Amillennialist

Archive for the ‘Jihad’ Category

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

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

A headline from Yahoo! News and AP:

Pakistani anti-terror court convicts 5 Americans

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

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

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

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

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

The fall of the Great City, Constantinople, 1453: Past is prelude

In Constantinople, Jihad, Jihad in America, Liberals aid jihad, The Decline and Fall of the American Republic, The truth about Islam, Treasonous dhimmitude, Western Civilization subverted from within on May 29, 2010 at 9:39 PM

The “smartest president ever” grew up Muslim, yet he lies about Islam to those who elected him.  He warns us to avoid “jumping to conclusions” about his (former?) fellow coreligionists-of-peace slaughtering Americans to shouts of “Allahu akbar!” The mayor betrayer of New York, Michael Bloomberg, green-lights the Green Plague’s latest jihad factory in what would have been the shadow of the Twin Towers, except that Muslims obliterated them, slaughtering thousands of innocents in the process. And here is the governor of Massachusetts Deval Patrick and Boston mayor Thomas Menino facilitating jihad in the land of the Adamses and Revere:

Certainly not what the Sons of Liberty had in mind.
Where’s Paul Revere when you need him?

What does any of this have to do with the fall of Constantinople so many centuries ago?  Only that, just as petty rivalries, incompetence, and betrayal weakened the Great City so that it could no longer resist the jihad waged against it, so today we face the same uncompromising, relentless evil.

At least the Romans knew enough to fight back. Our leaders usher the Ottomans into the city. This is what awaits the West:

The Turks had sought to enter the city with a fanatic spirit because the Prophet, in the Qur’an, offered them a special place in paradise. Sultan Mehmet only mimicked the Prophet Muhammad when he said, “…even if some of us should die, as is natural in war, and meet our destined end, you know well from the Qur’an what the Prophet says, ‘that he who dies in battle shall dine whole in body with Mahomet, and drink with him in paradise and he shall take his rest in a green spot and fragrant with flowers, enjoying the company of women and lovely boys and virgins and he will bathe in gorgeous baths. All these things he will enjoy in that place by God’s favor.’” Despite facing such great odds, the Byzantines would defend their ancient Christian capital with great tenacity against the armies of Mehmet.

[. . .]

When they were finished, with their preparations, the Ottomans began blowing trumpets throughout their camp, along with sounding the castanets and tambourines, to announce that the Sultan would make a proclamation to his soldiers. Mehmet said to his men, “Children of Mahomet, be of good cheer. Tomorrow we shall have so much wealth that we shall be all of gold, and from the beards of Greeks we shall make leashes to tie up our dogs, and their wives and their sons shall be our slaves; so be of good cheer children of Mahomet, and be ready to die with a stout heart for the love of our Mahomet.” That night so many fires were lit in the Turkish camp that it appeared to the defenders as if the very walls were on fire, thus causing more panic in the city.

A picture is worth a thousand words, but one ounce of common human decency would have been more appreciated

In Appeasers and Useful Idiot Dhimmis, Bangladesh, Deceiving non-Muslims, Ignorant and gullible Infidels, India, Jihad, The truth about Islam on May 29, 2010 at 2:15 PM
Muslim outreach after prayer. Coming to sidewalk near you, sooner or later.

From here, by way of Atlas. Be sure to learn the lesson Muslims and their Useful, Idiot Dhimmis like Mayor Bloomberg demand of you: It is not the rape, slavery, and slaughter in Allah’s name and in accord with Muhammad’s example that is the problem, it’s you for resisting it.

In response to those who’ve learned that lesson well, I ask:

What sort of religion inspires its followers to murder after prayer? This kind:

“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).

So don’t blame the victim or those reporting the evil. Stop the evil Muhammad preached and practiced.

“Chemical Sister” wrote:

“why don’t you highlight the evils of Hinduisms as well like untouchability?”

If only Islam would stop “touching” non-Muslims, there’d be no atrocities like the one above to photograph.

Stop trying to divert attention from the anthropophagic elephant in the room. Tu quoques, straw men, red herrings will do nothing to stop jihad.  The problem is Islam.

[. . .]

How does denying the evil in which your coreligionists-of-peace engage “heal” anyone or anything (except, perhaps, your cognitive dissonance)? In effect, your strategy is: If we deny it, they won’t come.”

Fourteen hundred years of barbarity in Allah’s name and in accord with Muhammad’s example — including more than 15,000 documented jihad attacks since 9/11 alone — prove otherwise.

And to Nashbloom:

I quote Muhammad, yet you chastise: “We have had enough of you spreading hatred messages towards one religion.”

That’s why I quote Muhammad. I want Islamic hatred toward all other religions to end. I want non-Muslims to realize what motivates the global jihad against them so that they might defend themselves. I want truly decent Muslims to confront and denounce the evil which they worship (and perhaps, save themselves).

If I quote Muhammad and you call that “hate,” what does that say about what YOU believe regarding Muhammad’s words?

And when you write, “Killing someone in name of religion is mindset of poor ignorant people who don’t know the true God,” aren’t you calling Muslims “poor ignorant people”, and aren’t you denying that Allah is “the true God”? Because Muslims who butcher non-Muslims in Allah’s name and in accord with Muhammad’s example have ample justification from their “sacred” texts for doing so.

Being an Islamic scholar, you already knew that.

The Dark Ages were brought on by religious barbarians, but not by the ones you were taught had done it

In Classical Civilization, Dark Ages, Jihad, John O'Neill, Medieval Period, Spanish Inquisition, The truth about Islam on March 16, 2010 at 4:24 PM

“Magua’s heart is twisted; he would make himself into what twisted him.”

-Nathaniel of the Yengeese; Hawkeye, adopted son
of Chingachgook of the Mohican people

That line from The Last of the Mohicans, uttered regarding its murderous antagonist, reveals what can happen also to a society long-tormented: it can adopt the values and perspectives of its tormentors, a kind of societal Stockholm Syndrome.  Is it hard to understand (the exaggerated, but still un-Christian) Spanish Inquisition as a response to eight hundred years of Islamic “tolerance”?  If John Calvin — hailed by some as a contributor to the Reformation (in reality, he was only a heretic riding Luther’s coattails) — can incorporate Islam’s unholy fatalism into his ungodly Double Predestination, then what limit exists to the depravity into which a people can descend?

Islam laid siege to Christendom from the time of the genocidal pedophile’s “prophetic” career until modern times when — as Winston Churchill observed — Europe’s technological superiority delivered it from Allah’s clutches.  (In fact, so thoroughly was the West rescued that it lost all memory of nearly one and one-half millennia of siege, slaughter, and slavery at Muslim hands, so that it now not only invites jihad’s agents within its borders, it punishes its own citizens who dare to state merely what Islam’s “sacred” texts declare about itself.)  From the Holy Land to Byzantium to Iberia to Tours to Greece to the Balkans to Vienna, if not for the grace of God and ingenuity and courage of its people, Western Christianity would have fallen entirely under Muhammad’s yoke centuries ago.

In Holy Warriors: Islam and the Demise of Classical Civilization, John O’Neill puts the first responsibility for the Dark Ages where it belongs: Not on Romanized, baptized barbarians or the Roman Catholic Church, but on the prophet from hell and those who followed him (note the mention of Muslim mercenaries menacing the Mediterranean; even a newborn America had to deal with the malevolence of the Barbary Pirates):

One of the most enduring problems of history is the decline of Classical Civilization. How was it that the civilization of Greece and Rome, which had endured almost a thousand years, a civilization which prized learning, science and reason, gave way to the world of the Medieval; an age which saw, for a while, the almost complete disappearance of the rationalist spirit of Greece and Rome? The traditional view was that after their seizure of Italy in the fifth century, the Barbarian tribes of Germany and Scythia had reduced Europe to an economic and cultural wasteland, initiating a Dark Age, which was to last half a millennium. After the Reformation, another suspect was added to the list: Christianity, or, more accurately, Catholic Christianity. In this view Christianity was corrupted beyond recognition after the time of Constantine and from the fourth century onwards a power-hungry Church hierarchy, in cahoots with the Imperial authorities, kept the population of Europe in subservience and ignorance, effectively completing the destructive work of the Barbarians.

In this ground-breaking work, historian John J. O’Neill examines a great variety of evidence from many specialties and reaches an astonishing and novel conclusion: Classical Civilization was not destroyed by Barbarians or by Christians. It survived intact into the early seventh century. The Vandals and Goths who seized the Western Empire in the fifth century had become completely romanized by the start of the sixth century. Artistic and intellectual life flourished, as did the economy and the cities built earlier under the Empire. Yet sometime in the middle of the seventh century everything changed. Cities were abandoned, literacy plummeted, royal authority declined and local strongmen, or “barons”, seized control of the provinces. The Middle Ages had begun.

Who or what had caused this? As O’Neill notes, by the 1920s Belgian historian Henri Pirenne had located the proverbial “smoking gun”; but it was not in the hands of the Barbarians or the Christians: it was held by those who, even then, it had become fashionable to credit with saving, rather than destroying, Classical Civilization: the Arabs. In a conclusion that will have resonance for the modern world, O’Neill argues convincingly that all we regard as “Medieval” had its origin in Islam, and that the Muslims terminated Classical Civilization in Europe just as surely as they did in the Middle East. O’Neill shows how the sudden relapse of Europe in the seventh century was due entirely to the economic blockade imposed by Islam’s war against Christendom. The Mediterranean, which had previously been a cultural highway, now became a frontier, and a very dangerous frontier at it. Prompted by Islam’s doctrine of perpetual war against nonbelievers, Muslim pirates scoured the Mediterranean, effectively ending all trade between Europe and the great centers of civilization in the Near East. The flow of gold ended, as did the supply of all luxury items. And so too did the supply of papyrus from Egypt, without which Europeans were forced to rely on expensive parchment. Not surprisingly, literacy plummeted. Worst of all, the great cities of the West, which depended upon the trade in luxury items from the East, began to decline.

As the dominant power of the time, ideas originating in the Islamic world now began to penetrate Europe. From their Muslim foes Christian Europeans began to think in terms that would have been unimaginable a century earlier. The idea of “Holy War” entered the mindset of Christians, and, under the influence of Islam, the rationalism of Greece and Rome began to be replaced by a literal and intolerant interpretation of “The Book.” Classical civilization was dead.

How can those who humiliate, enslave, rape, and butcher the Bride of Christ please her Groom?

In Appeasers and Useful Idiot Dhimmis, Christ vs. Allah, Deceiving non-Muslims, Ignorant and gullible Infidels, Jihad, Justification, The truth about Islam on February 11, 2010 at 3:23 AM

A little more in reply to this:

I have serious problems with what Islam teaches, as you do. We must resist jihad and its attempts to attack, subvert and convert. That said we must resist the the human response of demonizing our adversaries or even more importantly, ALL Muslims.

Thank you for your courteous reply, Stavros.

I must ask, where did I “demonize ALL Muslims”? I referenced merely what Muhammad said and did and what his followers have done (and do) in obedience to him.  I even noted, “to the degree that his followers’ knowledge, zeal, and resources allow.”

If that’s “demonizing ALL Muslims,” then what does that say about their god? About those who knowingly follow such a demon?

You believe in Jesus. Then you have a responsibility to say what He says. Jesus did not preach that “living according to Christian principles” earns any favor with Him. Christ and His Apostles declared, “No one comes to the Father but by Me,” and “all have sinned and . . . are justified freely by His grace . . . it is by grace you have been saved . . . not by works . . . .”

How can you think that anyone who calls Christ a “blasphemer” — for Muhammad declared that anyone who claims that allah has a son is a blasphemer, and Christ called Himself the Son of God — can please Him? How can anyone who extols as the “Ideal Man” (Muhammad) someone who committed genocide, pedophilia, rape, and slavery in his god’s name please the Living God? How can those who humiliate, enslave, rape, and butcher the Bride of Christ please her Groom?

Muhammad lied. He was a liar and murderer from (almost) the beginning of his “prophetic” career. When he claimed to represent the God of the Bible, he did so in order to gain credibility among the Jews and Christians of Arabia. When they rightly rejected his blasphemy — and after he had achieved sufficient military capacity — he went to war against them.

When you equate Muhammad’s allah with the Son of God, you blaspheme Him. To someone who knows Jesus’ words and works that should be obvious, unless you’re unfamiliar with what Muhammad actually said and did. If that’s the case, then here’s a bit on that (linked previously):

“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).

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

[Ibn Kathir says of this verse: “‘Wage war’ mentioned here means, oppose and contradict, and it includes disbelief, blocking roads and spreading fear in the fairways. Mischief in the land refers to various types of evil.” So, Muhammad requires execution, crucifixion, or cutting off hands and feet from opposite sides for “disbelief.”]

“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 said, ‘I have been made victorious with terror'” (Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 220).

“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).

“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).

By the way, I thought you might be interested in this.

The history of Greeks and Turks has always been the history of Islamic supremacism and jihad

In Christ vs. Allah, Constantinople, Jihad, The truth about Islam on February 10, 2010 at 4:01 PM

In reflecting on the conflict between Greeks and Turks, one author observes:

“I’m not sure why I am telling you this story except to point out that we share the same God and he listens to our prayers even when they are coming from those we consider our adversaries.”

While searching for images of Black Tuesday, I discovered this site. I’ve had a chance to read only this post and all its comments, but I have to agree with a poster there, its author’s content and style is top-notch.

A few thoughts in response to several of the points raised there:

The reason there will never be peace between Greeks and Turks is because one adheres to an ideology commanding the enslavement or slaughter of all who refuse the “invitation” to convert. The other is one of its many victims.

This goes a long way toward explaining not only the deep-seated animosity of Greeks toward Turks (how can you not feel some dissonance at 1400 years of Islamic rape, slavery, and slaughter?), but also the condescension, sense of entitlement, arrogance, and denial-of-wrongdoing by Muslims in general, and Turks in particular.

Of course, predators want to “forgive and forget” the past — once their victims can defend themselves. That’s why Muslim memories go back only a few decades and only to when they finally met “infidels” who were able to stand up for themselves. Muslims forget conveniently their nearly one and one-half millennia of genocide, slavery, rape, kidnap, and forcible conversion of non-Muslims — including Greeks — in obedience to Allah and in accord with Muhammad’s example.

. . . With all due respect, we Christians and Muslims do not worship the same god. Jesus Christ committed no sin, healed the sick, raised the dead, spoke only the truth, died for the sins of the whole world, and resurrected. He commanded His people to love even their enemies, going so far as to pray (and die!) for those who were murdering Him.

On the other hand, Muhammad committed genocide, pedophilia, rape, torture, mutilation, slavery, theft, extortion, wife-abuse, polygamy, religious and gender apartheid, deceit, and blasphemy and taught others to do the same, claiming, “Allah made me do it.” In other words, Muhammad violated all Ten Commandments and the Golden Rule and demanded under penalty of death that you should, too.

One should not be surprised when — to the degree that his followers’ knowledge, zeal, and resources allow — Muslims wage war against their non-Muslim neighbors. Since conquering Rum (the Rome of the East, Byzantium) was one of Muhammad’s personal goals — and it was finally achieved on Black Tuesday, the Last Day of the World, May 29, 1453, it is clear that the history of Greeks and Turks has always been the history of Islamic supremacism and jihad.

Burying your head in the sand just presents to the enemy a larger and more attractive target

In 'Umdat al-Salik, Appeasers and Useful Idiot Dhimmis, Deceiving non-Muslims, Ignorant and gullible Infidels, Jihad, Jihad in America, Muslim Brotherhood, Non-violent jihad, The truth about Islam on February 8, 2010 at 1:18 PM

Denial and obfuscation worked for 1930’s Europe, didn’t it?

Notice the pastor’s reaction to the truth about Islam: “It’s people like you who are responsible for an escalation of the violence.” Good thing he isn’t jumping to any conclusions.

Let’s be perfectly clear: Those who commend, command, and commit genocide, pedophilia, rape, mutilation, torture, slavery, theft, extortion, wife abuse, polygamy, religious and gender apartheid, deceit, and blasphemy in the name of Allah and in accord with Muhammad’s example aren’t the problem, it is those who point out those commands and that example who “escalate the violence.”

In other words, non-Muslims’ reading of Islamic texts causes jihad.

Apparently, this “pastor” believes that if we bury our heads in the sand, then the problem will just go away, when what we’re really doing is just presenting a larger and more attractive target to Allah.

Educate yourselves in Islam’s texts, tenets, and timelines. Educate others. We cannot defeat an enemy we do not know and our “leaders” refuse to name.

From here (emphasis added):

An expert on the advance of radical Islam in the United States says the Muslim Brotherhood is effectively employing a strategy of presenting ‘Islam lite’ to organizations, including Christian churches.

Dorothy Cutter, coordinator for the Hartford, Conn., chapter of Aglow Islamic Awareness, part of a national chain of Christian fellowships that study how Islamic law motivates Muslims to participate in jihad, said she heard of a United Church of Christ congregation where an Islamic speaker was a guest.

She contacted the church to see if she would be allowed to present some of the harsher truths about Islam.

‘The pastor pushed the material back at me and said, ‘It’s people like you who are responsible for an escalation of the violence,” Cutter said.

[. . .]

The Muslim disinformation methodology is illustrated by the 2006 controversy over a speech by Pope Benedict XVI in Regensberg, Germany.

