? His opponents do not take him up on his challenge.

Next, Peter lived and walked with Jesus for at least three years. If anyone could, then the chief Apostle surely saw some minor sin in the Lord, right?

21 To this you [Christians] were called because Christ suffered for you, leaving you an example, that you should follow in his steps. 22 He committed no sin, and no deceit was found in his mouth. (1 Peter 2:21-22)

In verse 22, Peter quotes from Isaiah 53:9, which Jesus fulfilled in his suffering and death. So the chief Apostle did not find even a minor sin in Jesus Christ—no sin at all.

Finally, the Apostle John also lived and walked with Jesus for three years. What is his assessment of Jesus from his own observations?

But you know that he appeared so that he might take away our sins. And in him is no sin. (1 John 3:5)

The verdict is in: John never saw a sin in the Lord, whom he saw up close and personal.

Both declarations by Peter and John are remarkable. It is one hundred percent certain that if we had followed these apostles for three years every day, then we would have seen at least one sin. But these two did not see even one sin in Jesus.

Two: Confronting Satan

One nervously seeks refuge from Satan. The other had complete confidence and authority.

Muhammad

Sura 113, a short one, revealed in Mecca, says in its entirety:

1 Say [Prophet], “I seek refuge with the Lord of daybreak 2 against the evil in what He has created, 3 the evil in the night when darkness gathers, 4 the evil in witches when they blow on knots, 5 the evil in the envier when he envies.” (MAS Abdel Haleem, The Qur’an, Oxford UP, 2004, his insertion; cf. Suras 7:200-201; 16:98; 41:36; and Sura 114, a short one, in its entirety)

The hadith consists of the traditions about Muhammad outside of the Quran. Bukhari is considered one of the most reliable collectors and editors. The following hadith indicates that Muhammad believes that some sort of knots on the head is the result of Satan and witchcraft.

Allah’s Apostle said, “Satan puts three knots at the back of the head of any of you if he is asleep” . . . (Bukhari; see a parallel hadith)

This next hadith demonstrates that Muhammad was so deeply influenced by magic that he believed that he was having sex with his wives, but in reality he was not.

Narrated Aisha: Magic was worked on Allah’s Apostle so that he used to think that he had sexual relations with his wives while he actually had not. (Bukhari, and read the hadith below this linked one.)

The highly respected conservative commentator Sayyid Abul A’La Maududi (d. 1979) says that the hadiths on Muhammad’s bewitchment are sound.

“As far as the historical aspect is concerned, the incident of the Holy Prophet’s being affected by magic is absolutely confirmed” . . . (Maududi scroll down to “Question of Holy Prophet being affected by magic”). Maududi is right. Muhammad was bewitched. And this is not part of true Prophethood.

Jesus

Throughout his three-year ministry, he exercised spiritual authority over the kingdom of darkness, wherever he went. After the Great Test (Luke 4:1-13; see no. seven, below) Luke records the first public encounter with a demon:

33 In the synagogue there was a man possessed by a demon, an evil spirit. He cried out at the top of his voice, 34 “Ha! What do you want with us, Jesus of Nazareth? Have you come to destroy us? I know who you are—the Holy One of God! 35 “Be quiet!” Jesus said sternly. “Come out of him!” Then the demon threw the man down before them all and came out without injuring him. (Luke 4:33-35)

Jesus cast the demons out without rituals and loud pleading. Instead, he speaks a stern command: “Come out of him!” This reveals spiritual authority and decisiveness, which is repeated time and again in Jesus’ ministry.

This article contrasts Muhammad’s fears and bewitchment with Christ’s commanding authority over Satan and dark powers. This index page references several articles and rebuttals and replies.

Three: Small-scale violence

One killed mockers and enemies. The other rises above such violence.

Muhammad

He assassinated (or threatened to murder) at least eleven men or women who insulted or threatened him. Several of his victims merely composed satirical poems.

These verses offer support of this policy. Medinan Sura 33:60-61 says:

60 If the hypocrites, the sick of heart, and those who spread lies in the city [Medina] do not desist, We shall arouse you [Prophet] against them, and then they will only be your neighbors in this city for a short while. 61 They will be rejected wherever they are found, and then seized and killed. (MAS Abdel Haleem, The Quran, Oxford UP, 2004)

Muhammad had already assassinated some opponents for their insults and mockery before these verses were sent down, but now they give him divine endorsement.

Jesus

During the last week of Jesus life, the tension between him and the religious establishment rises. The leaders look for a way to trap and then arrest him. So they ask him whether it is lawful to pay taxes to Caesar. Apparently, they saw him as a political revolutionary who opposed Roman occupation. Would he endorse the taxation of his fellow Jews for the benefit of unclean Gentiles? However, they did not know that he was a king, but that his kingdom was not of this world (John 18:36). So he replied with these famous words that are often quoted, though people may not know the exact reference and context (Luke 20:20-26; cf. Matthew 22:15-22; Mark 12:13-17). Jesus speaks first; his opponents reply.

24 “Show me a denarius. Whose portrait and inscription are on it?” 25 “Caesar’s,” they replied. He said to them, “Then give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.” 26 They were unable to trap him in what he said there in public. And astonished by his answer, they became silent. (Luke 20:20-26)

After this disarming reply, it is important to note what he did not do. He did not send Simon the Zealot, one of the Twelve, to follow an antagonistic leader, mingle in the large crowd of pilgrims during the Feast of Passover, sneak up on him, stab him, and disappear in the crowd again. These kinds of assassinations were not unknown in the decades before the destruction of the Temple in AD 70.

But violence was not necessary. God was with Jesus….

Four: Religious freedom

One suppressed it. The other permits it.

Muhammad

Polytheists controlled the Black Stone housed in the Kabah shrine. This was both a spiritual center (in pagan logic) and a financial center (in real terms). Muhammad eventually conquered it in early AD 630. After declaring amnesty for Meccan pagans, he changes his tone. He imposes this ultimatum on them and all other pagans. Sura 9:5 says:

9:5 Then, when the months made unlawful for fighting expire, kill the mushriks [polytheists] wherever you find them, and seize them, and besiege them, and lie in wait for them at every place of ambush. But if they repent, establish Salat [prayer five times a day] and pay the Zakat dues [charity tax], then let them go their way. (Abul A’La Maududi, The Meaning of the Qur’an, vol. 2, p. 175; insertions mine)

This verse says that unless pagans say their prayers the Muslim way and pay a forced “charity” tax, they will be killed.

Next, this hadith (record of the words and deeds of Muhammad recorded outside of the Quran) from Bukhari (a highly reliable collector and editor of hadith) says that Muhammad is called to fight until people acknowledge that only Allah is the right deity and Muhammad is his messenger. The people must also give the messenger their money (parallel hadith).

Malik (d. 795) is a founder of an Islamic school of law and a reliable collector and editor of hadith. He records this tradition about Muhammad’s policy on those who leave Islam:

Yahya related to me . . . that the Messenger of Allah . . . said, “If someone changes his religion—then strike off his head!” (Source )

Jesus

He let people go their own way, if they refuse to follow him. He said, “If anyone comes after [follows] me” . . . (Matthew 17:24). The little word “if” implies freedom to accept the way of Jesus or to walk away from it. He never raised a holy army to force anyone to convert. In John 6, some disciples decided to walk away from him. He had spoken difficult words.

66 From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him. 67 “You do not want to leave too, do you?” Jesus asked the Twelve. 68 Simon Peter answered him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. 69 We believe and know that you are the Holy One of God.” (John 6:66-69)

It is important to note what Jesus did not do or say. He did not threaten them with physical death. He did not send a disciple or two to assassinate one of the deserters (a leader, perhaps), to teach the rest and the Twelve a lesson. “Follow and obey me, or else!” “Or else what?” “Or else I’ll kill you!” Those words and others like them Jesus never spoke.

This article explores why the West and other free countries around the globe must protect freedom of speech. This article analyzes Muhammad’s policy on apostates in the Quran, hadith, and Islamic law.

Five: Large-scale Violence

One launched the first Crusade. The other ordains preaching alone.

Muhammad

It is true that the word “Crusade” comes from the word “cross,” but it is used here in the broad sense of “holy war.” Muslims today forget that Muhammad was the first to launch one, long before the western Europeans responded with theirs. In the ten years that he lived in Medina, he either sent out or went out on seventy-four raids, skirmishes and battles. Sura 9 is his last revelation in its entirety before he dies. He commissions his followers to wage war on Jews and Christians or the People of the Book or Scripture (= Bible). Sura 9:29 says:

9:29 Fight against those who believe not in Allah, nor in the Last Day, nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger (Muhammad) and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth (i.e. Islam) among people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians) until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued (Hilali and Khan, insertions in parentheses are theirs)

This verse that commands battle against Christians and Jews is all about theology and belief. It says nothing explicit about a real and physical harm done to Islam. Muhammad launched his Tabuk Crusade in late AD 630 against the Byzantine Christians. He had heard a rumor that an army was mobilizing to invade Arabia, but the rumor was false, so his 30,000 jihadists returned home, but not before imposing a jizya tax on northern Christians and Jews. They had three options: (1) fight and die; (2) convert to Islam; (3) or submit and pay the second-class-citizen jizya tax for the “privilege” of living under Islam.

Jesus

After he was resurrected from the dead and just before he ascended to rule on high, he sends forth his followers to preach the gospel without violence. In Evangelical Christianity this passage is known as the Great Commission.

18 Then Jesus came to them [the disciples] and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the end of the age.” (Matthew 28:18-20)

Nothing in these verses command warfare. For centuries after Christ’s resurrection and ascension, his disciples crisscrossed the Mediterranean world preaching without violence. Despite being persecuted, they turned the world right-side up and transformed it.

Here is an article which has a timeline of the Islamic Crusades. Two articles explain the differences between Muhammad’s wars of worldwide conquest and the Old Testament’s limited wars more than 3,000 years ago.

Six: Martyrdom

One promises earthly and heavenly rewards for dying in a holy war. The other says his “martyrdom” promises his followers heaven.

Muhammad

Sura 4 was revealed over a three year period in the middle of Muhammad’s career (AD 625-627). He is not quite as secure as he will be when he conquers Mecca in AD 630. For now, he needs to recruit jihadists for his raids, conflicts, and wars. One way to get them to join up is to promise earthly or heavenly rewards.

4:74 Let those fight in the cause of God Who sell the life of this world for the hereafter. To him who fighteth in the cause of God, – whether he is slain or gets victory – Soon shall We give him a reward of great (value) . . . . (Yusuf Ali)

Next, these two verses in Sura 4 teach that Allah has created at least a two-tier system in his Muslim ummah or community: (1) Those who “strive hard and fight with their wealth and their lives”; (2) those who sit at home. The disabled are in a separate category.

4:95-96 Not equal are those of the believers who sit (at home), except those who are disabled (by injury or are blind or lame, etc.), and those who strive hard and fight in the Cause of Allah with their wealth and their lives. Allah has preferred in grades those who strive hard and fight with their wealth and their lives above those who sit (at home). Unto each, Allah has promised good (Paradise), but Allah has preferred those who strive hard and fight, above those who sit (at home) by a huge reward; 96 Degrees of (higher) grades from Him, and Forgiveness and Mercy. . . . (Hilali and Khan)

At the end of Muhammad’s life, Muhammad reinforces this two-caste system: see Sura 9:38-39, 41, 44, 86, 87.

Finally, as seen in 4:74, an economic bargain is offered to jihadists in this next verse. Allah purchases their lives in exchange for Islamic paradise. Sura 9 is the last sura to be revealed in its entirety.

9:111 Verily, Allah has purchased of the believers their lives and their properties; for the price that theirs shall be the Paradise. They fight in Allah’s Cause, so they kill (others) and are killed. It is a promise in truth which is binding on Him in the Taurat (Torah) and the Injeel (Gospel) and the Qur’an. . . Then rejoice in the bargain which you have concluded . . . . (Hilali and Khan)

Allah and Muhammad are completely wrong about the Bible’s command to fight in bloody wars in order to bring heavenly rewards. Moses ordered wars that were time-specific (more than 3,000 years ago), location-specific (holy land), and purpose-specific. But Moses or Joshua or the judges did not promise heaven, automatically, for the express act of dying in wars.

All of these passages use win-win-win logic from Muhammad’s point of view. If a jihadist dies fighting, then he gets Islamic paradise. If he wins and lives, then he gets material spoils. If he is defeated but escapes with his life, then he gets to fight another day.

Jesus

Matthew 5:10 10:39, 19:29 speak of an uncompromising commitment to follow Christ, laying down one’s life mainly in a spiritual way, and possibly in a physical death under severe and fatal persecution. But the verses are not found in the context of a bloody religious war. Rather, Jesus calls his disciples to pick up their cross and follow him (Matt. 10:38, 16:24; Mark 8:34; Luke 9:23, 14:27), but he also says that they should do this daily (Luke 9:23). The image of the cross means that they must follow Jesus no matter what, on a daily basis, which precludes an earthly martyrdom, which is done only once; per contra, a “daily martyrdom” is continuous. A twisted love of physical death is not in view in those New Testament passages in the context of holy wars.

The following cannot be repeated too often because it diametrically opposes the Islamic doctrine of salvation, or how to get into heaven: only Christ’s “Martyrdom” guarantees a believer’s place in heaven; only his Ultimate Good Work on the cross paves the way to God. Thus, the Christian does not (or should not) have a psychological inducement to kill himself or to be killed in battle to achieve heaven. He needs only trust in Christ.

This article explores martyrdom in the Quran and early Christianity, beyond the New Testament.

Seven: Wealth

One took it by force. The other resisted this temptation.

Muhammad

Besides forcing religious conformity and the submission of non-Muslims, he was after wealth.

Sura 48 was revealed in AD 628, after a treaty with the Meccans and during his conquest of the Jews of Khaybar. This verse predicts future spoils of war for Allah’s beloved prophet. Sura 48:20 says:

48:20 Allah has promised you abundant spoils that you will capture, and He has hastened for you this, and He has restrained the hands of men from you, that it may be a sign for the believers, and that He may guide you to a Straight Path. (Hilali and Khan)

Maududi a respected traditional and conservative commentator, says that the clause “Allah has promised you abundant spoils that you will capture” refers to the conquests after Muhammad’s takeover of the city of Khaybar. It communicates a general promise of the spoils of any war that he embarks on. (The Meaning of the Qur’an, vol. 5, p. 62, note 35

However, Allah in this verse warns Muslims and Muhammad not to get attached to material things or to get ensnared by the “love of desires.”

3:14 The love of desires, of women and sons and hoarded treasures of gold and silver and well bred horses and cattle and tilth, is made to seem [beautiful] to men; this is the provision of the life of this world; and Allah is He with Whom is the good goal (of life). (Shakir, my insertion in brackets)

This verse teaches wisdom, but Muhammad did not follow it. He is the one who desired women and married many of them—a privilege of numbers reserved only for him (Sura 33:50); he is the one who traded in slaves, a lucrative business; he is the one who owned vast herds of livestock; he is the one who said that money will expiate or atone for sins; he is the one who bought off converts; he and his successors are the ones who conquered peaceful people who did not harm Islam in the slightest; he is the one who spread out recently collected tax money in his mosque, counting the most he had ever received; he is the one who promised his jihadists heaven if they died, and plunder if they lived. If anyone had the “love of desires,” it was the Prophet of Islam.

Jesus

Satan offers Jesus the whole world at the very beginning of his ministry. But he turned down this offer. Luke 4:1-2, 5-7 says:

4:1 Jesus, full of the Holy Spirit, returned from the Jordan and was led by the Spirit in the desert, 2 where for forty days he was tempted by the devil . . . 5 The devil led him up to a high place and showed him in an instance all the kingdoms of the world. 6 And he said to him, “I will give you all their authority and splendor, for it has been given me, and I can give it to anyone I want to. 7 So if you worship me, it will be yours.” 8 Jesus answered, “It is written, ‘Worship the Lord your God and serve him only.’” (cf. Deuteronomy 6:13)

In divine cooperation between Jesus and the Spirit, God allowed Satan to lead Jesus up to a high place and show him all the kingdoms of this world—their glory and political authority (exousia in Greek means political authority; cf. Luke 4:6 and 12:11, 20:20, 23:7). In addition to political authority, kingdom, by definition at the time of Christ, includes material resources, backed by a strong military. However, Jesus raises his and our vision to a spiritual transformation of the world, one soul at a time, without killing people and robbing their money by bloodshed.

Dante didn’t go far enough

In Uncategorized on May 16, 2006 at 8:29 AM

The following article (notes in the original) discusses Dante and his perspective on Islam as expressed in his most famous work Inferno, from The Divine Comedy.

Dante Alighieri was a conservative, devout Christian, as well as a strong representative of the attitude of his time Such a perspective is displayed in his book, the Inferno, in which he responds to one of the influences of his time period. the Arabic worlds The influence of Islam was not found in all aspects of medieval society yet its impact, found especially on Christianity and medieval intellectual life, was strongly felt [sic]

All human beings are by nature sinful, so one does not need an outside influence to blame for one’s own evil actions. However, considering that nowhere in the doctrines of Christ can one find even the hint of commands for torture and murder, I do not doubt that much of the Church’s violence toward heretics and non-Christians was learned at the knee of Medieval Europe’s harsh tutor, the false prophet Mohammed.

In canto VIII of the Inferno, where Dante describes the existence of mosques in the city of Dis, and in canto XXVIII, where one encounters Mohammed and Eli in Hell, Dante conveys his attitude towards Islam His placement of these aspects of Arabic culture amongst the sinners of Hell corroborates the notion that Dante held a contemptuous and negative view towards the Muslim world [sic]

Was Dante’s “contemptuous and negative view” directed toward Arabic culture? No, it was directed toward Islam. Why? Because Dante was a backward, unenlightened, prejudiced, ethnocentric white, Christian, male Islamophobe? (How chronocentric to argue thus!) No, Dante was well-acquainted with the doctrines of Mahomet and the practices that follow logically from them. Consider, for example, what Allah requires of his people toward non-Muslims who refuse to submit:

“…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); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practise regular charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful” (Qur’an 9:5).

And if an “unbeliever” decides to exercise their (true) God-given right to self-defense, what next? Islam’s history overflows with the tolerance and peace preached by Mohammed here in Sura 5:

“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).

The article continues:

His antipathy for such a culture is based not simply on a prejudiced view that he heldn [sic] but rather on his disgust towards its effects on the Christian Church as well as on medieval intellectual lifeW [sic] Based on his inclusion of Muslim mosques and leaders in Hell, one can see that the impact on medieval life obviously perturbed Dante, for he would have preferred to have his culture completely devoid of any Islamic influences.

Why is that? Could it be that Dante viewed Islam’s false doctrine as leading to the eternal condemnation of people’s souls? Could it be that he viewed as distasteful Mahomet’s blasphemies? Could it be that Dante knew well that Allah’s commands to fight against, subdue and humiliate, and kill non-Muslims were continuously and zealously being carried out upon innocent men, women, and children?

What Infidel wouldn’t want their own culture devoid of such influences?

The medieval view of Islam was a hostile one primarily based on fear and prejudice.

Fear of an ideology founded upon and spread by violence and death is called “good judgment.”

And as for prejudice? By definition, prejudice means reaching a conclusion before examining the evidence. What proof does this article’s author have that Dante was unfamiliar with Islam? Isn’t this author’s mischaracterization of what led Dante to oppose the Religion of Peace an example of his or her own prejudice (and ignorance of Islam)?

The basis for this fear evolved from the belief that the Muslim religion posed a serious threat to Christianity’s existences for it gave Christianity some unwelcomed competition.

When one enterprise oppresses, enslaves, and kills the competition, such a belief would seem justified. Such behavior should be unwelcomed.

In other parts of the world, namely in the East, Islam had a strong foothold, and such a foothold proved to be menacing to Christianity since it showed the world that Christianity was not the absolutes most powerful religion.

And how did Islam obtain that “strong foothold”? Was it through the sheer persuasive power of Mohammed’s message of Allah’s love sinful mankind? Perhaps it was the false prophet’s example of love in action as he healed the sick, comforted the brokenhearted and raised the dead that changed people’s hearts? Did Mahomet change people’s hearts by sacrificing his life for all Humanity? The Religion from Hell must have gained so many adherents because its founder led such a holy life, setting an example to be emulated for all men!

No. Mohammed lied, stole, waged offensive warfare, raped, enslaved, tortured, mutiliated and murdered those who opposed him and his false doctrine. All of these evils (including consummating his marriage to his favorite wife Aisha when she was nine years old) were excused or commanded by his false god Allah!

Islam spread by the sword as soon as it was strong enough to do so, and it continues to war around the world to this very day.

While the Muslims jeopardized the reputation and stability of the religion of the West, other Christian lands were falling under Arabic ruled One of these countries included Spain, where Muslim occupation, which began in 711 A D , resulted in the religious conversion of the Spanish people and culture. This conquering of Christian soil proved to be another reason why the West felt threatened by the Arabic presence in the world [sic]

Whether through ignorance or dishonesty, the author doesn’t acknowledge here that those Christian lands fell under the sword of Islam. This Spanish religious “conversion” was achieved through the natural desire to avoid one’s own oppression, enslavement and murder.

In addition, disdainful views of Mohammed were held by Westerners, for he was regarded as being a false prophet, as a result, Islam was regarded as a heresy, for it appeared to be so radically different from Christianity…

Appeared? Nay, it is: I know not appeared:
‘Tis not alone my Inky Cloake (good Author);
Nor Customary suites of solemne Blacke,
Nor windy suspiration of forc’d breath,
No, nor the fruitfull Riuer in the Eye,
Nor the deiected hauiour of the Visage,
Together with all Formes, Moods, shewes of Griefe,
That can denote me truly.
These indeed Seeme, For they are actions that a man might play:
But I haue that Within, which passeth show;
These, but the Trappings, and the Suites of woe.” (courtesy W. Shakespeare)

No, the differences between Christianity and Islam are not superficial, they are fundamental.

As indicated above, on the one hand is the Son of God Who committed no sin, performed many great and miraculous works, and rose from the dead. He commanded His people to love even their enemies. On the other hand is the founder of Islam whose legacy is torment, blood, and suffering. If Jesus said He was God’s own Son, and Mohammed said that those who say Allah has a son is an unbeliever, then it should be obvious to even a simple child that the two religions are forever opposed to each other.

…and did not involve the worship of the Christian god. In addition, Mohammed was also thought of as being the Devil’s tool to end Christianity’s spread and success to being instead:

a sexual, self indulgent murderer whose book…Koran was a collection of pretended revelations and whose religion spread by deceit, violence and the lure of lascivious practices.

To the modern, Western, politically-correct, “Can’t We All Get Along, You Intolerant Racist!” ear, such a description of Mahomet and his “sacred” text seem outrageous. According to Islam’s authoritative texts, Qur’an and Hadith, Mohammed is guilty of all those crimes and more.

The troubling part (for non-Muslims) is that this life is held up as one to be imitated by the faithful.

Most people in the West during the Middle Ages harbored these antipathetic feelings for IslamS in which the religion and its progenitor were looked upon with such disdain.

Rightly so.

In the Inferno, Dante proves that he was not exempt from this scornful attitude towards the Arabic culture.

Again, it was scorn for the evil brought upon the heads of mankind by Islam, not scorn for “Arabic culture.”

The first time one encounters any aspects of Muslim culture throughout the Inferno is in canto VIII, when Dante and Virgil are coming upon the city of Dis. As Dante explains to Virgil, “I can already see distinctly a- / master — the mosques that gleam within the valley, / as crimson as if they had just been drawn out of the fire.” In these lines, Dante’s contempt for Islam is made quite evident, for he places mosques, the sanctuaries of Muslim worship, in the city of Dis.

Hell is an appropriate environ for the factories that turn out people who believe it is their duty to fight against, subdue and humiliate, and kill non-Muslims solely for their unwillingness to convert to an obviously perverse and false religion.

Perhaps this author is confusing “contempt” with “accurate and reasonable representation.”

Had Dante respected the Arabic culture, he would have placed these mosques either in Purgatory or in Heaven, not in Hell amongst all of the other infidels and sinners.

Respect for any culture should include truth-telling, but this author is either unable or unwilling to admit the evil of Mahomet’s doctrine and practice.

How can one respect a religion that commands the enslavement, rape, mutilation, and murder of innocent men, women and children in the name of its god?

Furthermore, he states that the mosques are “as crimson as if they had just been drawn X out of the fire”; thus, Dante suggests that the mosques are ablaze. By indicating that they are in flames, Dante is punishing the followers of Islam, for the fire will bring about the destruction of their mosques. Such a description of these mosques reveals Dante’s contempt for Arabic culture.

