Amillennialist

Archive for the ‘Defending jihad’ Category

Some wound with friendly-fire those standing in our defense

In Appeasers and Useful Idiot Dhimmis, Defending jihad, Ignorant and gullible Infidels, The truth about Islam, Tony Sokolow on March 6, 2010 at 12:13 PM

Here’s an exchange (containing minor formatting changes and names redacted) with someone who, while not necessarily intending to advance Allah’s War Against Humanity, does wound with friendly-fire those standing in the way of Islamic supremacism and tyranny.  Since the sniping is intentional, it seems necessary to give one with decent aim but poor judgment a rap on the beezer:

“Thanks a lot for forwarding Kyle-Anne Shiver’s piece. What an old fashioned laff riot. I visited her blog but was unable to find out much about her other than how she acquired her name; that fact that she converted to Catholicism; and that she has big hair.”

You can’t refute the author’s statements of fact nor the conclusions drawn from them, so you attack her (and [an American Patriot]).

Argumentum ad hominem. The last refuge of cowards and tyrants.

By the way, my pointing out your lack of intellectual integrity does not constitute an endorsement of the author’s solution to the Lesser Jihad (Islam’s war against Israel). I’m responding only to what was shared here [in this e-mail exchange].

To which this gentleman responded:

Dear Mr. Matamoros,

If you wish to throw the gauntlet; if you, personally, have anything worth reading to write, I will respond. Kyle-Anne Shiver’s comment was intellectual garbage. It is your right to hate the President if you so desire. But do not for one nanosecond think that any of the crap to which you people subscribe is worth the time to parse and dissect.

[an American Patriot] sends post after post of untruths and empty calories from the blogosphere. You lap them up and accuse me of ad hominem, or in this instance, ad feminem attacks.

What we all need is fewer blogs and more content. Kyle-Anne Shiver’s description of herself is so lacking in content that if you fail to appreciate that, it says volumes about you, just as it said nothing about her.

Look at your last comment. If I were you, I would have the intellectual honesty to be embarrassed. But that’s your problem and [an American Patriot]’s problem. It doesn’t matter what you think; what you say; or what you do. You lack utterly the self awareness to be embarrassed.

So, bring it on if you wish . . . .

And my last step in this dance:

I’d prefer a civil discussion/debate.

Gauntlet-throwing is so Medieval, which I appreciate. But that’s not what you want.  Rather than offer something substantive, you want to call names, demonize, and stifle dissent.  I’ll play along.

I wrote: “You can’t refute the author’s statements of fact nor the conclusions drawn from them, so you attack her (and [an American Patriot]).”  And you respond with . . . more argumentum ad hominem.  Thanks for proving my point.  (Speaking of “an utter lack of self-awareness” . . . .)

if you, personally, have anything worth reading to write

You wouldn’t know, since you don’t actually read what I write.

I’ll respond

With more ad hominems and name-calling, no doubt.

It is your right to hate the President if you so desire.

. . . I’d vote for Obama in 2012 if he would tell the truth and act in defense of America and against totalitarianism, rather than bankrupting and disarming the nation, betraying our friends, and aiding Communist and Muslim tyrants.

But do not for one nanosecond think that any of the crap to which you people subscribe is worth the time to parse and dissect.

“You people”? What are you, racist?*  (And that’s the online equivalent of, “I know you are, but what am I?”)

[an American Patriot] sends post after post of untruths and empty calories from the blogosphere. You lap them up and accuse me of ad hominem, or in this instance, ad feminem attacks.

“hominem.” [an American Patriot] is a man.  Besides that, he’s an honest and passionate defender of American Liberty.  Both facts go a long way toward explaining why you hate him.

What we all need is fewer blogs and more content.

‘blogs are a free man’s modern Gutenberg press.  But that’s your problem, isn’t it?  You don’t want individuals exercising their God-given, unalienable right to speak their minds. You’d rather silence them.

You’re a tyrant.

Kyle-Anne Shiver’s description of herself is so lacking in content

Which goes to show (again) that you don’t actually read, for if you did, you’d have seen that unlike you, I did not go scrounging around her site looking for fodder for personal attacks, I responded to the actual content in the earlier e-mail.

Regarding that, you have yet to point out any error. The only (possibly-) valid criticism of that article is her citation of the “siding with Muslims” quote — “valid” only if you believe the claim that Obama was speaking of defending innocent people against unwarranted persecution, not of protecting the ummah against non-Muslims defending themselves against jihad).

that if you fail to appreciate that, it says volumes about you, just as it said nothing about her.

More of the Accidental Irony of the Dishonest.

Look at your last comment.

Why are you offended? Are you a leftist, a Muslim, or a cannibal?

If I were you, I would have the intellectual honesty to be embarrassed.

That’s a certain text!  If you were me, at least you’d have some intellectual integrity, even if it were enough only to be embarrassed.

But that’s your problem and [an American Patriot]’s problem.

More ad hominem . . . .

It doesn’t matter what you think

Yes, you wouldn’t want to let facts get in your way.

So, bring it on if you wish.

How very “W” of you . . . .

(Now you’re googling frantically “Amillennialist” and “Santiago Matamoros” in order to find something over which you can call me names.)

* I know that was a low blow. I’m almost ashamed. But when someone is intentionally and repeatedly rude to a good man working in defense of Liberty, a good shot to the central nervous system seems apropos.

New site, same tired logical fallacies, historical revisions, and outright falsehoods in defense of jihad

In Al-Andalus, Deceiving non-Muslims, Defending jihad, Hijab, Maheen Siddiqi, Maimonides, Obedient Muslims vs. moderate Muslims, The truth about Islam on November 16, 2009 at 6:36 PM

Offered in response to a “rebuttal,” from here.* I hope Ms. Siddiqi is sincere but misinformed.

Hello, Maheen,

“freedom does not protect you from looking ignorant when you quote sacred text out of context.”

Please, show me where I’ve misrepresented the Islamic texts I posted. It should be easy to do, since I am so “ignorant.” (Didn’t Mr. Appel say we were supposed to be nice?)

“I encourage you to educate yourself on the sacred tradition of hijab and follow it through its heritage in all of the Abrahamic faiths, including Christianity.”

What “sacred tradtion” has hijab outside of Islam?

It is true that propriety in worship in the ancient church included clear gender
distinctions, but that was completely devoid of the tyranny in Muhammad’s
“revelation” and practice.

“Christianity too has quite a violent past but one should not blame the religion for the work of the ignorant. I do not attribute the savage crusades to the peaceful Christian friends that I have, and likewise, you should not attribute the evil works of some Muslims to the beautiful faith of Islam and other Muslims.”

[At least she admits Islam’s “violent past.” Now, to address the Source and Sustenance of that bloodshed!]

That’s a false moral equivalence and a false tu quoque, two “arguments” offered often by jihad’s apologists in response to the genocidal content of their own authoritative texts.

Where have I blamed “other Muslims”? Where did I “attribute the evil works of some Muslims to . . . Islam”?

I quoted Allah and his apostle.

Ironically (and tragically, for non-Muslims) enough, so do those Muslims practicing the “evil works.”

How are you going to convince them that they too are “ignorant” and taking passages “out-of-context”?

How will you persuade [“]all four Sunni schools of jurisprudence, Sahih Muslim, Sahih Bukhari, Sunan Abu Dawud, Ibn Kathir, Ibn Juzayy, Tafsir al-Jalalayn, Ibn Taymiyya, Ibn Khaldun, Muhammad Muhsin Khan, S. K. Malik [. . .] Averroes, al-Ghazzali, numerous Shi’ites,[” (credit Robert Spencer)] etc. of their grievous error?

Are you honestly unaware of Islam’s traditional understanding and practice of offensive jihad against non-Muslims? If not, will you engage in honest discourse? If you are unaware, how can you engage in intelligent discourse?

Christians did commit great sins during the Crusades. (Do you know why the first was called by Pope Urban II? It was for the defense of Christians under siege by . . . Islam.)

When Christians murder, do they do so in fulfillment of Christ’s commands and in accord with His example or not? Since you are expert enough in Christian theology to claim that the hijab is a sacred tradition in Christianity, you must know the answer.

Produce one verse that has Christ commanding believers to enslave or slaughter non-Christians.

Since you are so well-versed in Islamic theology that you can say that I am “ignorant” and taking passages “out-of-context,” when Muslims slaughter innocent non-Muslims in Allah’s name, is that in fulfillment of his commands and Muhammad’s example, or not?

When, “Allah’s Apostle said, ‘I have been made victorious with terror . . . ’” (Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 220), did he really mean, “I’ve succeeded by love and good deeds”?

“If you go so far as to denigrate the Prophet Muhammad”

“denigrate”?

Muhammad married little Aisha when she was six and began raping her when she was nine. What “context” makes that okay? Does that not deserve “denigration”? Are you aware that one of Khomeini’s first acts when he came to power was to lower the marriageable age of girls in Iran to nine? Why is that?

What about Muhammad’s assassinations of those who mocked him — Asma bint Marwan, Abu Akaf? The beheading of the 600-900 bound prisoners of the Banu Qurayza? Muhammad and his followers raping women whose brothers, fathers, and husbands they had just slaughtered? The attack on the innocent Jewish farmers, tilling their fields in the Khaybar Oasis [(credit Hugh Fitzgerald)]? What decent person should not feel rage at such evil?

That is the “Perfect Man,” “uswa hasana[,]” you defend.

If someone who commits theft, slavery, rape, pedophilia, genocide, and blasphemy — and commands others to do the same, calling it “divine” — does not deserve to be denigrated, who does?

More importantly, how can any decent person aware of what Muhammad said and did not condemn his words and deeds?

You claim respect for the Prophets of YHWH and His Christ — how then can you defend Muhammad? For he stated that whoever claims Allah has a son is a blasphemer. If Allah is YHWH (He is not), then Muhammad is calling Jesus a “blasphemer,” since Christ called Himself the Son of God.

“Just look at Spain. Muslims, Christians, Jews, and agnostics/atheists all lived peacefully under the Muslim rule of Spain for hundreds upon hundreds of years; however, the moment Christians overthrew the Muslims, they slaughtered every Muslim man, woman, elderly and child.”

If things were so peaceful, why did the Spaniards slaughter “every Muslim” as soon as they regained their freedom? Why did they overthrow them in the first place?

So, is that what you’ve been taught, or is that what you’ve been taught to offer as a rebuttal to non-Muslims who discover Islam’s texts and history?

“Do a little more reading with the aid of understanding of what you read in a historical context, and you will find a lot of your false notions answered.”

You’re going to have to show from Qur’an, ahadith, and sira that:

-When Muhammad commanded, “Invite . . . demand the jizya . . . then fight,” he really meant, “Invite . . . make small talk . . . befriend.”

-When Muhammad told some Jews, “accept Islam and you’ll be safe,” he really meant, “Let’s have a potluck! How ’bout those Greeks?”

-When Muhammad began raping little nine-year-old Aisha, he was really only giving the local kids a puppet show.

-When Muhammad commanded that whomever leaves Islam should be murdered, he really only meant to exclude him from Bingo.

Here’s a final quotation for you; perhaps [Moses ben Maimon] didn’t really mean what he said, just like Muhammad:

Remember, my coreligionists, that on account of the vast number of our sins, God has hurled us in the midst of this people, the Arabs [Muslims], who have persecuted us severely, and passed baneful and discriminatory legislation against us … Never did a nation molest, degrade, debase, and hate us as much as they . . .

[Although we were dishonored by them beyond human endurance, and had to put up with their fabrications, yet we behave like him who is depicted by the inspired writer: “But I am as a deaf man, I hear not, and I am as a dumb man that openeth not his mouth (Psalm 38: 14).

Similarly our sages instructed/ us to bear the prevarications and preposterousness of Ishmael in silence . . .

We have acquiesced, both old and young, to inure ourselves to humiliation . . .

All this notwithstanding, we do not escape this continual maltreatment which well nigh crushes us.

No matter how we suffer and elect to remain at peace with them [Muslims] they stir up strife and sedition . . .]

-Maimonides, victim of Islam in conquered Spain[, Iggeret Taiman (Epistle to Yemen), edited by A S Halkin; translated by B. Cohen, New York, 1952]

Al-Andalus [or any other Muslim-dominated land] was no paradise for non-Muslims. It was — to varying degrees — just what Allah requires (Qur’an 9:29). Pact of Umar, anyone? You know what that requires, right?

Again, please show from the Islamic texts where I’ve erred. Show me where I’ve been false or unfair.

I encourage you to put your faith in Christ, the Son of God, Who reconciled you to His Father in His body on the cross. True religion is in Him alone.

And here is how Maimonides ended up in Cairo:

Moses was only thirteen years old when Cordova fell into the hands of the fanatical Almohades, and Maimon and all his coreligionists there were compelled to choose between Islam and exile. Maimon and his family chose the latter course, and for twelve years led a nomadic life, wandering hither and thither in Spain.

In 1160 they settled at Fez, where, unknown to the authorities, they hoped to pass as Moslems. This dual life, however, became increasingly dangerous. Maimonides’ reputation was steadily growing, and the authorities began to inquire into the religious disposition of this highly-gifted young man.

He was even charged by an informer with the crime of having relapsed from Islam, and, but for the intercession of a Moslem friend, the poet and theologian Abu al-‘Arab al-Mu’ishah, he would have shared the fate of his friend Judah ibn Shoshan, who had shortly before been executed on a similar charge. These circumstances caused the members of Maimonides’ family to leave Fez. In 1165 they embarked, went to Acre, to Jerusalem, and then to Fostat (Cairo), where they settled.

Death or Islam?  Wandering for twelve years?  Trying to pass as Muslims?  Shared the fate of his friend, executed for “relapsing from Islam”?

So much for that “Golden Age of Islam in Al-Andalus.”

*Updated November 16, 2009 a.D.  Originally posted 05/11/09 at 12:28 AM
A visit to Ms. Siddiqi’s  site shows that she never had the decency to post my incisive and irrefutable rebuttal.

"We can never know why"? Everyone knows why . . .

In Barack Hussein Obama, Defending jihad, Hugh Hewitt misunderstands Islam, John and Ken, M. Zuhdi Jasser, Muslims Against Sharia, Nidal Malik Hasan, The Decline and Fall of the American Republic on November 11, 2009 at 11:29 AM

Only the ignorant, treacherous, and perverse argue otherwise.

Hugh Hewitt rejects the monitoring of American mosques, even though at least three-fourths teach Islamic supremacism in accord with Qur’an and sunnah.

John and Ken finally find the voice to denounce Islam, though they still moderate the truth with “-isms” and “-ists.”

Both are more truthful than the allegedly former-Muslim Obama.

And after so many lives taken, broken, and destroyed in the name of Allah, some referred (sarcastically, in the beginning) to the cause of Hasan’s slaughtering as “Pre-Traumatic Stress Disorder.”

How stupid. How treacherous.

Muslims like Muslims Against Shari’a and M. Zuhdi Jasser excepted — I commend their honesty and decency — every Muslim who knows what their god and prophet require regarding offensive and retaliatory jihad against non-Muslims but does not denounce those teachings publicly and permanently is a terrorist or terrorist-supporter.

For every one who actually carries out violence against “unbelievers,” how many more support, approve of, or appreciate jihad attacks like Hasan’s?

If you want to claim that most Muslims are peace-loving, law-abiding, faithfully-serving-in-the-Armed-Forces kinds of Muslims, then I have a question for you: How do you distinguish between those who actually reject permanently offensive warfare against “unbelievers,” the rape and degradation of women and little girls, and death for apostates and those who instead obey Allah?

Would you have us wait until blood is spilled again?  That may soothe your false sense of self-righteousness, your rotting facade of “tolerance,” but what about the dead and wounded?  What about lives which in this world cannot be mended?

And when your sons and daughters are the ones raped, beheaded, or vaporized in Allah’s name, what will you say?  “How could I have known?”

The truth is, as long as you persist in the pernicious lie that Islam is a “great world religion of peace,” you can have no sure way of determining who is sympathetic (or worse) to jihad.

But I have a way: Point out to your decent, he’s-a-swell-fellow, wouldn’t-hurt-a-fly, he’s-just-like-us Muslim what Allah commands and what Muhammad said and did.

Do they admit, condemn, and denounce those teachings, or do they explode?

If someone believes that their god commands, “kill the pagans wherever you find them . . . Fight against . . . the People of the Book until they feel themselves subdued and pay the jizya . . . Paradise [belongs to those who] kill and are killed [fighting in Allah’s cause]” (Qur’an 9), then that person is an agent of jihad, whether they contribute to it with their actions, “charitable contributions,” litigation, materiel, logistics, votes, letters to the editor, prayers, or reproductive organs.

Since Allah commands and Muhammad practiced offensive warfare against non-Muslims in order to make the world Islam, what EXACTLY is the difference between an “Islamo-fascist, fundamentalist, extremist, fanatical, radical, jihadist, Islamicisi-cisi-cisi-cist” and a “moderate” Muslim?

And B. Hussein Obama aids jihad by outright lying about Islam in general (the Cairo Address) and Hasan’s motivations in particular (“We can never know why.”).

America, you’ve surrendered the keys to the kingdom — you’ve given defense of the kingdom — to the Muslim barbarian hordes.

"We can never know why"? Everyone knows why . . .

In Barack Hussein Obama, Defending jihad, Hugh Hewitt misunderstands Islam, John and Ken, M. Zuhdi Jasser, Muslims Against Sharia, Nidal Malik Hasan, The Decline and Fall of the American Republic on November 11, 2009 at 11:29 AM

Only the ignorant, treacherous, and perverse argue otherwise.

Hugh Hewitt rejects the monitoring of American mosques, even though at least three-fourths teach Islamic supremacism in accord with Qur’an and sunnah.

John and Ken finally find the voice to denounce Islam, though they still moderate the truth with “-isms” and “-ists.”

Both are more truthful than the allegedly former-Muslim Obama.

And after so many lives taken, broken, and destroyed in the name of Allah, some referred (sarcastically, in the beginning) to the cause of Hasan’s slaughtering as “Pre-Traumatic Stress Disorder.”

How stupid. How treacherous.

Muslims like Muslims Against Shari’a and M. Zuhdi Jasser excepted — I commend their honesty and decency — every Muslim who knows what their god and prophet require regarding offensive and retaliatory jihad against non-Muslims but does not denounce those teachings publicly and permanently is a terrorist or terrorist-supporter.

For every one who actually carries out violence against “unbelievers,” how many more support, approve of, or appreciate jihad attacks like Hasan’s?

If you want to claim that most Muslims are peace-loving, law-abiding, faithfully-serving-in-the-Armed-Forces kinds of Muslims, then I have a question for you: How do you distinguish between those who actually reject permanently offensive warfare against “unbelievers,” the rape and degradation of women and little girls, and death for apostates and those who instead obey Allah?

Would you have us wait until blood is spilled again?  That may soothe your false sense of self-righteousness, your rotting facade of “tolerance,” but what about the dead and wounded?  What about lives which in this world cannot be mended?

And when your sons and daughters are the ones raped, beheaded, or vaporized in Allah’s name, what will you say?  “How could I have known?”

The truth is, as long as you persist in the pernicious lie that Islam is a “great world religion of peace,” you can have no sure way of determining who is sympathetic (or worse) to jihad.

But I have a way: Point out to your decent, he’s-a-swell-fellow, wouldn’t-hurt-a-fly, he’s-just-like-us Muslim what Allah commands and what Muhammad said and did.

Do they admit, condemn, and denounce those teachings, or do they explode?

If someone believes that their god commands, “kill the pagans wherever you find them . . . Fight against . . . the People of the Book until they feel themselves subdued and pay the jizya . . . Paradise [belongs to those who] kill and are killed [fighting in Allah’s cause]” (Qur’an 9), then that person is an agent of jihad, whether they contribute to it with their actions, “charitable contributions,” litigation, materiel, logistics, votes, letters to the editor, prayers, or reproductive organs.

Since Allah commands and Muhammad practiced offensive warfare against non-Muslims in order to make the world Islam, what EXACTLY is the difference between an “Islamo-fascist, fundamentalist, extremist, fanatical, radical, jihadist, Islamicisi-cisi-cisi-cist” and a “moderate” Muslim?

And B. Hussein Obama aids jihad by outright lying about Islam in general (the Cairo Address) and Hasan’s motivations in particular (“We can never know why.”).

America, you’ve surrendered the keys to the kingdom — you’ve given defense of the kingdom — to the Muslim barbarian hordes.

Good news, for now, for Rifqa Bary

In Appeasers and Useful Idiot Dhimmis, BMZ, Defending jihad, Ignorant and gullible Infidels, Media, Mohamed Fadly, Resisting Jihad, Rifqa Bary, The truth about Islam, Wafa Sultan on August 24, 2009 at 8:40 AM

Despite the efforts of jihad’s propagandists, outright liars like Mohamed Fadly and BMZ who obfuscate and silence the truth about Muhammad, and Islam’s Useful Idiot dhimmis, like Rory Graycrow Underclass, Dovod, and the entire Western Political-Media Complex, one life has been snatched from the gaping maw of hell, from her own Muslim parents, at least temporarily.

Note also the example of Wafa Sultan. Raised Muslim, she recognized the “violent, hateful Islamic doctrines embedded in the Shariah,” rejected Islam, and now works for human rights in order to save Muslims and non-Muslims alike from Islam.

And I am criticized for pointing out what the texts say, what Wafa Sultan recognizes, for exposing the most hateful ideology in the history of man, one that sends Muslim souls to hell and for non-Muslims, creates hell on Earth.

Good news, for now, for Rifqa Bary:

Geller reported the girl’s friends had accompanied her to the school counselor after they noticed bruises covering her arms and legs that allegedly resulted from beatings by her father and brother. “The middle school, in a serious dereliction of duty, did not report these beatings to child welfare services,” Geller reported. “Beatings were random, violent, unprovoked. Take, for example, when Rifqa and her father Mohamed were driving in the car. He would force her to wear the hijab (head covering), which she hated. In her discomfort she would slouch down, embarrassed, and her father would haul off and sock her in the face so that she never forgot to sit up straight in her costume. The beatings were regular and so much a part of the landscape of Rifqa’s life, she became inured to them …”

Geller said the teen’s case “is a public relations nightmare for Islamist groups, as her plea validates everything that scholars such as Ibn Warraq, Robert Spencer, Dr. Andrew Bostom, Wafa Sultan, etc., have written and said.”

Sultan, a Syrian-born psychiatrist, human rights activist and author, wrote on JihadWatch.org that the case “highlights the danger of creeping jihad in the Western world. “This is not only because of the imminent danger the teenage girl may face right here in the U.S., had the court decided to have her return to her parents’ home, but also because of the mainstream media’s weak response to the severity of this case.

“I was born and raised as a Muslim in Syria. I practiced Islam for thirty years of my life. Now I am a known human rights activist striving to save our future Muslim generations from the impact of the violent, hateful Islamic doctrines embedded in the Shariah,” she continued.

My life is also threatened, not only by my own extended family, but bycountless men who consider themselves devout Muslims. Under Shariah, if a Muslim leaves Islam or converts to another religion he/she is an ‘apostate,’ to be killed. Under Shariah every Muslim has the right to kill such an apostate without any questions asked,” she warned.

Word frequency is the other god’s best defense

In Appeasers and Useful Idiot Dhimmis, Deceiving non-Muslims, Defending jihad, Ignorant and gullible Infidels, Mohamed Fadly, The truth about Islam on August 8, 2009 at 10:14 AM

But DO NOT, under ANY circumstances, pay attention to what the words actually mean.

In response to more Islamic apologia in the Comments here at ACM:

Rory,

I didn’t realize it was you, Graycrow.

So, “in the interests of fairness and LOVE,” you libel the Son of God, defend doctrines from hell “sacralizing” blasphemy, genocide, murder, pedophilia, rape, slavery, vandalism, extortion, theft, and deceit, and defame Reb.

You’ve gone from saying “Christianity is just as bad as Islam,” to “Mohamed used a word twice as much, so he wins.”

That is not progress.

You’ve got one problem:

Jesus commanded, “Love your enemies.”

Muhammad commanded and practiced, “kill the idolaters wherever you find them.”

Jesus poured out His blood for the sins of all.

Allah demands the blood of all who refuse to submit be poured out.

