Amillennialist

Archive for the ‘Non-violent jihad’ Category

While open hearts and minds are good, credulity is not, especially when the salesman making the pitch is selling the destruction of all you hold dear

In Appeasers and Useful Idiot Dhimmis, Deceiving non-Muslims, Ignorant and gullible Infidels, Non-violent jihad, The truth about Islam on June 29, 2010 at 12:58 AM

Anthropophagic alien invaders or Islamic spokesmen?
Six of one, half-dozen of the other

When Muslims wage soft jihad (with words, not weapons), the more skilled practitioners require a translator for the benefit of most non-Muslim audiences.  We wouldn’t want any “infidels” to misunderstand the Religion of Pathological Deception, would we?

In response to Michal’s lengthy propaganda effort.  He begins:

We are Muslims, Ambassadors of PEACE and we are NOT terrorists

The only problem is, our idea of “peace” means that you don’t try to slaughter, rape, or enslave us, and we won’t have to defend ourselves against you. Unfortunately, Muhammad’s idea of “peace” was the kind that comes from (literally) killing the competition:

“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).

As for “terrorism”? Of course, not all Muslims carry out or condone terrorism. But what’s the best you can expect when “Allah’s Apostle said, ‘I have been made victorious with terror'” (Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 220)?

Who will define who a “sweet” person from other religions is?

How about Muhammad? He said of non-Muslims in general (and Jews and Christians, and perhaps Zoroastrians and others — it depends on whom you ask):

“Those who disbelieve, neither their possessions nor their (numerous) progeny will avail them aught against Allah: They are themselves but fuel for the Fire” (Qur’an 3:10).

“Abu Huraira reported Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: The last hour would not come unless the Muslims will fight against the Jews and the Muslims would kill them until the Jews would hide themselves behind a stone or a tree and a stone or a tree would say: Muslim, or the servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me; come and kill him; but the tree Gharqad would not say, for it is the tree of the Jews” (Muslim Book 41, Number 6985).

“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).

Michal continues:

No-one needs to [define “sweet non-Muslims], as it is already defined by the socially accepted norms.

As evidenced by just the few citations above, Islam’s “socially accepted norms” are not humanity’s “socially-accepted norms.”

All the things a decent person would not do in real life should also not be done sitting behind a computer.

Because how can a devout Muslim murder someone for insulting Muhammad when he doesn’t have even an ip address? Makes one long for the Good Old Days, when an uppity infidel was just stone’s throw or dagger thrust away:

“Then (occurred) the sariyyah of Umayr ibn adi Ibn Kharashah al-Khatmi against Asma Bint Marwan [. . .] She used to revile Islam, offend the prophet and instigate the (people) against him. She composed verses. Umayr Ibn Adi came to her in the night and entered her house. Her children were sleeping around her. There was one whom she was suckling. He searched her with his hand because he was blind, and separated the child from her. He thrust his sword in her chest till it pierced up to her back. Then he offered the morning prayers with the prophet at al-Medina. The apostle of Allah said to him: “Have you slain the daughter of Marwan?” He said: “Yes. Is there something more for me to do?” He [Muhammad] said: “No . . . ” (Ibn Sa’d’s Kitab al-Tabaqat al-Kabir).

Michal adds:

Islam has a fundamental principle that asks humans to treat their fellow humans just the way they would like to be treated themselves.

Michal’s confusing Islam with Christianity. Jesus said, “Treat others the way you want to be treated.” Muhammad said, “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).

Therefore we all should exercise our freedoms with care, consideration and concern for our fellow human beings. Freedom is not and therefore should not become an assault on others.

Which is Muslimspeak for: Don’t say anything we don’t like . . . or else:

“A blind man had a slave-mother who used to abuse the Prophet [. . .] and disparage him. He forbade her but she did not stop. He rebuked her but she did not give up her habit. 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. When the morning came, the Prophet [. . .] was informed about it.

“He assembled the people and said: ‘I adjure by Allah the man who has done this action and I adjure him by my right to him that he should stand up.’ Jumping over the necks of the people and trembling the man stood up.

“He sat before the Prophet [. . .] and said: ‘Apostle of Allah! I am her master; she used to abuse you and disparage you. I forbade her, but she did not stop, and I rebuked her, but she did not abandon her habit. I have two sons like pearls from her, and she was my companion. Last night she began to abuse and disparage you. So I took a dagger, put it on her belly and pressed it till I killed her.’

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

Michal whines:

[Facebook] seems to allow mockery of religions it has an issue with… The caricatures of the prophet Mohammed were uploaded, and instead of taking any consideration and action, they came out and said they were supporting it.”

Do you think that nearly 16,000 documented jihad attacks since 9/11 alone might have something to do with the urge to mock Muhammad? I’m willing to bet — I’m going out on a limb here — that if your coreligionists stop blowing up, raping, and enslaving non-Muslims, non-Muslims will stop telling the truth about Muhammad.

All Muslims love all humans including non-Muslims (Yes and you might be surprised at this due to popular misconceptions).

If “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), where’s the “misconception”?

Now Muslims believe that our non-Muslim cousins are misguided yet are sensitive to their religious sensitivities.

Really? “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).

Nothing oozes “religious sensitivity” like warfare against all who refuse conversion or dhimmitude.

per Islamic orders non-Muslims are allowed to practice their faith freely non-publicly. This is because of the reasons mentioned below

As in the Pact of Umar?

As per Islam, Muslims DO NOT insult our non-Muslim cousins, their religion and Idol Gods (as applicable), despite knowing that they are misguided and their beliefs largely false, just for the sake of harmony and respecting their beliefs.

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

Or this? “They do blaspheme who say: Allah is one of three in a Trinity: for there is no god except One Allah. If they desist not from their word (of blasphemy), verily a grievous penalty will befall the blasphemers among them” (Qur’an 5:73).

Or this? “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).

All things considered, I’d take insults over genocide any day.

Islam and therefore Muslims love all humans and our non-Muslim cousins. Now as per Islam they are proceeding towards eternal failure and hell fire. Islam doesn’t want that for them.

So, enslaving, raping, and beheading those who refuse conversion might cause some to convert [anyway], which makes those crimes expression of “mercy,” right?

Therefore Islam directs believers to spread the message of peace (Islam) and call all to the One true God (Allah) and eternal success.

Just like Muhammad, right?

“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.”

there is no pressure in religion

No, of course not. It’s either conversion, subjugation and humiliation, or war. No compulsion at all.

an environment needs to be created for our non-Muslim cousins so that they can find it less difficult socially to heed to the call of their True and ONLY creator.

Yes, removing a person’s freedom, money, wife, daughters, limbs, and head tend to create that “environment,” don’t they, Michal? You’re quite a liar for Allah.

This is the reason why Islam, though respects and allows the practice of the religion and beliefs of our cousins at personal levels, it is not allowed for them to do this publicly in an Islamic Country so that it is easier for those non-Muslim cousins who want to come to the true path to embrace success.

Of what are you so afraid? If Islam were as wonderful as you pretend, you wouldn’t have to lie, obfuscate, or censor opposing viewpoints. Persuasion at the point of a sword, gun, or nuke is coercion, not faith.

as Devil’s best weapons include deception, false pretences and material & social fears.

That’s ironic, coming from someone promoting “sacralized” genocide, pedophilia, rape, mutilation, torture, slavery, theft, extortion, religious and gender apartheid, wife-beating, polygyny, deceit, and blasphemy as “true religion.”

Don’t you see? How can someone promoting the violation of all Ten Commandments and the Golden Rule be from heaven and not from hell itself? What is it about Muhammad that screams out to you “prophet of god,” the beheadings or the pedophilia?

I hope this answers your questions and that you will consider them with an open heart and mind. Once again thanks for your interest and the queries

Thank you for highlighting the fact that while open hearts and minds are good, credulity is not, especially when the salesman [making the pitch] is selling the destruction of all you hold dear in the name of his “religion.”

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.”

Wake up, America

In Barack Hussein Obama, Deceiving non-Muslims, Liberals aid jihad, Non-violent jihad, Resisting Jihad, The Decline and Fall of the American Republic on October 25, 2009 at 1:33 AM

Pat Condell understands Islam (it’s too bad he wrongly equates Christianity with Islam and the freedom Christ gives with tyranny and violence. Pat, Western notions of Liberty have at its core the teachings of Christ.  “For freedom Christ has set us free” (Galatians 5:1).)

If we do not defend our liberties against Islamic and Domestic Tyranny, we will lose them.

Wake up, America

In Barack Hussein Obama, Deceiving non-Muslims, Liberals aid jihad, Non-violent jihad, Resisting Jihad, The Decline and Fall of the American Republic on October 25, 2009 at 1:33 AM

Pat Condell understands Islam (it’s too bad he wrongly equates Christianity with Islam and the freedom Christ gives with tyranny and violence. Pat, Western notions of Liberty have at its core the teachings of Christ.  “For freedom Christ has set us free” (Galatians 5:1).)

If we do not defend our liberties against Islamic and Domestic Tyranny, we will lose them.

Americans are generous by nature. We respect diversity, religious liberty, and freedom of conscience. Islam does not.

In Appeasers and Useful Idiot Dhimmis, CAIR, Council Rock School District, Non-violent jihad, Public Education, The Decline and Fall of the American Republic on October 23, 2009 at 6:39 PM

Sent to the Council Rock School Board, in response to their surrender to Islamic intimidation:

Dear Mr. Abramson, Dr. Anagnostakos, Mr. Donnelly, Mr. Grupp, Ms. Heenan, Mr. McKessy, Mr. McMenamin, Ms. Sexton, and Ms. Thomas,

I am distressed and alarmed to learn of your recent censorship of the films Obsession and The Third Jihad, succumbing to pressure from the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) in rejecting them.

Americans are generous by nature. We respect diversity, religious liberty, and freedom of conscience.

Islam does not.

Perhaps you are unaware that CAIR is an unindicted co-conspirator in a federal terrorism funding trial (and possesses many other links to terrorism, including being a front for the Muslim Brotherhood, whose stated goal is to bring down Western Civilization from within).