The pope quoted from Manuel II Palaiologos, a Byzantine emperor who was one of the last Christian rulers before the fall of Constantinople to the Muslim Ottoman Empire.

“Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached,” the pope said, citing the emperor.

Objecting vehemently to the pope’s remarks, a group of 38 imams wrote an open letter to the pontiff.

“We would like to point out that ‘holy war’ is a term that does not exist in the Islamic languages,” the imams said. “Jihad, it must be emphasized, means struggle, and specifically struggle in way of God. This struggle may take many forms, including the use of force.”

That makes it all better, doesn’t it?

One of the imams was the Islamic scholar Nuh Ha Mim Keller, who translated the classic book on Islamic Law, “Reliance of the Traveler.” The book states in section 09.0, “Jihad means to war against non-Muslims, and it is etymologically derived from the word mujahada, signifying warfare to establish the religion.”

Dismissing existential threats to Western Civilization: It’s the only thing many of today’s Europeans do better than Jew-hatred

In Appeasers and Useful Idiot Dhimmis, Battle of Tours/Poitiers, Charles Martel, Geert Wilders, Ignorant and gullible Infidels, Jihad, The truth about Islam on February 1, 2010 at 11:11 PM

Geert Wilders is today’s Winston Churchill in a world full of Neville Chamberlains and Grima Wormtongues, clueless cowards and treasonous snakes typified by people like Rory Graycrow Underclass, who asks in response to the heroic Wilders’ warnings to the West regarding its Islamic Enemy Within:

In 1400 years Islam has failed to take over Europe. Why is he so afraid it will happen now?

Such a question betrays a suicidal ignorance of nearly one and one-half millennia of jihad in Europe.

After Muhammad’s death, his armies exploded out of Arabia and into the Holy Land, North Africa, Persia, Greater India, etc., nation after nation throughout Africa and Asia falling to Allah’s butchers.  Formerly Christian, Jewish, Buddhist, Hindu, Zoroastrian, animist, and other non-Muslim societies were obliterated, consumed, mutilated, and subsumed by the Religion of Insatiable Bloodlust.

Neither was Europe spared.  The fact is, Islamic tyranny in Europe goes back to its beginnings.  In the west, Spain fought for eight hundred years to regain its freedom from its Islamic overlords, succeeding finally in 1492.  If not for Charles Martel (“The Hammer”), who stopped Islam’s advance into France and the heart of Europe at the Battle of Tours/Poitiers in 732, western Europe would have fallen to Allah.  (And that would have meant no Michelangelo, no Beethoven, no Isaac Newton, no Albert Einstein, no Christopher Columbus, no George Washington, no Magna Carta, no Mayflower Compact, no Declaration of Independence, no Bill of Rights.)

The coastal areas of the British Isles and the Mediterranean also suffered jihad’s depredations, both directly and by proxy.  Part of the Vikings’ notorious malevolence was due to their contribution to the Islamic slave trade.  Italy, Sicily, Greece, and other coastal European regions suffered at the hands of Muslims themselves.

Eastern Europe fared no better than the rest.  Turkey is the epitome of why Geert Wilders is concerned about Islam.  Before it was forcibly secularized by Kemal Ataturk, Turkey was the Ottoman Empire; before that it was part of Byzantium, the great Christian empire.  After centuries of jihad, the Byzantine Empire was overthrown finally in 1453 when its great city Constantinople — the “Rome of the East” — and its magnificent church Hagia Sofia — the jewel of Christendom — fell to jihad.

And that doesn’t include centuries of jihad in the Balkans.  Christian boys were kidnapped by Muhammad’s monsters, forcibly converted, twisted into devils, and sent back to enslave and slaughter their own people.  Forget neither the Siege of Vienna in 1683, where Jan Sobieski repelled the last flagrant attempt by the ummah to conquer Europe.

What does any of that have to do with today?  Only this: Islam has not changed, its adherents are rediscovering what their god and prophet require of them, and rather than champions like Charles Martel and Jan Sobieski crushing jihad and halting the Islamization of their homelands, people like Rory Graycrow Underclass import the Religion of Pedophilia, Female Genital Mutilation, and Wife-beating.  They implement shari’a courts.  They obfuscate for, and punish criticism of, the barbaric ideology.

Why is Geert Wilders “so afraid it will happen now”?

Because it is happening now.

Seventy-eight percent of Muslims in Pakistan Islamophobic . . . the other 22% realized the poll was part of the Zionist-Crusader conspiracy to defame Islam

In 'Umdat al-Salik, Al-Azhar, Jihad, Pakistan, Rifqa Bary, The truth about Islam on September 24, 2009 at 3:10 PM

Since everyone knows that only racist, fear-mongering fascists claim that Islam requires violence.

No, Rifqa Bary is in no danger at all. Though everyone conspiring to return her to her to Ohio will share responsibility for her murder if her parents or their coreligionists are successful in fulfilling the commands of Allah and its monster Muhammad.

More moderation from Islam, this time in Pakistan where, according to Andrew Bostom, a recent survey shows 78% of the population receiving our billions support death for apostates and women are buried alive for honor.

Here is why:

“A manual of Islamic law certified by Al-Azhar as a reliable guide to Sunni orthodoxy says that ‘retaliation is obligatory against anyone who kills a human being purely intentionally and without right.’ However, ‘not subject to retaliation’ is ‘a father or mother (or their fathers or mothers) for killing their offspring, or offspring’s offspring.’ (‘Umdat al-Salik o1.1-2).”

Remembering 9/11*

In 9/11, Barack Hussein Obama, Deceiving non-Muslims, Israel, Jihad, Jihad in America, The truth about Islam on September 11, 2009 at 8:11 AM

While it is fitting and proper that we should remember those who fell on 9/11 and their families and continue to support our political, law enforcement, and military personnel who work to defend us, to continue to lie about or deny why the attack occurred is suicidal.

The command of Allah and the example of Muhammad require the faithful to use [any] means necessary, including violence, to establish the rule of Allah over all mankind (see for yourself here).

Muhammad offered non-Muslims three options: Conversion, slavery as dhimmis, or death.

Nowhere do you hear our political, media, or academic elites state this basic fact. Instead, you’ve got the president of the United States apologizing to Islam (in a “speech” from Al-Azhar University, whose president endorses suicide bombings), bowing to Muslim tyrants (the Saudi king), and negotiating with Islamic terrorists working to secure nukes (Iran), all while abandoning the only decent, free nation in that part of the world, Israel.

Islamic tyranny and intimidation must be resisted.

Islamic obfuscation and propaganda must be exposed and dispelled.

It is not racism to evaluate a set of beliefs. It is not phobic to state facts about what a text says. It is not intolerant to expose and condemn genocide, murder, pedophilia, rape, slavery, vandalism, extortion, theft, deceit, and religious and gender discrimination [carried out] in the name of a “god.”

Many resources are available on-line. Jihad Watch is highly recommended. [I happen to like this site also.]

Here is just a taste of what Muhammad and his allah intend for you, and whether out of ignorance, cowardice, deceit, or simple human decency, the fact that Muslims you know do not advocate such behavior does nothing to negate what Muhammad [commanded] and practiced:

“kill the pagans wherever you find them” (Qur’an 9:5).

“Fight against . . . the People of the Book [Jews and Christians] . . . until they feel themselves subdued and pay the jizya” (Qur’an 9:29).

Remember 9/11, but not with helpless, limp-wristed, self=indulgent expressions of ignorance and confusion.

Remember 9/11 with an accurate understanding of the enemy, an ancient foe which seeks to devour all that you hold dear.

Remember 9/11 and honor our dead by determining to expose, denounce, and punish all who through ignorance, perversion, malfeasance, or deceit would hamper our efforts at effective self-defense.

Fourteen hundred years of global jihad. Fourteen thousand terrorist attacks in Allah’s name since 9/11 alone. Innocent victims of Muhammad’s bloodlust (and lust) cry out around the world.

What will you do when they want to put your children in the oven?

*Will Obama be eating ice cream, playing golf, or playing the fiddle?

The New World has its Chamberlain; what we need desperately is our Churchill

In Barack Hussein Obama, Jihad, The Decline and Fall of the American Republic, Winston Churchill, World War II on August 10, 2009 at 11:20 AM

At least Neville Chamberlain groveled to the devil before London was blitzed.

Much like the British prime minister’s appeasement of Hitler with the Munich pact of 1938 — which gave the monster a portion of Czechoslovakia — today we have our nation’s “leader” apologizing to, appeasing, and continuing the payment of jizya to Islam.

Here is Churchill’s blunt condemnation of Chamberlain’s malfeasance:

“I will begin by saying what everybody would like to ignore or forget but which must nevertheless be stated, namely that we have sustained a total and unmitigated defeat . . . instead of snatching the victuals from the table, [Hitler] has been content to have them served to him course by course.”

Our Chamberlain bows to Saudi tyrants, apologizes to the ideology of our demise, and seeks to feed Israel to the dogs.

The result of Chamberlain’s policies, major German advances and the retreat of more than 300,000 of its soldiers from France, England stood alone and outgunned, with Churchill in the lead.

From here:

I have, myself, full confidence that if all do their duty, if nothing is neglected, and if the best arrangements are made, as they are being made, we shall prove ourselves once again able to defend our Island home, to ride out the storm of war, and to outlive the menace of tyranny, if necessary for years, if necessary alone.

At any rate, that is what we are going to try to do. That is the resolve of His Majesty’s Government-every man of them. That is the will of Parliament and the nation. The British Empire and the French Republic, linked together in their cause and in their need, will defend to the death their native soil, aiding each other like good comrades to the utmost of their strength. Even though large tracts of Europe and many old and famous States have fallen or may fall into the grip of the Gestapo and all the odious apparatus of Nazi rule, we shall not flag or fail. We shall go on to the end, we shall fight in France, we shall fight on the seas and oceans, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our Island, whatever the cost may be, we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender, and even if, which I do not for a moment believe, this Island or a large part of it were subjugated and starving, then our Empire beyond the seas, armed and guarded by the British Fleet, would carry on the struggle, until, in God’s good time, the New World, with all its power and might, steps forth to the rescue and the liberation of the old.

The “New World” has its Chamberlain; what we need desperately is our Churchill.

The New World has its Chamberlain; what we need desperately is our Churchill

In Barack Hussein Obama, Jihad, The Decline and Fall of the American Republic, Winston Churchill, World War II on August 10, 2009 at 11:20 AM

At least Neville Chamberlain groveled to the devil before London was blitzed.

Much like the British prime minister’s appeasement of Hitler with the Munich pact of 1938 — which gave the monster a portion of Czechoslovakia — today we have our nation’s “leader” apologizing to, appeasing, and continuing the payment of jizya to Islam.

Here is Churchill’s blunt condemnation of Chamberlain’s malfeasance:

“I will begin by saying what everybody would like to ignore or forget but which must nevertheless be stated, namely that we have sustained a total and unmitigated defeat . . . instead of snatching the victuals from the table, [Hitler] has been content to have them served to him course by course.”

Our Chamberlain bows to Saudi tyrants, apologizes to the ideology of our demise, and seeks to feed Israel to the dogs.

The result of Chamberlain’s policies, major German advances and the retreat of more than 300,000 of its soldiers from France, England stood alone and outgunned, with Churchill in the lead.

From here:

I have, myself, full confidence that if all do their duty, if nothing is neglected, and if the best arrangements are made, as they are being made, we shall prove ourselves once again able to defend our Island home, to ride out the storm of war, and to outlive the menace of tyranny, if necessary for years, if necessary alone.

At any rate, that is what we are going to try to do. That is the resolve of His Majesty’s Government-every man of them. That is the will of Parliament and the nation. The British Empire and the French Republic, linked together in their cause and in their need, will defend to the death their native soil, aiding each other like good comrades to the utmost of their strength. Even though large tracts of Europe and many old and famous States have fallen or may fall into the grip of the Gestapo and all the odious apparatus of Nazi rule, we shall not flag or fail. We shall go on to the end, we shall fight in France, we shall fight on the seas and oceans, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our Island, whatever the cost may be, we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender, and even if, which I do not for a moment believe, this Island or a large part of it were subjugated and starving, then our Empire beyond the seas, armed and guarded by the British Fleet, would carry on the struggle, until, in God’s good time, the New World, with all its power and might, steps forth to the rescue and the liberation of the old.

The “New World” has its Chamberlain; what we need desperately is our Churchill.

Only one thing justifies the events of September 11th, and everyone with at least a modicum of awareness and common sense knows what that is

In Five Little Letters, Jihad, Jihad in America, Non-violent jihad, Resisting Jihad, The truth about Islam, Tony Blair on August 10, 2009 at 10:58 AM

You don’t need a degree in comparative religion or fluency in Arabic to understand what motivated 9/11 and the fourteen thousand Islamic terrorist attacks since then.

That being said, it seems all major world leaders lack even a modicum of awareness and common sense.

Simple truth attributed to Tony Blair in response to Amerca’s first Black Tuesday.

The only part he left out? Just Five Little Letters.

So what do we do?

Don’t overreact some say. We aren’t.

We haven’t lashed out. No missiles on the first night just for effect.

Don’t kill innocent people. We are not the ones who waged war on the innocent. We seek the guilty.

Look for a diplomatic solution. There is no diplomacy with Bin Laden or the Taliban regime.

State an ultimatum and get their response. We stated the ultimatum; they haven’t responded.

Understand the causes of terror. Yes, we should try, but let there be no moral ambiguity about this: nothing could ever justify the events of 11 September, and it is to turn justice on its head to pretend it could.

The action we take will be proportionate; targeted; we will do all we humanly can to avoid civilian casualties. But understand what we are dealing with. Listen to the calls of those passengers on the planes. Think of the children on them, told they were going to die.

Think of the cruelty beyond our comprehension as amongst the screams and the anguish of the innocent, those hijackers drove at full throttle planes laden with fuel into buildings where tens of thousands worked.

They have no moral inhibition on the slaughter of the innocent. If they could have murdered not 7,000 but 70,000 does anyone doubt they would have done so and rejoiced in it?

There is no compromise possible with such people, no meeting of minds, no point of understanding with such terror.

Just a choice: defeat it or be defeated by it. And defeat it we must.

The “causes of terror,” Mr. Blair? “Justification” for September 11th?

It is Islam, of course.

And because Muhammad believed — and acted upon the belief — that no “unbeliever” who rejects Islam is “innocent,” there are no innocents in the minds of these monsters.

But you can’t say that.

There’s nothing to see here.

There’s no global jihad.

No 14,000 terrorist attacks since 9/11 alone.

No stealth jihad in the West to out-breed, out-litigate, out-legislate, out-intimidate America and other nations in Dar al-Harb (the “Abode of War” in Islam, lands in which shari’a is not in effect).

Think of how your poor, nice-until-you-quote-Muhammad-then-all-hell-breaks-loose Muslim in-law feels.

Don’t talk about Hitler, or the Nazis will get upset.

I’ve got three letters for those who would burn down, enslave, rape, and slaughter in the name of their Beast and its Anti-Christ all that we hold dear: FMo

Only one thing justifies the events of September 11th, and everyone with at least a modicum of awareness and common sense knows what that is

In Five Little Letters, Jihad, Jihad in America, Non-violent jihad, Resisting Jihad, The truth about Islam, Tony Blair on August 10, 2009 at 10:58 AM

You don’t need a degree in comparative religion or fluency in Arabic to understand what motivated 9/11 and the fourteen thousand Islamic terrorist attacks since then.

That being said, it seems all major world leaders lack even a modicum of awareness and common sense.

Simple truth attributed to Tony Blair in response to Amerca’s first Black Tuesday.

The only part he left out? Just Five Little Letters.

So what do we do?

Don’t overreact some say. We aren’t.

We haven’t lashed out. No missiles on the first night just for effect.

Don’t kill innocent people. We are not the ones who waged war on the innocent. We seek the guilty.

Look for a diplomatic solution. There is no diplomacy with Bin Laden or the Taliban regime.

State an ultimatum and get their response. We stated the ultimatum; they haven’t responded.

Understand the causes of terror. Yes, we should try, but let there be no moral ambiguity about this: nothing could ever justify the events of 11 September, and it is to turn justice on its head to pretend it could.

The action we take will be proportionate; targeted; we will do all we humanly can to avoid civilian casualties. But understand what we are dealing with. Listen to the calls of those passengers on the planes. Think of the children on them, told they were going to die.

Think of the cruelty beyond our comprehension as amongst the screams and the anguish of the innocent, those hijackers drove at full throttle planes laden with fuel into buildings where tens of thousands worked.

They have no moral inhibition on the slaughter of the innocent. If they could have murdered not 7,000 but 70,000 does anyone doubt they would have done so and rejoiced in it?

There is no compromise possible with such people, no meeting of minds, no point of understanding with such terror.

Just a choice: defeat it or be defeated by it. And defeat it we must.

The “causes of terror,” Mr. Blair? “Justification” for September 11th?

It is Islam, of course.

And because Muhammad believed — and acted upon the belief — that no “unbeliever” who rejects Islam is “innocent,” there are no innocents in the minds of these monsters.

But you can’t say that.

There’s nothing to see here.

There’s no global jihad.

No 14,000 terrorist attacks since 9/11 alone.

No stealth jihad in the West to out-breed, out-litigate, out-legislate, out-intimidate America and other nations in Dar al-Harb (the “Abode of War” in Islam, lands in which shari’a is not in effect).