Jesus died on a cross to give Heaven to all.

Allah promises Paradise to all who kill for him.

And you count words. Why would you do that?

Such “analysis” is antithetical to truth.

Using your criterion, since Mr. Fadly and I were discussing the commands of Allah and the example of Muhammad, his double use of the word “love” means that Mohamed was only half-as-truthful as I was.

But then, this little exercise was not about me or Mohamed (it is dishonest of you to engage in ad hominem).

This debate was about what Muhammad and his allah commanded and practiced as defined by Islam’s “sacred” texts.

Though how often a word is used means nothing apart from how that word is used, a search of Qur’an at The Compendium of Muslim Texts turns up 70 passages using the word “love.”

A search of the ESV turns up the word 552 times.

Does that mean that YHWH is almost eight times more loving than than Allah?

One God died for the sins of all.

The other god requires that “unbelievers” die for him.

The other god commands blasphemy against the God Who is love.

The other god commands genocide, murder, pedophilia, rape, slavery, vandalism, extortion, theft, and deceit against all who refuse the “invitation” to its religion.

Is that love?

Devout Muslim terrorists say, “We love death.”

According to your “analysis,” they’re winners.

Speaking of an “existential wasteland.”

Religion of Perpetual Paranoid Rage and Misplaced Priorities burns alive Christians in Pakistan

In Defending jihad, Islam's "divinely" sanctioned persecution of Christian, Lashkar-e-Jhangvi, Pakistan, The truth about Islam on August 3, 2009 at 4:12 PM

Slaughtering Christians over “defiling” a Qur’an. Even if it were true, which is more valuable, paper or people?

How is it possible to defile that which is already profane, again?

From here:

Paramilitary troops patrolled the streets of a town in eastern Pakistan yesterday after Muslim radicals burned to death eight members of a Christian family, raising fears of violence spreading to other areas.

Hundreds of armed supporters of Lashkar-e-Jhangvi, an outlawed Islamic militant group, burned dozens of Christian homes in Gojra over the weekend after allegations that a copy of the Koran had been defiled.

The mob opened fire indiscriminately, threw gas bombs and looted houses as thousands of frightened Christians ran for safety. “They were shouting anti-Christian slogans and attacked our houses,” Rafiq Masih, a resident of the predominantly Christian colony, said. Residents said that police stood aside while the mob went on the rampage. “We kept begging for protection, but police did not take action,” Masih said.

Police and local officials said that at least eight people, including four women and a child, were killed in the fires. Two others died of gunshot wounds. Residents said that the casualties were much higher; one claimed that the number of dead could be in the dozens as many bodies were still buried under the rubble. Shahbaz Bhatti, the Minister for Minorities, said that 40 Christian homes were torched in rioting. He said there was no truth to allegations that a Koran had been defiled, and accused the police of ignoring his appeal to provide protection to Christians.

Tension started mounting last week after Muslims accused three Christian youths of burning a copy of the Koran. They denied the allegations, but clerics called for their death. On Saturday, hundreds of supporters of Lashkar-e-Jhangvi, an outlawed Sunni sectarian group, poured into the town from surrounding districts. The group is believed to have close links with Al Qaeda and has been involved in several terrorist attacks targeting security forces in recent years.

Television footage showed armed men running through the streets, gunfire, and women and children wailing. Blackened furniture lay outside burning homes, while a group of people rushed a man suffering from burns on a cart through the streets. Rehman Malik, the Interior Minister, said that the paramilitary troops were sent after police and the local administration failed to control the situation. Security forces were also placed on high alert to prevent violence from spreading to other towns of Punjab.

Religion of Perpetual Paranoid Rage and Misplaced Priorities burns alive Christians in Pakistan

In Defending jihad, Islam's "divinely" sanctioned persecution of Christian, Lashkar-e-Jhangvi, Pakistan, The truth about Islam on August 3, 2009 at 4:12 PM

Slaughtering Christians over “defiling” a Qur’an. Even if it were true, which is more valuable, paper or people?

How is it possible to defile that which is already profane, again?

From here:

Paramilitary troops patrolled the streets of a town in eastern Pakistan yesterday after Muslim radicals burned to death eight members of a Christian family, raising fears of violence spreading to other areas.

Hundreds of armed supporters of Lashkar-e-Jhangvi, an outlawed Islamic militant group, burned dozens of Christian homes in Gojra over the weekend after allegations that a copy of the Koran had been defiled.

The mob opened fire indiscriminately, threw gas bombs and looted houses as thousands of frightened Christians ran for safety. “They were shouting anti-Christian slogans and attacked our houses,” Rafiq Masih, a resident of the predominantly Christian colony, said. Residents said that police stood aside while the mob went on the rampage. “We kept begging for protection, but police did not take action,” Masih said.

Police and local officials said that at least eight people, including four women and a child, were killed in the fires. Two others died of gunshot wounds. Residents said that the casualties were much higher; one claimed that the number of dead could be in the dozens as many bodies were still buried under the rubble. Shahbaz Bhatti, the Minister for Minorities, said that 40 Christian homes were torched in rioting. He said there was no truth to allegations that a Koran had been defiled, and accused the police of ignoring his appeal to provide protection to Christians.

Tension started mounting last week after Muslims accused three Christian youths of burning a copy of the Koran. They denied the allegations, but clerics called for their death. On Saturday, hundreds of supporters of Lashkar-e-Jhangvi, an outlawed Sunni sectarian group, poured into the town from surrounding districts. The group is believed to have close links with Al Qaeda and has been involved in several terrorist attacks targeting security forces in recent years.

Television footage showed armed men running through the streets, gunfire, and women and children wailing. Blackened furniture lay outside burning homes, while a group of people rushed a man suffering from burns on a cart through the streets. Rehman Malik, the Interior Minister, said that the paramilitary troops were sent after police and the local administration failed to control the situation. Security forces were also placed on high alert to prevent violence from spreading to other towns of Punjab.

Nuclear Iran: At a certain point, non-Muslims around the world can only hope for a revitalized Sunni/Shi’ite "theological debate"

In Barack Hussein Obama, Defending jihad, Iran, The truth about Islam on July 30, 2009 at 6:55 AM

I do not see that there is much to discuss regarding Iran. The Islamic Paradise already funds, supplies materiel, and trains and provides personnel to carry out terrorism against Israel and Lebanon — even against Jews in Argentina — and targets Americans in Iraq.

A-jad gives speeches about a world without Israel (and eventually, America), he’s working to gain nukes while slaughtering his own people, he’s expressed his willingness to trade one of his own cities for Israel in a nuclear exchange, and the Leader of the Free World, the Most Powerful Man on Earth, wants to talk.

Unless America replaces B. Hussein and his courtiers with people who understand jihad before Iran can gain their nukes, Israel’s going to have to go it alone and defend themselves.

If Iran is successful in gaining nukes, Saudi Arabia will want its own arsenal. Jihadists in Pakistan only have to take control of their own. Then you’ve got an Islamic nuclear arms race.

At that point, non-Muslims around the world can only hope for a revitalized Sunni/Shi’ite “theological debate,” something which President Bush, if he had understood Islam at all, would have been encouraging the moment Saddam fell and we did not find large quantities of WMD.

If the world’s Muslims can steal trillions in jizya from infidels with only oil and name-calling, imagine what they’ll be able to extract from the Spineless and Clueless with the threat of a really, really big bang.

When someone’s "deep belief-structure" includes an absolute prohibition of criticism of Muhammad, how can anyone tell the truth?

In Deceiving non-Muslims, Defending jihad, Dialogue with Muslims, False Muslim civility, Mohamed Fadly, The truth about Islam on July 26, 2009 at 1:12 PM

A few thoughts for all free men to consider:

the abrupt wording Mr “A” has chosen has apparently violated the sensitive nature and deep belief-structure of my friend Mohamed Fadly

Ironically, out of Christian concern for Mohamed, my “abrupt wording” is actually toned-down.

But this is where every honest examination of Islam’s “sacred” texts — the written records of Allah’s commands and the words and deeds of Muhammad — always lead, since Mr. Fadly’s “deep belief-structure” includes an absolute prohibition of criticism of Muhammad.

When that’s the case, how can anyone tell the truth?

In my last post on why a woman must cover up under Islam, the only adjectives I used about Muhammad were “paranoid” and “jealous.”

Do those two words compare at all in harm to the actual rape, brutality, and degradation women and little girls suffered at Muhammad’s own hands (and other body parts) and [in accord with his example] emulated by devout Muslim men for fourteen hundred years?

If anyone, including Mohamed, can demonstrate where I’ve written something false, I will retract it.

Mr. Fadly’s reaction is nothing new personally for him (or among Muslims in general), and so adds to this discussion by providing some insight into the attitudes and thought processes Muhammad’s words and example shape in his followers:

Once ascendant, when Allah’s apostle heard someone say something he didn’t like, he had them killed (the poetess Asma bint Marwan opposed Muhammad, so he had her murdered. At least her killer set her nursing baby aside before he ran her through).

The same sort of death-for-criticizing-Muhammad has been carried out against non-Muslims for 1400 years (see the Pact of Umar and modern blasphemy/Qur’an-desecration laws for two vivid examples . . . .).

Today, those faithful Muslims who find themselves in a position of strength in a society (lands in which some form of shari’a dominates) do the same thing: Behead someone here, burn down something there.

Those who are not in the dominant position in their host country (most Western nations) resort to — besides violence — name-calling, law suits, and playing the victim.

Sometimes they shoot nuns over cartoons.

[Or imprison teachers over teddy bears.]

If Muhammad beheaded 700-900 Jews who had surrendered to him, is it improper to call him a “butcher” (or worse)?

If Muhammad began raping little Aisha when she was nine — at Allah’s ordaining! — is it rude to say so?

Is it moral to speak “nicely” about such depravity?

I agree that my presentation can be forceful at times, but is it ever inaccurate, disproportionate to the evil under discussion, or false?

This is another form of blaming the victim, of demonizing those who tell the truth about Muhammad.

Here’s conclusive proof of that: Has Mr. Fadly denounced any of his god and prophet’s commands to enslave, rape, and slaughter those who refuse the “invitation” to Islam?

If not, why not?

Is the problem, then, the style of my presentation, or its substance?

My tone, or Mr. Fadly’s integrity?

Update: Two Observations from Mr. Reb:

(A) Because Mr Amillennialist’s wording has given us his clear and unequivocal response to Mohamed’s contentions, I feel it would be both inappropriate and unwise for this referee to say anything…

(B) Mr “A”s words literally jumped off the page (7/25/09) and presents a serious challenge for his opponent. Therefore, I choose to remain neutral…

1. “Mr. Fadly’s ‘deep belief structure’ includes an absolute prohibition of criticism of (prophet) Muhammad…when that is the case, how can anyone tell the truth?”

2. “If anyone, including Mohamed, can demonstrate where I’ve written something false, I will retract it.”

When someone’s "deep belief-structure" includes an absolute prohibition of criticism of Muhammad, how can anyone tell the truth?

In Deceiving non-Muslims, Defending jihad, Dialogue with Muslims, False Muslim civility, Mohamed Fadly, The truth about Islam on July 26, 2009 at 1:12 PM

A few thoughts for all free men to consider:

the abrupt wording Mr “A” has chosen has apparently violated the sensitive nature and deep belief-structure of my friend Mohamed Fadly

Ironically, out of Christian concern for Mohamed, my “abrupt wording” is actually toned-down.

But this is where every honest examination of Islam’s “sacred” texts — the written records of Allah’s commands and the words and deeds of Muhammad — always lead, since Mr. Fadly’s “deep belief-structure” includes an absolute prohibition of criticism of Muhammad.

When that’s the case, how can anyone tell the truth?

In my last post on why a woman must cover up under Islam, the only adjectives I used about Muhammad were “paranoid” and “jealous.”

Do those two words compare at all in harm to the actual rape, brutality, and degradation women and little girls suffered at Muhammad’s own hands (and other body parts) and [in accord with his example] emulated by devout Muslim men for fourteen hundred years?

If anyone, including Mohamed, can demonstrate where I’ve written something false, I will retract it.

Mr. Fadly’s reaction is nothing new personally for him (or among Muslims in general), and so adds to this discussion by providing some insight into the attitudes and thought processes Muhammad’s words and example shape in his followers:

Once ascendant, when Allah’s apostle heard someone say something he didn’t like, he had them killed (the poetess Asma bint Marwan opposed Muhammad, so he had her murdered. At least her killer set her nursing baby aside before he ran her through).

The same sort of death-for-criticizing-Muhammad has been carried out against non-Muslims for 1400 years (see the Pact of Umar and modern blasphemy/Qur’an-desecration laws for two vivid examples . . . .).

Today, those faithful Muslims who find themselves in a position of strength in a society (lands in which some form of shari’a dominates) do the same thing: Behead someone here, burn down something there.

Those who are not in the dominant position in their host country (most Western nations) resort to — besides violence — name-calling, law suits, and playing the victim.

Sometimes they shoot nuns over cartoons.

[Or imprison teachers over teddy bears.]

If Muhammad beheaded 700-900 Jews who had surrendered to him, is it improper to call him a “butcher” (or worse)?

If Muhammad began raping little Aisha when she was nine — at Allah’s ordaining! — is it rude to say so?

Is it moral to speak “nicely” about such depravity?

I agree that my presentation can be forceful at times, but is it ever inaccurate, disproportionate to the evil under discussion, or false?

This is another form of blaming the victim, of demonizing those who tell the truth about Muhammad.

Here’s conclusive proof of that: Has Mr. Fadly denounced any of his god and prophet’s commands to enslave, rape, and slaughter those who refuse the “invitation” to Islam?

If not, why not?

Is the problem, then, the style of my presentation, or its substance?

My tone, or Mr. Fadly’s integrity?

Update: Two Observations from Mr. Reb:

(A) Because Mr Amillennialist’s wording has given us his clear and unequivocal response to Mohamed’s contentions, I feel it would be both inappropriate and unwise for this referee to say anything…

(B) Mr “A”s words literally jumped off the page (7/25/09) and presents a serious challenge for his opponent. Therefore, I choose to remain neutral…

1. “Mr. Fadly’s ‘deep belief structure’ includes an absolute prohibition of criticism of (prophet) Muhammad…when that is the case, how can anyone tell the truth?”

2. “If anyone, including Mohamed, can demonstrate where I’ve written something false, I will retract it.”

"Radicals" aren’t "exploiting" Qur’an, they’re just reading it

In Appeasers and Useful Idiot Dhimmis, Defending jihad, Hitler, Hitler's Mufti, Ignorant and gullible Infidels, Michael J. Totten, The truth about Islam on July 26, 2009 at 2:44 AM

Maxtrue, in his impassioned defense of Islam, doesn’t quite live up to his name.

Perhaps “MaxPropaganda” or “MaxGullible” or “MaxUsefulIdiotDhimmi” or “MaxPoliticalCorrectness” or “MaxLogicalFallacies” — though not as eloquent — would be more accurate (and less tragically-ironic).

He observes:

your analogy is ludicrous. Hitler wasn’t governed by a religious doctrine but by HIS false interpretation of reality and history. He exploited national greivences following the defeat in WW1 and directed them towards Jews and his neighbors who he claimed either took German land or imposed unfair terms of surrender.

Muhammad was governed — or rather, governed others — by “HIS false interpretation of reality and history.” He exploited Man’s vilest impulses and directed them at Jews, Christians, the rest of the non-Muslim world, apostates, women, and little girls.

What do you know about the “religious” doctrines of Islam?

Are you going to plead, “But I have a Muslim dentist, and he’s a real nice guy”? Or, as Hugh Hewitt told Brad Thor recently, “I did a special on so-and-so and interviewed typically-good-natured-erudite-and-charming-moderate-Muslim-what’s-his-name? and he asked, ‘When are you going to give us our due?'” implying that you can define Islam by its apostates.

By what was Hitler governed? What did he seek to accomplish? Who were his allies in that effort?

Hitler sought total domination, the eradication of the Jews, and it was Hitler’s mufti, not Hitlers’ Pope.

Here’s your buddy Muhammad’s desire for total domination:

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

Here’s his desire to eradicate the Jews:

“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).

“. . . We were (sitting) in the mosque when the Messenger of Allah . . . came to us and said: (Let us) go to the Jews. We went out with him until we came to them. The Messenger of Allah . . . stood up and called out to them (saying): O ye assembly of Jews, accept Islam (and) you will be safe.

[. . .]

he killed their men, and distributed their women, children and properties among the Muslims, except that some of them had joined the Messenger of Allah . . . who granted them security. They embraced Islam. The Messenger of Allah . . . turned out all the Jews of Medlina. Banu Qainuqa’ (the tribe of ‘Abdullah b. Salim) and the Jews of Banu Haritha and every other Jew who was in Medina.

[. . .]

“It has been narrated by ‘Umar b. al-Khattib that he heard the Messenger of Allah . . . say: I will expel the Jews and Christians from the Arabian Peninsula and will not leave any but Muslim” (Muslim Book 19, Number 4363-4366).”

Maxtrue continues:

There is not one dictator directing more than a billion Muslims, nor do Islamic despots even have clear control of their populations as Hitler did. We see tonight not “death to Israel” but “death to Russia” and “death to China” on the streets of Tehran. Neda who many Muslims have made the poster girl of resistance was wearing a cross when she died.

Muhammad and his allah “direct [potentially] more than a billion Muslims.”

What do they command? Nothing less than slavery and death for those who refuse the “invitation” to Islam:

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

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

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

“Allah’s Apostle said: ‘I have been 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 those people protesting in Iran do so with various goals in mind. Many of them protest against the Islamic rule that you (apparently unknowingly) defend here.

With regard to Neda Soltani, were you aware that media had removed the cross from photos of her?

Why is that, I wonder?

Max adds:

What Muslim nation poses such enormous risk to the Western world as Hitler did?

9/11.

7/7.

3/11.

Mumbai, repeatedly.

Constantinople, 1453.

Gates of Vienna, 1683.

The Battle of Tours, 732.

Iran with a nuke.

Jihadists gain control of Pakistan’s nukes.

Threat? What threat?

Who’s killed more American civilians, Hitler or Muhammad?

Muslims obeying Allah’s commands and his prophet’s example to wage war against “those who disbelieve” took more American civilian lives in one morning than Hitler could in four years.

And that Tuesday was only one morning’s work.

Devout Muslims emulating Muhammad’s example have carried out nearly 14,000 terrorist attacks since 9/11 alone.

Do you honestly think that the US, Russia and China are no match for Iran, HIzb’Allah or Hamas? Your comparisons while couched in selective history completely ignore the historical differences between Germany and a Greater Islam. Certainly Jews would prefer the Muslim Spain they experiance to the Catholic one they were thrown out of.

Such a conclusion shows your ignorance of dhimma and what Jews endured under your “Islamic Golden Age.”

You’ve been propagandized, Max, and you don’t even know it.

Here’s what one of those lucky Jews had to say about legendary (literally) Islamic tolerance in glorious Al-Andalus:

“Remember, my coreligionists, that on account of the vast number of our sins, God has hurled us in the midst of this people, the Arabs [Muslims], who have persecuted us severely, and passed baneful and discriminatory legislation against us … Never did a nation molest, degrade, debase, and hate us as much as they….”


-Maimonides, victim of Islam in conquered Spain

Here begins the flood of Max’s logical fallacies:

Are you trying to tell us that more than 1 million Muslim Israelis embrace your literal interpretation of the Koran?

And what about the Old Testament? Are you suggesting that Jews around the world accept a literal interpretation of the Old Testament? Are jews of a singular mind? Ultra Orthodox Jews are against Israel whereas some Jews are for a greater Israel.

A straw man and red herring: I’ve never mentioned what “1 million Muslim Israelis embrace” nor what “Jews around the world accept.”

Argumentum ad hominem: It’s not “my literal interpretation” of Islam’s “sacred” texts that matter. It’s how Muslims have interpreted them traditionally, which is, literally, the way Muhammad intended.

Where have I claimed that anyone is of a “singular mind”?

I focus on the Source and Sustenance of nearly one and one-half millennia of global jihad, which is the word of Allah and the example of Muhammad. When I mention individual Muslims from history or current events it is to illustrate Muslim obedience to those dictates and emulation of that example.

And you can’t analyze Islam as you would analyze Judaism, for they are directed by diametrically-opposed moral standards.

Max continues with a stunningly ignorant — and false moral equivalence:

Do you accept the literal interpretation of the New Testament? And if you do, why are you not as equal a threat to Jews as you say Muslims are?

Perhaps because Jesus commanded, “Love your neighbor as yourself” (every person is my “neighbor”), “Treat others the way you want to be treated,” and, “Love your enemies.”

On the other hand, Allah says:

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).

So, it’s not me saying “Muslims are a threat to Jews” . . . it’s Muhammad.

Here comes utter cluelessness, bad logic, and an outright lie:

How many Muslim nations help us in our struggle with radical Islam? How many Muslims serve in our military forces and don’t you insult them by characterizing them falsely?

Where have I “characterized falsely” Muslims in our military?

Paper is not people. Texts are not human beings.

You’re lying. Retract it.

Which Muslim nations actually “help” us? Saudi Arabia, whose royals fund “radical” Islam here and abroad and supported the 9/11 attack? Pakistan, which takes our money gleefully while falling to shari’a? Iraq, whose prime minister celebrated our departure as a “victory”?

Some friends you’ve got there, Max.

Here’s a false tu quoque:

And what slaughter was carried out in the name of Jesus or by communist regimes? Did they not kill, rape and murder far more human beings than all killed by Muslims?

Speaking of “peddling nonsense under the pretense of a lecturing historian”!

No Christian ever murdered, raped, or enslaved in obedience to Christ’s commands, only in violation of them, proving themselves criminals.

Communism has slaughtered scores of millions, but only in the last century.

On the other hand, in obedience to Allah’s command and in emulation of Muhammad’s example, Islam has been enslaving, raping, and butchering non-Muslims, apostates, women, and little girls for nearly one and one-half millennia.

Here’s another false moral equivalence from Max:

Again, shall I quote for you from the Bible?

Please do.

I guarantee you’ll find no command from Christ (or Moses) to enslave, rape, or slaughter those who refuse the “invitation” to Christianity (or Judaism).

It is one thing to say that the literal interpretation of the Koran is used by radicals to promote jihadist thinking, but quite another in extending such thought to all of Islam thus proving to the critical “moderates” that Westerners are just as crazed as Islamic radicals.

Where have I tried to “extend such thought to all of Islam”? The texts say what they say. Muhammad did what he did. His followers conquered, enslaved, raped, brutalized, and butchered whomever they could. Do you know nothing of the spread of Islam?

Talk to the more than ninety-percent of official Islam which upholds offensive jihad against non-Muslims to make the world Islam.

More historical illiteracy from Max:

You prove to them an equivalency of ideology when the way we will eventual triumph against radicalism is not by killing a billion Muslims, but through reformation.

How are you going to “reform a billion Muslims”?

What are you waiting for? You’d better get started!

Quoting their own texts does not “prove an equivalency of ideology.”

Neither did I say, “kill a billion Muslims.” Do you lie habitually?

If you’re referring to the European “Reformation,” that was a return to obedience (more or less, depending on the confession) to the Biblical texts.

You are seeing a comparable Islamic “reformation” in those Muslims who seek to obey Allah’s commands to convert, subjugate and humiliate, or slaughter the non-Muslim world.

And what do you do with the fact that in the Islam Mr. Obama demands we respect, no major school of Sunni jurisprudence (nor Shi’ite) rejects offensive warfare against the non-Muslim world?

Another ad hominem, this time in the form of guilt-by-association:

And your remarks on Hitler are astounding given the apparent alliance between many on your flank with neo-Nazis.

You have no apparent moral reservations about committing libel.

At least you imply (accidentally!) that I despise Hitler.

You’re lying again. Retract it, if you have any integrity.

My comments about Hitler are “astounding” only to the ignorant and the malicious, for I hate tyranny from wherever it comes, whether from a twentieth-century psychotic anti-Semite, or a seventh-century one.

A silly non sequitur from Max:

Do you believe all who do not accept Jesus Christ are going to Hell? Do you believe that woman was created from the rib of Adam? Do you believe Homosexuals sin? Do you believe Jews killed Christ? Why cannot Muslims ask this of Christians? Why cannot Muslims ask if YOU see them as heathens regardless of Jihad?

