Amillennialist

Archive for April, 2007|Monthly archive page

There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that Islam preaches violence

In Uncategorized on April 19, 2007 at 2:07 PM

Unless you are a sentient being.

The following appears to offer some useful factual information to those willing to wade past the hateful language, redundancy, and pseudo-psychoanalysis and through the blanket, anti-religious bigotry (talk about throwing the bathwater on the baby!):

Muslims . . . set his [Mohammed’s] life as the perfect example to follow for all mankind (al-insan al-kamil).

Perfection as in:

  • the decapitation of the prisoners of the Banu Qurayza
  • the attack on the Khaybar Oasis
  • the murders of Asma bint Marwan and Abu Afak for mocking Muhammad
  • the marriage to little Aisha @6 and consummation at 9

For over 1400 years devout believers practiced Muhammad’s example through . . . dawa, demographics, dhimmitude, and ultimately death to those of dar ul-harb [Jihad] . . .

Jihad in the Modern Age (20th and 21st Centuries)

All this time, providing countless examples of ‘religiously inspired’ murder, rape, slavery, extortion (jizyah), modern age pedophilia, piracy, thievery, deceit, fraud, desecration . . . all traits valued as the highest of morals in what some want to call ‘one of the three great monotheisms’ . . . and encompass all these ‘virtues’ as a religion . . . Islam.

Advertisements

There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that Islam preaches violence

In Uncategorized on April 19, 2007 at 2:07 PM

Unless you are a sentient being.

The following appears to offer some useful factual information to those willing to wade past the hateful language, redundancy, and pseudo-psychoanalysis and through the blanket, anti-religious bigotry (talk about throwing the bathwater on the baby!):

Muslims . . . set his [Mohammed’s] life as the perfect example to follow for all mankind (al-insan al-kamil).

Perfection as in:

  • the decapitation of the prisoners of the Banu Qurayza
  • the attack on the Khaybar Oasis
  • the murders of Asma bint Marwan and Abu Afak for mocking Muhammad
  • the marriage to little Aisha @6 and consummation at 9

For over 1400 years devout believers practiced Muhammad’s example through . . . dawa, demographics, dhimmitude, and ultimately death to those of dar ul-harb [Jihad] . . .

Jihad in the Modern Age (20th and 21st Centuries)

All this time, providing countless examples of ‘religiously inspired’ murder, rape, slavery, extortion (jizyah), modern age pedophilia, piracy, thievery, deceit, fraud, desecration . . . all traits valued as the highest of morals in what some want to call ‘one of the three great monotheisms’ . . . and encompass all these ‘virtues’ as a religion . . . Islam.

There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that Islam preaches violence

In Uncategorized on April 19, 2007 at 1:07 PM

Unless you are a sentient being.

The following appears to offer some useful factual information to those willing to wade past the hateful language, redundancy, and pseudo-psychoanalysis and through the blanket, anti-religious bigotry (talk about throwing the bathwater on the baby!):

Muslims . . . set his [Mohammed’s] life as the perfect example to follow for all mankind (al-insan al-kamil).

Perfection as in:

  • the decapitation of the prisoners of the Banu Qurayza
  • the attack on the Khaybar Oasis
  • the murders of Asma bint Marwan and Abu Afak for mocking Muhammad
  • the marriage to little Aisha @6 and consummation at 9

For over 1400 years devout believers practiced Muhammad’s example through . . . dawa, demographics, dhimmitude, and ultimately death to those of dar ul-harb [Jihad] . . .

Jihad in the Modern Age (20th and 21st Centuries)

All this time, providing countless examples of ‘religiously inspired’ murder, rape, slavery, extortion (jizyah), modern age pedophilia, piracy, thievery, deceit, fraud, desecration . . . all traits valued as the highest of morals in what some want to call ‘one of the three great monotheisms’ . . . and encompass all these ‘virtues’ as a religion . . . Islam.

Running from the facts is no way to win an argument

In Uncategorized on April 14, 2007 at 9:12 PM

More from here.

JayHub continued, speaking of Israel . . .

“. . . they won it by right of conquest in 1948, kicking out hundreds of thousands of other long term residents in the process.”

A war (“wars,” actually) Israel did not begin.

And as for “kicking out,” much of that displacement was the result of the Palestinians’ co-religionists encouraging them with promises of swift victory and easy spoils to step aside.

“I think the Palestinians have been treated very badly any way you look at it and don’t agree with the argument that they’re just getting what they deserve because they’re poor and ignorant, or that Israel economic success and history means we should not question its past or the bodies buried there.”

I would support neither of those positions.

However, it appears the only “crime” of which you can accuse Israel is its being reconstituted in the first place.

The reason it is an “explosive” situation is because one side — Islam — can never, under any circumstances tolerate land that was once under the rule of Allah belonging again to Infidels.

That is why, more than any other supposed justification you can conjure up, the Muslim world hates Israel. Just ask Hamas:

“Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it.”

“Israel, by virtue of its being Jewish and of having a Jewish population, defies Islam and the Muslims.”

“The Islamic Resistance Movement believes that the land of Palestine is an Islamic Waqf consecrated for future Moslem generations until Judgement Day. It, or any part of it, should not be squandered: it, or any part of it, should not be given up.”

“There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavors.”

“After Palestine, the Zionists aspire to expand from the Nile to the Euphrates. When they will have digested the region they overtook, they will aspire to further expansion, and so on. Their plan is embodied in the “Protocols of the Elders of Zion”, and their present conduct is the best proof of what we are saying.”

“Allah is its [Hamas’] goal, the Prophet its model, the Qur’an its Constitution, Jihad its path and death for the case of Allah its most sublime belief.”

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


For JayHub . . . From here:

“When Mark Twain visited the Holy Land in the 19th century, he was greatly disappointed. He didn’t see any people. He referred to it as a vast wasteland. The land we now know as Israel was practically deserted.

“By the beginning of the 20th century, that began to change. Jews from all over the world began to return to their ancestral homeland – the Promised Land . . . .

“That’s not to say there wasn’t always a strong Jewish presence in the land – particularly in and around Jerusalem. In 1854, according to a report in the New York Tribune, Jews constituted two-thirds of the population of that holy city. The source for that statistic? A journalist on assignment in the Middle East that year for the Tribune. His name was Karl Marx. Yes, that Karl Marx.

“A travel guide to Palestine and Syria, published in 1906 by Karl Baedeker, illustrates the fact that, even when the Islamic Ottoman Empire ruled the region, the Muslim population in Jerusalem was minimal. The book estimates the total population of the city at 60,000, of whom 7,000 were Muslims, 13,000 were Christians and 40,000 were Jews.

“‘The number of Jews has greatly risen in the last few decades, in spite of the fact that they are forbidden to immigrate or to possess landed property,’ the book states.

“Even though the Jews were persecuted, still they came to Jerusalem and represented the overwhelming majority of the population as early as 1906. And even though Muslims today claim Jerusalem as the third holiest site in Islam, when the city was under Islamic rule, they had little interest in it.

“As the Jews came, drained the swamps and made the deserts bloom, something interesting began to happen. Arabs followed. I don’t blame them. They had good reason to come. They came for jobs. They came for prosperity. They came for freedom. And they came in large numbers.

“Winston Churchill observed in 1939: ‘So far from being persecuted, the Arabs have crowded into the country and multiplied till their population has increased more than even all world Jewry could lift up the Jewish population.’

“Then came 1948 and the great partition. The United Nations proposed the creation of two states in the region – one Jewish, one Arab. The Jews accepted it gratefully. The Arabs rejected it with a vengeance and declared war.

“Arab leaders urged Arabs to leave the area so they would not be caught in the crossfire. They could return to their homes, they were told, after Israel was crushed and the Jews destroyed. It didn’t work out that way. By most counts, several hundred thousand Arabs were displaced by this war – not by Israeli aggression, not by some Jewish real-estate grab, not by Israeli expansionism.

“In fact, there are many historical records showing the Jews urged the Arabs to stay and live with them in peace. But, tragically, they chose to leave.

“Fifty-four years later, the sons and daughters and grandsons and granddaughters of those refugees are all-too-often still living in refugee camps – not because of Israeli intransigence, but because they are misused as a political tool of the Arab powers.

“Those poor unfortunates could be settled in a week by the rich Arab oil states that control 99.9 percent of the Middle East landmass, but they are kept as virtual prisoners, filled with misplaced hatred for Jews and armed as suicide martyrs by the Arab power brokers.

“This is the modern real history of the Arab-Israeli conflict. At no time did the Jews uproot Arab families from their homes. When there were title deeds to be purchased, they bought them at inflated prices. When there were not, they worked the land so they could have a place to live without the persecution they faced throughout the world.

“It’s a great big lie that the Israelis displaced anyone . . . .”

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


. . .
as demonstrated by the Hamas charter (and to JayHub’s chagrin), the conflict has never been about Justice, or Self-Determination. It has always been about Mohammed’s hatred of Jews:

Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 176:

Allah’s Apostle said, “You (i.e. Muslims) will fight with the Jews till some of them will hide behind stones. The stones will (betray them) saying, ‘O ‘Abdullah (i.e. slave of Allah)! There is a Jew hiding behind me; so kill him.'”

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


JayHub serves himself poorly with . . .

“. . . arguments over Israel always start with arguments over facts . . .”

Where else should an argument begin (or end)? Or do you prefer emotional and irrational bald-faced lies instead?

“. . . and his “facts” are one sided.”

If they are “one-sided” (and therefore, misleading), present evidence of that.

If you do not, then all you’re making are unsubstantiated and — in light of the facts noted so far — false assertions.

“If I wanted to spend more time on this we could go back and forth on the facts for a very long time.”

Sure, why bother with facts?

“I also fear his claims are underlain by a belief that God has given the Jews the Land of Israel . . . ,”

In making this ad hominem attack, you are ascribing to me something I’ve never claimed.

Whatever my personal beliefs on the subject may be, they have NOTHING to do whatsoever with the factual statements I’ve shared.

Why even speculate? Why not just address the questions of fact?

“. . . which I think is ridiculous to start with.”

It is ridiculous to maintain a position based on emotion and without any corroborating evidence.

It is even more ridiculous to hold a belief despite solid, contradictory facts.

Worst of all is running from an argument without presenting any proof for one’s position while mocking and lying about those who do.

“If you believe that, why argue about the history of the settlement of Israel at all – since God’s said it, who’s to dispute it, right?”

Nice attempt at changing the subject. Straw men burn easy.

Obviously, that is a different question.

“I don’t think we’ll agree either, Heather, since you seem to see all Muslims as Evil Apes out to kill us all and cannot separate Palestinians claims from Islamofascists jihads.”

Another lie, JayHub?

Where did Heather call Muslims “Evil Apes”? She was referring to Islamic beliefs about Jews. Did you misread, or did you intentionally misrepresent what she wrote?

You know what Hamas says about its goals. There are many other, not too dissimilar “Palestinian” terrorist organizations.

If the “Palestinians” accept, support, and elect such people, what meaningful difference is there between “Palestinian claims” and “Islamofascists jihads”?

In the case of Hamas, its charter proves there is none.

Rather than criticize Heather, perhaps you should try to correct the “Palestinians” and their terrorist public servants. Of course, misrepresenting what Heather or I write will not result in your beheading or a large crater appearing where your car used to be.

I hope that you will reconsider your (false) ad hominem attacks, address the facts [I’ve shared, and present the evidence] that you believe I’ve neglected.

If not, I would like to leave with the following, one place from where Muslim anti-Semitism comes. Yes, it comes from Allah and his apostle, here speaking of Jews:

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

“Shall I point out to you something much worse than this, (as judged) by the treatment it received from Allah? those who incurred the curse of Allah and His wrath, those of whom some He transformed into apes and swine, those who worshipped evil;- these are (many times) worse in rank, and far more astray from the even path” (Qur’an 5:60)!

“Allah’s Apostle said, “The Hour will not be established until you fight with the Jews, and the stone behind which a Jew will be hiding will say. “O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, so kill him” (Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 177).

Running from the facts is no way to win an argument

In Uncategorized on April 14, 2007 at 9:12 PM

More from here.

JayHub continued, speaking of Israel . . .

“. . . they won it by right of conquest in 1948, kicking out hundreds of thousands of other long term residents in the process.”

A war (“wars,” actually) Israel did not begin.

And as for “kicking out,” much of that displacement was the result of the Palestinians’ co-religionists encouraging them with promises of swift victory and easy spoils to step aside.

“I think the Palestinians have been treated very badly any way you look at it and don’t agree with the argument that they’re just getting what they deserve because they’re poor and ignorant, or that Israel economic success and history means we should not question its past or the bodies buried there.”

I would support neither of those positions.

However, it appears the only “crime” of which you can accuse Israel is its being reconstituted in the first place.

The reason it is an “explosive” situation is because one side — Islam — can never, under any circumstances tolerate land that was once under the rule of Allah belonging again to Infidels.

That is why, more than any other supposed justification you can conjure up, the Muslim world hates Israel. Just ask Hamas:

“Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it.”

“Israel, by virtue of its being Jewish and of having a Jewish population, defies Islam and the Muslims.”

“The Islamic Resistance Movement believes that the land of Palestine is an Islamic Waqf consecrated for future Moslem generations until Judgement Day. It, or any part of it, should not be squandered: it, or any part of it, should not be given up.”

“There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavors.”

“After Palestine, the Zionists aspire to expand from the Nile to the Euphrates. When they will have digested the region they overtook, they will aspire to further expansion, and so on. Their plan is embodied in the “Protocols of the Elders of Zion”, and their present conduct is the best proof of what we are saying.”

“Allah is its [Hamas’] goal, the Prophet its model, the Qur’an its Constitution, Jihad its path and death for the case of Allah its most sublime belief.”

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


For JayHub . . . From here:

“When Mark Twain visited the Holy Land in the 19th century, he was greatly disappointed. He didn’t see any people. He referred to it as a vast wasteland. The land we now know as Israel was practically deserted.