Why would you submit to any demands from such an organization?

In fact, wouldn’t their opposition to the films suggest to you that they should be viewed, as soon as possible, with the widest audience, and repeatedly?

You are, in effect, denying your students — your own children — the opportunity to learn about a threat not only to their lives and Liberty, but to Western Civilization itself. (Any real student of history knows that Islam has waged war against the non-Muslim world for fourteen hundred years. Nearly all of the societies which fell under its sword lost their lives, their freedoms, and their very identities.)

Ignorance of Islam’s texts, tenets, and history helps only whom?

Do you want your children blind to the motives, beliefs, strategies, and efforts of those who seek to convert, enslave, or butcher them?

Below my signature are just a few of the Islamic “sacred” texts requiring the slavery or slaughter of all who refuse the “invitation” to Islam.

I urge you: Educate yourselves. Then inform — and prepare — those in your charge.

I am happy to assist you in that critical work in any way I can . . . .

Perhaps this time everyone will notice that the Unindicted-Coconspirator-in-a-Federal-Terrorism-Funding-Trial-and-Front-for-the-Muslim-Brotherhood has no clothes

In CAIR, Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), Jihad in America, Liberals aid jihad, Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC), Non-violent jihad on October 14, 2009 at 2:42 PM

CAIR exposed again!

As noted repeatedly by everyone paying attention, CAIR, ISNA, MPAC, etc., are either fronts for the Muslim Brotherhood or staffed by their agents.

Which organization has declared its goal of bringing down Western Civilization from within by using our own laws, generosity, and ignorance against us in order to establish shari’a.

In other words, they’re waging non-violent jihad.

And rather than doing their homework in defense of Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness by investigating the texts, tenets, and time-lines of Islam, our self-appointed arbiters of truth and governmental lap watchdogs in the media run as fast as their treasonous, little feet can carry them to these groups’ spokesmen whenever a Muslim is caught butchering an infidel — or his own daughter — so that they can make charges of “Islamophobia!” “hate crime!” and “out-of-context! out-of-context!”

One of CAIR’s vile henchmen (I know, that’s redundant!) has been hovering like a vulture over Rifqa Bary’s trial in Florida.  There’s not an open microphone or human tragedy they won’t exploit for their own propaganda purposes.

So, all you America-hating, anti-Christian, socialist, anarchist, atheistic tyrants who think that by aiding jihad you’ll hurt America — you’re right — are missing one significant, little detail: Islam will destroy you too, and unless you’re a groveling, boot-licking coward who’s going to convert at the first flash of a scimitar, you’re going to be first on the chopping block.

At least Jews and Christians have the option to live in vile subjugation and humiliation.

For you godless, it’s “kill the pagans,” period.  You’ll be the first to go.

So, rather than forfeit the liberties and protections you have in this nation — liberties and protections founded on Christianity and developed and defended by Christians — start telling the truth about the jihad waged against us.

And stop lying for your Despot-in-Chief, whose only accomplishment more than giving a speech has been bankrupting and disarming the Republic.

Breaking America’s back helps only whom?

So stop listening to the Grima Wormtongues of the treacherous left and their natural allies among the Communists and Muslims.

You can always demonize and ostracize us bitter, racist, God-and-gun-clinging Americans later.  For now, let’s work together to preserve Western Civilization.

If we don’t fight together for this nation, there won’t be any nation left to fight over.

From WND:

Gaubatz, the son of “Muslim Mafia” co-author P. David Gaubatz, eventually wound up working as a volunteer at CAIR’s national office in Washington, D.C., alongside leaders Nihad Awad, Ibrahim Hooper and Corey Saylor.

The new book shows CAIR is not the benevolent Muslim civil-rights group it claims to be, with indisputable evidence documenting it and other “mainstream” Islamic groups are acting as fronts for a well-funded conspiracy of the Muslim Brotherhood – the parent of al-Qaida and Hamas – to infiltrate and destroy the American system.

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

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

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.

There’s a lot we can do to stop the surging tide of Islamic oppression

In America, American Library Association, Barack Hussein Obama, Jihad in America, Minnesota, Non-violent jihad, Resisting Jihad, The truth about Islam on July 26, 2009 at 11:54 AM

A community can do a lot: Inform the public — relatives, neighbors, co-workers, politicians, university presidents, media outlets — about the texts and tenets of Islam. Halt and reverse where possible Muslim immigration (importing Somalian jihad into Minnesota, anyone?). Punish for treason and sedition all those committing it by working to replace our Constitution with shari’a.

Secure the borders.

Don’t allow American organizations — like the American Library Association — to cater to Muslim sensibilities or cave in to pressure from jihad’s agents (CAIR, ISNA, MPAC, MAS, etc.), as in the ALA’s recent and shameful censoring of Robert Spencer.

End Obama’s bankrupting and disarming the nation, apologizing to Islam, releasing terrorists, and demanding that we respect Muhammad’s “sacralized” genocide, murder, pedophilia, rape, mutilation, slavery, anti-Semitism, theft, deceit, and blasphemy.

Challenge Muslims on what their god commands and what their “ideal man,” the “beautiful pattern of conduct for those who want to please” Allah, Muhammad, said and did.

Exercise your God-given, unalienable Freedoms of Speech and Assembly, and the Right to Bear Arms.

Speak Law and Gospel clearly.

There’s a lot we can do.

Hijabs on the move

In Hijab, Non-violent jihad, Obedient Muslims vs. moderate Muslims, Resisting Jihad, The truth about Islam on May 6, 2009 at 10:55 AM

Can you imagine individuals walking American streets, going about their business, proudly displaying swastikas or the Rising Sun of Imperial Japan?

In 1942?

Neither can I.

Something odd occurred this past Sunday. During an Arabian horse show’s climactic demonstration, a group of brightly-clad Muslimas wheeled their strollers and hijabs from one side of the stadium to the other directly in the view of the entire audience, paused once they reached the other side of the stadium, and then left.

They were making a statement.

Islamophobic? Not in light of the Muslim Brotherhood’s declared intention to subvert the American Constitution from within and subjugate the West to Allah.

Approaching eight years after 9/11, many Americans are ignorant still regarding Islam. How many Muslims are?

A “Christian” who married what I thought was a decent, Muslim-in-Name-Only Muslim once defended the hijab from my charge that it was a symbol of slavery and death by asserting stupidly that “Mary covered her head.”

Lots of people cover their head. Only one covering symbolizes fourteen centuries of global slavery, rape, and slaughter.

From here:

Mr. Appel,

I disagree . . . kindly, openly, and nicely.

I quoted the words of Muhammad and his allah, yet you call them “cheap shots,” “anger,” and “prejudice.” What does that say about what you believe about those passages?

I was not attacking the author; the fact that my comment was allowed here speaks to her respect for freedom of speech and her generosity. I am attempting to alert all people of good will to the Source and Sustenance of fourteen centuries of suffering and death for billions of non-Muslims and Muslim women, children, and apostates.

With regard to the hijab, I realize that some Muslim women choose to wear it for their own reasons. That does not change the fact that since Muhammad practiced covering his property (wives, concubines, slaves), and Allah calls him “a beautiful pattern of conduct for those who want to please” him, the hijab/niqab/abaya are mandatory for the devout:

“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).

On a related note, I would ask you to produce from any other major religion’s sacred texts open-ended, universal commands to enslave or slaughter all who refuse the “invitation” to conversion. This is unique to Islam.

On the other hand, Jesus taught and practiced, “Love your neighbor as yourself,” and, “Love your enemies.”

Muhammad butchered those who resisted him. Christ died for the sins of all people, including Muslims.

There is no moral equivalence between the two.

Hijabs on the move

In Hijab, Non-violent jihad, Obedient Muslims vs. moderate Muslims, Resisting Jihad, The truth about Islam on May 6, 2009 at 10:55 AM

Can you imagine individuals walking American streets, going about their business, proudly displaying swastikas or the Rising Sun of Imperial Japan?

In 1942?

Neither can I.

Something odd occurred this past Sunday. During an Arabian horse show’s climactic demonstration, a group of brightly-clad Muslimas wheeled their strollers and hijabs from one side of the stadium to the other directly in the view of the entire audience, paused once they reached the other side of the stadium, and then left.

They were making a statement.

Islamophobic? Not in light of the Muslim Brotherhood’s declared intention to subvert the American Constitution from within and subjugate the West to Allah.

Approaching eight years after 9/11, many Americans are ignorant still regarding Islam. How many Muslims are?

A “Christian” who married what I thought was a decent, Muslim-in-Name-Only Muslim once defended the hijab from my charge that it was a symbol of slavery and death by asserting stupidly that “Mary covered her head.”

Lots of people cover their head. Only one covering symbolizes fourteen centuries of global slavery, rape, and slaughter.

From here:

Mr. Appel,

I disagree . . . kindly, openly, and nicely.

I quoted the words of Muhammad and his allah, yet you call them “cheap shots,” “anger,” and “prejudice.” What does that say about what you believe about those passages?

I was not attacking the author; the fact that my comment was allowed here speaks to her respect for freedom of speech and her generosity. I am attempting to alert all people of good will to the Source and Sustenance of fourteen centuries of suffering and death for billions of non-Muslims and Muslim women, children, and apostates.

With regard to the hijab, I realize that some Muslim women choose to wear it for their own reasons. That does not change the fact that since Muhammad practiced covering his property (wives, concubines, slaves), and Allah calls him “a beautiful pattern of conduct for those who want to please” him, the hijab/niqab/abaya are mandatory for the devout:

“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).

On a related note, I would ask you to produce from any other major religion’s sacred texts open-ended, universal commands to enslave or slaughter all who refuse the “invitation” to conversion. This is unique to Islam.

On the other hand, Jesus taught and practiced, “Love your neighbor as yourself,” and, “Love your enemies.”

Muhammad butchered those who resisted him. Christ died for the sins of all people, including Muslims.

There is no moral equivalence between the two.