I am happy to address everyone’s theological questions, since I desire all people to trust in Christ for their salvation.

For the purposes of this discussion, I am concerned less about what Muslims wonder is going on in my head than what they believe their god and prophet require them to do with my head.

You do realize Muhammad commanded beheading non-Muslims for as little as “mischief,” right?

And this is the worst part. Your mindset so angers centrist Westerners like myself, you divide the consensus needed to address the real threat which is the ability of radicals to exploit the Koran in an effort to extend THEIR hegemony. In this struggle we unquestionably need the many moderate Muslims on our side.

Yes, fairy tales are much more effective in winning wars.

Which “mindset,” telling the truth? If that’s so, then you’ve got bigger problems than the ramblings of a “lecturing nonsense peddler.”

Your ignorance of Islamic doctrine and historical practice retards our efforts at self-defense, for you accept unquestioningly the existence of “many moderate Muslims on our side.”

Let’s suppose for the sake of argument that your numbers are correct (“many”) and that they truly are “on our side.” How do those “many” moderates convince their coreligionists-in-doubt that theirs is the “true” Islam when the “radicals” can point to what Muhammad actually said and did?

If the texts say, “demand the jizya . . . subdue . . . kill . . . until all religion is for Allah,” then how are the radicals “exploiting” Qur’an? Aren’t they just reading it?

Your thinking and declarations are counterproductive as you move from reasonable threat assessment of the spread of radicalism into extremism that denies the reality of hundreds of millions of Muslims seeking no Jihad, no death to infidels.

They’re not my declarations, they’re Allah and Muhammad‘s.

You are confusing what Muhammad said and did for what Muslims say and do.

Are you unable to make that simple distinction?

How does confusing the underlying ideology of jihad for those who do not adhere to it help us?

Here comes another tired ad hominem. It seems as though Max is reading from Islamic Apologetics for Dhimmis:

Perhaps you should get out more and see the world. Instead you point to unquestionable Islamic militancy and then spin it to impose your simplistic dialectic on history rather than see history for what it is. How do you explain that the world has more liberty today than it did a thousand years ago? Are you really claiming that human nature does not conspire to be free?

Anyone who can read will see that I’ve not “pointed to unquestionable Islamic militancy,” but the words and works of Muhammad and his allah.

You’re not calling Muhammad an “unquestionable Islamic militant,” are you?

What are you, some kind of Islamophobe?

Or perhaps you’re just unable to admit what your lyin’ eyes are telling you when you read those texts.

As for human liberty? It is true that people want freedom for themselves.

Their neighbors? Not so much.

More often than not, they desire power over their fellows. Even in Ancient Greece, only some men were free.

The Liberty that the world enjoys today is the direct result of the teachings of Christ as embodied in the Declaration of Independence and of the courage and self-sacrifice of the American soldier, Marine, sailor, and airman.

Our Founding Fathers were nearly all orthodox Christians; even Thomas Jefferson — often brought up as a contrary example — confessed that he preferred Christ’s teachings to all others.

He stated:

“The Christian religion, when divested of the rags in which they [the clergy] have enveloped it, and brought to the original purity and simplicity of it’s benevolent institutor, is a religion of all others most friendly to liberty, science, and the freest expansion of the human mind.”

-Thomas Jefferson to Moses Robinson, 1801

"Radicals" aren’t "exploiting" Qur’an, they’re just reading it

In Appeasers and Useful Idiot Dhimmis, Defending jihad, Hitler, Hitler's Mufti, Ignorant and gullible Infidels, Liberty, Michael J. Totten, The truth about Islam, Thomas Jefferson on July 26, 2009 at 2:44 AM

Maxtrue, in his impassioned defense of Islam, doesn’t quite live up to his name.

Perhaps “MaxPropaganda” or “MaxGullible” or “MaxUsefulIdiotDhimmi” or “MaxPoliticalCorrectness” or “MaxLogicalFallacies” — though not as eloquent — would be more accurate (and less tragically-ironic).

He observes:

your analogy is ludicrous. Hitler wasn’t governed by a religious doctrine but by HIS false interpretation of reality and history. He exploited national greivences following the defeat in WW1 and directed them towards Jews and his neighbors who he claimed either took German land or imposed unfair terms of surrender.

Muhammad was governed — or rather, governed others — by “HIS false interpretation of reality and history.” He exploited Man’s vilest impulses and directed them at Jews, Christians, the rest of the non-Muslim world, apostates, women, and little girls.

What do you know about the “religious” doctrines of Islam?

Are you going to plead, “But I have a Muslim dentist, and he’s a real nice guy”? Or, as Hugh Hewitt told Brad Thor recently, “I did a special on so-and-so and interviewed typically-good-natured-erudite-and-charming-moderate-Muslim-what’s-his-name? and he asked, ‘When are you going to give us our due?'” implying that you can define Islam by its apostates.

By what was Hitler governed? What did he seek to accomplish? Who were his allies in that effort?

Hitler sought total domination, the eradication of the Jews, and it was Hitler’s mufti, not Hitlers’ Pope.

Here’s your buddy Muhammad’s desire for total domination:

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

Here’s his desire to eradicate the Jews:

“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).

“. . . We were (sitting) in the mosque when the Messenger of Allah . . . came to us and said: (Let us) go to the Jews. We went out with him until we came to them. The Messenger of Allah . . . stood up and called out to them (saying): O ye assembly of Jews, accept Islam (and) you will be safe.

[. . .]

he killed their men, and distributed their women, children and properties among the Muslims, except that some of them had joined the Messenger of Allah . . . who granted them security. They embraced Islam. The Messenger of Allah . . . turned out all the Jews of Medlina. Banu Qainuqa’ (the tribe of ‘Abdullah b. Salim) and the Jews of Banu Haritha and every other Jew who was in Medina.

[. . .]

“It has been narrated by ‘Umar b. al-Khattib that he heard the Messenger of Allah . . . say: I will expel the Jews and Christians from the Arabian Peninsula and will not leave any but Muslim” (Muslim Book 19, Number 4363-4366).”

Maxtrue continues:

There is not one dictator directing more than a billion Muslims, nor do Islamic despots even have clear control of their populations as Hitler did. We see tonight not “death to Israel” but “death to Russia” and “death to China” on the streets of Tehran. Neda who many Muslims have made the poster girl of resistance was wearing a cross when she died.

Muhammad and his allah “direct [potentially] more than a billion Muslims.”

What do they command? Nothing less than slavery and death for those who refuse the “invitation” to Islam:

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

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

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

“Allah’s Apostle said: ‘I have been 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 those people protesting in Iran do so with various goals in mind. Many of them protest against the Islamic rule that you (apparently unknowingly) defend here.

With regard to Neda Soltani, were you aware that media had removed the cross from photos of her?

Why is that, I wonder?

Max adds:

What Muslim nation poses such enormous risk to the Western world as Hitler did?

9/11.

7/7.

3/11.

Mumbai, repeatedly.

Constantinople, 1453.

Gates of Vienna, 1683.

The Battle of Tours, 732.

Iran with a nuke.

Jihadists gain control of Pakistan’s nukes.

Threat? What threat?

Who’s killed more American civilians, Hitler or Muhammad?

Muslims obeying Allah’s commands and his prophet’s example to wage war against “those who disbelieve” took more American civilian lives in one morning than Hitler could in four years.

And that Tuesday was only one morning’s work.

Devout Muslims emulating Muhammad’s example have carried out nearly 14,000 terrorist attacks since 9/11 alone.

Do you honestly think that the US, Russia and China are no match for Iran, HIzb’Allah or Hamas? Your comparisons while couched in selective history completely ignore the historical differences between Germany and a Greater Islam. Certainly Jews would prefer the Muslim Spain they experiance to the Catholic one they were thrown out of.

Such a conclusion shows your ignorance of dhimma and what Jews endured under your “Islamic Golden Age.”

You’ve been propagandized, Max, and you don’t even know it.

Here’s what one of those lucky Jews had to say about legendary (literally) Islamic tolerance in glorious Al-Andalus:

“Remember, my coreligionists, that on account of the vast number of our sins, God has hurled us in the midst of this people, the Arabs [Muslims], who have persecuted us severely, and passed baneful and discriminatory legislation against us … Never did a nation molest, degrade, debase, and hate us as much as they….”


-Maimonides, victim of Islam in conquered Spain

Here begins the flood of Max’s logical fallacies:

Are you trying to tell us that more than 1 million Muslim Israelis embrace your literal interpretation of the Koran?

And what about the Old Testament? Are you suggesting that Jews around the world accept a literal interpretation of the Old Testament? Are jews of a singular mind? Ultra Orthodox Jews are against Israel whereas some Jews are for a greater Israel.

A straw man and red herring: I’ve never mentioned what “1 million Muslim Israelis embrace” nor what “Jews around the world accept.”

Argumentum ad hominem: It’s not “my literal interpretation” of Islam’s “sacred” texts that matter. It’s how Muslims have interpreted them traditionally, which is, literally, the way Muhammad intended.

Where have I claimed that anyone is of a “singular mind”?

I focus on the Source and Sustenance of nearly one and one-half millennia of global jihad, which is the word of Allah and the example of Muhammad. When I mention individual Muslims from history or current events it is to illustrate Muslim obedience to those dictates and emulation of that example.

And you can’t analyze Islam as you would analyze Judaism, for they are directed by diametrically-opposed moral standards.

Max continues with a stunningly ignorant — and false moral equivalence:

Do you accept the literal interpretation of the New Testament? And if you do, why are you not as equal a threat to Jews as you say Muslims are?

Perhaps because Jesus commanded, “Love your neighbor as yourself” (every person is my “neighbor”), “Treat others the way you want to be treated,” and, “Love your enemies.”

On the other hand, Allah says:

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).

So, it’s not me saying “Muslims are a threat to Jews” . . . it’s Muhammad.

Here comes utter cluelessness, bad logic, and an outright lie:

How many Muslim nations help us in our struggle with radical Islam? How many Muslims serve in our military forces and don’t you insult them by characterizing them falsely?

Where have I “characterized falsely” Muslims in our military?

Paper is not people. Texts are not human beings.

You’re lying. Retract it.

Which Muslim nations actually “help” us? Saudi Arabia, whose royals fund “radical” Islam here and abroad and supported the 9/11 attack? Pakistan, which takes our money gleefully while falling to shari’a? Iraq, whose prime minister celebrated our departure as a “victory”?

Some friends you’ve got there, Max.

Here’s a false tu quoque:

And what slaughter was carried out in the name of Jesus or by communist regimes? Did they not kill, rape and murder far more human beings than all killed by Muslims?

Speaking of “peddling nonsense under the pretense of a lecturing historian”!

No Christian ever murdered, raped, or enslaved in obedience to Christ’s commands, only in violation of them, proving themselves criminals.

Communism has slaughtered scores of millions, but only in the last century.

On the other hand, in obedience to Allah’s command and in emulation of Muhammad’s example, Islam has been enslaving, raping, and butchering non-Muslims, apostates, women, and little girls for nearly one and one-half millennia.

Here’s another false moral equivalence from Max:

Again, shall I quote for you from the Bible?

Please do.

I guarantee you’ll find no command from Christ (or Moses) to enslave, rape, or slaughter those who refuse the “invitation” to Christianity (or Judaism).

It is one thing to say that the literal interpretation of the Koran is used by radicals to promote jihadist thinking, but quite another in extending such thought to all of Islam thus proving to the critical “moderates” that Westerners are just as crazed as Islamic radicals.

Where have I tried to “extend such thought to all of Islam”? The texts say what they say. Muhammad did what he did. His followers conquered, enslaved, raped, brutalized, and butchered whomever they could. Do you know nothing of the spread of Islam?

Talk to the more than ninety-percent of official Islam which upholds offensive jihad against non-Muslims to make the world Islam.

More historical illiteracy from Max:

You prove to them an equivalency of ideology when the way we will eventual triumph against radicalism is not by killing a billion Muslims, but through reformation.

How are you going to “reform a billion Muslims”?

What are you waiting for? You’d better get started!

Quoting their own texts does not “prove an equivalency of ideology.”

Neither did I say, “kill a billion Muslims.” Do you lie habitually?

If you’re referring to the European “Reformation,” that was a return to obedience (more or less, depending on the confession) to the Biblical texts.

You are seeing a comparable Islamic “reformation” in those Muslims who seek to obey Allah’s commands to convert, subjugate and humiliate, or slaughter the non-Muslim world.

And what do you do with the fact that in the Islam Mr. Obama demands we respect, no major school of Sunni jurisprudence (nor Shi’ite) rejects offensive warfare against the non-Muslim world?

Another ad hominem, this time in the form of guilt-by-association:

And your remarks on Hitler are astounding given the apparent alliance between many on your flank with neo-Nazis.

You have no apparent moral reservations about committing libel.

At least you imply (accidentally!) that I despise Hitler.

You’re lying again. Retract it, if you have any integrity.

My comments about Hitler are “astounding” only to the ignorant and the malicious, for I hate tyranny from wherever it comes, whether from a twentieth-century psychotic anti-Semite, or a seventh-century one.

A silly non sequitur from Max:

Do you believe all who do not accept Jesus Christ are going to Hell? Do you believe that woman was created from the rib of Adam? Do you believe Homosexuals sin? Do you believe Jews killed Christ? Why cannot Muslims ask this of Christians? Why cannot Muslims ask if YOU see them as heathens regardless of Jihad?

I am happy to address everyone’s theological questions, since I desire all people to trust in Christ for their salvation.

For the purposes of this discussion, I am concerned less about what Muslims wonder is going on in my head than what they believe their god and prophet require them to do with my head.

You do realize Muhammad commanded beheading non-Muslims for as little as “mischief,” right?

And this is the worst part. Your mindset so angers centrist Westerners like myself, you divide the consensus needed to address the real threat which is the ability of radicals to exploit the Koran in an effort to extend THEIR hegemony. In this struggle we unquestionably need the many moderate Muslims on our side.

Yes, fairy tales are much more effective in winning wars.

Which “mindset,” telling the truth? If that’s so, then you’ve got bigger problems than the ramblings of a “lecturing nonsense peddler.”

Your ignorance of Islamic doctrine and historical practice retards our efforts at self-defense, for you accept unquestioningly the existence of “many moderate Muslims on our side.”

Let’s suppose for the sake of argument that your numbers are correct (“many”) and that they truly are “on our side.” How do those “many” moderates convince their coreligionists-in-doubt that theirs is the “true” Islam when the “radicals” can point to what Muhammad actually said and did?

If the texts say, “demand the jizya . . . subdue . . . kill . . . until all religion is for Allah,” then how are the radicals “exploiting” Qur’an? Aren’t they just reading it?

Your thinking and declarations are counterproductive as you move from reasonable threat assessment of the spread of radicalism into extremism that denies the reality of hundreds of millions of Muslims seeking no Jihad, no death to infidels.

They’re not my declarations, they’re Allah and Muhammad‘s.

You are confusing what Muhammad said and did for what Muslims say and do.

Are you unable to make that simple distinction?

How does confusing the underlying ideology of jihad for those who do not adhere to it help us?

Here comes another tired ad hominem. It seems as though Max is reading from Islamic Apologetics for Dhimmis:

Perhaps you should get out more and see the world. Instead you point to unquestionable Islamic militancy and then spin it to impose your simplistic dialectic on history rather than see history for what it is. How do you explain that the world has more liberty today than it did a thousand years ago? Are you really claiming that human nature does not conspire to be free?

Anyone who can read will see that I’ve not “pointed to unquestionable Islamic militancy,” but the words and works of Muhammad and his allah.

You’re not calling Muhammad an “unquestionable Islamic militant,” are you?

What are you, some kind of Islamophobe?

Or perhaps you’re just unable to admit what your lyin’ eyes are telling you when you read those texts.

As for human liberty? It is true that people want freedom for themselves.

Their neighbors? Not so much.

More often than not, they desire power over their fellows. Even in Ancient Greece, only some men were free.

The Liberty that the world enjoys today is the direct result of the teachings of Christ as embodied in the Declaration of Independence and of the courage and self-sacrifice of the American soldier, Marine, sailor, and airman.

Our Founding Fathers were nearly all orthodox Christians; even Thomas Jefferson — often brought up as a contrary example — confessed that he preferred Christ’s teachings to all others.

He stated:

“The Christian religion, when divested of the rags in which they [the clergy] have enveloped it, and brought to the original purity and simplicity of it’s benevolent institutor, is a religion of all others most friendly to liberty, science, and the freest expansion of the human mind.”

-Thomas Jefferson to Moses Robinson, 1801

Beware treasonous CAIR and their affiliates

In CAIR, Deceiving non-Muslims, Defending jihad, The truth about Islam on July 21, 2009 at 11:18 PM

A quick reminder from Jihad Watch regarding CAIR.

That any government official or media outlet does anything less than expose, shame, and denounce them publicly is incompetence bordering on malfeasance, or worse.

CAIR is an unindicted co-conspirator in a Hamas terror funding case. Its operatives have repeatedly refused to denounce Hamas and Hizballah as terrorist groups. Several of its former officials have been convicted of various crimes related to jihad terror. Several of its other officials have made Islamic supremacist statements. CAIR also was involved in the Flying Imams’ intimidation suit against the passengers who reported their suspicious behavior.

Besides CAIR and their buddies ISNA and MPAC (and coreligionists Jamaat ul-Fuqra, with compounds all over the United States, and the Islamic Thinkers Society), add to your watch-list:

Minaret of Freedom Institute (MFI)

International Institute of Islamic Thought (IIIT)

Association of Muslims Social Scientists—North America (AMSS-NA)

Whichever politicians are responsible for importing (Somali) jihad into Minnesota

And Hizb-ut-Tahrir, which has gone public in Chicago.

They’ll be conducting mandatory public re-education sessions soon at a community center near you.

I wonder, How much longer until Obama pronounces the shahada during a press conference or State of the Union?

Beware treasonous CAIR and their affiliates

In CAIR, Deceiving non-Muslims, Defending jihad, Jihad in America, The truth about Islam on July 21, 2009 at 11:18 PM

A quick reminder from Jihad Watch regarding CAIR.

That any government official or media outlet does anything less than expose, shame, and denounce them publicly is incompetence bordering on malfeasance, or worse.

CAIR is an unindicted co-conspirator in a Hamas terror funding case. Its operatives have repeatedly refused to denounce Hamas and Hizballah as terrorist groups. Several of its former officials have been convicted of various crimes related to jihad terror. Several of its other officials have made Islamic supremacist statements. CAIR also was involved in the Flying Imams’ intimidation suit against the passengers who reported their suspicious behavior.

Besides CAIR and their buddies ISNA, MPAC, and MAS (and coreligionists Jamaat ul-Fuqra, with compounds all over the United States, and the Islamic Thinkers Society), add to your watch-list:

Minaret of Freedom Institute (MFI)

International Institute of Islamic Thought (IIIT)

Association of Muslims Social Scientists—North America (AMSS-NA)

Whichever politicians are responsible for importing (Somali) jihad into Minnesota

And Hizb-ut-Tahrir, which has gone public in Chicago.

They’ll be conducting mandatory public re-education sessions soon at a community center near you.

I wonder, When will Obama pronounce the shahada, during a press conference or a State of the Union address?

Beware treasonous CAIR and their affiliates

In CAIR, Deceiving non-Muslims, Defending jihad, Jihad in America, The truth about Islam on July 21, 2009 at 11:18 PM

A quick reminder from Jihad Watch regarding CAIR.

That any government official or media outlet does anything less than expose, shame, and denounce them publicly is incompetence bordering on malfeasance, or worse.

CAIR is an unindicted co-conspirator in a Hamas terror funding case. Its operatives have repeatedly refused to denounce Hamas and Hizballah as terrorist groups. Several of its former officials have been convicted of various crimes related to jihad terror. Several of its other officials have made Islamic supremacist statements. CAIR also was involved in the Flying Imams’ intimidation suit against the passengers who reported their suspicious behavior.

Besides CAIR and their buddies ISNA, MPAC, and MAS (and coreligionists Jamaat ul-Fuqra, with compounds all over the United States, and the Islamic Thinkers Society), add to your watch-list:

Minaret of Freedom Institute (MFI)

International Institute of Islamic Thought (IIIT)

Association of Muslims Social Scientists—North America (AMSS-NA)

Whichever politicians are responsible for importing (Somali) jihad into Minnesota

And Hizb-ut-Tahrir, which has gone public in Chicago.

They’ll be conducting mandatory public re-education sessions soon at a community center near you.

I wonder, When will Obama pronounce the shahada, during a press conference or a State of the Union address?

Just like Muhammad: Harass and attack a target, and when they finally defend themselves against you, call it "aggression."

In Deceiving non-Muslims, Defending jihad, Israel, Mohamed Fadly, Qibya, The myth of Palestine, The truth about Islam on July 18, 2009 at 10:38 PM

Which puts the lie to a lot of those claims by jihad’s apologists that Muhammad butchered [insert non-Muslim farmers caught working their crops, 120-year-old man, or poetess nursing her baby here] in “self-defense.”

How much of a threat are bound prisoners of war who’ve surrendered, again?

In response to a list of incidents offered as evidence that Israel’s getting what it deserves, events in which it appears that Israel was either fighting for its independence from the British or defending itself against Islamic jihad, posted here:

If Muslims want Israelis to stop killing them, they should stop committing terrorist acts against them.

And if they want their civilians unharmed, stop firing at the Israelis from among them.

It’s just like Muhammad: Harass and attack a target, and when they [finally] defend themselves against you, call it “aggression.”

Briefly with regard to your list, you do realize that some Israelis carried out bombings against the British, pre-independence, right?

Unlike your coreligionists, they were not following a “divine” mandate to enslave or slaughter all who refuse the “invitation” to Judaism, they gave prior warning to avoid innocents dying in at least one bombing (the King David Hotel), they were not targeting civilians, and your Sharon-led mission was condemned by Israel.

(No, not the fingers-crossed-behind-the-back, double-speaking, “We-denounce-terrorism-in-all-its-forms[-but-killing-Jews?-That’s-not-terrorism!”] kinds of “condemnations” in which Islamic spokesmen engage.

Since you do not provide any background regarding the “attacks” you list, nor did I see any links, I looked up one of your events that occurred some time after statehood.

It doesn’t look good for you.

Here* is what I found about your “Qibya massacre” and why it happened: It was in response to more Islamic barbarism:

“The attack took place in the context of border clashes between Israel and neighbouring states, which had begun almost immediately after the signing of the 1949 Armistice Agreements

[. . .]

“between June 1949 and the end of 1952, a total of 57 Israelis, mostly civilians, were killed by infiltrators from Jordan. The Israeli death toll for the first 9 months of 1953 was 32

[. . .]

“The specific incident which the Israeli government used to justify the assault on Qibya occurred on October 12, 1953, when a Jewish mother, Suzanne Kinyas, and her two children were killed by a grenade thrown into their house in the Israeli town of Yehud, some 10 kilometers (6 mi) inside Israel’s border.

[. . .]

“Force had to be used to demonstrate to the Arabs that Israel was in the Middle East to stay, Ben Gurion believed, and to that end he felt strongly that his retaliatory policy had to be continued.”

So, yes, it was self-defense [against Muhammad’s anti-Semitism].

You can’t wage offensive warfare against non-Muslims and then cry “Foul!” when they defend themselves.

At least, not honestly.

*A note: I don’t like to use Wikipedia as a source, but considering that it is often used by apologists for jihad (so there’s [usually] a pro-Islam slant), and I don’t have a desire to chase Mohamed down every rabbit hole, there you go.

Just like Muhammad: Harass and attack a target, and when they finally defend themselves against you, call it "aggression."

In Deceiving non-Muslims, Defending jihad, Israel, Mohamed Fadly, Qibya, The truth about Islam on July 18, 2009 at 10:38 PM

Which puts the lie to a lot of those claims by jihad’s apologists that Muhammad butchered [insert non-Muslim farmers caught working their crops, 120-year-old man, or poetess nursing her baby here] in “self-defense.”

How much of a threat are bound prisoners of war who’ve surrendered, again?

In response to a list of incidents offered as evidence that Israel’s getting what it deserves, events in which it appears that Israel was either fighting for its independence from the British or defending itself against Islamic jihad, posted here:

If Muslims want Israelis to stop killing them, they should stop committing terrorist acts against them.