“By the beginning of the 20th century, that began to change. Jews from all over the world began to return to their ancestral homeland – the Promised Land . . . .

“That’s not to say there wasn’t always a strong Jewish presence in the land – particularly in and around Jerusalem. In 1854, according to a report in the New York Tribune, Jews constituted two-thirds of the population of that holy city. The source for that statistic? A journalist on assignment in the Middle East that year for the Tribune. His name was Karl Marx. Yes, that Karl Marx.

“A travel guide to Palestine and Syria, published in 1906 by Karl Baedeker, illustrates the fact that, even when the Islamic Ottoman Empire ruled the region, the Muslim population in Jerusalem was minimal. The book estimates the total population of the city at 60,000, of whom 7,000 were Muslims, 13,000 were Christians and 40,000 were Jews.

“‘The number of Jews has greatly risen in the last few decades, in spite of the fact that they are forbidden to immigrate or to possess landed property,’ the book states.

“Even though the Jews were persecuted, still they came to Jerusalem and represented the overwhelming majority of the population as early as 1906. And even though Muslims today claim Jerusalem as the third holiest site in Islam, when the city was under Islamic rule, they had little interest in it.

“As the Jews came, drained the swamps and made the deserts bloom, something interesting began to happen. Arabs followed. I don’t blame them. They had good reason to come. They came for jobs. They came for prosperity. They came for freedom. And they came in large numbers.

“Winston Churchill observed in 1939: ‘So far from being persecuted, the Arabs have crowded into the country and multiplied till their population has increased more than even all world Jewry could lift up the Jewish population.’

“Then came 1948 and the great partition. The United Nations proposed the creation of two states in the region – one Jewish, one Arab. The Jews accepted it gratefully. The Arabs rejected it with a vengeance and declared war.

“Arab leaders urged Arabs to leave the area so they would not be caught in the crossfire. They could return to their homes, they were told, after Israel was crushed and the Jews destroyed. It didn’t work out that way. By most counts, several hundred thousand Arabs were displaced by this war – not by Israeli aggression, not by some Jewish real-estate grab, not by Israeli expansionism.

“In fact, there are many historical records showing the Jews urged the Arabs to stay and live with them in peace. But, tragically, they chose to leave.

“Fifty-four years later, the sons and daughters and grandsons and granddaughters of those refugees are all-too-often still living in refugee camps – not because of Israeli intransigence, but because they are misused as a political tool of the Arab powers.

“Those poor unfortunates could be settled in a week by the rich Arab oil states that control 99.9 percent of the Middle East landmass, but they are kept as virtual prisoners, filled with misplaced hatred for Jews and armed as suicide martyrs by the Arab power brokers.

“This is the modern real history of the Arab-Israeli conflict. At no time did the Jews uproot Arab families from their homes. When there were title deeds to be purchased, they bought them at inflated prices. When there were not, they worked the land so they could have a place to live without the persecution they faced throughout the world.

“It’s a great big lie that the Israelis displaced anyone . . . .”

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


. . .
as demonstrated by the Hamas charter (and to JayHub’s chagrin), the conflict has never been about Justice, or Self-Determination. It has always been about Mohammed’s hatred of Jews:

Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 176:

Allah’s Apostle said, “You (i.e. Muslims) will fight with the Jews till some of them will hide behind stones. The stones will (betray them) saying, ‘O ‘Abdullah (i.e. slave of Allah)! There is a Jew hiding behind me; so kill him.'”

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


JayHub serves himself poorly with . . .

“. . . arguments over Israel always start with arguments over facts . . .”

Where else should an argument begin (or end)? Or do you prefer emotional and irrational bald-faced lies instead?

“. . . and his “facts” are one sided.”

If they are “one-sided” (and therefore, misleading), present evidence of that.

If you do not, then all you’re making are unsubstantiated and — in light of the facts noted so far — false assertions.

“If I wanted to spend more time on this we could go back and forth on the facts for a very long time.”

Sure, why bother with facts?

“I also fear his claims are underlain by a belief that God has given the Jews the Land of Israel . . . ,”

In making this ad hominem attack, you are ascribing to me something I’ve never claimed.

Whatever my personal beliefs on the subject may be, they have NOTHING to do whatsoever with the factual statements I’ve shared.

Why even speculate? Why not just address the questions of fact?

“. . . which I think is ridiculous to start with.”

It is ridiculous to maintain a position based on emotion and without any corroborating evidence.

It is even more ridiculous to hold a belief despite solid, contradictory facts.

Worst of all is running from an argument without presenting any proof for one’s position while mocking and lying about those who do.

“If you believe that, why argue about the history of the settlement of Israel at all – since God’s said it, who’s to dispute it, right?”

Nice attempt at changing the subject. Straw men burn easy.

Obviously, that is a different question.

“I don’t think we’ll agree either, Heather, since you seem to see all Muslims as Evil Apes out to kill us all and cannot separate Palestinians claims from Islamofascists jihads.”

Another lie, JayHub?

Where did Heather call Muslims “Evil Apes”? She was referring to Islamic beliefs about Jews. Did you misread, or did you intentionally misrepresent what she wrote?

You know what Hamas says about its goals. There are many other, not too dissimilar “Palestinian” terrorist organizations.

If the “Palestinians” accept, support, and elect such people, what meaningful difference is there between “Palestinian claims” and “Islamofascists jihads”?

In the case of Hamas, its charter proves there is none.

Rather than criticize Heather, perhaps you should try to correct the “Palestinians” and their terrorist public servants. Of course, misrepresenting what Heather or I write will not result in your beheading or a large crater appearing where your car used to be.

I hope that you will reconsider your (false) ad hominem attacks, address the facts [I’ve shared, and present the evidence] that you believe I’ve neglected.

If not, I would like to leave with the following, one place from where Muslim anti-Semitism comes. Yes, it comes from Allah and his apostle, here speaking of Jews:

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

“Shall I point out to you something much worse than this, (as judged) by the treatment it received from Allah? those who incurred the curse of Allah and His wrath, those of whom some He transformed into apes and swine, those who worshipped evil;- these are (many times) worse in rank, and far more astray from the even path” (Qur’an 5:60)!

“Allah’s Apostle said, “The Hour will not be established until you fight with the Jews, and the stone behind which a Jew will be hiding will say. “O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, so kill him” (Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 177).

Running from the facts is no way to win an argument

In Uncategorized on April 14, 2007 at 8:12 PM

More from here.

JayHub continued, speaking of Israel . . .

“. . . they won it by right of conquest in 1948, kicking out hundreds of thousands of other long term residents in the process.”

A war (“wars,” actually) Israel did not begin.

And as for “kicking out,” much of that displacement was the result of the Palestinians’ co-religionists encouraging them with promises of swift victory and easy spoils to step aside.

“I think the Palestinians have been treated very badly any way you look at it and don’t agree with the argument that they’re just getting what they deserve because they’re poor and ignorant, or that Israel economic success and history means we should not question its past or the bodies buried there.”

I would support neither of those positions.

However, it appears the only “crime” of which you can accuse Israel is its being reconstituted in the first place.

The reason it is an “explosive” situation is because one side — Islam — can never, under any circumstances tolerate land that was once under the rule of Allah belonging again to Infidels.

That is why, more than any other supposed justification you can conjure up, the Muslim world hates Israel. Just ask Hamas:

“Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it.”

“Israel, by virtue of its being Jewish and of having a Jewish population, defies Islam and the Muslims.”

“The Islamic Resistance Movement believes that the land of Palestine is an Islamic Waqf consecrated for future Moslem generations until Judgement Day. It, or any part of it, should not be squandered: it, or any part of it, should not be given up.”

“There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavors.”

“After Palestine, the Zionists aspire to expand from the Nile to the Euphrates. When they will have digested the region they overtook, they will aspire to further expansion, and so on. Their plan is embodied in the “Protocols of the Elders of Zion”, and their present conduct is the best proof of what we are saying.”

“Allah is its [Hamas’] goal, the Prophet its model, the Qur’an its Constitution, Jihad its path and death for the case of Allah its most sublime belief.”

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


For JayHub . . . From here:

“When Mark Twain visited the Holy Land in the 19th century, he was greatly disappointed. He didn’t see any people. He referred to it as a vast wasteland. The land we now know as Israel was practically deserted.

“By the beginning of the 20th century, that began to change. Jews from all over the world began to return to their ancestral homeland – the Promised Land . . . .

“That’s not to say there wasn’t always a strong Jewish presence in the land – particularly in and around Jerusalem. In 1854, according to a report in the New York Tribune, Jews constituted two-thirds of the population of that holy city. The source for that statistic? A journalist on assignment in the Middle East that year for the Tribune. His name was Karl Marx. Yes, that Karl Marx.

“A travel guide to Palestine and Syria, published in 1906 by Karl Baedeker, illustrates the fact that, even when the Islamic Ottoman Empire ruled the region, the Muslim population in Jerusalem was minimal. The book estimates the total population of the city at 60,000, of whom 7,000 were Muslims, 13,000 were Christians and 40,000 were Jews.

“‘The number of Jews has greatly risen in the last few decades, in spite of the fact that they are forbidden to immigrate or to possess landed property,’ the book states.

“Even though the Jews were persecuted, still they came to Jerusalem and represented the overwhelming majority of the population as early as 1906. And even though Muslims today claim Jerusalem as the third holiest site in Islam, when the city was under Islamic rule, they had little interest in it.

“As the Jews came, drained the swamps and made the deserts bloom, something interesting began to happen. Arabs followed. I don’t blame them. They had good reason to come. They came for jobs. They came for prosperity. They came for freedom. And they came in large numbers.

“Winston Churchill observed in 1939: ‘So far from being persecuted, the Arabs have crowded into the country and multiplied till their population has increased more than even all world Jewry could lift up the Jewish population.’

“Then came 1948 and the great partition. The United Nations proposed the creation of two states in the region – one Jewish, one Arab. The Jews accepted it gratefully. The Arabs rejected it with a vengeance and declared war.

“Arab leaders urged Arabs to leave the area so they would not be caught in the crossfire. They could return to their homes, they were told, after Israel was crushed and the Jews destroyed. It didn’t work out that way. By most counts, several hundred thousand Arabs were displaced by this war – not by Israeli aggression, not by some Jewish real-estate grab, not by Israeli expansionism.

“In fact, there are many historical records showing the Jews urged the Arabs to stay and live with them in peace. But, tragically, they chose to leave.

“Fifty-four years later, the sons and daughters and grandsons and granddaughters of those refugees are all-too-often still living in refugee camps – not because of Israeli intransigence, but because they are misused as a political tool of the Arab powers.

“Those poor unfortunates could be settled in a week by the rich Arab oil states that control 99.9 percent of the Middle East landmass, but they are kept as virtual prisoners, filled with misplaced hatred for Jews and armed as suicide martyrs by the Arab power brokers.

“This is the modern real history of the Arab-Israeli conflict. At no time did the Jews uproot Arab families from their homes. When there were title deeds to be purchased, they bought them at inflated prices. When there were not, they worked the land so they could have a place to live without the persecution they faced throughout the world.

“It’s a great big lie that the Israelis displaced anyone . . . .”

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


. . .
as demonstrated by the Hamas charter (and to JayHub’s chagrin), the conflict has never been about Justice, or Self-Determination. It has always been about Mohammed’s hatred of Jews:

Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 176:

Allah’s Apostle said, “You (i.e. Muslims) will fight with the Jews till some of them will hide behind stones. The stones will (betray them) saying, ‘O ‘Abdullah (i.e. slave of Allah)! There is a Jew hiding behind me; so kill him.'”

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


JayHub serves himself poorly with . . .

“. . . arguments over Israel always start with arguments over facts . . .”

Where else should an argument begin (or end)? Or do you prefer emotional and irrational bald-faced lies instead?

“. . . and his “facts” are one sided.”

If they are “one-sided” (and therefore, misleading), present evidence of that.

If you do not, then all you’re making are unsubstantiated and — in light of the facts noted so far — false assertions.

“If I wanted to spend more time on this we could go back and forth on the facts for a very long time.”

Sure, why bother with facts?

“I also fear his claims are underlain by a belief that God has given the Jews the Land of Israel . . . ,”

In making this ad hominem attack, you are ascribing to me something I’ve never claimed.

Whatever my personal beliefs on the subject may be, they have NOTHING to do whatsoever with the factual statements I’ve shared.

Why even speculate? Why not just address the questions of fact?

“. . . which I think is ridiculous to start with.”

It is ridiculous to maintain a position based on emotion and without any corroborating evidence.

It is even more ridiculous to hold a belief despite solid, contradictory facts.

Worst of all is running from an argument without presenting any proof for one’s position while mocking and lying about those who do.

“If you believe that, why argue about the history of the settlement of Israel at all – since God’s said it, who’s to dispute it, right?”

Nice attempt at changing the subject. Straw men burn easy.

Obviously, that is a different question.

“I don’t think we’ll agree either, Heather, since you seem to see all Muslims as Evil Apes out to kill us all and cannot separate Palestinians claims from Islamofascists jihads.”

Another lie, JayHub?

Where did Heather call Muslims “Evil Apes”? She was referring to Islamic beliefs about Jews. Did you misread, or did you intentionally misrepresent what she wrote?

You know what Hamas says about its goals. There are many other, not too dissimilar “Palestinian” terrorist organizations.

If the “Palestinians” accept, support, and elect such people, what meaningful difference is there between “Palestinian claims” and “Islamofascists jihads”?

In the case of Hamas, its charter proves there is none.

Rather than criticize Heather, perhaps you should try to correct the “Palestinians” and their terrorist public servants. Of course, misrepresenting what Heather or I write will not result in your beheading or a large crater appearing where your car used to be.

I hope that you will reconsider your (false) ad hominem attacks, address the facts [I’ve shared, and present the evidence] that you believe I’ve neglected.

