Amillennialist

Archive for the ‘The truth about Islam’ 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.”

Advertisements

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

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

A headline from Yahoo! News and AP:

Pakistani anti-terror court convicts 5 Americans

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

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

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

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

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

The Verse of the Sword "abrogated every agreement of peace between the Prophet and any idolator, every treaty, and every term," leaving non-Muslims "no choice, but to die or embrace Islam"

In Qur'an 9:5 The Verse of the Sword, Tafsir ibn Kathir, The truth about Islam on June 21, 2010 at 12:40 AM

Muhammad declared, attributing to Allah: “kill the pagans wherever you find them” (Qur’an 9:5). That’s been known traditionally as “the Verse of the Sword.”

Regarding Ibn Kathir and his tafsir (Qur’anic exegesis):

Ibn Kathir “wrote a famous commentary on the Qur’an named Tafsir al-Qur’an al-‘Adhim which linked certain Hadith, or sayings of Muhammad, and sayings of the sahaba to verses of the Qur’an, in explanation. Tafsir Ibn Kathir is famous all over the Muslim world and among Muslims in the Western world, is one of the most widely used explanations of the Qur’an today . . . Ibn Kathir was renowned for his great memory regarding the sayings of Muhammad and the entire Qur’an. Ibn Kathir is known as a qadi, a master scholar of history, and a mufassir (Qur’an commentator).”

Here’s how Ibn Kathir explains the Verse of the Sword (Muhammad’s words in parentheses and italicized):

Mujahid, `Amr bin Shu`ayb, Muhammad bin Ishaq, Qatadah, As-Suddi and `Abdur-Rahman bin Zayd bin Aslam said that the four months mentioned in this Ayah are the four-month grace period mentioned in the earlier Ayah,

(So travel freely for four months throughout the land.)

Allah said next,

(So when the Sacred Months have passed…),

meaning, `Upon the end of the four months during which We prohibited you from fighting the idolators, and which is the grace period We gave them, then fight and kill the idolators wherever you may find them.’ Allah’s statement next,

(then fight the Mushrikin wherever you find them)

means, on the earth in general, except for the Sacred Area, for Allah said, (And fight not with them at Al-Masjid Al-Haram, unless they fight you there. But if they attack you, then fight them. 2:191) Allah said here,

(and capture them)

executing some and keeping some as prisoners,

(and besiege them, and lie in wait for them in each and every ambush)

do not wait until you find them. Rather, seek and besiege them in their areas and forts, gather intelligence about them in the various roads and fairways so that what is made wide looks ever smaller to them. This way, they will have no choice, but to die or embrace Islam,

(But if they repent and perform the Salah, and give the Zakah, then leave their way free. Verily, Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.)

Abu Bakr As-Siddiq used this and other honorable Ayat as proof for fighting those who refrained from paying the Zakah. These Ayat allowed fighting people unless, and until, they embrace Islam and implement its rulings and obligations. Allah mentioned the most important aspects of Islam here, including what is less important. Surely, the highest elements of Islam after the Two Testimonials, are the prayer, which is the right of Allah, the Exalted and Ever High, then the Zakah, which benefits the poor and needy. These are the most honorable acts that creatures perform, and this is why Allah often mentions the prayer and Zakah together. In the Two Sahihs, it is recorded that Ibn `Umar said that the Messenger of Allah said,

(I have been commanded to fight the people until they testify that there is no deity worthy of worship except Allah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, establish the prayer and pay the Zakah.)

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

(And if anyone of the Mushrikin seeks your protection then grant him protection so that he may hear the Word of Allah (the Qur’an) and then escort him to where he can be secure, that is because they are men who know not.)

So, the Verse of the Sword “abrogated every agreement of peace between the Prophet and any idolator, every treaty, and every term,” leaving non-Muslims “no choice, but to die or embrace Islam.”

We have a choice.

Muslims cry about "shutting down dissent" only when it’s they who are silenced

In Jihad in America, Resisting Jihad, The truth about Islam, UC Irvine on June 20, 2010 at 11:50 PM

Since when is Jew-hatred “dissent”?

How hypocritical (but typical) of Muslims to cry about “shutting down dissent” when it’s their hate speech being silenced. Here’s what Muhammad did to one poetess who “dissented”:

“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).

It’s about time UC Irvine does something about the jihad on its campus.

Unintentional Islamic truthfulness

In Islamic Anti-Semitism, The truth about Islam on June 12, 2010 at 10:55 PM

Fighting, slaying, seizing, beleaguering, and lying in wait are, literally, what Muslims mean by “Muslim-Jewish Engagement.”

Here’s to a brief moment of honesty. Salud!

Who sounds more like a prophet of God?

In Douglas MacArthur, Imperial Japan, Resisting Jihad, The truth about Islam on June 11, 2010 at 7:26 PM

Compare the following terms of peace:

General MacArthur, on the occasion of the unconditional surrender of Imperial Japan:

“It is my earnest hope and indeed the hope of all mankind that from this solemn occasion a better world shall emerge out of the blood and carnage of the past-a world founded upon faith and understanding-a world dedicated to the dignity of man and the fulfillment of his most cherished wish-for freedom, tolerance, and justice.”

Muhammad:

“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); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practise regular charity, then open the way for them . . . ” (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).

The goal for MacArthur was “a world dedicated to the dignity of man . . . freedom, tolerance, and justice.”  The goal for Muhammad?  That non-Muslims “(accept) Islam,” pay “jizya,” “repent, and establish regular prayers and practise regular charity” [i.e., convert to Islam], “pay the Jizya with willing submission,” “feel themselves subdued,” and “testify that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that Muhammad is Allah’s Apostle.”

So, one man warred to advance human dignity, freedom, justice, and tolerance; the other to advance his own power through the subjugation or slaughter of all who rejected his heresies.

Which was more a prophet of God?

Should we believe the media or our lyin’ eyes?

In Flotilla jihad, Islamic Anti-Semitism, Media jihad, The myth of Palestine, The truth about Islam on June 5, 2010 at 2:46 PM

You won’t get any facts from the Islamophobic mainstream media or politicians. Here’s what’s really going on with flotilla jihad:

Another unintentional practitioner of Islamic irony

In Deceiving non-Muslims, The truth about Islam on June 5, 2010 at 8:25 AM

It’d be funny if it weren’t so tragic.  T. Behrend slithers:

“someone filled with hatred finds it wherever they seek it, and projects it whenever they speak. There are few posters here more bilious or intense in expressing hatred for the Muslims of the world than you. It’s a frightful thing to observe you on this unreflective crusade”

Rather than address the genocidal pedophile’s crimes against humanity and their glorification in your texts, you attack . . . me. Dishonest, but typical.

Muhammad commanded the slaughter of all who refuse the “invitation” to Islam, but I’m “filled with hate”? Muhammad had those butchered those who wrote something he didn’t like, but I’m “bilious”? I quote your own religious texts, which Muslims around the world have been fulfilling to the tune of more than 15,000 documented attacks since 9/11 alone, but I’m “expressing hatred for Muslims”? I condemn genocide, pedophilia, rape, and slavery in Allah’s name and in accord with Muhammad’s example, but I’m on a “crusade”?

(Actually, since the word “crusade” comes from cross, and since the first Crusade was called in defense of Christians victimized for centuries by Islam, I’ll accept that as a compliment. And wait ’til the West wakes up. You’ll wish for Medieval European Christians then.)

As for “unreflective”? That’s the pot calling the ivory “black.”

A. Hussien first denies Muhammad began raping little, prepubescent Aisha when she was nine, then he says child rape was "common in that time and was not non-familiar"

In Deceiving non-Muslims, Mohammed the pedophile, The truth about Islam on June 5, 2010 at 8:04 AM

You can’t have it both ways.  Either the Islamic texts mean what they say — and Muslims have understood them to say for nearly one and one-half millennia — or they do not.  If they do, then Allah is the devil and Muhammad is its apostle.

A. Hussien begins with:

“I’ve never called you a liar”

Suggesting that I’ve never read Qur’an but instead just copy-and-paste from “anti-Islam” sites is impugning my character and attributing to me dishonesty.

“I’ve adequate knowledge of my religion’s instructions which allows me to assist you to understand what you may not understood correctly.”

Great. Then you should acknowledge that what I’ve written of Muhammad and cited from your own “sacred” texts is accurate.

“I’m glad that you’re using USC’s MSA Compendium of Muslim Texts (Noble Qur’an) as it’s the same one I use when I post translated verses”

USC’s MSA’s translations are by Pickthal, Shakir, and Yusuf-Ali. The “Noble” Qur’an I referenced is the translation by Muhammad Taqi-ud-Din Al-Hilali and Muhammad Muhsin Khan.

“my heart reassures when I read it and it doesn’t derive from it but peace, knowledge, good and beauty”

How can you derive from “sacralized” slaughter, rape, and slavery anything but horror, revulsion, and rage?

“and how it has a negative impact on you”

You call commands to behead us and rape and enslave our wives and children “negative.”

“Islam is not for everybody”

Not decent people, at least. Or non-Muslims or Muslim apostates, women, and little girls.

“and people do not think in the same way.”

That’s an basic difference between you and me: You think that people can disagree on whether or not to brutalize, violate, and vivisect “unbelievers.” I don’t.

“Who’s the author of the copy you own of sirat rasul Allah?”

There’s only one of author of that biography [Ishaq], of course. Being an expert on Islam, you should know that.

“I didn’t lie, – now who’s calling the other a liar?”

Anyone who claims to know Islam well enough to teach me but denies its barbarism and depravity is a liar.

“God revealed all these verses to Mohammed peace be upon him in times of war.”

Are you so unfamiliar with the genocidal pedophile’s history? You must know that Muhammad received his first “revelation” when he was out in solitude performing a pagan religious ritual. Terrified that he was possessed by a demon (he was right), it was Khadijah who assured him that Allah was going to protect him.

It is true that in the beginning Muhammad’s message was not well-received, but neither name-calling nor rejection justify violence, and there was no “war” until Muhammad had an army and began waging it. Essentially, you’re blaming non-Muslims for defending themselves against Muhammad.

“But do not forget that Islam prescribed a code of conduct in war which remains unsurpassed to this day.”

Yes, today we slaughter any man who surrenders and rape and enslave his wife and children (our leaders getting first pick of whom to rape AND a fifth of the spoils — greedy!). No, wait! That was Muhammad. Well, at least we wage offensive warfare on religious grounds. No, sorry again! That, too, was Muhammad. Okay, let me try one more time: We pin nursing mothers to the ground with large blades through their chests for mocking our prophets. Oh! That was Muhammad, too!

“Unsurpassed”? In hellishness? Yes.

“Part of his instructions to the Muslim army was: “. . . Do not kill an old man, a woman or a child. Do not injure date palms and do not cut down fruit trees . . . .”

An expert on Islam like yourself would know that Muhammad made exceptions to Allah’s rules whenever it suited him, such as . . .

. . . killing women and children:

“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).

. . . slaughtering the elderly:

“Then occurred the “sariyyah” [raid] of Salim Ibn Umayr al-Amri against Abu Afak, the Jew, in [the month of] Shawwal in the beginning of the twentieth month from the hijrah [immigration from Mecca to Medina in AD 622], of the Apostle of Allah. Abu Afak, was from Banu Amr Ibn Awf, and was an old man who had attained the age of one hundred and twenty years. He was a Jew, and used to instigate the people against the Apostle of Allah, and composed (satirical) verses [about Muhammad].

