Amillennialist

Archive for the ‘Uncategorized’ Category

So that’s why he’s taken so long to do . . . nothing

In Uncategorized on June 23, 2010 at 2:07 PM

You never want a serious crisis to go to waste.” -Rahm Emanuel

How arrogant must a person be to think that they can legislate a planet’s climate?  What will they do after they’ve taxed us to death and still the wind and the waves won’t obey?

Note, dear readers, that the issue here is not saving the planet, it’s making another excuse, another justification for a tighter stranglehold by government on the necks of We the People.

And notice the writer’s sycophantic “spur the US Senate into action.”  Almost as repulsive as the tyrant for whom she shills

Barack Obama will on Wednesday make a renewed push to spur the US Senate into action on climate change,

More like a “renewed push to spur the US” into slavery.

saying the BP oil spill underlines the urgency for the country to lessen its dependence on fossil fuels.

The US president will host senators from both parties at the White House – including those who have proposed variations on a climate change bill – but analysts are sceptical about whether he can overcome the political impasse on a proposal that is seen as essentially a tax.

“The oil spill has dramatically increased the urgency for the need to act,” said Daniel Weiss of the Center for American Progress Action Fund. “But I’m not looking for any breakthrough at the meeting. I think President Obama wants to listen to various concerns and follow up on various ideas.”

Since he was a presidential candidate, Mr Obama has been promoting legislation that would put a cap on carbon emissions from polluters but allow them to buy permits to emit more.

Help those harmed by Ft. Hood jihad attack

In Uncategorized on January 2, 2010 at 2:43 PM

From here:

LaRue Tactical here in Texas has put together a fund raiser for our soldiers that fell at Ft. Hood in November. Every penny of your money goes to the Chaplain’s Fund Office in Fort Hood and is being used to help the families of those impacted by the murders.

2010 is the tenth year of this decade . . .

In Uncategorized on January 1, 2010 at 8:07 PM

. . . not the first of the next.

Republicans more vile than the devout Muslims who carried out 9/11

In Uncategorized on August 13, 2009 at 12:24 AM

I haven’t heard of anyone saying that of even Bill Clinton, and he had several opportunities to retire UBL.

(Of course, since the problem is not one person but the ideology, bin Laden’s death would have only delayed our first Black Tuesday.)

In response to claiming that the GOP’s (alleged) exploitation of 9/11 was worse than the barbarism carried out that day, from here:

Ghost of Violet,

Your minimizing large-scale slaughter in service to Allah in comparison to alleged political calculations (that look like effective self-defense nearly eight years since the attack) is vile, disgusting, and libelous.

I suppose you’d prefer a big hole in the ground and thousands more dead in downtown Los Angeles, for that is what we’d have endured if waterboarding (so torturous that our military undergo it in training) hadn’t been used on Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (to you, one genocidal Muslim terrorist’s feelings are more important than innocent American lives, right?).

You should be ashamed of yourself.

Rather than shedding light on what motivated 9/11 (one devastating day in nearly fourteen hundred years of global jihad — including 14,000 Muslim terrorist attacks since 9/11 alone), you obfuscate with shameless political ad hominems.

So much for the “GOP dictatorship.” And how do you explain the fact that despite “stifling censorship,” your excretion here is still online?

When did Obama save your ‘blog? Was it before or after demanding that jihad’s victims “respect” Islam? Was it before or after he bowed to the Saudi tyrant, ruler of one of the most repressive shari’a states on Earth? Was it before or after he apologized to Islam at al-Azhar, whose president endorses suicide bombings?

No one should be blamed for 9/11 but the people who carried it out and the ideology that motivated their bloodlust, Islam.

And those who aid its advance, whether through malice or ignorance, have a share in the bloodguilt.

Open your eyes, or we’ll all be ghosts.

The great feminist Muhammad on women (and little girls — literally): Rape them, beat them, stone them, cheat and mistreat them

In Uncategorized on July 19, 2009 at 11:25 PM

This goes a long way toward explaining why he allegedly forbade killing female babies — he didn’t want others to have all the fun!

Muhammad must have a special place in hell.

As always when discussing Islam, I focus on how Muhammad and his allah defined the religion.