Think of how your poor, nice-until-you-quote-Muhammad-then-all-hell-breaks-loose Muslim in-law feels.

Don’t talk about Hitler, or the Nazis will get upset.

I’ve got three letters for those who would burn down, enslave, rape, and slaughter in the name of their Beast and its Anti-Christ all that we hold dear: F MO

Exposing apologists for evil

In Appeasers and Useful Idiot Dhimmis, Ignorant and gullible Infidels, Islamophobia, Jihad, Liberals aid jihad, Non-violent jihad, Pat Condell, The truth about Islam on August 7, 2009 at 9:17 AM

The evil of Islam.

Well said, Mr. Condell.

Sounds familiar.

Thank you, Steve.

If quoting Muhammad and his allah is saying "filthy things," doesn’t that make Islam’s prophet and god both Islamophobes?

In Deceiving non-Muslims, Jihad, Mohamed Fadly, Tafsir ibn Kathir, The truth about Islam on July 30, 2009 at 10:59 PM

So, I say “filthy things” about Muhammad?

But I report what Islam’s authoritative texts record of those words and deeds of most relevance to non-Muslims, apostates, women, and little girls.

If quoting Muhammad and his allah is saying “filthy things,” doesn’t that make Islam’s prophet and god both Islamophobes?

Notice that when Mohamed Fadly tries to defend Muhammad, he does not deny that his prophet carried out the slavery, rape, child-rape, and slaughter that his own texts state he committed.

Instead, Mohamed:

-brings up passages that have nothing to do with the question of Muhammad’s vile depravity (red herrings, non sequiturs),

-attacks the Biblical texts (false tu quoque arguments, false moral equivalences, clumsy ad hominems), and

-misrepresents what I’ve written (straw man “arguments”).

How does the fact that Muhammad didn’t kill someone in a particular instance mean that he didn’t enslave, rape, and slaughter thousands and command his followers to do the same, claiming Allah made him do it?

Neither do verses and ahadith which appear to be decent and peaceful — but the meanings of which have been either abrogated or not what they seemed to be in the first place at all — negate Muhammad’s brutality and perversion.

For example, Muslim propagandists and their Useful Idiot Dhimmis love to bring up “no compulsion in religion,” but never mention, “invite . . . demand the jizya . . . fight . . . until all religion is for Allah.”

They always claim Muhammad was beheading this and butchering that in “self-defense,” but they never point out that even “disbelief” is considered “opposing” and “waging war against” Allah,” the punishment for which is “execution, crucifixion . . . the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides.”

Funny how that sort of deception and misinformation keeps happening.

Below Mohamed Fadly tries to defend Muhammad’s treatment of prisoners of war by citing a verse on feeding “captives” — slaves according to Tafsir Ibn Kathir, not prisoners of war — and by misinterpreting Qur’an 5:33.

Here’s all you need to know about Muhammad’s treatment of prisoners of war: The Banu Qurayza, a Jewish tribe defending itself against Muhammad and his minions, eventually surrendered. All the men — 700-900 of them, except for a few who saw the decapitation on the wall (or, more accurately, in the trench) and “converted” to Islam — were beheaded and their women and children enslaved, with Muhammad taking an especially attractive, newly-created widow as his sex slave.

No doubt, Mohamed Fadly will try to defend that by saying, “She wanted it!”

Indeed, I’ve found that nothing woos a woman like slaughtering all the men of her tribe and raping her as soon as practicable.

Muhammad was quite a ladies’ man.

Mohamed Fadly obfuscates:

In Qur’an; “And they feed, for the love of Allah, the indigent, the orphan, and the captive,-” A verse that was revealed in Al-Madinah.

But it’s fine to rape your slaves, even if they’re married to another. At least they’re well-fed:

“Also (prohibited are) women already married, except those whom your right hands possess . . . ” (Qur’an 4:24).

Mohamed [continues]:

Verse 5:33 don’t apply on war prisoners, but those who commit Haraba crimes like the man who raped a child then killed him and his father.

Good thing Muhammad didn’t kill ‘Aisha and her dad, or he’d have to have killed himself.

One out of three will get you a spot in the Big Leagues.

The verse says:

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).

It says, “The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger . . . .”

How can you crucify someone “waging war” against you unless they’re captured, in which case they are, by definition, a prisoner of war? Do you hope [that] they[‘ll] ride their horse into your cross?

Not only is your reading of that verse questionable, so is your interpretation. Ibn Kathir says of it: `Wage war’ mentioned here means, oppose and contradict, and it includes disbelief, blocking roads and spreading fear in the fairways. Mischief in the land refers to various types of evil.”

So, in trying to show that Muhammad treated prisoners of war decently, you’ve highlighted instead the fact that Muhammad requires execution, crucifixion, or cutting off hands and feet from opposite sides for “disbelief.”

Now for a little target practice:

The amnesty of the prophet to the people of Mecca; “Go you’re free.” after his conquest to Mecca in 8th year after his immigration to Al-Madinah.

He “conquered” Mecca, warring againt his own tribe.

The prophet’s prayer to the other warring party; “O Allah, guide my people because they are men without knowledge.”, after the defeat of Muslims in Ohod battle, the killing of many of Muslims including his uncle and his injuries.

Allah chastised the Muslims for losing the Battle of Uhud. Too many of them had chosen to go after Meccan booty (literally) rather than do their duty in battle: When Muhammad’s minions “saw the women fleeing lifting up their clothes revealing their leg-bangles and their legs,” they began shouting, “The booty! O people, the booty!”

“O mankind! We created you .., that ye may know each other (not that ye may despise (each other) ..” 49 : 13(Revealed in Medina)

Plagiarizing badly the Biblical creation story does nothing to negate, “kill the pagans wherever you find them” (Qur’an 9:5).

“Allah forbids you not, with regard to those who fight you not .. from dealing kindly and justly ..” 60 : 8 (Revealed in Medina)

So, it’s okay with Allah if a Muslim is kind to a dirty kafir who’s not fighting with him?

It is a religion of peace!

“But if the enemy incline towards peace, do thou (also) incline towards peace, ..” 8 : 60 (Revealed in Medina)

That’s verse 61. Here’s the actual verse 60, followed by a few others from the same sura:

“Against them make ready your strength to the utmost of your power, including steeds of war, to strike terror into (the hearts of) the enemies, of Allah and your enemies, and others besides, whom ye may not know, but whom Allah doth know. Whatever ye shall spend in the cause of Allah, shall be repaid unto you, and ye shall not be treated unjustly.”

“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).

“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).

“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).

Mohamed continues:

“Let there be no compulsion in religion, ..” 2:256 (Revealed in Medina)

Of course, no one can force inner belief, but words and actions? That’s a different story. Perhaps someone should have told Muhammad:

“…he [Muhammad] said [to Abu Sufyan], ‘Isn’t it time that you should recognize that there is no God but Allah?’

“He answered, ‘You are dearer to me than father or mother. How great is your clemency, honour, and kindness! By God, I thought that had there been another God with God he would have continued to help me.’

“He said, ‘Woe to you, Abu Sufyan, isn’t it time that you should recognize that I am God’s apostle?’

“He answered, ‘As to that I still have some doubt.’

“‘I said to him, “Submit and testify that there is no God but Allah and that Muhammad is the apostle of God before you lose your head,” so he did so'” (Ishaq, 547).

No doubt, [just] another one of those pesky “exceptional incidents.”

If quoting Muhammad and his allah is saying "filthy things," doesn’t that make Islam’s prophet and god both Islamophobes?

In Deceiving non-Muslims, Jihad, Mohamed Fadly, The truth about Islam on July 30, 2009 at 10:59 PM

So, I say “filthy things” about Muhammad?

But I report what Islam’s authoritative texts record of those words and deeds of most relevance to non-Muslims, apostates, women, and little girls.

If quoting Muhammad and his allah is saying “filthy things,” doesn’t that make Islam’s prophet and god both Islamophobes?

Notice that when Mohamed Fadly tries to defend Muhammad, he does not deny that his prophet carried out the slavery, rape, child-rape, and slaughter that his own texts state he committed.

Instead, Mohamed:

-brings up passages that have nothing to do with the question of Muhammad’s vile depravity (red herrings, non sequiturs),

-attacks the Biblical texts (false tu quoque arguments, false moral equivalences, clumsy ad hominems), and

-misrepresents what I’ve written (straw man “arguments”).

How does the fact that Muhammad didn’t kill someone in a particular instance mean that he didn’t enslave, rape, and slaughter thousands and command his followers to do the same, claiming Allah made him do it?

Neither do verses and ahadith which appear to be decent and peaceful — but the meanings of which have been either abrogated or not what they seemed to be in the first place at all — negate Muhammad’s brutality and perversion.

For example, Muslim propagandists and their Useful Idiot Dhimmis love to bring up “no compulsion in religion,” but never mention, “invite . . . demand the jizya . . . fight . . . until all religion is for Allah.”

They always claim Muhammad was beheading this and butchering that in “self-defense,” but they never point out that even “disbelief” is considered “opposing” and “waging war against” Allah,” the punishment for which is “execution, crucifixion . . . the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides.”

Funny how that sort of deception and misinformation keeps happening.

Below Mohamed Fadly tries to defend Muhammad’s treatment of prisoners of war by citing a verse on feeding “captives” — slaves according to Tafsir Ibn Kathir, not prisoners of war — and by misinterpreting Qur’an 5:33.

Here’s all you need to know about Muhammad’s treatment of prisoners of war: The Banu Qurayza, a Jewish tribe defending itself against Muhammad and his minions, eventually surrendered. All the men — 700-900 of them, except for a few who saw the decapitation on the wall (or, more accurately, in the trench) and “converted” to Islam — were beheaded and their women and children enslaved, with Muhammad taking an especially attractive, newly-created widow as his sex slave.

No doubt, Mohamed Fadly will try to defend that by saying, “She wanted it!”

Indeed, I’ve found that nothing woos a woman like slaughtering all the men of her tribe and raping her as soon as practicable.

Muhammad was quite a ladies’ man.

Mohamed Fadly obfuscates:

In Qur’an; “And they feed, for the love of Allah, the indigent, the orphan, and the captive,-” A verse that was revealed in Al-Madinah.

But it’s fine to rape your slaves, even if they’re married to another. At least they’re well-fed:

“Also (prohibited are) women already married, except those whom your right hands possess . . . ” (Qur’an 4:24).

Mohamed [continues]:

Verse 5:33 don’t apply on war prisoners, but those who commit Haraba crimes like the man who raped a child then killed him and his father.

Good thing Muhammad didn’t kill ‘Aisha and her dad, or he’d have to have killed himself.

One out of three will get you a spot in the Big Leagues.

The verse says:

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).

It says, “The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger . . . .”

How can you crucify someone “waging war” against you unless they’re captured, in which case they are, by definition, a prisoner of war? Do you hope [that] they[‘ll] ride their horse into your cross?

Not only is your reading of that verse questionable, so is your interpretation. Ibn Kathir says of it: `Wage war’ mentioned here means, oppose and contradict, and it includes disbelief, blocking roads and spreading fear in the fairways. Mischief in the land refers to various types of evil.”

So, in trying to show that Muhammad treated prisoners of war decently, you’ve highlighted instead the fact that Muhammad requires execution, crucifixion, or cutting off hands and feet from opposite sides for “disbelief.”

Now for a little target practice:

The amnesty of the prophet to the people of Mecca; “Go you’re free.” after his conquest to Mecca in 8th year after his immigration to Al-Madinah.

He “conquered” Mecca, warring againt his own tribe.

The prophet’s prayer to the other warring party; “O Allah, guide my people because they are men without knowledge.”, after the defeat of Muslims in Ohod battle, the killing of many of Muslims including his uncle and his injuries.

Allah chastised the Muslims for losing the Battle of Uhud. Too many of them had chosen to go after Meccan booty (literally) rather than do their duty in battle: When Muhammad’s minions “saw the women fleeing lifting up their clothes revealing their leg-bangles and their legs,” they began shouting, “The booty! O people, the booty!”

“O mankind! We created you .., that ye may know each other (not that ye may despise (each other) ..” 49 : 13(Revealed in Medina)

Plagiarizing badly the Biblical creation story does nothing to negate, “kill the pagans wherever you find them” (Qur’an 9:5).

“Allah forbids you not, with regard to those who fight you not .. from dealing kindly and justly ..” 60 : 8 (Revealed in Medina)

So, it’s okay with Allah if a Muslim is kind to a dirty kafir who’s not fighting with him?

It is a religion of peace!

“But if the enemy incline towards peace, do thou (also) incline towards peace, ..” 8 : 60 (Revealed in Medina)

That’s verse 61. Here’s the actual verse 60, followed by a few others from the same sura:

“Against them make ready your strength to the utmost of your power, including steeds of war, to strike terror into (the hearts of) the enemies, of Allah and your enemies, and others besides, whom ye may not know, but whom Allah doth know. Whatever ye shall spend in the cause of Allah, shall be repaid unto you, and ye shall not be treated unjustly.”

“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).

“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).

“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).

Mohamed continues:

“Let there be no compulsion in religion, ..” 2:256 (Revealed in Medina)

Of course, no one can force inner belief, but words and actions? That’s a different story. Perhaps someone should have told Muhammad:

“…he [Muhammad] said [to Abu Sufyan], ‘Isn’t it time that you should recognize that there is no God but Allah?’

“He answered, ‘You are dearer to me than father or mother. How great is your clemency, honour, and kindness! By God, I thought that had there been another God with God he would have continued to help me.’

“He said, ‘Woe to you, Abu Sufyan, isn’t it time that you should recognize that I am God’s apostle?’

“He answered, ‘As to that I still have some doubt.’

“‘I said to him, “Submit and testify that there is no God but Allah and that Muhammad is the apostle of God before you lose your head,” so he did so'” (Ishaq, 547).

No doubt, [just] another one of those pesky “exceptional incidents.”

In defending Muhammad, one must point to patches of shade to prove the sun doesn’t shine

In Deceiving non-Muslims, Jihad, Mohamed Fadly, The truth about Islam on July 30, 2009 at 9:33 PM

More from here:

Mohamed Fadly claims he has . . .

stated verses and Hadith refuting your misguiding lies that peace verses came only when Muslims were weak in Mecca . . . .

I did not write “only.”

Is that carelessness or dishonesty?

Pointing out that Sura 9 allows “asylum” for those who ask for it is no credit to Muhammad nor his allah, since from what did they need protection?

MUHAMMAD AND HIS ALLAH.

You can’t point to Muhammad granting protection from himself as proof that Muhammad was a peaceful man.

You point to the people the genocidal monster didn’t kill as proof he wasn’t a genocidal monster, all the while drowning in an ocean of blood.

You point to the child-rape victim’s apathetic acceptance of the only life she ever knew as proof she liked being raped by the pedophile prophet.

In defending Muhammad, you’re pointing to patches of shade to prove the sun doesn’t shine.

The more you do it, the more people will notice the light, sooner or later.

In defending Muhammad, one must point to patches of shade to prove the sun doesn’t shine

In Deceiving non-Muslims, Jihad, Mohamed Fadly, The truth about Islam on July 30, 2009 at 9:33 PM

More from here:

Mohamed Fadly claims he has . . .

stated verses and Hadith refuting your misguiding lies that peace verses came only when Muslims were weak in Mecca . . . .

I did not write “only.”

Is that carelessness or dishonesty?

Pointing out that Sura 9 allows “asylum” for those who ask for it is no credit to Muhammad nor his allah, since from what did they need protection?

MUHAMMAD AND HIS ALLAH.

You can’t point to Muhammad granting protection from himself as proof that Muhammad was a peaceful man.

You point to the people the genocidal monster didn’t kill as proof he wasn’t a genocidal monster, all the while drowning in an ocean of blood.

You point to the child-rape victim’s apathetic acceptance of the only life she ever knew as proof she liked being raped by the pedophile prophet.

In defending Muhammad, you’re pointing to patches of shade to prove the sun doesn’t shine.

The more you do it, the more people will notice the light, sooner or later.

Revenge in Islam . . . just doing what the false prophet ordered

In Dialogue with Muslims, Jihad, Mohamed Fadly, The truth about Islam on July 30, 2009 at 6:36 AM

The Bible specifically forbids believers taking revenge, it belongs to YHWH alone:

You shall not take vengeance or bear a grudge against the sons of your own people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself: I am the LORD (Leviticus 19:18).

Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord” (Romans 12:19).

More snake hunting from here:

Mohamed wrote:

You claimed that Islam supports taking revenge. That’s a false claim.

But Muhammad said:

“slay them wherever ye catch them, and turn them out from where they have Turned you out . . .” (Qur’an 2:191).

“The recompense for an injury is an injury equal thereto (in degree)” (Qur’an 42:40).

“A blind man had a slave-mother who used to abuse the Prophet . . . and disparage him . . . One night she began to slander the Prophet . . . and abuse him. So he took a dagger, placed it on her belly, pressed it, and killed her. A child who came between her legs was smeared with the blood that was there.

[. . .]

Thereupon the Prophet . . . said: ‘Oh be witness, no retaliation is payable for her blood'” (Dawud Book 38, Number 4348).

And regarding the poetess Asma bint Marwan: “Who will rid me of Marwan’s daughter?”

You know how that ended.

