Amillennialist

Archive for the ‘Relatives in defense of jihad’ Category

Their children were forced to watch

In CAIR, Hamas, Islam's "divinely" sanctioned persecution of Christian, Mohamed Fadly, Relatives in defense of jihad, The truth about Islam on March 22, 2010 at 12:04 AM

This is for what B. Hussein, Grover Norquist, the Left, CAIR, Hamas, Mohamed Fadly, and the rest apologize and obfuscate.  This is why the West’s “leadership” betrays Israel.

Islam is pure evil. It is vile. It is hell.  Stop defending it. Stop lying for it. Stop excusing it.

If there ever were a time to use Western military might, this is it. Now.

Islam must be stopped.

Pakistani Christian burned alive, wife raped by police for refusing to convert to Islam (Jihad Watch):

RAWALPINDI, PAKISTAN (BosNewsLife)– A Christian man was fighting for his life in Pakistan’s Punjab province Saturday, March 20, after Muslim leaders backed by police burned him alive for refusing to convert to Islam, while his wife was raped by police officers, Christian and hospital sources familiar with the case told BosNewsLife.

Arshed Masih was burned Friday, March 19, in front of a police station in the city of Rawalpindi near Pakistan’s capital Islamabad, following apparent death threats from his Muslim employer Sheikh Mohammad Sultan, an influential businessman, and religious leaders, said the Rawalpindi Holy Family Hospital.

His wife, Martha Arshed, was allegedly raped by police officers. Their three children — ranging in age from 7 to 12– were reportedly forced to witness the attacks against their parents.

Advertisements

For all those who don’t believe that any decent world religion could exalt child rape, you’re absolutely right

In 'Umdat al-Salik, Ayatollah Khomeini, Iran, Mohammed the pedophile, Relatives in defense of jihad, The truth about Islam on September 27, 2009 at 7:39 PM

Which is why unspeakable depravity such as that detailed below can occur only in Islam.

It occurs because Allah ordained Muhammad’s raping little, prepubescent Aisha:

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

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

Sunnis can try to escape blame by scapegoating Shiites (“it’s not us!”), but Sunni Islam is just as guilty of “sacralizing” child rape as the Ayatollah-in-hell.

From here:

“‘A man can marry a girl younger than nine years of age even if the girl is still a baby being breastfed. A man however is prohibited from having intercourse with a girl younger than nine other sexual act such as forplay rubbing kissing and sodomy is allowed. A man having intercourse with a girl younger than nine years of age has not comitted a crime but only an infraction if the girl is not permanently damaged. If the girl however is permanently damaged the man must provide for her all her life. But this girl will not count as one of the man s four permanent wives. He also is not permitted to marry the girl[‘]s sister.'”

Speaking of ‘Umdat al-Salik:

“There is no doubt that this translation is a valuable and important work, whether as a textbook for teaching Islamic jurisprudence to English speakers, or as a legal reference for use by scholars, educated laymen, and students in this language.” Dr. Taha Jabir al-‘Alwani, International Institute of Islamic Thought (Herndon, VA; December 1990)

“…We certify that this translation corresponds to the Arabic original and conforms to the practice and faith of the orthodox Sunni community (Ahl al-Sunnah wa al-Jama’a).” al-Azhar, the Muslim world’s most prestigious institution of higher Islamic learning (Cairo; February, 1991)

Shari’a in Dearborn, Michigan

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

Know your place, dhimmi, or else.

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

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

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

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

Shari’a in Dearborn, Michigan

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

Know your place, dhimmi, or else.

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

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

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

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

With Islam, clarification brings more questions

In Relatives in defense of jihad on December 1, 2008 at 12:24 PM

A discussion yesterday with one whom I thought was a good-natured Muslim-In-Name-Only brings up new questions.

If he’s had some education in “the book,” and is familiar with commands to jihad:

Why the yelling?

Why the rage for my quoting Mohammed?

Why talk about Muslims killing me?

Why refer to monsters (“jihadists“) as “my people”?