Any references to individual Muslims in Islamic history, current events, or personal experience are offered as evidence of how Muslims understand and obey those texts.

Fortunately for non-Muslims trying to understand Islam, its “sacred” texts are understood literally by well over ninety percent of the world’s Muslims.

Unfortunately for non-Muslims trying to survive Islam, those texts are understood literally by well over ninety percent of the world’s Muslims.

You’ll notice a difference in style and substance between Mr. Fadly and me . . .

I focus on what Allah commanded and Muhammad said and did.

Mohamed focuses on everything but what Allah commanded and Muhammad said and did.

We’re not concerned with Islam-as-Mohamed-Fadly-wants-us-to-think-it-is, we are concerned with Islam.

Without even reading what Mr Fadly has written regarding women in Islam — something like Western women are treated like whores, but Muslim women are “elevated and revered,” their honor “protected and defended,” right? — let’s see just exactly what Allah and his apostle think about women . . . and women-to-be, posted here:

In speaking of divorcing girls who’ve not yet reached puberty:

“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).

On Mohammed’s raping of his nine-year-old “wife;” Allah ordained it!:

“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).

On beating wives, “plowing the field,” the legal value of a woman’s testimony, polygamy (and raping your slaves), the penalty for “lewdness,” a daughter’s inheritance, and what to do with a woman caught in adultery:

“. . . 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).

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

“Allah’s Apostle said, “If a husband calls his wife to his bed (i.e. to have sexual relation) and she refuses and causes him to sleep in anger, the angels will curse her till morning” (Bukhari Volume 4, Book 54, Number 460).

“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).

“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).

“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).

“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).

“There came to him [Muhammad] a woman from Ghamid and said: ‘Allah’s Messenger, I have committed adultery, so purify me. He [Muhammad] turned her away. On the following day she said: Allah’s Messenger, Why do you turn me away? Perhaps, you turn me away as you turned away Ma’iz. By Allah, I have become pregnant. He said: Well, if you insist upon it, then go away until you give birth to (the child).

“‘When she was delivered she came with the child (wrapped) in a rag and said: Here is the child whom I have given birth to. He said: Go away and suckle him until you wean him. When she had weaned him, she came to him [Muhammad] with the child who was holding a piece of bread in his hand. She said: Allah’s Apostle, here is he as I have weaned him and he eats food. He [Muhammad] entrusted the child to one of the Muslims and then pronounced punishment. And she was put in a ditch up to her chest and he commanded people and they stoned her. Khalid b Walid came forward with a stone which he flung at her head and there spurted blood on the face of Khalid and so he abused her. Allah’s Apostle (may peace be upon him) heard his (Khalid’s) curse that he had huried upon her. Thereupon he (the Holy Prophet) said: Khalid, be gentle . . . .'” (Muslim Book 17, 4206).

And this doesn’t [even] address the “divine” right to rape [married infidel women], or murdering poetesses while they’re nursing just because she mocked the monster Muhammad.

Islam has little love for girls unless — as in the case of Mohammed — she’s nine, he’s in his fifties, and Allah tells him to rape her

In Uncategorized on December 4, 2007 at 1:02 AM

From here:

robin,

The religious inequity noted in that last statement just flew right by you, didn’t it?

Why is that a Muslim man can marry an Infidel woman, but the reverse is forbidden? Is that “tolerant” to you? Is that “equitable”?

otter’s suggestion that your ex was an apostate is not unreasonable; more lamentable for you is the possibility that he was a devout Muslim compromising outwardly to advance the cause of Islam. I would question also whether you are much of a Catholic, since you seem perfectly proud to state that your daughter “by birth is a Muslim.”

Assuming that you are a decent person, such a position indicates your ignorance of the faith into which you married, for Allah and his apostle have little love for girls unless — as in the case of Mohammed — she’s nine, he’s in his fifties, and Allah tells him to rape 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).

“Allah’s Apostle told Aisha [his six-year-old bride and nine-year-old sexual “partner”], ‘You were shown to me twice in my dreams. I beheld a man or angel carrying you in a silken cloth. He said to me, “She is yours, 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 139-140).