Revenge in Islam . . . just doing what the false prophet ordered

In Dialogue with Muslims, Jihad, Mohamed Fadly, The truth about Islam on July 30, 2009 at 6:36 AM

The Bible specifically forbids believers taking revenge, it belongs to YHWH alone:

You shall not take vengeance or bear a grudge against the sons of your own people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself: I am the LORD (Leviticus 19:18).

Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord” (Romans 12:19).

More snake hunting from here:

Mohamed wrote:

You claimed that Islam supports taking revenge. That’s a false claim.

But Muhammad said:

“slay them wherever ye catch them, and turn them out from where they have Turned you out . . .” (Qur’an 2:191).

“The recompense for an injury is an injury equal thereto (in degree)” (Qur’an 42:40).

“A blind man had a slave-mother who used to abuse the Prophet . . . and disparage him . . . One night she began to slander the Prophet . . . and abuse him. So he took a dagger, placed it on her belly, pressed it, and killed her. A child who came between her legs was smeared with the blood that was there.

[. . .]

Thereupon the Prophet . . . said: ‘Oh be witness, no retaliation is payable for her blood'” (Dawud Book 38, Number 4348).

And regarding the poetess Asma bint Marwan: “Who will rid me of Marwan’s daughter?”

You know how that ended.

Muhammad ended with The Verse of the Sword, Allah’s last word on warfare, and is it offensive!

In Deceiving non-Muslims, Dialogue with Muslims, Jihad, Mohamed Fadly, Qur'an 9:5 The Verse of the Sword, The truth about Islam on July 29, 2009 at 2:52 PM

Mohamed Fadly claims erroneously:

about Naskh . . . I stated verses and Hadith refuting your misguiding lies that peace verses came only when Muslims were weak in Mecca, but when they became stronger, “killing” verses came!! I refuted that false claim . . . .

Later revelations abrogate earlier contradictory ones.

Muhammad ended with The Verse of the Sword, Allah’s last word on [. . .] warfare (and [is it] offensive!):

“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).

Tafsir Ibn Kathir states of The Verse of the Sword:

Abu Bakr As-Siddiq used this and other honorable Ayat as proof for fighting those who refrained from paying the Zakah. These Ayat allowed fighting people unless, and until, they embrace Islam and implement its rulings and obligations.

This honorable Ayah (9:5) was called the Ayah of the Sword, about which Ad-Dahhak bin Muzahim said, “It abrogated every agreement of peace between the Prophet and any idolator, every treaty, and every term.” Al-`Awfi said that Ibn `Abbas commented: “No idolator had any more treaty or promise of safety ever since Surah Bara’ah was revealed. The four months, in addition to, all peace treaties conducted before Bara’ah was revealed and announced had ended by the tenth of the month of Rabi` Al-Akhir.”

Here are a few more Verses of Blood, Allah’s War Against Humanity:

“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 said, ‘I have been made victorious with terror'” (Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 220).

“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).

“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).

Muhammad ended with The Verse of the Sword, Allah’s last word on warfare, and is it offensive!

In Deceiving non-Muslims, Dialogue with Muslims, Jihad, Mohamed Fadly, Qur'an 9:5 The Verse of the Sword, The truth about Islam on July 29, 2009 at 2:52 PM

Mohamed Fadly claims erroneously:

about Naskh . . . I stated verses and Hadith refuting your misguiding lies that peace verses came only when Muslims were weak in Mecca, but when they became stronger, “killing” verses came!! I refuted that false claim . . . .

Later revelations abrogate earlier contradictory ones.

Muhammad ended with The Verse of the Sword, Allah’s last word on [. . .] warfare (and [is it] offensive!):

“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).

Tafsir Ibn Kathir states of The Verse of the Sword:

Abu Bakr As-Siddiq used this and other honorable Ayat as proof for fighting those who refrained from paying the Zakah. These Ayat allowed fighting people unless, and until, they embrace Islam and implement its rulings and obligations.

This honorable Ayah (9:5) was called the Ayah of the Sword, about which Ad-Dahhak bin Muzahim said, “It abrogated every agreement of peace between the Prophet and any idolator, every treaty, and every term.” Al-`Awfi said that Ibn `Abbas commented: “No idolator had any more treaty or promise of safety ever since Surah Bara’ah was revealed. The four months, in addition to, all peace treaties conducted before Bara’ah was revealed and announced had ended by the tenth of the month of Rabi` Al-Akhir.”

Here are a few more Verses of Blood, Allah’s War Against Humanity:

“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 said, ‘I have been made victorious with terror'” (Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 220).

“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).

“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).

If you don’t agree with "sacralized" genocide, pedophilia, rape, slavery, theft, deceit, and blasphemy, don’t defend Muhammad’s words and deeds

In Deceiving non-Muslims, Dialogue with Muslims, Jihad, Mohamed Fadly, The truth about Islam on July 29, 2009 at 10:12 AM

Mohamed Fadly worships a god which mandates or endorses genocide, pedophilia, rape, slavery, theft, deceit, and blasphemy, and he’s worried about my words?

A brief reply to some comments here:

If a donkey says he’s a donkey, looks like a donkey, sounds like a donkey, and acts like a donkey, he’s probably a donkey.

All of which is irrelevant to my comments, since I am not making things up, I am not mischaracterizing, labeling falsely, stereotyping, or demonizing others, I am reporting what the donkey of Allah said and did.

If Mohamed doesn’t agree with “sacralized” genocide, pedophilia, rape, slavery, theft, deceit, and blasphemy, he should stop defending Muhammad’s words and deeds.

Actually, he’s not defended them, he’s only tried to explain why Islamic bloodlust, barbarity, and discrimination is good for us.

Mohamed protested against:

Since Muhammad used his “faith” as a tool to satiate his lusts

But Muhammad said Allah told him to rape Aisha:

“Narrated ‘Aisha [Mohammed’s six-year-old “bride” and nine-year-old sexual “partner”]: ‘Allah’s Apostle said (to me), “You were shown to me twice in (my) dream [before I married you]. Behold, a man was carrying you in a silken piece of cloth and said to me, ‘She is your wife, so uncover her,’ and behold, it was you. I would then say (to myself), ‘If this is from Allah, then it must happen.'”‘” (Bukhari Volume 9, Book 87, Number 139 and 140).

Mohamed took offense at:

you are those who “kill children and attack innocents.”

In obedience to Allah’s command and Muhammad’s example, every day around the world, Muslims rape, enslave, and butcher non-Muslims, including children and other innocents:

“The Prophet passed by me at a place called Al-Abwa or Waddan, and was asked whether it was permissible to attack the pagan warriors at night with the probability of exposing their women and children to danger. The Prophet replied, “They (i.e. women and children) are from them (i.e. pagans).” (Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 256).

If Mohamed does not like being a part of “you” (jihadists warring against non-Muslims), he should stop being a part of “you.” Stop defending them.

Mr. Fadly didn’t like this, either:

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

The Son of God died for the sins of all people (including you, Mohamed), so that all — including Muslims — might go to heaven.

On the other hand, Muhammad said that killing (or being killed trying to kill) non-Muslims gets you “paradise,” with your perpetual virgins and boys “like pearls”:

“Allah hath purchased of the believers their persons and their goods; for theirs (in return) is the garden (of Paradise): they fight in His cause, and slay and are slain: a promise binding on Him in truth, through the Law, the Gospel, and the Qur’an: and who is more faithful to his covenant than Allah?” (Qur’an 9:111).

Mohamed balked at this:

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

Muhammad did command and practice retaliation, including death for poetry:

“When the apostle heard what she had said he said, ‘Who will rid me of Marwan’s daughter?’ Umayr bin Adiy al-Khatmi who was with him heard him, and that very night he went to her house and killed her. In the morning he came to the apostle and told him what he had done and he [Muhammad] said, “You have helped Allah and His apostle, O Umayr!” When he asked if he would have to bear any evil consequences the apostle said, ‘Two goats won’t butt their heads about her,’ so Umayr went back to his people.

Now there was a great commotion among Banu Khatma that day about the affair of bint [daughter of] Marwan. She had five sons, and when Umayr went to them from the apostle he said, ‘I have killed bint Marwan, o sons of Khatma. Withstand me if you can; don’t keep me waiting.’ That was the first day Islam became powerful among Banu Khatma; before that those who were Muslims concealed the fact . . .The day after Bint Marwan was killed the men of Banu Khatma became Muslims because they feared for their lives” (Ibn Ishaq, Sirat Rasul Allah).

And here’s another clause that offended Mr. Fadly:

Here’s what your false prophet Muhammad

Muhammad claimed to be a prophet of the God of the Bible, yet he calls the Son of God, YHWH in the Flesh, “unbeliever,” “cursed by Allah,” and “deluded,” for Christians are stating only what Christ Himself, His Father, and the Holy Spirit testify:

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

Either Allah is not YHWH– contrary to Muhammad and Muslim’s claims — or Muhammad was a false prophet.

Perhaps instead of objecting to accurate, factual descriptions of Muhammad, Mohamed Fadly should be objecting to what Muhammad said and did.

If you don’t agree with "sacralized" genocide, pedophilia, rape, slavery, theft, deceit, and blasphemy, don’t defend Muhammad’s words and deeds

In Deceiving non-Muslims, Dialogue with Muslims, Jihad, Mohamed Fadly, The truth about Islam on July 29, 2009 at 10:12 AM

Mohamed Fadly worships a god which mandates or endorses genocide, pedophilia, rape, slavery, theft, deceit, and blasphemy, and he’s worried about my words?

A brief reply to some comments here:

If a donkey says he’s a donkey, looks like a donkey, sounds like a donkey, and acts like a donkey, he’s probably a donkey.

All of which is irrelevant to my comments, since I am not making things up, I am not mischaracterizing, labeling falsely, stereotyping, or demonizing others, I am reporting what the donkey of Allah said and did.

If Mohamed doesn’t agree with “sacralized” genocide, pedophilia, rape, slavery, theft, deceit, and blasphemy, he should stop defending Muhammad’s words and deeds.

Actually, he’s not defended them, he’s only tried to explain why Islamic bloodlust, barbarity, and discrimination is good for us.

Mohamed protested against:

Since Muhammad used his “faith” as a tool to satiate his lusts

But Muhammad said Allah told him to rape Aisha:

“Narrated ‘Aisha [Mohammed’s six-year-old “bride” and nine-year-old sexual “partner”]: ‘Allah’s Apostle said (to me), “You were shown to me twice in (my) dream [before I married you]. Behold, a man was carrying you in a silken piece of cloth and said to me, ‘She is your wife, so uncover her,’ and behold, it was you. I would then say (to myself), ‘If this is from Allah, then it must happen.'”‘” (Bukhari Volume 9, Book 87, Number 139 and 140).

Mohamed took offense at:

you are those who “kill children and attack innocents.”

In obedience to Allah’s command and Muhammad’s example, every day around the world, Muslims rape, enslave, and butcher non-Muslims, including children and other innocents:

“The Prophet passed by me at a place called Al-Abwa or Waddan, and was asked whether it was permissible to attack the pagan warriors at night with the probability of exposing their women and children to danger. The Prophet replied, “They (i.e. women and children) are from them (i.e. pagans).” (Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 256).

If Mohamed does not like being a part of “you” (jihadists warring against non-Muslims), he should stop being a part of “you.” Stop defending them.

Mr. Fadly didn’t like this, either:

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

The Son of God died for the sins of all people (including you, Mohamed), so that all — including Muslims — might go to heaven.

On the other hand, Muhammad said that killing (or being killed trying to kill) non-Muslims gets you “paradise,” with your perpetual virgins and boys “like pearls”:

“Allah hath purchased of the believers their persons and their goods; for theirs (in return) is the garden (of Paradise): they fight in His cause, and slay and are slain: a promise binding on Him in truth, through the Law, the Gospel, and the Qur’an: and who is more faithful to his covenant than Allah?” (Qur’an 9:111).

Mohamed balked at this:

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

Muhammad did command and practice retaliation, including death for poetry:

“When the apostle heard what she had said he said, ‘Who will rid me of Marwan’s daughter?’ Umayr bin Adiy al-Khatmi who was with him heard him, and that very night he went to her house and killed her. In the morning he came to the apostle and told him what he had done and he [Muhammad] said, “You have helped Allah and His apostle, O Umayr!” When he asked if he would have to bear any evil consequences the apostle said, ‘Two goats won’t butt their heads about her,’ so Umayr went back to his people.

Now there was a great commotion among Banu Khatma that day about the affair of bint [daughter of] Marwan. She had five sons, and when Umayr went to them from the apostle he said, ‘I have killed bint Marwan, o sons of Khatma. Withstand me if you can; don’t keep me waiting.’ That was the first day Islam became powerful among Banu Khatma; before that those who were Muslims concealed the fact . . .The day after Bint Marwan was killed the men of Banu Khatma became Muslims because they feared for their lives” (Ibn Ishaq, Sirat Rasul Allah).

And here’s another clause that offended Mr. Fadly:

Here’s what your false prophet Muhammad

Muhammad claimed to be a prophet of the God of the Bible, yet he calls the Son of God, YHWH in the Flesh, “unbeliever,” “cursed by Allah,” and “deluded,” for Christians are stating only what Christ Himself, His Father, and the Holy Spirit testify:

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

Either Allah is not YHWH– contrary to Muhammad and Muslim’s claims — or Muhammad was a false prophet.

Perhaps instead of objecting to accurate, factual descriptions of Muhammad, Mohamed Fadly should be objecting to what Muhammad said and did.

Muhammad went to fight a Byzantine army that wasn’t there; They weren’t terrified, just absent

In Deceiving non-Muslims, Dialogue with Muslims, Jihad, Mohamed Fadly, The "Battle" of Tabuk, The truth about Islam on July 29, 2009 at 9:33 AM

Mohamed, there are a few things wrong with your analysis:

Only those who misunderstand the Islamic mandate to enslave or slaughter all who refuse the “invitation” to Islam — and those hoping to deceive non-Muslims into complacency — discuss Muslims “make massacres and kill everyone on their way, or that Muslims are vampires who spill the blood of the enemy everywhere.”

The key words are “everyone” and “everywhere.”

The texts state clearly — as do I, because I report what those documents say — that if someone converts to Islam, leave them alone. If a “Person of the Book” — Jew or Christian (or some other lucky souls depending on whom you ask) — is willing to live as a slave and submit himself to vile degradation and humiliation in the name of Allah, then Muslims are not to kill him.

Brutalizing, disgracing, raping, extorting, and bullying him and his is “beautiful” though, since such behavior is consonant with Muhammad’s Allah-pleasing example.

I told you an example for that “Terror”. You see the Palestinian-Israeli conflict? Can you realize the obvious power hole between both sides?
*F22 vs ..(Palestinians don’t have any air-fighters),
*Mirkava Tanks vs ..(Neither Palestinians have any tanks),
*Smart Rocks vs Local-Made Rocks,
*Most Recent Radars vs nothing equivalent.
Israelis can see every spot in Palestine, when Palestinians don’t own any radars or small plans with cameras. But on the other side, can you see the excessive power that is always used by Israel? Thousands of tons of explosives, thousands of the most advanced technological F16, F22, tanks. Thousands of well-trained soldiers.

And yet they don’t obliterate the “Palestinians,” despite constant terrorism against their innocents.

They achieved nothing, they ran away in front of Palestinian resistance.
Why? That’s because Muslims don’t make victory in their battles against their enemies by the power or the weapons they own. Instead they make victory by the support of God even if they’re weaker in physical power. It’s not about the tanks or air-fighters, but God’s support.

No, it’s about human decency, something which, if the military advantage were reversed, you would not find among Muslims.

If during a time of impotence, Muslims maim and slaughter as much as they do (14,000 terrorist attacks since 9/11 alone, even using civilian planes as bombs), imagine what they’d do with actual military capability.

Another example from the prophet’s life is; in a battle that was very hard to Muslims to enter, they had very few logistic support, it was very hot in the desert, but they had to face the enemy because of the preparing of the Byzants to attack Muslims. After thousands of miles towards the battle ground, Allah threw terror in the hearts of enemy leaders and soldiers that they left the battle ground even without facing Muslims.

When the Muslim army arrived there [. . . .]

. . . they found no one.

You’re talking about the “Battle” of Tabuk, the time Muhammad went to fight a Byzantine army that wasn’t there.

They weren’t terrified, just absent.

Muhammad spun that one well, apparently.

Muhammad went to fight a Byzantine army that wasn’t there; They weren’t terrified, just absent

In Deceiving non-Muslims, Dialogue with Muslims, Jihad, Mohamed Fadly, The "Battle" of Tabuk, The truth about Islam on July 29, 2009 at 9:33 AM

Mohamed, there are a few things wrong with your analysis:

Only those who misunderstand the Islamic mandate to enslave or slaughter all who refuse the “invitation” to Islam — and those hoping to deceive non-Muslims into complacency — discuss Muslims “make massacres and kill everyone on their way, or that Muslims are vampires who spill the blood of the enemy everywhere.”

The key words are “everyone” and “everywhere.”

The texts state clearly — as do I, because I report what those documents say — that if someone converts to Islam, leave them alone. If a “Person of the Book” — Jew or Christian (or some other lucky souls depending on whom you ask) — is willing to live as a slave and submit himself to vile degradation and humiliation in the name of Allah, then Muslims are not to kill him.

Brutalizing, disgracing, raping, extorting, and bullying him and his is “beautiful” though, since such behavior is consonant with Muhammad’s Allah-pleasing example.