If not, I would like to leave with the following, one place from where Muslim anti-Semitism comes. Yes, it comes from Allah and his apostle, here speaking of Jews:

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

“Shall I point out to you something much worse than this, (as judged) by the treatment it received from Allah? those who incurred the curse of Allah and His wrath, those of whom some He transformed into apes and swine, those who worshipped evil;- these are (many times) worse in rank, and far more astray from the even path” (Qur’an 5:60)!

“Allah’s Apostle said, “The Hour will not be established until you fight with the Jews, and the stone behind which a Jew will be hiding will say. “O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, so kill him” (Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 177).

The devil is in the details

In Uncategorized on April 13, 2007 at 4:26 PM

More from the thread linked in the previous post.

And/but/so… Thank you for your courteous reply. I would like to address a few points.

“But your historical highlights are selective. I could pick out similiar astocities, crimes, and bad faith actions by a bunch of groups through the ages, and use them to support a thesis that Christianity is the root of all evil.”

That would be a tu quoque argument, a logical fallacy.

The point I was making is that Islam’s core texts (which contain the expressed will of Allah and the words and deeds of Mohammed) are the source and sustenance of offensive warfare to make the world Islam (Jihad).

To argue that others have done the same (whether or not that is true) does nothing to address my assertion.

I would also note that it is impossible to construct from the words of Christ a theology of offensive warfare, whereas in Islam Jihad is a central doctrine.

“Your quotes are instructive; now how about turning your attention to the Old Testament?”

The only Old Testament command for warfare was given to the people of Israel as they entered Canaan. The command was limited to that time, place, and target only, unlike Islam.

Over the course of the Qur’an’s revelation, Allah’s doctrine on warfare evolved through several stages. Initially, when Mohammed was weak, cooperation with Infidels was urged. As Mohammed grew in power, warring in self-defense was allowed. Later, it was required.

Finally, after Mohammed had realized military, political, and economic success, offensive warfare against all non-Muslims who resist conversion or subjugation was required. Those commands are for all times and places until the hegemony of Allah is established over all mankind.

“My point is a selective reading of any religious tradition allows one to choose what one wants to believe about its followers…”

I think I have succinctly dealt with that accusation, but if I have not addressed it to your satisfaction, please point out to me from the Islamic texts where I have misrepresented them.

My point — the point that so many overlook, deny, or ridicule — is that, just as the “Islamofascists” themselves confess, jihadists are obeying Allah and their prophet. They are neither perverting, distorting, nor taking out of context their scriptures.

Fourteen hundred years of Islamic theology, law, and history seem to support them.

Again, please read Qur’an, Hadith, and Sira for yourself. Demonstrate where I have misrepresented any of Islam’s “sacred” texts.

I would also ask that you show from the Biblical writings where YHWH/Christ make any universal commands for offensive warfare against non-Christians/non-Jews to establish their rule.

“But specious quotes . . . “

If that is a reference to my comments (I can’t tell), please demonstrate from Islam’s texts that they are actually specious.

“I do take exception to the notion that anyone who voted for Hamas supports jihad. Hamas was able to establish itself by providing social supports – schools, medical centers, libraries, etc. – that were lacking in Palestine.”

Isn’t that similar to praising Hitler for his organizational efficiency? Is not Hamas’ sworn purpose to destroy Israel?

“I don’t blame the Israelis, but the plight of the Palestenian people is a sad one, and they are understandably desperate for a saviour. That doesn’t mena all of them are terrorists.”

I have not argued that they are all terrorists.

How many support terrorism? How many support terrorism against Israel? How many support attacks against the United States? How many would welcome the return of the Caliphate and the global rule of Shari’a?

How many of those who do not are willing — or able — to resist their co-religionists who do?

I welcome those who publicly refute and reject forever Jihad and Shari’a, and I fully support those who truly stand for fully equal rights for all non-Muslims and women within Muslim lands.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


In arguing against painting with too broad a brush, it should be asked “Who’s holding the brush?”

JayHub wrote:

“I would not lump the Palestinians in with Islamic jihadists because they are essentially involved in a civil war with the other occupants of what was British Palestine over how that area is to be governed.”

You wouldn’t lump them, but perhaps these would: Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade; Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine (DFLP); Hamas; Palestine Islamic Jihad; The Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO); Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP); Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine – General Command (PFLP-GC); and Popular Resistance Committees (PRC) are all “Palestinian Islamic jihadists.”

And what does Hamas, a group cited above for its charity work (didn’t an American politician cite OBL’s humanitarianism not long ago?) say about this? Straight from their charter:


  • “Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it.”


  • “Israel, by virtue of its being Jewish and of having a Jewish population, defies Islam and the Muslims.”


  • “The Islamic Resistance Movement believes that the land of Palestine is an Islamic Waqf consecrated for future Moslem generations until Judgement Day. It, or any part of it, should not be squandered: it, or any part of it, should not be given up.”


  • “There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavors.”


  • “After Palestine, the Zionists aspire to expand from the Nile to the Euphrates. When they will have digested the region they overtook, they will aspire to further expansion, and so on. Their plan is embodied in the “Protocols of the Elders of Zion”, and their present conduct is the best proof of what we are saying.”


  • “Allah is its [Hamas’] goal, the Prophet its model, the Qur’an its Constitution, Jihad its path and death for the case of Allah its most sublime belief.”

Are you familiar with how the “Palestinian” refugees came to be? Do you know what brought about that “civil” war?

Upon its rebirth, Israel’s Muslim neighbors sought to wipe it out of existence. The poor “Palestinians” were told to leave for a bit, let the military do its work, and then they’d be able to move back in and take over. Only events did not follow that narrative. Israel successfully defended itself several times against its “Islamic jihadist” neighbors. And which Middle Eastern nations accepted into their lands the displaced “Palestinians”?

“You may not like their tactics, but they fight with the weapons they have . . . To say they attack civilians is true, but the point of war is to break the other side’s will to continue and they have few other options. . . . This is why Dresden and Tokyo were fire bombed in WWII and Hiroshima and Nagasaki were nuked.”

Since Arabs and Muslims are allowed citizenship in Israel, and since so many Infidel states (including Israel) aid the “Palestinians,” is not Peaceful Co-existence an option?

Since Israel has bent over backwards to make peace with its neighbors, even to the point of (suicidally) giving up land to its enemies, is there no way that the “Palestinians” can compromise?

If you are here justifying “Palestinian” suicide bombings against Israel, would you also argue that Israel has the right to fire-bomb/nuke “Palestinian” camps?

The devil is in the details

In Uncategorized on April 13, 2007 at 4:26 PM

More from the thread linked in the previous post.

And/but/so… Thank you for your courteous reply. I would like to address a few points.

“But your historical highlights are selective. I could pick out similiar astocities, crimes, and bad faith actions by a bunch of groups through the ages, and use them to support a thesis that Christianity is the root of all evil.”

That would be a tu quoque argument, a logical fallacy.

The point I was making is that Islam’s core texts (which contain the expressed will of Allah and the words and deeds of Mohammed) are the source and sustenance of offensive warfare to make the world Islam (Jihad).

To argue that others have done the same (whether or not that is true) does nothing to address my assertion.

I would also note that it is impossible to construct from the words of Christ a theology of offensive warfare, whereas in Islam Jihad is a central doctrine.

“Your quotes are instructive; now how about turning your attention to the Old Testament?”

The only Old Testament command for warfare was given to the people of Israel as they entered Canaan. The command was limited to that time, place, and target only, unlike Islam.

Over the course of the Qur’an’s revelation, Allah’s doctrine on warfare evolved through several stages. Initially, when Mohammed was weak, cooperation with Infidels was urged. As Mohammed grew in power, warring in self-defense was allowed. Later, it was required.

Finally, after Mohammed had realized military, political, and economic success, offensive warfare against all non-Muslims who resist conversion or subjugation was required. Those commands are for all times and places until the hegemony of Allah is established over all mankind.

“My point is a selective reading of any religious tradition allows one to choose what one wants to believe about its followers…”

I think I have succinctly dealt with that accusation, but if I have not addressed it to your satisfaction, please point out to me from the Islamic texts where I have misrepresented them.

My point — the point that so many overlook, deny, or ridicule — is that, just as the “Islamofascists” themselves confess, jihadists are obeying Allah and their prophet. They are neither perverting, distorting, nor taking out of context their scriptures.

Fourteen hundred years of Islamic theology, law, and history seem to support them.

Again, please read Qur’an, Hadith, and Sira for yourself. Demonstrate where I have misrepresented any of Islam’s “sacred” texts.

I would also ask that you show from the Biblical writings where YHWH/Christ make any universal commands for offensive warfare against non-Christians/non-Jews to establish their rule.

“But specious quotes . . . “

If that is a reference to my comments (I can’t tell), please demonstrate from Islam’s texts that they are actually specious.

“I do take exception to the notion that anyone who voted for Hamas supports jihad. Hamas was able to establish itself by providing social supports – schools, medical centers, libraries, etc. – that were lacking in Palestine.”

Isn’t that similar to praising Hitler for his organizational efficiency? Is not Hamas’ sworn purpose to destroy Israel?

“I don’t blame the Israelis, but the plight of the Palestenian people is a sad one, and they are understandably desperate for a saviour. That doesn’t mena all of them are terrorists.”

I have not argued that they are all terrorists.

How many support terrorism? How many support terrorism against Israel? How many support attacks against the United States? How many would welcome the return of the Caliphate and the global rule of Shari’a?

How many of those who do not are willing — or able — to resist their co-religionists who do?

I welcome those who publicly refute and reject forever Jihad and Shari’a, and I fully support those who truly stand for fully equal rights for all non-Muslims and women within Muslim lands.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


In arguing against painting with too broad a brush, it should be asked “Who’s holding the brush?”

JayHub wrote:

“I would not lump the Palestinians in with Islamic jihadists because they are essentially involved in a civil war with the other occupants of what was British Palestine over how that area is to be governed.”

You wouldn’t lump them, but perhaps these would: Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade; Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine (DFLP); Hamas; Palestine Islamic Jihad; The Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO); Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP); Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine – General Command (PFLP-GC); and Popular Resistance Committees (PRC) are all “Palestinian Islamic jihadists.”

And what does Hamas, a group cited above for its charity work (didn’t an American politician cite OBL’s humanitarianism not long ago?) say about this? Straight from their charter:


  • “Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it.”


  • “Israel, by virtue of its being Jewish and of having a Jewish population, defies Islam and the Muslims.”


  • “The Islamic Resistance Movement believes that the land of Palestine is an Islamic Waqf consecrated for future Moslem generations until Judgement Day. It, or any part of it, should not be squandered: it, or any part of it, should not be given up.”


  • “There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavors.”


  • “After Palestine, the Zionists aspire to expand from the Nile to the Euphrates. When they will have digested the region they overtook, they will aspire to further expansion, and so on. Their plan is embodied in the “Protocols of the Elders of Zion”, and their present conduct is the best proof of what we are saying.”


  • “Allah is its [Hamas’] goal, the Prophet its model, the Qur’an its Constitution, Jihad its path and death for the case of Allah its most sublime belief.”

Are you familiar with how the “Palestinian” refugees came to be? Do you know what brought about that “civil” war?

Upon its rebirth, Israel’s Muslim neighbors sought to wipe it out of existence. The poor “Palestinians” were told to leave for a bit, let the military do its work, and then they’d be able to move back in and take over. Only events did not follow that narrative. Israel successfully defended itself several times against its “Islamic jihadist” neighbors. And which Middle Eastern nations accepted into their lands the displaced “Palestinians”?

“You may not like their tactics, but they fight with the weapons they have . . . To say they attack civilians is true, but the point of war is to break the other side’s will to continue and they have few other options. . . . This is why Dresden and Tokyo were fire bombed in WWII and Hiroshima and Nagasaki were nuked.”

Since Arabs and Muslims are allowed citizenship in Israel, and since so many Infidel states (including Israel) aid the “Palestinians,” is not Peaceful Co-existence an option?

Since Israel has bent over backwards to make peace with its neighbors, even to the point of (suicidally) giving up land to its enemies, is there no way that the “Palestinians” can compromise?

If you are here justifying “Palestinian” suicide bombings against Israel, would you also argue that Israel has the right to fire-bomb/nuke “Palestinian” camps?

The devil is in the details

In Uncategorized on April 13, 2007 at 3:26 PM

More from the thread linked in the previous post.

And/but/so… Thank you for your courteous reply. I would like to address a few points.

“But your historical highlights are selective. I could pick out similiar astocities, crimes, and bad faith actions by a bunch of groups through the ages, and use them to support a thesis that Christianity is the root of all evil.”

That would be a tu quoque argument, a logical fallacy.

The point I was making is that Islam’s core texts (which contain the expressed will of Allah and the words and deeds of Mohammed) are the source and sustenance of offensive warfare to make the world Islam (Jihad).

To argue that others have done the same (whether or not that is true) does nothing to address my assertion.

I would also note that it is impossible to construct from the words of Christ a theology of offensive warfare, whereas in Islam Jihad is a central doctrine.

“Your quotes are instructive; now how about turning your attention to the Old Testament?”

The only Old Testament command for warfare was given to the people of Israel as they entered Canaan. The command was limited to that time, place, and target only, unlike Islam.

Over the course of the Qur’an’s revelation, Allah’s doctrine on warfare evolved through several stages. Initially, when Mohammed was weak, cooperation with Infidels was urged. As Mohammed grew in power, warring in self-defense was allowed. Later, it was required.

Finally, after Mohammed had realized military, political, and economic success, offensive warfare against all non-Muslims who resist conversion or subjugation was required. Those commands are for all times and places until the hegemony of Allah is established over all mankind.

“My point is a selective reading of any religious tradition allows one to choose what one wants to believe about its followers…”

I think I have succinctly dealt with that accusation, but if I have not addressed it to your satisfaction, please point out to me from the Islamic texts where I have misrepresented them.

My point — the point that so many overlook, deny, or ridicule — is that, just as the “Islamofascists” themselves confess, jihadists are obeying Allah and their prophet. They are neither perverting, distorting, nor taking out of context their scriptures.