Salim Ibn Umayr who was one of the great weepers and who had participated in Badr, said, ‘I take a vow that I shall either kill Abu Afak or die before him.’ He waited for an opportunity until a hot night came, and Abu Afak slept in an open place. Salim Ibn Umayr knew it, so he placed the sword on his liver and pressed it till it reached his bed. The enemy of Allah screamed and the people who were his followers, rushed to him, took him to his house and interred him” (Ibn Sa’d, Kitab al Tabaqat al Kabir, Volume 2, (2), p.32).

. . . murdering women for mocking him:

“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).

“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).

“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).

. . . destroying trees:

“It is narrated on the authority of ‘Abdullah that the Messenger of Allah . . . ordered the date-palms of Banu Nadir to be burnt and cut. These palms were at Buwaira. Qutaibah and Ibn Rumh in their versions of the tradition have added: ‘So Allah, the Glorious and Exalted, revealed the verse: “Whatever trees you have cut down or left standing on their trunks, it was with the permission of Allah so that He may disgrace the evil-doers”‘” (Muslim Book 19, Number 4324).

A. Hussien continues with Muhammad allowing those he’d conquered to “Go your way, for you are free,” Which, of course, does nothing to negate his beheading 600-900 who had surrendered to him [or the plethora of verses commanding blood].  Then . . .

“Those are the people who tortured him, insulted him, tried to assasinate him, chased him out of Mecca, and caused the killing of many of his followers, would you do the same thing if you were in his place?”

Would I slaughter, rape, and enslave over insults? No. And if my greed, bloodlust, and just-lust led me to war against my neighbors, I would NOT claim victim status and blame them for resisting. A problem with your relations at Mecca? Fine. Keep it all in the family. But expanding your “revelations” to include offensive warfare against all non-Muslims who refuse the “invitation” to convert or submit is evil.

“Yes I know the Doctrine of Abrogation, but would you please provide some of these passages?”

You’re an expert. You know that 9:5 abrogates all the former, more peaceful verses that contradict it.

Here’s Muhammad admitting that he changed his story to suit his immediate goals:

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

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

Hussien continues:

“Once again, read the verses before and after the ninth verse and you’ll find the answer.”

Fifth verse. And no, I’m not taking the verse “out-of-context.” (Remember, I asked you to save time by refraining from trying the Top Ten Ways to Trick Ignorant and Gullible Non-Muslims into Thinking that “‘Islam” Means ‘Peace.'”)

“Honestly, I still haven’t developed a complete opinion on that matter yet. As there’re a lot of debates going on right now on the issue of Jihad and its provisions. So I really can’t give an answer to that question.”

That’s more honest than most Muslim apologists will admit. I commend you.

“Nope, because none of that happened” [in response to my asking, “Is it Muhammad’s genocide or his pedophilia that scream out “prophet of god!” to you?”].

Except when it did.

“who were those with the most enmity to the Prophet? The non-believers is not it?”

Because he was raping, enslaving, and decapitating them.

“why history never tells us that the non-believers denounced the Prophet’s mirriage to Aisha?”

The Islamic texts brag about it, Muslims endorse it. Do you think the fact that Muslims kill non-Muslims for merely telling the truth about Muhammad might have something to do with an alleged lack of criticism?

“these marriages were common in that time and was not non-familiar.”

Which is it, Hussien? First, you deny Muhammad raped little Aisha, then you’re saying it was common. You can’t have it both ways. Now you’re justifying raping prepubescent nine-year-olds and claiming “the devil made me do it.” What are you going to write next? Aisha liked it?

“These things come under the customs and traditions and not religion.”

Being an expert on Islam, you must know that whatever Muhammad said and did — or saw and allowed — is “religion.”

“Of course, our time is changed now, and this kind of marriages must not be allowed at all.”

Thank you for stating that. Again, I commend you. What will you do to convince your coreligionists to remove that from shari’a?

“And what kind of genocide are you talking about?”

Killing non-Muslims on religious grounds. Since no society was Muslim before Islam warred against it, massive numbers of people of various ethnic backgrounds were murdered by Islam.

That’s genocide.  Religiocide.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[. . .]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“Chemical Sister” wrote:

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

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

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

[. . .]

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

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

And to Nashbloom:

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

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

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

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

Being an Islamic scholar, you already knew that.

Hitler to al-Husseini, al-Husseini to his Coreligionists of Peace, and Muhammad to the world . . . and to his everlasting shame and condemnation

In Appeasers and Useful Idiot Dhimmis, Hitler's Mufti, Nazism, The truth about Islam on April 25, 2010 at 10:39 PM

Miami-Dade Transit first banned and then allowed ads offering help to those trying to free themselves from Islam. One commenter here suggested that rather than focus on Islam (he doesn’t like its mingling of religion and state), we should focus instead on freedom of speech. To which I replied:

That’s like saying World War II shouldn’t have been about Hitler and Nazism, but about respecting borders. That’s great, but whom do you shoot?

(In other words, how do you defend yourself against an enemy you’re either too ignorant or too cowardly to name?)

Which inspired this reply from another commenter:

What a Godwinesque way to miss the entire point!

So I offered a few observations:

“Godwinesque”? In pointing out the suicidal foolishness of avoiding confronting Islam directly, I made what’s called an “analogy.” Trying to dismiss its relevance demonstrates your ignorance, not your wit, and it proves my point.

The ties between Islam and Nazism are several and profound:

First, both Hitler and Muhammad shared a deep and abiding passion for killing Jews, though Adolf’s six million Muhammad would call only “a start.”

Second, both sought to subjugate the world. (Muhammad’s been considerably more successful.)

Third, recognizing their natural fit, Hitler and the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem worked together to exterminate Jews as efficiently as possible, with al-Husseini not only collaborating on the concentration camps and encouraging the Nazis staffing them to do their work diligently, but also recruiting his coreligionists to serve in the Nazi’s Bosnian Muslim SS divisions.

Here’s a bit on Hitler to al-Husseini:

“Hitler . . . asked al-Husayni to ‘to lock …deep in his heart [that] . . . Germany has resolved, step by step, to ask one European nation after the other to solve its Jewish problem, and at the proper time, direct a similar appeal to non-European nations as well’. When Germany had defeated Russia and broken through the Caucasus into the Middle East, it would have no further imperial goals of its own and would support Arab liberation… But Hitler did have one goal. ‘Germany’s objective would then be solely the destruction of the Jewish element residing in the Arab sphere under the protection of British power.’ . . . In short, Jews were not simply to be driven out of the German sphere but would be hunted down and destroyed even beyond it.”

Here’s a morsel on al-Husseini to his Coreligionists of Peace:

“On March 1, 1944, while speaking on Radio Berlin, al-Husayni said: ‘Arabs, rise as one man and fight for your sacred rights. Kill the Jews wherever you find them. This pleases God, history, and religion. This saves your honor. God is with you.”

And here’s the genocidal pedophile Muhammad to the world . . . and to his everlasting shame and condemnation:

“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 . . .” (Muslim Book 41, Number 6985).

Fourth, Hitler lamented Germany’s being a Christian nation rather than an Islamic one.

Fifth, Hitler wrote of his “struggle,” Mein Kampf. Muhammad commanded his followers to wage jihad against the world “until all religion is for Allah.” “Jihad” means “struggle.”

Sixth, just as Chamberlain and other ignorant cowards sought to appease a monster who’d made his intentions clear — in writing — so today we have a multitude of Chamberlains running around attempting to silence those telling the truth about jihad and shari’a through prosecutorial persecution (Geert Wilders), violence and the threat of violence (Theo Van Gogh, the Muhammad cartoons, and yes, South Park), and name-calling (“Islamophobe,” “racist,” and “Godwin”).

There’s one aspect in which Muhammad and Hitler differed dramatically: At least Hitler didn’t claim “the devil made me do it.”

So, no. The reference to Nazism was not gratuitous.

A non-Muslim’s stating plainly what Muhammad’s followers were too shameless to hide isn’t “fear mongering,” it’s self-defense

In Christ vs. Allah, Deceiving non-Muslims, The truth about Islam on April 11, 2010 at 10:11 PM

Offered in response to another lying Muslim here:

ihsaan,

You call a genocidal pedophile “the best example to mankind,” and I’m the “nutjob”?

(Don’t think that we all didn’t notice your inability to deny Muhammad’s genocide and pedophilia. There’s a kind of honesty in your silence on that, at least.)

Just in case anyone is tempted to give any credence to your mendacity . . .

Ibn Kathir is my source for Ibn Kathir, of course.

As for implying that I am misrepresenting or are unfamiliar with your “sacred” texts, I posted several passages demonstrating Muhammad’s wanton bloodlust, along with specific citations. Anyone who can read can determine for themselves whether or not I’m “ignorantly fear mongering.”

Nowhere do I claim that Muslims are commanded to kill non-Muslims indiscriminately as you seem to suggest. Everyone knows that Allah has rules for how to butcher “infidels”: First, “invite” them to convert; if they refuse, then demand the jizya; if they refuse that, then war. If that sounds familiar, then that’s because I posted it above, along with the special “accommodation” for the “People of the Book” (Qur’an 9:29). Perhaps you ought to read before ranting about my “ignorance” of exceptions for Jews and Christians (and later, other non-Muslims).

As for “later peace agreements,” demanding money from non-Muslims in order to protect them from yourselves is not a “peace agreement;” it’s extortion. (Those “agreements” were “later” because Muhammad realized that slaves are more profitable than corpses, and most Muslims preferred raping the living rather than the dead — even Muhammad.)

And thanks for admitting (accidentally, no doubt) that your texts are vile, murderous refuse: The fact that your pedophile prophet was ordered to fight against ANYONE AT ALL because of their “unbelief” proves incontrovertibly that Muhammad served hell. Claiming that the order to kill was abrogated by “later peace agreements” demonstrates that the obvious reading of the text is the correct one: It was an order to war over religious belief. How do “later peace agreements” make commands to genocide on religious grounds acceptable, again?

It is absurd in the highest degree to argue that “The passage doesn’t say to kill because later texts replaced (abrogated) it saying ‘Don’t kill them!'” You realize that a command to genocide’s being limited by later “peace agreements” proves that the former command is murderous, don’t you?

Finally, you defend “kill the pagans wherever you find them” (Qur’an 9:5) and then lie to everyone here about it, but then claim that I’m the one “increasing hate for non-muslims from muslims.” How sad. A non-Muslim’s stating plainly what your coreligionists were too shameless to hide isn’t “fear mongering,” it’s self-defense. Just because you don’t like it doesn’t mean it isn’t true.

You think that you’re serving God, but you’re serving hell. Christ committed no sin, spoke only the truth, healed the sick, raised the dead, died for the sins of the whole world, and resurrected. He commanded His people to love even their enemies.

On the other hand, Muhammad practiced genocide, pedophilia, mutilation, torture, rape, slavery, extortion, theft, wife-beating (endorsed only?), polygamy, religious and gender apartheid, deceit, and blasphemy, claimed “allah made me do it!” and commanded others to do the same. In other words, Muhammad “sacralized” the violation of all Ten Commandments and the Golden Rule.

Turn from hell and trust in the Son of God, Who died for all your sins to give you peace with His Father.

Regards,

Amillennialist

Multiculturalism and craven self-censorship as the path to the Islamization of the West

In Appeasers and Useful Idiot Dhimmis, Geert Wilders, Pat Condell, The truth about Islam, Western Civilization subverted from within on April 9, 2010 at 9:14 AM

For centuries, Islam has been impotent, unable to use its preferred method of “persuasion” against the West (slaughter) — its last best chance having been obliterated on the first September 11th at the gates of Vienna in 1683 (thank you, Jan III Sobieski) — so it’s found another way: Aided both by trillions in blood for oil for the funding of indoctrination and propaganda centers within our own borders and the West’s suicidal self-loathing in the guise of Multiculturalism, Europe — and soon America, bankrupted and disarmed by the allegedly-former-Muslim in the White House — is at the precipice of a new Dark Ages.  A new Inquisition has begun, this time in defense of Islam rather than in defense against it.