Why not condemn such evil? Why are you not outraged at Muslims obeying their god and their apologists, rather than attacking me?

And what of his wife? According to him, she’s Muslim because she married a Muslim.

In case he hasn’t heard, the United States is not under Islamic law.

"The evidence comes all from the lips and the pens of Mohammed’s own devoted adherents"

In Catholic Encyclopedia, Islamophobia, Relatives in defense of jihad, The truth about Islam on July 5, 2008 at 1:04 PM

Which has been one of my essential arguments: It is neither dishonest, racist, hateful, nor “Islamophobic” to condemn Mohammed for what he said and did (who can defend open-ended, universal commands for genocide and systematic rape, slavery, and terrorism on the basis of religion?), since we have his crimes against God and Nature recorded by his own people in Qur’an, ahadith, and Sira, Islam’s “sacred” texts.

Allowing Allah and his apostle to speak for themselves is the most damaging thing one can do to Islam.

The Catholic Encyclopedia does a good job of highlighting some of the issues all but Muslim males should (or will) have with the doctrine of Mahomet (and this in an article from 1910!).

Note the echoes of Manuel Palaeologus II, quoted by Pope Benedict:

Quoting Johnstone, Zwemer concludes by remarking that the judgment of these modern scholars, however harsh, rests on evidence which “comes all from the lips and the pens of his own devoted adherents . . . And the followers of the prophet can scarcely complain if, even on such evidence, the verdict of history goes against him”.

[. . .]

What is really good in Mohammedan ethics is either commonplace or borrowed from some other religions, whereas what is characteristic is nearly always imperfect or wicked.

[. . .]

In matters political Islam is a system of despotism at home and aggression abroad. The Prophet commanded absolute submission to the imâm. In no case was the sword to be raised against him. The rights of non-Moslem subjects are of the vaguest and most limited kind, and a religious war is a sacred duty whenever there is a chance of success against the “Infidel”. Medieval and modern Mohammedan, especially Turkish, persecutions of both Jews and Christians are perhaps the best illustration of this fanatical religious and political spirit.

"The evidence comes all from the lips and the pens of Mohammed’s own devoted adherents"

In Catholic Encyclopedia, Islamophobia, Relatives in defense of jihad, The truth about Islam on July 5, 2008 at 1:04 PM

Which has been one of my essential arguments: It is neither dishonest, racist, hateful, nor “Islamophobic” to condemn Mohammed for what he said and did (who can defend open-ended, universal commands for genocide and systematic rape, slavery, and terrorism on the basis of religion?), since we have his crimes against God and Nature recorded by his own people in Qur’an, ahadith, and Sira, Islam’s “sacred” texts.

Allowing Allah and his apostle to speak for themselves is the most damaging thing one can do to Islam.

The Catholic Encyclopedia does a good job of highlighting some of the issues all but Muslim males should (or will) have with the doctrine of Mahomet (and this in an article from 1910!).

Note the echoes of Manuel Palaeologus II, quoted by Pope Benedict:

Quoting Johnstone, Zwemer concludes by remarking that the judgment of these modern scholars, however harsh, rests on evidence which “comes all from the lips and the pens of his own devoted adherents . . . And the followers of the prophet can scarcely complain if, even on such evidence, the verdict of history goes against him”.

[. . .]

What is really good in Mohammedan ethics is either commonplace or borrowed from some other religions, whereas what is characteristic is nearly always imperfect or wicked.

[. . .]

In matters political Islam is a system of despotism at home and aggression abroad. The Prophet commanded absolute submission to the imâm. In no case was the sword to be raised against him. The rights of non-Moslem subjects are of the vaguest and most limited kind, and a religious war is a sacred duty whenever there is a chance of success against the “Infidel”. Medieval and modern Mohammedan, especially Turkish, persecutions of both Jews and Christians are perhaps the best illustration of this fanatical religious and political spirit.