Endorsing Islamic moral inversion

In Deceiving non-Muslims, Non-violent jihad, The truth about Islam on March 17, 2009 at 11:15 PM

Seeking to solve a software issue, I discovered an interesting comment here:

Thanks a lot for this information, k? I used this to edit a recording of the Quran; so you probably earned yourself some good deeds

In response I posted a few examples of what Allah and his prophet from hell call “good.”

The owner of the ‘blog removed my comments. Curiously, he has not removed the misrepresentation of Islam. Is that because he has been deceived by the common lie that “Islam means ‘peace,'” or does he actually promote it?

In either case, how can one defend (actively or passively) open-ended, universal commands to enslave or slaughter all who refuse conversion to Islam?

“Say to the Unbelievers . . . if they persist [in unbelief], 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).

In the highly-likely event the owner removes my latest comment and desires no further discussion, this will be my last there:

The deleted comments were not ‘about’ the religion of one of the commenters, they were quotes from that religion’s authoritative texts.

You allow his post asserting that you ‘earned yourself some good deeds’ by aiding his [editing] of Qur’an; isn’t it only natural to find out what Qur’an calls ‘good deeds’?

And doesn’t tacitly endorsing the commenter’s assertion by allowing it to stand only harm your non-Muslim readers?

Does one allow an infection to go untreated, especially when that disease maims and kills?

I respect your wanting to control the tone of your ‘blog. I hope you will consider aiding Allah’s War Against Humanity no longer.

Endorsing Islamic moral inversion

In Deceiving non-Muslims, Non-violent jihad, The truth about Islam on March 17, 2009 at 11:15 PM

Seeking to solve a software issue, I discovered an interesting comment here:

Thanks a lot for this information, k? I used this to edit a recording of the Quran; so you probably earned yourself some good deeds

In response I posted a few examples of what Allah and his prophet from hell call “good.”

The owner of the ‘blog removed my comments. Curiously, he has not removed the misrepresentation of Islam. Is that because he has been deceived by the common lie that “Islam means ‘peace,'” or does he actually promote it?

In either case, how can one defend (actively or passively) open-ended, universal commands to enslave or slaughter all who refuse conversion to Islam?

“Say to the Unbelievers . . . if they persist [in unbelief], 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).

In the highly-likely event the owner removes my latest comment and desires no further discussion, this will be my last there:

The deleted comments were not ‘about’ the religion of one of the commenters, they were quotes from that religion’s authoritative texts.

You allow his post asserting that you ‘earned yourself some good deeds’ by aiding his [editing] of Qur’an; isn’t it only natural to find out what Qur’an calls ‘good deeds’?

And doesn’t tacitly endorsing the commenter’s assertion by allowing it to stand only harm your non-Muslim readers?

Does one allow an infection to go untreated, especially when that disease maims and kills?

I respect your wanting to control the tone of your ‘blog. I hope you will consider aiding Allah’s War Against Humanity no longer.

More Muslim moral inversion

In Asad Asif, Deceiving non-Muslims, False Muslim civility, Non-violent jihad, The truth about Islam on March 2, 2009 at 7:08 PM

In response to comments here:

“you don’t leave a predator with the prey surrounding it and expect that nothing would happen.”

The predator is Islam, the prey Israel.

“There is no such thing as antisemitism infusing Islam. That you still insist on this baseless argument after my previous reply implies that either you didn’t went through my replies or else are blind to rational thought.”

Or, I can read, think for myself, and tell the truth.

What about:

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

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

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

That’s funny. I quote Allah and Mohammed’s murderous tirades against Jews (and other non-Muslims), but you say I don’t read or reason.

“If you are so insistent on badmouthing Islam and Muslims”

I insist on telling the truth to save lives in this world and souls for the world to come. If telling the truth is “badmouthing Islam and Muslims,” then what does that say about what you defend?

“history reveals that the Jews from the time of Prophet Muhammad lived peacefully with Muslims until the time they went back on the treaties they had with Muslims of the time.”

No, turning the pages of Qur’an, ahadith, and Sira show that Mohammed coexisted with Jews until they rejected his false revelation and he had the martial force to make them pay.

Have you not read your own texts?

“It is also a fact that the Jewish scriptures don’t even accept Christianity or Islam as being valid religions when both Islam and Christianity validate Moses as a Prophet. Which is the religion here which is deliberately creating differences?”

Does that line of “reasoning” actually work on anyone?

The Jewish Scriptures are the Christian Scriptures. Jesus is a Jew. The Apostles were all Jews. The first Christians were Jews. Traditional Christian worship still maintains elements of its ancient Hebrew/Jewish roots.

The religion causing problems is the one that commands its adherents to enslave or slaughter all who refuse to convert:

“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).

Please, tell the truth.

“You talk about the Turks and their predecessors. Tell me; is the land Israel occupies only significant to Jews?”

Non sequitur. The fact that the Turks possessed the area for centuries before the West crushed the caliphate was mentioned only to point out that the victor had the right to do with the land as it wished. Israel did not invade and occupy, Islam was humiliated and the land dealt with as the victors [chose].

“The sites are equivalently important to Christians and Muslims”

False. The land only became significant to Muslims after modern Israel was formed. Before that, it was a arid wasteland.

But to a Muslim, once part of Dar al-Islam, always part of Dar al-Islam, right?

“but Israel wants to systematically deny Muslims any right to the holy sites.”

More falsehood. Considering there is a mosque where the Temple used to stand, who is denying whom?

“Who really is propagating the hatred here? It is pretty obvious who wants a perpetual cycle of hate here.”

Yes, that would be Mohammed and his allah:

“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).

[Asad continues:]

“My analogy is not flawed. Your arguments are based on false presumptions.”

I quote Allah, Mohammed, and historical fact, all of which make Islam and Muslims look hellish, so you don’t like it.

It’s a whole lot easier to tell the truth. The pain is temporary, the benefits eternal.

“Who exactly is supposed to pay penance for crimes against another entity? Is it the perpetrator of the crime or some totally unrelated entity. The genocide of Jews was committed by Europe and Hitler, not Muslims or Arabs in particular.”

Again with the Hitler/European Guilt. As I mentioned before, Islam has been committing genocide against Jews, Africans, Europeans, and Asians for more than a millennium.

“Is it that Israel cannot face off against Europe and wants to subjugate Muslims of Middle East in an attempt to get same misdirected sense of revenge?”

That doesn’t even make sense. Considering Europe’s cowardice and Muslim bloodlust, it looks like Israel will be facing off against two continents soon.

I implore you to be honest. Rather than serve a god which offers you Paradise for killing for it, turn to the Son of God Who loved you and gave His life for your sins.

More Muslim moral inversion

In Asad Asif, Deceiving non-Muslims, False Muslim civility, Non-violent jihad, The truth about Islam on March 2, 2009 at 7:08 PM

In response to comments here:

“you don’t leave a predator with the prey surrounding it and expect that nothing would happen.”

The predator is Islam, the prey Israel.

“There is no such thing as antisemitism infusing Islam. That you still insist on this baseless argument after my previous reply implies that either you didn’t went through my replies or else are blind to rational thought.”

Or, I can read, think for myself, and tell the truth.

What about:

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

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

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

That’s funny. I quote Allah and Mohammed’s murderous tirades against Jews (and other non-Muslims), but you say I don’t read or reason.

“If you are so insistent on badmouthing Islam and Muslims”

I insist on telling the truth to save lives in this world and souls for the world to come. If telling the truth is “badmouthing Islam and Muslims,” then what does that say about what you defend?

“history reveals that the Jews from the time of Prophet Muhammad lived peacefully with Muslims until the time they went back on the treaties they had with Muslims of the time.”

No, turning the pages of Qur’an, ahadith, and Sira show that Mohammed coexisted with Jews until they rejected his false revelation and he had the martial force to make them pay.

Have you not read your own texts?

“It is also a fact that the Jewish scriptures don’t even accept Christianity or Islam as being valid religions when both Islam and Christianity validate Moses as a Prophet. Which is the religion here which is deliberately creating differences?”

Does that line of “reasoning” actually work on anyone?

The Jewish Scriptures are the Christian Scriptures. Jesus is a Jew. The Apostles were all Jews. The first Christians were Jews. Traditional Christian worship still maintains elements of its ancient Hebrew/Jewish roots.

The religion causing problems is the one that commands its adherents to enslave or slaughter all who refuse to convert:

“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).

Please, tell the truth.

“You talk about the Turks and their predecessors. Tell me; is the land Israel occupies only significant to Jews?”

Non sequitur. The fact that the Turks possessed the area for centuries before the West crushed the caliphate was mentioned only to point out that the victor had the right to do with the land as it wished. Israel did not invade and occupy, Islam was humiliated and the land dealt with as the victors [chose].

“The sites are equivalently important to Christians and Muslims”

False. The land only became significant to Muslims after modern Israel was formed. Before that, it was a arid wasteland.

But to a Muslim, once part of Dar al-Islam, always part of Dar al-Islam, right?

“but Israel wants to systematically deny Muslims any right to the holy sites.”

More falsehood. Considering there is a mosque where the Temple used to stand, who is denying whom?

“Who really is propagating the hatred here? It is pretty obvious who wants a perpetual cycle of hate here.”

Yes, that would be Mohammed and his allah:

“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).

[Asad continues:]

“My analogy is not flawed. Your arguments are based on false presumptions.”

I quote Allah, Mohammed, and historical fact, all of which make Islam and Muslims look hellish, so you don’t like it.

It’s a whole lot easier to tell the truth. The pain is temporary, the benefits eternal.

“Who exactly is supposed to pay penance for crimes against another entity? Is it the perpetrator of the crime or some totally unrelated entity. The genocide of Jews was committed by Europe and Hitler, not Muslims or Arabs in particular.”

Again with the Hitler/European Guilt. As I mentioned before, Islam has been committing genocide against Jews, Africans, Europeans, and Asians for more than a millennium.

“Is it that Israel cannot face off against Europe and wants to subjugate Muslims of Middle East in an attempt to get same misdirected sense of revenge?”