I told you an example for that “Terror”. You see the Palestinian-Israeli conflict? Can you realize the obvious power hole between both sides?
*F22 vs ..(Palestinians don’t have any air-fighters),
*Mirkava Tanks vs ..(Neither Palestinians have any tanks),
*Smart Rocks vs Local-Made Rocks,
*Most Recent Radars vs nothing equivalent.
Israelis can see every spot in Palestine, when Palestinians don’t own any radars or small plans with cameras. But on the other side, can you see the excessive power that is always used by Israel? Thousands of tons of explosives, thousands of the most advanced technological F16, F22, tanks. Thousands of well-trained soldiers.

And yet they don’t obliterate the “Palestinians,” despite constant terrorism against their innocents.

They achieved nothing, they ran away in front of Palestinian resistance.
Why? That’s because Muslims don’t make victory in their battles against their enemies by the power or the weapons they own. Instead they make victory by the support of God even if they’re weaker in physical power. It’s not about the tanks or air-fighters, but God’s support.

No, it’s about human decency, something which, if the military advantage were reversed, you would not find among Muslims.

If during a time of impotence, Muslims maim and slaughter as much as they do (14,000 terrorist attacks since 9/11 alone, even using civilian planes as bombs), imagine what they’d do with actual military capability.

Another example from the prophet’s life is; in a battle that was very hard to Muslims to enter, they had very few logistic support, it was very hot in the desert, but they had to face the enemy because of the preparing of the Byzants to attack Muslims. After thousands of miles towards the battle ground, Allah threw terror in the hearts of enemy leaders and soldiers that they left the battle ground even without facing Muslims.

When the Muslim army arrived there [. . . .]

. . . they found no one.

You’re talking about the “Battle” of Tabuk, the time Muhammad went to fight a Byzantine army that wasn’t there.

They weren’t terrified, just absent.

Muhammad spun that one well, apparently.

As the Cat Meat sheikh in Australia explained, an uncovered woman is just uncovered meat to a Muslim [cat]

In Australia, Jihad, Muhammad the feminist, The truth about Islam on July 26, 2009 at 7:42 AM

Originally, women had to cover up so that the paranoid and jealous Muhammad could make sure no one was looking at his property.

Later, it was so that the women wouldn’t be raped by their coreligionists. As the Cat Meat sheikh in Australia explained, an uncovered woman is just uncovered meat to a Muslim (cat).

Why women must cover themselves (and why non-Muslim women are increasingly being targeted by Muslims for rape and other atrocities):

“And say to the believing women that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty; that they should not display their beauty and ornaments except what (must ordinarily) appear thereof; that they should draw their veils over their bosoms and not display their beauty except to their husbands, their fathers, their husband’s fathers, their sons, their husbands’ sons, their brothers or their brothers’ sons, or their sisters’ sons, or their women, or the slaves whom their right hands possess, or male servants free of physical needs, or small children who have no sense of the shame of sex . . .” (Qur’an 24:31).

“Aisha used to say: ‘When (the Verse): “They should draw their veils over their necks and bosoms,” was revealed, (the ladies) cut their waist sheets at the edges and covered their faces with the cut pieces'” (Bukhari Volume 6, Book 60, Number 282).

“Narrated ‘Aisha: ‘Allah’s Apostle used to offer the Fajr prayer and some believing women covered with their veiling sheets used to attend the Fajr prayer with him and then they would return to their homes unrecognized'” (Bukhari Volume 1, Book 8, Number 368).

[Explanatory note: Shaikh Ibn Uthaimin in tafseer of this hadith explains: “This hadith makes it clear that the Islamic dress is concealing of the entire body as explained in this hadith. Only with the complete cover including the face and hands can a woman not be recognized. This was the understanding and practice of the Sahaba and they were the best of group, the noblest in the sight of Allah . . . with the most complete Imaan and noblest of characters. so if the practice of the women of the sahaba was to wear the complete veil then how can we deviate from their path?”]

“Narrated ‘Aisha: ‘The wives of the Prophet used to go to Al-Manasi, a vast open place (near Baqia at Medina) to answer the call of nature at night. ‘Umar used to say to the Prophet “Let your wives be veiled,” but Allah’s Apostle did not do so. One night Sauda bint Zam’a the wife of the Prophet went out at ‘Isha’ time and she was a tall lady. ‘Umar addressed her and said, “I have recognized you, O Sauda.” He said so, as he desired eagerly that the verses of Al-Hijab (the observing of veils by the Muslim women) may be revealed. So Allah revealed the verses of “Al-Hijab” (A complete body cover excluding the eyes)'” (Bukhari Volume 1, Book 4, Number 148).

As the Cat Meat sheikh in Australia explained, an uncovered woman is just uncovered meat to a Muslim [cat]

In Australia, Jihad, Muhammad the feminist, The truth about Islam on July 26, 2009 at 7:42 AM

Originally, women had to cover up so that the paranoid and jealous Muhammad could make sure no one was looking at his property.

Later, it was so that the women wouldn’t be raped by their coreligionists. As the Cat Meat sheikh in Australia explained, an uncovered woman is just uncovered meat to a Muslim (cat).

Why women must cover themselves (and why non-Muslim women are increasingly being targeted by Muslims for rape and other atrocities):

“And say to the believing women that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty; that they should not display their beauty and ornaments except what (must ordinarily) appear thereof; that they should draw their veils over their bosoms and not display their beauty except to their husbands, their fathers, their husband’s fathers, their sons, their husbands’ sons, their brothers or their brothers’ sons, or their sisters’ sons, or their women, or the slaves whom their right hands possess, or male servants free of physical needs, or small children who have no sense of the shame of sex . . .” (Qur’an 24:31).

“Aisha used to say: ‘When (the Verse): “They should draw their veils over their necks and bosoms,” was revealed, (the ladies) cut their waist sheets at the edges and covered their faces with the cut pieces'” (Bukhari Volume 6, Book 60, Number 282).

“Narrated ‘Aisha: ‘Allah’s Apostle used to offer the Fajr prayer and some believing women covered with their veiling sheets used to attend the Fajr prayer with him and then they would return to their homes unrecognized'” (Bukhari Volume 1, Book 8, Number 368).

[Explanatory note: Shaikh Ibn Uthaimin in tafseer of this hadith explains: “This hadith makes it clear that the Islamic dress is concealing of the entire body as explained in this hadith. Only with the complete cover including the face and hands can a woman not be recognized. This was the understanding and practice of the Sahaba and they were the best of group, the noblest in the sight of Allah . . . with the most complete Imaan and noblest of characters. so if the practice of the women of the sahaba was to wear the complete veil then how can we deviate from their path?”]

“Narrated ‘Aisha: ‘The wives of the Prophet used to go to Al-Manasi, a vast open place (near Baqia at Medina) to answer the call of nature at night. ‘Umar used to say to the Prophet “Let your wives be veiled,” but Allah’s Apostle did not do so. One night Sauda bint Zam’a the wife of the Prophet went out at ‘Isha’ time and she was a tall lady. ‘Umar addressed her and said, “I have recognized you, O Sauda.” He said so, as he desired eagerly that the verses of Al-Hijab (the observing of veils by the Muslim women) may be revealed. So Allah revealed the verses of “Al-Hijab” (A complete body cover excluding the eyes)'” (Bukhari Volume 1, Book 4, Number 148).

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).

When obfuscating for Islam– intentionally or not — the truth goes . . . incognito

In Appeasers and Useful Idiot Dhimmis, Hamas, Hamas Charter, Hate crimes, Ignorant and gullible Infidels, Jihad, President Bush establishing Islam, The truth about Islam, Victor Davis Hanson, WMD on July 10, 2009 at 9:20 AM

The truth about Islam and who’s responsible for the conflict with it, exposed here:

incognito’s lies no longer … incognito

“I have a Bible that is one hundred years old and it has a map of Palestine in it. Palestine has been in existence since the times of the Romans. After WWII, the state of Israel was created and Palestine was wiped off the map.”

Rome utterly destroyed the Jewish nation. The appellation was given to the land to humiliate its former occupants. [The name is a bastardization of “Philistine,” one of Israel’s historic enemies.]

There was no “Palestianian nation” in the sense for which you apparently wish.

“And Holy War originated in the Bible. “Do not fear them, for it is the Lord your God who fights for you.” – Deuteronomy 3:22. This is what you would call Holy War.”

False.

Unlike jihad, the war commanded of Ancient Israel was limited to a specific people at a specific time and place.

The command to “. . . kill the unbelievers wherever you find them” (Qur’an 9:5) is for all times and places to be carried out by able-bodied Muslims and their supporters until the whole world is subdued under the tyranny of Allah.

The false equivalence you make here calls into question your ability (or willingness) to address this topic truthfully.

“In fact, much of the Old Testament has to do with the Hebrews slaying innocent people to take their land because God told them to.”

False. Citations, please. Be specific.

“And since the Bible came first, I believe that the Koran is a reaction to it. Heathens, infidels…”

Obviously, chronology equals causation.

Qur’an is the perfect word of Allah. Offensive warfare against non-Muslims is central to it.

Along with ahadith and sira, Qur’an requires the conversion, subjugation and humiliation, or killing of all non-Muslims to make the world Islam.

“There was large-scale destruction of Jewish populations even before the establishment of Christianity as the state religion of the Roman Empire…”

Rome destroyed Israel over a century before it stopped using Christians as torches and chew toys.

“…Critics have faulted (new historians) for their failing to make use of available Arab sources.”

Arabs never lie. Muhammed said, “War is deceit” (Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 268).

It should shock no one that nations execute policy based on their own (sometimes short-sighted) self-interest.

Neither should it surprise anyone that Israel might be reluctant to negotiate with terrorists (unlike President Bush).

Modern Israel was attacked by its neighbors repeatedly for the crime of existing as an Infidel nation on formerly Muslim-controlled soil.

Islam can never, ever, under any circumstances tolerate land that was once under the rule of Allah belonging again to Infidels.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

incognito advocates racism and injustice

He begins with:

“In my previous life here at townhall I revealed that I came from a “religious right” background.”

Connections to the military, now this. Are these claims supposed to add to your credibility?

[Truth] would be more effective.

“These are the authentic Christians from the Midwest – not the frauds represented here. They may not be as well informed in foreign policy as some but they are honest and they will not live a lie.”

Clumsy ad hominem.

“Why do you delude yourselves? Do you never tire of sending your children off to war? The information age has reached the far corners of the earth.”

No, we frauds love to see our sons and daughters maimed and butchered by the Religionists of Peace.

“If America has committed crimes in the past, wouldn’t it be the right thing to do to acknowledge that and condemn it – as we expect others to do – and seek forgiveness?”

A tu quoque non sequitur! You’re convoluting your logical fallacies.

“Maybe Christians should ask themselves, ‘What would Jesus do?'”

I doubt He would advocate allowing evil men to harm innocents.

“Nevertheless, he cannot grasp the significance of a hate crime law? I’m not buying it. He says it is “enhanced punishments for crimes committed because of thoughts that government especially disapproves…Mind-reading juries are required to distinguish causation from correlation.”

How is murder, rape, or any other violent crime not hateful?

“Hate crime” seems more often than not an attempt to punish one group of people for the crimes of others based on their ethnicity, as you confirm in your next statement:

“Hate crimes are necessary when there has been a history of violence and cruelty toward minorities”

So, one who commits a crime should receive special punishment because of his and his victim’s ancestry?

That’s racist! [Or at least, “ancestrist.”]

“and where the abusers have the power to get away with it. Motive is a fundamental component of our justice system and always has been.”

Motive is useful in distinguishing between harm done accidentally and intentionally.

Harm is harm. Why not deal with it justly?

“Americans have indulged themselves for far too long in the belief that we can just isolate ourselves, turn away and pretend that the rest of the world is just not there.”

If you’re talking about Allah’s War Against Humanity, then yes.

For nearly fourteen centuries, non-Muslims have suffered at the hands of the faithful, and still our political, academic, and media elites prattle on about a “tiny minority of radicalist, fundamentalist, extremist, Islamist, Islamonazi, Islamofascist Jihadist-ists” — if they mention Islam at all.

But you didn’t mean that, did you?

More from incognito

“That is a ridiculous statement. Not one time did the Bush administration say we were going to war to right our past wrongs. Or rather – “our wrongs which weren’t wrong at the time.” BS. Ditto bin Laden and everything else.”

The author was not referring to the President’s justification for taking out Saddam, he was refuting your false claim that America leaves its mistakes unaddressed.

“And you freaks have the nerve to call me crazy. I don’t recall ever, EVER, the U.S. government trying to recruit young people into the military for OIL or any other mercenary purpose.”

Again, the author was not describing government policy, he was pointing out to you one likely result of our leaving the region to jihad’s proponents.

“You obviously did not read my previous posts.”

Your posts have a tinge of incoherence to them. Do you not see that?

And isn’t it a little bit self-important to require others be familiar with your body of “work” before engaging with you in discussion?

“See them concerning the U.S. supporting strongman regimes as well as interfering and meddling where we never had any business, including Iran.”

That would be under “Hind-sight is 20/20.”

What do you about jihad now?

“I know all about colonization – the British in particular are especially guilty and I don’t recall the U.S military trying to recruit young people to fix those problems, either. I guess it would only be fair, if what you say is true, to at least let the children in on it in school.”

So, now America — which according to you does nothing to address its past wrongs — must address the (alleged) wrongs of others?

And it seems inaccurate to claim British colonization of obviously brutal, primitive, and intolerant “societies” was not beneficial for those under England’s rule. In fact, since you know all about colonization, what did the Ahmadiyya say about the Queen’s rule?

Unlike most Muslim sects, this one taught that since the Queen allowed them freedom to practice their religion and protected them from persecution at the hands of their fellow Muslims, they should not take up violent Jihad against it.

Finally, why do you not rail against Muslim imperialism? It’s been ongoing around the world for nearly 1400 years.

Is it because everyone knows that only white Christians and Jews are evil?

“And if you are implying that my loved ones can enlist and then the administration can start an ill-conceived war and lie and BS all day long and leave them hanging while all the little Republicans refuse to sign up, then you are not much better than the people you’re talking about, are you?”

That’s more full of holes than a Fatah administrator’s head at a Hamas clambake.

First, he was not saying that “your children should . . . ,” he was saying that no one should be surprised if those who volunteer to go to war go to war.

Second, the war was not “ill-conceived,” and neither did the President lie about Saddam’s WMD.

The war against the tyrant was quite effective and — according to both Clintons, Gore, Kerry, the UN, et al — quite necessary.

What has been ill-conceived is the President’s attempts to treat Islam as if it were a rational, decent, and moral belief system.

Once he recognizes that it is the truly moderate Muslim who perverts the “great world religion” — not the jihadist — then we can begin to deal much more effectively with our enemy.

Third, most members of the military tend to be conservative and all volunteered. In light of this, it seems contrary to reality to claim Republicans aren’t “signing up. “

Fourth, to equate those who slaughter innocents to shouts of “Allahu Akbar!” with those who point out errors of fact and logic in defense of the West is not only immoral, it’s suicidal.

“You conveniently ignore the fact that Israel slaughtered numerous indigenous tribes to take their land. That’s the Holy War part I was talking about:”

Is that supposed to be a tu quoque argument or just a really bizarre non sequitur?

That Ancient Israel killed some [of the remnants of] particularly corrupt nations [which resisted dispossession because of their great evil] at God’s command is a fact of history.

That that brief event ended (incomplete) thousands of years ago is also true.

Will you not condemn with comparable vigor Allah and his false prophet’s universal and eternal commands to convert, subdue and humiliate, and kill non-Muslims to make the world Islam?

“THAT IS THE BEGINNING OF HOLY WAR.”

It is not the beginning, and it is not jihad. The two are equivalent only to the ignorant and the deceitful.

You really ought to do some reading.

“they take back the land and establish the state of Israel as according to the Bible.”

At least you admit the Jews have an ancient claim to the land. Most of your fellow apologists for jihad don’t have the decency (or carelessness) to do so.

incognito speaks, and the world listens

“But, if the Koran is a reaction to the Holy War in the Bible and to the all of the invasions and occupations that have occurred throughout history”

Even the ones after Qur’an was written!

So, to you Muslim bloodlust and barbarism is the fault of the Jews and Europeans, even before they did it!

That is less than accurate. Qur’an is the revelation of Allah to Muhammad. Is the expressed will of his deity.

Jihad — Islamic holy war — is no reaction to anything Biblical, it is a tool used by Allah and his false prophet to extend his rule over all Mankind.

Undoubtedly (though nothing you’ve written here indicates it), your vast research has led you to discover what Islam’s authoritative texts — Qur’an, ahadith, and sira — say about jihad.

You must know that Islamic warfare advanced through several stages over the course of Muhammad’s career as the apostle of Allah.

Please tell us what they were.

Okay, let me help. In the beginning, when Mohammed was politically, economically, and militarily weak, cooperation, not violence, was taught.

Later, as Muhammad grew in power, defensive warfare was allowed, then it was required.

Finally, at the end of his revelations, Allah required offensive warfare to make the world Islam.

And what did Muhammad say about this use of violence? Here is a sample:

“. . . 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).

incognito continues:

“I don’t see how the West’s involvement in the establishment of the state of Israel could make things anything but worse. Much worse. And, our continued meddling and interference, how is that going to make things better? Do you honestly believe this is going to solve anything? Do you honestly believe that denying the obvious is going to work?”