What is the proper response to the monster who declared, “…I have been ordered (by Allah) to fight against the people until they testify that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that Muhammad is Allah’s Apostle…” (Bukhari Volume 1, Book 2, Number 24) if not contempt?

In canto XXVIII, where one encounters Mohammed and Eli, Dante’s lack of respect for Muslim culture is again Portrayed. In this canto, one of the sinners tells the two travelers of Hell: “See how maimed Mohammed is! And he / who walks and weeps before me is Ali, / whose face is opened wide from chin to forelock” (canto XXVIII, 31-33). Since they caused schism in life, Dante has eternally punished them in a gruesome manner by having their wounds sealed and then reopened by a devil. Had he not felt so contemptuous of Islam, he would have not placed Mohammed and Ali, the religion’s two most influential men, in Hell.

Had this author been less ignorant of Islam’s brutal history, he would not have criticized Dante’s decision-making.

Furthermore, Dante would not have depicted them as being maimed in such a graphic manner if he was not so perturbed by the culture. One can imagine that such a punishment would bring an extremely excruciating amount of pain upon the individual who is being punished; thus, by giving these two progenitors of the Muslim religion an extremely tormenting, agonizing punishment for eternity, Dante shows how strong his aversion to the Arabic world is. Had he not been so contemptuous of Islam, then he would have given Mohammed and Ali a milder punishment.

If this author knew anything of the cruelty inflicted upon non-Muslims by Mahomet and his followers over the past fourteen centuries, he would appreciate the high degree of irony here.

The placement of the two most influential men in Islam among the schismatics introduces one of the main factors that fuels Dante’s contempt for Arabic culture. In addition to a prejudice against the culture, Dante’s dislike is also derived from its effects on Christianity In contrast to the view of his time, Dante does not punish Mohammed and Ali for heresy, but rather for schism, indicating that they brought about schism in the Christian Church. Mohammed and Eli are not only responsible for heresy, as Dante believed, because in addition to forming a religion that went against the ideals and established views of Christianity, they also caused dissent and schism within the Christian community. During the Middle Ages, there was a prevalent belief that Mohammed was an apostate Christian, possibly even a cardinal. Furthermore, Mohammed possessed a deep reverence for Christ, for he regarded him as being the greatest of prophets, and considered his birth to be a wonderful event.

It is true that Islam has traditionally (falsely) asserted that Mohammed’s revelation replaced/corrected corrupted Christianity, but apostate cardinal? Claiming that Mohammed was some kind of Christian is almost as preposterous as claiming Christ and Allah are the same deity. Raping, enslaving and slaughtering Christ’s people for their unwillingness to convert to the false prophet’s religion and calling Christ Himself a liar can not be characterized as “respect.”

Here is Mohammed’s blasphemy in his own words:

In blasphemy indeed are those that say that Allah is Christ the son of Mary. Say: “Who then hath the least power against Allah, if His will were to destroy Christ the son of Mary, his mother, and all every – one that is on the earth? For to Allah belongeth the dominion of the heavens and the earth, and all that is between. He createth what He pleaseth. For Allah hath power over all things” (Qur’an 5:17).

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).

“The Jews call ‘Uzair a son of Allah, and the Christians call Christ the son of Allah. That is a saying from their mouth; (in this) they but imitate what the unbelievers of old used to say. Allah’s curse be on them: how they are deluded away from the Truth” (Qur’an 9:30)!

Here’s more misinformation:

Even though Mohammed might have been an apostate, he was still a member of the Christian community, thus, when he decided to break sway from Christianity to form Islam, he took with him many followers of the Christian god. Since the Muslim religion began to attract many individuals, eventually consuming almost all of the East…

Yes, if being subdued and humiliated can be considered attractive.

…Dante must have felt that these individuals were “stolen” from Christianity, and would have been part of his religious community if it were not for Mohammed. For this reason, Dante feels that Mohammed caused dissent, or schism, in the Christian community, and was not responsible simply for heresy…Dante most likely believed that Mohammed was responsible for heresy as well, however, his main problem with Mohammed is predicated on the turmoil that he caused in the Christian community by founding Islam. Dante punishes Mohammed not just for establishing the Muslim religion…he also thinks that the Christian clergy was also at fault. If there had been no problem with the Christian Church, then there would have been no need to break away from it…the problems that existed within the Christian Church were a primary cause for the establishment of the Muslim religion; therefore, the way to ameliorate such a problem of schism would be to reform Christianity.

The primary cause for the establishment of Islam was Mohammed’s desire to justify his lusts for violence and pleasure. That he claimed to represent YHWH (going so far as to fabricate narratives for several Biblical characters) to lend an air legitimacy to his evil is just one more reason Dante didn’t go far enough.

…Simony is one of the problems with the clergy that Dante tries to redress, for he felt that it was one of the many faults of Christianity that helped to bring about the establishment of the Muslim religion.

Slaughtering those who refused to submit had a greater impact on Islam’s “success” than did Christian failings, though undoubtedly corruption aided Jihad.

While the effects of Arabic culture on Christianity formed the basis for Dante’s hatred of Islam, its effects on mediswal society were also responsible for fueling his anger. One of the areas in which medieval society was affected by the Arabic world was in the tradition of courtly love poetry (Provencal poetry sung by the troubadours) that praised women. The theory suggesting that courtly love poetry was influenced by Islamy called the “Arabist theory,” was initially pursued by a marl named Giammaria Barbieri in his book Dell’origine delta Poesie rimata, published in 1790. Some of this influence could have also come from a type of Arabic poetry called Mozarabic, which not only preceded the poetry of the troubadours, but also resembled it in “some fundamental structural features and thematic characteristics.” In this form of Arabic poetry, as in the poetry sung by troubadours, the existence of themes that praise women is evident. In addition to poetry, other forms of Arabic literature could have impacted the Provencal poetry, such as the Muslim tales that followed the format of the following one by Ahmed ibn Abu-l-Hawari, who lived during the ninth century:

In a dream I saw a maiden of the most perfect beauty, whose countenance shone with celestial splendour. To my asking, “Whence comes the brilliance on thy faces” she replied… “I took those tears of thine and with them anointed my face, since when it has shone in brilliance.”

Obviously, it was poetry that Dante detested. Of course, Islam’s “exaltation” of women has no effect on how this author views that faith. If he had done his own research on Mohammed’s faith and its bloody history (not difficult to do for an Infidel with a modem), he would have found the following in Islam’s “sacred” texts:

  • Allah gave a nine year-old girl to his false prophet for his sexual gratification
  • When a wife doesn’t obey his husband, he is to beat her
  • A woman’s testimony is not of equal value to a man’s
  • For those who die fighting against non-Muslims for Allah, one of their rewards are dozens of perpetual virgins whose sole purpose is their gratification

Continuing with the article:

This tale shows how Arabic literature placed women, based on their physical attributes, on a high pedestal, for the woman ill the following tale is “of the most perfect beauty” and “shone with celestial splendour.” In comparison, one can look at an example of an Italian troubadour poem from the thirteenth century and notice that there is a similar emphasis on the physical beauty of women:

In her face I have see [sic] the moon,
smiling with her radiant look. Did she
appear to me, I ask my eyes, while I was
awake or in a dream?

That look is a true mystery! It makes my
body sick, but it also cures it.[16]

The praise of women in this excerpt is quite clear, for the beauty of the girl is so tremendous that the author puts forth the possibility that she appeared to him while he was in the midst of a dream. Furthermore, since she smiles “with her radiant look,” there is the suggestion that her appearance is not only radiant, but also intriguing. By comparing the troubadour poem with the Arabic tale, one can clearly see the possible influence of the Arabic world on medieval literature.

Is it possible to see in medieval literature the influence of Islam’s beheadings, crucifixions, dismemberments, kidnappings of Christian children to suit its purposes, flaying of fathers in front of their wives and children and violating women in front of their husbands?

Arabic influence on courtly love poetry would have greatly perturbed Dante due to the fact that he was so anti-Arabic and would not have favored having his culture tied to the culture of which he was so contemptuous. Rather, he would have most likely preferred to have his culture completely devoid of any Islamic aspects, and instead consisting purely of Christian characteristics.

It is common today to claim that a healthy revulsion toward Islam is instead a racist or ethnic bias. Too bad it is false and therefore misleading.

Ironically, this courtly love poetry was also exercised by Dante himself. His treatment of courtly love in the Inferno is shown when he writes about a lady for whom he used to have an attraction, Beatrice. In courtly love language, Virgil describes her as being “so blessed, so lovely… Her eyes surpassed the splendor of the star’s” (canto II, 53-55). In these lines, Dante praises Beatrice by describing her as being “blessed,” and “lovely,” with eyes full of “splendor.” Such an emphasis is placed by Dante on the physical characteristics of Beatrice that one can notice parallels between his poetry and the two excerpts from above of the Arabic tale and the troubadour poem. Dante, like the authors of the two works cited above, centers his description of Beatrice on her beauty and physical attraction. Therefore, one can assume that Dante was subject to the same Islamic influence to which the author of the troubadour poem above was susceptible.

Ironic only if you are believing the lie of Islam as the Religion of Peace. And of course, no one but Arabs have ever admired a woman’s physical beauty in poetic form.

While the Arabic world had a severe impact on medieval literature, it had an even greater impact on medieval intellectual life. At the time, Europe was craving for more information on science and philosophy, for the people of Europe were depleting their supplies of “intellectual capital.” Furthermore, the demand for more scientific and philosophical information was going stronger by the day, and European sources were not offering any new material to satisfy the desires of people. Thus, Western scholars were prepared to search out Arabic texts and translate them because they strongly desired to have new knowledge. From the works and texts of Arabic peoples Europeans expanded their knowledge on diseases arithmetic, algebra, trigonometry, and incorporated astronomical tables from the Arabs that became the standard ones of the Middle Ages.

Which is nothing to Islam’s credit, since it crushes intellectual inquiry and critical thinking. Most advances that came under Islam were due to non-Muslims under its oppressive yoke. One needs to look no further than the “progress” of the lands under Allah’s rule over the centuries to see that if not for a fantastically unfortunate accident of history and geology (and the West’s need for it), the ummah would have nothing but rocks and sticks to wage jihad.

Before this decision to translate works from Arabic into either Latin or the vernacular, Europeans had little knowledge of Greek philosophy and science, for most of the Greek works concerning these fields had been translated into Arabic.

Because Islam was so inquisitive and tolerant, or because they conquered Greeks also?

Thus, when Europeans were able to translate Arabic texts, they gained the knowledge, for the first time, of Aristotlea Euclid« Ptcjismyy [sic] and Archimedes, amongst others. Such knowledge was readily accessible to Western Europe due to Muslim Spain, for Spain became:

…for the greater portion of the Middle Ages a part of the Mohammedan East, heir to its learning and its sciences, to its magic and astrology, and the principal means of their introduction into Western Furope [sic].

Islam and its apologists love euphemisms (what better way to deceive gullible and unwary Infidels while still being able to claim you’re telling the truth?)! Apparently for this author, “principal means of their introduction into Western Europe” is code for “staging grounds for Islam’s violent expansion into Western Europe.”

As a result of this impact on medieval Europe, the intellectual life was significantly expanded…Thus, in light of his character, one can assume that Dante did not want his own Christian culture to be tainted by the Arabic world.

Good for Dante! For who would want their culture to consider the Ideal Man a murderous, thieving, warring, deceitful, pedophilic serial rapist?

Dante himself shows that he may have been influenced by Islam in writing the Divine ComedyN Miguel Asin Palacios put forth the controversial idea in 1919 that Dante got the idea for writing about a journey through Hell, then eventually up to Heaven, from two famous Islamic works of literature: the Isra and the Mirage The former is about Mohammed’s journey through Hell, while the latter is about his Ascension from Jerusalem to the Throne of Gods These two Arabic works of literature struck Palacios as prototypes for Dante’s Divine Comedy, in which Dante goes on a very similar journey

Which just goes to show Islam’s lie that “Similar = Same” will likely work on more than just Western political elites.

In addition, Palacios found that the links between the Muslim legend and Dante’s poem also included picturesque, descriptive, and even episodic similarities. For example, Palacios drew a comparison between the city of Dis and the city in the Moslem Hell, for both were described by the authors as being a city of fire. Furthermore, the tombs of the heretics are described by Dante as being a bed of fire, each harboring coffins of red hot iron; similarly, Mohammed saw an ocean of fire, on whose shore were cities in flames with thousands of red hot coffins.

Mohammed knows what that hellfire looks like now, I’ll warrant.

Thus, Palacios concluded that Dante used the Isra and the Mirai as outlines in critics his journey through Hell, and eventually up to Heavenly While this assumption may be true, one can argue that Dante used these Arabic works as references in order to write a better, more complete Christian story. Thus, he possibly wanted there to exist a similar story to the Muslim legend, only one which was written by a Christian and that was superior to the Muslim story. If this intention was Dante’s plan, then his attitude towards Islam is only corroborated, for he attempted to prove how any piece of Christian literature could emulate and surpass any Arabic literature, even if the works involved were coveted Muslim legends.

Of course, everything wonderful and praiseworthy comes from Islam, and Christians should be grateful to bask in its glow.

Or perhaps these similarities are due to the fact that Mohammed plagiarized, then perverted, numerous Biblical accounts and concepts!

Although Dante looked upon the Arabic world with nothing but contempt and disdain, one must keep in mind that he was reflective of the general attitude of his time, in which his culture was skeptical towards Islam as a whole. However, it is ironic that such antipathy for Muslim culture did not stop any Westerners from absorbing the extensive knowledge that the Arabic world offered the West. It is also ironic that such hatred was not mutual; rather, the West simply did not exist to those of the East, for the Muslims believed that “Their own religion was far superior their language, the language of the angels, was matchless and their way of life left nothing to be desired.” Thus, the Muslims basically chose not to involve themselves with the affairs of the West since they considered themselves to be culturally superior. At the same time, the Arabic world “went its own way unmindful of the West,” suggesting that the Muslims did not regard the Europeans in a hostile manner. Such are assertion makes the harsh treatment of Islam by Dante, and other Westerners, seem more unjustified.

Only to the ignorant, since Islam’s “sacred” texts command the fighting against, subduing and humiliating, and killing of non-Muslims.

The only things made clear by this author are his contempt for Western Civilization and his ignorance of Islam. He does Dante–and his readers–a great disservice.

Dante didn’t go far enough

In Uncategorized on May 16, 2006 at 8:29 AM

The following article (notes in the original) discusses Dante and his perspective on Islam as expressed in his most famous work Inferno, from The Divine Comedy.

Dante Alighieri was a conservative, devout Christian, as well as a strong representative of the attitude of his time Such a perspective is displayed in his book, the Inferno, in which he responds to one of the influences of his time period. the Arabic worlds The influence of Islam was not found in all aspects of medieval society yet its impact, found especially on Christianity and medieval intellectual life, was strongly felt [sic]

All human beings are by nature sinful, so one does not need an outside influence to blame for one’s own evil actions. However, considering that nowhere in the doctrines of Christ can one find even the hint of commands for torture and murder, I do not doubt that much of the Church’s violence toward heretics and non-Christians was learned at the knee of Medieval Europe’s harsh tutor, the false prophet Mohammed.

In canto VIII of the Inferno, where Dante describes the existence of mosques in the city of Dis, and in canto XXVIII, where one encounters Mohammed and Eli in Hell, Dante conveys his attitude towards Islam His placement of these aspects of Arabic culture amongst the sinners of Hell corroborates the notion that Dante held a contemptuous and negative view towards the Muslim world [sic]

Was Dante’s “contemptuous and negative view” directed toward Arabic culture? No, it was directed toward Islam. Why? Because Dante was a backward, unenlightened, prejudiced, ethnocentric white, Christian, male Islamophobe? (How chronocentric to argue thus!) No, Dante was well-acquainted with the doctrines of Mahomet and the practices that follow logically from them. Consider, for example, what Allah requires of his people toward non-Muslims who refuse to submit:

“…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); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practise regular charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful” (Qur’an 9:5).

And if an “unbeliever” decides to exercise their (true) God-given right to self-defense, what next? Islam’s history overflows with the tolerance and peace preached by Mohammed here in Sura 5:

“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).

The article continues:

His antipathy for such a culture is based not simply on a prejudiced view that he heldn [sic] but rather on his disgust towards its effects on the Christian Church as well as on medieval intellectual lifeW [sic] Based on his inclusion of Muslim mosques and leaders in Hell, one can see that the impact on medieval life obviously perturbed Dante, for he would have preferred to have his culture completely devoid of any Islamic influences.

Why is that? Could it be that Dante viewed Islam’s false doctrine as leading to the eternal condemnation of people’s souls? Could it be that he viewed as distasteful Mahomet’s blasphemies? Could it be that Dante knew well that Allah’s commands to fight against, subdue and humiliate, and kill non-Muslims were continuously and zealously being carried out upon innocent men, women, and children?

What Infidel wouldn’t want their own culture devoid of such influences?

The medieval view of Islam was a hostile one primarily based on fear and prejudice.

Fear of an ideology founded upon and spread by violence and death is called “good judgment.”

And as for prejudice? By definition, prejudice means reaching a conclusion before examining the evidence. What proof does this article’s author have that Dante was unfamiliar with Islam? Isn’t this author’s mischaracterization of what led Dante to oppose the Religion of Peace an example of his or her own prejudice (and ignorance of Islam)?

The basis for this fear evolved from the belief that the Muslim religion posed a serious threat to Christianity’s existences for it gave Christianity some unwelcomed competition.

When one enterprise oppresses, enslaves, and kills the competition, such a belief would seem justified. Such behavior should be unwelcomed.

In other parts of the world, namely in the East, Islam had a strong foothold, and such a foothold proved to be menacing to Christianity since it showed the world that Christianity was not the absolutes most powerful religion.

And how did Islam obtain that “strong foothold”? Was it through the sheer persuasive power of Mohammed’s message of Allah’s love sinful mankind? Perhaps it was the false prophet’s example of love in action as he healed the sick, comforted the brokenhearted and raised the dead that changed people’s hearts? Did Mahomet change people’s hearts by sacrificing his life for all Humanity? The Religion from Hell must have gained so many adherents because its founder led such a holy life, setting an example to be emulated for all men!

No. Mohammed lied, stole, waged offensive warfare, raped, enslaved, tortured, mutiliated and murdered those who opposed him and his false doctrine. All of these evils (including consummating his marriage to his favorite wife Aisha when she was nine years old) were excused or commanded by his false god Allah!

Islam spread by the sword as soon as it was strong enough to do so, and it continues to war around the world to this very day.

While the Muslims jeopardized the reputation and stability of the religion of the West, other Christian lands were falling under Arabic ruled One of these countries included Spain, where Muslim occupation, which began in 711 A D , resulted in the religious conversion of the Spanish people and culture. This conquering of Christian soil proved to be another reason why the West felt threatened by the Arabic presence in the world [sic]

Whether through ignorance or dishonesty, the author doesn’t acknowledge here that those Christian lands fell under the sword of Islam. This Spanish religious “conversion” was achieved through the natural desire to avoid one’s own oppression, enslavement and murder.

In addition, disdainful views of Mohammed were held by Westerners, for he was regarded as being a false prophet, as a result, Islam was regarded as a heresy, for it appeared to be so radically different from Christianity…

Appeared? Nay, it is: I know not appeared:
‘Tis not alone my Inky Cloake (good Author);
Nor Customary suites of solemne Blacke,
Nor windy suspiration of forc’d breath,
No, nor the fruitfull Riuer in the Eye,
Nor the deiected hauiour of the Visage,
Together with all Formes, Moods, shewes of Griefe,
That can denote me truly.
These indeed Seeme, For they are actions that a man might play:
But I haue that Within, which passeth show;
These, but the Trappings, and the Suites of woe.” (courtesy W. Shakespeare)

No, the differences between Christianity and Islam are not superficial, they are fundamental.

As indicated above, on the one hand is the Son of God Who committed no sin, performed many great and miraculous works, and rose from the dead. He commanded His people to love even their enemies. On the other hand is the founder of Islam whose legacy is torment, blood, and suffering. If Jesus said He was God’s own Son, and Mohammed said that those who say Allah has a son is an unbeliever, then it should be obvious to even a simple child that the two religions are forever opposed to each other.

…and did not involve the worship of the Christian god. In addition, Mohammed was also thought of as being the Devil’s tool to end Christianity’s spread and success to being instead:

a sexual, self indulgent murderer whose book…Koran was a collection of pretended revelations and whose religion spread by deceit, violence and the lure of lascivious practices.

To the modern, Western, politically-correct, “Can’t We All Get Along, You Intolerant Racist!” ear, such a description of Mahomet and his “sacred” text seem outrageous. According to Islam’s authoritative texts, Qur’an and Hadith, Mohammed is guilty of all those crimes and more.

The troubling part (for non-Muslims) is that this life is held up as one to be imitated by the faithful.

Most people in the West during the Middle Ages harbored these antipathetic feelings for IslamS in which the religion and its progenitor were looked upon with such disdain.

Rightly so.

In the Inferno, Dante proves that he was not exempt from this scornful attitude towards the Arabic culture.

Again, it was scorn for the evil brought upon the heads of mankind by Islam, not scorn for “Arabic culture.”

The first time one encounters any aspects of Muslim culture throughout the Inferno is in canto VIII, when Dante and Virgil are coming upon the city of Dis. As Dante explains to Virgil, “I can already see distinctly a- / master — the mosques that gleam within the valley, / as crimson as if they had just been drawn out of the fire.” In these lines, Dante’s contempt for Islam is made quite evident, for he places mosques, the sanctuaries of Muslim worship, in the city of Dis.

Hell is an appropriate environ for the factories that turn out people who believe it is their duty to fight against, subdue and humiliate, and kill non-Muslims solely for their unwillingness to convert to an obviously perverse and false religion.

Perhaps this author is confusing “contempt” with “accurate and reasonable representation.”

Had Dante respected the Arabic culture, he would have placed these mosques either in Purgatory or in Heaven, not in Hell amongst all of the other infidels and sinners.

Respect for any culture should include truth-telling, but this author is either unable or unwilling to admit the evil of Mahomet’s doctrine and practice.

How can one respect a religion that commands the enslavement, rape, mutilation, and murder of innocent men, women and children in the name of its god?

Furthermore, he states that the mosques are “as crimson as if they had just been drawn X out of the fire”; thus, Dante suggests that the mosques are ablaze. By indicating that they are in flames, Dante is punishing the followers of Islam, for the fire will bring about the destruction of their mosques. Such a description of these mosques reveals Dante’s contempt for Arabic culture.

What is the proper response to the monster who declared, “…I have been ordered (by Allah) to fight against the people until they testify that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that Muhammad is Allah’s Apostle…” (Bukhari Volume 1, Book 2, Number 24) if not contempt?

In canto XXVIII, where one encounters Mohammed and Eli, Dante’s lack of respect for Muslim culture is again Portrayed. In this canto, one of the sinners tells the two travelers of Hell: “See how maimed Mohammed is! And he / who walks and weeps before me is Ali, / whose face is opened wide from chin to forelock” (canto XXVIII, 31-33). Since they caused schism in life, Dante has eternally punished them in a gruesome manner by having their wounds sealed and then reopened by a devil. Had he not felt so contemptuous of Islam, he would have not placed Mohammed and Ali, the religion’s two most influential men, in Hell.

Had this author been less ignorant of Islam’s brutal history, he would not have criticized Dante’s decision-making.

Furthermore, Dante would not have depicted them as being maimed in such a graphic manner if he was not so perturbed by the culture. One can imagine that such a punishment would bring an extremely excruciating amount of pain upon the individual who is being punished; thus, by giving these two progenitors of the Muslim religion an extremely tormenting, agonizing punishment for eternity, Dante shows how strong his aversion to the Arabic world is. Had he not been so contemptuous of Islam, then he would have given Mohammed and Ali a milder punishment.

If this author knew anything of the cruelty inflicted upon non-Muslims by Mahomet and his followers over the past fourteen centuries, he would appreciate the high degree of irony here.

The placement of the two most influential men in Islam among the schismatics introduces one of the main factors that fuels Dante’s contempt for Arabic culture. In addition to a prejudice against the culture, Dante’s dislike is also derived from its effects on Christianity In contrast to the view of his time, Dante does not punish Mohammed and Ali for heresy, but rather for schism, indicating that they brought about schism in the Christian Church. Mohammed and Eli are not only responsible for heresy, as Dante believed, because in addition to forming a religion that went against the ideals and established views of Christianity, they also caused dissent and schism within the Christian community. During the Middle Ages, there was a prevalent belief that Mohammed was an apostate Christian, possibly even a cardinal. Furthermore, Mohammed possessed a deep reverence for Christ, for he regarded him as being the greatest of prophets, and considered his birth to be a wonderful event.

