Amillennialist

Archive for the ‘Hugh Hewitt misunderstands Islam’ Category

"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.

Advertisements

"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.

Who represents more accurately the command of Allah and the example of Muhammad, the jihadist or the truly moderate?

In Appeasers and Useful Idiot Dhimmis, Hugh Hewitt misunderstands Islam, Ignorant and gullible Infidels, Michael J. Totten, The truth about Islam on July 26, 2009 at 6:20 AM

Maxtrue added:

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. Perhaps you should get out more and see the world.

If it wasn’t bad enough that Maxtrue falsely accuses me of “denying the reality of hundreds of millions of Muslims seeking no jihad, no death to infidels” (from where does he get “hundreds of millions”? Has Michael interviewed that many “real people on the street”? If so, were they honest?), he misses the simple fact that I’ve not been talking about “all Muslims.”

How is that both he and Michael Totten both wrongly conflate “sacred” texts with individual believers?

An individual Muslim necessarily represents Islam the way Muhammad and his allah intended no more than a “Christian” necessarily represents Christ accurately.

So, who represents Islam more faithfully, the Muslim who seeks to establish shari’a over all the earth using any means necessary, including violence, or the Muslim who truly rejects offensive warfare against the non-Muslim world and actually believes in equal rights for all people regardless of religion or gender?

Who represents more closely the command of Allah and the example of Muhammad, the jihadist or the “moderate”?

This leads to the question, who has the right to define “Islam”?

Just as Christ and His Apostles are the final word on what Christianity is and should be, so too Allah and its apostle define Islam.

Since Muhammad commanded and practiced offensive warfare against the non-Muslim world, the answer is clear.

Who represents more accurately the command of Allah and the example of Muhammad, the jihadist or the truly moderate?

In Appeasers and Useful Idiot Dhimmis, Hugh Hewitt misunderstands Islam, Ignorant and gullible Infidels, Michael J. Totten, The truth about Islam on July 26, 2009 at 6:20 AM

Maxtrue added:

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. Perhaps you should get out more and see the world.

If it wasn’t bad enough that Maxtrue falsely accuses me of “denying the reality of hundreds of millions of Muslims seeking no jihad, no death to infidels” (from where does he get “hundreds of millions”? Has Michael interviewed that many “real people on the street”? If so, were they honest?), he misses the simple fact that I’ve not been talking about “all Muslims.”

How is that both he and Michael Totten both wrongly conflate “sacred” texts with individual believers?

An individual Muslim necessarily represents Islam the way Muhammad and his allah intended no more than a “Christian” necessarily represents Christ accurately.

So, who represents Islam more faithfully, the Muslim who seeks to establish shari’a over all the earth using any means necessary, including violence, or the Muslim who truly rejects offensive warfare against the non-Muslim world and actually believes in equal rights for all people regardless of religion or gender?

Who represents more closely the command of Allah and the example of Muhammad, the jihadist or the “moderate”?

This leads to the question, who has the right to define “Islam”?

Just as Christ and His Apostles are the final word on what Christianity is and should be, so too Allah and its apostle define Islam.

Since Muhammad commanded and practiced offensive warfare against the non-Muslim world, the answer is clear.

How mendacious Muslim malevolence and intransigent Infidel ignorance combine to prove Sun Tzu not only a brilliant military strategist, but a prophet

In Deceiving non-Muslims, Hugh Hewitt misunderstands Islam, Jihad, Michael J. Totten, Sun Tzu, The truth about Islam on July 17, 2009 at 1:59 PM

Each of these statements applies to our current Overseas Contingency Operation/War on a Tactic.

Sun Tzu on what should be our War of Self-Defense Against Islam:

“It is said that if you know your enemies and know yourself, you will not be imperiled in a hundred battles; if you do not know your enemies but do know yourself, you will win one and lose one; if you do not know your enemies nor yourself, you will be imperiled in every single battle.”

Totten, Hewitt, Bush, Obama . . . no one tells the truth about Islam.

And now the OIC, in conjunction with the UN, the United States’ Congress, and the “president,” will limit and then outlaw not criticism, but exposure, of Allah’s command and Muhammad’s example.

“It is the rule in war, if ten times the enemy’s strength, surround them; if five times, attack them; if double, engage them; if equal, be able to divide them; if fewer, be able to evade them; if weaker, be able to avoid them.”

Or take their planes, use them as bombs, cry “Islamophobia!” when someone points out why you did it, and then exploit their ignorance and good will to the tune of thousands more American lives and billions upon billions of our dollars.

And they’ll celebrate your holidays. Maybe even hire one of your own to command their military.

“For to win one hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the acme of skill. To subdue the enemy without fighting is the acme of skill.”

Something like the Muslim Brotherhood’s “Grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying Western Civilization from within,” perhaps?

Islam’s success in America has been delayed by 9/11. If not for that, no one would have noticed until it was too late, just like a lobster in a pot of boiling water.

And don’t forget the MB’s buddies here in the United States: CAIR and ISNA (both unindicted co-conspirators in a federal terrorism trial), MPAC, Obama, his appointees, the American Library Association . . . .

“What is essential in war is victory, not prolonged operations.”

1400 years of jihad, you say?

How long does it take to win hearts and minds, again?

What about dialogue? “Mutual” respect?

Just long enough for them to get a nuke and bleed us dry?

Sun Tzu continues:

“Be extremely subtle, even to the point of formlessness. Be extremely mysterious, even to the point of soundlessness. Thereby you can be the director of the opponent’s fate

and

“If your enemy is secure at all points, be prepared for him. If he is in superior strength, evade him. If your opponent is temperamental, seek to irritate him. Pretend to be weak, that he may grow arrogant. If he is taking his ease, give him no rest. If his forces are united, separate them. If sovereign and subject are in accord, put division between them. Attack him where he is unprepared, appear where you are not expected.”

Or get yourself elected as the Great Satan’s Commander-in-Chief and take up positions in its government, military, security, academic, and media apparatus.

Muslims would never deceive anyone on religious grounds, right? Right?

Muhammad said, “War is deceit.”

Bukhari recorded that Abu Ad-Darda’ said, “We smile in the face of some people although our hearts curse them.”

“O ye who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends and protectors: They are but friends and protectors to each other. And he amongst you that turns to them (for friendship) is of them. Verily Allah guideth not a people unjust” (Qur’an 5:51).

Let not the believers take for friends or helpers Unbelievers rather than believers: if any do that, in nothing will there be help from Allah: except by way of precaution, that ye may Guard yourselves from them. But Allah cautions you (To remember) Himself; for the final goal is to Allah” (Qur’an 3:28).

The great military strategist continues:

“Victorious warriors win first and then go to war, while defeated warriors go to war first and then seek to win.”

They also go to war without their political, media, and academic “elites” having a clue as to what motivates the enemy.