Pat Condell condemns the cowardice of establishment Europe in persecuting (prosecuting) Geert Wilders for telling the truth about Islam (thanks to Dan for posting this; be sure to visit his excellent site).

Western Civilization hangs by a thread:

Not all religions are created equal

In Appeasers and Useful Idiot Dhimmis, Christ vs. Allah, The truth about Islam on April 6, 2010 at 7:31 AM

When someone tries to equate Christianity and Islam, point out the words and deeds of each religion’s founders; the contrast couldn’t be greater.  One’s created the most free, most prosperous, most moral society in the history of Man, the other’s wrought for non-Muslims, apostates, women, and little girls fourteen hundred years of hell-on-Earth.

Christ commanded:

“So whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets” (Matthew 7:12).

“But I say to you who hear, Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who abuse you [. . .] as you wish that others would do to you, do so to them.

“If you love those who love you, what benefit is that to you? For even sinners love those who love them. And if you do good to those who do good to you, what benefit is that to you? For even sinners do the same. And if you lend to those from whom you expect to receive, what credit is that to you? Even sinners lend to sinners, to get back the same amount. But love your enemies, and do good, and lend, expecting nothing in return, and your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High, for he is kind to the ungrateful and the evil. Be merciful, even as your Father is merciful” (Luke 6).

On the other hand:

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

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

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

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

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

“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).

Common Sense, Addressed to the non-Muslim Inhabitants of America

In Appeasers and Useful Idiot Dhimmis, Deceiving non-Muslims, Media jihad, The truth about Islam on March 30, 2010 at 1:53 PM

In an article that should be titled “Muslim Students want “Our Lord” phrase off diplomas,” the efforts by several students — including two Muslims named in the piece — are noted. Several comments from readers (cbc13 in particular) regurgitate the same politically-correct poison: If you criticize Islam or resist its advance, you’re a hateful, bigoted, racist xenophobe. Such “critiques” are obliterated easily with basic facts and a little . . .

COMMON SENSE;

Addressed to the non-Muslim

INHABITANTS

of

AMERICA

on the following interesting

SUBJECTS

To oppose Hate is not “hate.” Instead of insulting those resisting genocide, pedophilia, rape, mutilation, torture, slavery, theft, extortion, wife-beating, polygamy, religious and gender apartheid, deceit, and blasphemy in Allah’s name (all of which are commanded or endorsed by Muhammad and his allah), you ought to be joining them.

Islam sends Muslim souls to hell and creates for non-Muslims (and Muslim apostates, women, and little girls) hell-on-Earth. Why do you tolerate, obfuscate, and apologize for such barbarity?

If you are a Christian, how can you defend blaspheming the Son of God?  (If you’re not, do you think your god gets treated any better?)

“In blasphemy indeed are those that say that Allah is Christ the son of Mary. Say: “Who then hath the least power against Allah, if His will were to destroy Christ the son of Mary, his mother, and all every – one that is on the earth? For to Allah belongeth the dominion of the heavens and the earth, and all that is between. He createth what He pleaseth. For Allah hath power over all things” (Qur’an 5:17).

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

Why do you support murderous anti-Semitism?

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

“. . . We were (sitting) in the mosque when the Messenger of Allah . . . came to us and said: (Let us) go to the Jews. We went out with him until we came to them. The Messenger of Allah . . . stood up and called out to them (saying): O ye assembly of Jews, accept Islam (and) you will be safe [. . .] “he killed their men, and distributed their women, children and properties among the Muslims, except that some of them had joined the Messenger of Allah . . . who granted them security. They embraced Islam. The Messenger of Allah . . . turned out all the Jews of Medlina. Banu Qainuqa’ (the tribe of ‘Abdullah b. Salim) and the Jews of Banu Haritha and every other Jew who was in Medina [. . .] “It has been narrated by ‘Umar b. al-Khattib that he heard the Messenger of Allah . . . say: I will expel the Jews and Christians from the Arabian Peninsula and will not leave any but Muslim” (Muslim Book 19, Number 4363-4366).”

Why do you advocate dismembering non-Muslims?  Ibn Kathir says of the following 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”:

“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)?

Why do you defend murdering those who would leave Islam?

“Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him” (Bukhari Volume 9, Book 84, Number 57)?

Why do you support raping the wives of non-Muslims who’ve been made into sex slaves?

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

Why do you tolerate Allah-ordained pedophilia?

“Narrated ‘Aisha: that the Prophet married her when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old, and then she remained with him for nine years (i.e., till his death)” (Bukhari Volume 7, Book 62, Number 64 and 65)?

Why do you defend genocide on religious grounds?

“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)?

Why do you obfuscate for those advancing an ideology that would take your heads and rape and enslave your wives and daughters?  Instead, defend our unalienable, God-given rights to Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.

Where’s your Common Sense, America?

The Minnesota Daily denying access to the truth, or Refuting common Islamic deceptions

In Appeasers and Useful Idiot Dhimmis, Deceiving non-Muslims, The Minnesota Daily, The truth about Islam on March 29, 2010 at 2:08 PM

All accounts “moderated” now (saw an “Access Denied” message once), indicating either that all posts are now being censored or the site is filtering my IP address (there are ways around that!)

Update 3/30: Moderation was disabled, so the post below is up on the site.  The truth will out, anyway.  In response to the inaptly named justice786:

In your zeal to serve Allah, you do a disservice to God and Man. Below are (again) refutations of your many half-truths, logical fallacies, and outright lies.

“It is interesting that you quote the verse that you did because it shows again that you only use English translations.”

Arabic is a human language. “kill the pagans wherever you find them” (Qur’an 9:5) is not a mistranslation.

“In the Quran (chapter 3, verse 28) . . . The term God is using in this verse . . . is “aulia” which actually means “supporter” . . . .”

“helper” is synonymous with “supporter,” none of which negates verse after verse of brutality toward non-Muslims, including Jews and Christians. Besides that: “O ye who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends and protectors: They are but friends and protectors to each other. And he amongst you that turns to them (for friendship) is of them. Verily Allah guideth not a people unjust” (Qur’an 5:51), and, “Those who reject (Truth), among the People of the Book and among the Polytheists, will be in Hell-Fire, to dwell therein (for aye). They are the worst of creatures” (Qur’an 98:6).

“So you see my dear friend Muhammad, if you understood the original arabic of the Qur’an, you would know that you can still be my friend, though not my ally.”

I pointed out that you are not my “friend,” because however one might define the term, butchery and slavery are not elements of its definition.

“I have many friends from the Christian and Jewish religions as well as other faith-based communities, and we have a great relationship.”

The master-dhimmi relationship is great . . . for the master. If Islam ever gains the ascendancy here, I doubt they’ll share your opinion.

“Yes, several posts ago, Muslims were told to go home.”

Not by me, which is what you said. Changing your language to “were told” from “you told” is a tacit admission that you were wrong, but you don’t have the decency to admit that.

“My wife is a former born again Christian”

Whatever the deficiencies of American Evangelicalism, that’s still a fall from heaven to hell.

“and native American . . . my Navy son . . . .”

And if we were in Australia, they’d be aborigines. You must be quite a fisherman, since that’s another a red herring: The issue is not national origin or ancestry, but your genocidal pedophile’s commands to enslave or slaughter all who refuse the “invitation” to Islam and your eagerness to advance that by deceiving others.

“Actually, you have changed the topic everytime I clarified a point”

I was responding to comments made here, including yours. Don’t be silly.

“Your comments on the above article had nothing to do with Muslims in business in Minnesota.”

Your comments here are obfuscations for jihad. Jihad and shari’a are “Muslim business,” in Minnesota and everywhere. That’s the problem.

“You love quoting from the Qur’an or from Hadiths without any understanding of the original arabic, or the context of the hadith, or actually of the Seerah (life and example of the Prophet (s).”

It should be clear that I understand your religion very well. Using Islamic translations of Islamic texts written in a human language is legitimate. And you’ve yet to demonstrate where I’ve taken anything “out-of-context.”

What context makes “kill the pagans wherever you find them” (Qur’an 9:5) not murderous refuse, again?

“You do not unfortunately have any understanding of fiqh or of the Shari’ah. It is easy when one uses a cut and paste approach to anything to show what you perceive to be total contradictions when in fact there are not.”

A false ad hominem and an outright lie. Apparently, you confuse “basic human decency” with “understanding.” Just because I don’t agree with Allah’s bloodlust, doesn’t mean I don’t understand it.

Neither do I “perceive total contradictions;” you’re only hoping to create in the minds of those unfamiliar with Islamic texts, tenets, and timelines the perception of misunderstanding.

As for contradictions, naskh, the doctrine of abrogation, is your false prophet’s idea, not mine: “The Prophet said, ‘If I take an oath and later find something else better than that, then I do what is better and expiate my oath'” (Bukhari Volume 7, Book 67, Number 427), and, “Whatever communications We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, We bring one better than it or like it . . .” (Qur’an 2:106)?

And those are proof texts, so that non-Muslims (and Muslims of good will) can see just what it is that Allah requires.

“I have already answered your question about apostasy. Again, no one was killed only for being an apostate during the life of the Prophet (s). Traitors were killed and some of them happened to be apostates. Killing someone for “apostasy” would be against verse 2: 256 in the Qur’an, the final source of revelation and the word of God.”

Two problems there: Leaving Islam is considered treason because Muhammad was a totalitarian warlord, and Muhammad ordered the deaths of those who committed apostasy: “Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him” (Bukhari Volume 9, Book 84, Number 57).

“Islam itself is tolerant of other faiths. Look at how Islam talks about the “People of the Book”, Jews and Christians, allows Muslims to eat of the food of the People fo the Book, and even get married to people of the book without their having to change their faith. Some of my best friends are Muslims married to Christians or Jews.”

You even get to rape the People of the Book. Muslim men marry non-Muslim women (making them stupidly “Muslim-Christians,” etc.), but the opposite is not allowed.

I’ve posted several passages showing Muhammad’s special love for Jews and Christians, which you cannot refute. Murdering and enslaving those who refuse to convert to Islam is not “tolerance.”

“Arabic is the language of the Qur’an. How many versions of the bible do you have?”

One Bible. I use several translations, all of which are good. None of them contradict the others on points of doctrine. Regardless, that’s just another red herring.

“There is only one correct version of the Qur’an and it is the Arabic version .”

After the other, competing versions were destroyed. And don’t forget the Satanic Verses. (Shouldn’t verses commanding genocide on religious grounds be considered “incorrect”?)

“I demonstrated to you in #1 above that your ignorance of Arabic”

No, you demonstrated your contempt for the non-Muslims who frequent this site, and what you presume is our ignorance.

Unfortunately, like so many in the West, I’m too familiar with Arabic. Islam is just like Nazism: two murderous cults ruining perfectly good human languages (Arabic and German) used for centuries by Christians. What a shame.

You’re assertion is irrational and self-contradictory: Either you grew up speaking Arabic or you did not. If you did and accurate translation is impossible as you claim, then how can you know that the English is in error, since you know English only through translation? If you grew up NOT speaking Arabic and accurate translation is impossible as you claim, then you don’t know what the Arabic actually says.

And that’s the unintentional irony of the murderous and deceitful. Well done!