Let’s see, we interfered in this little thing called World War II. That worked out for quite a few of the nations involved, even the antagonists.

I supported President Bush’s toppling of Saddam.

From the moment the first American was killed by a suicide bomber at a checkpoint, I have opposed the President sacrificing our people’s well-being in an effort to safeguard theirs.

And as I have learned more about Islam’s deity, founder, and history, I have become ever more disgusted with the efforts to “win Muslim hearts and minds.” The truly Muslim heart and mind sees the sacrifice of Infidel blood and treasure only as a proper tribute to the supremacy of Islam and the Muslim.

We ought to allow Shia and Sunni to work out their little disagreements with each other the way they always have.

We should rescue the Christians, Jews, and other non-Muslims from Dar al-Islam, and not one more Infidel dime should go to any nation which refuses to recant their faith in the deity of blood.

“al-Qaida is in sixty countries and then there are the other extremist groups, I don’t think their goal is really to kill all the infidels so much as to get them out of their business. Maybe get some accountability.”

Speaking out of ignorance does not add to your credibility.

The faithful Muslim will adhere to the command and example of Mohammed, and violent Jihad is only one tool to be used in accomplishing his goal, the subjugation of Humanity under the tyranny of Allah.

“You say this is false and that much of the Old Testament does not have to do with slaying innocent people to take their land.”

I wrote that your assertions were false, including this “much of the Old Testatment” falsehood.

I asked for you to provide specific citations to demonstrate that “much of the Old Testament” had to do with genocide. Not too successful with that search, I assume?

“Many times, they killed every living thing including women and children, animals and crops.”

Neither “many” nor “every” is true. But since you just advised me not to come in here and talk about things of which I know nothing, you must already know that!

“That is not so different than – “I will expel the Jews and Christians from the Arabian Peninsula and will not leave any but Muslim.”

There are quite a few differences, incognito. Are you unable or unwilling to admit them?

“I never said there was a “state” called Palestine. I said there are maps in Bibles that call this place Palestine and now, when you look at a map, there is no longer a Palestine. Plain and simple.”

So, now you’re claiming you made a statement of fact apart from any sort relevance to your argument or the thread?

That is unsurprising.

“Your point seems to be that because it is a specific thing in the Koran that, somehow, supersedes all practical reasons.”

No, my point is that the Source and Sustenance of global jihad is the will of Allah and the example of his apostle.

It is only reasonable to expect that the faithful will strive to carry out their god and founder’s commands (especially when they say that’s what they are doing!).

Your repeated arguments of moral equivalence, “It’s the Jews’ fault!” and “Islam does it because the Bible did!” are false.

“The point I am trying to make is that with the West and particularly the U.S. supplying aid and weapons to Israel for decades, the Palestinian people are fighting back the only way they can – like it or not – and I don’t think they are going to stop any time soon, just because the world disapproves of their methods.”

Here again you’re attributing responsibility and blame to the U.S. and Israel for Muslim terrorism. That’s intellectually dishonest and morally corrupt, and it’s just what Islam does: “It’s your fault for defending yourselves!”

“Also, if you all feel so strongly about this why aren’t you signing up to fight these people? There has never been enough troops in Iraq and I think this country has just about asked for enough sacrifices from the troops and people like you should put up or shut up.”

“you all”? “people like you”?

A false, ad hominem argument made from ignorance. Why not address the facts?

The President needs to recognize Islam makes it impossible to persuade its adherents with anything other than force, and — instead of using our military as policemen — let them do what they do better than anyone else.

incognito’s inexcusable incognizance

“We have no right, whatsoever, to meddle in the Middle East, period. Not for oil, not to establish a foothold there, nothing.”

9/11.

When obfuscating for Islam– intentionally or not — the truth goes . . . incognito

In Appeasers and Useful Idiot Dhimmis, Hamas, Hamas Charter, Hate crimes, Ignorant and gullible Infidels, Jihad, President Bush establishing Islam, The truth about Islam, Victor Davis Hanson, WMD on July 10, 2009 at 9:20 AM

The truth about Islam and who’s responsible for the conflict with it, exposed here:

incognito’s lies no longer … incognito

“I have a Bible that is one hundred years old and it has a map of Palestine in it. Palestine has been in existence since the times of the Romans. After WWII, the state of Israel was created and Palestine was wiped off the map.”

Rome utterly destroyed the Jewish nation. The appellation was given to the land to humiliate its former occupants. [The name is a bastardization of “Philistine,” one of Israel’s historic enemies.]

There was no “Palestianian nation” in the sense for which you apparently wish.

“And Holy War originated in the Bible. “Do not fear them, for it is the Lord your God who fights for you.” – Deuteronomy 3:22. This is what you would call Holy War.”

False.

Unlike jihad, the war commanded of Ancient Israel was limited to a specific people at a specific time and place.

The command to “. . . kill the unbelievers wherever you find them” (Qur’an 9:5) is for all times and places to be carried out by able-bodied Muslims and their supporters until the whole world is subdued under the tyranny of Allah.

The false equivalence you make here calls into question your ability (or willingness) to address this topic truthfully.

“In fact, much of the Old Testament has to do with the Hebrews slaying innocent people to take their land because God told them to.”

False. Citations, please. Be specific.

“And since the Bible came first, I believe that the Koran is a reaction to it. Heathens, infidels…”

Obviously, chronology equals causation.

Qur’an is the perfect word of Allah. Offensive warfare against non-Muslims is central to it.

Along with ahadith and sira, Qur’an requires the conversion, subjugation and humiliation, or killing of all non-Muslims to make the world Islam.

“There was large-scale destruction of Jewish populations even before the establishment of Christianity as the state religion of the Roman Empire…”

Rome destroyed Israel over a century before it stopped using Christians as torches and chew toys.

“…Critics have faulted (new historians) for their failing to make use of available Arab sources.”

Arabs never lie. Muhammed said, “War is deceit” (Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 268).

It should shock no one that nations execute policy based on their own (sometimes short-sighted) self-interest.

Neither should it surprise anyone that Israel might be reluctant to negotiate with terrorists (unlike President Bush).

Modern Israel was attacked by its neighbors repeatedly for the crime of existing as an Infidel nation on formerly Muslim-controlled soil.

Islam can never, ever, under any circumstances tolerate land that was once under the rule of Allah belonging again to Infidels.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

incognito advocates racism and injustice

He begins with:

“In my previous life here at townhall I revealed that I came from a “religious right” background.”

Connections to the military, now this. Are these claims supposed to add to your credibility?

[Truth] would be more effective.

“These are the authentic Christians from the Midwest – not the frauds represented here. They may not be as well informed in foreign policy as some but they are honest and they will not live a lie.”

Clumsy ad hominem.

“Why do you delude yourselves? Do you never tire of sending your children off to war? The information age has reached the far corners of the earth.”

No, we frauds love to see our sons and daughters maimed and butchered by the Religionists of Peace.

“If America has committed crimes in the past, wouldn’t it be the right thing to do to acknowledge that and condemn it – as we expect others to do – and seek forgiveness?”

A tu quoque non sequitur! You’re convoluting your logical fallacies.

“Maybe Christians should ask themselves, ‘What would Jesus do?'”

I doubt He would advocate allowing evil men to harm innocents.

“Nevertheless, he cannot grasp the significance of a hate crime law? I’m not buying it. He says it is “enhanced punishments for crimes committed because of thoughts that government especially disapproves…Mind-reading juries are required to distinguish causation from correlation.”

How is murder, rape, or any other violent crime not hateful?

“Hate crime” seems more often than not an attempt to punish one group of people for the crimes of others based on their ethnicity, as you confirm in your next statement:

“Hate crimes are necessary when there has been a history of violence and cruelty toward minorities”

So, one who commits a crime should receive special punishment because of his and his victim’s ancestry?

That’s racist! [Or at least, “ancestrist.”]

“and where the abusers have the power to get away with it. Motive is a fundamental component of our justice system and always has been.”

Motive is useful in distinguishing between harm done accidentally and intentionally.

Harm is harm. Why not deal with it justly?

“Americans have indulged themselves for far too long in the belief that we can just isolate ourselves, turn away and pretend that the rest of the world is just not there.”

If you’re talking about Allah’s War Against Humanity, then yes.

For nearly fourteen centuries, non-Muslims have suffered at the hands of the faithful, and still our political, academic, and media elites prattle on about a “tiny minority of radicalist, fundamentalist, extremist, Islamist, Islamonazi, Islamofascist Jihadist-ists” — if they mention Islam at all.

But you didn’t mean that, did you?

More from incognito

“That is a ridiculous statement. Not one time did the Bush administration say we were going to war to right our past wrongs. Or rather – “our wrongs which weren’t wrong at the time.” BS. Ditto bin Laden and everything else.”

The author was not referring to the President’s justification for taking out Saddam, he was refuting your false claim that America leaves its mistakes unaddressed.

“And you freaks have the nerve to call me crazy. I don’t recall ever, EVER, the U.S. government trying to recruit young people into the military for OIL or any other mercenary purpose.”

Again, the author was not describing government policy, he was pointing out to you one likely result of our leaving the region to jihad’s proponents.

“You obviously did not read my previous posts.”

Your posts have a tinge of incoherence to them. Do you not see that?

And isn’t it a little bit self-important to require others be familiar with your body of “work” before engaging with you in discussion?

“See them concerning the U.S. supporting strongman regimes as well as interfering and meddling where we never had any business, including Iran.”

That would be under “Hind-sight is 20/20.”

What do you about jihad now?

“I know all about colonization – the British in particular are especially guilty and I don’t recall the U.S military trying to recruit young people to fix those problems, either. I guess it would only be fair, if what you say is true, to at least let the children in on it in school.”

So, now America — which according to you does nothing to address its past wrongs — must address the (alleged) wrongs of others?

And it seems inaccurate to claim British colonization of obviously brutal, primitive, and intolerant “societies” was not beneficial for those under England’s rule. In fact, since you know all about colonization, what did the Ahmadiyya say about the Queen’s rule?

Unlike most Muslim sects, this one taught that since the Queen allowed them freedom to practice their religion and protected them from persecution at the hands of their fellow Muslims, they should not take up violent Jihad against it.

Finally, why do you not rail against Muslim imperialism? It’s been ongoing around the world for nearly 1400 years.

Is it because everyone knows that only white Christians and Jews are evil?

“And if you are implying that my loved ones can enlist and then the administration can start an ill-conceived war and lie and BS all day long and leave them hanging while all the little Republicans refuse to sign up, then you are not much better than the people you’re talking about, are you?”

That’s more full of holes than a Fatah administrator’s head at a Hamas clambake.

First, he was not saying that “your children should . . . ,” he was saying that no one should be surprised if those who volunteer to go to war go to war.

Second, the war was not “ill-conceived,” and neither did the President lie about Saddam’s WMD.

The war against the tyrant was quite effective and — according to both Clintons, Gore, Kerry, the UN, et al — quite necessary.

What has been ill-conceived is the President’s attempts to treat Islam as if it were a rational, decent, and moral belief system.

Once he recognizes that it is the truly moderate Muslim who perverts the “great world religion” — not the jihadist — then we can begin to deal much more effectively with our enemy.

Third, most members of the military tend to be conservative and all volunteered. In light of this, it seems contrary to reality to claim Republicans aren’t “signing up. “

Fourth, to equate those who slaughter innocents to shouts of “Allahu Akbar!” with those who point out errors of fact and logic in defense of the West is not only immoral, it’s suicidal.

“You conveniently ignore the fact that Israel slaughtered numerous indigenous tribes to take their land. That’s the Holy War part I was talking about:”

Is that supposed to be a tu quoque argument or just a really bizarre non sequitur?

That Ancient Israel killed some [of the remnants of] particularly corrupt nations [which resisted dispossession because of their great evil] at God’s command is a fact of history.

That that brief event ended (incomplete) thousands of years ago is also true.

Will you not condemn with comparable vigor Allah and his false prophet’s universal and eternal commands to convert, subdue and humiliate, and kill non-Muslims to make the world Islam?

“THAT IS THE BEGINNING OF HOLY WAR.”

It is not the beginning, and it is not jihad. The two are equivalent only to the ignorant and the deceitful.

You really ought to do some reading.

“they take back the land and establish the state of Israel as according to the Bible.”

At least you admit the Jews have an ancient claim to the land. Most of your fellow apologists for jihad don’t have the decency (or carelessness) to do so.

incognito speaks, and the world listens

“But, if the Koran is a reaction to the Holy War in the Bible and to the all of the invasions and occupations that have occurred throughout history”

Even the ones after Qur’an was written!

So, to you Muslim bloodlust and barbarism is the fault of the Jews and Europeans, even before they did it!

That is less than accurate. Qur’an is the revelation of Allah to Muhammad. Is the expressed will of his deity.

Jihad — Islamic holy war — is no reaction to anything Biblical, it is a tool used by Allah and his false prophet to extend his rule over all Mankind.

Undoubtedly (though nothing you’ve written here indicates it), your vast research has led you to discover what Islam’s authoritative texts — Qur’an, ahadith, and sira — say about jihad.

You must know that Islamic warfare advanced through several stages over the course of Muhammad’s career as the apostle of Allah.

Please tell us what they were.

Okay, let me help. In the beginning, when Mohammed was politically, economically, and militarily weak, cooperation, not violence, was taught.

Later, as Muhammad grew in power, defensive warfare was allowed, then it was required.

Finally, at the end of his revelations, Allah required offensive warfare to make the world Islam.

And what did Muhammad say about this use of violence? Here is a sample:

“. . . 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).

incognito continues:

“I don’t see how the West’s involvement in the establishment of the state of Israel could make things anything but worse. Much worse. And, our continued meddling and interference, how is that going to make things better? Do you honestly believe this is going to solve anything? Do you honestly believe that denying the obvious is going to work?”

Let’s see, we interfered in this little thing called World War II. That worked out for quite a few of the nations involved, even the antagonists.

I supported President Bush’s toppling of Saddam.

From the moment the first American was killed by a suicide bomber at a checkpoint, I have opposed the President sacrificing our people’s well-being in an effort to safeguard theirs.

And as I have learned more about Islam’s deity, founder, and history, I have become ever more disgusted with the efforts to “win Muslim hearts and minds.” The truly Muslim heart and mind sees the sacrifice of Infidel blood and treasure only as a proper tribute to the supremacy of Islam and the Muslim.

We ought to allow Shia and Sunni to work out their little disagreements with each other the way they always have.

We should rescue the Christians, Jews, and other non-Muslims from Dar al-Islam, and not one more Infidel dime should go to any nation which refuses to recant their faith in the deity of blood.

“al-Qaida is in sixty countries and then there are the other extremist groups, I don’t think their goal is really to kill all the infidels so much as to get them out of their business. Maybe get some accountability.”

Speaking out of ignorance does not add to your credibility.

The faithful Muslim will adhere to the command and example of Mohammed, and violent Jihad is only one tool to be used in accomplishing his goal, the subjugation of Humanity under the tyranny of Allah.

“You say this is false and that much of the Old Testament does not have to do with slaying innocent people to take their land.”

I wrote that your assertions were false, including this “much of the Old Testatment” falsehood.

I asked for you to provide specific citations to demonstrate that “much of the Old Testament” had to do with genocide. Not too successful with that search, I assume?

“Many times, they killed every living thing including women and children, animals and crops.”

Neither “many” nor “every” is true. But since you just advised me not to come in here and talk about things of which I know nothing, you must already know that!

“That is not so different than – “I will expel the Jews and Christians from the Arabian Peninsula and will not leave any but Muslim.”

There are quite a few differences, incognito. Are you unable or unwilling to admit them?

“I never said there was a “state” called Palestine. I said there are maps in Bibles that call this place Palestine and now, when you look at a map, there is no longer a Palestine. Plain and simple.”

So, now you’re claiming you made a statement of fact apart from any sort relevance to your argument or the thread?

That is unsurprising.

“Your point seems to be that because it is a specific thing in the Koran that, somehow, supersedes all practical reasons.”

No, my point is that the Source and Sustenance of global jihad is the will of Allah and the example of his apostle.

It is only reasonable to expect that the faithful will strive to carry out their god and founder’s commands (especially when they say that’s what they are doing!).

Your repeated arguments of moral equivalence, “It’s the Jews’ fault!” and “Islam does it because the Bible did!” are false.

“The point I am trying to make is that with the West and particularly the U.S. supplying aid and weapons to Israel for decades, the Palestinian people are fighting back the only way they can – like it or not – and I don’t think they are going to stop any time soon, just because the world disapproves of their methods.”

Here again you’re attributing responsibility and blame to the U.S. and Israel for Muslim terrorism. That’s intellectually dishonest and morally corrupt, and it’s just what Islam does: “It’s your fault for defending yourselves!”

“Also, if you all feel so strongly about this why aren’t you signing up to fight these people? There has never been enough troops in Iraq and I think this country has just about asked for enough sacrifices from the troops and people like you should put up or shut up.”

“you all”? “people like you”?

A false, ad hominem argument made from ignorance. Why not address the facts?

The President needs to recognize Islam makes it impossible to persuade its adherents with anything other than force, and — instead of using our military as policemen — let them do what they do better than anyone else.

incognito’s inexcusable incognizance

“We have no right, whatsoever, to meddle in the Middle East, period. Not for oil, not to establish a foothold there, nothing.”

9/11.