“Religion of Peace! Religion of Peace!”

“All men can see these tactics whereby I conquer, but what none can see is the strategy out of which victory is evolved.”

“Terror” is only a tactic; Islam is the Source and Sustenance of 1400 years of global jihad.

“Treat your men as you would your own beloved sons. And they will follow you into the deepest valley.”

Or you can elect a radical, America-hating, former Muslim who kowtows to Islamic tyrants and sends your best and bravest into a war they cannot win without obliterating mountain ranges.

“In the practical art of war, the best thing of all is to take the enemy’s country whole and intact; to shatter and destroy it is not so good. So, too, it is better to recapture an army entire than to destroy it, to capture a regiment, a detachment or a company entire than to destroy them.”

Da’wa.

Or jihad.

Or bankrupting and disarming the nation. Regardless:

“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).

How mendacious Muslim malevolence and intransigent Infidel ignorance combine to prove Sun Tzu not only a brilliant military strategist, but a prophet

In Deceiving non-Muslims, Hugh Hewitt misunderstands Islam, Jihad, Michael J. Totten, Sun Tzu, The truth about Islam on July 17, 2009 at 1:59 PM

Each of these statements applies to our current Overseas Contingency Operation/War on a Tactic.

Sun Tzu on what should be our War of Self-Defense Against Islam:

“It is said that if you know your enemies and know yourself, you will not be imperiled in a hundred battles; if you do not know your enemies but do know yourself, you will win one and lose one; if you do not know your enemies nor yourself, you will be imperiled in every single battle.”

Totten, Hewitt, Bush, Obama . . . no one tells the truth about Islam.

And now the OIC, in conjunction with the UN, the United States’ Congress, and the “president,” will limit and then outlaw not criticism, but exposure, of Allah’s command and Muhammad’s example.

“It is the rule in war, if ten times the enemy’s strength, surround them; if five times, attack them; if double, engage them; if equal, be able to divide them; if fewer, be able to evade them; if weaker, be able to avoid them.”

Or take their planes, use them as bombs, cry “Islamophobia!” when someone points out why you did it, and then exploit their ignorance and good will to the tune of thousands more American lives and billions upon billions of our dollars.

And they’ll celebrate your holidays. Maybe even hire one of your own to command their military.

“For to win one hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the acme of skill. To subdue the enemy without fighting is the acme of skill.”

Something like the Muslim Brotherhood’s “Grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying Western Civilization from within,” perhaps?

Islam’s success in America has been delayed by 9/11. If not for that, no one would have noticed until it was too late, just like a lobster in a pot of boiling water.

And don’t forget the MB’s buddies here in the United States: CAIR and ISNA (both unindicted co-conspirators in a federal terrorism trial), MPAC, Obama, his appointees, the American Library Association . . . .

“What is essential in war is victory, not prolonged operations.”

1400 years of jihad, you say?

How long does it take to win hearts and minds, again?

What about dialogue? “Mutual” respect?

Just long enough for them to get a nuke and bleed us dry?

Sun Tzu continues:

“Be extremely subtle, even to the point of formlessness. Be extremely mysterious, even to the point of soundlessness. Thereby you can be the director of the opponent’s fate

and

“If your enemy is secure at all points, be prepared for him. If he is in superior strength, evade him. If your opponent is temperamental, seek to irritate him. Pretend to be weak, that he may grow arrogant. If he is taking his ease, give him no rest. If his forces are united, separate them. If sovereign and subject are in accord, put division between them. Attack him where he is unprepared, appear where you are not expected.”

Or get yourself elected as the Great Satan’s Commander-in-Chief and take up positions in its government, military, security, academic, and media apparatus.

Muslims would never deceive anyone on religious grounds, right? Right?

Muhammad said, “War is deceit.”

Bukhari recorded that Abu Ad-Darda’ said, “We smile in the face of some people although our hearts curse them.”

“O ye who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends and protectors: They are but friends and protectors to each other. And he amongst you that turns to them (for friendship) is of them. Verily Allah guideth not a people unjust” (Qur’an 5:51).

Let not the believers take for friends or helpers Unbelievers rather than believers: if any do that, in nothing will there be help from Allah: except by way of precaution, that ye may Guard yourselves from them. But Allah cautions you (To remember) Himself; for the final goal is to Allah” (Qur’an 3:28).

The great military strategist continues:

“Victorious warriors win first and then go to war, while defeated warriors go to war first and then seek to win.”

They also go to war without their political, media, and academic “elites” having a clue as to what motivates the enemy.

“Religion of Peace! Religion of Peace!”

“All men can see these tactics whereby I conquer, but what none can see is the strategy out of which victory is evolved.”

“Terror” is only a tactic; Islam is the Source and Sustenance of 1400 years of global jihad.

“Treat your men as you would your own beloved sons. And they will follow you into the deepest valley.”

Or you can elect a radical, America-hating, former Muslim who kowtows to Islamic tyrants and sends your best and bravest into a war they cannot win without obliterating mountain ranges.

“In the practical art of war, the best thing of all is to take the enemy’s country whole and intact; to shatter and destroy it is not so good. So, too, it is better to recapture an army entire than to destroy it, to capture a regiment, a detachment or a company entire than to destroy them.”

Da’wa.

Or jihad.

Or bankrupting and disarming the nation. Regardless:

“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).

Faith in democracy misguided

In Appeasers and Useful Idiot Dhimmis, Hugh Hewitt misunderstands Islam, Ignorant and gullible Infidels, The truth about Islam, Turkey, Victor Davis Hanson on July 10, 2009 at 11:33 AM

That in which so many people put their faith as “democracy” is actually the worldview derived from the doctrines of Christ and codified as a system of government in America’s Declaration of Independence and Constitution — especially the Bill of Rights.

These two documents recognize and guarantee the equality of rights — especially the Rights to Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness — to all, regardless of race, national origin, socioeconomic status, political party, or non-genocidal, non-totalitarian “religion” (yes, I exclude intentionally Islam and every other fascist, murderous ideology, for the Constitution is not a suicide pact).

Of what value is “democracy” when the majority recognize they can vote to themselves the fruits of a prosperous minority’s labor?

Even worse, when the majority demands shari’a and the Hell on Earth that it creates?

More from here, where a poster stumbles on a possible remedy for Islam in the West:

“Democracy doesn’t lose every time
Someone metioned this earlier. However, with all of its imperfections, no one mentioned Turkey. When you take a closer look at what Ataturk had to do to establish democracy there, one can see a possible model for other countries in the middle east.”

Democracy is only a tool used by [faithful] Muslims to institute Shari’a.

And Ataturk suppressed Islam by force and forbade its traditional political expression.

Are you implying we should do the same?