That doesn’t even make sense. Considering Europe’s cowardice and Muslim bloodlust, it looks like Israel will be facing off against two continents soon.

I implore you to be honest. Rather than serve a god which offers you Paradise for killing for it, turn to the Son of God Who loved you and gave His life for your sins.

Presidential transparency from the Hypocrite-in-Chief

In Barack Hussein Obama, Liberals aid jihad, Non-violent jihad, Socialism, The Decline and Fall of the American Republic on March 2, 2009 at 2:19 PM

So, let me get this straight: President Hussein won’t release his birth certificate, but he will release secret memos from the previous administration?

When Obama talked about transparency and ethics, he meant that he’d be transparent with other people’s affairs because he lacks any ethics. Shame on voters for thinking otherwise.

Deceitful wretch.

The Justice Department has released a long-secret legal document from 2001 in which the Bush administration claimed the military could search and seize terror suspects in the United States without warrants.

The legal memo was written about a month after the Sept. 11 terror attacks. It says constitutional protections against unlawful search and seizure would not apply to terror suspects in the U.S., as long as the president or another high official authorized the action.

Even after the Bush administration rescinded that legal analysis, the Justice Department refused to release its contents, prompting a standoff with congressional Democrats.

The memo was one of nine released Monday by the Obama administration.

Presidential transparency from the Hypocrite-in-Chief

In Barack Hussein Obama, Liberals aid jihad, Non-violent jihad, Socialism, The Decline and Fall of the American Republic on March 2, 2009 at 2:19 PM

So, let me get this straight: President Hussein won’t release his birth certificate, but he will release secret memos from the previous administration?

When Obama talked about transparency and ethics, he meant that he’d be transparent with other people’s affairs because he lacks any ethics. Shame on voters for thinking otherwise.

Deceitful wretch.

The Justice Department has released a long-secret legal document from 2001 in which the Bush administration claimed the military could search and seize terror suspects in the United States without warrants.

The legal memo was written about a month after the Sept. 11 terror attacks. It says constitutional protections against unlawful search and seizure would not apply to terror suspects in the U.S., as long as the president or another high official authorized the action.

Even after the Bush administration rescinded that legal analysis, the Justice Department refused to release its contents, prompting a standoff with congressional Democrats.

The memo was one of nine released Monday by the Obama administration.

Why Islam? I can offer billions of reasons why not

In Deceiving non-Muslims, Islamic Circle of North America, Non-violent jihad, The truth about Islam on February 19, 2009 at 8:03 PM

For example, every man, woman, and child enslaved, raped, and butchered over the last 1400 years in obedience to Allah’s command and in accord with Mohammed’s example.

I’m wondering if the Islamic Circle of North America is going to tell anyone about their connections to the Muslim Brotherhood and other terrorist groups or their mandate to kill for Allah.

Probably not.

Stealth bus jihad advances to San Francisco:

WhyIslam Bus Ad campaign, YOU DESERVE TO KNOW!, is started on February 9, 2009, with ads on more than 140 San Francisco MUNI buses

Q: What do we mean by ‘You Deserve to Know’? Is this an engaging, unique, project name? Is it a publicizing technique? What does ‘You Deserve to Know’ refer to? What do I deserve to know?

A: ‘You Deserve to Know’ refers to the right of every person to know what Islam is really about. It also refers to the idea that everyone should be aware that in an age when popular stereotypes about Muslims are undermining a faith and an entire civilization, explaining and clarifying the religion is a moral obligation on Muslims.

Every non-Muslim, woman, and little girl deserves to know this (but I doubt they’ll tell them until it’s too late):

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

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

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

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

It is not for any prophet to have captives until he hath made slaughter in the land. Ye desire the lure of this world and Allah desireth (for you) the Hereafter, and Allah is Mighty, Wise” (Qur’an 8:67).

“Allah’s Apostle 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).

Why Islam? I can offer billions of reasons why not

In Deceiving non-Muslims, Islamic Circle of North America, Non-violent jihad, The truth about Islam on February 19, 2009 at 8:03 PM

For example, every man, woman, and child enslaved, raped, and butchered over the last 1400 years in obedience to Allah’s command and in accord with Mohammed’s example.

I’m wondering if the Islamic Circle of North America is going to tell anyone about their connections to the Muslim Brotherhood and other terrorist groups or their mandate to kill for Allah.

Probably not.

Stealth bus jihad advances to San Francisco:

WhyIslam Bus Ad campaign, YOU DESERVE TO KNOW!, is started on February 9, 2009, with ads on more than 140 San Francisco MUNI buses

Q: What do we mean by ‘You Deserve to Know’? Is this an engaging, unique, project name? Is it a publicizing technique? What does ‘You Deserve to Know’ refer to? What do I deserve to know?

A: ‘You Deserve to Know’ refers to the right of every person to know what Islam is really about. It also refers to the idea that everyone should be aware that in an age when popular stereotypes about Muslims are undermining a faith and an entire civilization, explaining and clarifying the religion is a moral obligation on Muslims.

Every non-Muslim, woman, and little girl deserves to know this (but I doubt they’ll tell them until it’s too late):

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

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

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

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

It is not for any prophet to have captives until he hath made slaughter in the land. Ye desire the lure of this world and Allah desireth (for you) the Hereafter, and Allah is Mighty, Wise” (Qur’an 8:67).

“Allah’s Apostle 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).

Ode to the little green ostrich behind the curtain

In America, Emma Lazarus, Liberals aid jihad, Liberty, Little Green Footballs, Non-violent jihad, Shari'a, The truth about Islam on February 18, 2009 at 3:22 PM

What should a free people do about those whose ideology demands they enslave or slaughter you and yours? Who believe that in imitation of their “Ideal Man,” raping your nine-year-old daughter — and your wife just after they’ve beheaded you — pleases their deity? Who consider Beethoven, Shakespeare, and the Sistine Chapel examples of jahiliya? Who would replace the Declaration of Independence and the United States Constitution with totalitarian and discriminatory laws regulating every aspect of life? Who consider submission to edicts of hell preferable to the freedoms of speech and conscience and the equality of rights for all people?

Deportation of those who refuse to renounce in word and deed such seditious, treasonous, and murderous positions is not “mass murder,” it is self-defense. It is common sense. And it is certainly much less violent than free people having to exercise their Second Amendment right in defense of hearth and home (a right which would be denied also to non-Muslims under shari’a).

Would the little green ostrich behind the curtain have defended two million Nazis within America’s borders during World War II? Based on the acuity of his thought on today’s jihad and how to defend ourselves against it, the answer is obvious.

Islam is an ideology, not a race.

So, here is a tribute to the self-appointed arbiter of all things “American” (apologies to Emma Lazarus):

Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,

With conquering limbs astride from land to land;

Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates did stand

A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame

was the imprisoned lightning, and her name now

Mother of Infidels. From her now amputated hand

Glowed world-wide welcome; her mild eyes (all you can see of her)

above and below by black cloth framed.

“Keep ancient lands, your sympathy!” cries she

With silent lips and nose removed. “Keep your tired, your poor,

I’ve got huddled masses breathing shari’a;

The wretched refuse of my teeming shore

Did nothing while the moderates and mujahideen, Tempter-tost to me,

Lifted my head beside the golden door!”

The Illegal Immigrant-in-Chief is doing just what he promised

In Barack Hussein Obama, Constitution, Iran, Liberal treason, Non-violent jihad on January 29, 2009 at 11:26 PM

How has the President done his first few days in office?

Well, the least harmful thing he’s done is try to enter the White House through a window.

B. Hussein has been running the White House thermostat at Torch, which is ironic considering his condescending sermonizing over American energy consumption during the campaign. Today he chastised Wall Street executives for their profligate spending — right after spending more on his inauguration than any of his peers. On top of that, immediately after his Congress approved nearly a trillion dollars in spending (most of it not going to immediate job creation or keeping allegedly essential financial institutions afloat), he celebrated with steak that costs $100 per serving.

It’s good to see that he’s being frugal with the American Taxpayer’s hard-earned dollars.

As for transparency, he still hasn’t released his birth certificate. Since the President claims he was born here, there is no way he would have been naturalized. But his grandmother says she saw him born in Kenya. That means B. Hussein is a citizen of the world but not the United States of America.

Thank goodness for those patriots in the Media defending our Constitution!

[The oath of loyalty to the Office of the President story is false, so it is removed.]

As for improving America’s standing in the world while defending us from our enemies, President Hussein is closing a terrorist prison, trying to bring its prisoners into the U.S., and groveling at the feet of the Islamic world in his first television interview as President, bad-mouthing America along the way. Iran’s Terrorist-in-Chief demonstrated immediately the effectiveness of Obama’s Tough Diplomacy by demanding that B. Hussein apologize to the Islamic world for America’s defending itself and supporting Israel.

Not all Change is good.

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.

Let him be president of Kenya. Or Indonesia.

In Barack Hussein Obama, Election 2008, Non-violent jihad on October 21, 2008 at 9:31 PM

But not America.

Despite his serious flaws, at least Bill Clinton was an American.

FactCheck.org (the Annenberg Political Fact Check, part of the Annenberg Public Policy Center and tied to the Chicago Annenberg Project for which Obama worked and from which Obama directed millions of dollars to terrorist William Ayers, his murderer wife Bernardine Dorhn, Irreverend Jeremiah Wright, ACORN, and other anti-American radicals — admits that Obama possessed Kenyan citizenship until the age of 21. (That might help to explain Obama’s aiding Raila Odinga, Kenya’s murderous Thug-in-Chief who promised Muslims there to institute Sharia.)

What of Indonesia? According to the registration card released by the Fransiskus Assisi school in Indonesia, B. Hussein Obama was a citizen of Indonesia.

Is he still?


Barack Hussein Obama, the next American/Kenyan/Indonesian president!

Let him be president of Kenya. Or Indonesia.

In Barack Hussein Obama, Election 2008, Non-violent jihad on October 21, 2008 at 9:31 PM

But not America.