Islam has little love for girls unless — as in the case of Mohammed — she’s nine, he’s in his fifties, and Allah tells him to rape her

In Uncategorized on December 4, 2007 at 1:02 AM

From here:

robin,

The religious inequity noted in that last statement just flew right by you, didn’t it?

Why is that a Muslim man can marry an Infidel woman, but the reverse is forbidden? Is that “tolerant” to you? Is that “equitable”?

otter’s suggestion that your ex was an apostate is not unreasonable; more lamentable for you is the possibility that he was a devout Muslim compromising outwardly to advance the cause of Islam. I would question also whether you are much of a Catholic, since you seem perfectly proud to state that your daughter “by birth is a Muslim.”

Assuming that you are a decent person, such a position indicates your ignorance of the faith into which you married, for Allah and his apostle have little love for girls unless — as in the case of Mohammed — she’s nine, he’s in his fifties, and Allah tells him to rape 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).

“Allah’s Apostle told Aisha [his six-year-old bride and nine-year-old sexual “partner”], ‘You were shown to me twice in my dreams. I beheld a man or angel carrying you in a silken cloth. He said to me, “She is yours, 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 139-140).

Immoral equivalence

In Uncategorized on October 2, 2007 at 4:42 PM

“moral responsibility for genocidal chaos”

. . . belongs not to America which defends itself, but to Allah and the prophet from hell for requiring it in the first place:

“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).

Immoral equivalence

In Uncategorized on October 2, 2007 at 4:42 PM

“moral responsibility for genocidal chaos”

. . . belongs not to America which defends itself, but to Allah and the prophet from hell for requiring it in the first place:

“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).

Immoral equivalence

In Uncategorized on October 2, 2007 at 3:42 PM

“moral responsibility for genocidal chaos”

. . . belongs not to America which defends itself, but to Allah and the prophet from hell for requiring it in the first place:

“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).

Craven censorship at Beliefnet

In Uncategorized on September 25, 2007 at 5:55 PM

Apparently, someone there doesn’t appreciate the command of Allah and the example of his false prophet exposed.

From “Why Revile Muslims?”

9/23/2007 2:26 PM

lupus-rex,

You’re throwing out the baby with the bath water right after throwing dirty bath water on the baby!

Just because one religion in particular (you know who you are) commands offensive warfare against those who will neither convert nor submit to the rule of its god does not mean that all religions do so.

You’re also making a false dichotomy between Reason and Faith. To believe that one necessarily excludes the other is in itself *irrational.* A truly reasonable person will examine all available evidence on a topic before drawing any conclusions.

We have centuries of historical and archaeological evidence supporting the intervention of YHWH in the affairs of man, culminating ultimately with the incarnation, death, and resurrection of the Son of God.

9/23/2007 8:59 PM

Examples:

-A monument inscription referencing Pontius Pilate

-the Pool of Gibeon

-Excavations of Thebes confirming the description of its fall by the prophet Nahum

-A great colonial archway spanning the Via Egnatia crossing the river Gangites, where the Apostle Paul converted Lydia.

A multitude of evidences from the past demonstrate the reliability of the Biblical texts as accurate records of history.

In light of this — and the fact that much of what is recorded in those documents is eyewitness testimony often professed upon pain of death — you cannot dismiss honestly the Biblical accounts as “fantasy” or “fairy tales.”

From “Is Allah fair?”

9/23/2007 2:49 PM

Of course, none of the passages cited by oleander were universal commands for offensive warfare against all non-believers to make the world Hebrew, and all were judgments in response to sin.

What did Christ do? He forgave the woman caught in adultery, saving her from death by stoning (the legal punishment for that crime under the Mosaic Covenant). He commanded, “Love your enemies.” He healed the sick, comforted the despairing, and raised the dead. He spoke words of life and light, and He committed no sin.

Ultimately, He sacrificed His own life to reconcile all people to His Father.

On the other hand, Mohammed practiced the raiding, enslaving, raping, and slaughtering of non-Muslims when they would neither convert (or if they were “People of the Book”) nor submit and pay the jizya, and he commanded his followers to do the same.

From Little Aisha:

9/23/2007 12:23 PM

A saint for defending Christendom against bloodthirsty savages bent on raping, pillaging, and slaughtering in fulfillment of “divine” command and prophetic example, as you know.