Fourteen hundred years of Islamic theology, law, and history seem to support them.

Again, please read Qur’an, Hadith, and Sira for yourself. Demonstrate where I have misrepresented any of Islam’s “sacred” texts.

I would also ask that you show from the Biblical writings where YHWH/Christ make any universal commands for offensive warfare against non-Christians/non-Jews to establish their rule.

“But specious quotes . . . “

If that is a reference to my comments (I can’t tell), please demonstrate from Islam’s texts that they are actually specious.

“I do take exception to the notion that anyone who voted for Hamas supports jihad. Hamas was able to establish itself by providing social supports – schools, medical centers, libraries, etc. – that were lacking in Palestine.”

Isn’t that similar to praising Hitler for his organizational efficiency? Is not Hamas’ sworn purpose to destroy Israel?

“I don’t blame the Israelis, but the plight of the Palestenian people is a sad one, and they are understandably desperate for a saviour. That doesn’t mena all of them are terrorists.”

I have not argued that they are all terrorists.

How many support terrorism? How many support terrorism against Israel? How many support attacks against the United States? How many would welcome the return of the Caliphate and the global rule of Shari’a?

How many of those who do not are willing — or able — to resist their co-religionists who do?

I welcome those who publicly refute and reject forever Jihad and Shari’a, and I fully support those who truly stand for fully equal rights for all non-Muslims and women within Muslim lands.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


In arguing against painting with too broad a brush, it should be asked “Who’s holding the brush?”

JayHub wrote:

“I would not lump the Palestinians in with Islamic jihadists because they are essentially involved in a civil war with the other occupants of what was British Palestine over how that area is to be governed.”

You wouldn’t lump them, but perhaps these would: Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade; Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine (DFLP); Hamas; Palestine Islamic Jihad; The Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO); Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP); Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine – General Command (PFLP-GC); and Popular Resistance Committees (PRC) are all “Palestinian Islamic jihadists.”

And what does Hamas, a group cited above for its charity work (didn’t an American politician cite OBL’s humanitarianism not long ago?) say about this? Straight from their charter:


  • “Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it.”


  • “Israel, by virtue of its being Jewish and of having a Jewish population, defies Islam and the Muslims.”


  • “The Islamic Resistance Movement believes that the land of Palestine is an Islamic Waqf consecrated for future Moslem generations until Judgement Day. It, or any part of it, should not be squandered: it, or any part of it, should not be given up.”


  • “There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavors.”


  • “After Palestine, the Zionists aspire to expand from the Nile to the Euphrates. When they will have digested the region they overtook, they will aspire to further expansion, and so on. Their plan is embodied in the “Protocols of the Elders of Zion”, and their present conduct is the best proof of what we are saying.”


  • “Allah is its [Hamas’] goal, the Prophet its model, the Qur’an its Constitution, Jihad its path and death for the case of Allah its most sublime belief.”

Are you familiar with how the “Palestinian” refugees came to be? Do you know what brought about that “civil” war?

Upon its rebirth, Israel’s Muslim neighbors sought to wipe it out of existence. The poor “Palestinians” were told to leave for a bit, let the military do its work, and then they’d be able to move back in and take over. Only events did not follow that narrative. Israel successfully defended itself several times against its “Islamic jihadist” neighbors. And which Middle Eastern nations accepted into their lands the displaced “Palestinians”?

“You may not like their tactics, but they fight with the weapons they have . . . To say they attack civilians is true, but the point of war is to break the other side’s will to continue and they have few other options. . . . This is why Dresden and Tokyo were fire bombed in WWII and Hiroshima and Nagasaki were nuked.”

Since Arabs and Muslims are allowed citizenship in Israel, and since so many Infidel states (including Israel) aid the “Palestinians,” is not Peaceful Co-existence an option?

Since Israel has bent over backwards to make peace with its neighbors, even to the point of (suicidally) giving up land to its enemies, is there no way that the “Palestinians” can compromise?

If you are here justifying “Palestinian” suicide bombings against Israel, would you also argue that Israel has the right to fire-bomb/nuke “Palestinian” camps?

Only a hint of a beginning

In Uncategorized on April 13, 2007 at 11:34 AM

I respect Hugh Hewitt. Admitting the “painful facts” to which he points is only a hint of a beginning.

From here:

And/but/so wrote:

“Honestly, since you labeled everyone who voted for Hamas (as well as most of the Muslims in the Middle East) Jihadist terrorist supporters . . . ,”

Are they not? Can you imagine any terrorist group being elected to national prominence in the United States — even if we had anything remotely resembling such an organization?

What is the one factor common among all “Islamofascists”? Poverty? Frustration and humiliation at not being accepted by racist whites? Colonialism? Western decadence? Envy of our freedoms? Hatred of President Bush?

No, it is the word of Allah and the example of his apostle that unites and motivates jihadists and their supporters, for Mohammed commanded and practiced:

“Fight in the name of Allah and in the way of Allah. Fight against those who disbelieve in Allah. Make a holy war . . . . When you meet your enemies who are polytheists, invite them to three courses of action. . . . Invite them to (accept) Islam; if they respond to you, accept it from them and desist from fighting against them…If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya. . . . If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah’s help and fight them…'” (Muslim Book 019, Number 4294).

In the West, we always hear of the “Five Pillars” of Islam, and they are innocuous. It is this “Sixth Pillar” — Jihad — of which we do not hear (and of which Muslims-In-the-Know want us to hear nothing) that is required of all able-bodied Muslims.

In traditional, historical, Qur’anic Islam, the faithful must struggle in Allah’s cause to make the world Islam. Offensive warfare against non-Muslims (violent Jihad) is one way of accomplishing this.

And violent Jihad is not limited to suicide bombings, as Muslim bloodlust throughout history confirms. How did Islam slaughter and subdue the Middle East, North Africa, Western and Eastern Europe, and Asia?

And though today Islam lacks the organized armies it once did, we still see all sorts of rape, enslavement, shootings, beheadings, and explosions in the name of Allah: Spain, Serbia, Turkey, Madrid, Beslan, Indonesia, Thailand, Malaysia, Sudan, Somalia, Ethiopia, Niger, etc., all testify to the creativity of Allah’s servants today.

Besides violent Jihad, there is the slow, “peaceful”, Civil Jihad, whereby those who would subjugate the world to the Tyranny of Allah are using the West’s own liberties and legal systems to undermine and eventually replace constitutional government with Shari’a.

Add to that Islam’s demographics (especially in Europe), and it is clear that within our lifetimes, we will see Islam plunge one or more European nations into a new Dark Age, only this time, the barbarians may have nuclear weapons and the ideological impetus to use them.

These are the issues Hugh and Dean ought to be addressing, not trying to shield Mormonism from the criticism it deserves or trying to “prove” that which is self-evident (that many liberals are ignorant, craven, or both).

“. . . the next logical question is what to do about it. . . . how about filling us in on the solution?”

1. Admit that it is the “tiny minority of Islamo-fascist fundamentalist extremists” who are teaching and practicing the will of Islam’s god and founder, not the heretics and apostates who want to distort or ignore their own religion’s scriptures and history.

Pope Benedict and Emperor Manuel II Palaeologus were correct.

2. End all aid (financial and otherwise) to Muslim nations.

3. Expel Islam’s “sacred” texts and their preaching from all non-Muslim lands. Short of this, treat them with the contempt and venom Mein Kampf or any other genocidal hate manifesto deserves.

4. Confine Islam to its own borders and rescue the non-Muslims within them.

5. End the West’s dependence on Muslim oil, the Accident of Geology that has fueled the resurgence of Jihad around the world.

Sticks and stones make break bones, but they don’t blow up synagogues.

6. Crush all governments supporting and exporting violent Jihad, just as Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany were no longer allowed to practice their own totalitarian ideologies.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


ScarletPimpernel wrote:

“How many Islamists want to kill us? We just don’t know.”

It is not just “kill”. As noted above, Allah and his false prophet require the fighting against, subduing and humiliating, and killing of non-Muslims to make the world Islam.

Instead, the question to ask is: “Do you support the establishment of Shari’a [Islamic law, cruel to non-Muslims, apostates, and women] in your nation?”

“So stop being alarmists, silly.”

“Alarmist”? “Silly”?

Were the formerly pagan, Jewish, and Christian tribes of Arabia “alarmist” or “silly” when Mohammed and his Ummah raped, enslaved, and slaughtered them?

Were the formerly great empires of Constantinople and Persia “alarmist” or “silly” when they were conquered, humiliated, and destroyed by the faithful of Allah?

Were the predominantly Christian/Jewish lands of Palestine and North Africa “alarmist” or “silly” when their peoples were converted, subdued, and slaughtered so thoroughly by Mohammed’s successors that now their pre-Islamic history is forgotten or denied by many?

Was Spain “alarmist” or “silly” for having to fight for SEVEN AND ONE-HALF CENTURIES to free itself from Muslim rule?

Were the peoples of eastern Europe “alarmist” or “silly” for enduring for over a millennium the rape, kidnapping, and butchering of its men, women, and children (only recently curtailed by the defeat of the Ottoman Empire)?

Were a million Armenians “alarmist” or “silly” when they became victims of “divinely-mandated” genocide?

Was Vienna “alarmist” or “silly” when Islam stormed its gates as late as the seventeenth century?

Was India “alarmist” or “silly” as 70-80 MILLION of its people were butchered by the Religion of Peace?

Are the ten percent of young African boys who survive being captured, enslaved, castrated (without anesthetic), and forced to march for miles into their servitude “alarmist” or “silly”?

Who is being “alarmist” or “silly” when Muslims enter a village in Sudan, ask the women “Muslim or Christian?” and then slice off the breasts of and leave to die in the street those who answered wrongly?

Is it “alarmist” or “silly” when a Copt father — whose daughter has been kidnapped, raped, and forcibly married and converted into the Religion of Tolerance — goes to the local sheriff to report the atrocity and has that government official respond, “Don’t worry. She’s safe in the hands of Islam now”?

Is it “alarmist” or “silly” to note children being slaughtered (some even raped) the first day of school (Beslan), or beheaded on their way to school (Indonesia), in the name of Allah?

How is it “alarmist” or “silly” to note that around the world today, wherever there is a significant Muslim population, intimidation, destruction, and death follow, as in France, where several of its cities face the long-term prospect of being swallowed by “Zones Urbaines Sensibles”?

How is “alarmist” or “silly” to recognize that one fifth of the world’s population has the POTENTIAL to know, believe, and emulate their prophet’s declarations, two of which are:

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

and,

“Allah’s Apostle said, ‘I have been made victorious with terror. The treasures of the world were brought to me and put in my hand’” (Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 220).

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


dstarr wrote:

“Given enough supporters, the real crazies can operate . . . The supporters, being less than hard core, are open to reason and persuasion, unlike the hard core crazies.
Bottom line, what counts is the size of the support base, not the number of crazies.”

The “crazies” obey the command of Allah and follow the teachings and example of Mohammed.

Only a hint of a beginning

In Uncategorized on April 13, 2007 at 11:34 AM

I respect Hugh Hewitt. Admitting the “painful facts” to which he points is only a hint of a beginning.

From here:

And/but/so wrote:

“Honestly, since you labeled everyone who voted for Hamas (as well as most of the Muslims in the Middle East) Jihadist terrorist supporters . . . ,”

Are they not? Can you imagine any terrorist group being elected to national prominence in the United States — even if we had anything remotely resembling such an organization?

What is the one factor common among all “Islamofascists”? Poverty? Frustration and humiliation at not being accepted by racist whites? Colonialism? Western decadence? Envy of our freedoms? Hatred of President Bush?

No, it is the word of Allah and the example of his apostle that unites and motivates jihadists and their supporters, for Mohammed commanded and practiced:

“Fight in the name of Allah and in the way of Allah. Fight against those who disbelieve in Allah. Make a holy war . . . . When you meet your enemies who are polytheists, invite them to three courses of action. . . . Invite them to (accept) Islam; if they respond to you, accept it from them and desist from fighting against them…If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya. . . . If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah’s help and fight them…'” (Muslim Book 019, Number 4294).

In the West, we always hear of the “Five Pillars” of Islam, and they are innocuous. It is this “Sixth Pillar” — Jihad — of which we do not hear (and of which Muslims-In-the-Know want us to hear nothing) that is required of all able-bodied Muslims.

In traditional, historical, Qur’anic Islam, the faithful must struggle in Allah’s cause to make the world Islam. Offensive warfare against non-Muslims (violent Jihad) is one way of accomplishing this.

And violent Jihad is not limited to suicide bombings, as Muslim bloodlust throughout history confirms. How did Islam slaughter and subdue the Middle East, North Africa, Western and Eastern Europe, and Asia?

And though today Islam lacks the organized armies it once did, we still see all sorts of rape, enslavement, shootings, beheadings, and explosions in the name of Allah: Spain, Serbia, Turkey, Madrid, Beslan, Indonesia, Thailand, Malaysia, Sudan, Somalia, Ethiopia, Niger, etc., all testify to the creativity of Allah’s servants today.

Besides violent Jihad, there is the slow, “peaceful”, Civil Jihad, whereby those who would subjugate the world to the Tyranny of Allah are using the West’s own liberties and legal systems to undermine and eventually replace constitutional government with Shari’a.

Add to that Islam’s demographics (especially in Europe), and it is clear that within our lifetimes, we will see Islam plunge one or more European nations into a new Dark Age, only this time, the barbarians may have nuclear weapons and the ideological impetus to use them.

These are the issues Hugh and Dean ought to be addressing, not trying to shield Mormonism from the criticism it deserves or trying to “prove” that which is self-evident (that many liberals are ignorant, craven, or both).

“. . . the next logical question is what to do about it. . . . how about filling us in on the solution?”

1. Admit that it is the “tiny minority of Islamo-fascist fundamentalist extremists” who are teaching and practicing the will of Islam’s god and founder, not the heretics and apostates who want to distort or ignore their own religion’s scriptures and history.