“and reliance on translations has led you to misinterpret what the Qur’an says, and to castigate Muslims when it is inappropriate.”

You’ve not demonstrated that I’ve misinterpreted anything. And I’ve only castigated you for lying in defense of genocide, pedophilia, and slavery. If instead of obfuscating for Allah’s tyranny you oppose it, I’ll commend you.

“Islam has a very clearcut etiquette when it comes to war. No killing of old people, children and women.”

Except when it doesn’t: “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 not to mention Abu Afak, Asma bint Marwan, and others.

“No scorched earth approach. War is only for two reasons: defense or to free people from oppression.”

You hope that no one here knows that “unbelief in Allah” is considered “oppression” by Muslims. The mere existence of non-Muslims is considered an obstacle to Islam and an oppression of Muslims.

And there is, of course, this: “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).

“There is no pedophilia in Islam (some cultures marry women at a younger age than the US where the age of sexual consent is as low as 12 years old in some states).”

That’s a clumsy tu quoque. Allah’s “beautiful pattern of conduct” Muhammad did it, so you should too: “Narrated ‘Aisha: that the Prophet married her when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old, and then she remained with him for nine years (i.e., till his death)” (Bukhari Volume 7, Book 62, Number 64 and 65).

And don’t forget the Qur’anic stipulations on divorcing prepubescent females: “And for such of your women as despair of menstruation, if ye doubt, their period (of waiting) shall be three months along with those who have it not. And for those with child, their period shall be till they bring forth their burden. And whosoever keepeth his duty to Allah, He maketh his course easy for him” (Qur’an 65:4).

“Show me a verse in the Qur’an where rape, mutiliation, or torture are allowed.”

I have, repeatedly. Clearly, you don’t care to deal with this subject matter or me truthfully, or you would not lie shamelessly, even when I’ve already exposed your mendacity.

Raping sex slaves (not to mention Muhammad”s raping numerous captives, and little prepubescent ‘Aisha): “If ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly with the orphans, marry women of your choice, two or three or four; but if ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly (with them), then only one, or (a captive) that your right hands possess, that will be more suitable, to prevent you from doing injustice” (Qur’an 4:3).

Mutilation and torture (not to mention Muhammad’s torturing a captive Jew for the location of hidden wealth): “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.”

“Islam came to put an end to slavery, and there are many examples of the Prophet (s) freeing slaves. This is contrast to even my country the US where it took a civil war to put an end to slavery.”

Freeing his own slaves (he was entitled to one-fifth of the booty from a razzia. Which means he was a practitioner. And what do you think the dhimma system was but a system of religious discrimination, humiliation, and extortion?

And playing a tu quoque meant to shame into silence is dishonest and ineffective. You ought to be embarrassed. But I suppose that in worshiping a bloodthirsty devil, one must compromise not only one’s intellect but one’s conscience.

“Show me where the Qur’an advocates theft and extortion.”

Jizya and dhimma are extortion (“Pay us and we’ll protect you . . . from ourselves!”): “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).

“Misinterpreting the verse about disciplining your wife is a favorite hobby of people who attack Islam.”

But not something of which I am guilty. Your own authorities teach it. “Beat” is “beat.”

“There is no record of the Prophet (s) ever laying a hand on any of his wives”

Which is why I use the words “commanded” and “endorsed.” But he did teach beating wives from whom you fear disobedience, and ‘Aisha, the pedophile prophet’s favorite “wife,” lamented at the suffering of Muslim women.

“there are hadiths where he talks about the best of Muslims being those who are the best to their women.”

You know as well as I that being “the best to their women” would include beating them, since the purpose would be to discipline them for Allah and Paradise (possibly).

“surely the protection afforded by a polygamous marriage is better than none or potential sexual promiscuity.”

Especially when victims of rape get murdered for adultery. (I”ll save you the need to lie about this one: Because Muhammad wanted to protect himself from an awkward situation with ‘Aisha, he required four witnesses to adultery. So a Muslim woman who reports being raped but lacks the witnesses is admitting to unlawful sexual intercourse. What’s a devout Muslim to do, but punish such “mischief”?

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

“There is no religious apartheid in Islam”

Dhimma. Pact of Umar.

“men and women have equal but not identical rights.”

Yes, women have the right to be raped beginning at age nine (even on a camel’s saddle!), to receive half the inheritance of a brother, to possess a lesser standing in court, to be beaten for “fearing” disobedience, etc.

“Deceit and blasphemy are not supported by any verse that I know in the Qur’an.”

Deceit in Qur’an: “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).

Deceit in ahadith: “War is deceit” (Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 268), and, “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).

Blaspheming YHWH: “In blasphemy indeed are those that say that Allah is Christ the son of Mary . . .” (Qur’an 5:17), “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), and “the Christians call Christ the son of Allah. That is a saying from their mouth; (in this) they but imitate what the unbelievers of old used to say. Allah’s curse be on them: how they are deluded away from the Truth” (Qur’an 9:30)!

“In the end, it is very easy to make accusations when one studies another person’s faith at the surface, does not understand the language in which the Qur’an was revealed, and cobbles together their own cut and paste approach to Islam.”

Which has nothing to do with me. Stay on topic.

“When I talk to my Christian or Jewish friends, I don’t talk to them about my perception of their faith. I let them tell me about how they perceive and practice their faith.”

If I want to know the truth about Islam, I’ll go to its god, founder, “sacred” texts, and history, not a maliciously-deceitful propagandist.

“Islam is the fastest growing religion in the USA, and will continue to be the fastest growing religion, God Willing.”

He is not.

“If you don’t believe me, just go to the website, http://www.Islamicity.com, and watch how many American men and women of different faiths and backgrounds are embracing Islam every hour of every days.”

Muslims would never, ever lie, right?

“the Qur’an says in Chapter 109, “Say, O you that reject faith. I worship not that which ye worship, Nor will ye worship that which I worship. And I will not worship that which ye have been wont to worship, Nor will ye worship that which I worship. To you be your Way, and to me mine.’

But you said translations were useless.

The Minnesota Daily censoring and obfuscating for jihad

In Appeasers and Useful Idiot Dhimmis, Deceiving non-Muslims, Minnesota, The Minnesota Daily, The truth about Islam on March 26, 2010 at 3:17 PM

In an article detailing another step in sharia’s advance here in the United States, a lively exchange between Muslims and their Useful Idiot Dhimmis and decent human beings got off to a good start.

Now, at least my comments are moderated. Whether or not my words exposing the vile dishonesty of jihad’s agents will be censored remains to be seen; in the event that The Minnesota Daily lacks the decency to post my most recent comment in response to someone referring first to his “Muslim wife” serving in the military and then going into full Obfuscation Mode and revealing himself to be the most shameless of dhimmis or a Muslim himself, it is posted below (with minor editing).

[Update 11:38 PM: Using another account to post, no moderation.  So, apparently The Minnesota Daily only allows lies in service to Allah to go unmoderated.  Update 1:04 AM: Another account “moderated.”  At least I got a few choice lines in.]

Here’s justice786’s falsehood-filled response to my earlier comments:

Actually you are wrong. It is not a non-sequitur. My wife, an American Muslima, served on the staff of an admiral during the Iran hostage crisis, and is of native American origin. When you tell her to go home, she is right at home. What about you? Which foreign country do your forefathers come from? Shouldn’t you go back there?

You also changed subject from the topic of the article. That is all right. To answer your comment, Islam is for freedom of religion. If you read the Qur’an yourself and understood arabic (not the English translation) instead of cutting and pasting from websites, you would understand the verse, “Let there be no compulsion in religion” from Surah 2, verse 256. Islam through the Qur’an and the traditions of the Prophet (s) has never ordered Muslim to establish Islamic law over all humanity. Again you are misinterpreting the Qur’an because you do not understand the original arabic source.

My reply:

Where did I tell anyone to “go home”?

And my ancestors were here millennia before yours, so even if yours were not a silly and intellectually-vacuous “argument,” you’d still lose on that point.

I see that you passed Obfuscation for Infidels 101, so let me expose your duplicity:

1. I did not “change subject from the topic of the article,” I responded to several comments here, including yours, which is what you do in a Comments section. So my words are on-topic.

2. Islam is not “for freedom of religion.” Muhammad declared, “If anyone changes his (Islamic) religion, then kill him” (Sahih Bukhari). Surahs 2, 8, 5, and 9 also put the lie to your claim.

3. Arabic is a human language, just like any other, so it can be translated. Sure, on occasion subtle nuances can be lost, but “kill the pagans wherever you find them” is not a mistranslation of “Love your neighbor as yourself.” Besides that, numerous English translations by Muslims show your assertion to be nonsensical.

4. The “no compulsion” verse is trotted out often by apologists for jihad. The only problem is — and you must know this since you’re obviously practiced in lying for Allah — that numerous other passages command or endorse violence against non-Muslims to make the world Islam. And even if that verse is not abrogated (the doctrine of naskh) by the later Verses of Blood, you know as well as I that inner belief cannot be forced, but outward obedience is another thing entirely, so technically, of course, “there is no compulsion in religion.”

5. Your own “sacred” texts demonstrate your mendacity; since Muhammad is the “Ideal Man” and a “beautiful pattern of conduct” for those who want to please Allah, his words and actions are definitive:

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

And,

“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).

6. The only website from which I “copy and paste” is my own. Every passage I post I’ve verified for myself. I provide specific citations so that honest readers can determine the facts for themselves and not be deceived by shameless dissemblers like you.

Even if your embarrassing ad hominem were true — it is not, obviously — that still doesn’t take away from the fact that Muhammad commanded or endorsed and practiced genocide, pedophilia, rape, mutilation, torture, slavery, theft, extortion, wife-beating, polygamy, religious and gender apartheid, deceit, and blasphemy and claimed “Allah made me do it, and so must you!”

You may find a significant concentration of the ignorant and gullible in media and government, but the American people are educating themselves. Your days of pulling the niqab over non-Muslim eyes are at an end.

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Muslim doctor pulls the hijab over the eyes of non-Muslims by obfuscating for Muhammad’s demonic hatred of women (and little girls)

In Deceiving non-Muslims, Islamic misogyny, Qanta Ahmed, The truth about Islam on March 7, 2010 at 4:54 PM

Qanta Ahmed, making deceit in service to Muhammad’s vile misogyny look fashionable.

In a post full of fatal, fetid falsehoods, Qanta Ahmed advances Allah’s War Against Humanity by feeding one half-truth after another to non-Muslims.  (Thanks to CNN for helping her!)  Here are a few of the more criminal bits, with commentary:

A judge in Saudi Arabia has said husbands are allowed to slap their wives if they spend lavishly, a Saudi newspaper reported this past weekend. In one fell swoop, the judge debased Islam, vilified the kingdom and disregarded the ideals the Saudi monarch himself embraces.

That’s reassuring!  Islam and true Muslims are against wife-beating, right?  Here comes more of the dissembling non-Muslims afraid to examine Islam’s texts, tenets, and timelines for themselves swallow whole:

Islam is very clear on this issue: Both a husband physically chastising his wife for “overspending” and a judge “upholding justice” by sanctioning this abuse would be acting counter to Islam’s ideals of compassion and justice.

How can a “religion” which commands the slavery or slaughter of all who refuse the “invitation” to convert be considered either “compassionate” or “just”? Regardless, Muhammad claimed that his god told him, “. . . good women are therefore obedient, guarding the unseen as Allah has guarded; and (as to) those on whose part you fear desertion, admonish them, and leave them alone in the sleeping-places and beat them . . . ” (Qur’an 4:34).