And if they want their civilians unharmed, stop firing at the Israelis from among them.

It’s just like Muhammad: Harass and attack a target, and when they [finally] defend themselves against you, call it “aggression.”

Briefly with regard to your list, you do realize that some Israelis carried out bombings against the British, pre-independence, right?

Unlike your coreligionists, they were not following a “divine” mandate to enslave or slaughter all who refuse the “invitation” to Judaism, they gave prior warning to avoid innocents dying in at least one bombing (the King David Hotel), they were not targeting civilians, and your Sharon-led mission was condemned by Israel.

(No, not the fingers-crossed-behind-the-back, double-speaking, “We-denounce-terrorism-in-all-its-forms[-but-killing-Jews?-That’s-not-terrorism!”] kinds of “condemnations” in which Islamic spokesmen engage.

Since you do not provide any background regarding the “attacks” you list, nor did I see any links, I looked up one of your events that occurred some time after statehood.

It doesn’t look good for you.

Here* is what I found about your “Qibya massacre” and why it happened: It was in response to more Islamic barbarism:

“The attack took place in the context of border clashes between Israel and neighbouring states, which had begun almost immediately after the signing of the 1949 Armistice Agreements

[. . .]

“between June 1949 and the end of 1952, a total of 57 Israelis, mostly civilians, were killed by infiltrators from Jordan. The Israeli death toll for the first 9 months of 1953 was 32

[. . .]

“The specific incident which the Israeli government used to justify the assault on Qibya occurred on October 12, 1953, when a Jewish mother, Suzanne Kinyas, and her two children were killed by a grenade thrown into their house in the Israeli town of Yehud, some 10 kilometers (6 mi) inside Israel’s border.

[. . .]

“Force had to be used to demonstrate to the Arabs that Israel was in the Middle East to stay, Ben Gurion believed, and to that end he felt strongly that his retaliatory policy had to be continued.”

So, yes, it was self-defense [against Muhammad’s anti-Semitism].

You can’t wage offensive warfare against non-Muslims and then cry “Foul!” when they defend themselves.

At least, not honestly.

*A note: I don’t like to use Wikipedia as a source, but considering that it is often used by apologists for jihad (so there’s [usually] a pro-Islam slant), and I don’t have a desire to chase Mohamed down every rabbit hole, there you go.

Our learned analysts need to recognize Islam’s fundamental semantic flaw: "Peace"

In Appeasers and Useful Idiot Dhimmis, Defending jihad, Ignorant and gullible Infidels, Iraq, Michael J. Totten, The truth about Islam on July 17, 2009 at 6:20 PM

It does not mean what we think it means.

In response to my comment here:

What you are doing is the equivalent of interviewing Germans “on the street” during World War II and drawing conclusions about what should be done to win the war from only those interactions, while ignoring the ideology motivating and sustaining the greater Nazi effort.

Michael Totten replied:

That may well have been the case a few years ago. Apparently you missed it when every insurgent militia and terrorist group in the country got its ass kicked not only by Americans but by Iraqis. Iraqis “vomited out” Al Qaeda, as Charles Krauthammer accurately put it.

Here’s my follow-up:

That’s quite a non sequitur.

I was talking about your attacks on individuals for their pointing out that you are apparently unfamiliar with Islam’s authoritative texts and history, and in “refutation” of that you offer . . . Muslims fighting other Muslims?

Each Iraqi who’s fought with our military against foreign terrorists has done so for their own reason(s). I don’t doubt some of those motives were good.

None of them, however, involve Muhammad’s legendary religious tolerance.

So, are the terrorists in Iraq now, in only the last “few years,” no longer Muslim?

In that case, who’s doing the bombing today, Mennonites? Are the Iraqis returning to their own vomit?

Will there be more or less vomit once America is out?

Sunni and Shi’ite have been slaughtering each other — when not enslaving and butchering non-Muslims — since Muhammad died.

You are also apparently unaware of the fact that the U.S. has and has had terrific relations with Iraq’s Kurds even while the rest of Iraq was on fire. And the Kurds are just as Islamic as the Arabs, though they are less strident and bigoted about their religion.

I don’t recall mentioning the Kurds. Another non sequitur.

Is your point that not all Muslims are terrorists?

I’ve never said otherwise.

A variety of explanations exist for why Muslim nations refrain from attacking us directly.

One would be the large sums of taxpayer-funded jizya we send to several of those countries. Another is the fact that we are still — despite “President” Obama’s best efforts — the only superpower in the world. To openly attack us would be suicide for that government.

(Perhaps you’ve noticed terrorism being carried out by small groups of “misunderstanderers of Islam” so that Muslim governments — the Saudis, anyone? — can maintain plausible deniability. Of course, with Obama apologizing to, dialoguing with, and releasing terrorists, no one will fear our strength for long.)

With regard to the Kurds specifically, they are by definition not as “Islamic” as “the Arabs,” since they’re — in your own words — “less strident and bigoted about their religion.”

After all, Muhammad mandated, “Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him” (Bukhari Volume 9, Book 84, Number 57). You can’t get more “bigoted” than that.

The Kurds’ relatively greater emphasis on their ethnic identity rather than their religion is paralleled in other lands conquered by Islam, even among some Iranians (but I bet if you cite Muhammad’s words or actions disapprovingly to a devout Kurd, that facade of Muslim civility will vaporize instantaneously!). Add to that their desire for a greater Kurdistan and having to contend with both Sunni and Shi’ite Arabs and “Persians,” and you’ve gone a long way toward explaining relatively “good” relations with America.

There may even be some decent people there but again, that is in spite of Islam as defined by Muhammad, not because of it.

Iraq does not need to convert to Christianity or atheism (or whatever it is you’re implying here) for it to be at peace with itself and the West. We have peaceful and normal relations with most Muslim countries. Even Israel has peaceful and normal relations with some Muslim countries. We weren’t at war with Tunisia or Oman or Mali or Kuwait (etc) last time I checked. (I trust I don’t need to give you the whole list.)

A few points:

1) I guess I’m not writing clearly enough. I wasn’t aware I was “implying” anything.

I was stating that you are either unaware of or denying the fundamental role Muhammad’s words and example play in modern Islamic terrorism, which is just one expression of the jihad commanded by Allah and carried out in fits and starts over the last 1400 years, beginning with Muhammad and continuing to this very day (nearly fourteen thousand Islamic terror attacks since 9/11 alone).

Any analysis that fails to account for this is flawed and will only hamper our efforts at self-defense. Spencer and Bostom understand Islam’s history and ideology.

It would be wise for you to do so also.

2) Iraq could possibly be truly at peace with the West, but that will be in spite of Islam, not because of it. How can anyone who obeys Allah’s commands to wage war against all who refuse both the “invitation” to Islam and subjugation as slaves (dhimmis) be[,] by definition[,] “at peace”?

That is logically and linguistically impossible.

What do you know about Turkey? It was a model moderate Muslim state, but that was because Ataturk crushed public expression of political Islam. Now that Erdogan is in charge, in which way is the country moving? Toward shari’a.

Are you aware that just a few years ago (I haven’t checked lately), Mein Kampf was a best-seller there?

Why is that, do you think?

Could it have anything to do with:

“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).

“. . . We were (sitting) in the mosque when the Messenger of Allah . . . came to us and said: (Let us) go to the Jews. We went out with him until we came to them. The Messenger of Allah . . . stood up and called out to them (saying): O ye assembly of Jews, accept Islam (and) you will be safe.

[. . .]

he killed their men, and distributed their women, children and properties among the Muslims, except that some of them had joined the Messenger of Allah . . . who granted them security. They embraced Islam. The Messenger of Allah . . . turned out all the Jews of Medlina. Banu Qainuqa’ (the tribe of ‘Abdullah b. Salim) and the Jews of Banu Haritha and every other Jew who was in Medina.

[. . .]

“It has been narrated by ‘Umar b. al-Khattib that he heard the Messenger of Allah . . . say: I will expel the Jews and Christians from the Arabian Peninsula and will not leave any but Muslim” (Muslim Book 19, Number 4363-4366)”?

3) If you knew of Muhammad’s practice — which is exemplary for Muslims because Allah called him a “beautiful pattern of conduct for those who want to please” him — you would know that when the Camp of Islam is weak, it seeks time to build or regain its strength (you see this in the truces for which Hamas calls whenever Israel finally gets serious about defending itself).

When strong enough, Muhammad violated his treaties and attacked his enemies (“enemies” because they would not submit to his “religion”).

Iraq’s problems have been catastrophic, and religious zealotry has been only one of its problems. If Iraq is doomed solely because it is Muslim, then every Muslim country should look like Iraq. Yet that’s not the case

This is simplistic and inaccurate.

Iraq may be doomed for a variety of reasons; the main one is that once under the rule of Allah, always under the rule of Allah. Secular rule must be abolished.

You have two main threats to Iraq’s viability. One is that those forces seeking to subjugate the country to full-blown shari’a (you are aware that shari’a is part of the Iraqi constitution, right?) will use any means necessary — including terrorist bombings, kidnappings, and assassinations — to accomplish this goal.

The second major threat is the conflict between Sunni and Shi’ite. Ahmadinejad’s been courting Maliki. Considering Iraq’s Shi’ite majority and Iran’s nearing completion on its own nukes, it can’t be long before the majority Sunni nations (or their agents) enter into more overt efforts against their historic rivals. Perhaps you’ve heard recently of Saudi Arabia’s tacit consent for Israel’s use of its airspace to take out the Iranian program.

What’s happened to Iraq’s Jews and Christians? Have you interviewed any of those people “on the street”? Probably not, since Iraq’s ancient Jewish population has been largely driven out of the country and its Christians are routinely threatened, intimidated, and murdered. Their numbers are dwindling rapidly.

Why is that, do you think?

I hope that Iraq can become a nation truly free from Islam. You see in Iran among those protesting for an Islamic tyrant of their own choosing — whatever the outcome was in that election, the theocrats were going to stay in power — people protesting for real Liberty.

I’d like that for all Muslim lands and all Muslims. Whether it’s a conversion to Christianity (the best outcome), Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism, animism, the cult of Artemis, I don’t care — as long as anyone believes their god commands them to “fight . . . until all religion is for Allah” (Qur’an 8), there can be no peace.

The only lasting “peace” Islam recognizes is that which arises when the competition is in either hijab, chains, or the grave.

And you’re still conflating Allah’s commands and Muhammad’s example with individual Muslims.

Doctrine is not necessarily practice. Texts are not human beings. Paper is not people.

The command of Allah and the words and deeds of Muhammad are not individual Muslims.

Our learned analysts need to recognize Islam’s fundamental semantic flaw: "Peace"

In Appeasers and Useful Idiot Dhimmis, Defending jihad, Ignorant and gullible Infidels, Iraq, Michael J. Totten, The truth about Islam on July 17, 2009 at 6:20 PM

It does not mean what we think it means.

In response to my comment here:

What you are doing is the equivalent of interviewing Germans “on the street” during World War II and drawing conclusions about what should be done to win the war from only those interactions, while ignoring the ideology motivating and sustaining the greater Nazi effort.

Michael Totten replied:

That may well have been the case a few years ago. Apparently you missed it when every insurgent militia and terrorist group in the country got its ass kicked not only by Americans but by Iraqis. Iraqis “vomited out” Al Qaeda, as Charles Krauthammer accurately put it.

Here’s my follow-up:

That’s quite a non sequitur.

I was talking about your attacks on individuals for their pointing out that you are apparently unfamiliar with Islam’s authoritative texts and history, and in “refutation” of that you offer . . . Muslims fighting other Muslims?

Each Iraqi who’s fought with our military against foreign terrorists has done so for their own reason(s). I don’t doubt some of those motives were good.

None of them, however, involve Muhammad’s legendary religious tolerance.

So, are the terrorists in Iraq now, in only the last “few years,” no longer Muslim?

In that case, who’s doing the bombing today, Mennonites? Are the Iraqis returning to their own vomit?

Will there be more or less vomit once America is out?

Sunni and Shi’ite have been slaughtering each other — when not enslaving and butchering non-Muslims — since Muhammad died.

You are also apparently unaware of the fact that the U.S. has and has had terrific relations with Iraq’s Kurds even while the rest of Iraq was on fire. And the Kurds are just as Islamic as the Arabs, though they are less strident and bigoted about their religion.

I don’t recall mentioning the Kurds. Another non sequitur.

Is your point that not all Muslims are terrorists?

I’ve never said otherwise.

A variety of explanations exist for why Muslim nations refrain from attacking us directly.

One would be the large sums of taxpayer-funded jizya we send to several of those countries. Another is the fact that we are still — despite “President” Obama’s best efforts — the only superpower in the world. To openly attack us would be suicide for that government.

(Perhaps you’ve noticed terrorism being carried out by small groups of “misunderstanderers of Islam” so that Muslim governments — the Saudis, anyone? — can maintain plausible deniability. Of course, with Obama apologizing to, dialoguing with, and releasing terrorists, no one will fear our strength for long.)

With regard to the Kurds specifically, they are by definition not as “Islamic” as “the Arabs,” since they’re — in your own words — “less strident and bigoted about their religion.”

After all, Muhammad mandated, “Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him” (Bukhari Volume 9, Book 84, Number 57). You can’t get more “bigoted” than that.

The Kurds’ relatively greater emphasis on their ethnic identity rather than their religion is paralleled in other lands conquered by Islam, even among some Iranians (but I bet if you cite Muhammad’s words or actions disapprovingly to a devout Kurd, that facade of Muslim civility will vaporize instantaneously!). Add to that their desire for a greater Kurdistan and having to contend with both Sunni and Shi’ite Arabs and “Persians,” and you’ve gone a long way toward explaining relatively “good” relations with America.

There may even be some decent people there but again, that is in spite of Islam as defined by Muhammad, not because of it.

Iraq does not need to convert to Christianity or atheism (or whatever it is you’re implying here) for it to be at peace with itself and the West. We have peaceful and normal relations with most Muslim countries. Even Israel has peaceful and normal relations with some Muslim countries. We weren’t at war with Tunisia or Oman or Mali or Kuwait (etc) last time I checked. (I trust I don’t need to give you the whole list.)

A few points:

1) I guess I’m not writing clearly enough. I wasn’t aware I was “implying” anything.

I was stating that you are either unaware of or denying the fundamental role Muhammad’s words and example play in modern Islamic terrorism, which is just one expression of the jihad commanded by Allah and carried out in fits and starts over the last 1400 years, beginning with Muhammad and continuing to this very day (nearly fourteen thousand Islamic terror attacks since 9/11 alone).

Any analysis that fails to account for this is flawed and will only hamper our efforts at self-defense. Spencer and Bostom understand Islam’s history and ideology.

It would be wise for you to do so also.

2) Iraq could possibly be truly at peace with the West, but that will be in spite of Islam, not because of it. How can anyone who obeys Allah’s commands to wage war against all who refuse both the “invitation” to Islam and subjugation as slaves (dhimmis) be[,] by definition[,] “at peace”?

That is logically and linguistically impossible.

What do you know about Turkey? It was a model moderate Muslim state, but that was because Ataturk crushed public expression of political Islam. Now that Erdogan is in charge, in which way is the country moving? Toward shari’a.

Are you aware that just a few years ago (I haven’t checked lately), Mein Kampf was a best-seller there?

Why is that, do you think?

Could it have anything to do with:

“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).

“. . . We were (sitting) in the mosque when the Messenger of Allah . . . came to us and said: (Let us) go to the Jews. We went out with him until we came to them. The Messenger of Allah . . . stood up and called out to them (saying): O ye assembly of Jews, accept Islam (and) you will be safe.

[. . .]

he killed their men, and distributed their women, children and properties among the Muslims, except that some of them had joined the Messenger of Allah . . . who granted them security. They embraced Islam. The Messenger of Allah . . . turned out all the Jews of Medlina. Banu Qainuqa’ (the tribe of ‘Abdullah b. Salim) and the Jews of Banu Haritha and every other Jew who was in Medina.

[. . .]

“It has been narrated by ‘Umar b. al-Khattib that he heard the Messenger of Allah . . . say: I will expel the Jews and Christians from the Arabian Peninsula and will not leave any but Muslim” (Muslim Book 19, Number 4363-4366)”?

3) If you knew of Muhammad’s practice — which is exemplary for Muslims because Allah called him a “beautiful pattern of conduct for those who want to please” him — you would know that when the Camp of Islam is weak, it seeks time to build or regain its strength (you see this in the truces for which Hamas calls whenever Israel finally gets serious about defending itself).

When strong enough, Muhammad violated his treaties and attacked his enemies (“enemies” because they would not submit to his “religion”).

Iraq’s problems have been catastrophic, and religious zealotry has been only one of its problems. If Iraq is doomed solely because it is Muslim, then every Muslim country should look like Iraq. Yet that’s not the case

This is simplistic and inaccurate.

Iraq may be doomed for a variety of reasons; the main one is that once under the rule of Allah, always under the rule of Allah. Secular rule must be abolished.

You have two main threats to Iraq’s viability. One is that those forces seeking to subjugate the country to full-blown shari’a (you are aware that shari’a is part of the Iraqi constitution, right?) will use any means necessary — including terrorist bombings, kidnappings, and assassinations — to accomplish this goal.

The second major threat is the conflict between Sunni and Shi’ite. Ahmadinejad’s been courting Maliki. Considering Iraq’s Shi’ite majority and Iran’s nearing completion on its own nukes, it can’t be long before the majority Sunni nations (or their agents) enter into more overt efforts against their historic rivals. Perhaps you’ve heard recently of Saudi Arabia’s tacit consent for Israel’s use of its airspace to take out the Iranian program.

What’s happened to Iraq’s Jews and Christians? Have you interviewed any of those people “on the street”? Probably not, since Iraq’s ancient Jewish population has been largely driven out of the country and its Christians are routinely threatened, intimidated, and murdered. Their numbers are dwindling rapidly.

Why is that, do you think?

I hope that Iraq can become a nation truly free from Islam. You see in Iran among those protesting for an Islamic tyrant of their own choosing — whatever the outcome was in that election, the theocrats were going to stay in power — people protesting for real Liberty.

I’d like that for all Muslim lands and all Muslims. Whether it’s a conversion to Christianity (the best outcome), Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism, animism, the cult of Artemis, I don’t care — as long as anyone believes their god commands them to “fight . . . until all religion is for Allah” (Qur’an 8), there can be no peace.

The only lasting “peace” Islam recognizes is that which arises when the competition is in either hijab, chains, or the grave.

And you’re still conflating Allah’s commands and Muhammad’s example with individual Muslims.

Doctrine is not necessarily practice. Texts are not human beings. Paper is not people.

The command of Allah and the words and deeds of Muhammad are not individual Muslims.

Muhammad was a feminist, but to what end?

In Ahmadiyya Muslim Jama'at, Deceiving non-Muslims, Defending jihad, Mohammed the pedophile, The truth about Islam on July 15, 2009 at 5:51 PM

I’ve heard the Muslim claim that Muhammad “protected” female babies.

It turns out that that was same kind of “protection” afforded non-Muslims as dhimmis: Reserved for Muhammad’s Abuse Only.

And since he was “a beautiful pattern of conduct for those who want to please” Allah, Muslim men to this day are affording women (and little girls) that same “exalted” status.

Fahasha trumpets the inherent feminism of Islam with this:

1.The Muslim woman has equal rights as the Muslim man has.
2. She enjoys property and inheritance rights. (Which other religion grants women these rights?). She can also conduct her own separate business.
3. She can marry any Muslim of her choice. If her parents choose a partner for her, her consent must be taken.
4. The dowry in Islam is a gift from a husband to his wife.
5. A Muslim widow is encouraged to remarry, and her remarriage is the responsibility of the Muslim society.

Yes, under Islam, women have the right to be beaten, to be raped by their husbands, to have their testimony count half of a man’s, to be a victim of polygamy, to be murdered for “lewdness,” to receive half the inheritance of a male, and more.

And beginning at the age of nine, to be raped as a disgusting pedophile’s “wife,” in Allah-pleasing imitation of Muhammad:

“. . . good women are therefore obedient, guarding the unseen as Allah has guarded; and (as to) those on whose part you fear desertion, admonish them, and leave them alone in the sleeping-places and beat them . . . ” (Qur’an 4:34).

“Your women are a tilth for you (to cultivate) so go to your tilth as ye will” (Qur’an 2:223).

“Allah’s Apostle said, “If a husband calls his wife to his bed (i.e. to have sexual relation) and she refuses and causes him to sleep in anger, the angels will curse her till morning” (Bukhari Volume 4, Book 54, Number 460).

“Get two witnesses, out of your own men, and if there are not two men, then a man and two women, such as ye choose, for witnesses, so that if one of them errs, the other can remind her” (Qur’an 2:282).

“If ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly with the orphans, marry women of your choice, two or three or four; but if ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly (with them), then only one, or (a captive) that your right hands possess, that will be more suitable, to prevent you from doing injustice” (Qur’an 4:3).

“If any of your women are guilty of lewdness, take the evidence of four (Reliable) witnesses from amongst you against them; and if they testify, confine them to houses until death do claim them, or Allah ordain for them some (other) way . . .” (Qur’an 4:15).

“Allah (thus) directs you as regards your children’s (inheritance): to the male, a portion equal to that of two females” (Qur’an 4:11).

“My mother came to me while I was being swung on a swing between two branches and got me down. My nurse took over and wiped my face with some water and started leading me. When I was at the door she stopped so I could catch my breath. I was brought in while Muhammad was sitting on a bed in our house. My mother made me sit on his lap. The other men and women got up and left. The Prophet consummated his marriage with me in my house when I was nine years old” (Tabari 9:131).

Muhammad was a feminist, but to what end?

In Ahmadiyya Muslim Jama'at, Deceiving non-Muslims, Defending jihad, Mohammed the pedophile, The truth about Islam on July 15, 2009 at 5:51 PM

I’ve heard the Muslim claim that Muhammad “protected” female babies.

It turns out that that was same kind of “protection” afforded non-Muslims as dhimmis: Reserved for Muhammad’s Abuse Only.

And since he was “a beautiful pattern of conduct for those who want to please” Allah, Muslim men to this day are affording women (and little girls) that same “exalted” status.

Fahasha trumpets the inherent feminism of Islam with this:

1.The Muslim woman has equal rights as the Muslim man has.
2. She enjoys property and inheritance rights. (Which other religion grants women these rights?). She can also conduct her own separate business.
3. She can marry any Muslim of her choice. If her parents choose a partner for her, her consent must be taken.
4. The dowry in Islam is a gift from a husband to his wife.
5. A Muslim widow is encouraged to remarry, and her remarriage is the responsibility of the Muslim society.

Yes, under Islam, women have the right to be beaten, to be raped by their husbands, to have their testimony count half of a man’s, to be a victim of polygamy, to be murdered for “lewdness,” to receive half the inheritance of a male, and more.

And beginning at the age of nine, to be raped as a disgusting pedophile’s “wife,” in Allah-pleasing imitation of Muhammad:

“. . . good women are therefore obedient, guarding the unseen as Allah has guarded; and (as to) those on whose part you fear desertion, admonish them, and leave them alone in the sleeping-places and beat them . . . ” (Qur’an 4:34).

“Your women are a tilth for you (to cultivate) so go to your tilth as ye will” (Qur’an 2:223).

“Allah’s Apostle said, “If a husband calls his wife to his bed (i.e. to have sexual relation) and she refuses and causes him to sleep in anger, the angels will curse her till morning” (Bukhari Volume 4, Book 54, Number 460).

“Get two witnesses, out of your own men, and if there are not two men, then a man and two women, such as ye choose, for witnesses, so that if one of them errs, the other can remind her” (Qur’an 2:282).

“If ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly with the orphans, marry women of your choice, two or three or four; but if ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly (with them), then only one, or (a captive) that your right hands possess, that will be more suitable, to prevent you from doing injustice” (Qur’an 4:3).

“If any of your women are guilty of lewdness, take the evidence of four (Reliable) witnesses from amongst you against them; and if they testify, confine them to houses until death do claim them, or Allah ordain for them some (other) way . . .” (Qur’an 4:15).

“Allah (thus) directs you as regards your children’s (inheritance): to the male, a portion equal to that of two females” (Qur’an 4:11).