Pope Benedict and Emperor Manuel II Palaeologus were correct.

2. End all aid (financial and otherwise) to Muslim nations.

3. Expel Islam’s “sacred” texts and their preaching from all non-Muslim lands. Short of this, treat them with the contempt and venom Mein Kampf or any other genocidal hate manifesto deserves.

4. Confine Islam to its own borders and rescue the non-Muslims within them.

5. End the West’s dependence on Muslim oil, the Accident of Geology that has fueled the resurgence of Jihad around the world.

Sticks and stones make break bones, but they don’t blow up synagogues.

6. Crush all governments supporting and exporting violent Jihad, just as Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany were no longer allowed to practice their own totalitarian ideologies.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


ScarletPimpernel wrote:

“How many Islamists want to kill us? We just don’t know.”

It is not just “kill”. As noted above, Allah and his false prophet require the fighting against, subduing and humiliating, and killing of non-Muslims to make the world Islam.

Instead, the question to ask is: “Do you support the establishment of Shari’a [Islamic law, cruel to non-Muslims, apostates, and women] in your nation?”

“So stop being alarmists, silly.”

“Alarmist”? “Silly”?

Were the formerly pagan, Jewish, and Christian tribes of Arabia “alarmist” or “silly” when Mohammed and his Ummah raped, enslaved, and slaughtered them?

Were the formerly great empires of Constantinople and Persia “alarmist” or “silly” when they were conquered, humiliated, and destroyed by the faithful of Allah?

Were the predominantly Christian/Jewish lands of Palestine and North Africa “alarmist” or “silly” when their peoples were converted, subdued, and slaughtered so thoroughly by Mohammed’s successors that now their pre-Islamic history is forgotten or denied by many?

Was Spain “alarmist” or “silly” for having to fight for SEVEN AND ONE-HALF CENTURIES to free itself from Muslim rule?

Were the peoples of eastern Europe “alarmist” or “silly” for enduring for over a millennium the rape, kidnapping, and butchering of its men, women, and children (only recently curtailed by the defeat of the Ottoman Empire)?

Were a million Armenians “alarmist” or “silly” when they became victims of “divinely-mandated” genocide?

Was Vienna “alarmist” or “silly” when Islam stormed its gates as late as the seventeenth century?

Was India “alarmist” or “silly” as 70-80 MILLION of its people were butchered by the Religion of Peace?

Are the ten percent of young African boys who survive being captured, enslaved, castrated (without anesthetic), and forced to march for miles into their servitude “alarmist” or “silly”?

Who is being “alarmist” or “silly” when Muslims enter a village in Sudan, ask the women “Muslim or Christian?” and then slice off the breasts of and leave to die in the street those who answered wrongly?

Is it “alarmist” or “silly” when a Copt father — whose daughter has been kidnapped, raped, and forcibly married and converted into the Religion of Tolerance — goes to the local sheriff to report the atrocity and has that government official respond, “Don’t worry. She’s safe in the hands of Islam now”?

Is it “alarmist” or “silly” to note children being slaughtered (some even raped) the first day of school (Beslan), or beheaded on their way to school (Indonesia), in the name of Allah?

How is it “alarmist” or “silly” to note that around the world today, wherever there is a significant Muslim population, intimidation, destruction, and death follow, as in France, where several of its cities face the long-term prospect of being swallowed by “Zones Urbaines Sensibles”?

How is “alarmist” or “silly” to recognize that one fifth of the world’s population has the POTENTIAL to know, believe, and emulate their prophet’s declarations, two of which are:

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

and,

“Allah’s Apostle said, ‘I have been made victorious with terror. The treasures of the world were brought to me and put in my hand’” (Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 220).

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


dstarr wrote:

“Given enough supporters, the real crazies can operate . . . The supporters, being less than hard core, are open to reason and persuasion, unlike the hard core crazies.
Bottom line, what counts is the size of the support base, not the number of crazies.”

The “crazies” obey the command of Allah and follow the teachings and example of Mohammed.

Only a hint of a beginning

In Uncategorized on April 13, 2007 at 10:34 AM

I respect Hugh Hewitt. Admitting the “painful facts” to which he points is only a hint of a beginning.

From here:

And/but/so wrote:

“Honestly, since you labeled everyone who voted for Hamas (as well as most of the Muslims in the Middle East) Jihadist terrorist supporters . . . ,”

Are they not? Can you imagine any terrorist group being elected to national prominence in the United States — even if we had anything remotely resembling such an organization?

What is the one factor common among all “Islamofascists”? Poverty? Frustration and humiliation at not being accepted by racist whites? Colonialism? Western decadence? Envy of our freedoms? Hatred of President Bush?

No, it is the word of Allah and the example of his apostle that unites and motivates jihadists and their supporters, for Mohammed commanded and practiced:

“Fight in the name of Allah and in the way of Allah. Fight against those who disbelieve in Allah. Make a holy war . . . . When you meet your enemies who are polytheists, invite them to three courses of action. . . . Invite them to (accept) Islam; if they respond to you, accept it from them and desist from fighting against them…If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya. . . . If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah’s help and fight them…'” (Muslim Book 019, Number 4294).

In the West, we always hear of the “Five Pillars” of Islam, and they are innocuous. It is this “Sixth Pillar” — Jihad — of which we do not hear (and of which Muslims-In-the-Know want us to hear nothing) that is required of all able-bodied Muslims.

In traditional, historical, Qur’anic Islam, the faithful must struggle in Allah’s cause to make the world Islam. Offensive warfare against non-Muslims (violent Jihad) is one way of accomplishing this.

And violent Jihad is not limited to suicide bombings, as Muslim bloodlust throughout history confirms. How did Islam slaughter and subdue the Middle East, North Africa, Western and Eastern Europe, and Asia?

And though today Islam lacks the organized armies it once did, we still see all sorts of rape, enslavement, shootings, beheadings, and explosions in the name of Allah: Spain, Serbia, Turkey, Madrid, Beslan, Indonesia, Thailand, Malaysia, Sudan, Somalia, Ethiopia, Niger, etc., all testify to the creativity of Allah’s servants today.

Besides violent Jihad, there is the slow, “peaceful”, Civil Jihad, whereby those who would subjugate the world to the Tyranny of Allah are using the West’s own liberties and legal systems to undermine and eventually replace constitutional government with Shari’a.

Add to that Islam’s demographics (especially in Europe), and it is clear that within our lifetimes, we will see Islam plunge one or more European nations into a new Dark Age, only this time, the barbarians may have nuclear weapons and the ideological impetus to use them.

These are the issues Hugh and Dean ought to be addressing, not trying to shield Mormonism from the criticism it deserves or trying to “prove” that which is self-evident (that many liberals are ignorant, craven, or both).

“. . . the next logical question is what to do about it. . . . how about filling us in on the solution?”

1. Admit that it is the “tiny minority of Islamo-fascist fundamentalist extremists” who are teaching and practicing the will of Islam’s god and founder, not the heretics and apostates who want to distort or ignore their own religion’s scriptures and history.

Pope Benedict and Emperor Manuel II Palaeologus were correct.

2. End all aid (financial and otherwise) to Muslim nations.

3. Expel Islam’s “sacred” texts and their preaching from all non-Muslim lands. Short of this, treat them with the contempt and venom Mein Kampf or any other genocidal hate manifesto deserves.

4. Confine Islam to its own borders and rescue the non-Muslims within them.

5. End the West’s dependence on Muslim oil, the Accident of Geology that has fueled the resurgence of Jihad around the world.

Sticks and stones make break bones, but they don’t blow up synagogues.

6. Crush all governments supporting and exporting violent Jihad, just as Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany were no longer allowed to practice their own totalitarian ideologies.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


ScarletPimpernel wrote:

“How many Islamists want to kill us? We just don’t know.”

It is not just “kill”. As noted above, Allah and his false prophet require the fighting against, subduing and humiliating, and killing of non-Muslims to make the world Islam.

Instead, the question to ask is: “Do you support the establishment of Shari’a [Islamic law, cruel to non-Muslims, apostates, and women] in your nation?”

“So stop being alarmists, silly.”

“Alarmist”? “Silly”?

Were the formerly pagan, Jewish, and Christian tribes of Arabia “alarmist” or “silly” when Mohammed and his Ummah raped, enslaved, and slaughtered them?

Were the formerly great empires of Constantinople and Persia “alarmist” or “silly” when they were conquered, humiliated, and destroyed by the faithful of Allah?

Were the predominantly Christian/Jewish lands of Palestine and North Africa “alarmist” or “silly” when their peoples were converted, subdued, and slaughtered so thoroughly by Mohammed’s successors that now their pre-Islamic history is forgotten or denied by many?

Was Spain “alarmist” or “silly” for having to fight for SEVEN AND ONE-HALF CENTURIES to free itself from Muslim rule?

Were the peoples of eastern Europe “alarmist” or “silly” for enduring for over a millennium the rape, kidnapping, and butchering of its men, women, and children (only recently curtailed by the defeat of the Ottoman Empire)?

Were a million Armenians “alarmist” or “silly” when they became victims of “divinely-mandated” genocide?

Was Vienna “alarmist” or “silly” when Islam stormed its gates as late as the seventeenth century?

Was India “alarmist” or “silly” as 70-80 MILLION of its people were butchered by the Religion of Peace?

Are the ten percent of young African boys who survive being captured, enslaved, castrated (without anesthetic), and forced to march for miles into their servitude “alarmist” or “silly”?

Who is being “alarmist” or “silly” when Muslims enter a village in Sudan, ask the women “Muslim or Christian?” and then slice off the breasts of and leave to die in the street those who answered wrongly?

Is it “alarmist” or “silly” when a Copt father — whose daughter has been kidnapped, raped, and forcibly married and converted into the Religion of Tolerance — goes to the local sheriff to report the atrocity and has that government official respond, “Don’t worry. She’s safe in the hands of Islam now”?

Is it “alarmist” or “silly” to note children being slaughtered (some even raped) the first day of school (Beslan), or beheaded on their way to school (Indonesia), in the name of Allah?

How is it “alarmist” or “silly” to note that around the world today, wherever there is a significant Muslim population, intimidation, destruction, and death follow, as in France, where several of its cities face the long-term prospect of being swallowed by “Zones Urbaines Sensibles”?

How is “alarmist” or “silly” to recognize that one fifth of the world’s population has the POTENTIAL to know, believe, and emulate their prophet’s declarations, two of which are:

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

and,

“Allah’s Apostle said, ‘I have been made victorious with terror. The treasures of the world were brought to me and put in my hand’” (Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 220).

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


dstarr wrote:

“Given enough supporters, the real crazies can operate . . . The supporters, being less than hard core, are open to reason and persuasion, unlike the hard core crazies.
Bottom line, what counts is the size of the support base, not the number of crazies.”

The “crazies” obey the command of Allah and follow the teachings and example of Mohammed.

A Voice of Dhimma in the West

In Uncategorized on April 11, 2007 at 2:07 PM

I commend Hugh Hewitt, for he is closer than ever to admitting the identity of The Enemy We Shall Not Name.

Yet, Mr. Hewitt (and the rest of the West’s political, media, and academic elite) are still so far from the truth. Instead of identifying and addressing the fact that it is Islam itself that fuels Jihad, Hugh is asking for numbers.

From here, first in response to Mr. Hewitt’s request:

ONE HUNDRED PERCENT of those who who know and believe Qur’an is the perfect word of Allah — and that Mohammed’s life (as recorded in Sira and Hadith) is to be emulated — support offensive warfare against Infidels and Apostates to make the world Islam.

Allah commands:

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

and,

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

And Mohammed, Islam’s Ideal Man (Allah calls him a “beautiful pattern of conduct”), stated:

“Fight in the name of Allah and in the way of Allah. Fight against those who disbelieve in Allah. Make a holy war . . . . When you meet your enemies who are polytheists, invite them to three courses of action. . . . Invite them to (accept) Islam; if they respond to you, accept it from them and desist from fighting against them…If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya. . . . If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah’s help and fight them…'” (Muslim Book 019, Number 4294).

This fact — that Allah and his false prophet require the fighting against, subduing and humiliating, and killing of non-Muslims to make the world Islam — is the central fact yet to be acknowledged by our political, media, and academic elites. It is the only truth the admission of which will allow the West to fully defend itself at home and abroad.

As long as the President, Rush, Hugh, et al., insist on misdefining Islam in terms of its heretics and apostates, they only contribute to America’s ignorance, and they delay the day we finally begin to defeat this ideology.

The men and women of our military who sacrifice life and limb for our Life and Liberty deserve nothing less.

The Defense of the West requires nothing less.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Bri64LA wrote:

“Scribbler, I hate to tell you this but the Islamist started a nice little terror war back in 1992. Bombings, beheadings, etc.”

It’s worse than that. “Islamist” atrocities began at the command and with the participation of Mohammed 1400 years ago.

And/but/so added:

“. . . the only things unifying the multitude of different groups that can be lumped together as “the enemy” is a basis in Islam, and a hatred of the US.”

IT is not a “basis in Islam,” but Islam itself — as defined by its “sacred” texts (Qur’an, Sira, Hadith) — that provides the Source and Sustenance of violent Jihad.

From this flows naturally hatred for Zionists and Crusaders.

toady contributed:

“. . . EVERY Muslim ?

“You can’t have a war on a tactic. You can only have a war on a people and if you don’t know who the people are, you can’t win. You can’t win because you don’t know when they have given up.”

Denying the truth because there is no easy answer does not seem useful in addressing the problem, does it?

There are other steps non-Muslim nations can take short of “killing every Muslim.”

A few ideas to start:

1. Admit that it is the “tiny minority of Islamo-fascist fundamentalist extremists” who are teaching and practicing the will of Islam’s god and founder, not the heretics and apostates who want to distort or ignore their own religion’s scriptures and history.

Pope Benedict and Emperor Manuel II Palaeologus were correct.