Faith in democracy misguided

In Appeasers and Useful Idiot Dhimmis, Hugh Hewitt misunderstands Islam, Ignorant and gullible Infidels, The truth about Islam, Turkey, Victor Davis Hanson on July 10, 2009 at 11:33 AM

That in which so many people put their faith as “democracy” is actually the worldview derived from the doctrines of Christ and codified as a system of government in America’s Declaration of Independence and Constitution — especially the Bill of Rights.

These two documents recognize and guarantee the equality of rights — especially the Rights to Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness — to all, regardless of race, national origin, socioeconomic status, political party, or non-genocidal, non-totalitarian “religion” (yes, I exclude intentionally Islam and every other fascist, murderous ideology, for the Constitution is not a suicide pact).

Of what value is “democracy” when the majority recognize they can vote to themselves the fruits of a prosperous minority’s labor?

Even worse, when the majority demands shari’a and the Hell on Earth that it creates?

More from here, where a poster stumbles on a possible remedy for Islam in the West:

“Democracy doesn’t lose every time
Someone metioned this earlier. However, with all of its imperfections, no one mentioned Turkey. When you take a closer look at what Ataturk had to do to establish democracy there, one can see a possible model for other countries in the middle east.”

Democracy is only a tool used by [faithful] Muslims to institute Shari’a.

And Ataturk suppressed Islam by force and forbade its traditional political expression.

Are you implying we should do the same?

Promoting ignorance of Islam is no virtue

In Appeasers and Useful Idiot Dhimmis, Hugh Hewitt misunderstands Islam, Ignorant and gullible Infidels, The truth about Islam on July 9, 2009 at 6:41 PM

Sgt. A. promotes ignorance of Islam here:

“Shame on you. Those folks are human beings; as misguided as many of them are, they are NOT all murderers or evil men. I will not condone this sort of hateful talk, either from conservatives OR progressives.”

Recognizing that Allah and his false prophet Muhammad require the faithful to convert, subdue and humiliate, and kill non-Muslims to make the world Islam is not hateful, it is necessary.

Apparently, you not only condone ignorance of Islam, you propagate it. Shame on you.

“YOU go over there and watch the women and kids sprawled on the ground from an IED blast where they were hanging up clothes to dry. . .”

The death of Muslim innocents is a great evil, but it is due to their Co-religionists of Peace and their god. Blame Muhammad.

“. . . YOU go over there and watch a man patiently teaching his young son to drive a cart and tell me they ought all to die. YOU go over there and work with the Iraqi police and tell me they’re all just like Al Qaeda and ought to die.”

Straw men.

Some of the police do serve Jihad. So too some of the cart-driving instructors. And some of those women and children who happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time undoubtedly advocate the absolute rule of Allah over all Infidel lands.

Did you mourn the innocents of Dresden? Hiroshima? Nagasaki? The South? Or would you have preferred the Republic fall?

Do you mourn the innocents of jihadist terror? 9/11, London 7/7, Madrid 3/11, Beslan, Bali, Indonesia, Somalia, Sudan (even before Darfur), Serbia, the Philippines, India, Egypt, Iraq, Israel?

Do you shed a tear for the Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, animists, pagans, and other non-Muslims persecuted, enslaved, raped, and slaughtered in their own lands because Allah demands it?

What of all the civilizations, cultures, languages, and lives destroyed by almost one and one-half millennia of Allah’s malevolence? Do you weep for them at all?

Are you even aware of it?

Your good intentions and natural compassion apparently blind you to the enemy we face, and I doubt those charged with preparing you for battle told you the truth.

“I am so proud that the vast majority of soldiers have no use for your despicable approach.”

His approach is to let Islam be Islam, undoubtedly so that more of our soldiers do not needlessly die for those who take Infidel blood and treasure as an fitting tribute to the supremacy of Islam and the Muslim (or don’t you know this?).

“You have every right to voice your opinion, but the one you chose to articulate is a vile, disgusting one, and I hope nobody else here subscribes to it.”

You have every right to voice your opinion, but the one you choose to articulate is a vile and disgusting one, for it is born of ignorance of nearly fourteen centuries of global jihad, and — to the extent that it “informs” and directs public policy, homeland security, and our war effort — it prevents us from defending ourselves as effectively as we must.

Unfortunately, too many here — nearly all our political, media, and academic leadership — subscribe to it.

Allowing Muslims to fulfill their god’s blood-lust (it must be satisfied!) against each other rather than against good-willed (if naive) Infidels seems not a bad plan at this point.

Promoting ignorance of Islam is no virtue

In Appeasers and Useful Idiot Dhimmis, Hugh Hewitt misunderstands Islam, Ignorant and gullible Infidels, The truth about Islam on July 9, 2009 at 6:41 PM

Sgt. A. promotes ignorance of Islam here:

“Shame on you. Those folks are human beings; as misguided as many of them are, they are NOT all murderers or evil men. I will not condone this sort of hateful talk, either from conservatives OR progressives.”

Recognizing that Allah and his false prophet Muhammad require the faithful to convert, subdue and humiliate, and kill non-Muslims to make the world Islam is not hateful, it is necessary.

Apparently, you not only condone ignorance of Islam, you propagate it. Shame on you.

“YOU go over there and watch the women and kids sprawled on the ground from an IED blast where they were hanging up clothes to dry. . .”

The death of Muslim innocents is a great evil, but it is due to their Co-religionists of Peace and their god. Blame Muhammad.

“. . . YOU go over there and watch a man patiently teaching his young son to drive a cart and tell me they ought all to die. YOU go over there and work with the Iraqi police and tell me they’re all just like Al Qaeda and ought to die.”

Straw men.

Some of the police do serve Jihad. So too some of the cart-driving instructors. And some of those women and children who happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time undoubtedly advocate the absolute rule of Allah over all Infidel lands.

Did you mourn the innocents of Dresden? Hiroshima? Nagasaki? The South? Or would you have preferred the Republic fall?

Do you mourn the innocents of jihadist terror? 9/11, London 7/7, Madrid 3/11, Beslan, Bali, Indonesia, Somalia, Sudan (even before Darfur), Serbia, the Philippines, India, Egypt, Iraq, Israel?

Do you shed a tear for the Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, animists, pagans, and other non-Muslims persecuted, enslaved, raped, and slaughtered in their own lands because Allah demands it?

What of all the civilizations, cultures, languages, and lives destroyed by almost one and one-half millennia of Allah’s malevolence? Do you weep for them at all?

Are you even aware of it?

Your good intentions and natural compassion apparently blind you to the enemy we face, and I doubt those charged with preparing you for battle told you the truth.

“I am so proud that the vast majority of soldiers have no use for your despicable approach.”

His approach is to let Islam be Islam, undoubtedly so that more of our soldiers do not needlessly die for those who take Infidel blood and treasure as an fitting tribute to the supremacy of Islam and the Muslim (or don’t you know this?).