“My mother came to me while I was being swung on a swing between two branches and got me down. My nurse took over and wiped my face with some water and started leading me. When I was at the door she stopped so I could catch my breath. I was brought in while Muhammad was sitting on a bed in our house. My mother made me sit on his lap. The other men and women got up and left. The Prophet consummated his marriage with me in my house when I was nine years old” (Tabari 9:131).

Profanity only adds to the impression of obvious Muslim tolerance and erudition

In Defending jihad, Dialogue with Muslims, False Muslim civility, The truth about Islam on July 15, 2009 at 4:40 PM

From bignasxl, also concerned about the volatile combination of my ability to read at grade-level and my possession of Islamic texts.

Once infidels start reading, they start getting ideas, they start thinking for themselves. Who knows where the madness will end?

Someone might . . . tell the truth?

i quote you mad? Well i guess you are mad and thats why you spoke about the quran which you have no knowledge of.In particular about killing non muslims as that was only done in war asshole.No real muslim can go aroung killing kafirs just because they arrenot us…Are you insane?Oh yead you did say the statement your mad

Blame Muhammad, not me. Those are his words, not mine.

You sound like a reasonable and rational Muslim, bignasxl. Not at all intolerant or prone to irrational and violent outbursts, which is itself just an ugly stereotype propagated by the Zionist-controlled media. No basis in fact at all, at all.

Profanity only adds to the impression of your obvious tolerance and erudition.

You claim again that I do not know Qur’an. As I stated in my last note to you, it should be easy to point out my error. Why don’t you?

One fact you may have missed in your years of careful exploration of the Islamic texts is that even if the killing is “only done in war asshole,” Islam is in a state of permanent war against against the non-Muslim world “until all religion is for Allah.” You remember that verse, right?

I know that only the caliph can call for offensive jihad, but since even “unbelief” is considered a crime against Allah and an oppression of Muslims (“mischief” anyone?), guess what? You’ve got your justification for “war asshole”!

Surely, even you can read your own prophet’s commands to slaughter those who refuse the “invitation” to Islam and to paying jizya.

The least you can do is be honest about it.

(By the way, you wrote “mad” when you meant “made.” I was quoting you.)

Profanity only adds to the impression of obvious Muslim tolerance and erudition

In Defending jihad, Dialogue with Muslims, False Muslim civility, The truth about Islam on July 15, 2009 at 4:40 PM

From bignasxl, also concerned about the volatile combination of my ability to read at grade-level and my possession of Islamic texts.

Once infidels start reading, they start getting ideas, they start thinking for themselves. Who knows where the madness will end?

Someone might . . . tell the truth?

i quote you mad? Well i guess you are mad and thats why you spoke about the quran which you have no knowledge of.In particular about killing non muslims as that was only done in war asshole.No real muslim can go aroung killing kafirs just because they arrenot us…Are you insane?Oh yead you did say the statement your mad

Blame Muhammad, not me. Those are his words, not mine.

You sound like a reasonable and rational Muslim, bignasxl. Not at all intolerant or prone to irrational and violent outbursts, which is itself just an ugly stereotype propagated by the Zionist-controlled media. No basis in fact at all, at all.

Profanity only adds to the impression of your obvious tolerance and erudition.

You claim again that I do not know Qur’an. As I stated in my last note to you, it should be easy to point out my error. Why don’t you?

One fact you may have missed in your years of careful exploration of the Islamic texts is that even if the killing is “only done in war asshole,” Islam is in a state of permanent war against against the non-Muslim world “until all religion is for Allah.” You remember that verse, right?

I know that only the caliph can call for offensive jihad, but since even “unbelief” is considered a crime against Allah and an oppression of Muslims (“mischief” anyone?), guess what? You’ve got your justification for “war asshole”!

Surely, even you can read your own prophet’s commands to slaughter those who refuse the “invitation” to Islam and to paying jizya.

The least you can do is be honest about it.

(By the way, you wrote “mad” when you meant “made.” I was quoting you.)

"Mercy, kindness, forgiveness." Muslims keep using those words. I do not think they mean what they think they mean.

In Defending jihad, Dialogue with Muslims, The truth about Islam on July 15, 2009 at 11:56 AM

From enef, concerned about my focus on certain less-than-palatable aspects of Islam:

Amillennialist,those verses r hadeeth,im not an expert in it so im not gonna speak about it but Ill check on it.im sure theres good explanation behind it,I want to know it as well.i think so coz ive came across lots of other hadeeth saying good things,these few about terror must hv good reasons.maybe its in context of war.words cannot be interpreted just by words right?need to look at it from various angles

if all info u have about islam is actually from the media,or what u see by the actions of the bad muslims,MOST of the info actually are LIES.try to explore islam by urself objectively,no emotional bias.read the Koran (not the fake 1 of course) n then judge by urself.read it AS A WHOLE,not just taking pieces that show as if islam is terror.coz u wont understand it in the right context.

but i see that u just take piesces from Quran that shows as if islam is very bad,u dont take it as a whole.

btw,have u read the whole quran?

there is no compulsion in religion.the right direction is henceforth distinct from error al-baqarah, 2:256

Here are the “various angles”:

In the early days of his prophetic career, when Muhammad was militarily weak, the revelations he received spoke peacefully regarding the “People of the Book.”

Later, as Muhammad grew in strength — and he met continued resistance to his message and movement — his revelations permitted self-defense/retaliation.

Then came the third stage.

Here Muhammad’s revelations made violence in self-defense/retaliation/revenge mandatory. In fact, 2:191 uses the same language as The Verse of the Sword — “kill the unbelievers wherever you find them” — but in the context of retaliation.

Regrettably, this verse is neither moral nor as innocuous as non-Muslims might hope, since it ranks “persecution/tumult and oppression [as] worse than slaughter“!

Because of passages like this, Islam considers even “unbelief” an offense against Allah. Consider:

“The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter . . . ” (Qur’an 5:33).

According to this verse, one of the crimes for which a non-Muslim is to be “executed, crucified, or have his hand and foot from opposite sides cut off” is “mischief.”

Defense of self and others is moral and the desire for revenge understandable, but violence over religious belief?

The final stage in the evolution of jihad was the mandate for offensive warfare against all who refuse both the “invitation” to Islam and slavery as dhimmis (second-class, door-mat, punching-bag status, allowed primarily to Jews and Christians), until the whole world is under Islamic law.

Some people unfamiliar with its context will interpret The Verse of the Sword as a command to kill all non-Muslims indiscriminately. That would be taking the passage out-of-context, for non-Muslims are first to be offered conversion to Islam. If they refuse, then they are to pay jizya and submit themselves to degradation and humiliation at the hands of Muslims (see the Pact of Umar).

The third, and last, option is war.

As for your questions about where I get my information on Islam, they are telling. Does my writing sound like someone who’s just “copying and pasting” from . . . where, exactly? Not CNN. Not Fox. Not the U. S. government.

If anything, our media, politicians, and academics are too deferential to Islamic sensibilities, too willing to bury their heads in the sand regarding the “theological” foundation of jihad. Too afraid to be called a name.

You’re engaging in what’s called an “ad hominem” attack; Instead of addressing whether or not what I write is true, you’re questioning my integrity.

You know what’s curious? You ask me if I’ve read the whole Qur’an, implying that if I do, I’ll discover the context of the passages in question, and then they’ll be no longer Verses of Blood and Death. You talk about reading it like someone who has no idea of what it contains.

Anyone who’s studied Qur’an knows that it doesn’t read like any other book: It’s contents are arranged neither chronologically nor by topic; instead, its chapters are arranged by size and filled with statements possessing frequently no obvious connection to those that precede or follow them. And since Qur’an is supposed to be Allah’s own words, there is little or no historical context to be discerned from surrounding verses, which is why ahadith and sira play such an important role in putting Qur’an “in context.”

And all the Islamic quotations I use are taken from Islamic sources.

As for “no compulsion in religion,” you have two problems. First, it is true that no one can force inner belief, but one can coerce, control, regulate, and punish overt behavior and speech. Second, if one considers “no compulsion” contradicted by, “kill the unbelievers wherever you find them,” and, “Fight against . . . the People of the Book . . . until they feel themselves subdued and pay the jizya” (Qur’an 9:5 and 29), then you’ve got the Islamic doctrine of naskh, which says that when two revelations contradict each other, the more recent one abrogates that which preceded it.

Why have a “Doctrine of Abrogation” if verses are not abrogated?

Regardless, The Verse of the Sword is Allah’s last word on jihad.

Finally, as to your concern that I “just take piesces from Quran that shows as if islam is very bad,[I] dont take it as a whole,” I would make two points: First, I am concerned about the passages that command the faithful to enslave, rape, and slaughter me and mine. Second, “those pieces” are not about how to wear your hair, or what kind of ingredients to use to make really great soup.

Shouldn’t commands for genocide, murder, rape, slavery, and oppression of non-Muslims, apostates, women, and children demand everyone’s attention and condemnation?

To claim that it is unreasonable to focus on Allah’s malevolence and bloodlust because there are some good parts in Islam is like saying, “How can you condemn Adolph Hitler? He was a great speaker! And he liked kittens!” or, “Sure, Ted Bundy tortured and slaughtered a bunch of innocent people, but what hygiene! And what a charmer!”

Allah’s “mercy,” “kindness,” and being “oft-forgiving” are for only those non-Muslims who convert.

The rest are “fuel for the fire.”

Instead of asking why I’m bothered by Muhammad and his allah’s perverse and bloody dictates, you should be asking yourself why you are not.

So, enef, do you denounce Muhammad and Allah’s commands to enslave or slaughter all who refuse Islam?

"Mercy, kindness, forgiveness." Muslims keep using those words. I do not think they mean what they think they mean.

In Defending jihad, Dialogue with Muslims, The truth about Islam on July 15, 2009 at 11:56 AM

From enef, concerned about my focus on certain less-than-palatable aspects of Islam:

Amillennialist,those verses r hadeeth,im not an expert in it so im not gonna speak about it but Ill check on it.im sure theres good explanation behind it,I want to know it as well.i think so coz ive came across lots of other hadeeth saying good things,these few about terror must hv good reasons.maybe its in context of war.words cannot be interpreted just by words right?need to look at it from various angles

if all info u have about islam is actually from the media,or what u see by the actions of the bad muslims,MOST of the info actually are LIES.try to explore islam by urself objectively,no emotional bias.read the Koran (not the fake 1 of course) n then judge by urself.read it AS A WHOLE,not just taking pieces that show as if islam is terror.coz u wont understand it in the right context.

but i see that u just take piesces from Quran that shows as if islam is very bad,u dont take it as a whole.

btw,have u read the whole quran?

there is no compulsion in religion.the right direction is henceforth distinct from error al-baqarah, 2:256

Here are the “various angles”:

In the early days of his prophetic career, when Muhammad was militarily weak, the revelations he received spoke peacefully regarding the “People of the Book.”

Later, as Muhammad grew in strength — and he met continued resistance to his message and movement — his revelations permitted self-defense/retaliation.

Then came the third stage.

Here Muhammad’s revelations made violence in self-defense/retaliation/revenge mandatory. In fact, 2:191 uses the same language as The Verse of the Sword — “kill the unbelievers wherever you find them” — but in the context of retaliation.

Regrettably, this verse is neither moral nor as innocuous as non-Muslims might hope, since it ranks “persecution/tumult and oppression [as] worse than slaughter“!

Because of passages like this, Islam considers even “unbelief” an offense against Allah. Consider:

“The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter . . . ” (Qur’an 5:33).

According to this verse, one of the crimes for which a non-Muslim is to be “executed, crucified, or have his hand and foot from opposite sides cut off” is “mischief.”

Defense of self and others is moral and the desire for revenge understandable, but violence over religious belief?

The final stage in the evolution of jihad was the mandate for offensive warfare against all who refuse both the “invitation” to Islam and slavery as dhimmis (second-class, door-mat, punching-bag status, allowed primarily to Jews and Christians), until the whole world is under Islamic law.

Some people unfamiliar with its context will interpret The Verse of the Sword as a command to kill all non-Muslims indiscriminately. That would be taking the passage out-of-context, for non-Muslims are first to be offered conversion to Islam. If they refuse, then they are to pay jizya and submit themselves to degradation and humiliation at the hands of Muslims (see the Pact of Umar).

The third, and last, option is war.

As for your questions about where I get my information on Islam, they are telling. Does my writing sound like someone who’s just “copying and pasting” from . . . where, exactly? Not CNN. Not Fox. Not the U. S. government.

If anything, our media, politicians, and academics are too deferential to Islamic sensibilities, too willing to bury their heads in the sand regarding the “theological” foundation of jihad. Too afraid to be called a name.

You’re engaging in what’s called an “ad hominem” attack; Instead of addressing whether or not what I write is true, you’re questioning my integrity.

You know what’s curious? You ask me if I’ve read the whole Qur’an, implying that if I do, I’ll discover the context of the passages in question, and then they’ll be no longer Verses of Blood and Death. You talk about reading it like someone who has no idea of what it contains.

Anyone who’s studied Qur’an knows that it doesn’t read like any other book: It’s contents are arranged neither chronologically nor by topic; instead, its chapters are arranged by size and filled with statements possessing frequently no obvious connection to those that precede or follow them. And since Qur’an is supposed to be Allah’s own words, there is little or no historical context to be discerned from surrounding verses, which is why ahadith and sira play such an important role in putting Qur’an “in context.”

And all the Islamic quotations I use are taken from Islamic sources.

As for “no compulsion in religion,” you have two problems. First, it is true that no one can force inner belief, but one can coerce, control, regulate, and punish overt behavior and speech. Second, if one considers “no compulsion” contradicted by, “kill the unbelievers wherever you find them,” and, “Fight against . . . the People of the Book . . . until they feel themselves subdued and pay the jizya” (Qur’an 9:5 and 29), then you’ve got the Islamic doctrine of naskh, which says that when two revelations contradict each other, the more recent one abrogates that which preceded it.

Why have a “Doctrine of Abrogation” if verses are not abrogated?

Regardless, The Verse of the Sword is Allah’s last word on jihad.

Finally, as to your concern that I “just take piesces from Quran that shows as if islam is very bad,[I] dont take it as a whole,” I would make two points: First, I am concerned about the passages that command the faithful to enslave, rape, and slaughter me and mine. Second, “those pieces” are not about how to wear your hair, or what kind of ingredients to use to make really great soup.

Shouldn’t commands for genocide, murder, rape, slavery, and oppression of non-Muslims, apostates, women, and children demand everyone’s attention and condemnation?

To claim that it is unreasonable to focus on Allah’s malevolence and bloodlust because there are some good parts in Islam is like saying, “How can you condemn Adolph Hitler? He was a great speaker! And he liked kittens!” or, “Sure, Ted Bundy tortured and slaughtered a bunch of innocent people, but what hygiene! And what a charmer!”

Allah’s “mercy,” “kindness,” and being “oft-forgiving” are for only those non-Muslims who convert.

The rest are “fuel for the fire.”

Instead of asking why I’m bothered by Muhammad and his allah’s perverse and bloody dictates, you should be asking yourself why you are not.

So, enef, do you denounce Muhammad and Allah’s commands to enslave or slaughter all who refuse Islam?

Gunner gets it

In Appeasers and Useful Idiot Dhimmis, Defending jihad, Ignorant and gullible Infidels, Islamic Anti-Semitism, The truth about Islam on July 10, 2009 at 1:41 PM

“The problem is not Israel; it’s Islam.”

Gunner gets it

In Appeasers and Useful Idiot Dhimmis, Defending jihad, Ignorant and gullible Infidels, Islamic Anti-Semitism, The truth about Islam on July 10, 2009 at 1:41 PM

“The problem is not Israel; it’s Islam.”

Shari’a in Dearborn, Michigan

In Barack Hussein Obama, Dearborn, Defending jihad, False Muslim civility, Michigan, Relatives in defense of jihad, Shari'a, The truth about Islam, Treason on July 7, 2009 at 2:14 PM

Know your place, dhimmi, or else.

This is what happens once Muslims in a region reach critical mass. As bad as this is, it is nothing compared to what occurs in proto-shari’a states like the UK and France and every Muslim Hell-hole you can name.

What will the Abd-in-Chief say about this? He hasn’t defended his “fellow” citizens’ unalienable Rights to Freedom of Speech and Assembly in Dearborn, allowing Muslim terrorists and their Useful Idiot Dhimmis there to relegate a Christian group to an out-of-the-way corner in order to appease Islamic sensibilities — and to soothe their fear of a free exchange of ideas.

If Islam is so great, why do Muslims fear open criticism of Muhammad? Other Muslims’ hearing the Gospel?

If Obama defends the Islamic tyrants who murder their own people — including Neda Soltani, another Christian victim of Islam — what will he do for these Americans attacked on American soil? Sic Eric Holder on them? Order an audit?

Shari’a in Dearborn, Michigan

In Barack Hussein Obama, Dearborn, Defending jihad, False Muslim civility, Michigan, Relatives in defense of jihad, Shari'a, The truth about Islam, Treason on July 7, 2009 at 2:14 PM

Know your place, dhimmi, or else.

This is what happens once Muslims in a region reach critical mass. As bad as this is, it is nothing compared to what occurs in proto-shari’a states like the UK and France and every Muslim Hell-hole you can name.

What will the Abd-in-Chief say about this? He hasn’t defended his “fellow” citizens’ unalienable Rights to Freedom of Speech and Assembly in Dearborn, allowing Muslim terrorists and their Useful Idiot Dhimmis there to relegate a Christian group to an out-of-the-way corner in order to appease Islamic sensibilities — and to soothe their fear of a free exchange of ideas.

If Islam is so great, why do Muslims fear open criticism of Muhammad? Other Muslims’ hearing the Gospel?

If Obama defends the Islamic tyrants who murder their own people — including Neda Soltani, another Christian victim of Islam — what will he do for these Americans attacked on American soil? Sic Eric Holder on them? Order an audit?

The contrast between Christ and Allah, Heaven and Hell, stark and devastating

In Christ, Christ vs. Allah, Crusades, Defending jihad, Dialogue with Muslims, Justification, Mohamed Fadly, The truth about Islam on July 7, 2009 at 10:53 AM

It is telling that Muslims never admit before non-Muslims what their god demands and their false prophet practiced (until it is too late, that is).

You’ll notice in the comments from Mr. Fadly that he never addresses the sacralizing of depravity in Islam, he engages only in ad hominem attacks, false tu quoques and moral equivalences, and diversions from the fundamental issue, Islam’s brutal and perverse totalitarian ideology.

Here‘s the latest in a series of posts pointing out what the typical Islamic apologist doesn’t want you to know:

Mohamed wrote,

“you must ‘love your enemies’ . . . you love all terrorists , , , As for Islamic beliefs we Muslims don’t have to love those who kill children and attack innocents”

No, you [Muslims] are those who “kill children and attack innocents.”

“Allah only forbids you, with regard to those who fight you for (your) Faith . . . It is such as turn to them (in these circumstances), that do wrong.” 60: 8, 9

There is a big difference between “loving” who fire off my brother, and “not loving” who fire off my brothers.

You said you were doing research, but not about Christ’s teachings apparently, since you’re grossly misrepresenting them. Does that bother you at all?

Jesus did not command, “Excuse immorality and reward the criminal.” He made a distinction between “Two Kingdoms,” the spiritual and civil realms (a distinction absent from Islam, since Muhammad used his “faith” as a tool to satiate his lusts).

The individual Christian is to love even his enemies. Christ forbids personal revenge. The state, on the other hand, is to punish evil and defend its citizens.

Jesus taught and practiced, “Love your enemies,” even praying for those who were murdering Him. He died for the sins of all people, even those who hate Him.

Jesus taught that His Father causes the sun to shine on the just and unjust and the rain to fall on the just and unjust. He says that if we are only kind to those who are kind to us, we are no better than unbelievers. In this context, Jesus commands, “Be perfect, as your Father in Heaven is perfect.”

Christ teaches His people to pray, “Forgive us our sins, as we forgive those who sin against us,” and, “If you do not forgive others’ sins, neither will yours be forgiven.”

You don’t understand that your sin makes you an enemy of Christ. He commanded, “love YHWH with all your heart, mind, and strength,” “You believe in the Father; believe also in Me,” and, “all must honor the Son as they honor the Father.”

You break those commandments every day as a Muslim.

“The soul that sins is the one who will die.” You justly deserve God’s wrath because of your sin.

What hope do you have for eternal life? How can you think you will escape Hell?

What does Allah offer? The possibility that your good works might outweigh your sins? The only sure way for you to enter Paradise is to slaughter or be slaughtered for Allah (Qur’an 9:111).

Do you really think virgins wait there for you? Boys “like pearls”?

Loving one’s enemies doesn’t mean rewarding or excusing their evil. Nor are we to stand by in the face of evil. Self-defense and the defense of others are appropriate.

Christ also forbids “throwing one’s pearls before swine, lest they trample them and turn again and rend you.” We are not to give foolishly what is valuable to those who will not appreciate it.

Love means doing what is best for another person, and that is telling the truth, turning someone from evil. It is, ultimately, pointing to Christ and His forgiveness.

You don’t understand love because your god is the inverse of it.

You defend revenge and retaliation because that is what Muhammad commanded and practiced.

It is ironic that you use your god as a point of reference in trying to — what are you trying to do exactly, show Christ was wrong? — since your god forbids “dealing kindly and justly with” non-Muslims when they “fight you for faith.” Isn’t that odd?

There is only one major world religion whose deity commands fighting others over religious belief. That would be Muhammad’s, as his own texts demonstrate (to his shame).

You follow a god that calls killing unbelievers because they are unbelievers “just.” A god that sanctions beating wives, valuing females at half the value of a male (if that), and raping nine-year-olds. A god that approves of lying if it aids the spread of shari’a. A god that demands slavery or death for all who refuse the “invitation” to Islam.

In effect, by choosing this topic, you’ve highlighted the fact that the God of the Bible, YHWH, loves all even though all sin, and proved this by becoming flesh and dying on a cross for us, while al-Ilah wants everyone who won’t submit as a slave or dead.

You’ve highlighted the fact that Christ assures all of Heaven, but Allah gives Paradise to those who butcher unbelievers for him.

There’s that stark contrast again, and it’s devastating.

But the love of God in Christ for you and your co-religionists is greater.

The contrast between Christ and Allah, Heaven and Hell, stark and devastating

In Christ, Christ vs. Allah, Crusades, Defending jihad, Dialogue with Muslims, Justification, Mohamed Fadly, The truth about Islam on July 7, 2009 at 10:53 AM

It is telling that Muslims never admit before non-Muslims what their god demands and their false prophet practiced (until it is too late, that is).

You’ll notice in the comments from Mr. Fadly that he never addresses the sacralizing of depravity in Islam, he engages only in ad hominem attacks, false tu quoques and moral equivalences, and diversions from the fundamental issue, Islam’s brutal and perverse totalitarian ideology.

Here‘s the latest in a series of posts pointing out what the typical Islamic apologist doesn’t want you to know:

Mohamed wrote,

“you must ‘love your enemies’ . . . you love all terrorists , , , As for Islamic beliefs we Muslims don’t have to love those who kill children and attack innocents”

No, you [Muslims] are those who “kill children and attack innocents.”

“Allah only forbids you, with regard to those who fight you for (your) Faith . . . It is such as turn to them (in these circumstances), that do wrong.” 60: 8, 9

There is a big difference between “loving” who fire off my brother, and “not loving” who fire off my brothers.

You said you were doing research, but not about Christ’s teachings apparently, since you’re grossly misrepresenting them. Does that bother you at all?

Jesus did not command, “Excuse immorality and reward the criminal.” He made a distinction between “Two Kingdoms,” the spiritual and civil realms (a distinction absent from Islam, since Muhammad used his “faith” as a tool to satiate his lusts).

The individual Christian is to love even his enemies. Christ forbids personal revenge. The state, on the other hand, is to punish evil and defend its citizens.

Jesus taught and practiced, “Love your enemies,” even praying for those who were murdering Him. He died for the sins of all people, even those who hate Him.

Jesus taught that His Father causes the sun to shine on the just and unjust and the rain to fall on the just and unjust. He says that if we are only kind to those who are kind to us, we are no better than unbelievers. In this context, Jesus commands, “Be perfect, as your Father in Heaven is perfect.”