2. End all aid (financial and otherwise) to Muslim nations.

3. Expel Islam’s “sacred” texts and their preaching from all non-Muslim lands. Short of this, treat them with the contempt and venom Mein Kampf or any other genocidal hate manifesto deserves.

4. Confine Islam to its own borders and rescue the non-Muslims within them.

5. End the West’s dependence on Muslim oil, the accident of geology that has fueled the resurgence of Jihad around the world.

Sticks and stones make break bones, but they don’t blow up synagogues.

6. Crush all governments supporting and exporting violent Jihad, just as Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany were no longer allowed to practice their own totalitarian ideologies.

A Voice of Dhimma in the West

In Uncategorized on April 11, 2007 at 2:07 PM

I commend Hugh Hewitt, for he is closer than ever to admitting the identity of The Enemy We Shall Not Name.

Yet, Mr. Hewitt (and the rest of the West’s political, media, and academic elite) are still so far from the truth. Instead of identifying and addressing the fact that it is Islam itself that fuels Jihad, Hugh is asking for numbers.

From here, first in response to Mr. Hewitt’s request:

ONE HUNDRED PERCENT of those who who know and believe Qur’an is the perfect word of Allah — and that Mohammed’s life (as recorded in Sira and Hadith) is to be emulated — support offensive warfare against Infidels and Apostates to make the world Islam.

Allah commands:

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

and,

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

And Mohammed, Islam’s Ideal Man (Allah calls him a “beautiful pattern of conduct”), stated:

“Fight in the name of Allah and in the way of Allah. Fight against those who disbelieve in Allah. Make a holy war . . . . When you meet your enemies who are polytheists, invite them to three courses of action. . . . Invite them to (accept) Islam; if they respond to you, accept it from them and desist from fighting against them…If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya. . . . If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah’s help and fight them…'” (Muslim Book 019, Number 4294).

This fact — that Allah and his false prophet require the fighting against, subduing and humiliating, and killing of non-Muslims to make the world Islam — is the central fact yet to be acknowledged by our political, media, and academic elites. It is the only truth the admission of which will allow the West to fully defend itself at home and abroad.

As long as the President, Rush, Hugh, et al., insist on misdefining Islam in terms of its heretics and apostates, they only contribute to America’s ignorance, and they delay the day we finally begin to defeat this ideology.

The men and women of our military who sacrifice life and limb for our Life and Liberty deserve nothing less.

The Defense of the West requires nothing less.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Bri64LA wrote:

“Scribbler, I hate to tell you this but the Islamist started a nice little terror war back in 1992. Bombings, beheadings, etc.”

It’s worse than that. “Islamist” atrocities began at the command and with the participation of Mohammed 1400 years ago.

And/but/so added:

“. . . the only things unifying the multitude of different groups that can be lumped together as “the enemy” is a basis in Islam, and a hatred of the US.”

IT is not a “basis in Islam,” but Islam itself — as defined by its “sacred” texts (Qur’an, Sira, Hadith) — that provides the Source and Sustenance of violent Jihad.

From this flows naturally hatred for Zionists and Crusaders.

toady contributed:

“. . . EVERY Muslim ?

“You can’t have a war on a tactic. You can only have a war on a people and if you don’t know who the people are, you can’t win. You can’t win because you don’t know when they have given up.”

Denying the truth because there is no easy answer does not seem useful in addressing the problem, does it?

There are other steps non-Muslim nations can take short of “killing every Muslim.”

A few ideas to start:

1. Admit that it is the “tiny minority of Islamo-fascist fundamentalist extremists” who are teaching and practicing the will of Islam’s god and founder, not the heretics and apostates who want to distort or ignore their own religion’s scriptures and history.

Pope Benedict and Emperor Manuel II Palaeologus were correct.

2. End all aid (financial and otherwise) to Muslim nations.

3. Expel Islam’s “sacred” texts and their preaching from all non-Muslim lands. Short of this, treat them with the contempt and venom Mein Kampf or any other genocidal hate manifesto deserves.

4. Confine Islam to its own borders and rescue the non-Muslims within them.

5. End the West’s dependence on Muslim oil, the accident of geology that has fueled the resurgence of Jihad around the world.

Sticks and stones make break bones, but they don’t blow up synagogues.

6. Crush all governments supporting and exporting violent Jihad, just as Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany were no longer allowed to practice their own totalitarian ideologies.

A Voice of Dhimma in the West

In Uncategorized on April 11, 2007 at 1:07 PM

I commend Hugh Hewitt, for he is closer than ever to admitting the identity of The Enemy We Shall Not Name.

Yet, Mr. Hewitt (and the rest of the West’s political, media, and academic elite) are still so far from the truth. Instead of identifying and addressing the fact that it is Islam itself that fuels Jihad, Hugh is asking for numbers.

From here, first in response to Mr. Hewitt’s request:

ONE HUNDRED PERCENT of those who who know and believe Qur’an is the perfect word of Allah — and that Mohammed’s life (as recorded in Sira and Hadith) is to be emulated — support offensive warfare against Infidels and Apostates to make the world Islam.

Allah commands:

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

and,

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

And Mohammed, Islam’s Ideal Man (Allah calls him a “beautiful pattern of conduct”), stated:

“Fight in the name of Allah and in the way of Allah. Fight against those who disbelieve in Allah. Make a holy war . . . . When you meet your enemies who are polytheists, invite them to three courses of action. . . . Invite them to (accept) Islam; if they respond to you, accept it from them and desist from fighting against them…If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya. . . . If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah’s help and fight them…'” (Muslim Book 019, Number 4294).

This fact — that Allah and his false prophet require the fighting against, subduing and humiliating, and killing of non-Muslims to make the world Islam — is the central fact yet to be acknowledged by our political, media, and academic elites. It is the only truth the admission of which will allow the West to fully defend itself at home and abroad.

As long as the President, Rush, Hugh, et al., insist on misdefining Islam in terms of its heretics and apostates, they only contribute to America’s ignorance, and they delay the day we finally begin to defeat this ideology.

The men and women of our military who sacrifice life and limb for our Life and Liberty deserve nothing less.

The Defense of the West requires nothing less.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Bri64LA wrote:

“Scribbler, I hate to tell you this but the Islamist started a nice little terror war back in 1992. Bombings, beheadings, etc.”

It’s worse than that. “Islamist” atrocities began at the command and with the participation of Mohammed 1400 years ago.

And/but/so added:

“. . . the only things unifying the multitude of different groups that can be lumped together as “the enemy” is a basis in Islam, and a hatred of the US.”

IT is not a “basis in Islam,” but Islam itself — as defined by its “sacred” texts (Qur’an, Sira, Hadith) — that provide the Source and Sustenance of violent Jihad.

From this flows naturally hatred for Zionists and Crusaders.

toady contributed:

“. . . EVERY Muslim ?

“You can’t have a war on a tactic. You can only have a war on a people and if you don’t know who the people are, you can’t win. You can’t win because you don’t know when they have given up.”

Denying the truth because there is no easy answer does not seem useful in addressing the problem, does it?

There are other steps non-Muslim nations can take short of “killing every Muslim.”

A few ideas to start:

1. Admit that it is the “tiny minority of Islamo-fascist fundamentalist extremists” who are teaching and practicing the will of Islam’s god and founder, not the heretics and apostates who want to distort or ignore their own religion’s scriptures and history.

Pope Benedict and Emperor Manuel II Palaeologus were correct.

2. End all aid (financial and otherwise) to Muslim nations.

3. Expel Islam’s “sacred” texts and their preaching from all non-Muslim lands. Short of this, treat them with the contempt and venom Mein Kampf or any other genocidal hate manifesto deserves.

4. Confine Islam to its own borders and rescue the non-Muslims within them.

5. End the West’s dependence on Muslim oil, the accident of geology that has fueled the resurgence of Jihad around the world.

Sticks and stones make break bones, but they don’t blow up synagogues.

6. Crush all governments supporting and exporting violent Jihad, just as Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany were no longer allowed to practice their own totalitarian ideologies.

Echoing error

In Uncategorized on April 9, 2007 at 3:52 PM

From the usually outstanding Dean Barnett:

Allow me to echo Hugh’s sentiments on that shameful New York Times hit-piece on Mormonism. The sentence that really jumped out at me was “A good Mormon is a busy Mormon.”

If the Times were working with any other minority, there would be literally no way to finish that formulation in an inoffensive manner. Go ahead. Give it a try.

“A good Jew is a ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­_______________ Jew.”

“A good African-American is a ­­­­­­­­­____________ African American.”

“A good Latino is a _____________________ Latino.”

“A good woman is a ______________________ woman.”

Dean’s falling into the Muddled Mormon Mind Meld.

To equate religious profession with race/gender is irrational (or dishonest).

The former is chosen and can be revised or rejected. The latter is permanent (despite the efforts of some to the contrary).

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

A follow-up… After scrolling down Hugh’s page, I see now why Dean would make such an appallingly inaccurate analogy.

He’s just elaborating upon Hugh’s malformed comparison (which comes from the same sort of “logic” as, “Don’t critique Islam. What are you, racist?”)

A more accurate analogy would be: “A good Christian/Jew/Buddhist/Hindu/animist/etc. is a ______________________ Christian/Jew/Buddhist/Hindu/animist/etc.”

Being a member of one of those groups, such a statement would not necessarily be offensive.

(This is not an endorsement of the Times piece, by the way.)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Here’s Mitt . . . This is what someone above describes as representing the Republican Party (emphasis mine):

“Republican presidential hopeful Mitt Romney said…he opposed implementing a FLAT INCOME TAX, calling the concept “UNFAIR.”

“…Romney’s tax talk last week coincided with the debut of a new campaign ad in which he vowed that as president, he would ensure that federal spending on programs other than defense GROWS MORE SLOWLY than the inflation rate.”

DISCLAIMER required for the reading/logic impaired:

–No, I do not oppose Mitt as president on the basis of his faith.

–No, I do not see any other major candidate who matches what I want in a president.

–No, I don’t think the Democrats are any better.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Bot undermines his own argument . . .

“Could Mitt Romney be more “Christian” than Evangelicals?”

Obviously, that depends on one’s definition of “Christian.”

Jesus said, “If you love Me, obey My commands.” How would promoting error about the person and work of Christ and His Father qualify anyone as more “Christian” than someone who believes and teaches the truth?

And how does comparing one group to another indicate anything about its truthfulness?

The only way to determine if Mormonism is “Christian” is to compare its doctrine and practice to the Word of Christ.

“Protestants and Catholics subscribe to the Nicene creed, which was initiated by the Emperor Constantine in the Fourth Century to rid Scriptures of the Apocrypha . . . .”

That is patently false.

The Apocrypha remained in the Christian Bible up to the time of the Reformation; even Luther kept it in his translation of the Scriptures into German, calling the texts useful and edifying.

The Roman Catholic Church (from which Luther was unwilling ejected) still uses it.

The Council was called to address Arius’ false teachings on the nature of Christ (a heresy not too dissimilar to Mormonism’s):

“The Nicene Creed was written in 325 A.D. at the Council of Nicea. Hundreds of pastors and theologians were gathered at this council to respond to a false teaching that had arisen in the Church. This false teaching stated that Jesus was not true God [created, not eternal; inferior to the Father; etc.] . . . you can see all kinds of phrases that were included specifically to refute this false teaching.”

The Council, representing all of Christendom, voted overwhelmingly against the heresy because it contradicted the Word of God.

It is unsurprising that Mormonism would oppose a Council and Creed defending the Bible’s teachings on the nature of God, and that they must lie to do so.

Islam also attacks the Creed.

“which made reference to the oral traditions of Jewish and early Christian temple worship.”

Old and New Testament?

“First Century Christian churches, in fact, continued the Jewish temple worship traditions:

. . . Baptism of youth (not infants) . . . Lay clergy . . . Anointing with holy oil . . . white clothing . . . .”

All these practices are still observed throughout Christendom today.

(And Infant Baptism was practiced, or why would the first Christians have been accused of Infanticide?)

“Jewish Temple practices were continued by Christians prior to Constantine”s corruption (see St. Cyril of Jerusalem (315-386) Lecture XXI).”

Much of its form was kept, since the Bible and the Church was Jewish.

Fulfilling the Mosaic ceremonial law was not retained.

“Early Christians were persecuted for keeping their practices sacred, and not allowing non-Christians to witness them . . . .”

Early Christians were persecuted by Jewish authorities for preaching the Messiah. They were persecuted by Rome for refusing to worship the emperor.

They kept their practices secret to avoid persecution.

“A literal reading of the New Testament points to God and Jesus Christ being separate beings, united in purpose. To whom was Jesus praying in Gethsemane . . . ?”

He was praying to His Father.

One cannot pick and choose Scripture, which teaches that Christ and His Father are One in nature, co-eternal with the Holy Spirit. Three Persons, One God.

Apparently, you would have them separate beings, which makes Mormonism polytheistic.

“The Nicene Creed”s definition of the Trinity was influenced by scribes translating the Greek manuscripts into Latin…Scribes later added “the Father, the Word and the Spirit . . . .”

Again untrue. The doctrine of the Trinity is not derived from one verse. It is summarized from the whole of Scripture.

“Members of the Church of Jesus Christ (LDS) have concern for their ancestors” spiritual welfare, so they practice proxy baptism. (1 Corinthians 15:29 & Malachi 4:5-6).”

Your Malachi reference has nothing to do with Baptism, but with the coming of John the Baptist and the Christ.

1 Corinthians 15:29 is arguing in support of the Resurrection, not for baptism for dead ancestors. Where else does the Bible speak of such a thing? Nowhere, but it does say that “a man is appointed to die once and after that, the judgment.”

“The dictionary definition of a Christian is “of, pertaining to, believing in, or belonging to a religion based on the teachings of Jesus Christ . . . .”

Again, since Mormonism preaches a different christ and a different gospel, how can it be called in any meaningful way “Christian”?

“we consider who might be the more authentic Christian.”