“You have every right to voice your opinion, but the one you chose to articulate is a vile, disgusting one, and I hope nobody else here subscribes to it.”

You have every right to voice your opinion, but the one you choose to articulate is a vile and disgusting one, for it is born of ignorance of nearly fourteen centuries of global jihad, and — to the extent that it “informs” and directs public policy, homeland security, and our war effort — it prevents us from defending ourselves as effectively as we must.

Unfortunately, too many here — nearly all our political, media, and academic leadership — subscribe to it.

Allowing Muslims to fulfill their god’s blood-lust (it must be satisfied!) against each other rather than against good-willed (if naive) Infidels seems not a bad plan at this point.

Where is the Arab Ghandi or King?

In Appeasers and Useful Idiot Dhimmis, Hugh Hewitt misunderstands Islam, Ignorant and gullible Infidels, The truth about Islam, Victor Davis Hanson on July 9, 2009 at 6:33 PM

The question was asked here:

“Where is the Arab Ghandi or King?”

He was beheaded as an Apostate.

And, it is “Islamic,” not “Arab,” for that which retards Islamic civilization is not race but belief.

Victor Davis Hansen is a brilliant historian, but it is clear from this essay that he too fails to understand the Source and Sustenance of the Global Jihad.

It is true that a variety of factors may be the actual final stimulus that pushes a person to physically carry out a terrorist act, but those factors are not unique to “Middle Easterners.”

If a lack of technological, legal, or economic development and opportunity were the causes of terrorism, why is it (nearly) only Muslims engage in it? And why is it that this “radicalization” of the Religionists of Peace occurs around the world? What is the common denominator?

It is the word of Allah and the example of his apostle Mohammed. Their “sacred” texts state in part:

“. . . 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 refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya. . . . If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah’s help and fight them . . .'” (Muslim Book 019, Number 4294).

“…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).

“. . . fight them [Unbelievers] on until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah altogether and everywhere . . . ” (Qur’an 8:38, 39).

“O ye who believe! fight the unbelievers who gird you about, and let them find firmness in you: and know that Allah is with those who fear Him” (Qur’an 9:123).

“Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you.” (Qur’an 2:216).

“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).

“A man came to Allah’s Apostle and said, ‘Instruct me as to such a deed as equals Jihad in reward.’ He replied, ‘I do not find such a deed’” (Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 44).

“Remember thy Lord inspired the angels (with the message): ‘I am with you: give firmness to the Believers: I will instill terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers: smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them'” (Qur’an 8:12).

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

Where is the Arab Ghandi or King?

In Appeasers and Useful Idiot Dhimmis, Hugh Hewitt misunderstands Islam, Ignorant and gullible Infidels, The truth about Islam, Victor Davis Hanson on July 9, 2009 at 6:33 PM

The question was asked here:

“Where is the Arab Ghandi or King?”

He was beheaded as an Apostate.

And, it is “Islamic,” not “Arab,” for that which retards Islamic civilization is not race but belief.

Victor Davis Hansen is a brilliant historian, but it is clear from this essay that he too fails to understand the Source and Sustenance of the Global Jihad.

It is true that a variety of factors may be the actual final stimulus that pushes a person to physically carry out a terrorist act, but those factors are not unique to “Middle Easterners.”

If a lack of technological, legal, or economic development and opportunity were the causes of terrorism, why is it (nearly) only Muslims engage in it? And why is it that this “radicalization” of the Religionists of Peace occurs around the world? What is the common denominator?

It is the word of Allah and the example of his apostle Mohammed. Their “sacred” texts state in part:

“. . . 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 refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya. . . . If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah’s help and fight them . . .'” (Muslim Book 019, Number 4294).

“…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).

“. . . fight them [Unbelievers] on until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah altogether and everywhere . . . ” (Qur’an 8:38, 39).

“O ye who believe! fight the unbelievers who gird you about, and let them find firmness in you: and know that Allah is with those who fear Him” (Qur’an 9:123).

“Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you.” (Qur’an 2:216).

“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).

“A man came to Allah’s Apostle and said, ‘Instruct me as to such a deed as equals Jihad in reward.’ He replied, ‘I do not find such a deed’” (Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 44).

“Remember thy Lord inspired the angels (with the message): ‘I am with you: give firmness to the Believers: I will instill terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers: smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them'” (Qur’an 8:12).

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

More madness trying to explain the madness in the Middle East

In Appeasers and Useful Idiot Dhimmis, Hugh Hewitt misunderstands Islam, Ignorant and gullible Infidels, The truth about Islam, Victor Davis Hanson on July 9, 2009 at 6:15 PM

Even a great historian like Victor Davis Hanson is loath to state clearly what motivates the bloodlust of Allah. And too many Western Infidels, even at a place like Townhall, are all too willing to follow him in that blindness here.

To be fair, this article was written two years ago, and Mr. Hanson does mention shari’a, Islamic fundamentalism, and religious thugs. It also seems that he wanders too closely to “poverty causes jihad” and other distractions from the truth.

We need Mr. Hanson and other leaders to state more clearly that the Source and Sustenance of Islamic malevolence is the command of Allah and the example of Muhammad.

Hugh Hewitt still has a way to go, though. I heard him just yesterday use the abominations “Islamicist extremist” and “Qur’anic law — supposedly” (paraphrased, in relation to the stoning of Soraya M.).

We need people to tell the truth. This is America. The tide will turn.

British Muslims Fear Repercussions Over Tomorrow’s Train Bombing

In Barack Hussein Obama, Hugh Hewitt misunderstands Islam, India, Jihad, Liberals aid jihad, Mark Steyn, President Bush establishing Islam, The truth about Islam on December 9, 2008 at 2:55 PM

Mark Steyn is not only brilliant, he is courageous. Or, brilliantly courageous. Or, courageously brilliant. However you slice it, Steyn tells the truth about the Religion of Death and our media’s failure to do so.

Following are excerpts from his recent article on the latest jihad attack in Mumbai. Steyn exposes the cowardice of those entrusted to inform the public of facts pertinent to the preservation of their Life and Liberty.

One must ask, Where does Mr. Steyn’s associate Hugh “Extremist, Fundamentalist, Islamicisicismists have nothing whatsoever to do with Islam” Hewitt fall? Is he silently accepting, too?

What of President Bush? He’s confessed his belief that all gods are the same. That goes a long way to explaining seven-and-one-half years of “Religion of Peace” nonsense. Still working to advance Islam by obfuscation, it’s good to see that the President hasn’t become apathetic his last weeks in office. Doesn’t he have an industry to nationalize?

What about Monarch-Elect Barack “I was never a Muslim except when I was one” Hussein?