The good doctor continues:

There is no basis in Islamic theology to support domestic abuse of any kind and specifically none pertaining to the matter of a wife’s spending pattern.

Of course, Muhammad’s wife-beating is not “abuse,” it’s Allah-pleasing, since Islam’s deity calls the prophet from hell “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).

Last year, in his annual speech marking Saudi Arabia’s National Day, the king first described threats to Islam from within its ranks.

By which he meant either truly decent people who through no fault of their own find themselves Muslim and work against its monstrous doctrines, or those devout Muslims waging war against hypocrites like him.

In March, more than 1,600 academics from more than 30 countries convened in Riyadh at the first symposium studying domestic violence in the kingdom. Together, international academics examined, measured and evaluated the growing reports of domestic violence and child abuse in the kingdom with a view to formulating solutions.

How does a Muslim “solve” what Muhammad and his allah committed, commanded, and condoned?  Here is one of Islam’s “solutions”:

“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).

The prevaricating practitioner adds the old “slavery is freedom” line:

In my time working in Saudi Arabia as an intensive care specialist, I came to learn that for most Saudi women, the abbaya is not a tool of oppression but rather one of liberation.

And that “freedom” is due to the insanely insecure and jealous Muhammad’s hiding his property from others’ view, realizing that since he desired to rape anything that moved, so must his followers:

“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).

“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?”]

Here’s more insulting nonsense, as if being able to work as a physician negates centuries of absolute barbarism and degradation of women and little girls:

For the observant Saudi lady who has often been raised in an environment that highly prizes securing the beauty and guarding the modesty of their womenfolk, donning abbayas allows them to work as chemical engineers at Aramaco or as fellow intensive care physicians in intensive care units at the nation’s state-of-the-art hospitals.

My Saudi female colleagues could therefore replace valves and fix aneurysms even if they couldn’t make a three-point turn. I found them perfectly capable of managing the critically ill on mechanical ventilators and dialysis machines, all the while uncompromising of their values, maintaining their privacy in their veiled garments underneath their sterile gowns.

And a last insult.  To Ahmed, it is the victims of 9/11 who are guilty of persecuting Muslims (“Islamophobia”), rather than Islam itself being directly and solely responsible for one-and-one-half millennia of sending Muslim souls to hell and creating hell-on-Earth for non-Muslims:

This act of stupidity unfairly depicts the kingdom as draconian at a time when the tides of progressive reform are now waist-deep and rising. Such narrow perspectives only serve to fuel global Islamophobia that has greatly increased in the West post-9/11. Muslims around the world and within the kingdom can no longer tolerate this stance, and the king, the Custodian of the Two Holy Sites of Islam, isn’t likely to, either.

Considering Muhammad’s words and deeds and the totalitarian, savage ideology derived from them, “Islamophobia” is only possible among devout Muslim males.  To non-Muslims, apostates, Muslims who are not Muslim-enough, women, and little girls, no “fear” of Islam can ever be considered “irrational.”

The world is “waist-deep and rising” in something from Islam, but that is neither “progress” nor “reform.”

Some wound with friendly-fire those standing in our defense

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

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

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

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

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

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

To which this gentleman responded:

Dear Mr. Matamoros,

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

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

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

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

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

And my last step in this dance:

I’d prefer a civil discussion/debate.

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

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

if you, personally, have anything worth reading to write

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

I’ll respond

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What we all need is fewer blogs and more content.

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

You’re a tyrant.

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

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

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

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

More of the Accidental Irony of the Dishonest.

Look at your last comment.

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

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

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

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

More ad hominem . . . .

It doesn’t matter what you think

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

So, bring it on if you wish.

How very “W” of you . . . .

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

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

The truth about Islam finally makes it past Hannity and onto one of his shows

In Sean Hannity, The truth about Islam on March 5, 2010 at 6:58 PM

Perhaps he’s starting to understand that we’re not at war with a tactic, but a hellish, depraved totalitarian ideology. From the indomitable Pamela Geller’s site:

"Slaughter the Muslims!"*

In Deceiving non-Muslims, Islamic Anti-Semitism, Khaybar, Noor Rashid, Oxford, The truth about Islam on February 12, 2010 at 12:58 PM

Robert Spencer reports on a Muslim who, after disrupting an address by an Israeli minister at Oxford with shouts of “Slaughter the Jews!” claims that he was “misunderstood” and explains why that defense is more offensive and ominous than it might appear at first glance.  Note the vile filth Muhammad’s depravity and barbarism, which included raping the wife of a man he had tortured and decapitated earlier that day:

another sleazy Islamic supremacist claims he was “misunderstood.” You would think that after awhile they’d be too embarrassed to bring out this tired, lame excuse yet again, but they seem to be immune from embarrassment.

And compounding the problem here is that his explanation hardly makes matters better. He is counting on his audience not knowing anything about Khaybar. Among jihadis the slogan is familiar: “Khaybar, Khaybar, ya Yahoud, jaish Muhammad sa yaoud” — that is, “Khaybar, Khaybar, O Jews, the army of Muhammad will return.”

Khaybar. As I explain in my book The Truth About Muhammad, Muhammad led a Muslim force against the Khaybar oasis, which was inhabited by Jews — many of whom he had previously exiled from Medina. When he did so, he was not responding to any provocation. One of the Muslims later remembered: “When the apostle raided a people he waited until the morning. If he heard a call to prayer he held back; if he did not hear it he attacked. We came to Khaybar by night, and the apostle passed the night there; and when morning came he did not hear the call to prayer, so he rode and we rode with him….We met the workers of Khaybar coming out in the morning with their spades and baskets. When they saw the apostle and the army they cried, ‘Muhammad with his force,’ and turned tail and fled. The apostle said, ‘Allah Akbar! Khaybar is destroyed. When we arrive in a people’s square it is a bad morning for those who have been warned.'”

The Muslim advance was inexorable. “The apostle,” according to Muhammad’s earliest biographer, Ibn Ishaq, “seized the property piece by piece and conquered the forts one by one as he came to them.” Another biographer of Muhammad, Ibn Sa’d, reports that the battle was fierce: the “polytheists…killed a large number of [Muhammad’s] Companions and he also put to death a very large number of them….He killed ninety-three men of the Jews…” Muhammad and his men offered the fajr prayer, the Islamic dawn prayer, before it was light, and then entered Khaybar itself. The Muslims immediately set out to locate the inhabitants’ wealth. A Jewish leader of Khaybar, Kinana bin al-Rabi, was brought before Muhammad; Kinana was supposed to have been entrusted with the treasure of on of the Jewish tribes of Arabia, the Banu Nadir. Kinana denied knowing where this treasure was, but Muhammad pressed him: “Do you know that if we find you have it I shall kill you?” Kinana said yes, that he did know that.

Some of the treasure was found. To find the rest, Muhammad gave orders concerning Kinana: “Torture him until you extract what he has.” One of the Muslims built a fire on Kinana’s chest, but Kinana would not give up his secret. When he was at the point of death, one of the Muslims beheaded him. Kinana’s wife was taken as a war prize; Muhammad claimed her for himself and hastily arranged a wedding ceremony that night. He halted the Muslims’ caravan out of Khaybar later that night in order to consummate the marriage.

Muhammad agreed to let the people of Khaybar to go into exile, allowing them to keep as much of their property as they could carry. The Prophet of Islam, however, commanded them to leave behind all their gold and silver. He had intended to expel all of them, but some, who were farmers, begged him to allow them to let them stay if they gave him half their yield annually. Muhammad agreed: “I will allow you to continue here, so long as we would desire.” He warned them: “If we wish to expel you we will expel you.” They no longer had any rights that did not depend upon the good will and sufferance of Muhammad and the Muslims. And indeed, when the Muslims discovered some treasure that some of the Khaybar Jews had hidden, he ordered the women of the tribe enslaved and seized the perpetrators’ land. A hadith notes that “the Prophet had their warriors killed, their offspring and woman taken as captives.”

Thus when modern-day jihadists invoke Khaybar, as this hate mailer did indirectly by echoing the familiar chant about Muhammad’s Army, they are doing much more than just recalling the glory days of Islam and its prophet. They are recalling an aggressive, surprise raid by Muhammad which resulted in the final eradication of the once considerable Jewish presence in Arabia. To the jihadists, Khaybar means the destruction of the Jews and the seizure of their property by the Muslims.

That’s what Noor Rashid is now claiming that he did say. This is supposed to reassure us.

*If you think you read, “Slaughter the Muslims!” then clearly, you misunderstood.
It’s okay to threaten and actually harm and kill Jews, but don’t tell the truth about Muhammad!

If you think that the second class status forced on the dhimmi peoples under Islamic tyranny was a "golden age," then you’ve got good times ahead

In Appeasers and Useful Idiot Dhimmis, Deceiving non-Muslims, Ignorant and gullible Infidels, Ottoman Empire, The truth about Islam, Treasonous dhimmitude, Turkey on February 11, 2010 at 3:27 PM

Since all people are born with a natural knowledge of God, why is it that only Muslims think it is a holy thing to enslave, rape, and slaughter for their deity?

In response to someone who needs to work on his social skills, here:

Being neither Greek, Turkish nor a believer in any of the 3 middle Eastern religions I would like to make the admittedly trite point that which if any of those faiths you happen to follow depends almost entirely upon where you happen to be born. (This observation is not an invitation for Amillennialist to give me a theological treatise on why the Creator chooses to separate the righteous from the infidels at birth.)

On a purely factual point, the Ottoman Empire did not require its citizens to convert to Islam. The Millet system gave a large degree of autonomy to other cultural and religious groups. That is why the Orthodox Church and the Greek culture survived intact during 500 years or so of Turkish domination and kept the dream of Byzantium alive.

That’s an interesting rhetorical technique. Do you find that insult as a form of introduction is effective in making friends and influencing people?

If not an invitation to a dissertation, your uncharitable and arrogant nescience is certainly an invitation to correction.

First, the God of the Bible does not “separate the righteous from the infidels at birth.” YHWH gives life to all, Christ died to pay completely for the sins of all, and the Holy Spirit brings the saving Gospel message to all. So, it is not God who separates and condemns, it is those who persist in evil who condemn themselves. Since all people are born with a conscience, an innate understanding of right and wrong (even though it is fallible in all of us, it’s there), there’s no way on Earth that a Muslim doesn’t know that it’s wrong to enslave, rape, and butcher others solely on the basis of religious belief.

Second, the whole “3 middle eastern religions” nonsense is a false construct set up by Muhammad and Muslims in order to confuse, propagandize, and deceive non-Muslims into either conversion or submission, for how can you criticize another religion just like yours, unless you’re some kind of “Islamophobe,” some kind of racist?

Finally, considering the history of jihad, its resurgence, and the fact that you reject the “3 middle eastern religions,” you should know that when Islam comes to town in full force, you’ll be one of the first under the sword. As a pagan/atheist/agnostic (?) you will not be afforded the “protections” (against Muslims) granted the “People of the Book,” those mythological creatures you’ve been propagandized into thinking enjoyed such a golden age under Ottoman rule.

I suppose if you think that the second class status forced on the dhimmi peoples under Islamic tyranny — which includes constant degradations, humiliations, oppressions, and violations of you and yours, including genocide and rape — is acceptable, then you’ve got good times ahead.

He’ll be enjoying them alone.

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

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

A little more in reply to this:

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

Thank you for your courteous reply, Stavros.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war) . . . ” (Qur’an 9:5).
“Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued” (Qur’an 9:29).