9/23/2007 1:49 PM

rabello,

Are you really so careless in your thinking, or is that only an attempt at deceiving those who really are careless?

Of course all people commit evil. The key point on which your argument fails is that those examples you cite are of those whose behavior clearly violates Christ’s command and example. Such behavior is abhorred by all decent people.

Mohammed, however, claims to have raped his little “wife” at Allah’s ordaining. In Islam, that makes such evil not only permissible, but divine.

Do you realize what you’ve done? You’ve tried not only to justify Mohammed’s depravity, you’ve done it by equating him with monsters.

Finally, your analogy emphasizes the fact that in the West such behavior is illegal and generally condemned. In Islam, it is considered part of a “beautiful pattern of conduct” (Qur’an 33:21).

9/23/2007 2:00 PM

By the way, those zealously obeying commands to “kill the unbelievers wherever you find them” are properly characterized as “bloodthirsty” and “savage.”

To deny this only makes you a part of the problem.

Perhaps you should open up a dictionary and close your Edward Said.

It is not “prejudice against Arabo-Islamic peoples and their culture” to tell the truth about the command of Allah, the example of his apostle, and the faithful’s nearly 1400 years of rape, slavery, and murder of non-Muslims to make the world Islam.

9/23/2007 3:13 PM

WorldCitizen,

Does your obviously well-worn defense of Mohammed’s predilection for pre-pubescent partners come from religious conviction, or civilizational self-loathing?

As for the age-appropriateness of a “prophet” in his fifties raping a nine-year-old, what moral, decent man of any generation desires sexual gratification from a child?

Morality is not time-dependent as you seem to imply. Neither was Aisha physically ready. Hadith record her playing with dolls, which would not have been allowed of a girl in puberty.

Your argument shows only the immorality of seventh-century Arabic culture and your perverseness in trying to justify it.

9/23/2007 3:18 PM

“the immorality of seventh-century Arabic culture” only if it was actually permitted.

This would not be the only time “divine” revelation legitimized Mohammed’s licentiousness.

9/23/2007 3:48 PM

Is not Mohammed’s pedophilia evil?

WC was justifying it.

Craven censorship at Beliefnet

In Uncategorized on September 25, 2007 at 4:55 PM

Apparently, someone there doesn’t appreciate the command of Allah and the example of his false prophet exposed.

From “Why Revile Muslims?”

9/23/2007 2:26 PM

lupus-rex,

You’re throwing out the baby with the bath water right after throwing dirty bath water on the baby!

Just because one religion in particular (you know who you are) commands offensive warfare against those who will neither convert nor submit to the rule of its god does not mean that all religions do so.

You’re also making a false dichotomy between Reason and Faith. To believe that one necessarily excludes the other is in itself *irrational.* A truly reasonable person will examine all available evidence on a topic before drawing any conclusions.

We have centuries of historical and archaeological evidence supporting the intervention of YHWH in the affairs of man, culminating ultimately with the incarnation, death, and resurrection of the Son of God.

9/23/2007 8:59 PM

Examples:

-A monument inscription referencing Pontius Pilate

-the Pool of Gibeon

-Excavations of Thebes confirming the description of its fall by the prophet Nahum

-A great colonial archway spanning the Via Egnatia crossing the river Gangites, where the Apostle Paul converted Lydia.

A multitude of evidences from the past demonstrate the reliability of the Biblical texts as accurate records of history.

In light of this — and the fact that much of what is recorded in those documents is eyewitness testimony often professed upon pain of death — you cannot dismiss honestly the Biblical accounts as “fantasy” or “fairy tales.”

From “Is Allah fair?”

9/23/2007 2:49 PM

Of course, none of the passages cited by oleander were universal commands for offensive warfare against all non-believers to make the world Hebrew, and all were judgments in response to sin.

What did Christ do? He forgave the woman caught in adultery, saving her from death by stoning (the legal punishment for that crime under the Mosaic Covenant). He commanded, “Love your enemies.” He healed the sick, comforted the despairing, and raised the dead. He spoke words of life and light, and He committed no sin.

Ultimately, He sacrificed His own life to reconcile all people to His Father.