Here’s some clarity:

Shortly after the London Tube bombings in 2005, a reader of Tim Blair, the Sydney Daily Telegraph’s columnar wag, sent him a note-perfect parody of a typical newspaper headline: “British Muslims Fear Repercussions Over Tomorrow’s Train Bombing.”

Indeed. And so it goes. This time round — Bombay — it was the Associated Press that filed a story about how Muslims “found themselves on the defensive once again about bloodshed linked to their religion.”

Oh, I don’t know about that. In fact, you’d be hard pressed from most news reports to figure out the bloodshed was “linked” to any religion, least of all one beginning with “I-“ and ending in “-slam.” In the three years since those British bombings, the media have more or less entirely abandoned the offending formulations — “Islamic terrorists,” “Muslim extremists” — and by the time of the assault on Bombay found it easier just to call the alleged perpetrators “militants” or “gunmen” or “teenage gunmen,” as in the opening line of this report in the Australian: “An Adelaide woman in India for her wedding is lucky to be alive after teenage gunmen ran amok…”

Kids today, eh? Always running amok in an aimless fashion.

The veteran British TV anchor Jon Snow, on the other hand, opted for the more cryptic locution “practitioners.” “Practitioners” of what, exactly?

Hard to say. And getting harder. Tom Gross produced a jaw-dropping round-up of Bombay media coverage: The discovery that, for the first time in an Indian terrorist atrocity, Jews had been attacked, tortured, and killed produced from the New York Times a serene befuddlement: “It is not known if the Jewish center was strategically chosen, or if it was an accidental hostage scene.”

Hmm. Greater Bombay forms one of the world’s five biggest cities. It has a population of nearly 20 million. But only one Jewish center, located in a building that gives no external clue as to the bounty waiting therein. An “accidental hostage scene” that one of the “practitioners” just happened to stumble upon? “I must be the luckiest jihadist in town. What are the odds?”

Meanwhile, the New Age guru Deepak Chopra laid all the blame on American foreign policy for “going after the wrong people” and inflaming moderates, and “that inflammation then gets organized and appears as this disaster in Bombay.”

Really? The inflammation just “appears”? Like a bad pimple? The “fairer” we get to the, ah, inflamed militant practitioners, the unfairer we get to everyone else. At the Chabad House, the murdered Jews were described in almost all the Western media as “ultra-Orthodox,” “ultra-” in this instance being less a term of theological precision than a generalized code for “strange, weird people, nothing against them personally, but they probably shouldn’t have been over there in the first place.” Are they stranger or weirder than their killers? Two “inflamed moderates” entered the Chabad House, shouted “Allahu Akbar!,” tortured the Jews and murdered them, including the young Rabbi’s pregnant wife. Their two-year-old child escaped because of a quick-witted (non-Jewish) nanny who hid in a closet and then, risking being mown down by machine-gun fire, ran with him to safety.

The Times was being silly in suggesting this was just an “accidental” hostage opportunity — and not just because, when Muslim terrorists capture Jews, it’s not a hostage situation, it’s a mass murder-in-waiting. The sole surviving “militant” revealed that the Jewish center had been targeted a year in advance. The 28-year-old rabbi was Gavriel Holtzberg. His pregnant wife was Rivka Holtzberg. Their orphaned son is Moshe Holtzberg, and his brave nanny is Sandra Samuels. Remember their names, not because they’re any more important than the Indians, Britons, and Americans targeted in the attack on Bombay, but because they are an especially revealing glimpse into the pathologies of the perpetrators.

In a well-planned attack on iconic Bombay landmarks symbolizing great power and wealth, the “militants” nevertheless found time to divert 20 percent of their manpower to torturing and killing a handful of obscure Jews helping the city’s poor in a nondescript building. If they were just “teenage gunmen” or “militants” in the cause of Kashmir, engaged in a more or less conventional territorial dispute with India, why kill the only rabbi in Bombay? Dennis Prager got to the absurdity of it when he invited his readers to imagine Basque separatists attacking Madrid: “Would the terrorists take time out to murder all those in the Madrid Chabad House? The idea is ludicrous.”

And yet we take it for granted that Pakistani “militants” in a long-running border dispute with India would take time out of their hectic schedule to kill Jews. In going to ever more baroque lengths to avoid saying “Islamic” or “Muslim” or “terrorist,” we have somehow managed to internalize the pathologies of these men.

We are enjoined to be “understanding,” and we’re doing our best. A Minnesotan suicide bomber (now there’s a phrase) originally from Somalia returned to the old country and blew up himself and 29 other people last October. His family prevailed upon your government to have his parts (or as many of them as could be sifted from the debris) returned to the United States at taxpayer expense and buried in Burnsville Cemetery. Well, hey, in the current climate, what’s the big deal about a federal bailout of jihad operational expenses? If that’s not “too big to fail,” what is?

Last week, a Canadian critic reprimanded me for failing to understand that Muslims feel “vulnerable.” Au contraire, they project tremendous cultural confidence, as well they might: They’re the world’s fastest-growing population. A prominent British Muslim announced the other day that, when the United Kingdom becomes a Muslim state, non-Muslims will be required to wear insignia identifying them as infidels. If he’s feeling “vulnerable,” he’s doing a terrific job of covering it up.

We are told that the “vast majority” of the 1.6-1.8 billion Muslims (in Deepak Chopra’s estimate) are “moderate.” Maybe so, but they’re also quiet. And, as the AIDs activists used to say, “Silence=Acceptance.” It equals acceptance of the things done in the name of their faith. Rabbi Holtzberg was not murdered because of a territorial dispute over Kashmir or because of Bush’s foreign policy. He was murdered in the name of Islam — “Allahu Akbar.”

I wrote in my book, America Alone, that “reforming” Islam is something only Muslims can do. But they show very little sign of being interested in doing it, and the rest of us are inclined to accept that. Spread a rumor that a Koran got flushed down the can at Gitmo, and there’ll be rioting throughout the Muslim world. Publish some dull cartoons in a minor Danish newspaper, and there’ll be protests around the planet. But slaughter the young pregnant wife of a rabbi in Bombay in the name of Allah, and that’s just business as usual. And, if it is somehow “understandable” that for the first time in history it’s no longer safe for a Jew to live in India, then we are greasing the skids for a very slippery slope. Muslims, the AP headline informs us, “worry about image.” Not enough.

Honor our fallen heroes by telling the truth about the enemy we face

In Appeasers and Useful Idiot Dhimmis, Hugh Hewitt misunderstands Islam, Memorial Day, President Bush establishing Islam, The truth about Islam on May 25, 2008 at 10:17 PM

Our best and bravest sacrifice life and limb to defend us.

At the same time, they are being sacrificed to the President’s woeful misunderstanding of Islam, a misunderstanding echoed by nescient cheerleaders/dhimmis/appeasers like Hugh Hewitt.

The religion of Mohammed is no “religion of peace.” There may be moderate Muslims, but Islam itself is not moderate.