Mohammed is 1.2 billion Muslims, or Establishing Shari’a, one family at a time

In Dhimma, False Muslim civility, Relatives in defense of jihad, Shari'a, The truth about Islam on June 28, 2008 at 6:48 PM

She says they “misinterpret their texts,” but he says they’re “fanatical.” Which is it?

He defends Mohammed, right or wrong.

Quoting Mohammed’s own words is insulting 1.2 billion Muslims
. I thought all Muslims were not the same.

Which is it? Or does it depend on whether or not Mohammed’s words and deeds are being examined? What does that say about Mohammed? What does that say about those making such an “argument”?

A Christian family cannot discuss openly religious topics. A free man in a free society (and his wife!) must face character assassination, verbal abuse, and threats of violence over a factual statement (which is, coincidentally, no different than an American during World War II lamenting, “It’s too bad Hitler made our boys’ sacrifices necessary”).

So this is the lay of the land: A non-Muslim is forbidden from quoting Mohammed.

If I can’t quote Mohammed, and I can’t quote the Bible, what can I quote? A cookbook?! [Hat tip to Zell Miller.]

One of the sad ironies here is that this is exactly one of the restrictions placed historically upon dhimmis, the Jews and Christians subjugated, humiliated, and oppressed under Islamic law, just as Mohammed commanded.

-Mention Mohammed and be bullied into silence.

-Everyone falls in line because the two tyrants throw a fit.

-Essentially, it’s, “Shut up dhimmi. Don’t talk about Mohammed, or else!”

It’s insane.

Why are only the Muslim and his spouse apoplectic over quoting Mohammed? Why are not they being pressured into tolerance of others’ freedoms of speech? Why must everyone submit to the bullies’ sensibilities?

If the prophet from hell was such an “ideal man,” what is wrong with looking at what he said and did? Of what are they afraid? Is not such rage at a non-Muslim looking at those texts an admission of shame over his words and deeds?

Why attack me for quoting what Mohammed said and did? Why not attack Mohammed for what he said and did?

How can a decent person defend universal, open-ended commands to slaughter, rape, and enslave?

So much for the thin veneer of false Muslim civility. I’ve seen it vaporize in online discussions over the word of Allah and the example of Mohammed, but I’ve not seen it in person and not from someone who previously had seemed decent.

Insane anger. Irrationality. And this, an observation intended to make the observer look good, or a threat? “If someone was fanatical about their religion, they’d kill you.”

I will not be silent. I will not submit, for this is what they defend:

“Each of us was raped by between three and six men. One woman refused to have sex with them, so they split her head into pieces with an axe in front of us.” This happened in Darfur, from which Sudanese military personnel actually airlifted women to Khartoum to serve as sex slaves. Meanwhile, Indira Dzetskelova, the mother of one of the child hostages in Beslan, Russia, reports that “several 15-year-old girls were raped by terrorists.” Her daughter “heard their terrible cries and screams when those monsters took them away.”

This indicates that there are two things the massacre in Beslan has in common with the ongoing massacres in Darfur: both, no less than the 9/11 attacks, are examples of Islamic jihad terrorism, and both are characterized by rape. The jihadist element has been made clear by the ringleaders of both atrocities. Sudanese General Mohamed Beshir Suleiman recently declared: “The door of the jihad is still open and if it has been closed in the south it will be opened in Darfur.”

[. . .]

As for Beslan, the Chechen jihadist leader Shamil Besayev warned the Russian government last winter: “Praise Allah, we are dreaming of dying in jihad, we are dreaming of dying on the way of Allah, so that we could earn paradise and mercy of Allah.”

What does rape, then, have to do with these religious conflicts? Unfortunately, everything. The Islamic legal manual ‘Umdat al-Salik, which carries the endorsement of Al-Azhar University, the most respected authority in Sunni Islam, stipulates: “When a child or a woman is taken captive, they become slaves by the fact of capture, and the woman’s previous marriage is immediately annulled.”