Troubling truths about Islam

In Egypt, Islamic Newspeak, Israel, Jihad, Qur'an 9:5 The Verse of the Sword, The truth about Islam on June 28, 2009 at 3:22 AM

An interfaith dialogue on the Religion of Peace, the kind that our political, media, and academic elites ought to be having, not the suicidal, politically-correct, Saudi-funded, jihad-enabling, ignorant nonsense going on today.

A response to Mohamed Fadly, from here, with slight modifications in format and some added, bracketed commentary:

1) Falsely equating Christ and Allah

Mohamed equates Christ’s command to “Love your enemies” with Allah’s not forbidding dealing “kindly and justly” with those who do not fight Muslims nor drive them from their homes.

How are those equivalent? How does being kind to someone not harming you even approach loving one’s enemies?

To be remotely comparable, Allah would have to state something along the lines of “Allah does not forbid you from being kind and just to those who fight against you for faith or drive you from your homes.”

Even then, that would only allow kindness to one’s enemies, not command love toward them, as Christ does.

2) Qur’anic contradictions? Yes, Naskh, the doctrine of Abrogation.

Mohamed talks about the “apparent” contradictions in Qur’an. They exist.

Later “revelations” that contradict earlier ones abrogate them. This is called “naskh”:

“The Prophet said, ‘If I take an oath and later find something else better than that, then I do what is better and expiate my oath'” (Bukhari Volume 7, Book 67, Number 427).

“Whatever communications We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, We bring one better than it or like it. Do you not know that Allah has power over all things” (Qur’an 2:106)?

The abrogations most troubling to non-Muslims concern the proper Muslim stance toward them.

Unfortunately for millions (billions?) of “infidels” over the last fourteen hundred years, Muhammad’s position on the subject evolved from one of cooperation with non-Muslims, to allowing self-defense, to requiring self-defense, to demanding offensive warfare against those who refuse the “invitation” to Islam (or slavery under it).

3) The tried-but-not-true, “Out-of-context! Out-of-context!”

[The only problem is, no one ever shows how my citations are actually, out-of-context.]

Mohamed makes an argument for understanding passages in their context. I agree.

I’ve never done otherwise, contrary to his implication.

Mohamed does neglect to make one point regarding context: Since Qur’an is a series of often disjointed, independent sayings – its chapters arranged by size, not chronology – to find the context of many passages it is necessary to go to ahadith (the sayings of Muhammad) and sira (his biographies).

4) Pulling the wool over the eyes of those unfamiliar with the Islamic texts commanding jihad

[Those new to Muhammad’s hellish doctrines often jump naturally from The Verse of the Sword (9:5) to the conclusion that Muhammad and his allah want(ed) every non-Muslim dead. This misunderstanding provides the opportunity for the more experienced among jihad’s apologists to score points in the eyes of the gullible, foolish, and perverse. Worse, it can confuse and demoralize those rightly alarmed at what they understand intuitively as the threat posed by Islam to all humanity.

Non-Muslims should be aware that yes, Muhammad and his allah love(d) infidel blood, but he also likes converts, which are one good way to swell the ranks of Hell.

I’d guess that Muhammad preferred non-Muslims as sex slaves and punching bags, because they just keep giving and giving and giving.

And attractive infidel women reproduce Muslims just fine.]

Regrettably, it appears that Mohamed is implying that I’ve claimed that Allah commands Muslims to kill “all non-Muslims.” Or, perhaps, he’s hoping someone else who isn’t paying attention will think I have.

Mohamed admits (unintentionally, I’d wager) that Allah commands warfare against non-Muslims (“every other verse that clarified how and when to fight against them and when to give peace”).

So, let’s look at one of those chronically-taken-out-of-context verses and its actual context[:] Qur’an 9:5.

This is called “The Verse of the Sword,” and with it, Muhammad opened up the entire non-Muslim world to Islamic conquest, making all non-Muslims targets for either conversion, slavery, or slaughter.

Here is The Verse:

“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).

A non-Muslim unfamiliar with the context of that verse would be alarmed (rightly) and may make the logical leap to “all Muslims are commanded to kill all non-Muslims.” This would not be true, and here is why: Muhammad ordered slaughter for those non-Muslims who refuse the “invitation” to Islam and subjugation as dhimmis (an option for the “People of the Book;” pagans are not usually so “lucky”):

“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).

So, no, “all Muslims” are not ordered to kill “all non-Muslims.” Just the ones who resist.

One other important consideration: Since the goal of Islam is the establishment of Allah’s tyranny over all mankind, the use of any means necessary is fine. If Islam can subjugate the entire world without firing a shot or lighting a fuse, it will.

This is why you see demographics, media, schools, prisons, politics, the courts, and money used successfully in establishing Islam in Western nations.

If anything, bin Laden and his buddies may have set back the spread of Islam in America.

5) Isn’t it ironic (in a sad, suicidal, end-of-civilization-kind-of-way) that you have to take Islamic texts out-of-context to get a message of peace?

Mohamed brings up two passages to illustrate that Qur’anic verses should be taken in context.

Again, I agree, they should.

The first is 2:191, “slay them wherever ye catch them.” Though I have not taken this verse out-of-context, Muslims dealing with inexperienced non-Muslims often use this verse to mislead their audiences.

Yes, the command here is given in the context of retaliation, retribution, even self-defense.

The only problem is, the same command is uttered in the context of offensive warfare against non-Muslims in Sura 9 (quoted above) on the basis of religion, the only “immunity” granted to those “infidels” who’ve kept their treaties with Muhammad, and only until those treaties expire.

Sura 4 mentions self-defense in verse 91, but look at verse 89: “Do not consider them friends, unless they mobilize along with you in the cause of Allah. If they turn against you, you shall fight them, and you may kill them when you encounter them in war. You shall not accept them as friends, or allies.”

Exempted from this violence are those who join groups with extant peace treaties with Muhammad (verse 90).

So the default state according to Mr. Fadly is – without considering the later verses requiring offensive warfare – one of hostility toward non-Muslims on religious grounds.

Again, Mohamed states that, “It’s not an absolute permission to annihilate all and everyone who disbelieve in Islam.”

I’ve never said otherwise.

And isn’t it curious that Mohamed doesn’t volunteer the rest of the story?

6) “Peace.” Muslims keep using that word. I do not think it means what they think it means.

[Non-Muslims should be aware that Islam uses words that we find comforting, reassuring.

The only problem is that Islam uses its own dictionary.

Consider “peace,” “innocent,” and “terrorism.”

In Islam, “peace” means that state or condition when all non-Muslims have converted, are enslaved, or dead. It’s not hard to be “the world’s fastest growing religion” when you’re killing the competition. (Microsoft must be mad at the double standard.)

Whatever “innocent” means (usually “Muslim”), it cannot be applied to any non-Muslim, for, by virtue of their unbelief, they are friends of Satan and enemies of Allah (which is ironic, because in the Real World, the two are indistinguishable).

And “terrorism” is whatever a non-Muslim does in defense of himself or others against Allah, especially if they’re Jews.]

Instructively, Mohamed concludes this section of his comments with this:

“it’s an exceptional solution to treat with those who oppress, fight, and don’t aim at establishing peace and maintaining stability. It’s restricted by treaties that Muslims held with others.”

With self-defense (“those who fight”) I have no problem. With retaliation, I understand (I don’t agree, but I understand).

I do have a problem with “oppress,” and “don’t aim at establishing . . . and maintaining stability.” Too often, Muslims – following Muhammad’s example – consider non-Muslims not immediately lying down and making every concession demanded of them by the faithful as committing “oppression” or causing “instability.”

Not being Muslim is a threat to the Islamic state!

Here, “disbelief” in Allah is the cause for war:

“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)” (Qur’an 8:38; ayah 39 from Noble Qur’an).

Another declares execution, crucifixion, and amputation appropriate punishments for . . . “mischief”:

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

[Ibn Kathir says of it: `Wage war’ mentioned here means, oppose and contradict, and it includes disbelief, blocking roads and spreading fear in the fairways. Mischief in the land refers to various types of evil.”]

I always slaughter those with whom I have no peace treaty.

7) Dhimmi “rights,” an exemplar of Islam’s sick sense of humor

Mohamed makes a passing reference to “dhimmi” rights. That’s an oxymoron to any honest person whose done his homework!

Dhimma is “protection” for the “People of the Book,” Jews and Christians (and at times, certain other groups).

Protection from whom? This is the kind of “protection” mobsters offer: You pay us, and we’ll protect you – from ourselves!

In fact, mafia look like angels next to what Islam has traditionally offered dhimmis, per Muhammad’s command in Qur’an 9:29, which reads: “Fight those who believe not in Allah . . . 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.

“Subdued” is translated variously as “brought low” and “subjection.”

What does this mean in practice? One model of Islamic “protection” is the Pact of Umar, which states in part:

“We [Christians] shall not build, in our cities or in their neighborhood, new monasteries, Churches, convents, or monks’ cells, nor shall we repair, by day or by night, such of them as fall in ruins or are situated in the quarters of the Muslims.

We shall keep our gates wide open for passersby and travelers. We shall give board and lodging to all Muslims who pass our way for three days.

We shall not give shelter in our churches or in our dwellings to any spy, nor [h]ide him from the Muslims.

We shall not teach the Qur’an to our children.

We shall not manifest our religion publicly nor convert anyone to it. We shall not prevent any of our kin from entering Islam if they wish it.

We shall show respect toward the Muslims, and we shall rise from our seats when they wish to sit.

We shall not seek to resemble the Muslims by imitating any of their garments, the qalansuwa, the turban, footwear, or the parting of the hair. We shall not speak as they do, nor shall we adopt their kunyas.

We shall not mount on saddles, nor shall we gird swords nor bear any kind of arms nor carry them on our persons.

We shall not engrave Arabic inscriptions on our seals.

We shall not sell fermented drinks.

We shall clip the fronts of our heads.

We shall always dress in the same way wherever we may be, and we shall bind the zunar round our waists

We shall not display our crosses or our books in the roads or markets of the Muslims. We shall use only clappers in our churches very softly. We shall not raise our voices when following our dead. We shall not show lights on any of the roads of the Muslims or in their markets. We shall not bury our dead near the Muslims.

We shall not take slaves who have been allotted to Muslims.

We shall not build houses overtopping the houses of the Muslims.

(When I brought the letter to Umar, may God be pleased with him, he added, “We shall not strike a Muslim.”)

We accept these conditions for ourselves and for the people of our community, and in return we receive safe-conduct.

If we in any way violate these undertakings for which we ourselves stand surety, we forfeit our covenant [dhimma], and we become liable to the penalties for contumacy and sedition.

Umar ibn al-Khittab replied: Sign what they ask, but add two clauses and impose them in addition to those which they have undertaken. They are: “They shall not buy anyone made prisoner by the Muslims,” and “Whoever strikes a Muslim with deliberate intent shall forfeit the protection of this pact.”

Can’t you feel the love?

8) Israelis defending themselves against animals who target innocents (from among their own people) because Allah told them to do so? The Israelis are the terrorists!

Mohamed tries to ameliorate the utter barbarity of Muhammad’s being made “victorious with terror” and the implications of that declaration and example for today’s non-Muslims concerned with Islamic terrorism with this verse:

“And they thought that their fortresses would defend them from Allah. But the (Wrath of) Allah came to them from quarters from which they little expected (it), and cast terror into their hearts ..” 59:2

They were hiding in their fortresses.

(By the way, it is not a good idea to bring up Israel and their Muslim neighbors in defense of Islam. If Israel were as bad as Islamic and other anti-Semites claim, they’d have “taken care” of the “Palestinians” a long time ago.

The truth is, since its inception, modern Israel has had to defend itself continually against jihad.)

9) Islamic ideals of tolerance, justice, and safety? Muslims only, please.

Mohamed notes a punishment carried out in Saudi Arabia for heinous crimes. I have no problem with that.

I do have a problem with this: Mr. Fadly does not mention that the way in which the “Islamic religion maintain[s] the safety of the people” applies only to Muslims, even in his beloved Egypt, where Copts are attacked and killed and their daughters kidnapped and raped routinely by Muslims.

Under Islamic law – which is derived from Qur’an and Sunna – non-Muslims, apostates, women, and little children are not afforded the same consideration as Muslim males.

Consider the following passages regarding just non-Muslims; perhaps Mohamed can explain how these texts don’t say what they actually say:

“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).”

“Yahya related to me from Malik that he heard that Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz gave a decision that when a [J]ew or [C]hristian was killed, his blood-money was half the blood-money of a free muslim.

“Malik said, ‘What is done in our community, is that a muslim is not killed for a kafir unless the muslim kills him by deceit. Then he is killed for it.’

[. . .]

“Malik said, ‘The blood-monies of the Jew, Christian, and Magian in their injuries, is according to the injury of the muslims in their blood-moneys. The head wound is a twentieth of his full blood-money. The wound that opens the head is a third of his blood-money. The belly-wound is a third of his blood-money. All their injuries are according to this calculation'” (Muwatta Book 43, Number 43.15.8b).

“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).

“Those who believe fight in the way of Allah, and those who disbelieve fight in the way of the Shaitan. Fight therefore against the friends of the Shaitan; surely the strategy of the Shaitan is weak” (Qur’an 4:76).

“Those who reject (Truth), among the People of the Book and among the Polytheists, will be in Hell-Fire, to dwell therein (for aye). They are the worst of creatures” (Qur’an 98:6).

“Muhammad – the messenger of GOD – and those with him are harsh and stern against the disbelievers, but kind and compassionate amongst themselves” (Qur’an 48:29).

And, of course, all the passages regarding offensive warfare to make the world Islam.

Troubling truths about Islam

In Egypt, Islamic Newspeak, Israel, Jihad, Qur'an 9:5 The Verse of the Sword, The truth about Islam on June 28, 2009 at 3:22 AM

An interfaith dialogue on the Religion of Peace, the kind that our political, media, and academic elites ought to be having, not the suicidal, politically-correct, Saudi-funded, jihad-enabling, ignorant nonsense going on today.

A response to Mohamed Fadly, from here, with slight modifications in format and some added, bracketed commentary:

1) Falsely equating Christ and Allah

Mohamed equates Christ’s command to “Love your enemies” with Allah’s not forbidding dealing “kindly and justly” with those who do not fight Muslims nor drive them from their homes.

How are those equivalent? How does being kind to someone not harming you even approach loving one’s enemies?

To be remotely comparable, Allah would have to state something along the lines of “Allah does not forbid you from being kind and just to those who fight against you for faith or drive you from your homes.”

Even then, that would only allow kindness to one’s enemies, not command love toward them, as Christ does.

2) Qur’anic contradictions? Yes, Naskh, the doctrine of Abrogation.

Mohamed talks about the “apparent” contradictions in Qur’an. They exist.

Later “revelations” that contradict earlier ones abrogate them. This is called “naskh”:

“The Prophet said, ‘If I take an oath and later find something else better than that, then I do what is better and expiate my oath'” (Bukhari Volume 7, Book 67, Number 427).

“Whatever communications We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, We bring one better than it or like it. Do you not know that Allah has power over all things” (Qur’an 2:106)?

The abrogations most troubling to non-Muslims concern the proper Muslim stance toward them.

Unfortunately for millions (billions?) of “infidels” over the last fourteen hundred years, Muhammad’s position on the subject evolved from one of cooperation with non-Muslims, to allowing self-defense, to requiring self-defense, to demanding offensive warfare against those who refuse the “invitation” to Islam (or slavery under it).

3) The tried-but-not-true, “Out-of-context! Out-of-context!”

[The only problem is, no one ever shows how my citations are actually, out-of-context.]

Mohamed makes an argument for understanding passages in their context. I agree.

I’ve never done otherwise, contrary to his implication.

Mohamed does neglect to make one point regarding context: Since Qur’an is a series of often disjointed, independent sayings – its chapters arranged by size, not chronology – to find the context of many passages it is necessary to go to ahadith (the sayings of Muhammad) and sira (his biographies).

4) Pulling the wool over the eyes of those unfamiliar with the Islamic texts commanding jihad

[Those new to Muhammad’s hellish doctrines often jump naturally from The Verse of the Sword (9:5) to the conclusion that Muhammad and his allah want(ed) every non-Muslim dead. This misunderstanding provides the opportunity for the more experienced among jihad’s apologists to score points in the eyes of the gullible, foolish, and perverse. Worse, it can confuse and demoralize those rightly alarmed at what they understand intuitively as the threat posed by Islam to all humanity.

Non-Muslims should be aware that yes, Muhammad and his allah love(d) infidel blood, but he also likes converts, which are one good way to swell the ranks of Hell.

I’d guess that Muhammad preferred non-Muslims as sex slaves and punching bags, because they just keep giving and giving and giving.

And attractive infidel women reproduce Muslims just fine.]

Regrettably, it appears that Mohamed is implying that I’ve claimed that Allah commands Muslims to kill “all non-Muslims.” Or, perhaps, he’s hoping someone else who isn’t paying attention will think I have.

Mohamed admits (unintentionally, I’d wager) that Allah commands warfare against non-Muslims (“every other verse that clarified how and when to fight against them and when to give peace”).

So, let’s look at one of those chronically-taken-out-of-context verses and its actual context[:] Qur’an 9:5.

This is called “The Verse of the Sword,” and with it, Muhammad opened up the entire non-Muslim world to Islamic conquest, making all non-Muslims targets for either conversion, slavery, or slaughter.

Here is The Verse:

“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).