How can any Infidel sacrifice enough to win hearts and minds which already belong to this:

“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 [the poll tax demanded of subjugated and humiliated non-Muslims]. 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).

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

“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).

Honor our fallen heroes by telling the truth about the enemy we face

In Appeasers and Useful Idiot Dhimmis, Hugh Hewitt misunderstands Islam, Memorial Day, President Bush establishing Islam, The truth about Islam on May 25, 2008 at 10:17 PM

Our best and bravest sacrifice life and limb to defend us.

At the same time, they are being sacrificed to the President’s woeful misunderstanding of Islam, a misunderstanding echoed by nescient cheerleaders/dhimmis/appeasers like Hugh Hewitt.

The religion of Mohammed is no “religion of peace.” There may be moderate Muslims, but Islam itself is not moderate.

How can any Infidel sacrifice enough to win hearts and minds which already belong to this:

“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 [the poll tax demanded of subjugated and humiliated non-Muslims]. 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).

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

“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).

First Afghanistan, then Iraq, and now Kosovo

In Hugh Hewitt misunderstands Islam, Kosovo, President Bush establishing Islam, The truth about Islam, Treasonous dhimmitude on February 21, 2008 at 7:36 PM

Is Israel next?

At least Afghanistan was previously in the hands of the Taliban, so Allah gains little there.

But in the others? President Bush has used American Blood and Treasure to establish Sharia in Iraq, he has rewarded jihad in Kosovo by having our government recognize it as an independent state, and he continues to pressure Israel to commit suicide.

If the United States is truly a “government of the people, by the people, and for the people,” then I want to make it clear that this part of the American government condemns vehemently his treachery.

What do you call a “Christian” who aids Allah?

I’ve given the President the benefit of the doubt for many years now, but how can an uninterrupted chain of betrayals of Liberty in the cause of jihad continue to be explained away as the by-product of his ignorance of Islam?

It begins now to look like dhimmitude, bribery, or perversion.

Telling the truth about our nation’s enemy in a time of war — in this case, Islam — is his job as Commander-in-Chief.

Telling the truth about the latest phase in the nearly 1400-year-old jihad that Allah has waged against humanity is what our President, Congress, clergy, universities, and media (especially the “Conservative” pundits) ought to be doing.

Unfortunately, all of them are groveling in the muck at Mohammed’s feet.

It’s not even a matter of indifference. They actually obfuscate for Islam.

This week, Hugh Hewitt and a guest were patting themselves on the back for their vast knowledge of “Islamofascism,” proud that they knew that the “extremist Islamist jihadists” had been warring with us not since 9/11, but since 1979.

And now, President Bush has established another Muslim state, this time in Europe.

Bill Clinton bombed Christians to aid the mujahideen against Serbia, and George W. Bush is finishing what his predecessor began. Under the UN’s protective gaze, Muslims have burned churches, destroyed property, and brutalized, raped, and slaughtered Christians in the name of Allah.

I imagine the President will want now to finance with our tax dollars the KLA. (Instead, he ought to use some of that Saudi money he and his father have received over the years to do it.)

What’s next? Will he bomb Israel to help Hamas?

Apart from Geert Wilders, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Diana West, and Sue Myrick, can you think of any leaders in the West telling the truth about the Most Hateful Ideology the World Has Ever Seen?

Romney’s plan to defeat jihad? Pay the jizya!

In Hugh Hewitt misunderstands Islam, Mitt Romney, The truth about Islam on January 15, 2008 at 8:13 PM

Jizya is the humiliating and oppressive head tax inflicted upon populations conquered by Islam — just like Mohammed and his god commanded.

It is essentially what Mitt Romney has proposed to defeat jihad.

From here:

Hugh Hewitt is a conservative talk show host and author with a national audience. He likes to think he knows the intricacies of any particular issue relating to national politics.

Not too long ago, before the general public knew of CAIR’s perfidy, Hugh invited one of their propagandists to appear on his show to spread their deception. Hugh was bombarded with phone calls and e-mails informing him of what his guest was.

If the cluelessness of those who are supposed to be our leaders weren’t so tragic, what followed would be funny: Hugh scrambled desperately for an “expert” to counter his guest.

The best he could do was Frank Gaffney who, though he is knowledgeable in many areas regarding national security, knows only “radical extremist jihadism,” not jihad and not Islam.

And Hugh was revulsed at the number of Neanderthals in his audience claiming that Islamic terrorism has something to do with Islam.

Since that time, Hugh has read several books on terrorism and interviewed on his program many “experts” on the subject, but (to my knowledge) he runs from Robert and his work like the plague. Whenever I’ve suggested him to Hugh as a guest, I’ve received no reply.

The same Hugh Hewitt who invited CAIR to speak on his national radio show is the same Hugh Hewitt who insists that it is the mujahideen who pervert Islam, not those who reject jihad.

He now throws around authoritatively terms like “radical jihadism” (sound familiar?), “Salafist,” and “Qutb” (this too should sound familiar!), but he still denies the core fact that Allah and his false prophet command the enslavement or death of all who refuse to convert to Islam.

Despite numerous e-mails and phone calls, Hugh Hewitt continues to define Islam in terms of its heretics, apostates, and apologists. He believes that it is a “tiny minority of radically-extreme Islamo-fascist fundamentalist jihadism-ists” who’ve “hijacked a great world religion.”

So, what does Hugh Hewitt have to do with Mitt Romney’s position on jihad?

Hugh Hewitt wrote a book to help Romney get elected. Mitt is Hugh’s guy. They use the same vocabulary on “jihadism.” Mitt wants to throw unlimited Infidel money and manpower at jihad in hoping to “win [Muslim] hearts and minds.”

If Romney really understands the Source and Sustenance of the global jihad, how can he propose such suicidal nonsense?

And how can Hugh cheerlead so vigorously for him?

Romney’s “strategy” is both jizya and proof of a complete ignorance of what motivates Allah’s War Against Humanity.

To assume otherwise is wishful thinking. All those suffering under the tyranny of Allah have had enough make-believe.

Unless a candidate makes and adheres to a public statement identifying the cause of the global jihad as the command of Allah and the example of Mohammed, it would be foolish to assume knowledge or judgment any better than we’ve had the last six years.

Hugh Hewitt still missing the big picture

In Hugh Hewitt misunderstands Islam, Kosovo, Turkey on October 2, 2007 at 6:13 PM

From “moderate,” modern Turkey (let’s let them into the EU!):

“Speaking at Kanal D TV’s Arena program, PM Erdogan commented on the term “moderate Islam”, often used in the West to describe AKP and said, ‘These descriptions are very ugly, it is offensive and an insult to our religion. There is no moderate or immoderate Islam. Islam is Islam and that’s it.”