It is true that Islam has traditionally (falsely) asserted that Mohammed’s revelation replaced/corrected corrupted Christianity, but apostate cardinal? Claiming that Mohammed was some kind of Christian is almost as preposterous as claiming Christ and Allah are the same deity. Raping, enslaving and slaughtering Christ’s people for their unwillingness to convert to the false prophet’s religion and calling Christ Himself a liar can not be characterized as “respect.”

Here is Mohammed’s blasphemy in his own words:

In blasphemy indeed are those that say that Allah is Christ the son of Mary. Say: “Who then hath the least power against Allah, if His will were to destroy Christ the son of Mary, his mother, and all every – one that is on the earth? For to Allah belongeth the dominion of the heavens and the earth, and all that is between. He createth what He pleaseth. For Allah hath power over all things” (Qur’an 5:17).

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).

“The Jews call ‘Uzair a son of Allah, and the Christians call Christ the son of Allah. That is a saying from their mouth; (in this) they but imitate what the unbelievers of old used to say. Allah’s curse be on them: how they are deluded away from the Truth” (Qur’an 9:30)!

Here’s more misinformation:

Even though Mohammed might have been an apostate, he was still a member of the Christian community, thus, when he decided to break sway from Christianity to form Islam, he took with him many followers of the Christian god. Since the Muslim religion began to attract many individuals, eventually consuming almost all of the East…

Yes, if being subdued and humiliated can be considered attractive.

…Dante must have felt that these individuals were “stolen” from Christianity, and would have been part of his religious community if it were not for Mohammed. For this reason, Dante feels that Mohammed caused dissent, or schism, in the Christian community, and was not responsible simply for heresy…Dante most likely believed that Mohammed was responsible for heresy as well, however, his main problem with Mohammed is predicated on the turmoil that he caused in the Christian community by founding Islam. Dante punishes Mohammed not just for establishing the Muslim religion…he also thinks that the Christian clergy was also at fault. If there had been no problem with the Christian Church, then there would have been no need to break away from it…the problems that existed within the Christian Church were a primary cause for the establishment of the Muslim religion; therefore, the way to ameliorate such a problem of schism would be to reform Christianity.

The primary cause for the establishment of Islam was Mohammed’s desire to justify his lusts for violence and pleasure. That he claimed to represent YHWH (going so far as to fabricate narratives for several Biblical characters) to lend an air legitimacy to his evil is just one more reason Dante didn’t go far enough.

…Simony is one of the problems with the clergy that Dante tries to redress, for he felt that it was one of the many faults of Christianity that helped to bring about the establishment of the Muslim religion.

Slaughtering those who refused to submit had a greater impact on Islam’s “success” than did Christian failings, though undoubtedly corruption aided Jihad.

While the effects of Arabic culture on Christianity formed the basis for Dante’s hatred of Islam, its effects on mediswal society were also responsible for fueling his anger. One of the areas in which medieval society was affected by the Arabic world was in the tradition of courtly love poetry (Provencal poetry sung by the troubadours) that praised women. The theory suggesting that courtly love poetry was influenced by Islamy called the “Arabist theory,” was initially pursued by a marl named Giammaria Barbieri in his book Dell’origine delta Poesie rimata, published in 1790. Some of this influence could have also come from a type of Arabic poetry called Mozarabic, which not only preceded the poetry of the troubadours, but also resembled it in “some fundamental structural features and thematic characteristics.” In this form of Arabic poetry, as in the poetry sung by troubadours, the existence of themes that praise women is evident. In addition to poetry, other forms of Arabic literature could have impacted the Provencal poetry, such as the Muslim tales that followed the format of the following one by Ahmed ibn Abu-l-Hawari, who lived during the ninth century:

In a dream I saw a maiden of the most perfect beauty, whose countenance shone with celestial splendour. To my asking, “Whence comes the brilliance on thy faces” she replied… “I took those tears of thine and with them anointed my face, since when it has shone in brilliance.”

Obviously, it was poetry that Dante detested. Of course, Islam’s “exaltation” of women has no effect on how this author views that faith. If he had done his own research on Mohammed’s faith and its bloody history (not difficult to do for an Infidel with a modem), he would have found the following in Islam’s “sacred” texts:

  • Allah gave a nine year-old girl to his false prophet for his sexual gratification
  • When a wife doesn’t obey his husband, he is to beat her
  • A woman’s testimony is not of equal value to a man’s
  • For those who die fighting against non-Muslims for Allah, one of their rewards are dozens of perpetual virgins whose sole purpose is their gratification

Continuing with the article:

This tale shows how Arabic literature placed women, based on their physical attributes, on a high pedestal, for the woman ill the following tale is “of the most perfect beauty” and “shone with celestial splendour.” In comparison, one can look at an example of an Italian troubadour poem from the thirteenth century and notice that there is a similar emphasis on the physical beauty of women:

In her face I have see [sic] the moon,
smiling with her radiant look. Did she
appear to me, I ask my eyes, while I was
awake or in a dream?

That look is a true mystery! It makes my
body sick, but it also cures it.[16]

The praise of women in this excerpt is quite clear, for the beauty of the girl is so tremendous that the author puts forth the possibility that she appeared to him while he was in the midst of a dream. Furthermore, since she smiles “with her radiant look,” there is the suggestion that her appearance is not only radiant, but also intriguing. By comparing the troubadour poem with the Arabic tale, one can clearly see the possible influence of the Arabic world on medieval literature.

Is it possible to see in medieval literature the influence of Islam’s beheadings, crucifixions, dismemberments, kidnappings of Christian children to suit its purposes, flaying of fathers in front of their wives and children and violating women in front of their husbands?

Arabic influence on courtly love poetry would have greatly perturbed Dante due to the fact that he was so anti-Arabic and would not have favored having his culture tied to the culture of which he was so contemptuous. Rather, he would have most likely preferred to have his culture completely devoid of any Islamic aspects, and instead consisting purely of Christian characteristics.

It is common today to claim that a healthy revulsion toward Islam is instead a racist or ethnic bias. Too bad it is false and therefore misleading.

Ironically, this courtly love poetry was also exercised by Dante himself. His treatment of courtly love in the Inferno is shown when he writes about a lady for whom he used to have an attraction, Beatrice. In courtly love language, Virgil describes her as being “so blessed, so lovely… Her eyes surpassed the splendor of the star’s” (canto II, 53-55). In these lines, Dante praises Beatrice by describing her as being “blessed,” and “lovely,” with eyes full of “splendor.” Such an emphasis is placed by Dante on the physical characteristics of Beatrice that one can notice parallels between his poetry and the two excerpts from above of the Arabic tale and the troubadour poem. Dante, like the authors of the two works cited above, centers his description of Beatrice on her beauty and physical attraction. Therefore, one can assume that Dante was subject to the same Islamic influence to which the author of the troubadour poem above was susceptible.

Ironic only if you are believing the lie of Islam as the Religion of Peace. And of course, no one but Arabs have ever admired a woman’s physical beauty in poetic form.

While the Arabic world had a severe impact on medieval literature, it had an even greater impact on medieval intellectual life. At the time, Europe was craving for more information on science and philosophy, for the people of Europe were depleting their supplies of “intellectual capital.” Furthermore, the demand for more scientific and philosophical information was going stronger by the day, and European sources were not offering any new material to satisfy the desires of people. Thus, Western scholars were prepared to search out Arabic texts and translate them because they strongly desired to have new knowledge. From the works and texts of Arabic peoples Europeans expanded their knowledge on diseases arithmetic, algebra, trigonometry, and incorporated astronomical tables from the Arabs that became the standard ones of the Middle Ages.

Which is nothing to Islam’s credit, since it crushes intellectual inquiry and critical thinking. Most advances that came under Islam were due to non-Muslims under its oppressive yoke. One needs to look no further than the “progress” of the lands under Allah’s rule over the centuries to see that if not for a fantastically unfortunate accident of history and geology (and the West’s need for it), the ummah would have nothing but rocks and sticks to wage jihad.

Before this decision to translate works from Arabic into either Latin or the vernacular, Europeans had little knowledge of Greek philosophy and science, for most of the Greek works concerning these fields had been translated into Arabic.

Because Islam was so inquisitive and tolerant, or because they conquered Greeks also?

Thus, when Europeans were able to translate Arabic texts, they gained the knowledge, for the first time, of Aristotlea Euclid« Ptcjismyy [sic] and Archimedes, amongst others. Such knowledge was readily accessible to Western Europe due to Muslim Spain, for Spain became:

…for the greater portion of the Middle Ages a part of the Mohammedan East, heir to its learning and its sciences, to its magic and astrology, and the principal means of their introduction into Western Furope [sic].

Islam and its apologists love euphemisms (what better way to deceive gullible and unwary Infidels while still being able to claim you’re telling the truth?)! Apparently for this author, “principal means of their introduction into Western Europe” is code for “staging grounds for Islam’s violent expansion into Western Europe.”

As a result of this impact on medieval Europe, the intellectual life was significantly expanded…Thus, in light of his character, one can assume that Dante did not want his own Christian culture to be tainted by the Arabic world.

Good for Dante! For who would want their culture to consider the Ideal Man a murderous, thieving, warring, deceitful, pedophilic serial rapist?

Dante himself shows that he may have been influenced by Islam in writing the Divine ComedyN Miguel Asin Palacios put forth the controversial idea in 1919 that Dante got the idea for writing about a journey through Hell, then eventually up to Heaven, from two famous Islamic works of literature: the Isra and the Mirage The former is about Mohammed’s journey through Hell, while the latter is about his Ascension from Jerusalem to the Throne of Gods These two Arabic works of literature struck Palacios as prototypes for Dante’s Divine Comedy, in which Dante goes on a very similar journey

Which just goes to show Islam’s lie that “Similar = Same” will likely work on more than just Western political elites.

In addition, Palacios found that the links between the Muslim legend and Dante’s poem also included picturesque, descriptive, and even episodic similarities. For example, Palacios drew a comparison between the city of Dis and the city in the Moslem Hell, for both were described by the authors as being a city of fire. Furthermore, the tombs of the heretics are described by Dante as being a bed of fire, each harboring coffins of red hot iron; similarly, Mohammed saw an ocean of fire, on whose shore were cities in flames with thousands of red hot coffins.

Mohammed knows what that hellfire looks like now, I’ll warrant.

Thus, Palacios concluded that Dante used the Isra and the Mirai as outlines in critics his journey through Hell, and eventually up to Heavenly While this assumption may be true, one can argue that Dante used these Arabic works as references in order to write a better, more complete Christian story. Thus, he possibly wanted there to exist a similar story to the Muslim legend, only one which was written by a Christian and that was superior to the Muslim story. If this intention was Dante’s plan, then his attitude towards Islam is only corroborated, for he attempted to prove how any piece of Christian literature could emulate and surpass any Arabic literature, even if the works involved were coveted Muslim legends.

Of course, everything wonderful and praiseworthy comes from Islam, and Christians should be grateful to bask in its glow.

Or perhaps these similarities are due to the fact that Mohammed plagiarized, then perverted, numerous Biblical accounts and concepts!

Although Dante looked upon the Arabic world with nothing but contempt and disdain, one must keep in mind that he was reflective of the general attitude of his time, in which his culture was skeptical towards Islam as a whole. However, it is ironic that such antipathy for Muslim culture did not stop any Westerners from absorbing the extensive knowledge that the Arabic world offered the West. It is also ironic that such hatred was not mutual; rather, the West simply did not exist to those of the East, for the Muslims believed that “Their own religion was far superior their language, the language of the angels, was matchless and their way of life left nothing to be desired.” Thus, the Muslims basically chose not to involve themselves with the affairs of the West since they considered themselves to be culturally superior. At the same time, the Arabic world “went its own way unmindful of the West,” suggesting that the Muslims did not regard the Europeans in a hostile manner. Such are assertion makes the harsh treatment of Islam by Dante, and other Westerners, seem more unjustified.

Only to the ignorant, since Islam’s “sacred” texts command the fighting against, subduing and humiliating, and killing of non-Muslims.

The only things made clear by this author are his contempt for Western Civilization and his ignorance of Islam. He does Dante–and his readers–a great disservice.

Dante didn’t go far enough

In Uncategorized on May 16, 2006 at 7:29 AM

The following article (notes in the original) discusses Dante and his perspective on Islam as expressed in his most famous work Inferno, from The Divine Comedy.

Dante Alighieri was a conservative, devout Christian, as well as a strong representative of the attitude of his time Such a perspective is displayed in his book, the Inferno, in which he responds to one of the influences of his time period. the Arabic worlds The influence of Islam was not found in all aspects of medieval society yet its impact, found especially on Christianity and medieval intellectual life, was strongly felt [sic]

All human beings are by nature sinful, so one does not need an outside influence to blame for one’s own evil actions. However, considering that nowhere in the doctrines of Christ can one find even the hint of commands for torture and murder, I do not doubt that much of the Church’s violence toward heretics and non-Christians was learned at the knee of Medieval Europe’s harsh tutor, the false prophet Mohammed.

In canto VIII of the Inferno, where Dante describes the existence of mosques in the city of Dis, and in canto XXVIII, where one encounters Mohammed and Eli in Hell, Dante conveys his attitude towards Islam His placement of these aspects of Arabic culture amongst the sinners of Hell corroborates the notion that Dante held a contemptuous and negative view towards the Muslim world [sic]

Was Dante’s “contemptuous and negative view” directed toward Arabic culture? No, it was directed toward Islam. Why? Because Dante was a backward, unenlightened, prejudiced, ethnocentric white, Christian, male Islamophobe? (How chronocentric to argue thus!) No, Dante was well-acquainted with the doctrines of Mahomet and the practices that follow logically from them. Consider, for example, what Allah requires of his people toward non-Muslims who refuse to submit:

“…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); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practise regular charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful” (Qur’an 9:5).

And if an “unbeliever” decides to exercise their (true) God-given right to self-defense, what next? Islam’s history overflows with the tolerance and peace preached by Mohammed here in Sura 5:

“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).

The article continues:

His antipathy for such a culture is based not simply on a prejudiced view that he heldn [sic] but rather on his disgust towards its effects on the Christian Church as well as on medieval intellectual lifeW [sic] Based on his inclusion of Muslim mosques and leaders in Hell, one can see that the impact on medieval life obviously perturbed Dante, for he would have preferred to have his culture completely devoid of any Islamic influences.

Why is that? Could it be that Dante viewed Islam’s false doctrine as leading to the eternal condemnation of people’s souls? Could it be that he viewed as distasteful Mahomet’s blasphemies? Could it be that Dante knew well that Allah’s commands to fight against, subdue and humiliate, and kill non-Muslims were continuously and zealously being carried out upon innocent men, women, and children?

What Infidel wouldn’t want their own culture devoid of such influences?

The medieval view of Islam was a hostile one primarily based on fear and prejudice.

Fear of an ideology founded upon and spread by violence and death is called “good judgment.”

And as for prejudice? By definition, prejudice means reaching a conclusion before examining the evidence. What proof does this article’s author have that Dante was unfamiliar with Islam? Isn’t this author’s mischaracterization of what led Dante to oppose the Religion of Peace an example of his or her own prejudice (and ignorance of Islam)?

The basis for this fear evolved from the belief that the Muslim religion posed a serious threat to Christianity’s existences for it gave Christianity some unwelcomed competition.

When one enterprise oppresses, enslaves, and kills the competition, such a belief would seem justified. Such behavior should be unwelcomed.

In other parts of the world, namely in the East, Islam had a strong foothold, and such a foothold proved to be menacing to Christianity since it showed the world that Christianity was not the absolutes most powerful religion.

And how did Islam obtain that “strong foothold”? Was it through the sheer persuasive power of Mohammed’s message of Allah’s love sinful mankind? Perhaps it was the false prophet’s example of love in action as he healed the sick, comforted the brokenhearted and raised the dead that changed people’s hearts? Did Mahomet change people’s hearts by sacrificing his life for all Humanity? The Religion from Hell must have gained so many adherents because its founder led such a holy life, setting an example to be emulated for all men!

No. Mohammed lied, stole, waged offensive warfare, raped, enslaved, tortured, mutiliated and murdered those who opposed him and his false doctrine. All of these evils (including consummating his marriage to his favorite wife Aisha when she was nine years old) were excused or commanded by his false god Allah!

Islam spread by the sword as soon as it was strong enough to do so, and it continues to war around the world to this very day.

While the Muslims jeopardized the reputation and stability of the religion of the West, other Christian lands were falling under Arabic ruled One of these countries included Spain, where Muslim occupation, which began in 711 A D , resulted in the religious conversion of the Spanish people and culture. This conquering of Christian soil proved to be another reason why the West felt threatened by the Arabic presence in the world [sic]

Whether through ignorance or dishonesty, the author doesn’t acknowledge here that those Christian lands fell under the sword of Islam. This Spanish religious “conversion” was achieved through the natural desire to avoid one’s own oppression, enslavement and murder.

In addition, disdainful views of Mohammed were held by Westerners, for he was regarded as being a false prophet, as a result, Islam was regarded as a heresy, for it appeared to be so radically different from Christianity…

Appeared? Nay, it is: I know not appeared:
‘Tis not alone my Inky Cloake (good Author);
Nor Customary suites of solemne Blacke,
Nor windy suspiration of forc’d breath,
No, nor the fruitfull Riuer in the Eye,
Nor the deiected hauiour of the Visage,
Together with all Formes, Moods, shewes of Griefe,
That can denote me truly.
These indeed Seeme, For they are actions that a man might play:
But I haue that Within, which passeth show;
These, but the Trappings, and the Suites of woe.” (courtesy W. Shakespeare)

No, the differences between Christianity and Islam are not superficial, they are fundamental.

As indicated above, on the one hand is the Son of God Who committed no sin, performed many great and miraculous works, and rose from the dead. He commanded His people to love even their enemies. On the other hand is the founder of Islam whose legacy is torment, blood, and suffering. If Jesus said He was God’s own Son, and Mohammed said that those who say Allah has a son is an unbeliever, then it should be obvious to even a simple child that the two religions are forever opposed to each other.

…and did not involve the worship of the Christian god. In addition, Mohammed was also thought of as being the Devil’s tool to end Christianity’s spread and success to being instead:

a sexual, self indulgent murderer whose book…Koran was a collection of pretended revelations and whose religion spread by deceit, violence and the lure of lascivious practices.

To the modern, Western, politically-correct, “Can’t We All Get Along, You Intolerant Racist!” ear, such a description of Mahomet and his “sacred” text seem outrageous. According to Islam’s authoritative texts, Qur’an and Hadith, Mohammed is guilty of all those crimes and more.

The troubling part (for non-Muslims) is that this life is held up as one to be imitated by the faithful.

Most people in the West during the Middle Ages harbored these antipathetic feelings for IslamS in which the religion and its progenitor were looked upon with such disdain.

Rightly so.

In the Inferno, Dante proves that he was not exempt from this scornful attitude towards the Arabic culture.

Again, it was scorn for the evil brought upon the heads of mankind by Islam, not scorn for “Arabic culture.”

The first time one encounters any aspects of Muslim culture throughout the Inferno is in canto VIII, when Dante and Virgil are coming upon the city of Dis. As Dante explains to Virgil, “I can already see distinctly a- / master — the mosques that gleam within the valley, / as crimson as if they had just been drawn out of the fire.” In these lines, Dante’s contempt for Islam is made quite evident, for he places mosques, the sanctuaries of Muslim worship, in the city of Dis.

Hell is an appropriate environ for the factories that turn out people who believe it is their duty to fight against, subdue and humiliate, and kill non-Muslims solely for their unwillingness to convert to an obviously perverse and false religion.

Perhaps this author is confusing “contempt” with “accurate and reasonable representation.”

Had Dante respected the Arabic culture, he would have placed these mosques either in Purgatory or in Heaven, not in Hell amongst all of the other infidels and sinners.

Respect for any culture should include truth-telling, but this author is either unable or unwilling to admit the evil of Mahomet’s doctrine and practice.

How can one respect a religion that commands the enslavement, rape, mutilation, and murder of innocent men, women and children in the name of its god?

Furthermore, he states that the mosques are “as crimson as if they had just been drawn X out of the fire”; thus, Dante suggests that the mosques are ablaze. By indicating that they are in flames, Dante is punishing the followers of Islam, for the fire will bring about the destruction of their mosques. Such a description of these mosques reveals Dante’s contempt for Arabic culture.

What is the proper response to the monster who declared, “…I have been ordered (by Allah) to fight against the people until they testify that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that Muhammad is Allah’s Apostle…” (Bukhari Volume 1, Book 2, Number 24) if not contempt?

In canto XXVIII, where one encounters Mohammed and Eli, Dante’s lack of respect for Muslim culture is again Portrayed. In this canto, one of the sinners tells the two travelers of Hell: “See how maimed Mohammed is! And he / who walks and weeps before me is Ali, / whose face is opened wide from chin to forelock” (canto XXVIII, 31-33). Since they caused schism in life, Dante has eternally punished them in a gruesome manner by having their wounds sealed and then reopened by a devil. Had he not felt so contemptuous of Islam, he would have not placed Mohammed and Ali, the religion’s two most influential men, in Hell.

Had this author been less ignorant of Islam’s brutal history, he would not have criticized Dante’s decision-making.

Furthermore, Dante would not have depicted them as being maimed in such a graphic manner if he was not so perturbed by the culture. One can imagine that such a punishment would bring an extremely excruciating amount of pain upon the individual who is being punished; thus, by giving these two progenitors of the Muslim religion an extremely tormenting, agonizing punishment for eternity, Dante shows how strong his aversion to the Arabic world is. Had he not been so contemptuous of Islam, then he would have given Mohammed and Ali a milder punishment.

If this author knew anything of the cruelty inflicted upon non-Muslims by Mahomet and his followers over the past fourteen centuries, he would appreciate the high degree of irony here.

The placement of the two most influential men in Islam among the schismatics introduces one of the main factors that fuels Dante’s contempt for Arabic culture. In addition to a prejudice against the culture, Dante’s dislike is also derived from its effects on Christianity In contrast to the view of his time, Dante does not punish Mohammed and Ali for heresy, but rather for schism, indicating that they brought about schism in the Christian Church. Mohammed and Eli are not only responsible for heresy, as Dante believed, because in addition to forming a religion that went against the ideals and established views of Christianity, they also caused dissent and schism within the Christian community. During the Middle Ages, there was a prevalent belief that Mohammed was an apostate Christian, possibly even a cardinal. Furthermore, Mohammed possessed a deep reverence for Christ, for he regarded him as being the greatest of prophets, and considered his birth to be a wonderful event.

It is true that Islam has traditionally (falsely) asserted that Mohammed’s revelation replaced/corrected corrupted Christianity, but apostate cardinal? Claiming that Mohammed was some kind of Christian is almost as preposterous as claiming Christ and Allah are the same deity. Raping, enslaving and slaughtering Christ’s people for their unwillingness to convert to the false prophet’s religion and calling Christ Himself a liar can not be characterized as “respect.”

Here is Mohammed’s blasphemy in his own words:

In blasphemy indeed are those that say that Allah is Christ the son of Mary. Say: “Who then hath the least power against Allah, if His will were to destroy Christ the son of Mary, his mother, and all every – one that is on the earth? For to Allah belongeth the dominion of the heavens and the earth, and all that is between. He createth what He pleaseth. For Allah hath power over all things” (Qur’an 5:17).

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).

“The Jews call ‘Uzair a son of Allah, and the Christians call Christ the son of Allah. That is a saying from their mouth; (in this) they but imitate what the unbelievers of old used to say. Allah’s curse be on them: how they are deluded away from the Truth” (Qur’an 9:30)!

Here’s more misinformation:

Even though Mohammed might have been an apostate, he was still a member of the Christian community, thus, when he decided to break sway from Christianity to form Islam, he took with him many followers of the Christian god. Since the Muslim religion began to attract many individuals, eventually consuming almost all of the East…

Yes, if being subdued and humiliated can be considered attractive.