Why? So that they are free to become the concubines of their captors. The Qur’an permits Muslim men to have intercourse with their wives and their slave girls: “Forbidden to you are … married women, except those whom you own as slaves” (Sura 4:23-24). After one successful battle, Muhammad tells his men, “Go and take any slave girl.” He took one for himself also. After the notorious massacre of the Jewish Qurayzah tribe, he did it again. According to his earliest biographer, Ibn Ishaq, Muhammad “went out to the market of Medina (which is still its market today) and dug trenches in it. Then he sent for [the men of Banu Qurayza] and struck off their heads in those trenches as they were brought out to him in batches.” After killing “600 or 700 in all, though some put the figure as high as 800 or 900,” the Prophet [sic] of Islam took one of the widows he had just made, Rayhana bint Amr, as another concubine. Emerging victorious in another battle, according to a generally accepted Islamic tradition, Muhammad’s men present him with an ethical question: “We took women captives, and we wanted to do ‘azl [coitus interruptus] with them.” Muhammad told them: “It is better that you should not do it, for Allah has written whom He is going to create till the Day of Resurrection.'” When Muhammad says “it is better that you should not do it,” he’s referring to coitus interruptus, not to raping their captives. He takes that for granted.

With Muhammad revered throughout the Islamic world as al-insan al-kamil, the perfect man, the rapes of Darfur and Beslan are nothing surprising. What is surprising, or ought to be, is the silence from the Islamic world about the rapes in both cases.

Where are the reformers who will dare to say that Muhammad’s example must not be followed in this case?

Certainly not where I was last night.

Mohammed is 1.2 billion Muslims, or Establishing Shari’a, one family at a time

In Dhimma, False Muslim civility, Relatives in defense of jihad, Shari'a, The truth about Islam on June 28, 2008 at 6:48 PM

She says they “misinterpret their texts,” but he says they’re “fanatical.” Which is it?

He defends Mohammed, right or wrong.

Quoting Mohammed’s own words is insulting 1.2 billion Muslims
. I thought all Muslims were not the same.

Which is it? Or does it depend on whether or not Mohammed’s words and deeds are being examined? What does that say about Mohammed? What does that say about those making such an “argument”?

A Christian family cannot discuss openly religious topics. A free man in a free society (and his wife!) must face character assassination, verbal abuse, and threats of violence over a factual statement (which is, coincidentally, no different than an American during World War II lamenting, “It’s too bad Hitler made our boys’ sacrifices necessary”).

So this is the lay of the land: A non-Muslim is forbidden from quoting Mohammed.

If I can’t quote Mohammed, and I can’t quote the Bible, what can I quote? A cookbook?! [Hat tip to Zell Miller.]

One of the sad ironies here is that this is exactly one of the restrictions placed historically upon dhimmis, the Jews and Christians subjugated, humiliated, and oppressed under Islamic law, just as Mohammed commanded.

-Mention Mohammed and be bullied into silence.

-Everyone falls in line because the two tyrants throw a fit.

-Essentially, it’s, “Shut up dhimmi. Don’t talk about Mohammed, or else!”

It’s insane.

Why are only the Muslim and his spouse apoplectic over quoting Mohammed? Why are not they being pressured into tolerance of others’ freedoms of speech? Why must everyone submit to the bullies’ sensibilities?

If the prophet from hell was such an “ideal man,” what is wrong with looking at what he said and did? Of what are they afraid? Is not such rage at a non-Muslim looking at those texts an admission of shame over his words and deeds?

Why attack me for quoting what Mohammed said and did? Why not attack Mohammed for what he said and did?

How can a decent person defend universal, open-ended commands to slaughter, rape, and enslave?

So much for the thin veneer of false Muslim civility. I’ve seen it vaporize in online discussions over the word of Allah and the example of Mohammed, but I’ve not seen it in person and not from someone who previously had seemed decent.

Insane anger. Irrationality. And this, an observation intended to make the observer look good, or a threat? “If someone was fanatical about their religion, they’d kill you.”