Here’s the whole Mormon/Muslim “You Christians lost the truth and our prophet has it” argument.

“If Mitt Romney is a member of a denomination which embraces early Christian theology, he is likely more “Christian” than his detractors.”

As noted throughout my posts on this topic, no Mormon can be considered as embracing “early Christian theology.” “Early ‘Christian’ heresy,” yes.

And poll data may demonstrate Christian apostasy, but it does not make the heretic orthodox.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


TOm’s abject error:

“Arius and the JW’s are the sola scriptura Christians.”

“Sola Gratia, Sola Fide, Sola Scriptura” is Biblical. It is Trinitarian. It is Lutheran. It definitely does *not* belong to heretics.

That you would try to characterize both Jehovah’s Witnesses (Christ is a “god”, not the eternal God) and Arius (Christ is a second, or inferior God; not one essence, nature, or substance with God; not like Him, or equal in dignity, or co-eternal) as being “sola scriptura Christians” demonstrates either the magnitude of your confusion (colossal), or it indicates the depths of deception to which you are willing to sink to lead astray those ignorant of Biblical, historical, orthodox, Christian theology and history.

Stop speaking falsehood.

Every honest-minded person here should research for themselves (not using Mormon/Muslim propaganda) the Nicene Creed, the Council of Nicaea, “Sola Scriptura,” etc.

What’s next, “Mormons are more Catholic/Lutheran/Orthodox than Catholics/Lutherans/Orthodox”?

Echoing error

In Uncategorized on April 9, 2007 at 3:52 PM

From the usually outstanding Dean Barnett:

Allow me to echo Hugh’s sentiments on that shameful New York Times hit-piece on Mormonism. The sentence that really jumped out at me was “A good Mormon is a busy Mormon.”

If the Times were working with any other minority, there would be literally no way to finish that formulation in an inoffensive manner. Go ahead. Give it a try.

“A good Jew is a ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­_______________ Jew.”

“A good African-American is a ­­­­­­­­­____________ African American.”

“A good Latino is a _____________________ Latino.”

“A good woman is a ______________________ woman.”

Dean’s falling into the Muddled Mormon Mind Meld.

To equate religious profession with race/gender is irrational (or dishonest).

The former is chosen and can be revised or rejected. The latter is permanent (despite the efforts of some to the contrary).

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

A follow-up… After scrolling down Hugh’s page, I see now why Dean would make such an appallingly inaccurate analogy.

He’s just elaborating upon Hugh’s malformed comparison (which comes from the same sort of “logic” as, “Don’t critique Islam. What are you, racist?”)

A more accurate analogy would be: “A good Christian/Jew/Buddhist/Hindu/animist/etc. is a ______________________ Christian/Jew/Buddhist/Hindu/animist/etc.”

Being a member of one of those groups, such a statement would not necessarily be offensive.

(This is not an endorsement of the Times piece, by the way.)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Here’s Mitt . . . This is what someone above describes as representing the Republican Party (emphasis mine):

“Republican presidential hopeful Mitt Romney said…he opposed implementing a FLAT INCOME TAX, calling the concept “UNFAIR.”

“…Romney’s tax talk last week coincided with the debut of a new campaign ad in which he vowed that as president, he would ensure that federal spending on programs other than defense GROWS MORE SLOWLY than the inflation rate.”

DISCLAIMER required for the reading/logic impaired:

–No, I do not oppose Mitt as president on the basis of his faith.

–No, I do not see any other major candidate who matches what I want in a president.

–No, I don’t think the Democrats are any better.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Bot undermines his own argument . . .

“Could Mitt Romney be more “Christian” than Evangelicals?”

Obviously, that depends on one’s definition of “Christian.”

Jesus said, “If you love Me, obey My commands.” How would promoting error about the person and work of Christ and His Father qualify anyone as more “Christian” than someone who believes and teaches the truth?

And how does comparing one group to another indicate anything about its truthfulness?

The only way to determine if Mormonism is “Christian” is to compare its doctrine and practice to the Word of Christ.

“Protestants and Catholics subscribe to the Nicene creed, which was initiated by the Emperor Constantine in the Fourth Century to rid Scriptures of the Apocrypha . . . .”

That is patently false.

The Apocrypha remained in the Christian Bible up to the time of the Reformation; even Luther kept it in his translation of the Scriptures into German, calling the texts useful and edifying.

The Roman Catholic Church (from which Luther was unwilling ejected) still uses it.

The Council was called to address Arius’ false teachings on the nature of Christ (a heresy not too dissimilar to Mormonism’s):

“The Nicene Creed was written in 325 A.D. at the Council of Nicea. Hundreds of pastors and theologians were gathered at this council to respond to a false teaching that had arisen in the Church. This false teaching stated that Jesus was not true God [created, not eternal; inferior to the Father; etc.] . . . you can see all kinds of phrases that were included specifically to refute this false teaching.”

The Council, representing all of Christendom, voted overwhelmingly against the heresy because it contradicted the Word of God.

It is unsurprising that Mormonism would oppose a Council and Creed defending the Bible’s teachings on the nature of God, and that they must lie to do so.

Islam also attacks the Creed.

“which made reference to the oral traditions of Jewish and early Christian temple worship.”

Old and New Testament?

“First Century Christian churches, in fact, continued the Jewish temple worship traditions:

. . . Baptism of youth (not infants) . . . Lay clergy . . . Anointing with holy oil . . . white clothing . . . .”

All these practices are still observed throughout Christendom today.

(And Infant Baptism was practiced, or why would the first Christians have been accused of Infanticide?)

“Jewish Temple practices were continued by Christians prior to Constantine”s corruption (see St. Cyril of Jerusalem (315-386) Lecture XXI).”

Much of its form was kept, since the Bible and the Church was Jewish.

Fulfilling the Mosaic ceremonial law was not retained.

“Early Christians were persecuted for keeping their practices sacred, and not allowing non-Christians to witness them . . . .”

Early Christians were persecuted by Jewish authorities for preaching the Messiah. They were persecuted by Rome for refusing to worship the emperor.

They kept their practices secret to avoid persecution.

“A literal reading of the New Testament points to God and Jesus Christ being separate beings, united in purpose. To whom was Jesus praying in Gethsemane . . . ?”

He was praying to His Father.

One cannot pick and choose Scripture, which teaches that Christ and His Father are One in nature, co-eternal with the Holy Spirit. Three Persons, One God.

Apparently, you would have them separate beings, which makes Mormonism polytheistic.

“The Nicene Creed”s definition of the Trinity was influenced by scribes translating the Greek manuscripts into Latin…Scribes later added “the Father, the Word and the Spirit . . . .”

Again untrue. The doctrine of the Trinity is not derived from one verse. It is summarized from the whole of Scripture.

“Members of the Church of Jesus Christ (LDS) have concern for their ancestors” spiritual welfare, so they practice proxy baptism. (1 Corinthians 15:29 & Malachi 4:5-6).”

Your Malachi reference has nothing to do with Baptism, but with the coming of John the Baptist and the Christ.

1 Corinthians 15:29 is arguing in support of the Resurrection, not for baptism for dead ancestors. Where else does the Bible speak of such a thing? Nowhere, but it does say that “a man is appointed to die once and after that, the judgment.”

“The dictionary definition of a Christian is “of, pertaining to, believing in, or belonging to a religion based on the teachings of Jesus Christ . . . .”

Again, since Mormonism preaches a different christ and a different gospel, how can it be called in any meaningful way “Christian”?

“we consider who might be the more authentic Christian.”

Here’s the whole Mormon/Muslim “You Christians lost the truth and our prophet has it” argument.

“If Mitt Romney is a member of a denomination which embraces early Christian theology, he is likely more “Christian” than his detractors.”

As noted throughout my posts on this topic, no Mormon can be considered as embracing “early Christian theology.” “Early ‘Christian’ heresy,” yes.

And poll data may demonstrate Christian apostasy, but it does not make the heretic orthodox.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


TOm’s abject error:

“Arius and the JW’s are the sola scriptura Christians.”

“Sola Gratia, Sola Fide, Sola Scriptura” is Biblical. It is Trinitarian. It is Lutheran. It definitely does *not* belong to heretics.

That you would try to characterize both Jehovah’s Witnesses (Christ is a “god”, not the eternal God) and Arius (Christ is a second, or inferior God; not one essence, nature, or substance with God; not like Him, or equal in dignity, or co-eternal) as being “sola scriptura Christians” demonstrates either the magnitude of your confusion (colossal), or it indicates the depths of deception to which you are willing to sink to lead astray those ignorant of Biblical, historical, orthodox, Christian theology and history.

Stop speaking falsehood.

Every honest-minded person here should research for themselves (not using Mormon/Muslim propaganda) the Nicene Creed, the Council of Nicaea, “Sola Scriptura,” etc.

What’s next, “Mormons are more Catholic/Lutheran/Orthodox than Catholics/Lutherans/Orthodox”?

Echoing error

In Uncategorized on April 9, 2007 at 2:52 PM

From the usually outstanding Dean Barnett:

Allow me to echo Hugh’s sentiments on that shameful New York Times hit-piece on Mormonism. The sentence that really jumped out at me was “A good Mormon is a busy Mormon.”

If the Times were working with any other minority, there would be literally no way to finish that formulation in an inoffensive manner. Go ahead. Give it a try.

“A good Jew is a ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­_______________ Jew.”

“A good African-American is a ­­­­­­­­­____________ African American.”

“A good Latino is a _____________________ Latino.”

“A good woman is a ______________________ woman.”

Dean’s falling into the Muddled Mormon Mind Meld.

To equate religious profession with race/gender is irrational (or dishonest).

The former is chosen and can be revised or rejected. The latter is permanent (despite the efforts of some to the contrary).

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

A follow-up… After scrolling down Hugh’s page, I see now why Dean would make such an appallingly inaccurate analogy.

He’s just elaborating upon Hugh’s malformed comparison (which comes from the same sort of “logic” as, “Don’t critique Islam. What are you, racist?”)

A more accurate analogy would be: “A good Christian/Jew/Buddhist/Hindu/animist/etc. is a ______________________ Christian/Jew/Buddhist/Hindu/animist/etc.”

Being a member of one of those groups, such a statement would not necessarily be offensive.

(This is not an endorsement of the Times piece, by the way.)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Here’s Mitt . . . This is what someone above describes as representing the Republican Party (emphasis mine):

“Republican presidential hopeful Mitt Romney said…he opposed implementing a FLAT INCOME TAX, calling the concept “UNFAIR.”

“…Romney’s tax talk last week coincided with the debut of a new campaign ad in which he vowed that as president, he would ensure that federal spending on programs other than defense GROWS MORE SLOWLY than the inflation rate.”

DISCLAIMER required for the reading/logic impaired:

–No, I do not oppose Mitt as president on the basis of his faith.

–No, I do not see any other major candidate who matches what I want in a president.

–No, I don’t think the Democrats are any better.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Bot undermines his own argument . . .

“Could Mitt Romney be more “Christian” than Evangelicals?”

Obviously, that depends on one’s definition of “Christian.”

Jesus said, “If you love Me, obey My commands.” How would promoting error about the person and work of Christ and His Father qualify anyone as more “Christian” than someone who believes and teaches the truth?

And how does comparing one group to another indicate anything about its truthfulness?

The only way to determine if Mormonism is “Christian” is to compare its doctrine and practice to the Word of Christ.

“Protestants and Catholics subscribe to the Nicene creed, which was initiated by the Emperor Constantine in the Fourth Century to rid Scriptures of the Apocrypha . . . .”

That is patently false.

The Apocrypha remained in the Christian Bible up to the time of the Reformation; even Luther kept it in his translation of the Scriptures into German, calling the texts useful and edifying.

The Roman Catholic Church (from which Luther was unwilling ejected) still uses it.

The Council was called to address Arius’ false teachings on the nature of Christ (a heresy not too dissimilar to Mormonism’s):

“The Nicene Creed was written in 325 A.D. at the Council of Nicea. Hundreds of pastors and theologians were gathered at this council to respond to a false teaching that had arisen in the Church. This false teaching stated that Jesus was not true God [created, not eternal; inferior to the Father; etc.] . . . you can see all kinds of phrases that were included specifically to refute this false teaching.”

The Council, representing all of Christendom, voted overwhelmingly against the heresy because it contradicted the Word of God.

It is unsurprising that Mormonism would oppose a Council and Creed defending the Bible’s teachings on the nature of God, and that they must lie to do so.

Islam also attacks the Creed.

“which made reference to the oral traditions of Jewish and early Christian temple worship.”

Old and New Testament?

“First Century Christian churches, in fact, continued the Jewish temple worship traditions:

. . . Baptism of youth (not infants) . . . Lay clergy . . . Anointing with holy oil . . . white clothing . . . .”

All these practices are still observed throughout Christendom today.

(And Infant Baptism was practiced, or why would the first Christians have been accused of Infanticide?)

“Jewish Temple practices were continued by Christians prior to Constantine”s corruption (see St. Cyril of Jerusalem (315-386) Lecture XXI).”

Much of its form was kept, since the Bible and the Church was Jewish.

Fulfilling the Mosaic ceremonial law was not retained.

“Early Christians were persecuted for keeping their practices sacred, and not allowing non-Christians to witness them . . . .”

Early Christians were persecuted by Jewish authorities for preaching the Messiah. They were persecuted by Rome for refusing to worship the emperor.

They kept their practices secret to avoid persecution.

“A literal reading of the New Testament points to God and Jesus Christ being separate beings, united in purpose. To whom was Jesus praying in Gethsemane . . . ?”

He was praying to His Father.

One cannot pick and choose Scripture, which teaches that Christ and His Father are One in nature, co-eternal with the Holy Spirit. Three Persons, One God.

Apparently, you would have them separate beings, which makes Mormonism polytheistic.

“The Nicene Creed”s definition of the Trinity was influenced by scribes translating the Greek manuscripts into Latin…Scribes later added “the Father, the Word and the Spirit . . . .”