…Dante must have felt that these individuals were “stolen” from Christianity, and would have been part of his religious community if it were not for Mohammed. For this reason, Dante feels that Mohammed caused dissent, or schism, in the Christian community, and was not responsible simply for heresy…Dante most likely believed that Mohammed was responsible for heresy as well, however, his main problem with Mohammed is predicated on the turmoil that he caused in the Christian community by founding Islam. Dante punishes Mohammed not just for establishing the Muslim religion…he also thinks that the Christian clergy was also at fault. If there had been no problem with the Christian Church, then there would have been no need to break away from it…the problems that existed within the Christian Church were a primary cause for the establishment of the Muslim religion; therefore, the way to ameliorate such a problem of schism would be to reform Christianity.

The primary cause for the establishment of Islam was Mohammed’s desire to justify his lusts for violence and pleasure. That he claimed to represent YHWH (going so far as to fabricate narratives for several Biblical characters) to lend an air legitimacy to his evil is just one more reason Dante didn’t go far enough.

…Simony is one of the problems with the clergy that Dante tries to redress, for he felt that it was one of the many faults of Christianity that helped to bring about the establishment of the Muslim religion.

Slaughtering those who refused to submit had a greater impact on Islam’s “success” than did Christian failings, though undoubtedly corruption aided Jihad.

While the effects of Arabic culture on Christianity formed the basis for Dante’s hatred of Islam, its effects on mediswal society were also responsible for fueling his anger. One of the areas in which medieval society was affected by the Arabic world was in the tradition of courtly love poetry (Provencal poetry sung by the troubadours) that praised women. The theory suggesting that courtly love poetry was influenced by Islamy called the “Arabist theory,” was initially pursued by a marl named Giammaria Barbieri in his book Dell’origine delta Poesie rimata, published in 1790. Some of this influence could have also come from a type of Arabic poetry called Mozarabic, which not only preceded the poetry of the troubadours, but also resembled it in “some fundamental structural features and thematic characteristics.” In this form of Arabic poetry, as in the poetry sung by troubadours, the existence of themes that praise women is evident. In addition to poetry, other forms of Arabic literature could have impacted the Provencal poetry, such as the Muslim tales that followed the format of the following one by Ahmed ibn Abu-l-Hawari, who lived during the ninth century:

In a dream I saw a maiden of the most perfect beauty, whose countenance shone with celestial splendour. To my asking, “Whence comes the brilliance on thy faces” she replied… “I took those tears of thine and with them anointed my face, since when it has shone in brilliance.”

Obviously, it was poetry that Dante detested. Of course, Islam’s “exaltation” of women has no effect on how this author views that faith. If he had done his own research on Mohammed’s faith and its bloody history (not difficult to do for an Infidel with a modem), he would have found the following in Islam’s “sacred” texts:

  • Allah gave a nine year-old girl to his false prophet for his sexual gratification
  • When a wife doesn’t obey his husband, he is to beat her
  • A woman’s testimony is not of equal value to a man’s
  • For those who die fighting against non-Muslims for Allah, one of their rewards are dozens of perpetual virgins whose sole purpose is their gratification

Continuing with the article:

This tale shows how Arabic literature placed women, based on their physical attributes, on a high pedestal, for the woman ill the following tale is “of the most perfect beauty” and “shone with celestial splendour.” In comparison, one can look at an example of an Italian troubadour poem from the thirteenth century and notice that there is a similar emphasis on the physical beauty of women:

In her face I have see [sic] the moon,
smiling with her radiant look. Did she
appear to me, I ask my eyes, while I was
awake or in a dream?

That look is a true mystery! It makes my
body sick, but it also cures it.[16]

The praise of women in this excerpt is quite clear, for the beauty of the girl is so tremendous that the author puts forth the possibility that she appeared to him while he was in the midst of a dream. Furthermore, since she smiles “with her radiant look,” there is the suggestion that her appearance is not only radiant, but also intriguing. By comparing the troubadour poem with the Arabic tale, one can clearly see the possible influence of the Arabic world on medieval literature.

Is it possible to see in medieval literature the influence of Islam’s beheadings, crucifixions, dismemberments, kidnappings of Christian children to suit its purposes, flaying of fathers in front of their wives and children and violating women in front of their husbands?

Arabic influence on courtly love poetry would have greatly perturbed Dante due to the fact that he was so anti-Arabic and would not have favored having his culture tied to the culture of which he was so contemptuous. Rather, he would have most likely preferred to have his culture completely devoid of any Islamic aspects, and instead consisting purely of Christian characteristics.

It is common today to claim that a healthy revulsion toward Islam is instead a racist or ethnic bias. Too bad it is false and therefore misleading.

Ironically, this courtly love poetry was also exercised by Dante himself. His treatment of courtly love in the Inferno is shown when he writes about a lady for whom he used to have an attraction, Beatrice. In courtly love language, Virgil describes her as being “so blessed, so lovely… Her eyes surpassed the splendor of the star’s” (canto II, 53-55). In these lines, Dante praises Beatrice by describing her as being “blessed,” and “lovely,” with eyes full of “splendor.” Such an emphasis is placed by Dante on the physical characteristics of Beatrice that one can notice parallels between his poetry and the two excerpts from above of the Arabic tale and the troubadour poem. Dante, like the authors of the two works cited above, centers his description of Beatrice on her beauty and physical attraction. Therefore, one can assume that Dante was subject to the same Islamic influence to which the author of the troubadour poem above was susceptible.

Ironic only if you are believing the lie of Islam as the Religion of Peace. And of course, no one but Arabs have ever admired a woman’s physical beauty in poetic form.

While the Arabic world had a severe impact on medieval literature, it had an even greater impact on medieval intellectual life. At the time, Europe was craving for more information on science and philosophy, for the people of Europe were depleting their supplies of “intellectual capital.” Furthermore, the demand for more scientific and philosophical information was going stronger by the day, and European sources were not offering any new material to satisfy the desires of people. Thus, Western scholars were prepared to search out Arabic texts and translate them because they strongly desired to have new knowledge. From the works and texts of Arabic peoples Europeans expanded their knowledge on diseases arithmetic, algebra, trigonometry, and incorporated astronomical tables from the Arabs that became the standard ones of the Middle Ages.

Which is nothing to Islam’s credit, since it crushes intellectual inquiry and critical thinking. Most advances that came under Islam were due to non-Muslims under its oppressive yoke. One needs to look no further than the “progress” of the lands under Allah’s rule over the centuries to see that if not for a fantastically unfortunate accident of history and geology (and the West’s need for it), the ummah would have nothing but rocks and sticks to wage jihad.

Before this decision to translate works from Arabic into either Latin or the vernacular, Europeans had little knowledge of Greek philosophy and science, for most of the Greek works concerning these fields had been translated into Arabic.

Because Islam was so inquisitive and tolerant, or because they conquered Greeks also?

Thus, when Europeans were able to translate Arabic texts, they gained the knowledge, for the first time, of Aristotlea Euclid« Ptcjismyy [sic] and Archimedes, amongst others. Such knowledge was readily accessible to Western Europe due to Muslim Spain, for Spain became:

…for the greater portion of the Middle Ages a part of the Mohammedan East, heir to its learning and its sciences, to its magic and astrology, and the principal means of their introduction into Western Furope [sic].

Islam and its apologists love euphemisms (what better way to deceive gullible and unwary Infidels while still being able to claim you’re telling the truth?)! Apparently for this author, “principal means of their introduction into Western Europe” is code for “staging grounds for Islam’s violent expansion into Western Europe.”

As a result of this impact on medieval Europe, the intellectual life was significantly expanded…Thus, in light of his character, one can assume that Dante did not want his own Christian culture to be tainted by the Arabic world.

Good for Dante! For who would want their culture to consider the Ideal Man a murderous, thieving, warring, deceitful, pedophilic serial rapist?

Dante himself shows that he may have been influenced by Islam in writing the Divine ComedyN Miguel Asin Palacios put forth the controversial idea in 1919 that Dante got the idea for writing about a journey through Hell, then eventually up to Heaven, from two famous Islamic works of literature: the Isra and the Mirage The former is about Mohammed’s journey through Hell, while the latter is about his Ascension from Jerusalem to the Throne of Gods These two Arabic works of literature struck Palacios as prototypes for Dante’s Divine Comedy, in which Dante goes on a very similar journey

Which just goes to show Islam’s lie that “Similar = Same” will likely work on more than just Western political elites.

In addition, Palacios found that the links between the Muslim legend and Dante’s poem also included picturesque, descriptive, and even episodic similarities. For example, Palacios drew a comparison between the city of Dis and the city in the Moslem Hell, for both were described by the authors as being a city of fire. Furthermore, the tombs of the heretics are described by Dante as being a bed of fire, each harboring coffins of red hot iron; similarly, Mohammed saw an ocean of fire, on whose shore were cities in flames with thousands of red hot coffins.

Mohammed knows what that hellfire looks like now, I’ll warrant.

Thus, Palacios concluded that Dante used the Isra and the Mirai as outlines in critics his journey through Hell, and eventually up to Heavenly While this assumption may be true, one can argue that Dante used these Arabic works as references in order to write a better, more complete Christian story. Thus, he possibly wanted there to exist a similar story to the Muslim legend, only one which was written by a Christian and that was superior to the Muslim story. If this intention was Dante’s plan, then his attitude towards Islam is only corroborated, for he attempted to prove how any piece of Christian literature could emulate and surpass any Arabic literature, even if the works involved were coveted Muslim legends.

Of course, everything wonderful and praiseworthy comes from Islam, and Christians should be grateful to bask in its glow.

Or perhaps these similarities are due to the fact that Mohammed plagiarized, then perverted, numerous Biblical accounts and concepts!

Although Dante looked upon the Arabic world with nothing but contempt and disdain, one must keep in mind that he was reflective of the general attitude of his time, in which his culture was skeptical towards Islam as a whole. However, it is ironic that such antipathy for Muslim culture did not stop any Westerners from absorbing the extensive knowledge that the Arabic world offered the West. It is also ironic that such hatred was not mutual; rather, the West simply did not exist to those of the East, for the Muslims believed that “Their own religion was far superior their language, the language of the angels, was matchless and their way of life left nothing to be desired.” Thus, the Muslims basically chose not to involve themselves with the affairs of the West since they considered themselves to be culturally superior. At the same time, the Arabic world “went its own way unmindful of the West,” suggesting that the Muslims did not regard the Europeans in a hostile manner. Such are assertion makes the harsh treatment of Islam by Dante, and other Westerners, seem more unjustified.

Only to the ignorant, since Islam’s “sacred” texts command the fighting against, subduing and humiliating, and killing of non-Muslims.

The only things made clear by this author are his contempt for Western Civilization and his ignorance of Islam. He does Dante–and his readers–a great disservice.

Passive acceptance of this double-standard risks American Liberty

In Uncategorized on May 11, 2006 at 8:33 AM

This article notes the irony of Liberal’s acceptance of Jihadists and enmity toward Americans with the following:

Patriotic Americans don’t have to become dangerous psychotics like liberals, but they could at least act like men.

Why hasn’t the former spokesman for the Taliban matriculating at Yale been beaten even more senseless than he already is? According to Hollywood, this nation is a cauldron of ethnic hatreds positively brimming with violent skinheads. Where are the skinheads when you need them? What does a girl have to do to get an angry, club- and torch-wielding mob on its feet?

There is not the remotest possibility that a man who was recently defending shooting women in the head for wearing nail polish will so much as be snubbed on the Yale campus.

The only violence on college campuses these days occurs when people like David Horowitz, Michelle Malkin and me show up to give a speech in defense of America. Then we need bomb-sniffing dogs and a lecture hall lined with armed police. But a Talibanist goes about his day at Yale unmolested.

Passive acceptance of this double-standard risks American Liberty

In Uncategorized on May 11, 2006 at 7:33 AM

This article notes the irony of Liberal’s acceptance of Jihadists and enmity toward Americans with the following:

Patriotic Americans don’t have to become dangerous psychotics like liberals, but they could at least act like men.

Why hasn’t the former spokesman for the Taliban matriculating at Yale been beaten even more senseless than he already is? According to Hollywood, this nation is a cauldron of ethnic hatreds positively brimming with violent skinheads. Where are the skinheads when you need them? What does a girl have to do to get an angry, club- and torch-wielding mob on its feet?

There is not the remotest possibility that a man who was recently defending shooting women in the head for wearing nail polish will so much as be snubbed on the Yale campus.

The only violence on college campuses these days occurs when people like David Horowitz, Michelle Malkin and me show up to give a speech in defense of America. Then we need bomb-sniffing dogs and a lecture hall lined with armed police. But a Talibanist goes about his day at Yale unmolested.

What, if any progress is being made against the global Jihad?

In Uncategorized on May 10, 2006 at 6:39 PM

Are we winning the War on Terror? And if we are, how is it that the global Jihad grows in strength?

Contrary to the hysterical protestations of rabid Bush-haters, the President was not wrong for attacking Muslims who had a hand in harming the United States. Though some Muslims who now have joined Jihad may not have done so in the absence of our American military’s recent action, what else could the President have done? To do nothing would make us appear weak, self-doubting, and fearful, which would only encourage the followers of Mahomet.

The President’s failure in waging this war is in not recognizing the Enemy. Our foe is not a tactic, it is an ideology, a belief system that kills men’s souls by giving “divine” approval to the devilish indulgence of his greatest vices and most destructive lusts.

Unless and until the President (and the rest of the world) recognize this fact, all efforts at winning this war will be terribly wasteful of blood and treasure, and ultimately, unsuccessful.

Painting a bleak landscape at The Pioneer:

With Al Qaeda far from being vanquished, and Pakistan and Bangladesh inevitably turning into jihadi outposts in the emerging pan-Islamist network in Asia, India is more than likely to be caught in the vicious tail-wind of the next wave of terrorism, gathering momentum since 9/11.

This wave of terrorism, as mounting evidences reveal, is likely to emerge from the military-governed Pakistan which has been flirting with jihadis for more than two decades – first using them to quell domestic ethnic and sectarian protests, then playing CIA’s quarter-master general in Afghanistan unleashing a band of mujahideen on the entrapped Soviet troops. After the Soviet collapse, it was launched against India in Jammu & Kashmir.

No other country has spawned as many terrorist groups as Pakistan. The key protagonists in this wave of terrorism have been the Pakistan Army and the ISI directorate. Irrespective of numerous international sanctions, these agencies continue to assist different hues of terrorist groups that have deep and organic links with Al Qaeda and other jihadi outfits.

Many of these groups, spawned during the Afghan jihad, are now increasingly adopting the world-view of Al Qaeda – creating a pan-Islamic front against those who are opposed to Islam, especially the Judeo-Christian Western nations, to establish the Caliphate. It is, therefore, imperative to understand the changes taking place in the world of terrorism, the impact of such changes on the groups operating in Pakistan, Bangladesh and elsewhere, and how India is likely to be caught in this jihadi maelstrom.

Two significant changes that have taken place since September 11 are the US invasion of Iraq and the expanding base of terrorist recruitment. It is now well established that Iraq has become a battle ground of terrorist networks led by Al Qaeda. It has replaced Afghanistan as the training ground for the next one or two generation of professional jihadis. Analysts believe that Iraq would prove to a deadlier training campus for jihadis than Afghanistan.

A similar situation is brewing in Pakistan’s tribal areas, especially Waziristan, where Al Qaeda and its allied groups have been pitted against the Pakistan Army since the spring of 2004. It is estimated that about 80,000 troops have been deployed in the region against a few thousand terrorists who are not only well entrenched but also well equipped and trained to fight the Army. Besides, Waziristan has become a meeting point for the Taliban and terrorists from different parts of the world.

The second factor is the expanding base of recruitment for terrorist groups. Although a large number of recruits come from the Persian Gulf, mainly Saudi Arabia and Yemen, many others are from North African countries, including Syria, Lebanon, Egypt, Sudan and Jordan. A significantly large number of recruits are now coming from European countries, mainly France and Britain; and many of them have already fought in Iraq.

The impact of these changes on Pakistan-based jihadi groups is already visible. No longer are these groups solely dependent on madarsas for recruitment and ideological support. In fact, various studies have shown that a significant number of the cadre today comes not from religious seminaries but normal “English medium public schools”. The cadre is well versed in communication technology, can effectively use sophisticated equipment like satellite phone, hi-fi wireless radio besides internet and email.

Another change which has been noticed in Pakistani groups is their willingness to transcend strictly ideological beliefs for a common objective. Although there is no love lost between Deobandi and Barelvi groups, or Sunnis and Shias, there is strong evidence that groups like Lashkar-e-Tayyeba (LeT) are quite willing to network with Deobandi groups like Harkat-ul Jihad al Islami (HuJI), Hizbul Mujahideen (HM) and Jaish-e-Mohammad (JeM). This coalition of convenience has ominous signs of expansion in India with several minor religious and criminal organisations willing to cooperate for petty gains.

The most significant development, however, has been these groups’ willingness to acquire political muscle through developmental and educational activities. One such group is Jamaat-ud Dawa, the parent organisation of LeT, which has been openly courting the political leadership in the recent past.

Notwithstanding the war on terrorism, it is becoming increasingly evident that jihadi outfits in Pakistan, though outlawed, have been able to consolidate their cadre, training and financial networks in the past three years. This is posing a threat not only to India but also Pakistan, as recent attempts to assassinate General Pervez Musharraf revealed.

More alarming is the possibility that these groups, already using transnational criminal syndicates for collecting funds and weapons, could, in the near future, forge deeper links with terrorist groups in South-East Asia and extend their scope of operations from Karachi to the Straits of Malacca.

What, if any progress is being made against the global Jihad?

In Uncategorized on May 10, 2006 at 5:39 PM

Are we winning the War on Terror? And if we are, how is it that the global Jihad grows in strength?

Contrary to the hysterical protestations of rabid Bush-haters, the President was not wrong for attacking Muslims who had a hand in harming the United States. Though some Muslims who now have joined Jihad may not have done so in the absence of our American military’s recent action, what else could the President have done? To do nothing would make us appear weak, self-doubting, and fearful, which would only encourage the followers of Mahomet.

The President’s failure in waging this war is in not recognizing the Enemy. Our foe is not a tactic, it is an ideology, a belief system that kills men’s souls by giving “divine” approval to the devilish indulgence of his greatest vices and most destructive lusts.

Unless and until the President (and the rest of the world) recognize this fact, all efforts at winning this war will be terribly wasteful of blood and treasure, and ultimately, unsuccessful.

Painting a bleak landscape at The Pioneer:

With Al Qaeda far from being vanquished, and Pakistan and Bangladesh inevitably turning into jihadi outposts in the emerging pan-Islamist network in Asia, India is more than likely to be caught in the vicious tail-wind of the next wave of terrorism, gathering momentum since 9/11.

This wave of terrorism, as mounting evidences reveal, is likely to emerge from the military-governed Pakistan which has been flirting with jihadis for more than two decades – first using them to quell domestic ethnic and sectarian protests, then playing CIA’s quarter-master general in Afghanistan unleashing a band of mujahideen on the entrapped Soviet troops. After the Soviet collapse, it was launched against India in Jammu & Kashmir.

No other country has spawned as many terrorist groups as Pakistan. The key protagonists in this wave of terrorism have been the Pakistan Army and the ISI directorate. Irrespective of numerous international sanctions, these agencies continue to assist different hues of terrorist groups that have deep and organic links with Al Qaeda and other jihadi outfits.

Many of these groups, spawned during the Afghan jihad, are now increasingly adopting the world-view of Al Qaeda – creating a pan-Islamic front against those who are opposed to Islam, especially the Judeo-Christian Western nations, to establish the Caliphate. It is, therefore, imperative to understand the changes taking place in the world of terrorism, the impact of such changes on the groups operating in Pakistan, Bangladesh and elsewhere, and how India is likely to be caught in this jihadi maelstrom.

Two significant changes that have taken place since September 11 are the US invasion of Iraq and the expanding base of terrorist recruitment. It is now well established that Iraq has become a battle ground of terrorist networks led by Al Qaeda. It has replaced Afghanistan as the training ground for the next one or two generation of professional jihadis. Analysts believe that Iraq would prove to a deadlier training campus for jihadis than Afghanistan.

A similar situation is brewing in Pakistan’s tribal areas, especially Waziristan, where Al Qaeda and its allied groups have been pitted against the Pakistan Army since the spring of 2004. It is estimated that about 80,000 troops have been deployed in the region against a few thousand terrorists who are not only well entrenched but also well equipped and trained to fight the Army. Besides, Waziristan has become a meeting point for the Taliban and terrorists from different parts of the world.

The second factor is the expanding base of recruitment for terrorist groups. Although a large number of recruits come from the Persian Gulf, mainly Saudi Arabia and Yemen, many others are from North African countries, including Syria, Lebanon, Egypt, Sudan and Jordan. A significantly large number of recruits are now coming from European countries, mainly France and Britain; and many of them have already fought in Iraq.

The impact of these changes on Pakistan-based jihadi groups is already visible. No longer are these groups solely dependent on madarsas for recruitment and ideological support. In fact, various studies have shown that a significant number of the cadre today comes not from religious seminaries but normal “English medium public schools”. The cadre is well versed in communication technology, can effectively use sophisticated equipment like satellite phone, hi-fi wireless radio besides internet and email.

Another change which has been noticed in Pakistani groups is their willingness to transcend strictly ideological beliefs for a common objective. Although there is no love lost between Deobandi and Barelvi groups, or Sunnis and Shias, there is strong evidence that groups like Lashkar-e-Tayyeba (LeT) are quite willing to network with Deobandi groups like Harkat-ul Jihad al Islami (HuJI), Hizbul Mujahideen (HM) and Jaish-e-Mohammad (JeM). This coalition of convenience has ominous signs of expansion in India with several minor religious and criminal organisations willing to cooperate for petty gains.

The most significant development, however, has been these groups’ willingness to acquire political muscle through developmental and educational activities. One such group is Jamaat-ud Dawa, the parent organisation of LeT, which has been openly courting the political leadership in the recent past.

Notwithstanding the war on terrorism, it is becoming increasingly evident that jihadi outfits in Pakistan, though outlawed, have been able to consolidate their cadre, training and financial networks in the past three years. This is posing a threat not only to India but also Pakistan, as recent attempts to assassinate General Pervez Musharraf revealed.

More alarming is the possibility that these groups, already using transnational criminal syndicates for collecting funds and weapons, could, in the near future, forge deeper links with terrorist groups in South-East Asia and extend their scope of operations from Karachi to the Straits of Malacca.

Loyal to Liberty, or divinely-sanctioned deceivers?

In Uncategorized on May 10, 2006 at 1:22 PM

As unpleasant a thought as this might be, it is necessary to contemplate how one might discern between Muslims who are Americans first and those Muslims whose hearts belong to the Ummah alone.

Citing Islam’s “divine” texts (Qur’an and Hadith) usually brings heaps of scorn and abuse, which is ironic, since the author(s) of those texts are the ones actually preaching hatred; somehow my pointing that out makes me a bigot.

And since Allah and his false prophet allow for lying in the name of god, how can vulnerable Infidels (Americans with Muslims in their midst) know whom to trust?

If left untreated (by the truth) the willful blindness brought on by political correctness and fear will allow Islam to destroy the West.

Our loyal Muslim soldiers:

Jihad Watch Board Vice President Hugh Fitzgerald considers Dean Esmay’s invocation of loyal Muslim soldiers in the U.S. Military:

Dean Esmay has recently made much of “Muslim soldiers” in the American army.

Let’s talk about those soldiers. Let’s start with the one who threw the grenades at sleeping officers, killing two of them, because they were fighting Muslims and he was loyal to the Ummah. There is that Marine who deserted, and then was found, and had that press conference pledging his undying loyalty (ending “Semper Fi”), and then escaped again, and is now somewhere in Lebanon, a deserter and, possibly, a traitor. There are reports, not confirmed, of a sailor whose communications with others on land, purporting to volunteer to relay information about the movements of his ship and his shipmates, about which more remains to be known. One wonders if there are other such cases that have not yet come to light — whether in the American or European militaries, or in the American and European police and security forces. And one wonders how much thought is being given to this in NATO — especially if demographic trends continue without any effective attempt to halt and reverse them. police of Infidel countries, or in the security services.

Then there are the handful — does Esmay know how many there are? — of Muslims who have served in Iraq and Afghanistan as soldiers, and who fought perfectly acceptably. Well, how many, exactly? Leave aside the Iraqis who lived in America and had their own reasons — having nothing to do with the protection of Infidels — for removing Saddam Hussein. For that matter, the same is true for Afghanis living in America who wanted to overthrow the Taliban. Tell us how many Muslim-Americans have served honorably in proportion to that population (here it would be best for Muslims if the inflated figures they use for “Muslims in America” were not used — it would put things in an even starker light).