I will not be silent. I will not submit, for this is what they defend:

“Each of us was raped by between three and six men. One woman refused to have sex with them, so they split her head into pieces with an axe in front of us.” This happened in Darfur, from which Sudanese military personnel actually airlifted women to Khartoum to serve as sex slaves. Meanwhile, Indira Dzetskelova, the mother of one of the child hostages in Beslan, Russia, reports that “several 15-year-old girls were raped by terrorists.” Her daughter “heard their terrible cries and screams when those monsters took them away.”

This indicates that there are two things the massacre in Beslan has in common with the ongoing massacres in Darfur: both, no less than the 9/11 attacks, are examples of Islamic jihad terrorism, and both are characterized by rape. The jihadist element has been made clear by the ringleaders of both atrocities. Sudanese General Mohamed Beshir Suleiman recently declared: “The door of the jihad is still open and if it has been closed in the south it will be opened in Darfur.”

[. . .]

As for Beslan, the Chechen jihadist leader Shamil Besayev warned the Russian government last winter: “Praise Allah, we are dreaming of dying in jihad, we are dreaming of dying on the way of Allah, so that we could earn paradise and mercy of Allah.”

What does rape, then, have to do with these religious conflicts? Unfortunately, everything. The Islamic legal manual ‘Umdat al-Salik, which carries the endorsement of Al-Azhar University, the most respected authority in Sunni Islam, stipulates: “When a child or a woman is taken captive, they become slaves by the fact of capture, and the woman’s previous marriage is immediately annulled.”

Why? So that they are free to become the concubines of their captors. The Qur’an permits Muslim men to have intercourse with their wives and their slave girls: “Forbidden to you are … married women, except those whom you own as slaves” (Sura 4:23-24). After one successful battle, Muhammad tells his men, “Go and take any slave girl.” He took one for himself also. After the notorious massacre of the Jewish Qurayzah tribe, he did it again. According to his earliest biographer, Ibn Ishaq, Muhammad “went out to the market of Medina (which is still its market today) and dug trenches in it. Then he sent for [the men of Banu Qurayza] and struck off their heads in those trenches as they were brought out to him in batches.” After killing “600 or 700 in all, though some put the figure as high as 800 or 900,” the Prophet [sic] of Islam took one of the widows he had just made, Rayhana bint Amr, as another concubine. Emerging victorious in another battle, according to a generally accepted Islamic tradition, Muhammad’s men present him with an ethical question: “We took women captives, and we wanted to do ‘azl [coitus interruptus] with them.” Muhammad told them: “It is better that you should not do it, for Allah has written whom He is going to create till the Day of Resurrection.'” When Muhammad says “it is better that you should not do it,” he’s referring to coitus interruptus, not to raping their captives. He takes that for granted.

With Muhammad revered throughout the Islamic world as al-insan al-kamil, the perfect man, the rapes of Darfur and Beslan are nothing surprising. What is surprising, or ought to be, is the silence from the Islamic world about the rapes in both cases.

Where are the reformers who will dare to say that Muhammad’s example must not be followed in this case?

Certainly not where I was last night.

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?


Tantrums and other arguments in defense of Islam

In Appeasers and Useful Idiot Dhimmis, Defending jihad, Relatives in defense of jihad, The truth about Islam on June 21, 2008 at 5:50 AM

If you kick and scream loudly enough, you may just get Shari’a.

What do you do when you’re told to be quiet because you’ll make an emotional tyrant upset?

In other words, you can lie about me and mine, but don’t dare quote Mohammed!

Nevermind that a soul under Allah is in danger of Hell, or that non-Muslim, female, and apostate apologists for Islam will not escape the evil which they defend, the onset of which they hasten.

Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil of Mohammed or his allah

In Appeasers and Useful Idiot Dhimmis, Ignorant and gullible Infidels, Mohammed the pedophile, Relatives in defense of jihad, The truth about Islam on June 13, 2008 at 3:31 PM

Be deaf, dumb, and blind about Islam, or else, which makes her a tyrant and you a coward.