Despite his serious flaws, at least Bill Clinton was an American.

FactCheck.org (the Annenberg Political Fact Check, part of the Annenberg Public Policy Center and tied to the Chicago Annenberg Project for which Obama worked and from which Obama directed millions of dollars to terrorist William Ayers, his murderer wife Bernardine Dorhn, Irreverend Jeremiah Wright, ACORN, and other anti-American radicals — admits that Obama possessed Kenyan citizenship until the age of 21. (That might help to explain Obama’s aiding Raila Odinga, Kenya’s murderous Thug-in-Chief who promised Muslims there to institute Sharia.)

What of Indonesia? According to the registration card released by the Fransiskus Assisi school in Indonesia, B. Hussein Obama was a citizen of Indonesia.

Is he still?


Barack Hussein Obama, the next American/Kenyan/Indonesian president!

A Common Deception

In A Common Word, Abraham, Deceiving non-Muslims, Non-violent jihad, Pope Benedict, The truth about Islam on August 25, 2008 at 3:23 AM

Early in Mohammed’s career as Allah’s prophet, when he had few converts and no political or military strength, he worked to persuade Jews and Christians of the authenticity of his revelations. It was in these times that he spoke of cooperation and tolerance.

His heresy was largely rejected by those he hoped would receive him as authentic.

Later, as Mohammed’s power grew, the attitude toward non-Muslims expressed in his revelations took a turn toward tyranny and bloodlust.

At first, defensive warfare was allowed for Muslims. Then, it was required. And just before Mohammed died — too late for nearly fourteen centuries of non-Muslims since — the revelations he transmitted to the faithful demanded offensive warfare against those who refuse to convert to Islam or submit to Allah’s rule.

Though slaughter grabs headlines (“If it bleeds, it leads”), violence is not the only means by which Muslims are to impose Islamic law over all mankind. Other, non-violent instruments are also appropriate. One of these is deceit:

War is deceit” (Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 268).

“Allah’s Apostle said, ‘Who is willing to kill Ka’b bin Al-Ashraf who has hurt Allah and His Apostle?’ Thereupon Muhammad bin Maslama got up saying, ‘O Allah’s Apostle! Would you like that I kill him?’ The Prophet said, ‘Yes,’ Muhammad bin Maslama said, ‘Then allow me to say a (false) thing (i.e. to deceive Kab).’ The Prophet said, ‘You may say it‘ (Bukhari, Volume 5, Book 59, Number 369).

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).

President Bush’s “War on Terror” is suicidally-misnamed. We are engaged rather in a War of Self-Defense Against the Tyranny of Allah.

Following are some comments on one of the latest and most attractively-packaged attempts at Muslim subterfuge called “A Common Word,” first from the official website and then from its scholars’ letter to Pope Benedict.

On October 13th 2006, one month to the day after Pope Benedict XVI’s Regensburg address of September 13th 2006, 38 Islamic authorities and scholars from around the world, representing all denominations and schools of thought, joined together to deliver an answer to the Pope in the spirit of open intellectual exchange and mutual understanding. In their Open Letter to the Pope (see english.pdf), for the first time in recent history, Muslim scholars from every branch of Islam spoke with one voice about the true teachings of Islam.

But I thought Islam was not monolithic? I thought it was impossible to talk about “all Muslims” believing or doing anything?

Various estimates I’ve read put the world’s Muslims at 85% to 95% Sunni (consisting of four major schools of jurisprudence). They’ve been at war for thirteen centuries with Shia Muslims, the second largest denomination in Islam.

Though they disagree murderously on certain topics (for example, the legitimate successor to Mohammed), there’s one on which they share a common word: The necessity to convert, subjugate and humiliate, and kill non-Muslims to make the world Islam. That’s the “mutual understanding” Allah commands them to impose upon non-Muslims.

Now, exactly one year after that letter, Muslims have expanded their message. In A Common Word Between Us and You, 138 Muslim scholars, clerics and intellectuals have unanimously come together for the first time since the days of the Prophet [. . .] to declare the common ground between Christianity and Islam. Like the Open Letter, the signatories to this message come from every denomination and school of thought in Islam. Every major Islamic country or region in the world is represented in this message, which is addressed to the leaders of all the world’s churches, and indeed to all Christians everywhere.

What common ground can there be between “Before Abraham was, I AM!” (John 8:58) and, “”In blasphemy indeed are those that say that Allah is Christ the son of Mary” (Qur’an 5:17)?

Christ confessed plainly that He is God Incarnate, but Mohammed calls Christ a blasphemer.

Indeed, the only common ground Islam seeks is that soil on which the non-Muslim genuflects to his Muslim overlords.

Stinging Islamic irony coming in 3 . . . 2 . . . 1 . . .

The final form of the letter was presented at a conference in September 2007 held under the theme of “Love in the Quran” . . . . Indeed, the most fundamental common ground between Islam and Christianity, and the best basis for future dialogue and understanding, is the love of God [sic; read: “Allah” here and following] and the love of the neighbor.

When a devout Muslim speaks of the “love of God,” they do not mean what a Christian means. Christ died to defeat sin, death, and the devil, but Allah’s paramour is death: “It is not for any prophet to have captives until he hath made slaughter in the land . . .” (Qur’an 8:67).

Never before have Muslims delivered this kind of definitive consensus statement on Christianity. Rather than engage in polemic, the signatories have adopted the traditional and mainstream Islamic position of respecting the Christian scripture and calling Christians to be more, not less, faithful to it.

To someone unfamiliar with the command of Allah and the example of Mohammed, this sounds reassuring. It must be those Islamophobic, bigoted Christians causing all the conflict.

Unfortunately, it is not true.

Islam has before delivered “definitive consensus statements” on all other religions, including Christianity. They come from Allah and his apostle. Characterizing them as “polemic” would be so generous as to be a lie.

Consider for example Qur’an 9:29, the command to war against Jews and Christians “until they feel themselves subdued” and pay the jizya. Consider the Pact of Umar, based on this verse.

If only they had limited themselves to words, which is one of Pope Benedict’s essential arguments.

And these Muslims are not calling Christians to “be more faithful” to the Bible, they’re calling Christians to be more faithful to what Muslims say was the original Biblical texts, which — according to them — taught Mohammed’s heresies but were corrupted later by Jews and Christians.

Here are more lies advanced commonly by Islam’s apologists:

. . . the most solid theological ground possible: the teachings of the Qu’ran and the Prophet [. . .], and the commandments described by Jesus Christ [. . .] in the Bible. Thus despite their differences, Islam and Christianity not only share the same Divine Origin and the same Abrahamic heritage, but the same two greatest commandments.

This is an attempt to deceive Christians and other non-Muslims into believing that the two religions share anything in common.

In fact, the two greatest commandments from the Old Testament as affirmed by Christ are: “Love the LORD your God with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength,” and, “Love your neighbor as yourself.”

It is impossible for a Muslim to obey either command.

First, he worships Allah, not YHWH (the “LORD”), Who has revealed Himself as one God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. To deny Christ as God Incarnate is to blaspheme the Living God, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, for Christ stated that all must honor Him as they honor His Father.

Second, how can a Muslim love his neighbor as himself when his god either commands (or encourages) slavery, rape, pedophilia, murder, religious coersion, polygyny, extortion, and genocide.

And don’t forget the abolition of free thought and speech. Muslims can’t hear a non-Muslim quote Mohammed without their heads exploding. There’s a reason that Islamic civilization is nothing but rubble apart from the contributions of its Jewish, Christian, Hindu, Buddhist, Zoroastrian, and other non-Muslim slaves and business partners.

Here are some reflections on excerpts from The Lying Letter:

You mention that “according to the experts” the verse which begins, There is no compulsion in religion (al-Baqarah 2:256) . . . Muslims are also guided by such verses as Say: The truth is from your Lord; so whosoever will, let him believe, and whosoever will, let him disbelieve. (al-Kahf 18:29); and Say: O disbelievers! I worship not that which ye worship; Nor worship ye that which I worship. And I shall not worship that which ye worship. Nor will ye worship that which I worship. Unto you your religion, and unto me my religion (al-Kafirun: 109:1-6).

Whether one describes the time around the flight to Medina as one of “weakness and insecurity” or “ascendance” for Mohammed and Muslims, these verses are intended here to create in the minds of those unfamiliar with Qur’an and Sunnah the impression that Islam is tolerant of other faiths.

In fact, some Muslims argue that 2:256 was abrogated later by revelations commanding offensive warfare against those who neither convert nor submit. Others claim that though inner belief cannot be compelled, outward behavior can; this is evident in the dhimmi laws segregating, oppressing, humiliating, and violating non-Muslims who surrender to that “protected” status.

Whether or not one wants claim that they are forcing no one in matters of religion, what would be the effect in the mind of a non-Muslim who knows that if they only converted, they would be spared the suffering in this life required by Allah:

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).

I [Mohammed] 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).

More deceit:

. . . much more important to Muslims are figures such as al-Ghazali [. . .] and many others who are far more influential and more representative of Islamic belief than Ibn Hazm.

Even al-Ghazali endorsed the importance of waging jihad regularly against non-Muslims.

You quote an argument that because the emperor is “shaped by Greek philosophy” the idea that “God is not pleased by blood” is “self-evident” to him, to which the Muslim teaching on God’s Transcendence is put forward as a counterexample. To say that for Muslims “God’s Will is not bound up in any of our categories” is also a simplification which may lead to a misunderstanding.

Or not.

God has many Names in Islam, including the Merciful, the Just, the Seeing, the Hearing, the Knowing, the Loving, and the Gentle.

And, “the Abaser,” “The Bringer of Death, the Destroyer,” “The Avenger,” “The Distresser, the Harmer.”

to conclude that Muslims believe in a capricious God who might or might not command us to evil is to forget that God says in the Quran, Lo! God enjoins justice and kindness, and giving to kinsfolk, and forbids lewdness and abomination and wickedness.

But butchering Indidels is neither an abomination nor wickedness: “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).