Again untrue. The doctrine of the Trinity is not derived from one verse. It is summarized from the whole of Scripture.

“Members of the Church of Jesus Christ (LDS) have concern for their ancestors” spiritual welfare, so they practice proxy baptism. (1 Corinthians 15:29 & Malachi 4:5-6).”

Your Malachi reference has nothing to do with Baptism, but with the coming of John the Baptist and the Christ.

1 Corinthians 15:29 is arguing in support of the Resurrection, not for baptism for dead ancestors. Where else does the Bible speak of such a thing? Nowhere, but it does say that “a man is appointed to die once and after that, the judgment.”

“The dictionary definition of a Christian is “of, pertaining to, believing in, or belonging to a religion based on the teachings of Jesus Christ . . . .”

Again, since Mormonism preaches a different christ and a different gospel, how can it be called in any meaningful way “Christian”?

“we consider who might be the more authentic Christian.”

Here’s the whole Mormon/Muslim “You Christians lost the truth and our prophet has it” argument.

“If Mitt Romney is a member of a denomination which embraces early Christian theology, he is likely more “Christian” than his detractors.”

As noted throughout my posts on this topic, no Mormon can be considered as embracing “early Christian theology.” “Early ‘Christian’ heresy,” yes.

And poll data may demonstrate Christian apostasy, but it does not make the heretic orthodox.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


TOm’s abject error:

“Arius and the JW’s are the sola scriptura Christians.”

“Sola Gratia, Sola Fide, Sola Scriptura” is Biblical. It is Trinitarian. It is Lutheran. It definitely does *not* belong to heretics.

That you would try to characterize both Jehovah’s Witnesses (Christ is a “god”, not the eternal God) and Arius (Christ is a second, or inferior God; not one essence, nature, or substance with God; not like Him, or equal in dignity, or co-eternal) as being “sola scriptura Christians” demonstrates either the magnitude of your confusion (colossal), or it indicates the depths of deception to which you are willing to sink to lead astray those ignorant of Biblical, historical, orthodox, Christian theology and history.

Stop speaking falsehood.

Every honest-minded person here should research for themselves (not using Mormon/Muslim propaganda) the Nicene Creed, the Council of Nicaea, “Sola Scriptura,” etc.

What’s next, “Mormons are more Catholic/Lutheran/Orthodox than Catholics/Lutherans/Orthodox”?

The slaughter of the innocent continues at the hands of Allah

In Uncategorized on April 3, 2007 at 11:49 PM

And if the President had understood Islam, much innocent life may have been spared. From here:

Iraq’s Assyrian Christians face extinction four years after the toppling of Saddam, says Ed West. “When they cook a dish in the Middle East, it is traditional to put the meat on top of the rice when they serve it. They kidnapped a woman’s baby in Baghdad, a toddler, and because the mother was unable to pay the ransom, they returned her child – beheaded, roasted and served on a mound of rice.”

The infant’s crime was to be an Assyrian, but this story, reported by the Barnabus Fund, went unnoticed in the West, like so many other horrific accounts of Christian persecution in Iraq. Since the invasion of Iraq, Muslim militants have bombed 28 churches and murdered hundreds of Christians. Last October, Islamists beheaded a priest in Mosul in revenge for the Pope’s remarks about Islam at Regensburg. But never let it be said that jihadis do not have a sense of ironic humour: that same month they crucified a 14-year-old Christian boy in Basra.

The latest report by the UN High Commissioner for Refugees estimates that two million Iraqis have fled since the invasion, and almost a third of these are Assyrian – who are down from 1.4 million in Saddam’s Iraq to fewer than 500,000 today.

The Assyrians are one of the world’s oldest civilisations. Their empire collapsed in 612 BC after four and a half millennia of civilisation; Rome was still a village and the Angles and Saxons were a thousand years away from forming a partnership. Now, while one of the world’s oldest Christian nations faces extinction at the hands of Islamic extremists, the West does nothing.

Albert Michael and Eva Shamouel are the British representatives of the Assyrian Aid Society (AAS). Both fled Baathist Iraq as children, joining Britain’s 8,000 strong Assyrian community based in west London. “I was brought up in an area of Baghdad called Dora before coming here when I was six,” says Albert. “Dora was entirely made up of Assyrian Christians, but then the Baath party came along, and Saddam moved Arabs in to break up the concentration.” Now the whole city, particularly Dora, is a no-go area.

The AAS was founded in 1991 after Saddam moved his troops into the region commonly known as Kurdistan, although it is also the historical homeland of the Assyrians. A few members of the Assyrian Democratic Movement formed an emergency relief group to help those most in need of food, water, medicine and blankets, the first humanitarian charity to reach those refugees. “Since then we have raised $4.2m [£2.1m] from our own efforts,” says Albert. Most comes from America, but the British branch has recently become more organised, receiving official charitable status last summer.

So far they have received little help from outside their own people: “There were a few donations; the French embassy, one or two churches in Germany.” This is not down to an absence of Christian charity, they point out, but ignorance. “I still remember this image of a woman holding a child fleeing for her life in 1991,” says Albert. “The BBC interviewed her, and she was referred to as a Kurd, even though she was speaking Aramaic. Everyone was labelled a Kurd.”

Aramaic is the language of the Assyrians, who are also referred to as Syriacs, Chaldeans or ChaldoAssyrians. “We have five different churches, several dialects, and three different names, but we are one people,” Albert stresses. Aramaic is also, of course, the language of Jesus and was spoken (with an American accent) in Mel Gibson’s film, The Passion of the Christ.

Albert and Eva’s forefathers have been Christian since at least the second century, and helped to spread the Word as far as China. Their history has been one of struggle. They survived the Muslim Arab invasion of the seventh century, and centuries of Turkish rule, a period that culminated in the genocide of 1914-1918, known as the Sefyo (“sword”). While Turkey remains in a state of denial about the murder of one million Armenians, the rest of the world is largely unaware that as many as 750,000 Assyrians and 200,000 Greeks were also butchered on the orders of the Turks, largely aided by the Kurds.

Assyrian groups around the world recently wrote to Sylvester Stallone after it was announced that he is making a film about the Armenian Genocide. “We hope Sly doesn’t forget us,” Albert says. After Iraq was created with the help of the Assyrians – nicknamed “Britain’s smallest ally” in the First World War – they suffered persecution at the hands of the Arabs, who accused them of being conspirators with their imperialist fellow Christians.

The 1933 massacre of 3,000 civilians in Dohuk, northern Iraq, inspired the Polish lawyer Raphael Lemkin to coin the word “genocide”. Now, Arab militants have almost cleansed southern Iraq of Assyrians, and in the north, Kurdish extremists are behind numerous unpublicised murders. “The Kurdish authorities don’t even want to recognise us – they call us ‘Christian Kurds’ ” – an irony that would not be lost on their compatriots over the border, officially labelled “Mountain Turks.”

The plight of Christian women is especially grim. Eva points out: “A lot of women, both Christian and Muslim, are forced to cover their heads, whereas before you could go out without being intimidated, or having acid thrown on your face.” Albert explains that it was unheard of for Christian women to turn to prostitution before. “But now there are numerous accounts in Jordan and Syria, and all out of desperation to feed their children. Some are selling their body parts, kidneys, but the worst case I heard was a woman with two children who had given up hope of feeding them. She ended up selling her children to Muslims.” The women – often widows – are not allowed to work, while the West refuses to shelter them, finding their existence an embarrassment to Britain and America.

The AAS raises the money in the West and hands it straight to compatriots in the Middle East, with minimal administration costs (readers will also be pleased to know they cannot afford “charity muggers”). The funds pay for schools, housing, medical clinics, farming machinery, irrigation projects and other vital basics. “Saddam destroyed over 200 of our towns and villages, but with our very limited resources, we have rebuilt hundreds of homes.”

But their main hope is for a Christian administrative area in the Nineveh Plains, once their ancient capital. Without this protection, their numbers will shrink until they will reach a tipping point. Soon, Assyrian civilisation may only exist in the British Museum, where their monuments still draw tourists from around the world. In the year that Britain agonises over its past role in the slave trade, it is inaction – on the part of a nation that both created and destroyed Iraq – that now threatens to blacken our country’s name.

The slaughter of the innocent continues at the hands of Allah

In Uncategorized on April 3, 2007 at 10:49 PM

And if the President had understood Islam, much innocent life may have been spared. From here:

Iraq’s Assyrian Christians face extinction four years after the toppling of Saddam, says Ed West. “When they cook a dish in the Middle East, it is traditional to put the meat on top of the rice when they serve it. They kidnapped a woman’s baby in Baghdad, a toddler, and because the mother was unable to pay the ransom, they returned her child – beheaded, roasted and served on a mound of rice.”

The infant’s crime was to be an Assyrian, but this story, reported by the Barnabus Fund, went unnoticed in the West, like so many other horrific accounts of Christian persecution in Iraq. Since the invasion of Iraq, Muslim militants have bombed 28 churches and murdered hundreds of Christians. Last October, Islamists beheaded a priest in Mosul in revenge for the Pope’s remarks about Islam at Regensburg. But never let it be said that jihadis do not have a sense of ironic humour: that same month they crucified a 14-year-old Christian boy in Basra.

The latest report by the UN High Commissioner for Refugees estimates that two million Iraqis have fled since the invasion, and almost a third of these are Assyrian – who are down from 1.4 million in Saddam’s Iraq to fewer than 500,000 today.

The Assyrians are one of the world’s oldest civilisations. Their empire collapsed in 612 BC after four and a half millennia of civilisation; Rome was still a village and the Angles and Saxons were a thousand years away from forming a partnership. Now, while one of the world’s oldest Christian nations faces extinction at the hands of Islamic extremists, the West does nothing.

Albert Michael and Eva Shamouel are the British representatives of the Assyrian Aid Society (AAS). Both fled Baathist Iraq as children, joining Britain’s 8,000 strong Assyrian community based in west London. “I was brought up in an area of Baghdad called Dora before coming here when I was six,” says Albert. “Dora was entirely made up of Assyrian Christians, but then the Baath party came along, and Saddam moved Arabs in to break up the concentration.” Now the whole city, particularly Dora, is a no-go area.

The AAS was founded in 1991 after Saddam moved his troops into the region commonly known as Kurdistan, although it is also the historical homeland of the Assyrians. A few members of the Assyrian Democratic Movement formed an emergency relief group to help those most in need of food, water, medicine and blankets, the first humanitarian charity to reach those refugees. “Since then we have raised $4.2m [£2.1m] from our own efforts,” says Albert. Most comes from America, but the British branch has recently become more organised, receiving official charitable status last summer.

So far they have received little help from outside their own people: “There were a few donations; the French embassy, one or two churches in Germany.” This is not down to an absence of Christian charity, they point out, but ignorance. “I still remember this image of a woman holding a child fleeing for her life in 1991,” says Albert. “The BBC interviewed her, and she was referred to as a Kurd, even though she was speaking Aramaic. Everyone was labelled a Kurd.”

Aramaic is the language of the Assyrians, who are also referred to as Syriacs, Chaldeans or ChaldoAssyrians. “We have five different churches, several dialects, and three different names, but we are one people,” Albert stresses. Aramaic is also, of course, the language of Jesus and was spoken (with an American accent) in Mel Gibson’s film, The Passion of the Christ.

Albert and Eva’s forefathers have been Christian since at least the second century, and helped to spread the Word as far as China. Their history has been one of struggle. They survived the Muslim Arab invasion of the seventh century, and centuries of Turkish rule, a period that culminated in the genocide of 1914-1918, known as the Sefyo (“sword”). While Turkey remains in a state of denial about the murder of one million Armenians, the rest of the world is largely unaware that as many as 750,000 Assyrians and 200,000 Greeks were also butchered on the orders of the Turks, largely aided by the Kurds.

Assyrian groups around the world recently wrote to Sylvester Stallone after it was announced that he is making a film about the Armenian Genocide. “We hope Sly doesn’t forget us,” Albert says. After Iraq was created with the help of the Assyrians – nicknamed “Britain’s smallest ally” in the First World War – they suffered persecution at the hands of the Arabs, who accused them of being conspirators with their imperialist fellow Christians.

The 1933 massacre of 3,000 civilians in Dohuk, northern Iraq, inspired the Polish lawyer Raphael Lemkin to coin the word “genocide”. Now, Arab militants have almost cleansed southern Iraq of Assyrians, and in the north, Kurdish extremists are behind numerous unpublicised murders. “The Kurdish authorities don’t even want to recognise us – they call us ‘Christian Kurds’ ” – an irony that would not be lost on their compatriots over the border, officially labelled “Mountain Turks.”

The plight of Christian women is especially grim. Eva points out: “A lot of women, both Christian and Muslim, are forced to cover their heads, whereas before you could go out without being intimidated, or having acid thrown on your face.” Albert explains that it was unheard of for Christian women to turn to prostitution before. “But now there are numerous accounts in Jordan and Syria, and all out of desperation to feed their children. Some are selling their body parts, kidneys, but the worst case I heard was a woman with two children who had given up hope of feeding them. She ended up selling her children to Muslims.” The women – often widows – are not allowed to work, while the West refuses to shelter them, finding their existence an embarrassment to Britain and America.

The AAS raises the money in the West and hands it straight to compatriots in the Middle East, with minimal administration costs (readers will also be pleased to know they cannot afford “charity muggers”). The funds pay for schools, housing, medical clinics, farming machinery, irrigation projects and other vital basics. “Saddam destroyed over 200 of our towns and villages, but with our very limited resources, we have rebuilt hundreds of homes.”

But their main hope is for a Christian administrative area in the Nineveh Plains, once their ancient capital. Without this protection, their numbers will shrink until they will reach a tipping point. Soon, Assyrian civilisation may only exist in the British Museum, where their monuments still draw tourists from around the world. In the year that Britain agonises over its past role in the slave trade, it is inaction – on the part of a nation that both created and destroyed Iraq – that now threatens to blacken our country’s name.