Now, ordinarily when immigrants fight for the United States, the whole immigrant community celebrates them. Their pictures are put in store windows, or on the glass-fronts of barber shops, and so on. Think of World War I and World War II. The Greek, Hungarian, Jewish, Italian, Irish, German names, and the pictures of the soldiers, and the local pride, the stories about them in immigrant newspapers (published in Hungarian, German, Italian, and so on), as a demonstration of loyalty, and no doubt, as well, in the clear hope that this would demonstrate that they were “real” Americans who had earned their citizenship.

Perhaps the most astonishing example of this is the 442nd Regiment — consisting entirely of Japanese-Americans. While some of them were put into camps in California, Japanese-American soldiers were determined to prove themselves. Did they? Indeed they did. Everyone knows that that regiment fought all the way up Italy. In fact, the last time I was at Fort Jackson, I visited the museum there and saw bound copies of Stars and Stripes from the Second World War. I opened one at random and found an article about the medals awarded in that most decorated of all regiments during World War II, and the feats of derring-do of those who served in that regiment. Think of what that must have meant, and still means.
Now look at the handful of those Muslim soldiers. Celebrated? Do you have CAIR or any Muslim group celebrating any of these soldiers? Suggesting that they should be emulated? Is anyone suggesting that Muslims should be in the forefront of those in the American military fighting what are regarded as threats to the United States, in the Middle East or Pakistan or Afghanistan? Any hint that those soldiers would find themselves heroes in Muslim communities, they and their fmailies made much of by fellow Muslims, just the way those in the 442nd Regiment were? Are their pictures in shop windows? Do Arabic or Urdu-language newspapers have articles celebrating them in their American uniforms, in the American military? Any hope that they will come home, those few, richly bemedalled, with feats similar to those perhaps of the members of the 442nd, in order to put paid to all kinds of worries and doubts?

No. There has been none of that.

Why not? Dean Esmay should spend the summer reading, and not merely reading but digesting, the Qur’an and the Hadith (a few hundred, in al-Bukhari and Muslim, will do). He should also take care to comprehend how Muslims interpret, or fail to interpret, the Qur’an. Without studying abrogation, without understanding the real meaning of a phrase (including something as seemingly innocuous as “strive in the path of Allah,” which is not innocuous at all), and without studying how, over 1350 years, Muslims took those phrases, and what they made of them, one cannot fully understand Islam. See Bostom’s Legacy of Jihad for a sampling of what Western scholars of Islam from a dozen countries, who had spent their entire lives immersed in the study of Islam and Jihad-conquest, made of the doctrine of Jihad and its undeniable sources. Undeniable, that is, except to those who have “really nice Muslim friends” who are “as loyal as they come” (or other missing-the-point credulity for which the rest of us should not be expected to pay, or to risk our lives, so that Mr. Esmay can feel good about himself, and his own self-congratulatory sense of fair play and the American way that overlooks so much of consequence.

The invocation by some of their “really nice Muslim friends” in what should be sober discussions of Islam is just one more example of that blend of ignorance, mental laziness (which in part explains the failure to correct such ignorance), and a deep desire not to discover anything disturbing that might tend to trouble a serene world-view (which is the other part that explains). Non-Muslim apologists for Islam, relying heavily on anecdotal evidence about a colleague or a neighbor who is perfectly affable and friendly and exhibits none of those features which some ascribe to those who take their Islam seriously, are as silly as those Harvard graduates who listened to Fritzi Hanfstaengl, their fellow classmate, explain away Hitler and Nazism, or who might have taken Oskar Schindler for a typical member of the Nazi Party. Or those who, in reaching conclusions about Stalin, the Red Army, and the antisemitism of the “Doctors’s Plot” (delo vrachej), might have been relieved by the assurances of Ilya Ehrenburg, or two decades later, might have thought that that nice Andrey Sakharov was a typical Soviet weapons scientist. And so that nice rommmate of your son, the one whose father is a zamindar in Pakistan, or a rich Kuwaiti, and with a flat in London he has invited you to stay in for a few weeks as his guest — well, isn’t it on that basis that too many form their opinions about Islam, confusing personal charm and favors of a very few, with this belief-system as it has been received, and is being received, by nearly a billion people? Of course, many in Washington, whose duty it is both to instruct and protect us, have been receivers of just such largesse, for many decades, and that is certainly one of the reasons why Islam has not been understood, why Saudi Arabia is routinely depicted as our “staunch ally,” and why no intelligent energy policy was ever constructed to replace the faith in the kindness of those Saudi strangers.

It is maddening to see people again and again refusing to read the texts or the scholars of Islam (those who wrote before 1960 or so, when the inhibitions and self-censorship began, and the oil money began to have an effect on academic centers, departments, and individual professors, everywhere), but relying on those Muslims in the West, highly educated, often adept at knowing exactly how to present a case (taqiyya-and-tu-quoque) to those who collaborate in their own fooling.

Those who managed to unlock those mind-forged manacles and who tell us — Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Anwar Shaikh, Ali Sina, Azam Kamguian, and tens of thousands of others (and who knows how many hundreds of thousands long to be able to openly declare their apostasy) — would no doubt agree with the lapidary formulation of Ibn Warraq that “there are moderate Muslims. Islam itself is not moderate.” Ayaan Hirsi Ali, who by all accounts (which have just reached me), did not give an inch at Harvard yesterday when Muslim questioners offered the usual tu-quoque-and-taqiyya blend at question time, is herself perfectly sympathetic to the nostalgia of “cultural” Muslims (indeed, shares some of it herself) but she has no time — she made that clear — for those people who always seem slightly off, the ones who are Westerners but became Muslims and who seem determined to hold on to their own private Islam rather than admit that just perhaps, Rumi and mystical love poetry, and the Five Pillars, are not the half of it. Nor does she have much inward patience (outwardly she was, I am told, the soul of courtesy) with those Muslims who, either out of ignorance, or out of a deliberate mental choice to ignore much of what Islam teaches, or who simply don’t want such matters discussed by Ayaan Hirsi Ali and others in front of Infidels (it would hurt, you see, the “image” of Islam), claim in public, whther they believe it or not, that Islam is entirely inoffensive, and who make their unwary Infidel listeners forget, for a minute, a week, or a decade, what really is preached and repeated in the sermons (khutbas), in the press, on the airwaves, in those conversations filled with allusions to Allah and to the life of Muhammad, for Islamic societies are suffused with such references and allusions. It is silly to judge Islam on the basis of a colleague in a computer company, who may indeed be unobservant, or lax in his own belief (or may not — you don’t know), but who may insist that “his” Islam is the real one, and not what the hundreds of millions who listen to Al-Qaradawi, to Sheik Tantawi or whoever is presently the Sheik al-Azhar, to the late Sheikh Bin Baz and his successors and followers in Saudi Arabia, to those who still remember fondly, and miss terribly, the late Ayatollah Khomeini, and whose Islam, one can be sure, is a lot more representative than what someone living in an Infidel society, dependent on Infidel good will for everything, is likely to reveal. Why should he? Were you a Muslim, would you?

Those who bydint of great effort unlocked those mind-forged manacles, have to say. They know perfectly well they are not representative of a vast movement, but perhaps someday they will be. They have no reason to mislead about what those texts tell Believers to believe, and what ordinary Muslims have, over many centuries, taken those texts, believed to be immutable, to mean. Furthermore, there is more than just the texts. There are, arising from them, a host of attitudes, toward Infidels and women, that do not bode well. Even those who seldom or never attend a mosque will be affected by such attitudes, and by what pervades or suffuses Muslim societies — what might be called that set of Islamic allusions and references that form what might be called the “atmospherics” of Islamic societies, whether in Dar al-Islam or in Dar al-Harb. Some may not need to become apostates. No doubt there are “Muslim-for-identification-purposes-only” Muslims who, for all kinds of reasons -filial piety or fear being two — choose not to declare themselves as have Ibn Warraq, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Ali Sina, and many others.

We know what real Believers think of them, even if the fierceness of their hatred has to be muted among Infidels. Instead of demanding physical punishment, they behave, whenever confronted with Ibn Warraq or Ayaan Hirsi Ali, as if these people know nothing about Islam.

Yes, they insist — what does Ayaan Hirsi Ali know about Islam? What does Ibn Warraq know? What does Ali Sina know? What do tens of thousands of intelligent apostates know about Islam? The minute they leave Islam, every single Qur’anic verse they learned in madrasas (which both Ibn Warraq and Ayaan Hirsi Ali attended), every single Hadith they grew up with, magically disappears from their heads. One minute before they declare their apostasy, they know all about Islam. The minute they declare that apostasy, they cease to know a thing about Islam.

Magic.

Loyal to Liberty, or divinely-sanctioned deceivers?

In Uncategorized on May 10, 2006 at 1:22 PM

As unpleasant a thought as this might be, it is necessary to contemplate how one might discern between Muslims who are Americans first and those Muslims whose hearts belong to the Ummah alone.

Citing Islam’s “divine” texts (Qur’an and Hadith) usually brings heaps of scorn and abuse, which is ironic, since the author(s) of those texts are the ones actually preaching hatred; somehow my pointing that out makes me a bigot.

And since Allah and his false prophet allow for lying in the name of god, how can vulnerable Infidels (Americans with Muslims in their midst) know whom to trust?

If left untreated (by the truth) the willful blindness brought on by political correctness and fear will allow Islam to destroy the West.

Our loyal Muslim soldiers:

Jihad Watch Board Vice President Hugh Fitzgerald considers Dean Esmay’s invocation of loyal Muslim soldiers in the U.S. Military:

Dean Esmay has recently made much of “Muslim soldiers” in the American army.

Let’s talk about those soldiers. Let’s start with the one who threw the grenades at sleeping officers, killing two of them, because they were fighting Muslims and he was loyal to the Ummah. There is that Marine who deserted, and then was found, and had that press conference pledging his undying loyalty (ending “Semper Fi”), and then escaped again, and is now somewhere in Lebanon, a deserter and, possibly, a traitor. There are reports, not confirmed, of a sailor whose communications with others on land, purporting to volunteer to relay information about the movements of his ship and his shipmates, about which more remains to be known. One wonders if there are other such cases that have not yet come to light — whether in the American or European militaries, or in the American and European police and security forces. And one wonders how much thought is being given to this in NATO — especially if demographic trends continue without any effective attempt to halt and reverse them. police of Infidel countries, or in the security services.

Then there are the handful — does Esmay know how many there are? — of Muslims who have served in Iraq and Afghanistan as soldiers, and who fought perfectly acceptably. Well, how many, exactly? Leave aside the Iraqis who lived in America and had their own reasons — having nothing to do with the protection of Infidels — for removing Saddam Hussein. For that matter, the same is true for Afghanis living in America who wanted to overthrow the Taliban. Tell us how many Muslim-Americans have served honorably in proportion to that population (here it would be best for Muslims if the inflated figures they use for “Muslims in America” were not used — it would put things in an even starker light).

Now, ordinarily when immigrants fight for the United States, the whole immigrant community celebrates them. Their pictures are put in store windows, or on the glass-fronts of barber shops, and so on. Think of World War I and World War II. The Greek, Hungarian, Jewish, Italian, Irish, German names, and the pictures of the soldiers, and the local pride, the stories about them in immigrant newspapers (published in Hungarian, German, Italian, and so on), as a demonstration of loyalty, and no doubt, as well, in the clear hope that this would demonstrate that they were “real” Americans who had earned their citizenship.

Perhaps the most astonishing example of this is the 442nd Regiment — consisting entirely of Japanese-Americans. While some of them were put into camps in California, Japanese-American soldiers were determined to prove themselves. Did they? Indeed they did. Everyone knows that that regiment fought all the way up Italy. In fact, the last time I was at Fort Jackson, I visited the museum there and saw bound copies of Stars and Stripes from the Second World War. I opened one at random and found an article about the medals awarded in that most decorated of all regiments during World War II, and the feats of derring-do of those who served in that regiment. Think of what that must have meant, and still means.
Now look at the handful of those Muslim soldiers. Celebrated? Do you have CAIR or any Muslim group celebrating any of these soldiers? Suggesting that they should be emulated? Is anyone suggesting that Muslims should be in the forefront of those in the American military fighting what are regarded as threats to the United States, in the Middle East or Pakistan or Afghanistan? Any hint that those soldiers would find themselves heroes in Muslim communities, they and their fmailies made much of by fellow Muslims, just the way those in the 442nd Regiment were? Are their pictures in shop windows? Do Arabic or Urdu-language newspapers have articles celebrating them in their American uniforms, in the American military? Any hope that they will come home, those few, richly bemedalled, with feats similar to those perhaps of the members of the 442nd, in order to put paid to all kinds of worries and doubts?

No. There has been none of that.

Why not? Dean Esmay should spend the summer reading, and not merely reading but digesting, the Qur’an and the Hadith (a few hundred, in al-Bukhari and Muslim, will do). He should also take care to comprehend how Muslims interpret, or fail to interpret, the Qur’an. Without studying abrogation, without understanding the real meaning of a phrase (including something as seemingly innocuous as “strive in the path of Allah,” which is not innocuous at all), and without studying how, over 1350 years, Muslims took those phrases, and what they made of them, one cannot fully understand Islam. See Bostom’s Legacy of Jihad for a sampling of what Western scholars of Islam from a dozen countries, who had spent their entire lives immersed in the study of Islam and Jihad-conquest, made of the doctrine of Jihad and its undeniable sources. Undeniable, that is, except to those who have “really nice Muslim friends” who are “as loyal as they come” (or other missing-the-point credulity for which the rest of us should not be expected to pay, or to risk our lives, so that Mr. Esmay can feel good about himself, and his own self-congratulatory sense of fair play and the American way that overlooks so much of consequence.

The invocation by some of their “really nice Muslim friends” in what should be sober discussions of Islam is just one more example of that blend of ignorance, mental laziness (which in part explains the failure to correct such ignorance), and a deep desire not to discover anything disturbing that might tend to trouble a serene world-view (which is the other part that explains). Non-Muslim apologists for Islam, relying heavily on anecdotal evidence about a colleague or a neighbor who is perfectly affable and friendly and exhibits none of those features which some ascribe to those who take their Islam seriously, are as silly as those Harvard graduates who listened to Fritzi Hanfstaengl, their fellow classmate, explain away Hitler and Nazism, or who might have taken Oskar Schindler for a typical member of the Nazi Party. Or those who, in reaching conclusions about Stalin, the Red Army, and the antisemitism of the “Doctors’s Plot” (delo vrachej), might have been relieved by the assurances of Ilya Ehrenburg, or two decades later, might have thought that that nice Andrey Sakharov was a typical Soviet weapons scientist. And so that nice rommmate of your son, the one whose father is a zamindar in Pakistan, or a rich Kuwaiti, and with a flat in London he has invited you to stay in for a few weeks as his guest — well, isn’t it on that basis that too many form their opinions about Islam, confusing personal charm and favors of a very few, with this belief-system as it has been received, and is being received, by nearly a billion people? Of course, many in Washington, whose duty it is both to instruct and protect us, have been receivers of just such largesse, for many decades, and that is certainly one of the reasons why Islam has not been understood, why Saudi Arabia is routinely depicted as our “staunch ally,” and why no intelligent energy policy was ever constructed to replace the faith in the kindness of those Saudi strangers.

It is maddening to see people again and again refusing to read the texts or the scholars of Islam (those who wrote before 1960 or so, when the inhibitions and self-censorship began, and the oil money began to have an effect on academic centers, departments, and individual professors, everywhere), but relying on those Muslims in the West, highly educated, often adept at knowing exactly how to present a case (taqiyya-and-tu-quoque) to those who collaborate in their own fooling.

Those who managed to unlock those mind-forged manacles and who tell us — Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Anwar Shaikh, Ali Sina, Azam Kamguian, and tens of thousands of others (and who knows how many hundreds of thousands long to be able to openly declare their apostasy) — would no doubt agree with the lapidary formulation of Ibn Warraq that “there are moderate Muslims. Islam itself is not moderate.” Ayaan Hirsi Ali, who by all accounts (which have just reached me), did not give an inch at Harvard yesterday when Muslim questioners offered the usual tu-quoque-and-taqiyya blend at question time, is herself perfectly sympathetic to the nostalgia of “cultural” Muslims (indeed, shares some of it herself) but she has no time — she made that clear — for those people who always seem slightly off, the ones who are Westerners but became Muslims and who seem determined to hold on to their own private Islam rather than admit that just perhaps, Rumi and mystical love poetry, and the Five Pillars, are not the half of it. Nor does she have much inward patience (outwardly she was, I am told, the soul of courtesy) with those Muslims who, either out of ignorance, or out of a deliberate mental choice to ignore much of what Islam teaches, or who simply don’t want such matters discussed by Ayaan Hirsi Ali and others in front of Infidels (it would hurt, you see, the “image” of Islam), claim in public, whther they believe it or not, that Islam is entirely inoffensive, and who make their unwary Infidel listeners forget, for a minute, a week, or a decade, what really is preached and repeated in the sermons (khutbas), in the press, on the airwaves, in those conversations filled with allusions to Allah and to the life of Muhammad, for Islamic societies are suffused with such references and allusions. It is silly to judge Islam on the basis of a colleague in a computer company, who may indeed be unobservant, or lax in his own belief (or may not — you don’t know), but who may insist that “his” Islam is the real one, and not what the hundreds of millions who listen to Al-Qaradawi, to Sheik Tantawi or whoever is presently the Sheik al-Azhar, to the late Sheikh Bin Baz and his successors and followers in Saudi Arabia, to those who still remember fondly, and miss terribly, the late Ayatollah Khomeini, and whose Islam, one can be sure, is a lot more representative than what someone living in an Infidel society, dependent on Infidel good will for everything, is likely to reveal. Why should he? Were you a Muslim, would you?

Those who bydint of great effort unlocked those mind-forged manacles, have to say. They know perfectly well they are not representative of a vast movement, but perhaps someday they will be. They have no reason to mislead about what those texts tell Believers to believe, and what ordinary Muslims have, over many centuries, taken those texts, believed to be immutable, to mean. Furthermore, there is more than just the texts. There are, arising from them, a host of attitudes, toward Infidels and women, that do not bode well. Even those who seldom or never attend a mosque will be affected by such attitudes, and by what pervades or suffuses Muslim societies — what might be called that set of Islamic allusions and references that form what might be called the “atmospherics” of Islamic societies, whether in Dar al-Islam or in Dar al-Harb. Some may not need to become apostates. No doubt there are “Muslim-for-identification-purposes-only” Muslims who, for all kinds of reasons -filial piety or fear being two — choose not to declare themselves as have Ibn Warraq, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Ali Sina, and many others.

We know what real Believers think of them, even if the fierceness of their hatred has to be muted among Infidels. Instead of demanding physical punishment, they behave, whenever confronted with Ibn Warraq or Ayaan Hirsi Ali, as if these people know nothing about Islam.

Yes, they insist — what does Ayaan Hirsi Ali know about Islam? What does Ibn Warraq know? What does Ali Sina know? What do tens of thousands of intelligent apostates know about Islam? The minute they leave Islam, every single Qur’anic verse they learned in madrasas (which both Ibn Warraq and Ayaan Hirsi Ali attended), every single Hadith they grew up with, magically disappears from their heads. One minute before they declare their apostasy, they know all about Islam. The minute they declare that apostasy, they cease to know a thing about Islam.

Magic.

Loyal to Liberty, or divinely-sanctioned deceivers?

In Uncategorized on May 10, 2006 at 1:22 PM

As unpleasant a thought as this might be, it is necessary to contemplate how one might discern between Muslims who are Americans first and those Muslims whose hearts belong to the Ummah alone.

Citing Islam’s “divine” texts (Qur’an and Hadith) usually brings heaps of scorn and abuse, which is ironic, since the author(s) of those texts are the ones actually preaching hatred; somehow my pointing that out makes me a bigot.

And since Allah and his false prophet allow for lying in the name of god, how can vulnerable Infidels (Americans with Muslims in their midst) know whom to trust?

If left untreated (by the truth) the willful blindness brought on by political correctness and fear will allow Islam to destroy the West.

Our loyal Muslim soldiers:

Jihad Watch Board Vice President Hugh Fitzgerald considers Dean Esmay’s invocation of loyal Muslim soldiers in the U.S. Military:

Dean Esmay has recently made much of “Muslim soldiers” in the American army.

Let’s talk about those soldiers. Let’s start with the one who threw the grenades at sleeping officers, killing two of them, because they were fighting Muslims and he was loyal to the Ummah. There is that Marine who deserted, and then was found, and had that press conference pledging his undying loyalty (ending “Semper Fi”), and then escaped again, and is now somewhere in Lebanon, a deserter and, possibly, a traitor. There are reports, not confirmed, of a sailor whose communications with others on land, purporting to volunteer to relay information about the movements of his ship and his shipmates, about which more remains to be known. One wonders if there are other such cases that have not yet come to light — whether in the American or European militaries, or in the American and European police and security forces. And one wonders how much thought is being given to this in NATO — especially if demographic trends continue without any effective attempt to halt and reverse them. police of Infidel countries, or in the security services.

Then there are the handful — does Esmay know how many there are? — of Muslims who have served in Iraq and Afghanistan as soldiers, and who fought perfectly acceptably. Well, how many, exactly? Leave aside the Iraqis who lived in America and had their own reasons — having nothing to do with the protection of Infidels — for removing Saddam Hussein. For that matter, the same is true for Afghanis living in America who wanted to overthrow the Taliban. Tell us how many Muslim-Americans have served honorably in proportion to that population (here it would be best for Muslims if the inflated figures they use for “Muslims in America” were not used — it would put things in an even starker light).

Now, ordinarily when immigrants fight for the United States, the whole immigrant community celebrates them. Their pictures are put in store windows, or on the glass-fronts of barber shops, and so on. Think of World War I and World War II. The Greek, Hungarian, Jewish, Italian, Irish, German names, and the pictures of the soldiers, and the local pride, the stories about them in immigrant newspapers (published in Hungarian, German, Italian, and so on), as a demonstration of loyalty, and no doubt, as well, in the clear hope that this would demonstrate that they were “real” Americans who had earned their citizenship.

Perhaps the most astonishing example of this is the 442nd Regiment — consisting entirely of Japanese-Americans. While some of them were put into camps in California, Japanese-American soldiers were determined to prove themselves. Did they? Indeed they did. Everyone knows that that regiment fought all the way up Italy. In fact, the last time I was at Fort Jackson, I visited the museum there and saw bound copies of Stars and Stripes from the Second World War. I opened one at random and found an article about the medals awarded in that most decorated of all regiments during World War II, and the feats of derring-do of those who served in that regiment. Think of what that must have meant, and still means.
Now look at the handful of those Muslim soldiers. Celebrated? Do you have CAIR or any Muslim group celebrating any of these soldiers? Suggesting that they should be emulated? Is anyone suggesting that Muslims should be in the forefront of those in the American military fighting what are regarded as threats to the United States, in the Middle East or Pakistan or Afghanistan? Any hint that those soldiers would find themselves heroes in Muslim communities, they and their fmailies made much of by fellow Muslims, just the way those in the 442nd Regiment were? Are their pictures in shop windows? Do Arabic or Urdu-language newspapers have articles celebrating them in their American uniforms, in the American military? Any hope that they will come home, those few, richly bemedalled, with feats similar to those perhaps of the members of the 442nd, in order to put paid to all kinds of worries and doubts?

No. There has been none of that.

Why not? Dean Esmay should spend the summer reading, and not merely reading but digesting, the Qur’an and the Hadith (a few hundred, in al-Bukhari and Muslim, will do). He should also take care to comprehend how Muslims interpret, or fail to interpret, the Qur’an. Without studying abrogation, without understanding the real meaning of a phrase (including something as seemingly innocuous as “strive in the path of Allah,” which is not innocuous at all), and without studying how, over 1350 years, Muslims took those phrases, and what they made of them, one cannot fully understand Islam. See Bostom’s Legacy of Jihad for a sampling of what Western scholars of Islam from a dozen countries, who had spent their entire lives immersed in the study of Islam and Jihad-conquest, made of the doctrine of Jihad and its undeniable sources. Undeniable, that is, except to those who have “really nice Muslim friends” who are “as loyal as they come” (or other missing-the-point credulity for which the rest of us should not be expected to pay, or to risk our lives, so that Mr. Esmay can feel good about himself, and his own self-congratulatory sense of fair play and the American way that overlooks so much of consequence.