On the other hand, Mohammed practiced the raiding, enslaving, raping, and slaughtering of non-Muslims when they would neither convert (or if they were “People of the Book”) nor submit and pay the jizya, and he commanded his followers to do the same.

From Little Aisha:

9/23/2007 12:23 PM

A saint for defending Christendom against bloodthirsty savages bent on raping, pillaging, and slaughtering in fulfillment of “divine” command and prophetic example, as you know.

9/23/2007 1:49 PM

rabello,

Are you really so careless in your thinking, or is that only an attempt at deceiving those who really are careless?

Of course all people commit evil. The key point on which your argument fails is that those examples you cite are of those whose behavior clearly violates Christ’s command and example. Such behavior is abhorred by all decent people.

Mohammed, however, claims to have raped his little “wife” at Allah’s ordaining. In Islam, that makes such evil not only permissible, but divine.

Do you realize what you’ve done? You’ve tried not only to justify Mohammed’s depravity, you’ve done it by equating him with monsters.

Finally, your analogy emphasizes the fact that in the West such behavior is illegal and generally condemned. In Islam, it is considered part of a “beautiful pattern of conduct” (Qur’an 33:21).

9/23/2007 2:00 PM

By the way, those zealously obeying commands to “kill the unbelievers wherever you find them” are properly characterized as “bloodthirsty” and “savage.”

To deny this only makes you a part of the problem.

Perhaps you should open up a dictionary and close your Edward Said.

It is not “prejudice against Arabo-Islamic peoples and their culture” to tell the truth about the command of Allah, the example of his apostle, and the faithful’s nearly 1400 years of rape, slavery, and murder of non-Muslims to make the world Islam.

9/23/2007 3:13 PM

WorldCitizen,

Does your obviously well-worn defense of Mohammed’s predilection for pre-pubescent partners come from religious conviction, or civilizational self-loathing?

As for the age-appropriateness of a “prophet” in his fifties raping a nine-year-old, what moral, decent man of any generation desires sexual gratification from a child?

Morality is not time-dependent as you seem to imply. Neither was Aisha physically ready. Hadith record her playing with dolls, which would not have been allowed of a girl in puberty.

Your argument shows only the immorality of seventh-century Arabic culture and your perverseness in trying to justify it.

9/23/2007 3:18 PM

“the immorality of seventh-century Arabic culture” only if it was actually permitted.

This would not be the only time “divine” revelation legitimized Mohammed’s licentiousness.

9/23/2007 3:48 PM

Is not Mohammed’s pedophilia evil?

WC was justifying it.

Dr. Walid Phares is an improvement, but still the Religion Which We Shall Not Name goes unnamed

In Uncategorized on September 16, 2007 at 9:07 PM

300 unindicted co-conspirators in the Holy Land Foundation federal terrorism case expose themselves for what they are — faithful Muslims working to destroy America from within. In so doing, they also explode the myth of the moderate Muslim majority.

Not too long ago, Hugh Hewitt invited one of them, CAIR, to be a guest on his radio program as representatives of American Muslims. Then his backwards, buck-toothed, red-necked, inbred listeners gave him a crash course on Islam. Shocked enough to scramble for a guest to refute his other guest, but not enough for him to actually examine and admit the nature of Islam even to this day, Hugh still persists in the “tiny minority of extremists” fantasy — except when trying to justify the president’s actions in the War of Self-Defense Against Allah.

The sad irony is, CAIR and Muslim groups like them are representative of Islam, since its god and founder require the establishment of the rule of Allah over all mankind using any means necessary, including — but not limited to — offensive warfare against non-Muslims.

As the unindicted referenced above confess, Muslims in America use our own political processes, legal system, civil liberties, and useful idiots to undermine the Constitution.

Dr. Walid Phares was a guest on Mr. Hewitt’s program recently. Correctly, Dr. Phares identifies theology/ideology as the source of Islamic terrorism; unfortunately, he mentions neither Qur’an, Hadith, Islam, nor Mohammed, instead using terms like, “Islamist jihadism.”

That makes him safe (for now) for Hugh to have on his show, but what will he do once the good doctor begins to point out the core elements of Islam that inspire and sustain the carnage? Will Hugh tell the truth, or obfuscate?

In the excerpt of their exchange below, note what is neither said nor asked.