Christ teaches His people to pray, “Forgive us our sins, as we forgive those who sin against us,” and, “If you do not forgive others’ sins, neither will yours be forgiven.”

You don’t understand that your sin makes you an enemy of Christ. He commanded, “love YHWH with all your heart, mind, and strength,” “You believe in the Father; believe also in Me,” and, “all must honor the Son as they honor the Father.”

You break those commandments every day as a Muslim.

“The soul that sins is the one who will die.” You justly deserve God’s wrath because of your sin.

What hope do you have for eternal life? How can you think you will escape Hell?

What does Allah offer? The possibility that your good works might outweigh your sins? The only sure way for you to enter Paradise is to slaughter or be slaughtered for Allah (Qur’an 9:111).

Do you really think virgins wait there for you? Boys “like pearls”?

Loving one’s enemies doesn’t mean rewarding or excusing their evil. Nor are we to stand by in the face of evil. Self-defense and the defense of others are appropriate.

Christ also forbids “throwing one’s pearls before swine, lest they trample them and turn again and rend you.” We are not to give foolishly what is valuable to those who will not appreciate it.

Love means doing what is best for another person, and that is telling the truth, turning someone from evil. It is, ultimately, pointing to Christ and His forgiveness.

You don’t understand love because your god is the inverse of it.

You defend revenge and retaliation because that is what Muhammad commanded and practiced.

It is ironic that you use your god as a point of reference in trying to — what are you trying to do exactly, show Christ was wrong? — since your god forbids “dealing kindly and justly with” non-Muslims when they “fight you for faith.” Isn’t that odd?

There is only one major world religion whose deity commands fighting others over religious belief. That would be Muhammad’s, as his own texts demonstrate (to his shame).

You follow a god that calls killing unbelievers because they are unbelievers “just.” A god that sanctions beating wives, valuing females at half the value of a male (if that), and raping nine-year-olds. A god that approves of lying if it aids the spread of shari’a. A god that demands slavery or death for all who refuse the “invitation” to Islam.

In effect, by choosing this topic, you’ve highlighted the fact that the God of the Bible, YHWH, loves all even though all sin, and proved this by becoming flesh and dying on a cross for us, while al-Ilah wants everyone who won’t submit as a slave or dead.

You’ve highlighted the fact that Christ assures all of Heaven, but Allah gives Paradise to those who butcher unbelievers for him.

There’s that stark contrast again, and it’s devastating.

But the love of God in Christ for you and your co-religionists is greater.

Beheading Islamic falsehoods

In Appeasers and Useful Idiot Dhimmis, Defending jihad, Resisting Jihad, The truth about Islam on July 4, 2009 at 5:21 PM

Another lying apologist for Islam gets his head handed to him (figuratively, of course) here:

Anti Sniper wrote:

1. It seems that you are completely uniformed about Cristian terrorism both against Muslims the most recent in Bosnia and Kosovo and against Christians ( Northern Ireland, Croatia, Serbia)

2. In Islam there is no obligation of faith so theoretically a non Muslim can not be converted involuntary to Islam. Abuse of that is crime in Islam.

3. Theoretically in theological considerations Jihad today is reduced to defensive war

4. I agree that there is Islamic countries with low tolerance to Christians but as well there are some good examples . We need to point out both the good and bad.

5. Justice for everybody, respect and honesty are the principles that can build long term sustainable prosperity in the world

Well, Anti, your comments illustrate well the maxim that “Half the Truth is often a great Lie”:

1) The only “Christian” terrorism in eastern Europe was Bill Clinton bombing Christians defending themselves against jihad.

Just as with Israel, charges of “war crimes” against those resisting Islamic terrorism were fabricated by Muslims and repeated by their Useful Idiot Dhimmis in the media.

2) Technically, “there is no compulsion in religion.” That is speaking of internal belief, which no one can force.

A lot can be done about external behavior, though, right? What do you expect enslaving and slaughtering those who refuse the “invitation” to Islam will produce in non-Muslims? Is not such brutality in Allah’s name coercive?

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

3) Theoretically, “jihad is reduced to defensive.” Well, isn’t that a careless admission? “Reduced” from what? From offensive warfare against all non-Muslims to make the world Islam, per Muhammad’s dictum and example.

Yes, only the Caliph can call for offensive jihad, and since the caliphate was destroyed, offensive jihad is not permissible now.

Why don’t you mention the fact that even “unbelief” is considered a crime against Islam? That defending oneself against its tyranny is an attack on Muslims?

Why do you think that so many jihadists try to couch their violence in these terms?

4) What Muslim nation under shari’a is a “good” example of tolerance toward Christians and other non-Muslims? Egypt? Turkey?

Turkey was secularized by Ataturk, and so it was decent place for a few decades. Not any longer.

Egypt increasingly persecutes its native Coptic population, murdering, raping, burning, and terrorizing in Allah’s name.

5) You won’t find “justice” for anyone but Muslim men under Islam. Women get to be chattel, little girls can be “married” at nine, non-Muslims get death or slavery, and non-Muslims who act like good dhimmis get to live another day to be abused at Muslims’ pleasure.

Tell the truth.

An update:

Anti Sniper wrote:

In 1099, Jerusalem was conquered by the Crusaders, who massacred most of its Muslim inhabitants and the remnants of the Jewish inhabitants; the Crusaders later expelled the native Christian population and created the Kingdom of Jerusalem. By early June 1099 Jerusalem’s population had declined from 70,000 to less than 30,000.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerusalem#Crusad…

Yes, some Crusaders did commit crimes against other Christians and against Jews.

What you do not state is that the first Crusade was called by Pope Urban II in response to a desperate plea for help from Christians in the East under siege for centuries by … you guessed it! Islam.

Neither do you acknowledge the fact that such crimes are “crimes” in Christianity.

In Islam, they’re called, “a start.”

Beheading Islamic falsehoods

In Appeasers and Useful Idiot Dhimmis, Defending jihad, Resisting Jihad, The truth about Islam on July 4, 2009 at 5:21 PM

Another lying apologist for Islam gets his head handed to him (figuratively, of course) here:

Anti Sniper wrote:

1. It seems that you are completely uniformed about Cristian terrorism both against Muslims the most recent in Bosnia and Kosovo and against Christians ( Northern Ireland, Croatia, Serbia)

2. In Islam there is no obligation of faith so theoretically a non Muslim can not be converted involuntary to Islam. Abuse of that is crime in Islam.

3. Theoretically in theological considerations Jihad today is reduced to defensive war

4. I agree that there is Islamic countries with low tolerance to Christians but as well there are some good examples . We need to point out both the good and bad.

5. Justice for everybody, respect and honesty are the principles that can build long term sustainable prosperity in the world

Well, Anti, your comments illustrate well the maxim that “Half the Truth is often a great Lie”:

1) The only “Christian” terrorism in eastern Europe was Bill Clinton bombing Christians defending themselves against jihad.

Just as with Israel, charges of “war crimes” against those resisting Islamic terrorism were fabricated by Muslims and repeated by their Useful Idiot Dhimmis in the media.

2) Technically, “there is no compulsion in religion.” That is speaking of internal belief, which no one can force.

A lot can be done about external behavior, though, right? What do you expect enslaving and slaughtering those who refuse the “invitation” to Islam will produce in non-Muslims? Is not such brutality in Allah’s name coercive?

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

3) Theoretically, “jihad is reduced to defensive.” Well, isn’t that a careless admission? “Reduced” from what? From offensive warfare against all non-Muslims to make the world Islam, per Muhammad’s dictum and example.

Yes, only the Caliph can call for offensive jihad, and since the caliphate was destroyed, offensive jihad is not permissible now.

Why don’t you mention the fact that even “unbelief” is considered a crime against Islam? That defending oneself against its tyranny is an attack on Muslims?

Why do you think that so many jihadists try to couch their violence in these terms?

4) What Muslim nation under shari’a is a “good” example of tolerance toward Christians and other non-Muslims? Egypt? Turkey?

Turkey was secularized by Ataturk, and so it was decent place for a few decades. Not any longer.

Egypt increasingly persecutes its native Coptic population, murdering, raping, burning, and terrorizing in Allah’s name.

5) You won’t find “justice” for anyone but Muslim men under Islam. Women get to be chattel, little girls can be “married” at nine, non-Muslims get death or slavery, and non-Muslims who act like good dhimmis get to live another day to be abused at Muslims’ pleasure.

Tell the truth.

An update:

Anti Sniper wrote:

In 1099, Jerusalem was conquered by the Crusaders, who massacred most of its Muslim inhabitants and the remnants of the Jewish inhabitants; the Crusaders later expelled the native Christian population and created the Kingdom of Jerusalem. By early June 1099 Jerusalem’s population had declined from 70,000 to less than 30,000.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerusalem#Crusad…

Yes, some Crusaders did commit crimes against other Christians and against Jews.

What you do not state is that the first Crusade was called by Pope Urban II in response to a desperate plea for help from Christians in the East under siege for centuries by … you guessed it! Islam.

Neither do you acknowledge the fact that such crimes are “crimes” in Christianity.

In Islam, they’re called, “a start.”

FDR to extend hand in friendship to world’s Nazis in speech from Hitler’s bunker this June 4th, 1943

In Aliens in America, Barack Hussein Obama, Defending jihad, Liberals aid jihad, Liberals hate the American military, The Decline and Fall of the American Republic on May 16, 2009 at 10:01 AM

The following weekend, he’ll be in Japan attempting to repair relations with the island nation through a talk delivered from Emperor Hirohito’s palace.

This comes on the heels of the President’s comments made outside Auschwitz that Nazism deserves “respect.” Mr. Roosevelt also suggested that the nations of Europe and Asia should advance the Peace Process by making sacrifices, including “Land for Peace.”

“We must dialogue with the moderate elements of the Waffen-SS, kamikaze, and banzai units,” he declared.

The White House has announced details of Mr. Roosevelt’s charm offensive. He plans to bow deeply to both Hitler and Hirohito as a sign of mutual respect, apologize for Pearl Harbor, Midway, and the Holocaust, and reassure both empires of his continued commitment to bankrupting and disarming America in the name of “Main Street.”

As a sign of the United States’ good will, the President will release members of the German and Japanese militaries captured in combat into American society at taxpayers’ expense.

Additionally, American successes in Doolittle’s Raid, the Battle of the Coral Sea, and Midway have now been redesignated “Embarrassing Failures of Diplomacy;” the methods used to decipher Japanese communications leading to the American “victory” at Midway have been published in the New York Times, and the Cryptanalytic Unit responsible for the intelligence that gave America the advantage there has been accused of lying by one of Mr Roosevelt’s closest allies in Congress.

Plans for actions at Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Dresden, and Normandy have all been postponed and await Nazi and Japanese approval.

President Roosevelt also unveiled Executive Order #12071941 establishing “Overseas Contingency Operations Relocation Camps.” Americans opposing the President’s policies will be designated “extremists” and evaluated for the confiscation of their First through Tenth Amendment Rights.

The Order also gives the president the authority to monitor and suspend all radio, telegraph, and pen-and-paper communications.

Allied leaders could not be reached for comment.

New site, same tired logical fallacies, historical revisions, and outright falsehoods in defense of jihad

In Deceiving non-Muslims, Defending jihad, Hijab, Maheen Siddiqi, Maimonides, Obedient Muslims vs. moderate Muslims, The truth about Islam on May 10, 2009 at 11:28 PM

Offered in response to a “rebuttal,” from here. I hope Ms. Siddiqi is sincere but misinformed.

Hello, Maheen,

“freedom does not protect you from looking ignorant when you quote sacred text out of context.”

Please, show me where I’ve misrepresented the Islamic texts I posted. It should be easy to do, since I am so “ignorant.” (Didn’t Mr. Appel say we were supposed to be nice?)

“I encourage you to educate yourself on the sacred tradition of hijab and follow it through its heritage in all of the Abrahamic faiths, including Christianity.”

What “sacred tradtion” has hijab outside of Islam?

It is true that propriety in worship in the ancient church included clear gender
distinctions, but that was completely devoid of the tyranny in Muhammad’s
“revelation” and practice.

“Christianity too has quite a violent past but one should not blame the religion for the work of the ignorant. I do not attribute the savage crusades to the peaceful Christian friends that I have, and likewise, you should not attribute the evil works of some Muslims to the beautiful faith of Islam and other Muslims.”

[At least she admits Islam’s “violent past.” Now, to address the Source and Sustenance of that bloodshed!]

That’s a false moral equivalence and a false tu quoque, two “arguments” offered often by jihad’s apologists in response to the genocidal content of their own authoritative texts.

Where have I blamed “other Muslims”? Where did I “attribute the evil works of some Muslims to . . . Islam”?

I quoted Allah and his apostle.

Ironically (and tragically, for non-Muslims) enough, so do those Muslims practicing the “evil works.”

How are you going to convince them that they too are “ignorant” and taking passages “out-of-context”?

How will you persuade [“]all four Sunni schools of jurisprudence, Sahih Muslim, Sahih Bukhari, Sunan Abu Dawud, Ibn Kathir, Ibn Juzayy, Tafsir al-Jalalayn, Ibn Taymiyya, Ibn Khaldun, Muhammad Muhsin Khan, S. K. Malik [. . .] Averroes, al-Ghazzali, numerous Shi’ites,[” (credit Robert Spencer)] etc. of their grievous error?

Are you honestly unaware of Islam’s traditional understanding and practice of offensive jihad against non-Muslims? If not, will you engage in honest discourse? If you are unaware, how can you engage in intelligent discourse?

Christians did commit great sins during the Crusades. (Do you know why the first was called by Pope Urban II? It was for the defense of Christians under siege by . . . Islam.)

When Christians murder, do they do so in fulfillment of Christ’s commands and in accord with His example or not? Since you are expert enough in Christian theology to claim that the hijab is a sacred tradition in Christianity, you must know the answer.
Produce one verse that has Christ commanding believers to enslave or slaughter
non-Christians.

Since you are so well-versed in Islamic theology that you can say that I am “ignorant” and taking passages “out-of-context,” when Muslims slaughter innocent non-Muslims in Allah’s name, is that in fulfillment of his commands and Muhammad’s example, or not?

When, “Allah’s Apostle said, ‘I have been made victorious with terror . . . ’” (Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 220), did he really mean, “I’ve succeeded by love and good deeds”?

“If you go so far as to denigrate the Prophet Muhammad”

“denigrate”?

Muhammad married little Aisha when she was six and began raping her when she was nine. What “context” makes that okay? Does that not deserve “denigration”? Are you aware that one of Khomeini’s first acts when he came to power was to lower the marriageable age of girls in Iran to nine? Why is that?

What about Muhammad’s assassinations of those who mocked him — Asma bint Marwan, Abu Akaf? The beheading of the 600-900 bound prisoners of the Banu Qurayza? Muhammad and his followers raping women whose brothers, fathers, and husbands they had just slaughtered? The attack on the innocent Jewish farmers, tilling their fields in the Khaybar Oasis [(credit Hugh Fitzgerald)]? What decent person should not feel rage at such evil?

That is the “Perfect Man,” “uswa hasana[,]” you defend.

If someone who commits theft, slavery, rape, pedophilia, genocide, and blasphemy — and commands others to do the same, calling it “divine” — does not deserve to be denigrated, who does?

More importantly, how can any decent person aware of what Muhammad said and did not condemn his words and deeds?

You claim respect for the Prophets of YHWH and His Christ — how then can you defend Muhammad? For he stated that whoever claims Allah has a son is a blasphemer. If Allah is YHWH (He is not), then Muhammad is calling Jesus a “blasphemer,” since Christ called Himself the Son of God.

“Just look at Spain. Muslims, Christians, Jews, and agnostics/atheists all lived peacefully under the Muslim rule of Spain for hundreds upon hundreds of years; however, the moment Christians overthrew the Muslims, they slaughtered every Muslim man, woman, elderly and child.”

If things were so peaceful, why did the Spaniards slaughter “every Muslim” as soon as they regained their freedom? Why did they overthrow them in the first place?

So, is that what you’ve been taught, or is that what you’ve been taught to offer as a rebuttal to non-Muslims who discover Islam’s texts and history?

“Do a little more reading with the aid of understanding of what you read in a historical context, and you will find a lot of your false notions answered.”

You’re going to have to show from Qur’an, ahadith, and sira that:

-When Muhammad commanded, “Invite . . . demand the jizya . . . then
fight,” he really meant, “Invite . . . make small talk . . . befriend.”

-When Muhammad told some Jews, “accept Islam and you’ll be safe,” he really meant, “Let’s have a potluck! How ’bout those Greeks?”

-When Muhammad began raping little nine-year-old Aisha, he was really only giving the local kids a puppet show.

-When Muhammad commanded that whomever leaves Islam should be murdered, he really only meant to exclude him from Bingo.

Here’s a final quotation for you; perhaps he didn’t really mean what he said, just like Muhammad:

“Remember, my coreligionists, that on account of the vast number of our sins, God has hurled us in the midst of this people, the Arabs [Muslims], who have persecuted us severely, and passed baneful and discriminatory legislation against us … Never did a nation molest, degrade, debase, and hate us as much as they….”

–Maimonides, victim of Islam in conquered Spain.

Al-Andalus was no paradise for non-Muslims. It was — to varying degrees — just what Allah requires (Qur’an 9:29). Pact of Umar, anyone? You know what that requires, right?

Again, please show from the Islamic texts where I’ve erred. Show me where I’ve been false or unfair.

I encourage you to put your faith in Christ, the Son of God, Who reconciled you to His Father in His body on the cross. True religion is in Him alone.

You can find me at my ‘blog.

Regards,

Amillennialist

[Note: Internet Explorer 8 in Windows 7 RC formats posts terribly.]

Brangelina and Muslim terrorists indistinguishable?

In Defending jihad, Slumdog Millionaire, The truth about Islam on May 6, 2009 at 1:39 PM

Disregarding the Left’s general alliance with Islam in dismantling stone-by-stone the Judeo-Christian foundation of Western Civilization, the attempt below to transfer the Islamic predilection for child slavery to wealthy Western celebrities doing who-knows-what is ill-conceived.

It seems defensive.

Another reply to Mr. Appel here:

Adoption is not human-trafficking.

Even though I believe a lot of what “Hollywood celebrities” espouse is harmful, I don’t believe equating well-intentioned entertainers with wealthy Arab sheikhs is at all justified.

What’s the worst that can happen in either scenario? With Brangelina, you might develop a sense of entitlement (or retinal damage from the paparazzi). With a sheikh? How about being a nine-year-old “wife,” per Muhammad’s example with little nine-year-old Aisha?

That little [actress] was not offered as chattel because of Western tourists’ indifference. That was something her father chose.

(And even though it’s a bit of a tu quoque argument, and a false one at that) How many “Westerners” sell their children for any reason? At any price?

Jihad’s gremlins working their magic at Blues News

In Appeasers and Useful Idiot Dhimmis, Blues News, Defending jihad, Stephen Heaslip, The truth about Islam on March 30, 2009 at 5:45 PM

Under the heading “Safety Dance,” Stephen Heaslip included a link to a link to an article about hundreds of “youths” in the U.K. either actually or in danger of becoming “radicalized.” (For those of you who’d prefer that in English, it means, “made into good Muslims.”)

I posted a few quotations from Qur’an and Sunnah, illustrating just what it is that “radicalizes” so many misunderstanderers of Islam. You can guess the response that drew.

An Islamic scholar there who goes by the name “InBlack” (as in, the preferred color of her abaya?) responded with the name-calling and profanity one typically endures for stating facts.

Disappointingly, my original post was removed, and I was banned from commenting there by Mr. Heaslip.

Though I don’t wish to abuse anyone’s hospitality — even someone ignorantly facilitating the surrender of Western Civilization to Allah — I added a few more comments in reply. Undoubtedly, jihad’s gremlins are working as I type to remove them.

So, for posterity, here’s the exchange, beginning with what is left of my original comment:

* REMOVED *
This message was deleted on Mar 30, 2009, 08:26.

Later, the perspicacious InBlack fired this razor-sharp volley (rapier wit and insurmountable logic masked to avoid intellectual overload):

I could quote sh[**] like that from the Bible all day long a[**]hole.

A fundamentalist is a fundamentalist is a fundamentalist, regardless of which bloody brainwashing religion he is from.

Go tell it to some other flock, I doubt people on Blues will put up with your sh[**] for long.

1. Re: Safety Dance Mar 30, 2009, 00:17 Amillennialist

To which I replied:

So, a Christian “fundamentalist” who obeys Christ’s command to, “Treat others the way you want to be treated,” is morally-equivalent to the Muslim “fundamentalist” who obeys Allah’s command to, “Fight against . . . the Jews and Christians until they are brought low and pay the jizya” (Qur’an 9:29)?

That’s some persuasive logic and quite a response, InBlack. Where shall we start?

1. False tu quoque argument? Check.

2. Name-calling? Got it.

3. Generous amount of profanity? You bet.

4. Utter lack of anything substantive? Of course.

On the chance that other readers here are not as erudite as you, let me explain:

1. You cannot quote Biblical commands for offensive warfare to make the world Hebrew or Christian, but even if you could, that would have no bearing on whether or not Allah and his apostle require offensive warfare against all who refuse conversion to or subjugation under Islam.

2. Am I supposed to be intimidated? Embarrassed? Name-calling does not an argument make.

3. See point 2.

4. Even if “Christians” slaughter men, women, and children, they cannot do so in obedience to Christ’s command, for He taught His people to love even their enemies.

You prefer to remain in ignorance regarding the motivations of those who will enslave and slaughter you and yours in obedience to their god and prophet. Perhaps others here do not.

Rather than attack those who expose the vile ideology motivating fourteen centuries of death and destruction, why not direct your considerable rhetorical skills against that ideology instead?

4. Re: Safety Dance Mar 30, 2009, 07:25 InBlack

Here are a few follow-ups on the chance that Mr. Heaslip (or his readers) might be persuaded, ending with a quick look at his rules for posting:

Banned for quoting Allah and Mohammed?

I agree those were statements full of hate. The only problem is, the hate is not from me, it is from the one who commands, “kill the unbelievers wherever you find them” (Qur’an 9:5).

Whose side are you on, Blue?

5. Re: Safety Dance Mar 30, 2009, 20:54 Amillennialist

Later . . .

Blue, why are you obfuscating for jihad?

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

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

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

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

“It is not for any prophet to have captives until he hath made slaughter in the land. Ye desire the lure of this world and Allah desireth (for you) the Hereafter, and Allah is Mighty, Wise” (Qur’an 8:67).

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

6. Re: Safety Dance Mar 30, 2009, 20:57 Amillennialist.

And, finally . . .

1. Disagree all you want but attacks of a personal nature will not be tolerated. Treat others as you want to be treated.
2. Do not post links to warez sites or instructions on how to obtain pirated software.
3. Abusing the forums in any manner that could be construed as ‘griefing’ will not be tolerated.
4. Ethnic slurs and homophobic language will not be tolerated.

1. I did not attack anyone personally. I quoted texts.
2. No warez nor pirating.
3. I posted comments highly-relevant to a link you posted, Blue.
4. What ethnicity is Islam?

So, we can notice “Islamic extremism” (your link’s link’s words, not mine), but we can’t examine its source. Whom does that aid, exactly?

Can you point out where I’ve erred? Where I’ve violated your rules?

No, yet you allow InBlack’s puerile ad hominem’s and profanity to stand.

What does that say about you, Blue?

7. Re: Safety Dance Mar 30, 2009, 21:00 Amillennialist

Jihad’s gremlins working their magic at Blues News

In Appeasers and Useful Idiot Dhimmis, Blues News, Defending jihad, Stephen Heaslip, The truth about Islam on March 30, 2009 at 5:45 PM

Under the heading “Safety Dance,” Stephen Heaslip included a link to a link to an article about hundreds of “youths” in the U.K. either actually or in danger of becoming “radicalized.” (For those of you who’d prefer that in English, it means, “made into good Muslims.”)

I posted a few quotations from Qur’an and Sunnah, illustrating just what it is that “radicalizes” so many misunderstanderers of Islam. You can guess the response that drew.

An Islamic scholar there who goes by the name “InBlack” (as in, the preferred color of her abaya?) responded with the name-calling and profanity one typically endures for stating facts.