Source: Milliyet, Turkey, August 21, 2007″

Two years after inviting unindicted co-conspirator CAIR onto his program as an authority on Islam, Hugh is still willfully ignorant of what fuels the global jihad: the command of Allah and the example of his false prophet.

Qur’an and Sunnah require the faithful to war against all non-Muslims who refuse to either convert to Islam or to submit to an oppressive and humiliating second-class status as dhimmis.

This is neither “funamentalist,” “radical,” nor “extremist” Islam — this is Islam.

(Does Hugh know how long the Sunni/Shia conflict has raged and why?)

In light of the “divine” mandate for Infidel bloodshed in establishing the tyranny of Allah over all mankind, how wise is it to spend one more drop of American blood or one more dime of American treasure in service to Islam?

If our forces stay in Iraq to kill faithful Muslims obeying the call to advance jihad or to prepare for other fronts in our War of Self-Defense Against Allah, then that is a proper use of our military.

If our bravest and best continue to sacrifice life and limb for a Commander-in-Chief who persists in the delusion that Islam is a “great” world “religion of peace,” whose adherents will love us if only we give enough, then that is a crime and a tragedy.

President Bush has used our military to enshrine Shari’a — Islamic law — in Iraq’s constitution. He advocates an independent Kosovo. (Apparently, Islamic terrorism does pay.)

Hugh facilitates this ill-informed, suicidal policy by promoting the same false Islam.

Hugh Hewitt still missing the big picture

In Hugh Hewitt misunderstands Islam, Kosovo, Turkey on October 2, 2007 at 6:13 PM

From “moderate,” modern Turkey (let’s let them into the EU!):

“Speaking at Kanal D TV’s Arena program, PM Erdogan commented on the term “moderate Islam”, often used in the West to describe AKP and said, ‘These descriptions are very ugly, it is offensive and an insult to our religion. There is no moderate or immoderate Islam. Islam is Islam and that’s it.”

Source: Milliyet, Turkey, August 21, 2007″

Two years after inviting unindicted co-conspirator CAIR onto his program as an authority on Islam, Hugh is still willfully ignorant of what fuels the global jihad: the command of Allah and the example of his false prophet.

Qur’an and Sunnah require the faithful to war against all non-Muslims who refuse to either convert to Islam or to submit to an oppressive and humiliating second-class status as dhimmis.

This is neither “funamentalist,” “radical,” nor “extremist” Islam — this is Islam.

(Does Hugh know how long the Sunni/Shia conflict has raged and why?)

In light of the “divine” mandate for Infidel bloodshed in establishing the tyranny of Allah over all mankind, how wise is it to spend one more drop of American blood or one more dime of American treasure in service to Islam?

If our forces stay in Iraq to kill faithful Muslims obeying the call to advance jihad or to prepare for other fronts in our War of Self-Defense Against Allah, then that is a proper use of our military.

If our bravest and best continue to sacrifice life and limb for a Commander-in-Chief who persists in the delusion that Islam is a “great” world “religion of peace,” whose adherents will love us if only we give enough, then that is a crime and a tragedy.

President Bush has used our military to enshrine Shari’a — Islamic law — in Iraq’s constitution. He advocates an independent Kosovo. (Apparently, Islamic terrorism does pay.)

Hugh facilitates this ill-informed, suicidal policy by promoting the same false Islam.

Hugh Hewitt still missing the big picture

In Hugh Hewitt misunderstands Islam, Kosovo, Turkey on October 2, 2007 at 5:13 PM

From “moderate,” modern Turkey (let’s let them into the EU!):

“Speaking at Kanal D TV’s Arena program, PM Erdogan commented on the term “moderate Islam”, often used in the West to describe AKP and said, ‘These descriptions are very ugly, it is offensive and an insult to our religion. There is no moderate or immoderate Islam. Islam is Islam and that’s it.”

Source: Milliyet, Turkey, August 21, 2007″

Two years after inviting unindicted co-conspirator CAIR onto his program as an authority on Islam, Hugh is still willfully ignorant of what fuels the global jihad: the command of Allah and the example of his false prophet.

Qur’an and Sunnah require the faithful to war against all non-Muslims who refuse to either convert to Islam or to submit to an oppressive and humiliating second-class status as dhimmis.

This is neither “funamentalist,” “radical,” nor “extremist” Islam — this is Islam.

(Does Hugh know how long the Sunni/Shia conflict has raged and why?)

In light of the “divine” mandate for Infidel bloodshed in establishing the tyranny of Allah over all mankind, how wise is it to spend one more drop of American blood or one more dime of American treasure in service to Islam?

If our forces stay in Iraq to kill faithful Muslims obeying the call to advance jihad or to prepare for other fronts in our War of Self-Defense Against Allah, then that is a proper use of our military.

If our bravest and best continue to sacrifice life and limb for a Commander-in-Chief who persists in the delusion that Islam is a “great” world “religion of peace,” whose adherents will love us if only we give enough, then that is a crime and a tragedy.

President Bush has used our military to enshrine Shari’a — Islamic law — in Iraq’s constitution. He advocates an independent Kosovo. (Apparently, Islamic terrorism does pay.)

Hugh facilitates this ill-informed, suicidal policy by promoting the same false Islam.

Hugh Hewitt misreading Osama

In Hugh Hewitt misunderstands Islam, Liberals' irrational defense of abortion, OBL on September 10, 2007 at 2:19 PM

From Hugh Hewitt today:

“But OBL’s letter deserves more than a “skimming” and the trite, prepackaged responses such skimmings bring. . . . the “leader” of one of their two great enemies from within radical Islam . . . Osama no longer speaks to the American people as the potentate of an unstoppable international apocalyptic movement, but rather as someone, who if you were ignorant of his true identity, might just as well be a spokesman for the Muslim wing of a Western political party.

“There are new bin Ladens emerging in unlikely places . . . .”

Hugh “reads Osama” as well as he read CAIR when he invited its propagandists onto his program not long ago. This is because he is Islamically illiterate.

Mr. Hewitt’s analysis of OBL’s latest note, while not trite, is founded upon common misapprehensions of Islam.

For example, it is not “radical Islam,” of which OBL is a spokesman, it is Islam.

In his latest missive, OBL does two things: 1) He invites non-Muslims to accept Islam in accord with the command and example of Mohammed:

“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),

and 2) He speaks the language of the Left, hoping to further divide and weaken American (and Western) resolve.

Finally, Hugh wonders at “new bin Ladens emerging in unlikely places” and incorrectly indentifies OBL as our “original enemy.”

The fact that offensive warfare against non-Muslims to make the world Islam is the command of Allah and the example of his apostle explains the appearance of “new bin Ladens” and identifies the non-Muslim world’s true “original enemy.”

This is the truth that Hugh is loath to face.

Later . . .

“And liberals are as devoutly faithful to this religion — and as immune to reason — as the believers of any creed.”