Phares wonders who is advising the government on how to address Islamic terrorism (could it be the same people who told Hugh to give CAIR a public platform for their subversive propaganda?) The host doesn’t follow up on that.

Neither does Hugh probe for more on what Phares calls “the real debate.” This is what Hugh, Hannity, Rush, PotUS, and the rest are all afraid to address.

Hugh then talks about the “Salafist edge,” as if that is all it is. He’s hoping — just as when he discovered the word “Wahabbism” — that it’s just a few misunderstanderers of Islam, people perverting the “great world religion” who want to enslave or kill us.

If Hugh were to do even the most minute amount of research, he would find that both terms refer to those who believe Qur’an is the perfect word of Allah and that Mohammed’s words and deeds are “a beautiful pattern of conduct.”

In other words, “Islam.”

And why haven’t we “begun the war of ideas”? Why can’t we discuss it openly — in Congress, on television, on Hugh’s show? Because the truth is too terrifying? Because our political, media, and religious so-called “leaders” would rather be thought polite, tolerant, and enlightened? Because we don’t have the courage to defend our civilization?

From here:

WP: There is this, there is also something that is beyond our realm. Who is advising government on how to treat it? Who in the Homeland Security, national security, and other type of circles that deal with that, is telling…not just whom, but what are they telling the government to do? Not to treat it as a jihadist movement, not to treat it as a terrorist movement, but as only individual criminals? For what reasons, we don’t know. We really don’t know.

HH: Has anyone engaged in this conversation with you? The Homeland Security cabinet secretary, Chertoff, or anyone?

WP: Not the secretary himself, but I have testified many times to DHS, to the FBI, to Congress, even DOD, and there are a lot of discussions back and forth, a lot of intelligent people out there. But again, when it reaches the level of lobby groups that can reach out to Congress, or reach out to the administration and say hey, we cannot discuss those issues, this is theology, this is not terrorism. And you know, my school tells me no. This is ideology, and we need to discuss it. We need to inform the American citizen of what’s going on. This is where the real debate begins.

HH: Now I’m really baiting the hook for the longer conversation after I’ve absorbed your new book, The War Of Ideas. But is it possible to turn the Salafist edge back on itself? Is it possible to win that war of ideas? Or just do we have to wait and watch it run its very destructive and horrible course?

WP: No, absolutely, we can begin the war or ideas. At this…we have not. And then we can, with time, turn the tide and win it. But we have not even began the real steps such as discussing it openly in Congress, have the right legislation for it, and have huge funding that is going in all directions, but not in the right directions, that is to fund the NGO’s, women’s movements, students movements, and all the intellectuals who in the Arab and Muslim world, including in the Diaspora, are completely anti-Salafist, pro-democracy. We have not begun to talk to them.

Dr. Walid Phares is an improvement, but still the Religion Which We Shall Not Name goes unnamed

In Uncategorized on September 16, 2007 at 9:07 PM

300 unindicted co-conspirators in the Holy Land Foundation federal terrorism case expose themselves for what they are — faithful Muslims working to destroy America from within. In so doing, they also explode the myth of the moderate Muslim majority.

Not too long ago, Hugh Hewitt invited one of them, CAIR, to be a guest on his radio program as representatives of American Muslims. Then his backwards, buck-toothed, red-necked, inbred listeners gave him a crash course on Islam. Shocked enough to scramble for a guest to refute his other guest, but not enough for him to actually examine and admit the nature of Islam even to this day, Hugh still persists in the “tiny minority of extremists” fantasy — except when trying to justify the president’s actions in the War of Self-Defense Against Allah.

The sad irony is, CAIR and Muslim groups like them are representative of Islam, since its god and founder require the establishment of the rule of Allah over all mankind using any means necessary, including — but not limited to — offensive warfare against non-Muslims.

As the unindicted referenced above confess, Muslims in America use our own political processes, legal system, civil liberties, and useful idiots to undermine the Constitution.

Dr. Walid Phares was a guest on Mr. Hewitt’s program recently. Correctly, Dr. Phares identifies theology/ideology as the source of Islamic terrorism; unfortunately, he mentions neither Qur’an, Hadith, Islam, nor Mohammed, instead using terms like, “Islamist jihadism.”