Ominously, one of the restrictions placed upon non-Muslims enslaved as dhimmis over centuries of Islamic conquest, annihilation, and oppression was the proscription against speaking of Allah or Mohammed. Many in the West today censor themselves voluntarily, and many out of fear.

My latest reply to one defending Mohammed at the expense of everything else. Note her use of one of the tactics employed typically by Muslims and their Useful Idiot Dhimmis against criticism of Islam — unjustified and ugly personal attacks. If you can’t refute the facts, attack the person citing them!

Perhaps it’s only justifying of one’s own sin.

Facts do not intimidate the truthful.

Speaking of “chasing tails,” you spend many words below attacking my integrity (again), my honesty, my compassion, and my judgment, and you attribute to me positions I’ve never held (argumentum ad hominem and “straw man” arguments — both are logical fallacies and inherently dishonest), but you do not address what I actually wrote.

I attributed to Mohammed responsibility for today’s jihad. In support of this, I cited accurately Islam’s own “sacred” texts — documents at which you admit you’ve never even looked. How is it “insensitive” to quote Mohammed’s own words?

Instead of addressing my words, you accuse me falsely of:

“all follow the fanatical radical ways of those Muslims”

“condemn every religion for their followers actions?”

“all catholics and Christians alike are murderers?”

“all Latin, or Hispanic males are murderers?”

“are all catholic priests pedophiles?”

“you are not more sensitive when speaking and emailing about groups of people”

“It only gives us all I’m sure insight on how you feel, truly feel about them…”

” . . . belongs to this group you speak so poorly of”

“hasn’t he shown you otherwise?”

“do all the guests seem to wage holy war against you”

“My Husband and his family ( Non murderers- as you have referred to them(muslims, not specifically his family, but since they are part of that group it is equally offensive)”

“Muslims who do not wage “holy war” LOL on anyone.”

“I know it’s hard for you, you have never walked a mile in anyone else’s shoes and see only your ways and ideas as truths, perhaps someday you will have to see others in a different light”

“WHO then are you to look down and judge anyone?”

When have I written anything negative about your husband or his family? When have I written of anything being true about “all Muslims“? You’re lying about me; prove it, or apologize.

If by “the past” you are referring to old articles about Islamic murder, those were news reports. Blame Muslims who kill for Allah, not me for being able to read.

A religion’s adherents are not [necessarily representative of] its god/founder. You are conflating the two, not me.

For example, a pedophile priest is not representative of Christ, since He warned that anyone who causes a little child to sin would be better off if he had a large stone tied around his neck and were thrown into the depths of the sea. On the other hand, a Muslim who begins raping his six-year-old “bride” when she’s nine does imitate Mohammed’s example.

Speaking of Christ, did He approve of or excuse the sin of His dinner companions? Did Christ tell them that they’ve just chosen alternative lifestyles and Moses was insensitive with all those Commandments? No, He told them to stop sinning.

Whom did Christ condemn? Whom did He call a “brood of vipers” and “white-washed tombs”? Liars. Christ was harsh with those who lied about their sin and used religion as a cover for evil.

Christ exposed evil. He condemned lies.

One last item. Jesus says that He is the only way to heaven. Does He have “tunnel-vision”?

Your comments to [. . . ] were not only undeserved and uncharitable, but foolish and faithless. She is honest and considerate to a fault, and she’s willing to endure your pettiness and insults because she loves you.

You should be ashamed of yourself.

Will you have the decency and integrity to apologize? Will you salvage your credibility, or will you persist in unfounded and scurrilous ad hominem attacks against those who love you and want the best for you and yours?

Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil of Mohammed or his allah

In Appeasers and Useful Idiot Dhimmis, Ignorant and gullible Infidels, Mohammed the pedophile, Relatives in defense of jihad, The truth about Islam on June 13, 2008 at 3:31 PM

Be deaf, dumb, and blind about Islam, or else, which makes her a tyrant and you a coward.