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

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

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

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

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

“Allah’s Apostle was asked, ‘What is the best deed?’ He replied, ‘To believe in Allah and His Apostle (Muhammad).’ The questioner then asked, ‘What is the next (in goodness)?’ He replied, ‘To participate in Jihad (religious fighting) in Allah’s Cause.’ The questioner again asked, ‘What is the next (in goodness)?’ He replied, ‘To perform Hajj (pilgrimage to Mecca). . .'” (Bukhari Volume 1, Book 2, Number 25).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

From here (emphasis added):

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

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

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

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

[. . .]

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

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

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

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

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

That makes it all better, doesn’t it?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Because it is happening now.

Self-loathing Westerners align themselves with shameless apologists for Muhammad’s "sacralized" evil

In Appeasers and Useful Idiot Dhimmis, Ignorant and gullible Infidels, Liberals aid jihad, Mohamed Fadly, The truth about Islam on January 2, 2010 at 7:21 PM

Posted at the ‘Blog Which Shall Not Be Named, in response to Mohamed Fadly, that tireless (and tiresome) apologist for Muhammad’s hellish depravity:

“Ask and you’ll get the information at once, no research necessary . . . ” (Mohamed Fadly, emphasis added).

Of course Mohamed doesn’t want you to do any research, Moonlite. He wants you to swallow whole his half-truths and outright, bald-faced lies.

I can understand Rory falling for that nonsense — he’d rather count words than pay attention to what they mean — but you? And you’re a Christian?

Do you care that Muhammad called Christ a “blasphemer”? That he “sacralized” violating all Ten Commandments and the Golden Rule?

That Muhammad practiced genocide, pedophilia, rape, mutilation, torture, slavery, theft, extortion, polygamy, and religious and gender apartheid, claimed that “allah made me do it,” and commanded others to do the same?

Did you even notice that Mohamed’s quote commands to refrain from killing “those with whom we have a treaty“?

Of course Muhammad didn’t want everyone dead; he needed non-Muslims from whom to extract tribute, slave labor, and sexual gratification.

That “my enemy’s enemy is my friend,” may be true in many cases, but like Mohamed’s post, there’s more to it when it comes to Islam.

Leftists may welcome a rival to Christianity now, but what you don’t realize is that once Christianity is marginalized or dead in the West, you’re next.

And Islam is no gentle master. Just ask all those around the world today and from the past 1400 years who’ve endured Muslim obedience to this:

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

And this:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So, Mohamed,

You never answered my question (though you deleted it from your site): What is it about Muhammad that appeals to you, the genocide, the mutilation and torture, or the pedophilia?

Are you still defending mid-fifties-Muhammad’s raping little, nine-year-old, prepubescent ‘Aisha by claiming, “She liked it!”?

Moonlite, do you care at all that you’re allying with someone who defends such vile filth? Who facilitates pedophilia, rape, (actual) torture, slavery, and genocide on religious grounds?

Do you care that Rory is unable to denounce such utter evil?

Will you?

It’s only moments now until Rory Graycrow Underclass posts something vulgar and nescient.

Update 1/9: To his credit, Rory’s posted only a threat to go “Incredable Hulk” [sic] on me.  (Does that mean physical violence, in which case he doesn’t know where I live, or does it mean he’s going to post in only short phrases and guttural noises?  “‘Nuff said!  Arrrgh!”)

Here’s my reply:

I knew Bill Bixby. You’re no Bill Bixby.

And the fact is, not only did you refuse to denounce those atrocities, but now you give Mohamed Fadly — whose defense of Muhammad’s pedophilia is, “But she liked it!” — a platform here and whatever legitimacy that confers.

You can’t justify uncritically endorsing evil by claiming that you “have little time for long winded religious debates.” You have a responsibility to know the subject matter you’re promoting.

Now’s as good a time as any to do the right thing. Do you denounce Muhammad’s “sacralizing” genocide, pedophilia, rape, mutilation, torture, slavery, theft, extortion, polygamy, religious and gender apartheid, and blasphemy, his claiming that “Allah made me do it,” and his commanding others to do the same, or not?

Update 1/11: Unfortunately, Graycrow could not maintain even a modicum of dignity, creating an account for the sole purpose of agitating, complete with a vile avatar.

Here’s the latest:

“Anonymous” was me, of course.

As for name-calling, I did not call you a “useless idiot” (still reading carefully, I see). I used the term “Useful Idiot Dhimmi.”

A “Useful Idiot” is someone who allows himself to be used to advance his own demise by those who intend him harm.

A “dhimmi” is a Jew or Christian (and sometimes Hindu or Zoroastrian) under the “protection” of Muslims, as in: “Give us your money, your honor, and your women and little girls, and we’ll protect you . . . from us.”

You’re committing treason against humanity by obfuscating for jihad.

I do not intend to offend you; I’m merely trying to wake you up, prick your conscience, stir your pride.

If you are a Catholic, act like one! Tell the truth. Defend what is good in this world. Stop aiding those who believe it honors God to enslave or slaughter all who refuse conversion to their religion.

As to Qur’an 8:67, Tafsir Ibn Kathir notes regarding the verse that permission to take ransom for prisoners of war (and other spoils) was granted here.

Here are four translations (Pickthall, Yusuf Ali, Hilali-Khan, and Shakir) considered “orthodox” by Yet Another Qur’an Browser, none of which makes jihad a peaceful inner struggle:

008:067

“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.”

“It is not fitting for a prophet that he should have prisoners of war until he hath thoroughly subdued the land. Ye look for the temporal goods of this world; but God looketh to the Hereafter: And God is Exalted in might, Wise.”

“It is not for a Prophet that he should have prisoners of war (and free them with ransom) until he had made a great slaughter (among his enemies) in the land. You desire the good of this world (i.e. the money of ransom for freeing the captives), but Allah desires (for you) the Hereafter. And Allah is All-Mighty, All-Wise.”

“It is not fit for a prophet that he should take captives unless he has fought and triumphed in the land; you desire the frail goods of this world, while Allah desires (for you) the hereafter; and Allah is Mighty, Wise.”

Nope, no religion of peace here. Just a religion of offensive warfare, terror, slaughter, and ransom.

The foolishness of America’s electorate, the malfeasance and treason of its "leaders," the heroism of its warriors

In Barack Hussein Obama, Diana West, Jihad in America, President Bush establishing Islam, The Decline and Fall of the American Republic, The truth about Islam on December 12, 2009 at 6:22 AM

A picture is worth a thousand ‘blog posts.

Found at the great Diana West’s site, a Muslim enjoys with a smirk armor, training, candy, and security bought and paid for with American blood and treasure, while the American goes to inspect an explosive-laden house.  As Ms. West notes in her post title, we get bombs.  They get lollipops.

Why wouldn’t the Muslim laugh? His coreligionists — his “people” — maim, rape, and slaughter in Allah’s name — in obedience to its commands and in accord with Muhammad’s example, including nearly three thousand civilians on 9/11 and several thousands of our best and bravest since then — and what do we do?

Not a manly, morally-certain, full-throated, and vigorous self-defense as in the olden time. Instead of ushering the barbarians to their virgins-in-hell, we bow and apologize and bribe.  We pay them billions in jizya and blood, just as Muhammad commanded.

How can this do anything but embolden the enemy?

What began under President Bush as good-intentioned-but-suicidal wrongheadedness founded on chronic (and therefore inexcusable, for how can any American after 9/11, especially the one charged with the duty of defending our unalienable Rights against all enemies, foreign and domestic, be still so stubbornly unknowing?) and colossal ignorance of the texts, tenets, tactics, and timelines of jihad is now an accelerated demoralization and decimation of our military, led by someone who, raised and educated in Islam, must know that the Source and Sustenance of jihad are the commands of Allah and the example of Muhammad.

(If even an apparently-decent, obviously-Muslim-in-Name-Only Muslim living here since he was thirteen goes apoplectic when someone tells the truth about Muhammad from his own texts — and he had only “some classes” back in his country growing up so he was “aware of some of that” — how can the Allegedly Former Muslim, the “smartest president ever,” not know?)

Our military are handicapped by the cluelessness (malfeasance?  treachery?) of its leaders: General McChrystal stated recently that our warriors are overseas not to kill our enemies, but to convince them.

How do you win hearts and minds devoted to Allah?

Lollipops will convince them only that we are idiots.

Ms. West sums it up well:

This AP picture pretty much says it all but just to make sure, let’s read the original caption:

In this picture taken Tuesday, Dec. 8, 2009, an Afghan police trainee from the United States Marine police mentoring program eats a lollipop as Marines search a house that was thought to have explosives during a joint patrol in Khan Neshin, in the volatile Helmand province of southern Afghanistan….

Insert primal scream.

And mass impeachment proceedings.  Remove them all from office.

On the distance between Heaven and hell

In Christ vs. Allah, John Quincy Adams, The truth about Islam on November 27, 2009 at 1:27 AM

It’s the span between Christ and Allah.

If only we had leaders today with the clarity and courage of John Quincy Adams.

Instead we have “great world religion of peace” and “Let’s not jump to any conclusions.”

“And he [Jesus] declared, that the enjoyment of felicity in the world hereafter, would be reward of the practice of benevolence here. His whole law was resolvable into the precept of love; peace on earth – good will toward man, was the early object of his mission; and the authoritative demonstration of the immortality of man, was that, which constituted the more than earthly tribute of glory to God in the highest . . . The first conquest of the religion of Jesus, was over the unsocial passions of his disciples. It elevated the standard of the human character in the scale of existence . . . On the Christian system of morals, man is an immortal spirit, confined for a short space of time, in an earthly tabernacle. Kindness to his fellow mortals embraces the whole compass of his duties upon earth, and the whole promise of happiness to his spirit hereafter. THE ESSENCE OF THIS DOCTRINE IS, TO EXALT THE SPIRITUAL OVER THE BRUTAL PART OF HIS NATURE.

[. . .]

“In the seventh century of the Christian era, a wandering Arab of the lineage of Hagar [i.e., Muhammad], the Egyptian, combining the powers of transcendent genius, with the preternatural energy of a fanatic, and the fraudulent spirit of an impostor, proclaimed himself as a messenger from Heaven, and spread desolation and delusion over an extensive portion of the earth. Adopting from the sublime conception of the Mosaic law, the doctrine of one omnipotent God; he connected indissolubly with it, the audacious falsehood, that he was himself his prophet and apostle. Adopting from the new Revelation of Jesus, the faith and hope of immortal life, and of future retribution, he humbled it to the dust by adapting all the rewards and sanctions of his religion to the gratification of the sexual passion. He poisoned the sources of human felicity at the fountain, by degrading the condition of the female sex, and the allowance of polygamy; and he declared undistinguishing and exterminating war, as a part of his religion, against all the rest of mankind. THE ESSENCE OF HIS DOCTRINE WAS VIOLENCE AND LUST: TO EXALT THE BRUTAL OVER THE SPIRITUAL PART OF HUMAN NATURE

[. . .]

“Between these two religions, thus contrasted in their characters, a war of twelve hundred years has already raged. The war is yet flagrant . . . While the merciless and dissolute dogmas of the false prophet shall furnish motives to human action, there can never be peace upon earth, and good will towards men.” [p. 269]

-John Quincy Adams

Falsely equating Islam with Christianity? Now that’s "egregious stupidity."

In Christ vs. Allah, Justification, moral relativism, The truth about Islam on November 27, 2009 at 1:10 AM

From here:

Great, more Jesusnazi horse[deleted]. Thankfully, Choadette McJesusstein won’t get the cash and this [deleted] will be relegated to the trash can where it most rightfully belongs.

I can’t wait until my grandchildren look back at history at religion and ask “People actually believed that egregious stupidity?”

Don’t murder.

Don’t commit adultery.