That makes him safe (for now) for Hugh to have on his show, but what will he do once the good doctor begins to point out the core elements of Islam that inspire and sustain the carnage? Will Hugh tell the truth, or obfuscate?

In the excerpt of their exchange below, note what is neither said nor asked.

Phares wonders who is advising the government on how to address Islamic terrorism (could it be the same people who told Hugh to give CAIR a public platform for their subversive propaganda?) The host doesn’t follow up on that.

Neither does Hugh probe for more on what Phares calls “the real debate.” This is what Hugh, Hannity, Rush, PotUS, and the rest are all afraid to address.

Hugh then talks about the “Salafist edge,” as if that is all it is. He’s hoping — just as when he discovered the word “Wahabbism” — that it’s just a few misunderstanderers of Islam, people perverting the “great world religion” who want to enslave or kill us.

If Hugh were to do even the most minute amount of research, he would find that both terms refer to those who believe Qur’an is the perfect word of Allah and that Mohammed’s words and deeds are “a beautiful pattern of conduct.”

In other words, “Islam.”

And why haven’t we “begun the war of ideas”? Why can’t we discuss it openly — in Congress, on television, on Hugh’s show? Because the truth is too terrifying? Because our political, media, and religious so-called “leaders” would rather be thought polite, tolerant, and enlightened? Because we don’t have the courage to defend our civilization?

From here:

WP: There is this, there is also something that is beyond our realm. Who is advising government on how to treat it? Who in the Homeland Security, national security, and other type of circles that deal with that, is telling…not just whom, but what are they telling the government to do? Not to treat it as a jihadist movement, not to treat it as a terrorist movement, but as only individual criminals? For what reasons, we don’t know. We really don’t know.

HH: Has anyone engaged in this conversation with you? The Homeland Security cabinet secretary, Chertoff, or anyone?

WP: Not the secretary himself, but I have testified many times to DHS, to the FBI, to Congress, even DOD, and there are a lot of discussions back and forth, a lot of intelligent people out there. But again, when it reaches the level of lobby groups that can reach out to Congress, or reach out to the administration and say hey, we cannot discuss those issues, this is theology, this is not terrorism. And you know, my school tells me no. This is ideology, and we need to discuss it. We need to inform the American citizen of what’s going on. This is where the real debate begins.

HH: Now I’m really baiting the hook for the longer conversation after I’ve absorbed your new book, The War Of Ideas. But is it possible to turn the Salafist edge back on itself? Is it possible to win that war of ideas? Or just do we have to wait and watch it run its very destructive and horrible course?

WP: No, absolutely, we can begin the war or ideas. At this…we have not. And then we can, with time, turn the tide and win it. But we have not even began the real steps such as discussing it openly in Congress, have the right legislation for it, and have huge funding that is going in all directions, but not in the right directions, that is to fund the NGO’s, women’s movements, students movements, and all the intellectuals who in the Arab and Muslim world, including in the Diaspora, are completely anti-Salafist, pro-democracy. We have not begun to talk to them.

Dr. Walid Phares is an improvement, but still the Religion Which We Shall Not Name goes unnamed

In Uncategorized on September 16, 2007 at 8:07 PM

300 unindicted co-conspirators in the Holy Land Foundation federal terrorism case expose themselves for what they are — faithful Muslims working to destroy America from within. In so doing, they also explode the myth of the moderate Muslim majority.

Not too long ago, Hugh Hewitt invited one of them, CAIR, to be a guest on his radio program as representatives of American Muslims. Then his backwards, buck-toothed, red-necked, inbred listeners gave him a crash course on Islam. Shocked enough to scramble for a guest to refute his other guest, but not enough for him to actually examine and admit the nature of Islam even to this day, Hugh still persists in the “tiny minority of extremists” fantasy — except when trying to justify the president’s actions in the War of Self-Defense Against Allah.

The sad irony is, CAIR and Muslim groups like them are representative of Islam, since its god and founder require the establishment of the rule of Allah over all mankind using any means necessary, including — but not limited to — offensive warfare against non-Muslims.

As the unindicted referenced above confess, Muslims in America use our own political processes, legal system, civil liberties, and useful idiots to undermine the Constitution.