The invocation by some of their “really nice Muslim friends” in what should be sober discussions of Islam is just one more example of that blend of ignorance, mental laziness (which in part explains the failure to correct such ignorance), and a deep desire not to discover anything disturbing that might tend to trouble a serene world-view (which is the other part that explains). Non-Muslim apologists for Islam, relying heavily on anecdotal evidence about a colleague or a neighbor who is perfectly affable and friendly and exhibits none of those features which some ascribe to those who take their Islam seriously, are as silly as those Harvard graduates who listened to Fritzi Hanfstaengl, their fellow classmate, explain away Hitler and Nazism, or who might have taken Oskar Schindler for a typical member of the Nazi Party. Or those who, in reaching conclusions about Stalin, the Red Army, and the antisemitism of the “Doctors’s Plot” (delo vrachej), might have been relieved by the assurances of Ilya Ehrenburg, or two decades later, might have thought that that nice Andrey Sakharov was a typical Soviet weapons scientist. And so that nice rommmate of your son, the one whose father is a zamindar in Pakistan, or a rich Kuwaiti, and with a flat in London he has invited you to stay in for a few weeks as his guest — well, isn’t it on that basis that too many form their opinions about Islam, confusing personal charm and favors of a very few, with this belief-system as it has been received, and is being received, by nearly a billion people? Of course, many in Washington, whose duty it is both to instruct and protect us, have been receivers of just such largesse, for many decades, and that is certainly one of the reasons why Islam has not been understood, why Saudi Arabia is routinely depicted as our “staunch ally,” and why no intelligent energy policy was ever constructed to replace the faith in the kindness of those Saudi strangers.

It is maddening to see people again and again refusing to read the texts or the scholars of Islam (those who wrote before 1960 or so, when the inhibitions and self-censorship began, and the oil money began to have an effect on academic centers, departments, and individual professors, everywhere), but relying on those Muslims in the West, highly educated, often adept at knowing exactly how to present a case (taqiyya-and-tu-quoque) to those who collaborate in their own fooling.

Those who managed to unlock those mind-forged manacles and who tell us — Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Anwar Shaikh, Ali Sina, Azam Kamguian, and tens of thousands of others (and who knows how many hundreds of thousands long to be able to openly declare their apostasy) — would no doubt agree with the lapidary formulation of Ibn Warraq that “there are moderate Muslims. Islam itself is not moderate.” Ayaan Hirsi Ali, who by all accounts (which have just reached me), did not give an inch at Harvard yesterday when Muslim questioners offered the usual tu-quoque-and-taqiyya blend at question time, is herself perfectly sympathetic to the nostalgia of “cultural” Muslims (indeed, shares some of it herself) but she has no time — she made that clear — for those people who always seem slightly off, the ones who are Westerners but became Muslims and who seem determined to hold on to their own private Islam rather than admit that just perhaps, Rumi and mystical love poetry, and the Five Pillars, are not the half of it. Nor does she have much inward patience (outwardly she was, I am told, the soul of courtesy) with those Muslims who, either out of ignorance, or out of a deliberate mental choice to ignore much of what Islam teaches, or who simply don’t want such matters discussed by Ayaan Hirsi Ali and others in front of Infidels (it would hurt, you see, the “image” of Islam), claim in public, whther they believe it or not, that Islam is entirely inoffensive, and who make their unwary Infidel listeners forget, for a minute, a week, or a decade, what really is preached and repeated in the sermons (khutbas), in the press, on the airwaves, in those conversations filled with allusions to Allah and to the life of Muhammad, for Islamic societies are suffused with such references and allusions. It is silly to judge Islam on the basis of a colleague in a computer company, who may indeed be unobservant, or lax in his own belief (or may not — you don’t know), but who may insist that “his” Islam is the real one, and not what the hundreds of millions who listen to Al-Qaradawi, to Sheik Tantawi or whoever is presently the Sheik al-Azhar, to the late Sheikh Bin Baz and his successors and followers in Saudi Arabia, to those who still remember fondly, and miss terribly, the late Ayatollah Khomeini, and whose Islam, one can be sure, is a lot more representative than what someone living in an Infidel society, dependent on Infidel good will for everything, is likely to reveal. Why should he? Were you a Muslim, would you?

Those who bydint of great effort unlocked those mind-forged manacles, have to say. They know perfectly well they are not representative of a vast movement, but perhaps someday they will be. They have no reason to mislead about what those texts tell Believers to believe, and what ordinary Muslims have, over many centuries, taken those texts, believed to be immutable, to mean. Furthermore, there is more than just the texts. There are, arising from them, a host of attitudes, toward Infidels and women, that do not bode well. Even those who seldom or never attend a mosque will be affected by such attitudes, and by what pervades or suffuses Muslim societies — what might be called that set of Islamic allusions and references that form what might be called the “atmospherics” of Islamic societies, whether in Dar al-Islam or in Dar al-Harb. Some may not need to become apostates. No doubt there are “Muslim-for-identification-purposes-only” Muslims who, for all kinds of reasons -filial piety or fear being two — choose not to declare themselves as have Ibn Warraq, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Ali Sina, and many others.

We know what real Believers think of them, even if the fierceness of their hatred has to be muted among Infidels. Instead of demanding physical punishment, they behave, whenever confronted with Ibn Warraq or Ayaan Hirsi Ali, as if these people know nothing about Islam.

Yes, they insist — what does Ayaan Hirsi Ali know about Islam? What does Ibn Warraq know? What does Ali Sina know? What do tens of thousands of intelligent apostates know about Islam? The minute they leave Islam, every single Qur’anic verse they learned in madrasas (which both Ibn Warraq and Ayaan Hirsi Ali attended), every single Hadith they grew up with, magically disappears from their heads. One minute before they declare their apostasy, they know all about Islam. The minute they declare that apostasy, they cease to know a thing about Islam.

Magic.

Loyal to Liberty, or divinely-sanctioned deceivers?

In Uncategorized on May 10, 2006 at 12:22 PM

As unpleasant a thought as this might be, it is necessary to contemplate how one might discern between Muslims who are Americans first and those Muslims whose hearts belong to the Ummah alone.

Citing Islam’s “divine” texts (Qur’an and Hadith) usually brings heaps of scorn and abuse, which is ironic, since the author(s) of those texts are the ones actually preaching hatred; somehow my pointing that out makes me a bigot.

And since Allah and his false prophet allow for lying in the name of god, how can vulnerable Infidels (Americans with Muslims in their midst) know whom to trust?

If left untreated (by the truth) the willful blindness brought on by political correctness and fear will allow Islam to destroy the West.

Our loyal Muslim soldiers:

Jihad Watch Board Vice President Hugh Fitzgerald considers Dean Esmay’s invocation of loyal Muslim soldiers in the U.S. Military:

Dean Esmay has recently made much of “Muslim soldiers” in the American army.

Let’s talk about those soldiers. Let’s start with the one who threw the grenades at sleeping officers, killing two of them, because they were fighting Muslims and he was loyal to the Ummah. There is that Marine who deserted, and then was found, and had that press conference pledging his undying loyalty (ending “Semper Fi”), and then escaped again, and is now somewhere in Lebanon, a deserter and, possibly, a traitor. There are reports, not confirmed, of a sailor whose communications with others on land, purporting to volunteer to relay information about the movements of his ship and his shipmates, about which more remains to be known. One wonders if there are other such cases that have not yet come to light — whether in the American or European militaries, or in the American and European police and security forces. And one wonders how much thought is being given to this in NATO — especially if demographic trends continue without any effective attempt to halt and reverse them. police of Infidel countries, or in the security services.

Then there are the handful — does Esmay know how many there are? — of Muslims who have served in Iraq and Afghanistan as soldiers, and who fought perfectly acceptably. Well, how many, exactly? Leave aside the Iraqis who lived in America and had their own reasons — having nothing to do with the protection of Infidels — for removing Saddam Hussein. For that matter, the same is true for Afghanis living in America who wanted to overthrow the Taliban. Tell us how many Muslim-Americans have served honorably in proportion to that population (here it would be best for Muslims if the inflated figures they use for “Muslims in America” were not used — it would put things in an even starker light).

Now, ordinarily when immigrants fight for the United States, the whole immigrant community celebrates them. Their pictures are put in store windows, or on the glass-fronts of barber shops, and so on. Think of World War I and World War II. The Greek, Hungarian, Jewish, Italian, Irish, German names, and the pictures of the soldiers, and the local pride, the stories about them in immigrant newspapers (published in Hungarian, German, Italian, and so on), as a demonstration of loyalty, and no doubt, as well, in the clear hope that this would demonstrate that they were “real” Americans who had earned their citizenship.

Perhaps the most astonishing example of this is the 442nd Regiment — consisting entirely of Japanese-Americans. While some of them were put into camps in California, Japanese-American soldiers were determined to prove themselves. Did they? Indeed they did. Everyone knows that that regiment fought all the way up Italy. In fact, the last time I was at Fort Jackson, I visited the museum there and saw bound copies of Stars and Stripes from the Second World War. I opened one at random and found an article about the medals awarded in that most decorated of all regiments during World War II, and the feats of derring-do of those who served in that regiment. Think of what that must have meant, and still means.
Now look at the handful of those Muslim soldiers. Celebrated? Do you have CAIR or any Muslim group celebrating any of these soldiers? Suggesting that they should be emulated? Is anyone suggesting that Muslims should be in the forefront of those in the American military fighting what are regarded as threats to the United States, in the Middle East or Pakistan or Afghanistan? Any hint that those soldiers would find themselves heroes in Muslim communities, they and their fmailies made much of by fellow Muslims, just the way those in the 442nd Regiment were? Are their pictures in shop windows? Do Arabic or Urdu-language newspapers have articles celebrating them in their American uniforms, in the American military? Any hope that they will come home, those few, richly bemedalled, with feats similar to those perhaps of the members of the 442nd, in order to put paid to all kinds of worries and doubts?

No. There has been none of that.

Why not? Dean Esmay should spend the summer reading, and not merely reading but digesting, the Qur’an and the Hadith (a few hundred, in al-Bukhari and Muslim, will do). He should also take care to comprehend how Muslims interpret, or fail to interpret, the Qur’an. Without studying abrogation, without understanding the real meaning of a phrase (including something as seemingly innocuous as “strive in the path of Allah,” which is not innocuous at all), and without studying how, over 1350 years, Muslims took those phrases, and what they made of them, one cannot fully understand Islam. See Bostom’s Legacy of Jihad for a sampling of what Western scholars of Islam from a dozen countries, who had spent their entire lives immersed in the study of Islam and Jihad-conquest, made of the doctrine of Jihad and its undeniable sources. Undeniable, that is, except to those who have “really nice Muslim friends” who are “as loyal as they come” (or other missing-the-point credulity for which the rest of us should not be expected to pay, or to risk our lives, so that Mr. Esmay can feel good about himself, and his own self-congratulatory sense of fair play and the American way that overlooks so much of consequence.

The invocation by some of their “really nice Muslim friends” in what should be sober discussions of Islam is just one more example of that blend of ignorance, mental laziness (which in part explains the failure to correct such ignorance), and a deep desire not to discover anything disturbing that might tend to trouble a serene world-view (which is the other part that explains). Non-Muslim apologists for Islam, relying heavily on anecdotal evidence about a colleague or a neighbor who is perfectly affable and friendly and exhibits none of those features which some ascribe to those who take their Islam seriously, are as silly as those Harvard graduates who listened to Fritzi Hanfstaengl, their fellow classmate, explain away Hitler and Nazism, or who might have taken Oskar Schindler for a typical member of the Nazi Party. Or those who, in reaching conclusions about Stalin, the Red Army, and the antisemitism of the “Doctors’s Plot” (delo vrachej), might have been relieved by the assurances of Ilya Ehrenburg, or two decades later, might have thought that that nice Andrey Sakharov was a typical Soviet weapons scientist. And so that nice rommmate of your son, the one whose father is a zamindar in Pakistan, or a rich Kuwaiti, and with a flat in London he has invited you to stay in for a few weeks as his guest — well, isn’t it on that basis that too many form their opinions about Islam, confusing personal charm and favors of a very few, with this belief-system as it has been received, and is being received, by nearly a billion people? Of course, many in Washington, whose duty it is both to instruct and protect us, have been receivers of just such largesse, for many decades, and that is certainly one of the reasons why Islam has not been understood, why Saudi Arabia is routinely depicted as our “staunch ally,” and why no intelligent energy policy was ever constructed to replace the faith in the kindness of those Saudi strangers.

It is maddening to see people again and again refusing to read the texts or the scholars of Islam (those who wrote before 1960 or so, when the inhibitions and self-censorship began, and the oil money began to have an effect on academic centers, departments, and individual professors, everywhere), but relying on those Muslims in the West, highly educated, often adept at knowing exactly how to present a case (taqiyya-and-tu-quoque) to those who collaborate in their own fooling.

Those who managed to unlock those mind-forged manacles and who tell us — Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Anwar Shaikh, Ali Sina, Azam Kamguian, and tens of thousands of others (and who knows how many hundreds of thousands long to be able to openly declare their apostasy) — would no doubt agree with the lapidary formulation of Ibn Warraq that “there are moderate Muslims. Islam itself is not moderate.” Ayaan Hirsi Ali, who by all accounts (which have just reached me), did not give an inch at Harvard yesterday when Muslim questioners offered the usual tu-quoque-and-taqiyya blend at question time, is herself perfectly sympathetic to the nostalgia of “cultural” Muslims (indeed, shares some of it herself) but she has no time — she made that clear — for those people who always seem slightly off, the ones who are Westerners but became Muslims and who seem determined to hold on to their own private Islam rather than admit that just perhaps, Rumi and mystical love poetry, and the Five Pillars, are not the half of it. Nor does she have much inward patience (outwardly she was, I am told, the soul of courtesy) with those Muslims who, either out of ignorance, or out of a deliberate mental choice to ignore much of what Islam teaches, or who simply don’t want such matters discussed by Ayaan Hirsi Ali and others in front of Infidels (it would hurt, you see, the “image” of Islam), claim in public, whther they believe it or not, that Islam is entirely inoffensive, and who make their unwary Infidel listeners forget, for a minute, a week, or a decade, what really is preached and repeated in the sermons (khutbas), in the press, on the airwaves, in those conversations filled with allusions to Allah and to the life of Muhammad, for Islamic societies are suffused with such references and allusions. It is silly to judge Islam on the basis of a colleague in a computer company, who may indeed be unobservant, or lax in his own belief (or may not — you don’t know), but who may insist that “his” Islam is the real one, and not what the hundreds of millions who listen to Al-Qaradawi, to Sheik Tantawi or whoever is presently the Sheik al-Azhar, to the late Sheikh Bin Baz and his successors and followers in Saudi Arabia, to those who still remember fondly, and miss terribly, the late Ayatollah Khomeini, and whose Islam, one can be sure, is a lot more representative than what someone living in an Infidel society, dependent on Infidel good will for everything, is likely to reveal. Why should he? Were you a Muslim, would you?

Those who bydint of great effort unlocked those mind-forged manacles, have to say. They know perfectly well they are not representative of a vast movement, but perhaps someday they will be. They have no reason to mislead about what those texts tell Believers to believe, and what ordinary Muslims have, over many centuries, taken those texts, believed to be immutable, to mean. Furthermore, there is more than just the texts. There are, arising from them, a host of attitudes, toward Infidels and women, that do not bode well. Even those who seldom or never attend a mosque will be affected by such attitudes, and by what pervades or suffuses Muslim societies — what might be called that set of Islamic allusions and references that form what might be called the “atmospherics” of Islamic societies, whether in Dar al-Islam or in Dar al-Harb. Some may not need to become apostates. No doubt there are “Muslim-for-identification-purposes-only” Muslims who, for all kinds of reasons -filial piety or fear being two — choose not to declare themselves as have Ibn Warraq, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Ali Sina, and many others.

We know what real Believers think of them, even if the fierceness of their hatred has to be muted among Infidels. Instead of demanding physical punishment, they behave, whenever confronted with Ibn Warraq or Ayaan Hirsi Ali, as if these people know nothing about Islam.

Yes, they insist — what does Ayaan Hirsi Ali know about Islam? What does Ibn Warraq know? What does Ali Sina know? What do tens of thousands of intelligent apostates know about Islam? The minute they leave Islam, every single Qur’anic verse they learned in madrasas (which both Ibn Warraq and Ayaan Hirsi Ali attended), every single Hadith they grew up with, magically disappears from their heads. One minute before they declare their apostasy, they know all about Islam. The minute they declare that apostasy, they cease to know a thing about Islam.

Magic.

Lying about the Lesser Jihad only helps Allah and his false prophet

In Uncategorized on May 9, 2006 at 7:35 PM

In a disgustingly perverse argument of moral equivalence, Robert Eisen gives aid to those who have historically brutalized, humiliated, enslaved, and slaughtered non-Muslims. Under Islam, there is only one Common Ground, and that is the ground on which the Infidel grovels in vile submission. Muslims and Jews: Common Ground:

It’s been often noted that a key reason for the intractability of the conflict between Jews and Muslims in the Middle East is that both sides operate with a mutually exclusive set of assumptions about the history of the dispute.

Their views of the conflict are mutually-exclusive, but that’s because one is true and the other aids Islam’s Lesser Jihad against Israel.

Jews view the state of Israel as the triumph of a dispossessed people who waited 2,000 years for a return to their homeland. If violence has accompanied that return, it is solely because of Arab intransigence; Jews were willing to settle peacefully among their Arab neighbors, but the latter were hostile to a sovereign Jewish entity in the Middle East and declared war against it from its inception.

This is a pretty accurate summary of the situation, because that’s what happened. Here comes the moral equivalence (read lies).

Muslims view the state of Israel as the most egregious example of Western colonialism and imperialism, a foreign body inserted into the Middle East for the purpose of furthering Western domination. Any violence is solely the fault of the Jews and their Western allies. The Jews were able to take possession of the land by violently displacing its inhabitants, and they have succeeded in holding on to it with the help of Western military support.

Under traditional Islam, once a land is part of Dar al-Islam (Land of Islam), it is always Muslim. To have Western (in the Muslim mind, Christian) powers take the land and give it to Jews (according to Allah and his false apostle, apes and pigs) is a great and unforgivable slap in the face of Islam.

In reality, it was Islam that declared war against Israel. The displacement of Arab Muslims was due to Muslim promises that after Israel was defeated the “refugees” would be able to return and share the spoils.

What has been lost is the fact that both Jews and Muslims have a great deal in common in the way they perceive their respective histories. Each community has an understanding of its history that is much broader than that defined by this conflict, and we gain much insight into the nature of the dispute by comprehending those larger frameworks.

But that does not make their claims to the land equally valid. Nor does it mean that both Islam and Israel are equally responsible for the bloodshed there.

Apart from a sound knowledge of traditional, mainstream Islam’s beliefs and history, there can be no real “insight into the nature of the dispute.”

First the Jewish side. To understand modern Jews and their attachment to Israel, one has to remember that the Jewish people have been around for 3,000 years and that for the majority of that time they have been ruled by foreign powers that have often persecuted them. In biblical times Jews were dominated by a series of empires, and their kingdom was destroyed twice. In the Middle Ages they lived in Christian lands and were frequently subjected to violence.

In Muslim countries, Jews were treated much better — as a protected minority. But they were never equal to Muslims, and medieval Jewish literature often expresses feelings of humiliation because of Jews’ lack of power in Muslim lands. And even there, Jews sometimes experienced violence.

“Even there”? “Sometimes”? This is more of the “If Not for the Christian Extremists, Noble Muslims and Everyone Else Would Just Get Along” line.

Eisen reveals his ignorance of Islam’s actual history by repeating the Muslim lie that Jews fared well under Islam. They did “farewell” under Islam–due to its persecuting, enslaving, and murdering them. That “protected minority” status to which the author appeals is that of the dhimmi.

The reason Jews felt humiliation was not because of their perceived “lack of power” (a common leftist/Muslim justification for the “oppressed’s” immoral behavior); it was because, as Allah commands, Jews were subdued and humiliated, often violently, and when they violated the “protection” of Islam, they were punished severely.

The ultimate violence, of course, came in 20th-century Europe with the Holocaust. Jews created the state of Israel in the belief that they would finally be able to live in security and dignity. It is a project that has succeeded only in part. Certainly, Jews now have sovereignty in their ancient homeland, as well as a powerful army. But Israel is surrounded by tens of millions of Muslims, many of whom oppose its existence. One must keep in mind that there are only 14 million Jews in the world, and almost half of them live in Israel.

And why do those millions of adherents of the Religion of Peace “oppose its existence”? Because Allah requires it: “Fight…the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued” (Qur’an 9:29).

One might argue, then, that the creation of Israel has actually made the Jews less secure.

The Jew is never secure in proximity to Islam. Neither is the Christian, the Hindu, the Buddhist, the Zoroastrian, the animist, nor any other non-Muslim.

The fear now is not just violence but annihilation. Much of this helps explain why Israelis deal so harshly with their Palestinian adversaries.

“Harsh”? A nation that possesses nuclear weapons is constantly attacked by barbarians who murder their young and old, women and children (and have tried since its inception to destroy it), and they respond with restraint. That’s harsh?

Jews are sensitive to every provocation that threatens Israel because of their history of vulnerability. They will perceive Palestinians as a threat as long as they commit acts of violence against Israelis and refuse to recognize Israel’s legitimacy — even if Palestinians don’t have an army.

The Arab Muslims who work to kill Jews are an army, even if they do not possess the usual trappings of one.

Every Palestinian teenager lifting a stone to throw at an Israeli soldier will be viewed by Jews, in light of their bloody history, as a threat. I should emphasize that what matters here is Jewish perceptions of reality, not necessarily the reality itself, because it is perceptions that cause people to act regardless of what the reality is.

The Jewish perception here is the reality. What cowardice to equivocate on this point!

Turning to the Muslim side, we see a strikingly similar pattern. Muslim identity in the modern period has also been shaped by the bitter experience of foreign domination and humiliation. For the past 200 years, the Muslim world has been victimized by Western colonialism and imperialism. Many Muslim countries eventually have won their independence, but the power of oil has kept the West deeply involved in the Middle East. The advent of the state of Israel has been understood by the Muslim world as a symptom of the continuing Western attempt to dominate it.

But this is the Muslim perception; it has nothing to do with reality!

Just as with the Jews, Muslims have turned to violence because they see it as the only way to defend themselves. In the absence of military power, some Muslims have resorted to terrorism as the only avenue to independence. Here, too, perceptions have made it difficult to differentiate between different types of threats. American peacemakers who travel to Iraq are being killed alongside American soldiers. Again, it is the perceptions that count, not necessarily the reality.

Here is a great moral offense: Jews have used violence (in a very restrained fashion) in self-defense. Islam has used it to advance Jihad against innocent non-Muslims.

The reality is that Islam’s founder declared, “I have been made victorious with terror” (Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 220). He was a lying, thieving, murderous pedophile. One should not be surprised when the adherents of his religion imitate his example.

Getting each side to acknowledge the perceptions of the other, let alone sympathize with them, is no easy task. Some Muslims I have spoken to balk at the notion that Jews or Israelis feel vulnerable and argue that any suggestion to this effect is manipulative and designed to evoke sympathy: After all, Israel has a powerful army and Jews are highly influential everywhere in the world. Some of my Jewish friends are equally discomfited by my analysis. They object to any equation of Jewish suffering with Muslim suffering, because the Muslim world has never experienced the kind of persecution the Jews have.

And both fail to admit the role of Qur’an and Sunna in inspiring and sustaining the violence against the Infidel.

If this is what passes for “analysis,” perhaps George Washington University should close its doors.

What both sides miss here is the critical point that, again, what count are perceptions.

Or, in Eisen’s case, misperceptions.

Each side genuinely feels its vulnerability and humiliation and sees the other side as more powerful, and that is all that matters.

This perception is far from reality, but to Eisen, that’s all that matters!

Here comes the great lie again:

After all, it is those perceptions that motivate each side to kill.

Body parts of innocent men, women, and children having gone shopping, or dining out, or worshipping is not a perception, but the tragic result of faith in Allah.

Yet there may be hope for dialogue on the basis of these perceptions. I have shared the arguments outlined here between Jews and Muslims, and some have been intrigued by the parallel between their histories — particularly Shiite Muslims, whose sense of humiliation at the hands of West has been compounded by the humiliation they have experienced from the Sunni Muslim majority throughout their history. In this regard they share a great deal with Jews.

There can never be an equivalence between what Jews have suffered at the hands of Islam and what some Muslims have endured from other Muslims.

(A wise Infidel in command of the most powerful military in the history of Man would allow the historic, bloody divide between these warring branches of Islam to run its natural course.)

Another point: The ones who respond most positively to my thinking are Muslim clerics.

Just as the fox responds positively to the hen who advises other chickens to try to understand the poor, misunderstood fox instead of securing the henhouse.