Don’t steal.

Don’t lie.

Don’t want what belongs to another.

Love your neighbor as yourself.

Love your enemies.

The foundation of Western Civilization and its advances in the sciences, law, morality, music, art, and literature.

You call that “egregious stupidity,” and you hope your children do too.

You’ve made any sardonic reply on my part superfluous.

Well-played.

And to those equating falsely “all religions” — especially Islam and Christianity — let’s see if you’re able to discern any contrast between Christ and Muhammad.

According to eyewitnesses of both men (as recorded in each religion’s authoritative texts):

Christ spoke only the truth, committed no sin, healed the sick, raised the dead, died for the sins of the whole world, and resurrected. He commanded His people to love even their enemies, just as He prayed for those who murdered Him.

On the other hand, Muhammad committed genocide, pedophilia, rape, mutilation, slavery, theft, extortion, deception, and blasphemy and commanded his followers to do the same, claiming “allah made me do it.”

In other words, Christ overcame sin, death, and the devil by His own precious blood, but the criminally-insane Muhammad “sacralized” the violation of all Ten Commandments and the Golden Rule.

Even suicidally-ignorant, anti-Christian bigots should be able to pick out a difference or two there.

Presidential treason, or The Emperor’s New Niqab

In Barack Hussein Obama, Ft. Hood, Jihad in America, Liberals aid jihad, Nidal Malik Hasan, The Decline and Fall of the American Republic, The truth about Islam on November 26, 2009 at 3:39 AM

A president’s first job is to protect the American people, something President Bush — despite his faults — obviously took seriously.

Obama? Not so much.

Clare M. Lopez tells the truth about jihad at Ft. Hood and our national security leadership’s inability — or unwillingness, beginning with The Other Hussein — to defend properly American life and limb.

It’s because they refuse to tell the truth about the Emperor’s New Niqab, Islam:

A week after a Muslim jihadi gunned down more than 40 fellow citizens at Ft. Hood, Texas, America’s national security leadership still won’t admit that the attack had anything to do with Islam. By failing to acknowledge that connection, those with a constitutional duty to defend this nation “against all enemies foreign and domestic” consistently substitute a policy of political correctness at the expense of military readiness. The fact is that the 5 November 2009 attack that took the lives of thirteen American patriots was not just an act of terrorism: it was an act of war. When a gunman from the ranks of Islamic Jihad mounts an armed assault against a military target in complete consistency with the enemy doctrine of war, it is time to recognize that the U.S. actually is at war — not just in Afghanistan or Iraq, but with all those who follow the call of Jihad. These are the Jihad Wars and the stakes are clear: shall Americans live in security under the Constitution or shall the enemy within and without compel us to submit to Shari’a (Islamic law)?

The few courageous commentators, like Colonel Ralph Peters, Bill O’Reilly, and Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn.), who dare to notice that U.S. Army Major Nidal Malik Hasan was born and raised a Muslim, yelled “Allahu Akbar (“God is the greatest”) while shooting people in the back, and sought Islamic fatwas from American-born Yemeni al-Qa’eda cleric Anwar al-Awlaki (who’d been his imam at the Dar Al-Hijrah Islamic Center in Falls Church, Virginia), have been ignored. Hasan told colleagues, “I’m a Muslim first and an American second.” He proselytized his psychiatric patients, many with PTSD, trying to convert them to Islam — and they complained about it. He gave a Power Point presentation while at the military’s Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences entitled ‘Why the War on Terror is a War on Islam” in which a classmate says he “justified suicide bombing” and spewed “anti-American propaganda.”

The Army knew about all of this. Further, the 9/11 Commission, Congress, and the FBI had all focused on al-Awlaki’s links to al-Qa’eda eight year ago. DIA issued an internal report in 2003 warning that Muslim soldiers in the U.S. military pose a possible security threat after Sgt. Hasan Akbar, a Muslim convert, killed two and wounded 15 others at a military camp outside Baghdad.

But in the days since the Ft. Hood massacre, U.S. Army Chief of Staff General George Casey has appeared more worried about the possibility that diversity in the military could become “a casualty” than he has about his constitutional duty to ensure force protection within the ranks of this country’s military, unit cohesion, and readiness to defeat this nation’s enemies. The reality that Maj. Hasan and Sgt. Akbar should alert us to is that some of those enemies are already inside the gates. They do not wear an enemy uniform or fight within the bounds of the Geneva Convention code. They pose as loyal Americans but render their true allegiance to Islam and Shari’a.

We know from the Muslim Brotherhood’s own internal documents that the strategy of Islamic Jihad includes “destroying the Western civilization from within and sabotaging its miserable house by their hands….” In other words, the strategy of our sworn enemies is designed to get us to wreck our own country with our own hands, from within our own society. Gen. Casey and all the rest of our national security leadership are responsible for knowing this, for knowing that our military has been penetrated by enemy soldiers such as Hasan, and for establishing a successful defense plan that identifies and excises them out of the Army before they do what Akbar and Hasan have done.

This is not to say that either Akbar or Hasan is a member of the Muslim Brotherhood; but, from their words and deeds, we do know that they hold the same ideological beliefs as the Brotherhood, al-Qa’eda, and all who seek the dual objectives of a new Caliphate and worldwide enforcement of Shari’a. Hasan may or may not be found to have direct links to recognized Islamic terror organizations. This needs to be investigated, but should not distract us from the increasing prevalence of the individual jihadi. Under Islamic law, in the absence of a Caliph, it is the duty of every Muslim to wage individual jihad (or fard ayn) against the enemy if any part of Muslim lands is occupied by non-Muslim soldiers. That jihad may be by the sword, the pen, or the purse — and in fact, is all of those. The ultimate objective is still the same: subjugation of the entire world to a supremacist Islamic ideology.

When President Obama expressed the sentiment at the Ft. Hood commemorative ceremony that “no faith justifies these murderous and craven acts; no just and loving God looks upon them with favor,” he showed that he either does not consider Islam a genuine faith (hardly likely) — or, he has no idea what is contained in the Qur’an, ahadith, and Sunna. But Hasan certainly does know that the Qur’an commands him and all Muslims: “Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which has been forbidden by Allah and his apostle, nor acknowledge the religion of truth, even if they be of the People of the Book [Christians and Jews], until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.” (Q 9:29) Shouldn’t the commander in chief of the U.S. military know it too?

Given what the Army chain of command and other federal investigators surely do know and have known about Hasan, his expressed beliefs, and declared loyalties, there is no reason the murderous assault at Ft. Hood should have occurred. When the official blinders and earplugs are removed, jihadis like Hasan self-identify to any with the will to understand. His motives were expressed loudly and clearly many years ago, but just as declarations of war by al-Qa’eda and the Muslim Brotherhood, have been willfully ignored.

Unless an investigation such as called for by Lieberman, Chairman of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, can jolt our national security leadership out of its suicidal reluctance to name the enemy and pursue him wherever he may be found, the brave members of the U.S. military will remain in mortal peril, not only on foreign battlefields, but right here at home on American soil. And if the U.S. Army cannot even defend its own — against its own — then how can it defend the rest of us?

Presidential treason, or The Emperor’s New Niqab

In Barack Hussein Obama, Ft. Hood, Jihad in America, Liberals aid jihad, Nidal Malik Hasan, The Decline and Fall of the American Republic, The truth about Islam on November 26, 2009 at 3:39 AM

A president’s first job is to protect the American people, something President Bush — despite his faults — obviously took seriously.

Obama? Not so much.

Clare M. Lopez tells the truth about jihad at Ft. Hood and our national security leadership’s inability — or unwillingness, beginning with The Other Hussein — to defend properly American life and limb.

It’s because they refuse to tell the truth about the Emperor’s New Niqab, Islam:

A week after a Muslim jihadi gunned down more than 40 fellow citizens at Ft. Hood, Texas, America’s national security leadership still won’t admit that the attack had anything to do with Islam. By failing to acknowledge that connection, those with a constitutional duty to defend this nation “against all enemies foreign and domestic” consistently substitute a policy of political correctness at the expense of military readiness. The fact is that the 5 November 2009 attack that took the lives of thirteen American patriots was not just an act of terrorism: it was an act of war. When a gunman from the ranks of Islamic Jihad mounts an armed assault against a military target in complete consistency with the enemy doctrine of war, it is time to recognize that the U.S. actually is at war — not just in Afghanistan or Iraq, but with all those who follow the call of Jihad. These are the Jihad Wars and the stakes are clear: shall Americans live in security under the Constitution or shall the enemy within and without compel us to submit to Shari’a (Islamic law)?

The few courageous commentators, like Colonel Ralph Peters, Bill O’Reilly, and Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn.), who dare to notice that U.S. Army Major Nidal Malik Hasan was born and raised a Muslim, yelled “Allahu Akbar (“God is the greatest”) while shooting people in the back, and sought Islamic fatwas from American-born Yemeni al-Qa’eda cleric Anwar al-Awlaki (who’d been his imam at the Dar Al-Hijrah Islamic Center in Falls Church, Virginia), have been ignored. Hasan told colleagues, “I’m a Muslim first and an American second.” He proselytized his psychiatric patients, many with PTSD, trying to convert them to Islam — and they complained about it. He gave a Power Point presentation while at the military’s Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences entitled ‘Why the War on Terror is a War on Islam” in which a classmate says he “justified suicide bombing” and spewed “anti-American propaganda.”

The Army knew about all of this. Further, the 9/11 Commission, Congress, and the FBI had all focused on al-Awlaki’s links to al-Qa’eda eight year ago. DIA issued an internal report in 2003 warning that Muslim soldiers in the U.S. military pose a possible security threat after Sgt. Hasan Akbar, a Muslim convert, killed two and wounded 15 others at a military camp outside Baghdad.

But in the days since the Ft. Hood massacre, U.S. Army Chief of Staff General George Casey has appeared more worried about the possibility that diversity in the military could become “a casualty” than he has about his constitutional duty to ensure force protection within the ranks of this country’s military, unit cohesion, and readiness to defeat this nation’s enemies. The reality that Maj. Hasan and Sgt. Akbar should alert us to is that some of those enemies are already inside the gates. They do not wear an enemy uniform or fight within the bounds of the Geneva Convention code. They pose as loyal Americans but render their true allegiance to Islam and Shari’a.

We know from the Muslim Brotherhood’s own internal documents that the strategy of Islamic Jihad includes “destroying the Western civilization from within and sabotaging its miserable house by their hands….” In other words, the strategy of our sworn enemies is designed to get us to wreck our own country with our own hands, from within our own society. Gen. Casey and all the rest of our national security leadership are responsible for knowing this, for knowing that our military has been penetrated by enemy soldiers such as Hasan, and for establishing a successful defense plan that identifies and excises them out of the Army before they do what Akbar and Hasan have done.

This is not to say that either Akbar or Hasan is a member of the Muslim Brotherhood; but, from their words and deeds, we do know that they hold the same ideological beliefs as the Brotherhood, al-Qa’eda, and all who seek the dual objectives of a new Caliphate and worldwide enforcement of Shari’a. Hasan may or may not be found to have direct links to recognized Islamic terror organizations. This needs to be investigated, but should not distract us from the increasing prevalence of the individual jihadi. Under Islamic law, in the absence of a Caliph, it is the duty of every Muslim to wage individual jihad (or fard ayn) against the enemy if any part of Muslim lands is occupied by non-Muslim soldiers. That jihad may be by the sword, the pen, or the purse — and in fact, is all of those. The ultimate objective is still the same: subjugation of the entire world to a supremacist Islamic ideology.