The letter continues:

Equally, it is to forget that God says in the Qur’an that He has prescribed for Himself mercy [. . .]

Like this?

“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).

Or this?

Our Prophet, the Messenger of our Lord, has ordered us to fight you till you worship Allah Alone or give Jizya (i.e. tribute); and our Prophet has informed us that our Lord says: “Whoever amongst us is killed (i.e. martyred), shall go to Paradise to lead such a luxurious life as he has never seen, and whoever amongst us remain alive, shall become your master.”

More from the lying “scholars”:

and that God says in the Qur’an, My Mercy encompasses everything [. . .]. The word for mercy, rahmah, can also be translated as love, kindness, and compassion. From this word rahmah comes the sacred formula Muslims use daily, In the Name of God, the Merciful, the Compassionate. Is it not self-evident that spilling innocent blood goes against mercy and compassion?

But to Mohammed, no non-Muslim is innocent:

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).

“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).

The lies continue:

We would like to point out that “holy war” is a term that does not exist in Islamic languages. Jihad, it must be emphasized, means struggle, and specifically struggle in the way of God.

At least they didn’t pull the “inner, spiritual struggle is the greater jihad” nonsense (based on one questionable hadith).

“Struggle in the way of Allah” meant primarily for Mohammed violence against non-Muslims :

“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).

The letter goes on:

This struggle may take many forms, including the use of force. Though a jihad may be sacred in the sense of being directed towards a sacred ideal, it is not necessarily a “war”.

Moreover, it is noteworthy that Manuel II Paleologus says that “violence” goes against God’s nature, since Christ himself used violence against the money-changers in the temple, and said “Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword …” When God drowned Pharaoh, was He going against His own Nature?

A good example of Muslim Sleight-of-Phrase (and outright blasphemy).

Of course, the Emperor was referring to offensive violence in the name of religion. Christ’s chasing out the money-changers is not at all comparable to Mohammed’s slaughters, and His statement about bringing not peace but a “sword” was referring to the conflict that results inevitably between those who tell the truth and those who do not.

The fundamental difference between Christ and Allah is that violence in judgment belongs to Christ alone, not bloodthirsty rapacious monsters.

Perhaps the emperor meant to say that cruelty, brutality, and aggression are against God’s Will, in which case the classical and traditional law of jihad in Islam would bear him out completely.

Really? What about:

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” (Qur’an 8:60).

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

The deceit continues:

Non-combatants are not permitted or legitimate targets. This was emphasized explicitly time and again by the Prophet, his Companions, and by the learned tradition since then.

Really? What about this?

“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).

And this?

The recompense for an injury is an injury equal thereto (in degree) [justifying the murder of innocents]: but if a person forgives and makes reconciliation, his reward is due from Allah: for (Allah) loveth not those who do wrong” (Qur’an 42:40).

And this?

It is permissible for Muslims to kill inviolable infidels if they are aiding the fighting in deed, word, opinion, or any other way. This is because of the Prophet’s order to kill Duraid ibn Al-Simma, who was 120 years old and went with the Hawazin tribe [to fight against the Muslims] to give them counsel. Ibn Qudama notes that the Prophet ordered him killed in the Battle of Hunein because he knew military stratagems. See Al-Tamhid 16:142.

The truth is, anyone aiding resistance against jihad in any way is a “combatant,” for they are “from them,” as Mohammed declared.

Another third-truth:

Religious belief alone does not make anyone the object of attack.

That is technically true (you always have to read the fineprint with Allah!).

The non-Muslim also has to refuse conversion and slavery in order to be attacked. (Ungrateful!)

A hint of truth here:

The original Muslim community was fighting against pagans who had also expelled them from their homes, persecuted, tortured, and murdered them. Thereafter, the Islamic conquests were political in nature.

Muslims are just as bound to obey these rules as they are to refrain from theft and adultery.

Here’s another hateful lie:

we must state that the murder [. . .] of an innocent Catholic nun in Somalia—and any other similar acts of wanton individual violence—‘in reaction to’ your lecture at the University of Regensburg, is completely un-Islamic, and we totally condemn such acts.

Here is the truth:

“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).

The most pernicious lie of all:

The notion that Muslims are commanded to spread their faith “by the sword” or that Islam in fact was largely spread “by the sword” does not hold up to scrutiny. Indeed, as a political entity Islam spread partly as a result of conquest, but the greater part of its expansion came as a result of preaching and missionary activity. Islamic teaching did not prescribe that the conquered populations be forced or coerced into converting.

But the false prophet commanded:

“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).

Here comes a straw man:

Indeed, many of the first areas conquered by the Muslims remained predominantly non-Muslim for centuries. Had Muslims desired to convert all others by force, there would not be a single church or synagogue left anywhere in the Islamic world.

Muslims had to preserve a population from which to extract tribute (jizya), slaves, services, and little girls and boys.

The command There is no compulsion in religion means now what it meant then. The mere fact of a person being non-Muslim has never been a legitimate casus belli in Islamic law or belief.

Again, per Mohammed’s command, if the non-Muslim refuses the “invitation” to Islam and slavery, then it’s war.

Next, these “scholars” misuse a verse warning Jews against violence:

Muslims have always believed, that Whoso slays a soul not to retaliate for a soul slain, nor for corruption done in the land, it shall be as if he had slain mankind altogether . . . .

Here’s an Islamic inside joke:

You mention the emperor’s assertion that “anything new” brought by the Prophet was “evil and inhuman, such as his alleged command to spread by the sword the faith he preached.” What the emperor failed to realize—aside from the fact (as mentioned above) that no such command has ever existed in Islam—is that the Prophet never claimed to be bringing anything fundamentally new.

Nothing new.

But a sword? You bet!

Jesus said, “Love your enemies.” Anyone who’s read the Bible knows the following is a lie:

God says in the Holy Qur’an, Naught is said to thee (Muhammad) but
what already was said to the Messengers before thee [. . .] and, Say (Muhammad): I am no new thing among the messengers (of God), nor know I what will be done with me or with you. I do but follow that what is Revealed to me [. . . .]

Here’s where these Muslims try — as Mohammed did — to deceive Jews and Christians into accepting that Mohammed preached the same YHWH. The key words here are “true” and “truth”:

According to Islamic belief, all the true prophets preached the same truth to different peoples at different times. The laws may be different, but the truth is unchanging.

Truths like: “Before Abraham was born, I AM”?

The letter concludes a veiled threat:

We hope that we will all avoid the mistakes of the past and live together in the future in peace, mutual acceptance and respect.

Which means, “Get in line, dhimmi.”

It should be clear from the Islamic texts provided that in “A Common Word” we have good Muslims dutifully deceiving ignorant and gullible Infidels.

Be neither.

A Common Deception

In A Common Word, Abraham, Deceiving non-Muslims, Non-violent jihad, Pope Benedict, The truth about Islam on August 25, 2008 at 3:23 AM

Early in Mohammed’s career as Allah’s prophet, when he had few converts and no political or military strength, he worked to persuade Jews and Christians of the authenticity of his revelations. It was in these times that he spoke of cooperation and tolerance.

His heresy was largely rejected by those he hoped would receive him as authentic.

Later, as Mohammed’s power grew, the attitude toward non-Muslims expressed in his revelations took a turn toward tyranny and bloodlust.

At first, defensive warfare was allowed for Muslims. Then, it was required. And just before Mohammed died — too late for nearly fourteen centuries of non-Muslims since — the revelations he transmitted to the faithful demanded offensive warfare against those who refuse to convert to Islam or submit to Allah’s rule.

Though slaughter grabs headlines (“If it bleeds, it leads”), violence is not the only means by which Muslims are to impose Islamic law over all mankind. Other, non-violent instruments are also appropriate. One of these is deceit:

War is deceit” (Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 268).

“Allah’s Apostle said, ‘Who is willing to kill Ka’b bin Al-Ashraf who has hurt Allah and His Apostle?’ Thereupon Muhammad bin Maslama got up saying, ‘O Allah’s Apostle! Would you like that I kill him?’ The Prophet said, ‘Yes,’ Muhammad bin Maslama said, ‘Then allow me to say a (false) thing (i.e. to deceive Kab).’ The Prophet said, ‘You may say it‘ (Bukhari, Volume 5, Book 59, Number 369).

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).

President Bush’s “War on Terror” is suicidally-misnamed. We are engaged rather in a War of Self-Defense Against the Tyranny of Allah.

Following are some comments on one of the latest and most attractively-packaged attempts at Muslim subterfuge called “A Common Word,” first from the official website and then from its scholars’ letter to Pope Benedict.

On October 13th 2006, one month to the day after Pope Benedict XVI’s Regensburg address of September 13th 2006, 38 Islamic authorities and scholars from around the world, representing all denominations and schools of thought, joined together to deliver an answer to the Pope in the spirit of open intellectual exchange and mutual understanding. In their Open Letter to the Pope (see english.pdf), for the first time in recent history, Muslim scholars from every branch of Islam spoke with one voice about the true teachings of Islam.

But I thought Islam was not monolithic? I thought it was impossible to talk about “all Muslims” believing or doing anything?

Various estimates I’ve read put the world’s Muslims at 85% to 95% Sunni (consisting of four major schools of jurisprudence). They’ve been at war for thirteen centuries with Shia Muslims, the second largest denomination in Islam.

Though they disagree murderously on certain topics (for example, the legitimate successor to Mohammed), there’s one on which they share a common word: The necessity to convert, subjugate and humiliate, and kill non-Muslims to make the world Islam. That’s the “mutual understanding” Allah commands them to impose upon non-Muslims.

Now, exactly one year after that letter, Muslims have expanded their message. In A Common Word Between Us and You, 138 Muslim scholars, clerics and intellectuals have unanimously come together for the first time since the days of the Prophet [. . .] to declare the common ground between Christianity and Islam. Like the Open Letter, the signatories to this message come from every denomination and school of thought in Islam. Every major Islamic country or region in the world is represented in this message, which is addressed to the leaders of all the world’s churches, and indeed to all Christians everywhere.