Disappointingly, my original post was removed, and I was banned from commenting there by Mr. Heaslip.

Though I don’t wish to abuse anyone’s hospitality — even someone ignorantly facilitating the surrender of Western Civilization to Allah — I added a few more comments in reply. Undoubtedly, jihad’s gremlins are working as I type to remove them.

So, for posterity, here’s the exchange, beginning with what is left of my original comment:

* REMOVED *
This message was deleted on Mar 30, 2009, 08:26.

Later, the perspicacious InBlack fired this razor-sharp volley (rapier wit and insurmountable logic masked to avoid intellectual overload):

I could quote sh[**] like that from the Bible all day long a[**]hole.

A fundamentalist is a fundamentalist is a fundamentalist, regardless of which bloody brainwashing religion he is from.

Go tell it to some other flock, I doubt people on Blues will put up with your sh[**] for long.

1. Re: Safety Dance Mar 30, 2009, 00:17 Amillennialist

To which I replied:

So, a Christian “fundamentalist” who obeys Christ’s command to, “Treat others the way you want to be treated,” is morally-equivalent to the Muslim “fundamentalist” who obeys Allah’s command to, “Fight against . . . the Jews and Christians until they are brought low and pay the jizya” (Qur’an 9:29)?

That’s some persuasive logic and quite a response, InBlack. Where shall we start?

1. False tu quoque argument? Check.

2. Name-calling? Got it.

3. Generous amount of profanity? You bet.

4. Utter lack of anything substantive? Of course.

On the chance that other readers here are not as erudite as you, let me explain:

1. You cannot quote Biblical commands for offensive warfare to make the world Hebrew or Christian, but even if you could, that would have no bearing on whether or not Allah and his apostle require offensive warfare against all who refuse conversion to or subjugation under Islam.

2. Am I supposed to be intimidated? Embarrassed? Name-calling does not an argument make.

3. See point 2.

4. Even if “Christians” slaughter men, women, and children, they cannot do so in obedience to Christ’s command, for He taught His people to love even their enemies.

You prefer to remain in ignorance regarding the motivations of those who will enslave and slaughter you and yours in obedience to their god and prophet. Perhaps others here do not.

Rather than attack those who expose the vile ideology motivating fourteen centuries of death and destruction, why not direct your considerable rhetorical skills against that ideology instead?

4. Re: Safety Dance Mar 30, 2009, 07:25 InBlack

Here are a few follow-ups on the chance that Mr. Heaslip (or his readers) might be persuaded, ending with a quick look at his rules for posting:

Banned for quoting Allah and Mohammed?

I agree those were statements full of hate. The only problem is, the hate is not from me, it is from the one who commands, “kill the unbelievers wherever you find them” (Qur’an 9:5).

Whose side are you on, Blue?

5. Re: Safety Dance Mar 30, 2009, 20:54 Amillennialist

Later . . .

Blue, why are you obfuscating for jihad?

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

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

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

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

“It is not for any prophet to have captives until he hath made slaughter in the land. Ye desire the lure of this world and Allah desireth (for you) the Hereafter, and Allah is Mighty, Wise” (Qur’an 8:67).

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

6. Re: Safety Dance Mar 30, 2009, 20:57 Amillennialist.

And, finally . . .

1. Disagree all you want but attacks of a personal nature will not be tolerated. Treat others as you want to be treated.
2. Do not post links to warez sites or instructions on how to obtain pirated software.
3. Abusing the forums in any manner that could be construed as ‘griefing’ will not be tolerated.
4. Ethnic slurs and homophobic language will not be tolerated.

1. I did not attack anyone personally. I quoted texts.
2. No warez nor pirating.
3. I posted comments highly-relevant to a link you posted, Blue.
4. What ethnicity is Islam?

So, we can notice “Islamic extremism” (your link’s link’s words, not mine), but we can’t examine its source. Whom does that aid, exactly?

Can you point out where I’ve erred? Where I’ve violated your rules?

No, yet you allow InBlack’s puerile ad hominem’s and profanity to stand.

What does that say about you, Blue?

7. Re: Safety Dance Mar 30, 2009, 21:00 Amillennialist

CBS2/KCAL9 aids terrorism against Israel

In CBS2/KCAL9, Defending jihad, Hamas, Hamas Charter, Liberals aid jihad, Media jihad, The Jerusalem Fund for Education and Community Development, The Palestine Center, The truth about Islam on January 4, 2009 at 9:00 PM

Here’s a note sent to CBS2/KCAL9 in response to a report airing jihadist propaganda:

I had the opportunity to watch your piece on Muslims protesting in Anaheim against Israeli military action in Gaza.

By misrepresenting Israel’s efforts at self-defense, you aid the jihad against it.

Hamas commits terrorism against Israel regularly. How many reports have you done on that? When Israel finally defends itself, you present Muslim Jew-hatred as a valid perspective. That is unconscionable.

Have you not read the Hamas Charter? It states in part:

“The Islamic Resistance Movement draws its guidelines from Islam; derives from it its thinking, interpretations and views about existence, life and humanity; refers back to it for its conduct; and is inspired by it in whatever step it takes.”

“Its ultimate goal is Islam, the Prophet its model, the Qur’an its Constitution.”

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

“The prophet, prayer and peace be upon him, said: The time will not come until Muslims will fight the Jews (and kill them); until the Jews hide behind rocks and trees, which will cry: O Muslim! there is a Jew hiding behind me, come on and kill him! This will not apply to the Gharqad, which is a Jewish tree (cited by Bukhari and Muslim).”

As indicated by these statements, Islamic anti-Semitism has its source and sustenance in the command of Allah and the example of Mohammed:

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

“Allah’s Apostle said: ‘I have been 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 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).

“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).

“. . . We were (sitting) in the mosque when the Messenger of Allah . . . came to us and said: (Let us) go to the Jews. We went out with him until we came to them. The Messenger of Allah . . . stood up and called out to them (saying): O ye assembly of Jews, accept Islam (and) you will be safe.

[. . .]

“he killed their men, and distributed their women, children and properties among the Muslims, except that some of them had joined the Messenger of Allah . . . who granted them security. They embraced Islam. The Messenger of Allah . . . turned out all the Jews of Medlina. Banu Qainuqa’ (the tribe of ‘Abdullah b. Salim) and the Jews of Banu Haritha and every other Jew who was in Medina.

[. . .]

“It has been narrated by ‘Umar b. al-Khattib that he heard the Messenger of Allah . . . say: I will expel the Jews and Christians from the Arabian Peninsula and will not leave any but Muslim” (Muslim Book 19, Number 4363-4366).”

Tell the truth. Expose Islam. Defend Western Civilization.

Fulfill your responsibilities as journalists.

And since Muslims like to brag about their bloodlust until non-Muslims start noticing — at which point their statements and videos seem to disappear — here is the Hamas Charter from The Palestine Center, nested under the deceptively named, “The Jerusalem Fund for Education and Community Development” (which means undoubtedly, “Fund our taking Jerusalem from the Jews!”):

Hamas Charter (1988)

The Charter of Allah: The Platform of the Islamic Resistance Movement (Hamas)

“In the Name of Allah, the Merciful, the Compassionate You are the best community that has been raised up for mankind. Ye enjoin right conduct and forbid indecency; and ye believe in Allah. And if the People of the Scripture had believed, it had been better for them. Some of them are believers; but most of them are evil-doers. They will not harm you save a trifling hurt, and if they fight against you they will turn and flee. And afterward they will not be helped. Ignominy shall be their portion wheresoever they are found save [where they grasp] a rope from Allah and a rope from man. They have incurred anger from their Lord, and wretchedness is laid upon them. That is because they used to disbelieve the revelations of Allah, and slew the Prophets wrongfully. That is because they were rebellious and used to transgress.” Surat Al-Imran (III), verses 109-111 Israel will rise and will remain erect until Islam eliminates it as it had eliminated its predecessors. The Islamic World is burning. It is incumbent upon each one of us to pour some water, little as it may be, with a view of extinguishing as much of the fire as he can, without awaiting action by the others.

Introduction

Grace to Allah, whose help we seek, whose forgiveness we beseech, whose guidance we implore and on whom we rely. We pray and bid peace upon the Messenger of Allah, his family, his companions, his followers and those who spread his message and followed his tradition; they will last as long as there exist Heaven and Earth. O, people! In the midst of misadventure, from the depth of suffering, from the believing hearts and purified arms; aware of our duty and in response to the decree of Allah, we direct our call, we rally together and join each other. We educate in the path of Allah and we make our firm determination prevail so as to take its proper role in life, to overcome all difficulties and to cross all hurdles. Hence our permanent state of preparedness and our readiness to sacrifice our souls and dearest [possessions] in the path of Allah. Thus, our nucleus has formed which chartered its way in the tempestuous ocean of creeds and hopes, desires and wishes, dangers and difficulties, setbacks and challenges, both internal and external. When the thought matured, the seed grew and the plant took root in the land of reality, detached from temporary emotion and unwelcome haste, the Islamic Resistance Movement erupted in order to play its role in the path of its Lord. In so doing, it joined its hands with those of all Jihad fighters for the purpose of liberating Palestine. The souls of its Jihad fighters will encounter those of all Jihad fighters who have sacrificed their lives in the land of Palestine since it was conquered by the Companion of the Prophet, be Allah’s prayer and peace upon him, and until this very day. This is the Charter of the Islamic Resistance (Hamas) which will reveal its face, unveil its identity, state its position, clarify its purpose, discuss its hopes, call for support to its cause and reinforcement, and for joining its ranks. For our struggle against the Jews is extremely wide-ranging and grave, so much so that it will need all the loyal efforts we can wield, to be followed by further steps and reinforced by successive battalions from the multifarious Arab and Islamic world, until the enemies are defeated and Allah’s victory prevails. Thus we shall perceive them approaching in the horizon, and this will be known before long: “Allah has decreed: Lo! I very shall conquer, I and my messenger, lo! Allah is strong, almighty.”

Part I – Knowing the Movement

Article One: The Ideological Aspects
The Islamic Resistance Movement draws its guidelines from Islam; derives from it its thinking, interpretations and views about existence, life and humanity; refers back to it for its conduct; and is inspired by it in whatever step it takes.

Article Two: The Link between Hamas and the Association of Muslim Brothers
The Islamic Resistance Movement is one of the wings of the Muslim Brothers in Palestine. The Muslim Brotherhood Movement is a world organization, the largest Islamic Movement in the modern era. It is characterized by a profound understanding, by precise notions and by a complete comprehensiveness of all concepts of Islam in all domains of life: views and beliefs, politics and economics, education and society, jurisprudence and rule, indoctrination and teaching, the arts and publications, the hidden and the evident, and all the other domains of life.

Article Three: Structure and Essence
The basic structure of the Islamic Resistance Movement consists of Muslims who are devoted to Allah and worship Him verily [as it is written]: “I have created Man and Devil for the purpose of their worship” [of Allah]. Those Muslims are cognizant of their duty towards themselves, their families and country and they have been relying on Allah for all that. They have raised the banner of Jihad in the face of the oppressors in order to extricate the country and the people from the [oppressors’] desecration, filth and evil.

Article Four
The Movement welcomes all Muslims who share its beliefs and thinking, commit themselves to its course of action, keep its secrets and aspire to join its ranks in order to carry out their duty. Allah will reward them.

Article Five: Dimensions of Time and Space of the Hamas
As the Movement adopts Islam as its way of life, its time dimension extends back as far as the birth of the Islamic Message and of the Righteous Ancestor. Its ultimate goal is Islam, the Prophet its model, the Qur’an its Constitution. Its special dimension extends wherever on earth there are Muslims, who adopt Islam as their way of life; thus, it penetrates to the deepest reaches of the land and to the highest spheres of Heavens.

Article Six: Peculiarity and Independence
The Islamic Resistance Movement is a distinct Palestinian Movement which owes its loyalty to Allah, derives from Islam its way of life and strives to raise the banner of Allah over every inch of Palestine. Only under the shadow of Islam could the members of all regions coexist in safety and security for their lives, properties and rights. In the absence of Islam, conflict arises, oppression reigns, corruption is rampant and struggles and wars prevail. Allah had inspired the Muslim poet, Muhammad Iqbal, when he said:

When the Faith wanes, there is no security
There is no this-worldliness for those who have no faith
Those who wish to live their life without religion
Have made annihilation the equivalent of life.

Article Seven: The Universality of Hamas
By virtue of the distribution of Muslims, who pursue the cause of the Hamas, all over the globe, and strive for its victory, for the reinforcement of its positions and for the encouragement of its Jihad, the Movement is a universal one. It is apt to be that due to the clarity of its thinking, the nobility of its purpose and the loftiness of its objectives. It is in this light that the Movement has to be regarded, evaluated and acknowledged. Whoever denigrates its worth, or avoids supporting it, or is so blind as to dismiss its role, is challenging Fate itself. Whoever closes his eyes from seeing the facts, whether intentionally or not, will wake up to find himself overtaken by events, and will find no excuses to justify his position. Priority is reserved to the early comers. Oppressing those who are closest to you, is more of an agony to the soul than the impact of an Indian sword. “And unto thee have we revealed the Scripture with the truth, confirming whatever scripture was before it, and a watcher over it. So judge between them by that which Allah hath revealed, and follow not their desires away from the truth which has come unto thee. For each we have appointed a divine law and a traced-out way. Had Allah willed, He could have made you one community. But that He may try you by that which he has given you [He has made you as you are]. So vie with one another in good works. Unto Allah, you will all return. He will then inform you of that wherein you differ.” Hamas is one of the links in the Chain of Jihad in the confrontation with the Zionist invasion. It links up with the setting out of the Martyr Izz a-din al-Qassam and his brothers in the Muslim Brotherhood who fought the Holy War in 1936; it further relates to another link of the Palestinian Jihad and the Jihad and efforts of the Muslim Brothers during the 1948 War, and to the Jihad operations of the Muslim Brothers in 1968 and thereafter. But even if the links have become distant from each other, and even if the obstacles erected by those who revolve in the Zionist orbit, aiming at obstructing the road before the Jihad fighters, have rendered the pursuance of Jihad impossible; nevertheless, the Hamas has been looking forward to implement Allah’s promise whatever time it might take. The prophet, prayer and peace be upon him, said: The time will not come until Muslims will fight the Jews (and kill them); until the Jews hide behind rocks and trees, which will cry: O Muslim! there is a Jew hiding behind me, come on and kill him! This will not apply to the Gharqad, which is a Jewish tree (cited by Bukhari and Muslim).

Article Eight: The Slogan of the Hamas
Allah is its goal, the Prophet its model, the Qur’an its Constitution, Jihad its path and death for the case of Allah its most sublime belief.

Part II – Objectives

Article Nine: Motives and Objectives
Hamas finds itself at a period of time when Islam has waned away from the reality of life. For this reason, the checks and balances have been upset, concepts have become confused, and values have been transformed; evil has prevailed, oppression and obscurity have reigned; cowards have turned tigers, homelands have been usurped, people have been uprooted and are wandering all over the globe. The state of truth has disappeared and was replaced by the state of evil. Nothing has remained in its right place, for when Islam is removed from the scene, everything changes. These are the motives. As to the objectives: discarding the evil, crushing it and defeating it, so that truth may prevail, homelands revert [to their owners], calls for prayer be heard from their mosques, announcing the reinstitution of the Muslim state. Thus, people and things will revert to their true place.

Article Ten
The Islamic Resistance Movement, while breaking its own path, will do its utmost to constitute at the same time a support to the weak, a defense to all the oppressed. It will spare no effort to implement the truth and abolish evil, in speech and in fact, both here and in any other location where it can reach out and exert influence.

Part III – Strategies and Methods

Article Eleven: The Strategy of Hamas: Palestine is an Islamic Waqf
The Islamic Resistance Movement believes that the land of Palestine has been an Islamic Waqf throughout the generations and until the Day of Resurrection, no one can renounce it or part of it, or abandon it or part of it. No Arab country nor the aggregate of all Arab countries, and no Arab King or President nor all of them in the aggregate, have that right, nor has that right any organization or the aggregate of all organizations, be they Palestinian or Arab, because Palestine is an Islamic Waqf throughout all generations and to the Day of Resurrection. Who can presume to speak for all Islamic Generations to the Day of Resurrection? This is the status [of the land] in Islamic Shari’a, and it is similar to all lands conquered by Islam by force, and made thereby Waqf lands upon their conquest, for all generations of Muslims until the Day of Resurrection. This [norm] has prevailed since the commanders of the Muslim armies completed the conquest of Syria and Iraq, and they asked the Caliph of Muslims, ‘Umar Ibn al-Khattab, for his view of the conquered land, whether it should be partitioned between the troops or left in the possession of its population, or otherwise. Following discussions and consultations between the Caliph of Islam, ‘Umar Ibn al-Khattab, and the Companions of the Messenger of Allah, be peace and prayer upon him, they decided that the land should remain in the hands of its owners to benefit from it and from its wealth; but the control of the land and the land itself ought to be endowed as a Waqf [in perpetuity] for all generations of Muslims until the Day of Resurrection. The ownership of the land by its owners is only one of usufruct, and this Waqf will endure as long as Heaven and earth last. Any demarche in violation of this law of Islam, with regard to Palestine, is baseless and reflects on its perpetrators.

Article Twelve: Hamas in Palestine, Its Views on Homeland and Nationalism
Hamas regards Nationalism (Wataniyya) as part and parcel of the religious faith. Nothing is loftier or deeper in Nationalism than waging Jihad against the enemy and confronting him when he sets foot on the land of the Muslims. And this becomes an individual duty binding on every Muslim man and woman; a woman must go out and fight the enemy even without her husband’s authorization, and a slave without his masters’ permission. This [principle] does not exist under any other regime, and it is a truth not to be questioned. While other nationalisms consist of material, human and territorial considerations, the nationality of Hamas also carries, in addition to all those, the all important divine factors which lend to it its spirit and life; so much so that it connects with the origin of the spirit and the source of life and raises in the skies of the Homeland the Banner of the Lord, thus inexorably connecting earth with Heaven. When Moses came and threw his baton, sorcery and sorcerers became futile.

Article Thirteen: Peaceful Solutions, [Peace] Initiatives and International Conferences
[Peace] initiatives, the so-called peaceful solutions, and the international conferences to resolve the Palestinian problem, are all contrary to the beliefs of the Islamic Resistance Movement. For renouncing any part of Palestine means renouncing part of the religion; the nationalism of the Islamic Resistance Movement is part of its faith, the movement educates its members to adhere to its principles and to raise the banner of Allah over their homeland as they fight their Jihad: “Allah is the all-powerful, but most people are not aware.” From time to time a clamoring is voiced, to hold an International Conference in search for a solution to the problem. Some accept the idea, others reject it, for one reason or another, demanding the implementation of this or that condition, as a prerequisite for agreeing to convene the Conference or for participating in it. But the Islamic Resistance Movement, which is aware of the [prospective] parties to this conference, and of their past and present positions towards the problems of the Muslims, does not believe that those conferences are capable of responding to demands, or of restoring rights or doing justice to the oppressed. Those conferences are no more than a means to appoint the nonbelievers as arbitrators in the lands of Islam. Since when did the Unbelievers do justice to the Believers? “And the Jews will not be pleased with thee, nor will the Christians, till thou follow their creed. Say: Lo! the guidance of Allah [himself] is the Guidance. And if you should follow their desires after the knowledge which has come unto thee, then you would have from Allah no protecting friend nor helper.” Sura 2 (the Cow), verse 120 There is no solution to the Palestinian problem except by Jihad. The initiatives, proposals and International Conferences are but a waste of time, an exercise in futility. The Palestinian people are too noble to have their future, their right and their destiny submitted to a vain game. As the hadith has it: “The people of Syria are Allah’s whip on this land; He takes revenge by their intermediary from whoever he wished among his worshipers. The Hypocrites among them are forbidden from vanquishing the true believers, and they will die in anxiety and sorrow.” (Told by Tabarani, who is traceable in ascending order of traditionaries to Muhammad, and by Ahmed whose chain of transmission is incomplete. But it is bound to be a true hadith, for both story tellers are reliable. Allah knows best.)

Article Fourteen: The Three Circles
The problem of the liberation of Palestine relates to three circles: the Palestinian, the Arab and the Islamic. Each one of these circles has a role to play in the struggle against Zionism and it has duties to fulfill. It would be an enormous mistake and an abysmal act of ignorance to disregard anyone of these circles. For Palestine is an Islamic land where the First Qibla and the third holiest site are located. That is also the place whence the Prophet, be Allah’s prayer and peace upon him, ascended to heavens. “Glorified be He who carried His servant by night from the Inviolable Place of worship to the Far Distant Place of Worship, the neighborhood whereof we have blessed, that we might show him of our tokens! Lo! He, only He, is the Hearer, the Seer.” Sura XVII (al-Isra’), verse 1 In consequence of this state of affairs, the liberation of that land is an individual duty binding on all Muslims everywhere. This is the base on which all Muslims have to regard the problem; this has to be understood by all Muslims. When the problem is dealt with on this basis, where the full potential of the three circles is mobilized, then the current circumstances will change and the day of liberation will come closer. “You are more awful as a fear in their bosoms than Allah. That is because they are a folk who understand not.” Sura LIX, (Al-Hashr, the Exile), verse 13.

Article Fifteen: The Jihad for the Liberation of Palestine is an Individual Obligation
When our enemies usurp some Islamic lands, Jihad becomes a duty binding on all Muslims. In order to face the usurpation of Palestine by the Jews, we have no escape from raising the banner of Jihad. This would require the propagation of Islamic consciousness among the masses on all local, Arab and Islamic levels. We must spread the spirit of Jihad among the [Islamic] Umma, clash with the enemies and join the ranks of the Jihad fighters. The ‘ulama as well as educators and teachers, publicity and media men as well as the masses of the educated, and especially the youth and the elders of the Islamic Movements, must participate in this raising of consciousness. There is no escape from introducing fundamental changes in educational curricula in order to cleanse them from all vestiges of the ideological invasion which has been brought about by orientalists and missionaries. That invasion had begun overtaking this area following the defeat of the Crusader armies by Salah a-Din el Ayyubi. The Crusaders had understood that they had no way to vanquish the Muslims unless they prepared the grounds for that with an ideological invasion which would confuse the thinking of Muslims, revile their heritage, discredit their ideals, to be followed by a military invasion. That was to be in preparation for the Imperialist invasion, as in fact [General] Allenby acknowledged it upon his entry to Jerusalem: “Now, the Crusades are over.” General Gouraud stood on the tomb of Salah a-Din and declared: “We have returned, O Salah-a-Din!” Imperialism has been instrumental in boosting the ideological invasion and deepening its roots, and it is still pursuing this goal. All this had paved the way to the loss of Palestine. We must imprint on the minds of generations of Muslims that the Palestinian problem is a religious one, to be dealt with on this premise. It includes Islamic holy sites such as the Aqsa Mosque, which is inexorably linked to the Holy Mosque as long as the Heaven and earth will exist, to the journey of the Messenger of Allah, be Allah’s peace and blessing upon him, to it, and to his ascension from it. “Dwelling one day in the Path of Allah is better than the entire world and everything that exists in it. The place of the whip of one among you in Paradise is better than the entire world and everything that exists in it. [God’s] worshiper’s going and coming in the Path of Allah is better than the entire world and everything that exists in it.” (Told by Bukhari, Muslim Tirmidhi and Ibn Maja) I swear by that who holds in His Hands the Soul of Muhammad! I indeed wish to go to war for the sake of Allah! I will assault and kill, assault and kill, assault and kill (told by Bukhari and Muslim).