Ominously, one of the restrictions placed upon non-Muslims enslaved as dhimmis over centuries of Islamic conquest, annihilation, and oppression was the proscription against speaking of Allah or Mohammed. Many in the West today censor themselves voluntarily, and many out of fear.

My latest reply to one defending Mohammed at the expense of everything else. Note her use of one of the tactics employed typically by Muslims and their Useful Idiot Dhimmis against criticism of Islam — unjustified and ugly personal attacks. If you can’t refute the facts, attack the person citing them!

Perhaps it’s only justifying of one’s own sin.

Facts do not intimidate the truthful.

Speaking of “chasing tails,” you spend many words below attacking my integrity (again), my honesty, my compassion, and my judgment, and you attribute to me positions I’ve never held (argumentum ad hominem and “straw man” arguments — both are logical fallacies and inherently dishonest), but you do not address what I actually wrote.

I attributed to Mohammed responsibility for today’s jihad. In support of this, I cited accurately Islam’s own “sacred” texts — documents at which you admit you’ve never even looked. How is it “insensitive” to quote Mohammed’s own words?

Instead of addressing my words, you accuse me falsely of:

“all follow the fanatical radical ways of those Muslims”

“condemn every religion for their followers actions?”

“all catholics and Christians alike are murderers?”

“all Latin, or Hispanic males are murderers?”

“are all catholic priests pedophiles?”

“you are not more sensitive when speaking and emailing about groups of people”

“It only gives us all I’m sure insight on how you feel, truly feel about them…”

” . . . belongs to this group you speak so poorly of”

“hasn’t he shown you otherwise?”

“do all the guests seem to wage holy war against you”

“My Husband and his family ( Non murderers- as you have referred to them(muslims, not specifically his family, but since they are part of that group it is equally offensive)”

“Muslims who do not wage “holy war” LOL on anyone.”

“I know it’s hard for you, you have never walked a mile in anyone else’s shoes and see only your ways and ideas as truths, perhaps someday you will have to see others in a different light”

“WHO then are you to look down and judge anyone?”

When have I written anything negative about your husband or his family? When have I written of anything being true about “all Muslims“? You’re lying about me; prove it, or apologize.

If by “the past” you are referring to old articles about Islamic murder, those were news reports. Blame Muslims who kill for Allah, not me for being able to read.

A religion’s adherents are not [necessarily representative of] its god/founder. You are conflating the two, not me.

For example, a pedophile priest is not representative of Christ, since He warned that anyone who causes a little child to sin would be better off if he had a large stone tied around his neck and were thrown into the depths of the sea. On the other hand, a Muslim who begins raping his six-year-old “bride” when she’s nine does imitate Mohammed’s example.

Speaking of Christ, did He approve of or excuse the sin of His dinner companions? Did Christ tell them that they’ve just chosen alternative lifestyles and Moses was insensitive with all those Commandments? No, He told them to stop sinning.

Whom did Christ condemn? Whom did He call a “brood of vipers” and “white-washed tombs”? Liars. Christ was harsh with those who lied about their sin and used religion as a cover for evil.

Christ exposed evil. He condemned lies.

One last item. Jesus says that He is the only way to heaven. Does He have “tunnel-vision”?

Your comments to [. . . ] were not only undeserved and uncharitable, but foolish and faithless. She is honest and considerate to a fault, and she’s willing to endure your pettiness and insults because she loves you.

You should be ashamed of yourself.

Will you have the decency and integrity to apologize? Will you salvage your credibility, or will you persist in unfounded and scurrilous ad hominem attacks against those who love you and want the best for you and yours?

Relatives in defense of jihad

In Appeasers and Useful Idiot Dhimmis, Memorial Day, Relatives in defense of jihad, The truth about Islam on May 26, 2008 at 7:50 PM

Recently a family member shared photos of the honoring of Marines who’ve made the ultimate sacrifice in defense of Western Civilization and our God-given, unalienable rights.

To that e-mail I replied, “It’s too bad Mohammed made their sacrifice necessary.”