And why is it that imams like Eisen’s perception of reality? Could it be because they recognize Eisen’s lies aid their Jihad against Israel and the West?

…it’s time the clergy be given a more central role in the peace process between Jews and Muslims.

Islamic clergy know the command of Allah and the example of his false prophet. How will giving them a “more central role in the peace process” mean anything other but death and despair for Jews?

For decades politicians on both sides have argued over where to draw borders but have brought us no closer to peace.

That’s because one side doesn’t want peace, it wants Israel in pieces.

The clergy have been excluded from such negotiations because of the perception that religion is the problem, not the solution.

One religion is the problem. Any guess on which one? Perhaps it is the one that commands its faithful to fight against, subdue and humiliate, and kill non-Muslims until all religion is for Allah (Qur’an 9).

Yet so much of the conflict between Jews and Muslims has been tied to religion that it’s hard to imagine a settlement without the clerics. Perhaps with their help, Jews and Muslims can address the real issues between them so that a new relationship can emerge.

And that relationship will be familiar to Jews under historic Islam: dhimmitude.

The writer is a professor of religion and Jewish studies at George Washington University and for the past several years has been extensively involved in interreligious dialogue between Muslims and Jews.

Apparently, “interreligious dialogue” is a euphemism for removing by repeated mendacity the only advantage the non-Muslim has against the tyranny of Allah–the truth.

Lying about the Lesser Jihad only helps Allah and his false prophet

In Uncategorized on May 9, 2006 at 7:35 PM

In a disgustingly perverse argument of moral equivalence, Robert Eisen gives aid to those who have historically brutalized, humiliated, enslaved, and slaughtered non-Muslims. Under Islam, there is only one Common Ground, and that is the ground on which the Infidel grovels in vile submission. Muslims and Jews: Common Ground:

It’s been often noted that a key reason for the intractability of the conflict between Jews and Muslims in the Middle East is that both sides operate with a mutually exclusive set of assumptions about the history of the dispute.

Their views of the conflict are mutually-exclusive, but that’s because one is true and the other aids Islam’s Lesser Jihad against Israel.

Jews view the state of Israel as the triumph of a dispossessed people who waited 2,000 years for a return to their homeland. If violence has accompanied that return, it is solely because of Arab intransigence; Jews were willing to settle peacefully among their Arab neighbors, but the latter were hostile to a sovereign Jewish entity in the Middle East and declared war against it from its inception.

This is a pretty accurate summary of the situation, because that’s what happened. Here comes the moral equivalence (read lies).

Muslims view the state of Israel as the most egregious example of Western colonialism and imperialism, a foreign body inserted into the Middle East for the purpose of furthering Western domination. Any violence is solely the fault of the Jews and their Western allies. The Jews were able to take possession of the land by violently displacing its inhabitants, and they have succeeded in holding on to it with the help of Western military support.

Under traditional Islam, once a land is part of Dar al-Islam (Land of Islam), it is always Muslim. To have Western (in the Muslim mind, Christian) powers take the land and give it to Jews (according to Allah and his false apostle, apes and pigs) is a great and unforgivable slap in the face of Islam.

In reality, it was Islam that declared war against Israel. The displacement of Arab Muslims was due to Muslim promises that after Israel was defeated the “refugees” would be able to return and share the spoils.

What has been lost is the fact that both Jews and Muslims have a great deal in common in the way they perceive their respective histories. Each community has an understanding of its history that is much broader than that defined by this conflict, and we gain much insight into the nature of the dispute by comprehending those larger frameworks.

But that does not make their claims to the land equally valid. Nor does it mean that both Islam and Israel are equally responsible for the bloodshed there.

Apart from a sound knowledge of traditional, mainstream Islam’s beliefs and history, there can be no real “insight into the nature of the dispute.”

First the Jewish side. To understand modern Jews and their attachment to Israel, one has to remember that the Jewish people have been around for 3,000 years and that for the majority of that time they have been ruled by foreign powers that have often persecuted them. In biblical times Jews were dominated by a series of empires, and their kingdom was destroyed twice. In the Middle Ages they lived in Christian lands and were frequently subjected to violence.

In Muslim countries, Jews were treated much better — as a protected minority. But they were never equal to Muslims, and medieval Jewish literature often expresses feelings of humiliation because of Jews’ lack of power in Muslim lands. And even there, Jews sometimes experienced violence.

“Even there”? “Sometimes”? This is more of the “If Not for the Christian Extremists, Noble Muslims and Everyone Else Would Just Get Along” line.

Eisen reveals his ignorance of Islam’s actual history by repeating the Muslim lie that Jews fared well under Islam. They did “farewell” under Islam–due to its persecuting, enslaving, and murdering them. That “protected minority” status to which the author appeals is that of the dhimmi.

The reason Jews felt humiliation was not because of their perceived “lack of power” (a common leftist/Muslim justification for the “oppressed’s” immoral behavior); it was because, as Allah commands, Jews were subdued and humiliated, often violently, and when they violated the “protection” of Islam, they were punished severely.

The ultimate violence, of course, came in 20th-century Europe with the Holocaust. Jews created the state of Israel in the belief that they would finally be able to live in security and dignity. It is a project that has succeeded only in part. Certainly, Jews now have sovereignty in their ancient homeland, as well as a powerful army. But Israel is surrounded by tens of millions of Muslims, many of whom oppose its existence. One must keep in mind that there are only 14 million Jews in the world, and almost half of them live in Israel.

And why do those millions of adherents of the Religion of Peace “oppose its existence”? Because Allah requires it: “Fight…the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued” (Qur’an 9:29).

One might argue, then, that the creation of Israel has actually made the Jews less secure.

The Jew is never secure in proximity to Islam. Neither is the Christian, the Hindu, the Buddhist, the Zoroastrian, the animist, nor any other non-Muslim.

The fear now is not just violence but annihilation. Much of this helps explain why Israelis deal so harshly with their Palestinian adversaries.

“Harsh”? A nation that possesses nuclear weapons is constantly attacked by barbarians who murder their young and old, women and children (and have tried since its inception to destroy it), and they respond with restraint. That’s harsh?

Jews are sensitive to every provocation that threatens Israel because of their history of vulnerability. They will perceive Palestinians as a threat as long as they commit acts of violence against Israelis and refuse to recognize Israel’s legitimacy — even if Palestinians don’t have an army.

The Arab Muslims who work to kill Jews are an army, even if they do not possess the usual trappings of one.

Every Palestinian teenager lifting a stone to throw at an Israeli soldier will be viewed by Jews, in light of their bloody history, as a threat. I should emphasize that what matters here is Jewish perceptions of reality, not necessarily the reality itself, because it is perceptions that cause people to act regardless of what the reality is.

The Jewish perception here is the reality. What cowardice to equivocate on this point!

Turning to the Muslim side, we see a strikingly similar pattern. Muslim identity in the modern period has also been shaped by the bitter experience of foreign domination and humiliation. For the past 200 years, the Muslim world has been victimized by Western colonialism and imperialism. Many Muslim countries eventually have won their independence, but the power of oil has kept the West deeply involved in the Middle East. The advent of the state of Israel has been understood by the Muslim world as a symptom of the continuing Western attempt to dominate it.

But this is the Muslim perception; it has nothing to do with reality!

Just as with the Jews, Muslims have turned to violence because they see it as the only way to defend themselves. In the absence of military power, some Muslims have resorted to terrorism as the only avenue to independence. Here, too, perceptions have made it difficult to differentiate between different types of threats. American peacemakers who travel to Iraq are being killed alongside American soldiers. Again, it is the perceptions that count, not necessarily the reality.

Here is a great moral offense: Jews have used violence (in a very restrained fashion) in self-defense. Islam has used it to advance Jihad against innocent non-Muslims.

The reality is that Islam’s founder declared, “I have been made victorious with terror” (Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 220). He was a lying, thieving, murderous pedophile. One should not be surprised when the adherents of his religion imitate his example.

Getting each side to acknowledge the perceptions of the other, let alone sympathize with them, is no easy task. Some Muslims I have spoken to balk at the notion that Jews or Israelis feel vulnerable and argue that any suggestion to this effect is manipulative and designed to evoke sympathy: After all, Israel has a powerful army and Jews are highly influential everywhere in the world. Some of my Jewish friends are equally discomfited by my analysis. They object to any equation of Jewish suffering with Muslim suffering, because the Muslim world has never experienced the kind of persecution the Jews have.

And both fail to admit the role of Qur’an and Sunna in inspiring and sustaining the violence against the Infidel.

If this is what passes for “analysis,” perhaps George Washington University should close its doors.

What both sides miss here is the critical point that, again, what count are perceptions.

Or, in Eisen’s case, misperceptions.

Each side genuinely feels its vulnerability and humiliation and sees the other side as more powerful, and that is all that matters.

This perception is far from reality, but to Eisen, that’s all that matters!

Here comes the great lie again:

After all, it is those perceptions that motivate each side to kill.

Body parts of innocent men, women, and children having gone shopping, or dining out, or worshipping is not a perception, but the tragic result of faith in Allah.

Yet there may be hope for dialogue on the basis of these perceptions. I have shared the arguments outlined here between Jews and Muslims, and some have been intrigued by the parallel between their histories — particularly Shiite Muslims, whose sense of humiliation at the hands of West has been compounded by the humiliation they have experienced from the Sunni Muslim majority throughout their history. In this regard they share a great deal with Jews.

There can never be an equivalence between what Jews have suffered at the hands of Islam and what some Muslims have endured from other Muslims.

(A wise Infidel in command of the most powerful military in the history of Man would allow the historic, bloody divide between these warring branches of Islam to run its natural course.)

Another point: The ones who respond most positively to my thinking are Muslim clerics.

Just as the fox responds positively to the hen who advises other chickens to try to understand the poor, misunderstood fox instead of securing the henhouse.

And why is it that imams like Eisen’s perception of reality? Could it be because they recognize Eisen’s lies aid their Jihad against Israel and the West?

…it’s time the clergy be given a more central role in the peace process between Jews and Muslims.

Islamic clergy know the command of Allah and the example of his false prophet. How will giving them a “more central role in the peace process” mean anything other but death and despair for Jews?

For decades politicians on both sides have argued over where to draw borders but have brought us no closer to peace.

That’s because one side doesn’t want peace, it wants Israel in pieces.

The clergy have been excluded from such negotiations because of the perception that religion is the problem, not the solution.

One religion is the problem. Any guess on which one? Perhaps it is the one that commands its faithful to fight against, subdue and humiliate, and kill non-Muslims until all religion is for Allah (Qur’an 9).

Yet so much of the conflict between Jews and Muslims has been tied to religion that it’s hard to imagine a settlement without the clerics. Perhaps with their help, Jews and Muslims can address the real issues between them so that a new relationship can emerge.

And that relationship will be familiar to Jews under historic Islam: dhimmitude.

The writer is a professor of religion and Jewish studies at George Washington University and for the past several years has been extensively involved in interreligious dialogue between Muslims and Jews.

Apparently, “interreligious dialogue” is a euphemism for removing by repeated mendacity the only advantage the non-Muslim has against the tyranny of Allah–the truth.

Facilitating the deception of the West

In Uncategorized on May 9, 2006 at 6:35 PM

Power Line comments on one “mainstream” news outlet’s mischaracterization of Iran’s most recent attempt at international propaganda. Following are some thoughts regarding AP’s aiding Iran’s jihad against Israel and America.

The AP’s account of the Iranian president’s letter to President Bush virtually defies belief: “Letter shows Iran president seeking bond.” The AP reports:

With his 18-page letter, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad delivered President Bush a history lesson, philosophy lecture and religious sermon laced with references to Jesus Christ.

The document gives rare insight into a man who has largely been a mystery to the West, showing him as fixated on a long list of grievances
against the United States and seeking to build on a shared faith in God.

Ahmadinejad, whose government is suspected by the West of pursuing nuclear weapons, questions whether Christ and other religious prophets would have approved of U.S. policies and actions in the Middle East.

“I have been told that Your Excellency follows the teachings of Jesus (Peace be upon him) and believes in the divine promise of the rule of the righteous on Earth,” Ahmadinejad wrote Bush, who has said that Christ is his favorite philosopher.

“If Prophet Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Ishamel, Joseph, or Jesus Christ (Peace Be Upon Him) were with us today, how would they have judged such behavior?” he wrote….

The AP takes the letter at face value, reporting that Ahmadinejad is “seeking to build on a shared faith in God.” Are there any grounds for applying some skepticism to the rhetoric used for the benefit of useful idiots working for the AP? Here is one passage that demonstrates why the letter must be read ironically and that particularly ill suits a former kidnapper who has risen to the presidency of an Orwellian terror state…

Of course, the God of the Bible and the god of Islam are not the same deity, so their faith cannot be shared. This is a false assertion made by two groups: Muslims attempting to deceive the ignorant (thereby making them more accepting of Islam and more open to converting to it) and the Already-Deceived Ignorant.

Here is another passage of special interest that goes completely unmentioned by the AP:

Young people, university students and ordinary people have many questions about the phenomenon of Israel. I am sure you are familiar with some of them.

Throughout history many countries have been occupied, but I think the establishment of a new country with a new people, is a new phenomenon that is exclusive to our times.

Students are saying that sixty years ago such a country did not exist. They show old documents and globes and say try as we have, we have not been able to find a country named Israel.

I tell them to study the history of WWI and II. One of my students told me that during WWII, which more than tens of millions of people perished in, news about the war, was quickly disseminated by the warring parties. Each touted their victories and the most recent battlefront defeat of the other party. After the war, they claimed that six million Jews had been killed. Six million people that were surely related to at least two million families.

Again let us assume that these events are true. Does that logically translate into the establishment of the state of Israel in the Middle East or support for such a state? How can this phenomenon be rationalised or explained?

Mr President, I am sure you know how – and at what cost – Israel was established:

– Many thousands were killed in the process.
– Millions of indigenous people were made refugees.
– Hundred of thousands of hectares of farmland, olive plantations, towns and villages were destroyed.

This tragedy is not exclusive to the time of establishment; unfortunately it has been ongoing for sixty years now. A regime has been established which does not show mercy even to kids, destroys houses while the occupants are still in them, announces beforehand its list and plans to assassinate Palestinian figures and keeps thousands of Palestinians in prison. Such a phenomenon is unique – or at the very least extremely rare – in recent memory.

Another big question asked by people is why is this regime being supported? Is support for this regime in line with the teachings of Jesus Christ (PBUH) or Moses (PBUH) or liberal values? Or are we to understand that allowing the original inhabitants of these lands – inside and outside Palestine – whether they are Christian, Muslim or Jew, to determine their fate, runs contrary to principles of democracy, human rights and the teachings of prophets? If not, why is there so much opposition to a referendum?

There is much more that that goes unmentioned in the AP article while the AP article focuses on the letter’s formulaic religious tripe and promotes a story of “seeking to build on a shared faith in God.” Why?

Why? Hatred of America. Hatred of Christ and His religion. Hatred of President Bush (who, despite several serious errors in judgment and gaps in knowledge, is still an American and a Christian ). Hatred of Jews. The Iranian “president’s” description of the history of modern Israel is typical Muslim deception, but AP can’t bother themselves with facts.

Those media, academic, and political elites in the West who long for its demise will realize too late that those “Others” in whom they think they have a comrade in arms against the Source of All Evil (white, conservative, Christian males–and Jews) are not noble savages. Too late they will discover them to be unfeeling and unkind masters, just as they always have been, just as Allah and his false prophet require.

But the AP and its ideological brethren would know that if they would take the time to look into the tenets and history of the Religion of Death, rather than eagerly lending validity to its propaganda.

Facilitating the deception of the West

In Uncategorized on May 9, 2006 at 6:35 PM

Power Line comments on one “mainstream” news outlet’s mischaracterization of Iran’s most recent attempt at international propaganda. Following are some thoughts regarding AP’s aiding Iran’s jihad against Israel and America.

The AP’s account of the Iranian president’s letter to President Bush virtually defies belief: “Letter shows Iran president seeking bond.” The AP reports:

With his 18-page letter, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad delivered President Bush a history lesson, philosophy lecture and religious sermon laced with references to Jesus Christ.

The document gives rare insight into a man who has largely been a mystery to the West, showing him as fixated on a long list of grievances
against the United States and seeking to build on a shared faith in God.

Ahmadinejad, whose government is suspected by the West of pursuing nuclear weapons, questions whether Christ and other religious prophets would have approved of U.S. policies and actions in the Middle East.

“I have been told that Your Excellency follows the teachings of Jesus (Peace be upon him) and believes in the divine promise of the rule of the righteous on Earth,” Ahmadinejad wrote Bush, who has said that Christ is his favorite philosopher.

“If Prophet Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Ishamel, Joseph, or Jesus Christ (Peace Be Upon Him) were with us today, how would they have judged such behavior?” he wrote….

The AP takes the letter at face value, reporting that Ahmadinejad is “seeking to build on a shared faith in God.” Are there any grounds for applying some skepticism to the rhetoric used for the benefit of useful idiots working for the AP? Here is one passage that demonstrates why the letter must be read ironically and that particularly ill suits a former kidnapper who has risen to the presidency of an Orwellian terror state…

Of course, the God of the Bible and the god of Islam are not the same deity, so their faith cannot be shared. This is a false assertion made by two groups: Muslims attempting to deceive the ignorant (thereby making them more accepting of Islam and more open to converting to it) and the Already-Deceived Ignorant.

Here is another passage of special interest that goes completely unmentioned by the AP:

Young people, university students and ordinary people have many questions about the phenomenon of Israel. I am sure you are familiar with some of them.

Throughout history many countries have been occupied, but I think the establishment of a new country with a new people, is a new phenomenon that is exclusive to our times.

Students are saying that sixty years ago such a country did not exist. They show old documents and globes and say try as we have, we have not been able to find a country named Israel.

I tell them to study the history of WWI and II. One of my students told me that during WWII, which more than tens of millions of people perished in, news about the war, was quickly disseminated by the warring parties. Each touted their victories and the most recent battlefront defeat of the other party. After the war, they claimed that six million Jews had been killed. Six million people that were surely related to at least two million families.

Again let us assume that these events are true. Does that logically translate into the establishment of the state of Israel in the Middle East or support for such a state? How can this phenomenon be rationalised or explained?

Mr President, I am sure you know how – and at what cost – Israel was established:

– Many thousands were killed in the process.
– Millions of indigenous people were made refugees.
– Hundred of thousands of hectares of farmland, olive plantations, towns and villages were destroyed.

This tragedy is not exclusive to the time of establishment; unfortunately it has been ongoing for sixty years now. A regime has been established which does not show mercy even to kids, destroys houses while the occupants are still in them, announces beforehand its list and plans to assassinate Palestinian figures and keeps thousands of Palestinians in prison. Such a phenomenon is unique – or at the very least extremely rare – in recent memory.

Another big question asked by people is why is this regime being supported? Is support for this regime in line with the teachings of Jesus Christ (PBUH) or Moses (PBUH) or liberal values? Or are we to understand that allowing the original inhabitants of these lands – inside and outside Palestine – whether they are Christian, Muslim or Jew, to determine their fate, runs contrary to principles of democracy, human rights and the teachings of prophets? If not, why is there so much opposition to a referendum?

There is much more that that goes unmentioned in the AP article while the AP article focuses on the letter’s formulaic religious tripe and promotes a story of “seeking to build on a shared faith in God.” Why?

Why? Hatred of America. Hatred of Christ and His religion. Hatred of President Bush (who, despite several serious errors in judgment and gaps in knowledge, is still an American and a Christian ). Hatred of Jews. The Iranian “president’s” description of the history of modern Israel is typical Muslim deception, but AP can’t bother themselves with facts.

Those media, academic, and political elites in the West who long for its demise will realize too late that those “Others” in whom they think they have a comrade in arms against the Source of All Evil (white, conservative, Christian males–and Jews) are not noble savages. Too late they will discover them to be unfeeling and unkind masters, just as they always have been, just as Allah and his false prophet require.

But the AP and its ideological brethren would know that if they would take the time to look into the tenets and history of the Religion of Death, rather than eagerly lending validity to its propaganda.

Lying about the Lesser Jihad only helps Allah and his false prophet

In Uncategorized on May 9, 2006 at 6:35 PM

In a disgustingly perverse argument of moral equivalence, Robert Eisen gives aid to those who have historically brutalized, humiliated, enslaved, and slaughtered non-Muslims. Under Islam, there is only one Common Ground, and that is the ground on which the Infidel grovels in vile submission. Muslims and Jews: Common Ground:

It’s been often noted that a key reason for the intractability of the conflict between Jews and Muslims in the Middle East is that both sides operate with a mutually exclusive set of assumptions about the history of the dispute.

Their views of the conflict are mutually-exclusive, but that’s because one is true and the other aids Islam’s Lesser Jihad against Israel.

Jews view the state of Israel as the triumph of a dispossessed people who waited 2,000 years for a return to their homeland. If violence has accompanied that return, it is solely because of Arab intransigence; Jews were willing to settle peacefully among their Arab neighbors, but the latter were hostile to a sovereign Jewish entity in the Middle East and declared war against it from its inception.

This is a pretty accurate summary of the situation, because that’s what happened. Here comes the moral equivalence (read lies).

Muslims view the state of Israel as the most egregious example of Western colonialism and imperialism, a foreign body inserted into the Middle East for the purpose of furthering Western domination. Any violence is solely the fault of the Jews and their Western allies. The Jews were able to take possession of the land by violently displacing its inhabitants, and they have succeeded in holding on to it with the help of Western military support.

Under traditional Islam, once a land is part of Dar al-Islam (Land of Islam), it is always Muslim. To have Western (in the Muslim mind, Christian) powers take the land and give it to Jews (according to Allah and his false apostle, apes and pigs) is a great and unforgivable slap in the face of Islam.

In reality, it was Islam that declared war against Israel. The displacement of Arab Muslims was due to Muslim promises that after Israel was defeated the “refugees” would be able to return and share the spoils.

What has been lost is the fact that both Jews and Muslims have a great deal in common in the way they perceive their respective histories. Each community has an understanding of its history that is much broader than that defined by this conflict, and we gain much insight into the nature of the dispute by comprehending those larger frameworks.

But that does not make their claims to the land equally valid. Nor does it mean that both Islam and Israel are equally responsible for the bloodshed there.

Apart from a sound knowledge of traditional, mainstream Islam’s beliefs and history, there can be no real “insight into the nature of the dispute.”

First the Jewish side. To understand modern Jews and their attachment to Israel, one has to remember that the Jewish people have been around for 3,000 years and that for the majority of that time they have been ruled by foreign powers that have often persecuted them. In biblical times Jews were dominated by a series of empires, and their kingdom was destroyed twice. In the Middle Ages they lived in Christian lands and were frequently subjected to violence.

In Muslim countries, Jews were treated much better — as a protected minority. But they were never equal to Muslims, and medieval Jewish literature often expresses feelings of humiliation because of Jews’ lack of power in Muslim lands. And even there, Jews sometimes experienced violence.

“Even there”? “Sometimes”? This is more of the “If Not for the Christian Extremists, Noble Muslims and Everyone Else Would Just Get Along” line.

Eisen reveals his ignorance of Islam’s actual history by repeating the Muslim lie that Jews fared well under Islam. They did “farewell” under Islam–due to its persecuting, enslaving, and murdering them. That “protected minority” status to which the author appeals is that of the dhimmi.

The reason Jews felt humiliation was not because of their perceived “lack of power” (a common leftist/Muslim justification for the “oppressed’s” immoral behavior); it was because, as Allah commands, Jews were subdued and humiliated, often violently, and when they violated the “protection” of Islam, they were punished severely.

The ultimate violence, of course, came in 20th-century Europe with the Holocaust. Jews created the state of Israel in the belief that they would finally be able to live in security and dignity. It is a project that has succeeded only in part. Certainly, Jews now have sovereignty in their ancient homeland, as well as a powerful army. But Israel is surrounded by tens of millions of Muslims, many of whom oppose its existence. One must keep in mind that there are only 14 million Jews in the world, and almost half of them live in Israel.

And why do those millions of adherents of the Religion of Peace “oppose its existence”? Because Allah requires it: “Fight…the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued” (Qur’an 9:29).

One might argue, then, that the creation of Israel has actually made the Jews less secure.

The Jew is never secure in proximity to Islam. Neither is the Christian, the Hindu, the Buddhist, the Zoroastrian, the animist, nor any other non-Muslim.

The fear now is not just violence but annihilation. Much of this helps explain why Israelis deal so harshly with their Palestinian adversaries.