What common ground can there be between “Before Abraham was, I AM!” (John 8:58) and, “”In blasphemy indeed are those that say that Allah is Christ the son of Mary” (Qur’an 5:17)?

Christ confessed plainly that He is God Incarnate, but Mohammed calls Christ a blasphemer.

Indeed, the only common ground Islam seeks is that soil on which the non-Muslim genuflects to his Muslim overlords.

Stinging Islamic irony coming in 3 . . . 2 . . . 1 . . .

The final form of the letter was presented at a conference in September 2007 held under the theme of “Love in the Quran” . . . . Indeed, the most fundamental common ground between Islam and Christianity, and the best basis for future dialogue and understanding, is the love of God [sic; read: “Allah” here and following] and the love of the neighbor.

When a devout Muslim speaks of the “love of God,” they do not mean what a Christian means. Christ died to defeat sin, death, and the devil, but Allah’s paramour is death: “It is not for any prophet to have captives until he hath made slaughter in the land . . .” (Qur’an 8:67).

Never before have Muslims delivered this kind of definitive consensus statement on Christianity. Rather than engage in polemic, the signatories have adopted the traditional and mainstream Islamic position of respecting the Christian scripture and calling Christians to be more, not less, faithful to it.

To someone unfamiliar with the command of Allah and the example of Mohammed, this sounds reassuring. It must be those Islamophobic, bigoted Christians causing all the conflict.

Unfortunately, it is not true.

Islam has before delivered “definitive consensus statements” on all other religions, including Christianity. They come from Allah and his apostle. Characterizing them as “polemic” would be so generous as to be a lie.

Consider for example Qur’an 9:29, the command to war against Jews and Christians “until they feel themselves subdued” and pay the jizya. Consider the Pact of Umar, based on this verse.

If only they had limited themselves to words, which is one of Pope Benedict’s essential arguments.

And these Muslims are not calling Christians to “be more faithful” to the Bible, they’re calling Christians to be more faithful to what Muslims say was the original Biblical texts, which — according to them — taught Mohammed’s heresies but were corrupted later by Jews and Christians.

Here are more lies advanced commonly by Islam’s apologists:

. . . the most solid theological ground possible: the teachings of the Qu’ran and the Prophet [. . .], and the commandments described by Jesus Christ [. . .] in the Bible. Thus despite their differences, Islam and Christianity not only share the same Divine Origin and the same Abrahamic heritage, but the same two greatest commandments.

This is an attempt to deceive Christians and other non-Muslims into believing that the two religions share anything in common.

In fact, the two greatest commandments from the Old Testament as affirmed by Christ are: “Love the LORD your God with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength,” and, “Love your neighbor as yourself.”

It is impossible for a Muslim to obey either command.

First, he worships Allah, not YHWH (the “LORD”), Who has revealed Himself as one God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. To deny Christ as God Incarnate is to blaspheme the Living God, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, for Christ stated that all must honor Him as they honor His Father.

Second, how can a Muslim love his neighbor as himself when his god either commands (or encourages) slavery, rape, pedophilia, murder, religious coersion, polygyny, extortion, and genocide.

And don’t forget the abolition of free thought and speech. Muslims can’t hear a non-Muslim quote Mohammed without their heads exploding. There’s a reason that Islamic civilization is nothing but rubble apart from the contributions of its Jewish, Christian, Hindu, Buddhist, Zoroastrian, and other non-Muslim slaves and business partners.

Here are some reflections on excerpts from The Lying Letter:

You mention that “according to the experts” the verse which begins, There is no compulsion in religion (al-Baqarah 2:256) . . . Muslims are also guided by such verses as Say: The truth is from your Lord; so whosoever will, let him believe, and whosoever will, let him disbelieve. (al-Kahf 18:29); and Say: O disbelievers! I worship not that which ye worship; Nor worship ye that which I worship. And I shall not worship that which ye worship. Nor will ye worship that which I worship. Unto you your religion, and unto me my religion (al-Kafirun: 109:1-6).

Whether one describes the time around the flight to Medina as one of “weakness and insecurity” or “ascendance” for Mohammed and Muslims, these verses are intended here to create in the minds of those unfamiliar with Qur’an and Sunnah the impression that Islam is tolerant of other faiths.

In fact, some Muslims argue that 2:256 was abrogated later by revelations commanding offensive warfare against those who neither convert nor submit. Others claim that though inner belief cannot be compelled, outward behavior can; this is evident in the dhimmi laws segregating, oppressing, humiliating, and violating non-Muslims who surrender to that “protected” status.

Whether or not one wants claim that they are forcing no one in matters of religion, what would be the effect in the mind of a non-Muslim who knows that if they only converted, they would be spared the suffering in this life required by Allah:

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).

I [Mohammed] 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).

More deceit:

. . . much more important to Muslims are figures such as al-Ghazali [. . .] and many others who are far more influential and more representative of Islamic belief than Ibn Hazm.

Even al-Ghazali endorsed the importance of waging jihad regularly against non-Muslims.

You quote an argument that because the emperor is “shaped by Greek philosophy” the idea that “God is not pleased by blood” is “self-evident” to him, to which the Muslim teaching on God’s Transcendence is put forward as a counterexample. To say that for Muslims “God’s Will is not bound up in any of our categories” is also a simplification which may lead to a misunderstanding.

Or not.

God has many Names in Islam, including the Merciful, the Just, the Seeing, the Hearing, the Knowing, the Loving, and the Gentle.

And, “the Abaser,” “The Bringer of Death, the Destroyer,” “The Avenger,” “The Distresser, the Harmer.”

to conclude that Muslims believe in a capricious God who might or might not command us to evil is to forget that God says in the Quran, Lo! God enjoins justice and kindness, and giving to kinsfolk, and forbids lewdness and abomination and wickedness.

But butchering Indidels is neither an abomination nor wickedness: “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).

The letter continues:

Equally, it is to forget that God says in the Qur’an that He has prescribed for Himself mercy [. . .]

Like this?

“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).

Or this?

Our Prophet, the Messenger of our Lord, has ordered us to fight you till you worship Allah Alone or give Jizya (i.e. tribute); and our Prophet has informed us that our Lord says: “Whoever amongst us is killed (i.e. martyred), shall go to Paradise to lead such a luxurious life as he has never seen, and whoever amongst us remain alive, shall become your master.”

More from the lying “scholars”:

and that God says in the Qur’an, My Mercy encompasses everything [. . .]. The word for mercy, rahmah, can also be translated as love, kindness, and compassion. From this word rahmah comes the sacred formula Muslims use daily, In the Name of God, the Merciful, the Compassionate. Is it not self-evident that spilling innocent blood goes against mercy and compassion?

But to Mohammed, no non-Muslim is innocent:

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).

“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).

The lies continue:

We would like to point out that “holy war” is a term that does not exist in Islamic languages. Jihad, it must be emphasized, means struggle, and specifically struggle in the way of God.

At least they didn’t pull the “inner, spiritual struggle is the greater jihad” nonsense (based on one questionable hadith).

“Struggle in the way of Allah” meant primarily for Mohammed violence against non-Muslims :

“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).

The letter goes on:

This struggle may take many forms, including the use of force. Though a jihad may be sacred in the sense of being directed towards a sacred ideal, it is not necessarily a “war”.

Moreover, it is noteworthy that Manuel II Paleologus says that “violence” goes against God’s nature, since Christ himself used violence against the money-changers in the temple, and said “Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword …” When God drowned Pharaoh, was He going against His own Nature?

A good example of Muslim Sleight-of-Phrase (and outright blasphemy).

Of course, the Emperor was referring to offensive violence in the name of religion. Christ’s chasing out the money-changers is not at all comparable to Mohammed’s slaughters, and His statement about bringing not peace but a “sword” was referring to the conflict that results inevitably between those who tell the truth and those who do not.

The fundamental difference between Christ and Allah is that violence in judgment belongs to Christ alone, not bloodthirsty rapacious monsters.

Perhaps the emperor meant to say that cruelty, brutality, and aggression are against God’s Will, in which case the classical and traditional law of jihad in Islam would bear him out completely.

Really? What about:

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” (Qur’an 8:60).

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

The deceit continues:

Non-combatants are not permitted or legitimate targets. This was emphasized explicitly time and again by the Prophet, his Companions, and by the learned tradition since then.

Really? What about this?

“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).

And this?

The recompense for an injury is an injury equal thereto (in degree) [justifying the murder of innocents]: but if a person forgives and makes reconciliation, his reward is due from Allah: for (Allah) loveth not those who do wrong” (Qur’an 42:40).

And this?

It is permissible for Muslims to kill inviolable infidels if they are aiding the fighting in deed, word, opinion, or any other way. This is because of the Prophet’s order to kill Duraid ibn Al-Simma, who was 120 years old and went with the Hawazin tribe [to fight against the Muslims] to give them counsel. Ibn Qudama notes that the Prophet ordered him killed in the Battle of Hunein because he knew military stratagems. See Al-Tamhid 16:142.

The truth is, anyone aiding resistance against jihad in any way is a “combatant,” for they are “from them,” as Mohammed declared.

Another third-truth:

Religious belief alone does not make anyone the object of attack.

That is technically true (you always have to read the fineprint with Allah!).

The non-Muslim also has to refuse conversion and slavery in order to be attacked. (Ungrateful!)

A hint of truth here:

The original Muslim community was fighting against pagans who had also expelled them from their homes, persecuted, tortured, and murdered them. Thereafter, the Islamic conquests were political in nature.

Muslims are just as bound to obey these rules as they are to refrain from theft and adultery.

Here’s another hateful lie:

we must state that the murder [. . .] of an innocent Catholic nun in Somalia—and any other similar acts of wanton individual violence—‘in reaction to’ your lecture at the University of Regensburg, is completely un-Islamic, and we totally condemn such acts.

Here is the truth:

“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).