A non-Muslim unfamiliar with the context of that verse would be alarmed (rightly) and may make the logical leap to “all Muslims are commanded to kill all non-Muslims.” This would not be true, and here is why: Muhammad ordered slaughter for those non-Muslims who refuse the “invitation” to Islam and subjugation as dhimmis (an option for the “People of the Book;” pagans are not usually so “lucky”):

“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).

So, no, “all Muslims” are not ordered to kill “all non-Muslims.” Just the ones who resist.

One other important consideration: Since the goal of Islam is the establishment of Allah’s tyranny over all mankind, the use of any means necessary is fine. If Islam can subjugate the entire world without firing a shot or lighting a fuse, it will.

This is why you see demographics, media, schools, prisons, politics, the courts, and money used successfully in establishing Islam in Western nations.

If anything, bin Laden and his buddies may have set back the spread of Islam in America.

5) Isn’t it ironic (in a sad, suicidal, end-of-civilization-kind-of-way) that you have to take Islamic texts out-of-context to get a message of peace?

Mohamed brings up two passages to illustrate that Qur’anic verses should be taken in context.

Again, I agree, they should.

The first is 2:191, “slay them wherever ye catch them.” Though I have not taken this verse out-of-context, Muslims dealing with inexperienced non-Muslims often use this verse to mislead their audiences.

Yes, the command here is given in the context of retaliation, retribution, even self-defense.

The only problem is, the same command is uttered in the context of offensive warfare against non-Muslims in Sura 9 (quoted above) on the basis of religion, the only “immunity” granted to those “infidels” who’ve kept their treaties with Muhammad, and only until those treaties expire.

Sura 4 mentions self-defense in verse 91, but look at verse 89: “Do not consider them friends, unless they mobilize along with you in the cause of Allah. If they turn against you, you shall fight them, and you may kill them when you encounter them in war. You shall not accept them as friends, or allies.”

Exempted from this violence are those who join groups with extant peace treaties with Muhammad (verse 90).

So the default state according to Mr. Fadly is – without considering the later verses requiring offensive warfare – one of hostility toward non-Muslims on religious grounds.

Again, Mohamed states that, “It’s not an absolute permission to annihilate all and everyone who disbelieve in Islam.”

I’ve never said otherwise.

And isn’t it curious that Mohamed doesn’t volunteer the rest of the story?

6) “Peace.” Muslims keep using that word. I do not think it means what they think it means.

[Non-Muslims should be aware that Islam uses words that we find comforting, reassuring.

The only problem is that Islam uses its own dictionary.

Consider “peace,” “innocent,” and “terrorism.”

In Islam, “peace” means that state or condition when all non-Muslims have converted, are enslaved, or dead. It’s not hard to be “the world’s fastest growing religion” when you’re killing the competition. (Microsoft must be mad at the double standard.)

Whatever “innocent” means (usually “Muslim”), it cannot be applied to any non-Muslim, for, by virtue of their unbelief, they are friends of Satan and enemies of Allah (which is ironic, because in the Real World, the two are indistinguishable).

And “terrorism” is whatever a non-Muslim does in defense of himself or others against Allah, especially if they’re Jews.]

Instructively, Mohamed concludes this section of his comments with this:

“it’s an exceptional solution to treat with those who oppress, fight, and don’t aim at establishing peace and maintaining stability. It’s restricted by treaties that Muslims held with others.”

With self-defense (“those who fight”) I have no problem. With retaliation, I understand (I don’t agree, but I understand).

I do have a problem with “oppress,” and “don’t aim at establishing . . . and maintaining stability.” Too often, Muslims – following Muhammad’s example – consider non-Muslims not immediately lying down and making every concession demanded of them by the faithful as committing “oppression” or causing “instability.”

Not being Muslim is a threat to the Islamic state!

Here, “disbelief” in Allah is the cause for war:

“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)” (Qur’an 8:38; ayah 39 from Noble Qur’an).

Another declares execution, crucifixion, and amputation appropriate punishments for . . . “mischief”:

“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).

I always slaughter those with whom I have no peace treaty.

7) Dhimmi “rights,” an exemplar of Islam’s sick sense of humor

Mohamed makes a passing reference to “dhimmi” rights. That’s an oxymoron to any honest person whose done his homework!

Dhimma is “protection” for the “People of the Book,” Jews and Christians (and at times, certain other groups).

Protection from whom? This is the kind of “protection” mobsters offer: You pay us, and we’ll protect you – from ourselves!

In fact, mafia look like angels next to what Islam has traditionally offered dhimmis, per Muhammad’s command in Qur’an 9:29, which reads: “Fight those who believe not in Allah . . . 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.

“Subdued” is translated variously as “brought low” and “subjection.”

What does this mean in practice? One model of Islamic “protection” is the Pact of Umar, which states in part:

“We [Christians] shall not build, in our cities or in their neighborhood, new monasteries, Churches, convents, or monks’ cells, nor shall we repair, by day or by night, such of them as fall in ruins or are situated in the quarters of the Muslims.

We shall keep our gates wide open for passersby and travelers. We shall give board and lodging to all Muslims who pass our way for three days.

We shall not give shelter in our churches or in our dwellings to any spy, nor [h]ide him from the Muslims.

We shall not teach the Qur’an to our children.

We shall not manifest our religion publicly nor convert anyone to it. We shall not prevent any of our kin from entering Islam if they wish it.

We shall show respect toward the Muslims, and we shall rise from our seats when they wish to sit.

We shall not seek to resemble the Muslims by imitating any of their garments, the qalansuwa, the turban, footwear, or the parting of the hair. We shall not speak as they do, nor shall we adopt their kunyas.

We shall not mount on saddles, nor shall we gird swords nor bear any kind of arms nor carry them on our persons.

We shall not engrave Arabic inscriptions on our seals.

We shall not sell fermented drinks.

We shall clip the fronts of our heads.

We shall always dress in the same way wherever we may be, and we shall bind the zunar round our waists

We shall not display our crosses or our books in the roads or markets of the Muslims. We shall use only clappers in our churches very softly. We shall not raise our voices when following our dead. We shall not show lights on any of the roads of the Muslims or in their markets. We shall not bury our dead near the Muslims.

We shall not take slaves who have been allotted to Muslims.

We shall not build houses overtopping the houses of the Muslims.

(When I brought the letter to Umar, may God be pleased with him, he added, “We shall not strike a Muslim.”)

We accept these conditions for ourselves and for the people of our community, and in return we receive safe-conduct.

If we in any way violate these undertakings for which we ourselves stand surety, we forfeit our covenant [dhimma], and we become liable to the penalties for contumacy and sedition.

Umar ibn al-Khittab replied: Sign what they ask, but add two clauses and impose them in addition to those which they have undertaken. They are: “They shall not buy anyone made prisoner by the Muslims,” and “Whoever strikes a Muslim with deliberate intent shall forfeit the protection of this pact.”

Can’t you feel the love?

8) Israelis defending themselves against animals who target innocents (from among their own people) because Allah told them to do so? The Israelis are the terrorists!

Mohamed tries to ameliorate the utter barbarity of Muhammad’s being made “victorious with terror” and the implications of that declaration and example for today’s non-Muslims concerned with Islamic terrorism with this verse:

“And they thought that their fortresses would defend them from Allah. But the (Wrath of) Allah came to them from quarters from which they little expected (it), and cast terror into their hearts ..” 59:2

They were hiding in their fortresses.

(By the way, it is not a good idea to bring up Israel and their Muslim neighbors in defense of Islam. If Israel were as bad as Islamic and other anti-Semites claim, they’d have “taken care” of the “Palestinians” a long time ago.

The truth is, since its inception, modern Israel has had to defend itself continually against jihad.)

9) Islamic ideals of tolerance, justice, and safety? Muslims only, please.

Mohamed notes a punishment carried out in Saudi Arabia for heinous crimes. I have no problem with that.

I do have a problem with this: Mr. Fadly does not mention that the way in which the “Islamic religion maintain[s] the safety of the people” applies only to Muslims, even in his beloved Egypt, where Copts are attacked and killed and their daughters kidnapped and raped routinely by Muslims.

Under Islamic law – which is derived from Qur’an and Sunna – non-Muslims, apostates, women, and little children are not afforded the same consideration as Muslim males.

Consider the following passages regarding just non-Muslims; perhaps Mohamed can explain how these texts don’t say what they actually say:

“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).”

“Yahya related to me from Malik that he heard that Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz gave a decision that when a [J]ew or [C]hristian was killed, his blood-money was half the blood-money of a free muslim.

“Malik said, ‘What is done in our community, is that a muslim is not killed for a kafir unless the muslim kills him by deceit. Then he is killed for it.’

[. . .]

“Malik said, ‘The blood-monies of the Jew, Christian, and Magian in their injuries, is according to the injury of the muslims in their blood-moneys. The head wound is a twentieth of his full blood-money. The wound that opens the head is a third of his blood-money. The belly-wound is a third of his blood-money. All their injuries are according to this calculation'” (Muwatta Book 43, Number 43.15.8b).

“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).

“Those who believe fight in the way of Allah, and those who disbelieve fight in the way of the Shaitan. Fight therefore against the friends of the Shaitan; surely the strategy of the Shaitan is weak” (Qur’an 4:76).

“Those who reject (Truth), among the People of the Book and among the Polytheists, will be in Hell-Fire, to dwell therein (for aye). They are the worst of creatures” (Qur’an 98:6).

“Muhammad – the messenger of GOD – and those with him are harsh and stern against the disbelievers, but kind and compassionate amongst themselves” (Qur’an 48:29).

And, of course, all the passages regarding offensive warfare to make the world Islam.

President Obama’s foreign policy is so effective, now even run-of-the-mill jihadist pirates attack Americans

In Barack Hussein Obama, Barbary Pirates, Jihad, Somalia on April 9, 2009 at 1:23 PM

“Precondition-free Dialogue” and “Overseas Contingency Operations” really scare our enemies, don’t they?

-North Korea fires its missiles.

-Iran gets its centrifuges.

-And the Barbary Pirates, crushed by the Marines two hundred years ago, see it’s safe again to attack Americans.

Hussein’s Secretary of Submission cuts the F-22, perhaps the only plane to avoid Russian radar being sold to Iran, and the Airborne Laser program capable of stopping North Korean and Iranian missiles.

King George III, Adolph Hitler, and Emperor Hirohito must be kicking themselves. If only they had waited a little longer!

What a disgrace.

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.

Muslim liars and their Useful Idiot Dhimmis violate jihad’s victims postmortem

In Appeasers and Useful Idiot Dhimmis, India, Jihad, Resisting Jihad, Sandra Samuel on December 2, 2008 at 3:27 PM

Allah’s apologists come out to defend Muslim bloodlust here and here. In doing this, they profane the dead.

True courage is here.

Going from a “tiny minority of extremists” to “Muslims” in Mumbai

In India, Jihad, Non-violent jihad, Resisting Jihad, The truth about Islam on December 1, 2008 at 3:48 PM

In response to one obfuscating for Allah here:

Zelda,

Only the ignorant and the deceitful deny the fact that the Source and Sustenance of 1400 years of global jihad is the word of Allah and the example of his genocidal, pedophile prophet Mohammed.

One needs only to examine Islam’s “sacred” texts—Qur’an, ahadith, and Sira—to know this is true. Have you done that? If you have, then you are an accomplice to the slavery, rape, and slaughter of non-Muslims around the world. If not, why post in ignorance?

Either way, you are part of the problem, for Mohammed commanded:

“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).

It is true that most Muslims do not carry out physical violence against non-Muslims and apostates. However, there are a number of nonviolent means to establishing the rule of Allah over all mankind including political, economic, legal, demographic, academic, and media-related efforts. Include those who support violent jihad with their prayers, words, wealth, and wombs, and you’ve gone from a “tiny minority of extremists” to “Muslims.”

And what do you do with those Muslims who say that they reject jihad? How can you know? For unlike the Christian God, to Whom lying is a sin, Mohammed advocated falsehood saying, ”War is deceit,” (Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 268). And since Allah calls Mohammed, “a beautiful pattern (of conduct) for anyone whose hope is in Allah and the Final Day, and who engages much in the Praise of Allah” (Qur’an 33:21), lying in advancing the cause of Allah is a good thing.

As for your charge of bigotry, “Islamophobia” by definition means an “irrational fear of Islam.” What is irrational about reporting atrocities carried out in the name of Allah? Isn’t denying them the real crime? Why are you not outraged at Muslims obeying their god, rather than attacking Powerline for reporting their barbarism?

This is one of the few sites with the courage and veracity to tell the truth about jihad. The threat is urgent and real—just ask the victims of jihad in:

-Mumbai;

-9/11;

-7/7 London;

-3/11 Madrid;

-the USS Cole, our embassies, and the Khobar Towers;

-the first WTC attack;

-Beirut ‘83;

-the Barbary pirates;

-the Christians and animists enslaved, raped, and butchered in Sudan before Darfur became fashionable;

-modern Israel, since its inception;

-the 70-80 million Indians killed in earlier jihad offensives;

-all of Christian North Africa;

-The Holy Land, which was Jewish and Christian;

-Medieval Spain, which needed 750 years to regain its freedom from its Muslim overlords;

-the Balkans, whose beautiful boys were kidnapped, enslaved, and made into monsters for Allah;

-Zoroastrian Persia;

-Chaldean Iraq;

-Constantinople;

-and Asia Minor to Indonesia, where Christian schoolgirls are beheaded for Allah.

The clear exposition of the jihad threat should headline every newspaper, nightly news program, inaugural address, and State of the Union until its end. Our immigration, entitlement, energy, and national defense programs should be overhauled accordingly.

Following is just a sampling of the utter depravity thrust upon the world by Mohammed, and it’s the reason that over 12,000 terrorist attacks have occurred since 9/11 alone and billions have been enslaved, raped, and slaughtered for Allah around the world since the seventh century:

“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).

”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)” (Qur’an 8:38; ayah 39 from Noble Qur’an).

“Allah’s Apostle said, ‘I have been made victorious with terror’” (Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 220).

This is that for which you obfuscate, Zelda.

Going from a “tiny minority of extremists” to “Muslims” in Mumbai

In India, Jihad, Non-violent jihad, Resisting Jihad, The truth about Islam on December 1, 2008 at 3:48 PM

In response to one obfuscating for Allah here:

Zelda,

Only the ignorant and the deceitful deny the fact that the Source and Sustenance of 1400 years of global jihad is the word of Allah and the example of his genocidal, pedophile prophet Mohammed.

One needs only to examine Islam’s “sacred” texts—Qur’an, ahadith, and Sira—to know this is true. Have you done that? If you have, then you are an accomplice to the slavery, rape, and slaughter of non-Muslims around the world. If not, why post in ignorance?

Either way, you are part of the problem, for Mohammed commanded:

“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).

It is true that most Muslims do not carry out physical violence against non-Muslims and apostates. However, there are a number of nonviolent means to establishing the rule of Allah over all mankind including political, economic, legal, demographic, academic, and media-related efforts. Include those who support violent jihad with their prayers, words, wealth, and wombs, and you’ve gone from a “tiny minority of extremists” to “Muslims.”

And what do you do with those Muslims who say that they reject jihad? How can you know? For unlike the Christian God, to Whom lying is a sin, Mohammed advocated falsehood saying, ”War is deceit,” (Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 268). And since Allah calls Mohammed, “a beautiful pattern (of conduct) for anyone whose hope is in Allah and the Final Day, and who engages much in the Praise of Allah” (Qur’an 33:21), lying in advancing the cause of Allah is a good thing.

As for your charge of bigotry, “Islamophobia” by definition means an “irrational fear of Islam.” What is irrational about reporting atrocities carried out in the name of Allah? Isn’t denying them the real crime? Why are you not outraged at Muslims obeying their god, rather than attacking Powerline for reporting their barbarism?

This is one of the few sites with the courage and veracity to tell the truth about jihad. The threat is urgent and real—just ask the victims of jihad in:

-Mumbai;

-9/11;

-7/7 London;

-3/11 Madrid;

-the USS Cole, our embassies, and the Khobar Towers;

-the first WTC attack;

-Beirut ‘83;

-the Barbary pirates;

-the Christians and animists enslaved, raped, and butchered in Sudan before Darfur became fashionable;

-modern Israel, since its inception;

-the 70-80 million Indians killed in earlier jihad offensives;

-all of Christian North Africa;

-The Holy Land, which was Jewish and Christian;

-Medieval Spain, which needed 750 years to regain its freedom from its Muslim overlords;

-the Balkans, whose beautiful boys were kidnapped, enslaved, and made into monsters for Allah;

-Zoroastrian Persia;

-Chaldean Iraq;

-Constantinople;

-and Asia Minor to Indonesia, where Christian schoolgirls are beheaded for Allah.

The clear exposition of the jihad threat should headline every newspaper, nightly news program, inaugural address, and State of the Union until its end. Our immigration, entitlement, energy, and national defense programs should be overhauled accordingly.

Following is just a sampling of the utter depravity thrust upon the world by Mohammed, and it’s the reason that over 12,000 terrorist attacks have occurred since 9/11 alone and billions have been enslaved, raped, and slaughtered for Allah around the world since the seventh century:

“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).

”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)” (Qur’an 8:38; ayah 39 from Noble Qur’an).

“Allah’s Apostle said, ‘I have been made victorious with terror’” (Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 220).

This is that for which you obfuscate, Zelda.