Equating religious devotion with an “immunity to reason” is intellectually dishonest.

The two are not necessarily mutually-exclusive.

And then,

Mike’s self-nullifying argument

“Absolutely not, not if you mean by prohibiting abortion. Nobody can claim a right to the use of another human being’s body against their will — only the owner of that body, the woman, can make the decision to bear all the risks, suffer all the discomforts, absorb all the costs and accept responsibility for the care of the child, a responsibility that attaches to the parents once a child is born.”

Who “claims the right to the use of another human being’s body against their will” in pregnancy but the unborn baby? Little fascist!

In your view, the only person who has a “right to the use of another human being’s body against their will” is a mother when she murders her baby.

Thanks for clarifying.

Finally . . .

The source of “radical Islam” “good point – what does “victory” mean, when the source of radical Islam, namely Saudi Arabia and Iran, havent been dealt with.”

Misidentifying the source of “radical Islam” makes any final defeat of our enemy impossible, while ensuring the continued wasting of American blood and treasure.

The word of Allah and the example of Mohammed — as recorded in Qur’an and Sunnah, Islam’s “sacred” texts — is the source and sustenance of the global jihad.

Hugh Hewitt misreading Osama

In Hugh Hewitt misunderstands Islam, Liberals' irrational defense of abortion, OBL on September 10, 2007 at 2:19 PM

From Hugh Hewitt today:

“But OBL’s letter deserves more than a “skimming” and the trite, prepackaged responses such skimmings bring. . . . the “leader” of one of their two great enemies from within radical Islam . . . Osama no longer speaks to the American people as the potentate of an unstoppable international apocalyptic movement, but rather as someone, who if you were ignorant of his true identity, might just as well be a spokesman for the Muslim wing of a Western political party.

“There are new bin Ladens emerging in unlikely places . . . .”

Hugh “reads Osama” as well as he read CAIR when he invited its propagandists onto his program not long ago. This is because he is Islamically illiterate.

Mr. Hewitt’s analysis of OBL’s latest note, while not trite, is founded upon common misapprehensions of Islam.

For example, it is not “radical Islam,” of which OBL is a spokesman, it is Islam.

In his latest missive, OBL does two things: 1) He invites non-Muslims to accept Islam in accord with the command and example of Mohammed:

“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),

and 2) He speaks the language of the Left, hoping to further divide and weaken American (and Western) resolve.

Finally, Hugh wonders at “new bin Ladens emerging in unlikely places” and incorrectly indentifies OBL as our “original enemy.”

The fact that offensive warfare against non-Muslims to make the world Islam is the command of Allah and the example of his apostle explains the appearance of “new bin Ladens” and identifies the non-Muslim world’s true “original enemy.”

This is the truth that Hugh is loath to face.

Later . . .

“And liberals are as devoutly faithful to this religion — and as immune to reason — as the believers of any creed.”

Equating religious devotion with an “immunity to reason” is intellectually dishonest.

The two are not necessarily mutually-exclusive.

And then,

Mike’s self-nullifying argument

“Absolutely not, not if you mean by prohibiting abortion. Nobody can claim a right to the use of another human being’s body against their will — only the owner of that body, the woman, can make the decision to bear all the risks, suffer all the discomforts, absorb all the costs and accept responsibility for the care of the child, a responsibility that attaches to the parents once a child is born.”

Who “claims the right to the use of another human being’s body against their will” in pregnancy but the unborn baby? Little fascist!

In your view, the only person who has a “right to the use of another human being’s body against their will” is a mother when she murders her baby.

Thanks for clarifying.

Finally . . .

The source of “radical Islam” “good point – what does “victory” mean, when the source of radical Islam, namely Saudi Arabia and Iran, havent been dealt with.”

Misidentifying the source of “radical Islam” makes any final defeat of our enemy impossible, while ensuring the continued wasting of American blood and treasure.

The word of Allah and the example of Mohammed — as recorded in Qur’an and Sunnah, Islam’s “sacred” texts — is the source and sustenance of the global jihad.

Hugh Hewitt misreading Osama

In Hugh Hewitt misunderstands Islam, Liberals' irrational defense of abortion, OBL on September 10, 2007 at 1:19 PM

From Hugh Hewitt today:

“But OBL’s letter deserves more than a “skimming” and the trite, prepackaged responses such skimmings bring. . . . the “leader” of one of their two great enemies from within radical Islam . . . Osama no longer speaks to the American people as the potentate of an unstoppable international apocalyptic movement, but rather as someone, who if you were ignorant of his true identity, might just as well be a spokesman for the Muslim wing of a Western political party.

“There are new bin Ladens emerging in unlikely places . . . .”

Hugh “reads Osama” as well as he read CAIR when he invited its propagandists onto his program not long ago. This is because he is Islamically illiterate.

Mr. Hewitt’s analysis of OBL’s latest note, while not trite, is founded upon common misapprehensions of Islam.

For example, it is not “radical Islam,” of which OBL is a spokesman, it is Islam.

In his latest missive, OBL does two things: 1) He invites non-Muslims to accept Islam in accord with the command and example of Mohammed:

“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),

and 2) He speaks the language of the Left, hoping to further divide and weaken American (and Western) resolve.

Finally, Hugh wonders at “new bin Ladens emerging in unlikely places” and incorrectly indentifies OBL as our “original enemy.”

The fact that offensive warfare against non-Muslims to make the world Islam is the command of Allah and the example of his apostle explains the appearance of “new bin Ladens” and identifies the non-Muslim world’s true “original enemy.”

This is the truth that Hugh is loath to face.

Later . . .

“And liberals are as devoutly faithful to this religion — and as immune to reason — as the believers of any creed.”

Equating religious devotion with an “immunity to reason” is intellectually dishonest.

The two are not necessarily mutually-exclusive.

And then,

Mike’s self-nullifying argument

“Absolutely not, not if you mean by prohibiting abortion. Nobody can claim a right to the use of another human being’s body against their will — only the owner of that body, the woman, can make the decision to bear all the risks, suffer all the discomforts, absorb all the costs and accept responsibility for the care of the child, a responsibility that attaches to the parents once a child is born.”

Who “claims the right to the use of another human being’s body against their will” in pregnancy but the unborn baby? Little fascist!

In your view, the only person who has a “right to the use of another human being’s body against their will” is a mother when she murders her baby.

Thanks for clarifying.

Finally . . .

The source of “radical Islam” “good point – what does “victory” mean, when the source of radical Islam, namely Saudi Arabia and Iran, havent been dealt with.”

Misidentifying the source of “radical Islam” makes any final defeat of our enemy impossible, while ensuring the continued wasting of American blood and treasure.

The word of Allah and the example of Mohammed — as recorded in Qur’an and Sunnah, Islam’s “sacred” texts — is the source and sustenance of the global jihad.