The most pernicious lie of all:

The notion that Muslims are commanded to spread their faith “by the sword” or that Islam in fact was largely spread “by the sword” does not hold up to scrutiny. Indeed, as a political entity Islam spread partly as a result of conquest, but the greater part of its expansion came as a result of preaching and missionary activity. Islamic teaching did not prescribe that the conquered populations be forced or coerced into converting.

But the false prophet commanded:

“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).

Here comes a straw man:

Indeed, many of the first areas conquered by the Muslims remained predominantly non-Muslim for centuries. Had Muslims desired to convert all others by force, there would not be a single church or synagogue left anywhere in the Islamic world.

Muslims had to preserve a population from which to extract tribute (jizya), slaves, services, and little girls and boys.

The command There is no compulsion in religion means now what it meant then. The mere fact of a person being non-Muslim has never been a legitimate casus belli in Islamic law or belief.

Again, per Mohammed’s command, if the non-Muslim refuses the “invitation” to Islam and slavery, then it’s war.

Next, these “scholars” misuse a verse warning Jews against violence:

Muslims have always believed, that Whoso slays a soul not to retaliate for a soul slain, nor for corruption done in the land, it shall be as if he had slain mankind altogether . . . .

Here’s an Islamic inside joke:

You mention the emperor’s assertion that “anything new” brought by the Prophet was “evil and inhuman, such as his alleged command to spread by the sword the faith he preached.” What the emperor failed to realize—aside from the fact (as mentioned above) that no such command has ever existed in Islam—is that the Prophet never claimed to be bringing anything fundamentally new.

Nothing new.

But a sword? You bet!

Jesus said, “Love your enemies.” Anyone who’s read the Bible knows the following is a lie:

God says in the Holy Qur’an, Naught is said to thee (Muhammad) but
what already was said to the Messengers before thee [. . .] and, Say (Muhammad): I am no new thing among the messengers (of God), nor know I what will be done with me or with you. I do but follow that what is Revealed to me [. . . .]

Here’s where these Muslims try — as Mohammed did — to deceive Jews and Christians into accepting that Mohammed preached the same YHWH. The key words here are “true” and “truth”:

According to Islamic belief, all the true prophets preached the same truth to different peoples at different times. The laws may be different, but the truth is unchanging.

Truths like: “Before Abraham was born, I AM”?

The letter concludes a veiled threat:

We hope that we will all avoid the mistakes of the past and live together in the future in peace, mutual acceptance and respect.

Which means, “Get in line, dhimmi.”

It should be clear from the Islamic texts provided that in “A Common Word” we have good Muslims dutifully deceiving ignorant and gullible Infidels.

Be neither.

The ironic, self-contradictory hypocrisy of the Islamo-Leftist alliance

In Koroush Ghazi, Liberals aid jihad, Non-violent jihad, WMD on August 24, 2008 at 10:17 PM

Ever notice how people doing (or defending) evil have to lie?

Nevermind that even President Clinton believed Saddam had WMD.

Not finding the quantities of weapons everyone expected is not evidence that President Bush lied, it’s evidence that Saddam used the time prior to the actual invasion — during which the President solicited the cooperation of those nations in collusion with the Iraqi tyrant — to ship them off to Syria.

So, here‘s “PersianImmortal” (I saw 300 — talk about a misnomer!) warning against spreading FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt) by spreading . . . FUD!

“Indeed, as we know, FUD is not limited to the IT world. US President George Bush knowingly lied about Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs) existing in Iraq – the CIA reported conclusively in 2004 that no such weapons existed.

Everyone in the U.S. knows what a friend to President Bush the CIA has been! Nope, no political agenda here!

This information was widely reported in the media at the time. Yet public polls such as this one show that from 2004 to 2006 the proportion of Americans who believe Iraq had WMDs actually grew substantially from 38% to 50%!

Clearly FUD is extremely hard to counter once it gains a foothold in people’s hearts and minds.”

Clearly.

No wonder Ghazi spends so many words in this article trying to convince us he’s unbiased.

The ironic, self-contradictory hypocrisy of the Islamo-Leftist alliance

In Koroush Ghazi, Liberals aid jihad, Non-violent jihad, WMD on August 24, 2008 at 10:17 PM

Ever notice how people doing (or defending) evil have to lie?

Nevermind that even President Clinton believed Saddam had WMD.

Not finding the quantities of weapons everyone expected is not evidence that President Bush lied, it’s evidence that Saddam used the time prior to the actual invasion — during which the President solicited the cooperation of those nations in collusion with the Iraqi tyrant — to ship them off to Syria.

So, here‘s “PersianImmortal” (I saw 300 — talk about a misnomer!) warning against spreading FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt) by spreading . . . FUD!

“Indeed, as we know, FUD is not limited to the IT world. US President George Bush knowingly lied about Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs) existing in Iraq – the CIA reported conclusively in 2004 that no such weapons existed.

Everyone in the U.S. knows what a friend to President Bush the CIA has been! Nope, no political agenda here!

This information was widely reported in the media at the time. Yet public polls such as this one show that from 2004 to 2006 the proportion of Americans who believe Iraq had WMDs actually grew substantially from 38% to 50%!

Clearly FUD is extremely hard to counter once it gains a foothold in people’s hearts and minds.”

Clearly.

No wonder Ghazi spends so many words in this article trying to convince us he’s unbiased.

Great figures from history recognizing the depravity of Islam

In Christ vs. Allah, George S. Patton, Jihad, John Quincy Adams, Non-violent jihad, The truth about Islam on June 21, 2008 at 10:02 PM

If great men like Thomas Jefferson, John Adams and his son John Quincy, George S. Patton, Jr., and Winston Churchill understood Islam, why can’t their lesser successors today?

Here’s John Quincy Adams observing that jihad progresses not only by violence, but also by fraud — by preaching, demographics, economics, and the subversion of non-Muslim societal institutions from within (jihad by stealth).

“. . . he [Muhammad] declared undistinguishing and exterminating war, as a part of his religion, against all the rest of mankind…The precept of the Koran is, perpetual war against all who deny, that Mahomet is the prophet of God…the faithful follower of the prophet may submit to the imperious necessities of defeat: but the command to propagate the Moslem creed by the sword is always obligatory, when it can be made effective. The commands of the prophet may be performed alike, by fraud, or by force.”

Following is General George S. Patton, Jr., on the retarding effects of Islam.

A few things to keep in mind: First, by “Arab” Patton clearly meant “Muslim,” since many Arabs were Christian. Second, by 700 much of the West was Christian; to the degree that its people obeyed the commands of Christ, the West was already morally advanced. Finally, it’s not just a lack of development, it’s making “divine” the violation of Christ’s commands that destroys human souls.

“One cannot but ponder the question: What if the Arabs had been Christians? To me it seems certain that the fatalistic teachings of Mohammed and the utter degradation of women is the outstanding cause for the arrested development of the Arab. He is exactly as he was around the year 700, while we have kept on developing. Here, I think, is a text for some eloquent sermon on the virtues of Christianity.”

–from War As I Knew It, by General George S. Patton, Jr., 1947

Great figures from history recognizing the depravity of Islam

In Christ vs. Allah, George S. Patton, Jihad, John Quincy Adams, Non-violent jihad, The truth about Islam on June 21, 2008 at 10:02 PM

If great men like Thomas Jefferson, John Adams and his son John Quincy, George S. Patton, Jr., and Winston Churchill understood Islam, why can’t their lesser successors today?

Here’s John Quincy Adams observing that jihad progresses not only by violence, but also by fraud — by preaching, demographics, economics, and the subversion of non-Muslim societal institutions from within (jihad by stealth).

“. . . he [Muhammad] declared undistinguishing and exterminating war, as a part of his religion, against all the rest of mankind…The precept of the Koran is, perpetual war against all who deny, that Mahomet is the prophet of God…the faithful follower of the prophet may submit to the imperious necessities of defeat: but the command to propagate the Moslem creed by the sword is always obligatory, when it can be made effective. The commands of the prophet may be performed alike, by fraud, or by force.”

Following is General George S. Patton, Jr., on the retarding effects of Islam.

A few things to keep in mind: First, by “Arab” Patton clearly meant “Muslim,” since many Arabs were Christian. Second, by 700 much of the West was Christian; to the degree that its people obeyed the commands of Christ, the West was already morally advanced. Finally, it’s not just a lack of development, it’s making “divine” the violation of Christ’s commands that destroys human souls.

“One cannot but ponder the question: What if the Arabs had been Christians? To me it seems certain that the fatalistic teachings of Mohammed and the utter degradation of women is the outstanding cause for the arrested development of the Arab. He is exactly as he was around the year 700, while we have kept on developing. Here, I think, is a text for some eloquent sermon on the virtues of Christianity.”

–from War As I Knew It, by General George S. Patton, Jr., 1947

Facts do not intimidate the truthful

In Ali Sina, Appeasers and Useful Idiot Dhimmis, Defending jihad, Non-violent jihad, Relatives in defense of jihad, The truth about Islam on June 21, 2008 at 8:44 AM

Only liars and tyrants fear the truth.

Throughout Western lands, Muslims, their apologists, and Useful Idiot Dhimmis work to silence more than just mockery of Mohammed, they demonize and dismiss those who cite accurately his own words and actions as recorded in Islam’s core texts.

This censorship is part of the non-violent — but still tyrannical, fascist, supremacist, and fatal — “striving” to make the world Islam. Robert Spencer refers to these more subtle efforts as the “stealth jihad,” of which using the West’s own legal, social, economic, and political systems to destroy it from within are all a part.

John Quincy Adams seems to have recognized this non-violent jihad, referring to it as performing Mohammed’s commands “by fraud.”

Osama bin Laden erred in using violence too soon against us; exploiting the civilizational self-loathing of the West’s enemies within still advances Islam and kills far fewer Muslims.

Here are two questions to ask “moderate” Muslims and those Infidels foolishly defending the prophet from hell:

1. If Mohammed was such a great guy, what’s the problem with looking at his words and deeds?

2. If Islam’s “sacred” texts don’t command offensive warfare against non-Muslims to make the world Islam, then what have you got to hide?