When President Obama expressed the sentiment at the Ft. Hood commemorative ceremony that “no faith justifies these murderous and craven acts; no just and loving God looks upon them with favor,” he showed that he either does not consider Islam a genuine faith (hardly likely) — or, he has no idea what is contained in the Qur’an, ahadith, and Sunna. But Hasan certainly does know that the Qur’an commands him and all Muslims: “Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which has been forbidden by Allah and his apostle, nor acknowledge the religion of truth, even if they be of the People of the Book [Christians and Jews], until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.” (Q 9:29) Shouldn’t the commander in chief of the U.S. military know it too?

Given what the Army chain of command and other federal investigators surely do know and have known about Hasan, his expressed beliefs, and declared loyalties, there is no reason the murderous assault at Ft. Hood should have occurred. When the official blinders and earplugs are removed, jihadis like Hasan self-identify to any with the will to understand. His motives were expressed loudly and clearly many years ago, but just as declarations of war by al-Qa’eda and the Muslim Brotherhood, have been willfully ignored.

Unless an investigation such as called for by Lieberman, Chairman of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, can jolt our national security leadership out of its suicidal reluctance to name the enemy and pursue him wherever he may be found, the brave members of the U.S. military will remain in mortal peril, not only on foreign battlefields, but right here at home on American soil. And if the U.S. Army cannot even defend its own — against its own — then how can it defend the rest of us?

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

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

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

Hello, Maheen,

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

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

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

What “sacred tradtion” has hijab outside of Islam?

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

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

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

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

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

I quoted Allah and his apostle.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“denigrate”?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And here is how Maimonides ended up in Cairo:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Link between Ft. Hood terrorist Hasan and other Muslim killers discovered

In The truth about Islam on November 11, 2009 at 12:50 PM

Islam.

Considering Muhammad’s rabid feminism, why would a woman — or little girl — ever want to leave?

In Deceiving non-Muslims, Ignorant and gullible Infidels, Islamic "honor" killings, Mohammed the pedophile, Muhammad the feminist, The truth about Islam on November 8, 2009 at 12:47 AM

In response to more Muslim misrepresentation of Muhammad’s malignant malice and misogyny here:

Hey, Bob, Leigh14 is practicing taqiyya. You’ve just been had.

If you define Islam as a religion based on the Qur’an, these men are not Muslims, either. The Qur’an is the most liberal and supportive toward women of the three Abrahamic religious books.

This is true only if the definition of “liberal and supportive” includes rape, child-rape, wife-beating, considering a woman’s testimony worth only half of a man’s, valuing a daughter so little that she receives half the inheritance of a son, and requiring a rape victim to have four witnesses — which, of course, she will not, and so will she be executed for [admitting to] sexual intercourse outside of marriage.

[On the other hand, Christ commands His people to “Love your neighbor as yourself,” and, “Treat others the way you want to be treated.” He declares through His apostle: “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Galatians 3:28).]

Here is what Sunni Islam has to say about “honor killings”:

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

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).

Leigh14 is correct about the “Christians” noted above; no one can murder, rape, or torture in obedience to Christ’s commands.

On the other hand, not only the command of Allah — Qur’an — but the life of Muhammad — recorded in [a]hadith and sira — [is] considered authoritative by Islam.

Following is some of what Qur’an says regarding the treatment of females [. . .]

“Paradise” is a cosmic brothel:

“As to the Righteous (they will be) in a position of Security, Among Gardens and Springs; Dressed in fine silk and in rich brocade, they will face each other; So; and We shall join them to fair women with beautiful, big, and lustrous eyes” (Qur’an 44:51-54).

Allah-ordained child-rape:

“And for such of your women as despair of menstruation, if ye doubt, their period (of waiting) shall be three months along with those who have it not. And for those with child, their period shall be till they bring forth their burden. And whosoever keepeth his duty to Allah, He maketh his course easy for him” (Qur’an 65:4).

Beat your wives if “you fear desertion.” Considering Muhammad’s vile sadism, why would a woman — or little girl — ever want to run?

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

Rape your wife at will:

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

A woman’s testimony is worth only half of a man’s:

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

Polygamy, and raping your female slaves:

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

Murdering women accused of “lewdness”:

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

A daughter receives only half of what a son does:

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

Why women must be hidden like someone’s property:

“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).

Raping married slaves:

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

Here are a couple of ahadith regarding Muhammad’s favorite wife Aisha. He was in his fifties when he “married” her.

She was six.

And Aisha was a little, prepubescent nine-year-old when he began raping her:

“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).

But Christ warned:

“whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened around his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea” (Matthew 18:6).

Muhammad must be in a special part of hell.

Muslim butchers Americans at Ft. Hood; U.S. president and media obfuscate regarding motive

In Appeasers and Useful Idiot Dhimmis, Barack Hussein Obama, CAIR, Ft. Hood, Ignorant and gullible Infidels, Jihad in America, Nidal Malik Hasan, The truth about Islam on November 6, 2009 at 2:13 AM

Here’s a hint, feckless cowards, perfidious liars: Islam.

And why is an unindicted coconspirator in a federal terrorism funding trial with umbilical cords still attached to the Muslim Brotherhood — whose stated purpose is to accomplish what the Muslim devil executed today — being treated as anything other than enemies of humanity?

As long as America’s “leaders” continue to obfuscate and outright lie for Islam, the bloodletting is only going to get worse.

A U.S. soldier opened fire Thursday at Fort Hood, Texas, killing at least 11 people and wounding 31 others, military officials said. The gunman was shot to death, and two other soldiers were in custody.

Lt. Gen. Robert W. Cone, commanding general of the Army’s III Corps, who briefed President Barack Obama on the shootings, said the gunman used two handguns.

NBC News’ Pete Williams reported that a U.S. official identified the gunman as Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, who was 39 or 40. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchinson, R-Texas, said military officials told her that the gunman was about to be deployed to Iraq and was “upset about it.” The Associated Press reported that Hasan was a mental health professional.

A senior administration official told NBC News that the shootings could have been a criminal matter rather than a terrorism-related attack and that there was no intelligence to suggest a plot against Fort Hood.

Yes, there is “no intelligence,” since the only “plot” a Muslim needs to slaughter “the worst of creatures” is the command of Allah and the example of Muhammad.

Military and local hospital official said the victims were a mixture of men and women, military and civilian. At least one of those killed was a civilian police officer, Cone said. At least four local SWAT officers were among those wounded, NBC affiliate KCEN-TV of Waco reported.

Fort Hood, one of the largest military complexes in the world, was on lockdown, as were schools in the area. Dozens of agents of the FBI and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives responded to the post, federal officials said.

Muslim group condemns shootings
Speaking in Washington, Obama called the shootings a “horrific incident.”

Obama’s part of a “Muslim group”?  Isn’t that racist?

And it wasn’t a “horrific incident,” it was jihad.

If The Other Hussein is such a smart guy — the smartest president we’ve ever had, according to Michael Beschloss — and since he was educated in Islam as a devout Muslim, he ought to know jihad when he sees it.

That he won’t admit that fact — and thereby warn the American people and enable an effective and vigorous self-defense — tells us all we need to know about where his allegiances lie.

“It’s difficult enough when we lose these great Americans in battles overseas,” Obama said at the Interior Department. “It’s horrifying that they should come under fire at an Army base on American soil.”

Noting the Arabic nature of the gunman’s name, the Council on American-Islamic Relations, a Washington interest group, condemned “this cowardly attack in the strongest terms possible and ask that the perpetrators be punished to the full extent of the law.”

Just like Hasan’s fellow soldiers, who took his comment about wishing that “Muslims would rise up against the aggressors” to mean that he wanted Muslims to aid America against the terrorists, you probably think that CAIR is referring to Hasan and anyone who helped him as “the perpetrators.”

They’re actually referring to those who stopped Hasan.

No political or religious ideology could ever justify or excuse such wanton and indiscriminate violence,” the council said in a statement. “The attack was particularly heinous in that it targeted the all-volunteer army that protects our nation. American Muslims stand with our fellow citizens in offering both prayers for the victims and sincere condolences to the families of those killed or injured.”

No ideology except their own, they mean.

Muslim butchers Americans at Ft. Hood; U.S. president and media obfuscate regarding motive

In Appeasers and Useful Idiot Dhimmis, Barack Hussein Obama, CAIR, Ft. Hood, Ignorant and gullible Infidels, Jihad in America, Nidal Malik Hasan, The truth about Islam on November 6, 2009 at 2:13 AM

Here’s a hint, feckless cowards, perfidious liars: Islam.

And why is an unindicted coconspirator in a federal terrorism funding trial with umbilical cords still attached to the Muslim Brotherhood — whose stated purpose is to accomplish what the Muslim devil executed today — being treated as anything other than enemies of humanity?

As long as America’s “leaders” continue to obfuscate and outright lie for Islam, the bloodletting is only going to get worse.

A U.S. soldier opened fire Thursday at Fort Hood, Texas, killing at least 11 people and wounding 31 others, military officials said. The gunman was shot to death, and two other soldiers were in custody.

Lt. Gen. Robert W. Cone, commanding general of the Army’s III Corps, who briefed President Barack Obama on the shootings, said the gunman used two handguns.

NBC News’ Pete Williams reported that a U.S. official identified the gunman as Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, who was 39 or 40. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchinson, R-Texas, said military officials told her that the gunman was about to be deployed to Iraq and was “upset about it.” The Associated Press reported that Hasan was a mental health professional.

A senior administration official told NBC News that the shootings could have been a criminal matter rather than a terrorism-related attack and that there was no intelligence to suggest a plot against Fort Hood.

Yes, there is “no intelligence,” since the only “plot” a Muslim needs to slaughter “the worst of creatures” is the command of Allah and the example of Muhammad.

Military and local hospital official said the victims were a mixture of men and women, military and civilian. At least one of those killed was a civilian police officer, Cone said. At least four local SWAT officers were among those wounded, NBC affiliate KCEN-TV of Waco reported.

Fort Hood, one of the largest military complexes in the world, was on lockdown, as were schools in the area. Dozens of agents of the FBI and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives responded to the post, federal officials said.

Muslim group condemns shootings
Speaking in Washington, Obama called the shootings a “horrific incident.”

Obama’s part of a “Muslim group”?  Isn’t that racist?

And it wasn’t a “horrific incident,” it was jihad.

If The Other Hussein is such a smart guy — the smartest president we’ve ever had, according to Michael Beschloss — and since he was educated in Islam as a devout Muslim, he ought to know jihad when he sees it.

That he won’t admit that fact — and thereby warn the American people and enable an effective and vigorous self-defense — tells us all we need to know about where his allegiances lie.

“It’s difficult enough when we lose these great Americans in battles overseas,” Obama said at the Interior Department. “It’s horrifying that they should come under fire at an Army base on American soil.”

Noting the Arabic nature of the gunman’s name, the Council on American-Islamic Relations, a Washington interest group, condemned “this cowardly attack in the strongest terms possible and ask that the perpetrators be punished to the full extent of the law.”

Just like Hasan’s fellow soldiers, who took his comment about wishing that “Muslims would rise up against the aggressors” to mean that he wanted Muslims to aid America against the terrorists, you probably think that CAIR is referring to Hasan and anyone who helped him as “the perpetrators.”

They’re actually referring to those who stopped Hasan.

No political or religious ideology could ever justify or excuse such wanton and indiscriminate violence,” the council said in a statement. “The attack was particularly heinous in that it targeted the all-volunteer army that protects our nation. American Muslims stand with our fellow citizens in offering both prayers for the victims and sincere condolences to the families of those killed or injured.”

No ideology except their own, they mean.