This is what was sent in response to that observation by another family member:

. . . it is indeed even worse that . . . people continue to be misinformed.

The author appears to argue that worse than Americans dying in defense against jihad are the imagined misinterpretations of Islamic texts by jihadists and the plain reading of those texts by non-Muslims.

This ad hominem attack was sent to several family members, but not to me.

Impugning someone’s integrity behind their back does not a healthy dialogue make.

Also, her position is inherently dishonest. If someone claims to know enough about Islam’s “holy” book (there are actually several texts considered authoritative in traditional Islam besides Qur’an) to absolve Mohammed of responsibility for 1400 years of global jihad against non-Muslims, then they must know the commands of Allah and the example of his apostle requiring that slaughter.

On the other hand, if they don’t know the texts well enough to admit from where Allah’s monsters derive the justification for their murders (and worse), if they are so completely ignorant of Qur’an, ahadith, and Sira so that they defend Mohammed and his book as “holy,” then how can they call anyone else “misinformed”?

I am confident that the author is incorrect in her assertions regarding Islam’s authoritative documents, since I’ve actually read them.

Rather than assume that one or more sessions in the People of the Desert School of Islamic Propaganda makes her an expert on Islam, she ought to open a book.

Regrettably, this is the same line of “argumentation” used by jihad’s agents in the West. Considering that even the Commander-in-Chief repeats the same canard, the wide dissemination throughout non-Muslim lands of the facts regarding the word of Allah and the example of Mohammed is needed now.

What are these facts? Did Mohammed command offensive warfare against non-Muslims or not? If so, why defend him?

Allah and the prophet from hell demand (and boasted, among other things):

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

“Fight those who believe not in Allah . . . nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book [Jews and Christians], 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).

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

In defending Mohammed, this is what she defends.

Why not instead attack the monster?

Relatives in defense of jihad

In Appeasers and Useful Idiot Dhimmis, Memorial Day, Relatives in defense of jihad, The truth about Islam on May 26, 2008 at 7:50 PM

Recently a family member shared photos of the honoring of Marines who’ve made the ultimate sacrifice in defense of Western Civilization and our God-given, unalienable rights.

To that e-mail I replied, “It’s too bad Mohammed made their sacrifice necessary.”

This is what was sent in response to that observation by another family member:

. . . it is indeed even worse that . . . people continue to be misinformed.

The author appears to argue that worse than Americans dying in defense against jihad are the imagined misinterpretations of Islamic texts by jihadists and the plain reading of those texts by non-Muslims.

This ad hominem attack was sent to several family members, but not to me.

Impugning someone’s integrity behind their back does not a healthy dialogue make.

Also, her position is inherently dishonest. If someone claims to know enough about Islam’s “holy” book (there are actually several texts considered authoritative in traditional Islam besides Qur’an) to absolve Mohammed of responsibility for 1400 years of global jihad against non-Muslims, then they must know the commands of Allah and the example of his apostle requiring that slaughter.

On the other hand, if they don’t know the texts well enough to admit from where Allah’s monsters derive the justification for their murders (and worse), if they are so completely ignorant of Qur’an, ahadith, and Sira so that they defend Mohammed and his book as “holy,” then how can they call anyone else “misinformed”?

I am confident that the author is incorrect in her assertions regarding Islam’s authoritative documents, since I’ve actually read them.

Rather than assume that one or more sessions in the People of the Desert School of Islamic Propaganda makes her an expert on Islam, she ought to open a book.

Regrettably, this is the same line of “argumentation” used by jihad’s agents in the West. Considering that even the Commander-in-Chief repeats the same canard, the wide dissemination throughout non-Muslim lands of the facts regarding the word of Allah and the example of Mohammed is needed now.

What are these facts? Did Mohammed command offensive warfare against non-Muslims or not? If so, why defend him?

Allah and the prophet from hell demand (and boasted, among other things):

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

“Fight those who believe not in Allah . . . nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book [Jews and Christians], 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).

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

In defending Mohammed, this is what she defends.

Why not instead attack the monster?