Article Sixteen
We must accord the Islamic [young] generations in our area, an Islamic education based on the implementation of religious precepts, on the conscientious study of the Book of Allah; on the Study of the Prophetic Tradition, on the study of Islamic history and heritage from its reliable sources, under the guidance of experts and scientists, and on singling out the paths which constitute for the Muslims sound concepts of thinking and faith. It is also necessary to study conscientiously the enemy and its material and human potential; to detect its weak and strong spots, and to recognize the powers that support it and stand by it. At the same time, we must be aware of current events, follow the news and study the analyses and commentaries on it, together with drawing plans for the present and the future and examining every phenomenon, so that every Muslim, fighting Jihad, could live out his era aware of his objective, his goals, his way and the things happening round him. “O my dear son! Lo! though it be but the weight of a grain of mustard-seed, and though it be in a rock, or in the heavens, or in the earth, Allah will bring it forth. Lo! Allah is subtle. Aware. O my dear son! Establish worship and enjoin kindness and forbid inequity, and persevere, whatever may befall thee. Lo! that is of the steadfast heart of things. Turn not thy cheek in scorn toward folk, nor walk with pertness in the land. Lo! Allah loves not braggarts and boasters.” Sura XXXI (Luqman), verses 16-18

Article Seventeen: The Role of Muslim Women
The Muslim women have a no lesser role than that of men in the war of liberation; they manufacture men and play a great role in guiding and educating the [new] generation. The enemies have understood that role, therefore they realize that if they can guide and educate [the Muslim women] in a way that would distance them from Islam, they would have won that war. Therefore, you can see them making consistent efforts [in that direction] by way of publicity and movies, curricula of education and culture, using as their intermediaries their craftsmen who are part of the various Zionist Organizations which take on all sorts of names and shapes such as: the Freemasons, Rotary Clubs, gangs of spies and the like. All of them are nests of saboteurs and sabotage. Those Zionist organizations control vast material resources, which enable them to fulfill their mission amidst societies, with a view of implementing Zionist goals and sowing the concepts that can be of use to the enemy. Those organizations operate [in a situation] where Islam is absent from the arena and alienated from its people. Thus, the Muslims must fulfill their duty in confronting the schemes of those saboteurs. When Islam will retake possession of [the means to] guide the life [of the Muslims], it will wipe out those organizations which are the enemy of humanity and Islam.

Article Eighteen
The women in the house and the family of Jihad fighters, whether they are mothers or sisters, carry out the most important duty of caring for the home and raising the children upon the moral concepts and values which derive from Islam; and of educating their sons to observe the religious injunctions in preparation for the duty of Jihad awaiting them. Therefore, we must pay attention to the schools and curricula upon which Muslim girls are educated, so as to make them righteous mothers, who are conscious of their duties in the war of liberation. They must be fully capable of being aware and of grasping the ways to manage their households. Economy and avoiding waste in household expenditures are prerequisites to our ability to pursue our cause in the difficult circumstances surrounding us. Therefore let them remember at all times that money saved is equivalent to blood, which must be made to run in the veins in order to ensure the continuity of life of our young and old. “Lo, men who surrender unto Allah, and women who surrender and men who believe and women who believe, and men who obey and women who obey, and men who speak the truth and women who speak the truth and men who persevere (in righteousness) and women who persevere and men who are humble and women who are humble, and men who give alms and women who give alms, and men who fast and women who fast, and men who guard their modesty and women who guard [their modesty], and men who remember Allah much and women who remember Allah has prepared for them forgiveness and a vast reward.” Sura 33 (Al-Ahzab, the Clans), verse 35.

Article Nineteen: The Role of Islamic Art in the War of Liberation
Art has rules and criteria by which one can know whether it is Islamic or Jahiliyya art. The problems of Islamic liberation underlie the need for Islamic art which could lift the spirit, and instead of making one party triumph over the other, would lift up all parties in harmony and balance. Man is a strange and miraculous being, made out of a handful of clay and a breath of soul; Islamic art is to address man on this basis, while Jahili art addresses the body and makes the element of clay paramount. So, books, articles, publications, religious exhortations, epistles, songs, poems, hymns, plays, and the like, if they possess the characteristics of Islamic art, have the requisites of ideological mobilization, of a continuous nurturing in the pursuance of the journey, and of relaxing the soul. The road is long and the suffering is great and the spirits are weary; it is Islamic art which renews the activity, revives the movement and arouses lofty concepts and sound planning. The soul cannot thrive, unless it knows how to contrive, unless it can transit from one situation to another. All this is a serious matter, no jesting. For the umma fighting its Jihad knows no jesting.

Article Twenty: Social Solidarity
Islamic society is one of solidarity. The Messenger of Allah, be Allah’s prayer and peace upon him, said: What a wonderful tribe were the Ash’aris! When they were overtaxed, either in their location or during their journeys, they would collect all their possessions, and then would divide them equally among themselves. This is the Islamic spirit which ought to prevail in any Muslim society. A society which confronts a vicious, Nazi-like enemy, who does not differentiate between man and woman, elder and young ought to be the first to adorn itself with this Islamic spirit. Our enemy pursues the style of collective punishment of usurping people’s countries and properties, of pursuing them into their exiles and places of assembly. It has resorted to breaking bones, opening fire on women and children and the old, with or without reason, and to setting up detention camps where thousands upon thousands are interned in inhuman conditions. In addition, it destroys houses, renders children orphans and issues oppressive judgements against thousands of young people who spend the best years of their youth in the darkness of prisons. The Nazism of the Jews does not skip women and children, it scares everyone. They make war against people’s livelihood, plunder their moneys and threaten their honor. In their horrible actions they mistreat people like the most horrendous war criminals. Exiling people from their country is another way of killing them. As we face this misconduct, we have no escape from establishing social solidarity among the people, from confronting the enemy as one solid body, so that if one organ is hurt the rest of the body will respond with alertness and fervor.

Article Twenty-One
Social solidarity consists of extending help to all the needy, both materially and morally, or assisting in the execution of certain actions. It is incumbent upon the members of the Hamas to look after the interests of the masses the way they would look after their own interests. They must spare no effort in the implementation and maintenance of those interests, and they must avoid playing with anything that might effect the future generations or cause damage to their society. For the masses are of them and for them, their strength is [ultimately] theirs and their future is theirs. The members of Hamas must share with the people its joys and sorrows, and adopt the demands of the people and anything likely to fulfill its interests and theirs. When this spirit reigns, congeniality will deepen, cooperation and compassion will prevail, unity will firm up, and the ranks will be strengthened in the confrontation with the enemy.

Article Twenty-Two: The Powers which Support the Enemy
The enemies have been scheming for a long time, and they have consolidated their schemes, in order to achieve what they have achieved. They took advantage of key elements in unfolding events, and accumulated a huge and influential material wealth which they put to the service of implementing their dream. This wealth [permitted them to] take over control of the world media such as news agencies, the press, publication houses, broadcasting and the like. [They also used this] wealth to stir revolutions in various parts of the globe in order to fulfill their interests and pick the fruits. They stood behind the French and the Communist Revolutions and behind most of the revolutions we hear about here and there. They also used the money to establish clandestine organizations which are spreading around the world, in order to destroy societies and carry out Zionist interests. Such organizations are: the Freemasons, Rotary Clubs, Lions Clubs, B’nai B’rith and the like. All of them are destructive spying organizations. They also used the money to take over control of the Imperialist states and made them colonize many countries in order to exploit the wealth of those countries and spread their corruption therein. As regards local and world wars, it has come to pass and no one objects, that they stood behind World War I, so as to wipe out the Islamic Caliphate. They collected material gains and took control of many sources of wealth. They obtained the Balfour Declaration and established the League of Nations in order to rule the world by means of that organization. They also stood behind World War II, where they collected immense benefits from trading with war materials and prepared for the establishment of their state. They inspired the establishment of the United Nations and the Security Council to replace the League of Nations, in order to rule the world by their intermediary. There was no war that broke out anywhere without their fingerprints on it: “…As often as they light a fire for war, Allah extinguishes it. Their efforts are for corruption in the land and Allah loves not corrupters.” Sura V (Al-Ma’ida—the Tablespread), verse 64 The forces of Imperialism in both the Capitalist West and the Communist East support the enemy with all their might, in material and human terms, taking turns between themselves. When Islam appears, all the forces of Unbelief unite to confront it, because the Community of Unbelief is one. “Oh ye who believe! Take not for intimates others than your own folk, who would spare no pain to ruin you. Hatred is revealed by [the utterance of] their mouth, but that which their breasts hide is greater. We have made plain for you the revelations if you will understand.” Sura III, (Al-Imran), verse 118 It is not in vain that the verse ends with God’s saying: “If you will understand.”

Part IV

Article Twenty-Three: Our Position Vis-a-Vis the Islamic Movements
The Hamas views the other Islamic movements with respect and appreciation. Even when it differs from them in one aspect or another or on one concept or another, it agrees with them in other aspects and concepts. It reads those movements as included in the framework of striving [for the sake of Allah], as long as they hold sound intentions and abide by their devotion to Allah, and as along as their conduct remains within the perimeter of the Islamic circle. All the fighters of Jihad have their reward. The Hamas regards those movements as its stock holders and asks Allah for guidance and integrity of conduct for all. It shall not fail to continue to raise the banner of unity and to exert efforts in order to implement it, [based] upon the [Holy] Book and the [Prophet’s] Tradition. “And hold fast, all of you together, to the cable of Allah, do not separate. And remember Allah’s favor unto you how ye were enemies and He made friendship between your hearts so that ye became as brothers by His grace; and (how) ye were upon the brink of an abyss of fire, and He did save you from it. Thus Allah makes clear His revelations unto you, that happily ye may be guided.” Sura III (Al-’Imran), verse 102.

Article Twenty-Four
Hamas will not permit the slandering and defamation of individuals and groups, for the Believers are not slanderers and cursers. However, despite the need to differentiate between that and the positions and modes of conduct adopted by individuals and groups whenever the Hamas detects faulty positions and modes of conduct, it has the right to point to the mistake, to denigrate it, to act for spelling out the truth and for adopting it realistically in the context of a given problem. Wisdom is roaming around, and the Believer ought to grasp it wherever he can find it. “Allah loves not the utterance of harsh speech save by one who has been wronged. Allah is ever Hearer, Knower. If you do good openly or keep it secret, or give evil, lo! Allah is forgiving, powerful.” Sura IV (Women), verses 147-148.

Article Twenty-Five: The National (wataniyya) Movements in the Palestinian Arena
[Hamas] reciprocated its respect to them, appreciates their condition and the factors surrounding them and influencing them, and supports them firmly as long as they do not owe their loyalty to the Communist East or to the Crusader West. We reiterate to every one who is part of them or sympathizes with them that the Hamas is a movement of Jihad, or morality and consciousness in its concept of life. It moves forward with the others, abhors opportunism, and only wishes well to individuals and groups. It does not aspire to material gains, or to personal fame, nor does it solicit remuneration from the people. It sets out relying on its own material resources, and what is available to it, [as it is said] “afford them the power you can avail yourself of.” [All that] in order to carry out its duty, to gain Allah’s favor; it has no ambition other than that. All the nationalist streams, operating in the Palestinian arena for the sake of the liberation of Palestine, may rest assured that they will definitely and resolutely get support and assistance, in speech and in action, at the present and in the future, [because Hamas aspires] to unite, not to divide; to safeguard, not to squander; to bring together, not to fragment. It values every kind word, every devoted effort and every commendable endeavor. It closes the door before marginal quarrels, it does not heed rumors and biased statements, and it is aware of the right of self-defense. Anything that runs counter or contradicts this orientation is trumped up by the enemies or by those who run in their orbit in order to create confusion, to divide our ranks or to divert to marginal things. “O ye who believe! If an evil-liver bring you tidings, verify it, lest ye smite some folk in ignorance and afterward repent of what ye did.” Sura XLIX (al Hujurat, the Private Apartments), verse 6

Article Twenty-Six
The Hamas, while it views positively the Palestinian National Movements which do not owe their loyalty to the East or to the West, does not refrain from debating unfolding events regarding the Palestinian problem, on the local and international scenes. These debates are realistic and expose the extent to which [these developments] go along with, or contradict, national interests as viewed from the Islamic vantage point.

Article Twenty Seven: The Palestine Liberation Organization
The PLO is among the closest to the Hamas, for it constitutes a father, a brother, a relative, a friend. Can a Muslim turn away from his father, his brother, his relative or his friend? Our homeland is one, our calamity is one, our destiny is one and our enemy is common to both of us. Under the influence of the circumstances which surrounded the founding of the PLO, and the ideological invasion which has swept the Arab world since the rout of the Crusades, and which has been reinforced by Orientalism and the Christian Mission, the PLO has adopted the idea of a Secular State, and so we think of it. Secular thought is diametrically opposed to religious thought. Thought is the basis for positions, for modes of conduct and for resolutions. Therefore, in spite of our appreciation for the PLO and its possible transformation in the future, and despite the fact that we do not denigrate its role in the Arab-Israeli conflict, we cannot substitute it for the Islamic nature of Palestine by adopting secular thought. For the Islamic nature of Palestine is part of our religion, and anyone who neglects his religion is bound to lose. “And who forsakes the religion of Abraham, save him who befools himself?” Sura II (Al-Baqra—the Co), verse 130 When the PLO adopts Islam as the guideline for life, then we shall become its soldiers, the fuel of its fire which will burn the enemies. And until that happens, and we pray to Allah that it will happen soon, the position of the Hamas towards the PLO is one of a son towards his father, a brother towards his brother, and a relative towards his relative who suffers the other’s pain when a thorn hits him, who supports the other in the confrontation with the enemies and who wishes him divine guidance and integrity of conduct. Your brother, your brother! Whoever has no brother, is like a fighter who runs to the battle without weapons. A cousin for man is like the best wing, and no falcon can take off without wings.

Article Twenty-Eight
The Zionist invasion is a mischievous one. It does not hesitate to take any road, or to pursue all despicable and repulsive means to fulfill its desires. It relies to a great extent, for its meddling and spying activities, on the clandestine organizations which it has established, such as the Freemasons, Rotary Clubs, Lions, and other spying associations. All those secret organizations, some which are overt, act for the interests of Zionism and under its directions, strive to demolish societies, to destroy values, to wreck answerableness, to totter virtues and to wipe out Islam. It stands behind the diffusion of drugs and toxics of all kinds in order to facilitate its control and expansion. The Arab states surrounding Israel are required to open their borders to the Jihad fighters, the sons of the Arab and Islamic peoples, to enable them to play their role and to join their efforts to those of their brothers among the Muslim Brothers in Palestine. The other Arab and Islamic states are required, at the very least, to facilitate the movement of the Jihad fighters from and to them. We cannot fail to remind every Muslim that when the Jews occupied Holy Jerusalem in 1967 and stood at the doorstep of the Blessed Aqsa Mosque, they shouted with joy: “Muhammad is dead, he left daughters behind.” Israel, by virtue of its being Jewish and of having a Jewish population, defies Islam and the Muslims. “Let the eyes of the cowards not fall asleep.”

Article Twenty-Nine: National and Religious Associations, Institutions, the Intelligentsia, and the Arab and Islamic Worlds
Hamas hopes that those Associations will stand by it on all levels, will support it, adopt its positions, boost its activities and moves and encourage support for it, so as to render the Islamic peoples its backers and helpers, and its strategic depth in all human and material domains as well as in information, in time and space. Among other things, they hold solidarity meetings, issue explanatory publications, supportive articles and tendentious leaflets to make the masses aware of the Palestinian issue, the problems it faces and of the plans to resolve them; and to mobilize the Islamic peoples ideologically, educationally and culturally in order to fulfill their role in the crucial war of liberation, as they had played their role in the defeat of the Crusades and in the rout of the Tartars and had saved human civilization. How all that is dear to Allah! “Allah has decreed: Lo! I verily shall conquer, I and my messengers. Lo! Allah is strong, Almighty.” Sura LVIII (Al-Mujadilah), verse 21.

Article Thirty
Men of letters, members of the intelligentsia, media people, preachers, teachers and educators and all different sectors in the Arab and Islamic world, are all called upon to play their role and to carry out their duty in view of the wickedness of the Zionist invasion, of its penetration into many countries, and its control over material means and the media, with all the ramifications thereof in most countries of the world. Jihad means not only carrying arms and denigrating the enemies. Uttering positive words, writing good articles and useful books, and lending support and assistance, all that too is Jihad in the path of Allah, as long as intentions are sincere to make Allah’s banner supreme. “Those who prepare for a raid in the path of Allah are considered as if they participated themselves in the raid. Those who successfully rear a raider in their home, are considered as if they participated themselves in the raid.” (Told by Bukhari, Muslim, Abu Dawud and Tirmidhi)

Article Thirty-One: The Members of Other Religions The Hamas is a Humane Movement
Hamas is a humane movement, which cares for human rights and is committed to the tolerance inherent in Islam as regards attitudes towards other religions. It is only hostile to those who are hostile towards it, or stand in its way in order to disturb its moves or to frustrate its efforts. Under the shadow of Islam it is possible for the members of the three religions: Islam, Christianity and Judaism to coexist in safety and security. Safety and security can only prevail under the shadow of Islam, and recent and ancient history is the best witness to that effect. The members of other religions must desist from struggling against Islam over sovereignty in this region. For if they were to gain the upper hand, fighting, torture and uprooting would follow; they would be fed up with each other, to say nothing of members of other religions. The past and the present are full of evidence to that effect. “They will not fight you in body safe in fortified villages or from behind wells. Their adversity among themselves is very great. Ye think of them as a whole whereas their hearts are diverse. That is because they are a folk who have no sense.” Sura 59 (al-Hashr, the Exile), verse 14 Islam accords his rights to everyone who has rights and averts aggression against the rights of others. The Nazi Zionist practices against our people will not last the lifetime of their invasion, for “states built upon oppression last only one hour, states based upon justice will last until the hour of Resurrection.” “Allah forbids you not those who warred not against you on account of religion and drove you not out from your houses, that you should show them kindness and deal justly with them. Lo! Allah loves the just dealers.” Sura 60 (Al-Mumtahana), verse 8.

Article Thirty-Two: The Attempts to Isolate the Palestinian People
World Zionism and Imperialist forces have been attempting, with smart moves and considered planning, to push the Arab countries, one after another, out of the circle of conflict with Zionism, in order, ultimately, to isolate the Palestinian People. Egypt has already been cast out of the conflict, to a very great extent through the treacherous Camp David Accords, and she has been trying to drag other countries into similar agreements in order to push them out of the circle of conflict. Hamas is calling upon the Arab and Islamic peoples to act seriously and tirelessly in order to frustrate that dreadful scheme and to make the masses aware of the danger of coping out of the circle of struggle with Zionism. Today it is Palestine and tomorrow it may be another country or other countries. For Zionist scheming has no end, and after Palestine they will covet expansion from the Nile to the Euphrates. Only when they have completed digesting the area on which they will have laid their hand, they will look forward to more expansion, etc. Their scheme has been laid out in the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, and their present [conduct] is the best proof of what is said there. Leaving the circle of conflict with Israel is a major act of treason and it will bring curse on its perpetrators. “Who so on that day turns his back to them, unless maneuvering for battle or intent to join a company, he truly has incurred wrath from Allah, and his habitation will be hell, a hapless journey’s end.” Sura 8 (al-Anfal—Spoils of War), verse 16 We have no escape from pooling together all the forces and energies to face this despicable Nazi-Tatar invasion. Otherwise we shall witness the loss of [our] countries, the uprooting of their inhabitants, the spreading of corruption on earth and the destruction of all religious values. Let everyone realize that he is accountable to Allah. “Whoever does a speck of good will bear [the consequences] and whoever does a speck of evil will see [the consequences].” Within the circle of the conflict with world Zionism, the Hamas regards itself the spearhead and the avant-garde. It joins its efforts to all those who are active on the Palestinian scene, but more steps need to be taken by the Arab and Islamic peoples and Islamic associations throughout the Arab and Islamic world in order to make possible the next round with the Jews, the merchants of war. “We have cast among them enmity and hatred till the day of Resurrection. As often as they light a fire for war, Allah extinguishes it. Their effort is for corruption in the land, and Allah loves not corrupters.” Sura V (Al-Ma’idah—the Table spread), verse 64.

Article Thirty-Three
The Hamas sets out from these general concepts which are consistent and in accordance with the rules of the universe, and gushes forth in the river of Fate in its confrontation and Jihad waging against the enemies, in defense of the Muslim human being, of Islamic Civilization and of the Islamic Holy Places, primarily the Blessed Aqsa Mosque. This, for the purpose of calling upon the Arab and Islamic peoples as well as their governments, popular and official associations, to fear Allah in their attitude towards and dealings with Hamas, and to be, in accordance with Allah’s will, its supporters and partisans who extend assistance to it and provide it with reinforcement after reinforcement, until the Decree of Allah is fulfilled, the ranks are over-swollen, Jihad fighters join other Jihad fighters, and all this accumulation sets out from everywhere in the Islamic world, obeying the call of duty, and intoning “Come on, join Jihad!” This call will tear apart the clouds in the skies and it will continue to ring until liberation is completed, the invaders are vanquished and Allah’s victory sets in. “Verily Allah helps one who helps Him. Lo! Allah is strong, Almighty.” Sura XXII (Pilgrimage), verse 40.

Part V – The Testimony of History

Article Thirty-Four: Confronting Aggressors Throughout History
Palestine is the navel of earth, the convergence of continents, the object of greed for the greedy, since the dawn of history. The Prophet, may Allah’s prayer and peace be upon him, points out to that fact in his noble hadith in which he implored his venerable Companion, Ma’adh ibn Jabl, saying: “O Ma’adh, Allah is going to grant you victory over Syria after me, from Al-Arish to the Euphrates, while its men, women, and female slaves will be dwelling there until the Day of Resurrection. Those of you who chose [to dwell in one of the plains of Syria or Palestine will be in a state of Jihad to the Day of Resurrection.” The greedy have coveted Palestine more than once and they raided it with armies in order to fulfill their covetousness. Multitudes of Crusades descended on it, carrying their faith with them and waving their Cross. They were able to defeat the Muslims for a long time, and the Muslims were not able to redeem it until their sought the protection of their religious banner; then, they unified their forces, sang the praise of their God and set out for Jihad under the Command of Saladin al-Ayyubi, for the duration of nearly two decades, and then the obvious conquest took place when the Crusaders were defeated and Palestine was liberated. “Say (O Muhammad) unto those who disbelieve: ye shall be overcome and gathered unto Hell, an evil resting place.” Sura III (Al-Imran), verse 12. This is the only way to liberation, there is no doubt in the testimony of history. That is one of the rules of the universe and one of the laws of existence. Only iron can blunt iron, only the true faith of Islam can vanquish their false and falsified faith. Faith can only be fought by faith. Ultimately, victory is reserved to the truth, and truth is victorious. “And verily Our word went forth of old unto Our Bordmen sent [to warn]. That they verily would be helped. And that Our host, they verily would be the victors.” Sura 38 (Al-saffat), verses 171-3.

Article Thirty-Five
Hamas takes a serious look at the defeat of the Crusades at the hand of Saladin the Ayyubid and the rescue of Palestine from their domination; at the defeat of the Tatars at Ein Jalut where their spine was broken by Qutuz and Al-Dhahir Baibars, and the Arab world was rescued from the sweep of the Tatars which ruined all aspects of human civilization. Hamas has learned from these lessons and examples, that the current Zionist invasion had been preceded by a Crusader invasion from the West; and another one, the Tatars, from the East. And exactly as the Muslims had faced those invasions and planned their removal and defeat, they are able to face the Zionist invasion and defeat it. This will not be difficult for Allah if our intentions are pure and our determination is sincere; if the Muslims draw useful lessons from the experiences of the past, and extricate themselves for the vestiges of the [western] ideological onslaught; and if they follow the traditions of Islam.

Epilogue

Article Thirty-Six: The Hamas are Soldiers
The Hamas, while breaking its path, reiterates time and again to all members of our people and the Arab and Islamic peoples, that it does not seek fame for itself nor material gains, or social status. Nor is it directed against any one member of our people in order to compete with him or replace him. There is nothing of that at all. It will never set out against any Muslims or against the non-Muslims who make peace with it, here or anywhere else. It will only be of help to all associations and organizations which act against the Zionist enemy and those who revolve in its orbit. Hamas posits Islam as a way of life, it is its faith and its yardstick for judging. Whoever posits Islam as a way of life, anywhere, and regardless of whether it is an organization, a state, or any other group, Hamas are its soldiers, nothing else. We implore Allah to guide us, to guide through us and to decide between us and our folk with truth. “Our Lord! Decide with truth between us and our folk, for Thou are the best of those who make decisions.” Sura VII (Al-A’raf—the Heights), verse 89. Our last call is: Thanks to Allah, the Lord of the Universe.