“Harsh”? A nation that possesses nuclear weapons is constantly attacked by barbarians who murder their young and old, women and children (and have tried since its inception to destroy it), and they respond with restraint. That’s harsh?

Jews are sensitive to every provocation that threatens Israel because of their history of vulnerability. They will perceive Palestinians as a threat as long as they commit acts of violence against Israelis and refuse to recognize Israel’s legitimacy — even if Palestinians don’t have an army.

The Arab Muslims who work to kill Jews are an army, even if they do not possess the usual trappings of one.

Every Palestinian teenager lifting a stone to throw at an Israeli soldier will be viewed by Jews, in light of their bloody history, as a threat. I should emphasize that what matters here is Jewish perceptions of reality, not necessarily the reality itself, because it is perceptions that cause people to act regardless of what the reality is.

The Jewish perception here is the reality. What cowardice to equivocate on this point!

Turning to the Muslim side, we see a strikingly similar pattern. Muslim identity in the modern period has also been shaped by the bitter experience of foreign domination and humiliation. For the past 200 years, the Muslim world has been victimized by Western colonialism and imperialism. Many Muslim countries eventually have won their independence, but the power of oil has kept the West deeply involved in the Middle East. The advent of the state of Israel has been understood by the Muslim world as a symptom of the continuing Western attempt to dominate it.

But this is the Muslim perception; it has nothing to do with reality!

Just as with the Jews, Muslims have turned to violence because they see it as the only way to defend themselves. In the absence of military power, some Muslims have resorted to terrorism as the only avenue to independence. Here, too, perceptions have made it difficult to differentiate between different types of threats. American peacemakers who travel to Iraq are being killed alongside American soldiers. Again, it is the perceptions that count, not necessarily the reality.

Here is a great moral offense: Jews have used violence (in a very restrained fashion) in self-defense. Islam has used it to advance Jihad against innocent non-Muslims.

The reality is that Islam’s founder declared, “I have been made victorious with terror” (Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 220). He was a lying, thieving, murderous pedophile. One should not be surprised when the adherents of his religion imitate his example.

Getting each side to acknowledge the perceptions of the other, let alone sympathize with them, is no easy task. Some Muslims I have spoken to balk at the notion that Jews or Israelis feel vulnerable and argue that any suggestion to this effect is manipulative and designed to evoke sympathy: After all, Israel has a powerful army and Jews are highly influential everywhere in the world. Some of my Jewish friends are equally discomfited by my analysis. They object to any equation of Jewish suffering with Muslim suffering, because the Muslim world has never experienced the kind of persecution the Jews have.

And both fail to admit the role of Qur’an and Sunna in inspiring and sustaining the violence against the Infidel.

If this is what passes for “analysis,” perhaps George Washington University should close its doors.

What both sides miss here is the critical point that, again, what count are perceptions.

Or, in Eisen’s case, misperceptions.

Each side genuinely feels its vulnerability and humiliation and sees the other side as more powerful, and that is all that matters.

This perception is far from reality, but to Eisen, that’s all that matters!

Here comes the great lie again:

After all, it is those perceptions that motivate each side to kill.

Body parts of innocent men, women, and children having gone shopping, or dining out, or worshipping is not a perception, but the tragic result of faith in Allah.

Yet there may be hope for dialogue on the basis of these perceptions. I have shared the arguments outlined here between Jews and Muslims, and some have been intrigued by the parallel between their histories — particularly Shiite Muslims, whose sense of humiliation at the hands of West has been compounded by the humiliation they have experienced from the Sunni Muslim majority throughout their history. In this regard they share a great deal with Jews.

There can never be an equivalence between what Jews have suffered at the hands of Islam and what some Muslims have endured from other Muslims.

(A wise Infidel in command of the most powerful military in the history of Man would allow the historic, bloody divide between these warring branches of Islam to run its natural course.)

Another point: The ones who respond most positively to my thinking are Muslim clerics.

Just as the fox responds positively to the hen who advises other chickens to try to understand the poor, misunderstood fox instead of securing the henhouse.

And why is it that imams like Eisen’s perception of reality? Could it be because they recognize Eisen’s lies aid their Jihad against Israel and the West?

…it’s time the clergy be given a more central role in the peace process between Jews and Muslims.

Islamic clergy know the command of Allah and the example of his false prophet. How will giving them a “more central role in the peace process” mean anything other but death and despair for Jews?

For decades politicians on both sides have argued over where to draw borders but have brought us no closer to peace.

That’s because one side doesn’t want peace, it wants Israel in pieces.

The clergy have been excluded from such negotiations because of the perception that religion is the problem, not the solution.

One religion is the problem. Any guess on which one? Perhaps it is the one that commands its faithful to fight against, subdue and humiliate, and kill non-Muslims until all religion is for Allah (Qur’an 9).

Yet so much of the conflict between Jews and Muslims has been tied to religion that it’s hard to imagine a settlement without the clerics. Perhaps with their help, Jews and Muslims can address the real issues between them so that a new relationship can emerge.

And that relationship will be familiar to Jews under historic Islam: dhimmitude.

The writer is a professor of religion and Jewish studies at George Washington University and for the past several years has been extensively involved in interreligious dialogue between Muslims and Jews.

Apparently, “interreligious dialogue” is a euphemism for removing by repeated mendacity the only advantage the non-Muslim has against the tyranny of Allah–the truth.

Facilitating the deception of the West

In Uncategorized on May 9, 2006 at 5:35 PM

Power Line comments on one “mainstream” news outlet’s mischaracterization of Iran’s most recent attempt at international propaganda. Following are some thoughts regarding AP’s aiding Iran’s jihad against Israel and America.

The AP’s account of the Iranian president’s letter to President Bush virtually defies belief: “Letter shows Iran president seeking bond.” The AP reports:

With his 18-page letter, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad delivered President Bush a history lesson, philosophy lecture and religious sermon laced with references to Jesus Christ.

The document gives rare insight into a man who has largely been a mystery to the West, showing him as fixated on a long list of grievances
against the United States and seeking to build on a shared faith in God.

Ahmadinejad, whose government is suspected by the West of pursuing nuclear weapons, questions whether Christ and other religious prophets would have approved of U.S. policies and actions in the Middle East.

“I have been told that Your Excellency follows the teachings of Jesus (Peace be upon him) and believes in the divine promise of the rule of the righteous on Earth,” Ahmadinejad wrote Bush, who has said that Christ is his favorite philosopher.

“If Prophet Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Ishamel, Joseph, or Jesus Christ (Peace Be Upon Him) were with us today, how would they have judged such behavior?” he wrote….

The AP takes the letter at face value, reporting that Ahmadinejad is “seeking to build on a shared faith in God.” Are there any grounds for applying some skepticism to the rhetoric used for the benefit of useful idiots working for the AP? Here is one passage that demonstrates why the letter must be read ironically and that particularly ill suits a former kidnapper who has risen to the presidency of an Orwellian terror state…

Of course, the God of the Bible and the god of Islam are not the same deity, so their faith cannot be shared. This is a false assertion made by two groups: Muslims attempting to deceive the ignorant (thereby making them more accepting of Islam and more open to converting to it) and the Already-Deceived Ignorant.

Here is another passage of special interest that goes completely unmentioned by the AP:

Young people, university students and ordinary people have many questions about the phenomenon of Israel. I am sure you are familiar with some of them.

Throughout history many countries have been occupied, but I think the establishment of a new country with a new people, is a new phenomenon that is exclusive to our times.

Students are saying that sixty years ago such a country did not exist. They show old documents and globes and say try as we have, we have not been able to find a country named Israel.

I tell them to study the history of WWI and II. One of my students told me that during WWII, which more than tens of millions of people perished in, news about the war, was quickly disseminated by the warring parties. Each touted their victories and the most recent battlefront defeat of the other party. After the war, they claimed that six million Jews had been killed. Six million people that were surely related to at least two million families.

Again let us assume that these events are true. Does that logically translate into the establishment of the state of Israel in the Middle East or support for such a state? How can this phenomenon be rationalised or explained?

Mr President, I am sure you know how – and at what cost – Israel was established:

– Many thousands were killed in the process.
– Millions of indigenous people were made refugees.
– Hundred of thousands of hectares of farmland, olive plantations, towns and villages were destroyed.

This tragedy is not exclusive to the time of establishment; unfortunately it has been ongoing for sixty years now. A regime has been established which does not show mercy even to kids, destroys houses while the occupants are still in them, announces beforehand its list and plans to assassinate Palestinian figures and keeps thousands of Palestinians in prison. Such a phenomenon is unique – or at the very least extremely rare – in recent memory.

Another big question asked by people is why is this regime being supported? Is support for this regime in line with the teachings of Jesus Christ (PBUH) or Moses (PBUH) or liberal values? Or are we to understand that allowing the original inhabitants of these lands – inside and outside Palestine – whether they are Christian, Muslim or Jew, to determine their fate, runs contrary to principles of democracy, human rights and the teachings of prophets? If not, why is there so much opposition to a referendum?

There is much more that that goes unmentioned in the AP article while the AP article focuses on the letter’s formulaic religious tripe and promotes a story of “seeking to build on a shared faith in God.” Why?

Why? Hatred of America. Hatred of Christ and His religion. Hatred of President Bush (who, despite several serious errors in judgment and gaps in knowledge, is still an American and a Christian ). Hatred of Jews. The Iranian “president’s” description of the history of modern Israel is typical Muslim deception, but AP can’t bother themselves with facts.

Those media, academic, and political elites in the West who long for its demise will realize too late that those “Others” in whom they think they have a comrade in arms against the Source of All Evil (white, conservative, Christian males–and Jews) are not noble savages. Too late they will discover them to be unfeeling and unkind masters, just as they always have been, just as Allah and his false prophet require.

But the AP and its ideological brethren would know that if they would take the time to look into the tenets and history of the Religion of Death, rather than eagerly lending validity to its propaganda.

The Founding Fathers on Islam (again)

In Andrew Bostom, Barbary Pirates, Jihad in America, John Adams, The truth about Islam, Thomas Jefferson, Tripoli on May 6, 2006 at 1:27 PM

First me, then Bostom, then Fitzgerald. Obviously, great minds think alike. Jefferson, the Adamses, and making sense:

In a recent article prompted by his reading of Joshua London’s Victory in Tripoli, Andrew Bostom, who compiled The Legacy of Jihad, adduces from London’s text a number of telling descriptions of Islam and of Muslims by some of the most important figures in American history. Two of them were Thomas Jefferson and John Adams, in 1786 ambassadors (Jefferson in Paris, Adams in London) from the newly-established American Republic still under the Articles of Confederation (the Treaty of Paris had been signed in 1783, the Constitution was ratified only in 1787). They had a meeting with the representative of Tripolitania (present-day Libya) then in the Great Britain, Sidi Haji Rahmand Adja. Like other Christian maritime powers, the American state had suffered from the state-piracy of Muslim corsairs. The word “piracy” implies mere seeking at random for booty, and is inadequate to describe the formal system by which Muslim corsairs had for centuries been making war on Christian shipping, with the foreknowledge (indeed, often registering in advance either the places their ships would be going, or what Infidel shipping they intended to attack) and support of the Muslim rulers of the North African states — which, in turn, were ostensibly under the control of the Ottoman rulers in Istanbul.
Both Jefferson and Adams were learned men. Take a tour in Quincy or at Monticello and look at their libraries, and then imagine the reading material that sustains the current, or the last few, American presidents. But they had no reason to know about Islam. They were interested in the civilization of the West, to which they belonged. Islam was merely a disturbing and violent intruder, to south and east, of that West. The notion that someday Muslims in the Western world would be insisting that the Western world owed so much to Islam, that the Renaissance was practically a Muslim invention, that without Islam the great civilization of the Western world was unthinkable, would have been regarded by them as what it is: absurdity, from first to last, a travesty of history.

But did they know much about what prompted Muslim behavior? No. So they asked why the Barbary states (present-day Morocco, Algerian, Tunisia, and Libya) would continually attack American and all other Infidel shipping, seize the cargoes and the sailors, taking both back to Islamic lands and enslaving those Christian seamen who sometimes could be ransomed, sometimes not. So they asked the ambassador, Mr. Adja, why the Muslims of the Maghrib, the “Barbary pirates” as they were known in the West, did as they did.

He had no trouble answering them, as the report written by Jefferson and Adams to the Continental Congress shows:

“…that it was founded on the Laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as Prisoners, and that every Musselman who should be slain in Battle was sure to go to Paradise.”

Nothing surprising here to any contemporary Muslim, though many will wish that Americans will never read that paragraph above, especially since it was written by two of the Founders, two of the Framers of that Constitution which is so flatly contradicted by the principles and Holy Law of Islam. It is easy to denounce this or that truth-teller about Islam today, but not quite so easy for Muslims to denounce or attempt to belittle a report written by Thomas Jefferson and John Adams.
Bostom also quotes London quoting William Eaton, a veteran of the Revolutionary War, who later became the U.S. consul in Tunis, and who in 1799 reported on his meeting with the Dey of Algiers, Bobba Mustafa:

“…we took off our shoes and entering the cave (for so it seemed), with small apertures of light with iron gates, we were shown to a huge shaggy beast, sitting on his rump upon a low bench covered with a cushion of embroidered velvet, with his hind legs gathered up like a tailor, or a bear. On our approach to him, he reached out his forepaw as if to receive something to eat. Our guide exclaimed, “Kiss the Dey’s hand!” The consul general bowed very elegantly, and kissed it, and we followed his example in succession. The animal seemed at that moment to be in a harmless mode; he grinned several times, but made very little noise. Having performed this ceremony, and standing a few moments in silent agony, we had leave to take our shoes and other p roperty, and leave the den without any other injury than the humility of being obliged in this involuntary manner, to violate the second commandment of God and offend common decency. Can any man believe that this elevated brute has seven kings of Europe, two republics, and a continent tributary to him when his whole naval force is not equal to two line-of-battle ships? It is so.”

Not exactly one of those Western ambassadors – a John C. West or James Akins or an Andrew Kilgore or a Eugene Bird – full of salaam-aleikum lecca-leccas for their Arab counterparts. No, it was a no-nonsense early American, sure of himself, and equally sure that he could recognize a comical primitive when he saw one – and saw no need to pull any rhetorical punches. One wonders how many today would report back in a similar fashion on the absurdities, say, of Arafat and company, or the pretensions of the ludicrous Arab regimes and Arab-League officials who have been allowed to believe in their own significance and importance, when their only significance and importance is that supplied by an accident of geology and the complete failure of even these recipients of the largest unearned wealth in history to create modern polities and modern economies. The fact that these regimes remain morally and intellectually paralyzed should show those who, in the Western world, ought to know a little something about what makes the West the West, just a little something about what the civilizational fruits of Islam are – or rather, about the absence of those civilizational fruits.
In his review-article Bostom also spatchcocked on, from a period later than that of the Barbary Pirates episode in American geopolitical life, a piercing, no-nonsense quote from John Quincy Adams, writing in about 1829 after his retirement from public life:

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

The “command” to Believers to engage in “perpetual war” — performed “alike by fraud or by force” – against the Infidels, the Unbelievers, was no secret to the well-traveled (St. Petersburg, among other places he was stationed) and well-read John Quincy Adams. In a previous article Bostom had quoted John Quincy Adams comparing the essence of Christian doctrine with the essence of Islam.
This was John Quincy Adams on Christianity:

“And he [Jesus] declared, that the enjoyment of felicity in the world hereafter, would be reward of the practice of benevolence here. His whole law was resolvable into the precept of love; peace on earth – good will toward man…On the Christian system of morals, man is an immortal spirit, confined for a short space of time, in an earthly tabernacle. Kindness to his fellow mortals embraces the whole compass of his duties upon earth, and the whole promise of happiness to his spirit hereafter. THE ESSENCE OF THIS DOCTRINE IS, TO EXALT THE SPIRITUAL OVER THE BRUTAL PART OF HIS NATURE [Capitals in original].”

And this was John Quincy Adams on Islam:

“Adopting from the sublime conception of the Mosaic law, the doctrine of one omnipotent God; he connected indissolubly with it, the audacious falsehood, that he was himself his prophet and apostle. Adopting from the new Revelation of Jesus, the faith and hope of immortal life, and of future retribution, he humbled it to the dust by adapting all the rewards and sanctions of his religion to the gratification of the sexual passion. He poisoned the sources of human felicity at the fountain, by degrading the condition of the female sex, and the allowance of polygamy; and he declared undistinguishing and exterminating war, as a part of his religion, against all the rest of mankind. THE ESSENCE OF HIS DOCTRINE WAS VIOLENCE AND LUST; TO EXALT THE BRUTAL OVER THE SPIRITUAL PART OF HUMAN NATURE (Capitals in original)…Between these two religions, thus contrasted in their characters, a war of twelve hundred years has already raged. The war is yet flagrant…While the merciless and dissolute dogmas of the false prophet shall furnish motives to human action, there can never be peace upon earth, and good will towards men.”

And Adams concluded:

“As the essential principle of his [Muhammad’s] faith is the subjugation of others by the sword; it is only by force, that his false doctrines can be dispelled, and his power annihilated.”

As one reads and ponders these remarks by Thomas Jefferson and John Adams, and John Quincy Adams, one is struck by the self-assurance that they represent civilization, and that Islam and its representatives did not, and it would have been ludicrous to pretend otherwise. Islam did not change between 1786 or 1805 or 1830 and today. The doctrine of Jihad did not change. The Qur’an was not a different Qur’an; the Hadith were not differently ranked from the way muhaddithin had ranked them, according to various levels of authenticity, nearly a thousand years before. If anything, the forces of Islam were far weaker then, and far less able, therefore, to conduct Jihad. The only instrument available was military, and in military matters the Muslims were hopelessly surpassed by the technology of a much more advanced civilization – more advanced in every possible way. So what happened? How is it that today no Western leader can bring himself to write about Islam as Jefferson, Adams, John Quincy Adams, or even in modern times, as Churchill did in The River War?
What happened are any number of things, beginning with an entirely different class of rulers. What a falling-off, intellectually, there has been since the days of the Founders and the Framers. The self-assurance and leisure necessary to learn about things, the absence of breathless, round-the-clock news, the fantastic piling-up of duties so that no leader can conceivably read, and take in, once he has risen to the top, the very things he most needs to know — all this has contributed to that falling off. And right now, of course, the thing that leaders and elites all over the Western world most need to know is all about Islam, its tenets, its history of Jihad-conquest, its subjugation of all conquered non-Muslims, and its recommended instruments of Jihad that go far beyond either “terror” or even military means. This conquest is promoted now in Western Europe mainly by demographics — the numbers of Muslims multiplying at a rate far faster than that of the indigenous Infidels — and Da’wa. That Da’wa is targeted at prisoners, and at others who are economically and psychically marginal, and inclined to embrace a belief-system that can be viewed as a vehicle of protest against “the System,” and also supplies, for those who need it, a Complete Regulation of Life and Total Explanation of the Universe. There are plenty of weak-minded people around, their numbers increased by the sometimes intolerable stress and stupidity of frantic getting and spending, or not getting, and not spending.
What happened? Why could Thomas Jefferson and John Adams, and John Quincy Adams and so many others in American history have understood Islam, and also understood that there was no possibility of, and no need to even attempt, to “win hearts and minds” of Muslims, but rather to obtain their cooperation, to force changes in their behavior? The latter is a very different thing from winning hearts and minds, and is grounded in the reality of what Islam teaches its adherents to believe. When Theodore Roosevelt demanded from a Moroccan bandit chief the return of Ion Perdicaris (who at the time was not even an American citizen, though few paid attention to that — he did have a long American connection) with that famous phrase about “Perdicaris alive or Raisuli dead,” he too understood that dealing with such people required that kind of attitude.
Jefferson and Adams and Quincy Adams read. They thought. They studied. They learned things directly. They did not have staffs that attempted to supply their every mental need by supplying little 1- or 3- or 5-page summaries of information, offered up in bite-size bullets that were not even sentences. They were well-traveled. They all had the habit of study and of thought, and would not have wasted the kind of time that our leaders, in and out of office, waste on meetings, and meet-and-greet sessions, and smiles, and wiles, and all the intolerable nonsense that modern political life requires of those who can endure it, and that often drives away the best people because, in the end, they cannot.
Just imagine that in the previous administration, one of the “experts” called on for his “expertise” on Islam was that supreme and sinister apologist, John Esposito. Jefferson, Adams, and Quincy Adams would have seen through him in a moment’s time. When they were writing, they were not worried about “offending” Muslims. They could afford to speak the truth. But so could Western leaders today, if only they would begin to do it. The Muslims have very little hold over us. Yes, they have oil. And they desperately need to sell that oil. And they are terrified that the West could begin to find other sources of energy, or that the West could begin to tax oil use themselves in ways that would dampen demand. And the Arabs and other Muslims do not “have the Gatling-gun” and militarily could be laid waste overnight. They have money with which to buy influence, but if all over the Western world those on the take were relentlessly exposed, ridiculed, held up for inspection (and that would include a good many ex-diplomats, journalists, academics and others), then that army of apologists could lose its effectiveness. There is no “oil weapon” and never was. There is a financial weapon, but it is in Western and chiefly American hands. What would the rich Arabs do if the Western world decided to seize their property in the West as the assets of enemy aliens, just as was done to the property owned not only by the German government, but by individual Germans, during World War II? And what would they do if they were to be permanently deprived of easy access to Western medical care? (How would you feel if someone threatened to deprive you of the possibility of seeing your Western doctors or being treated in a Western hospital? That might get your attention.) What would they do if they were deprived of access to Western education (for their children, especially), or if they lost any chance of moving to the West? What would they do if they began to see a relentless campaign to remove, as a security threat, Muslims from within Dar al-Harb, where they have been allowed to settle, through negligence, by the tens of millions?
What has happened is not merely a kind of cretinising of our political class, but also a laziness. This can be seen from those who are not in the executive branch, and who could, if they chose, study the contents of Islam, learn about Jihad and about the dhimmi, and never be fooled again. But do you know of any Senators and Congressmen who, over the past few years, have decided to study such matters? Do you have the feeling that John Kerry, with no money worries whatsoever and a good deal of time, has been burning the midnight oil reading Robert Spencer, or Bat Ye’or, or Ibn Warraq’s Why I Am Not a Muslim, so that he won’t and can’t be fooled? Do you think any of the Democrats, so critical — for all the wrong reasons — of the war in Iraq, will ever be able to criticize the war for the right reasons, as has been done here for more than two years?
Sometimes it is fun to imagine a figure from the past suddenly coming to life. I have always imagined John Keats suddenly appearing, and my taking him to Macdonald’s, and trying to explain it to him. Imagine Jefferson and Adams coming to life. Imagine what they would make of all kinds of things, but imagine in particular what they would make of people all over the Western world who had now allowed, within their midst, millions of people who, as a matter of belief, were taught to hate those people among whom they lived, and to work to destroy those Infidel institutions, laws, customs, manners, until Islam dominated and some form of the Holy Law of Islam could be established? What would they make of this? What would they make of the $400 billion in sunk costs spent or committed in the near-term to the war in Iraq, as we try to create out of three separate groups of Muslims a nation-state that supposedly will serve as a “model” for other Arab Muslims, a kind of Light Unto the Muslim Nations? They would rub their eyes in disbelief. They would wonder – how did this happen to the country they helped to found and nurture? Where did things go wrong? And then they would have questions. “What’s a speechwriter?” “You mean, you actually have someone else write words you present as your own, fashion your thoughts, express what should be your views?” “And what are ‘bullets’ used in these pages of Daily Briefings?” “And what is a ‘Daily Briefing’”?
They would be quite capable today, as they were in their own day, of reading and finding out about Islam – through books and through the evidence of their senses. They didn’t have CNN, Fox, spy satellites, and an army of CIA agents. But they knew what Islam was all about. It is we, with all that paraphernalia, seeking complexity when things are perhaps too obvious, too worrisomely simple for many to wish to grasp the matter, who are the innocent ones. It is Jefferson and Adams and Quincy Adams and many others, right up to Churchill, who had an unobnubilated grasp of Islam and of Muslims. They were not distracted. They were not charmed by a Saudi oil minister, or by someone at the “Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding.” They had the leisure to read, to think, and even to ponder, slowly, what it was they read, and make it their own. The hectic vacancy of official Washington is scandalous — especially when one rises to the very top and learns only from those briefest of briefings, and even that only when it is too late, or treated as if it is too late, or perhaps beneath the dignity of the highest officials (“As for study, we’ll let our valets do that for us”).

And this is how it has become nearly impossible to get their attention, to get them to start making sense.