Dr. Walid Phares was a guest on Mr. Hewitt’s program recently. Correctly, Dr. Phares identifies theology/ideology as the source of Islamic terrorism; unfortunately, he mentions neither Qur’an, Hadith, Islam, nor Mohammed, instead using terms like, “Islamist jihadism.”

That makes him safe (for now) for Hugh to have on his show, but what will he do once the good doctor begins to point out the core elements of Islam that inspire and sustain the carnage? Will Hugh tell the truth, or obfuscate?

In the excerpt of their exchange below, note what is neither said nor asked.

Phares wonders who is advising the government on how to address Islamic terrorism (could it be the same people who told Hugh to give CAIR a public platform for their subversive propaganda?) The host doesn’t follow up on that.

Neither does Hugh probe for more on what Phares calls “the real debate.” This is what Hugh, Hannity, Rush, PotUS, and the rest are all afraid to address.

Hugh then talks about the “Salafist edge,” as if that is all it is. He’s hoping — just as when he discovered the word “Wahabbism” — that it’s just a few misunderstanderers of Islam, people perverting the “great world religion” who want to enslave or kill us.

If Hugh were to do even the most minute amount of research, he would find that both terms refer to those who believe Qur’an is the perfect word of Allah and that Mohammed’s words and deeds are “a beautiful pattern of conduct.”

In other words, “Islam.”

And why haven’t we “begun the war of ideas”? Why can’t we discuss it openly — in Congress, on television, on Hugh’s show? Because the truth is too terrifying? Because our political, media, and religious so-called “leaders” would rather be thought polite, tolerant, and enlightened? Because we don’t have the courage to defend our civilization?

From here:

WP: There is this, there is also something that is beyond our realm. Who is advising government on how to treat it? Who in the Homeland Security, national security, and other type of circles that deal with that, is telling…not just whom, but what are they telling the government to do? Not to treat it as a jihadist movement, not to treat it as a terrorist movement, but as only individual criminals? For what reasons, we don’t know. We really don’t know.

HH: Has anyone engaged in this conversation with you? The Homeland Security cabinet secretary, Chertoff, or anyone?

WP: Not the secretary himself, but I have testified many times to DHS, to the FBI, to Congress, even DOD, and there are a lot of discussions back and forth, a lot of intelligent people out there. But again, when it reaches the level of lobby groups that can reach out to Congress, or reach out to the administration and say hey, we cannot discuss those issues, this is theology, this is not terrorism. And you know, my school tells me no. This is ideology, and we need to discuss it. We need to inform the American citizen of what’s going on. This is where the real debate begins.

HH: Now I’m really baiting the hook for the longer conversation after I’ve absorbed your new book, The War Of Ideas. But is it possible to turn the Salafist edge back on itself? Is it possible to win that war of ideas? Or just do we have to wait and watch it run its very destructive and horrible course?

WP: No, absolutely, we can begin the war or ideas. At this…we have not. And then we can, with time, turn the tide and win it. But we have not even began the real steps such as discussing it openly in Congress, have the right legislation for it, and have huge funding that is going in all directions, but not in the right directions, that is to fund the NGO’s, women’s movements, students movements, and all the intellectuals who in the Arab and Muslim world, including in the Diaspora, are completely anti-Salafist, pro-democracy. We have not begun to talk to them.

Archbishop of Canterbury an immoral and moronic slave

In Uncategorized on September 11, 2007 at 3:06 PM

On the sixth anniversary of 9/11, a head of European Christianity remembers the depravity by blaming the victims.

From here:

The Archbishop of Canterbury used the eve of the anniversary of the September 11 attacks on America yesterday to defend religion against claims that it promotes division and violence.

Dr Rowan Williams said that although Islam and Christianity had histories scarred with violence, they carried the “seeds of non-violence and non possessive witness.”

To equate Christianity and Islam in their capacities to inspire violence demonstrates not only the archbishop’s ignorance of Islam, but also his lack of moral fortitude.

An essential difference between the two religions is that one God commands, “Love your enemies,” while the other mandates, “kill the unbelievers wherever you find them.”

Apart from its beginning, while Mohammed’s movement was numerically, politically, militarily, and economically weak, where does Islam possess even a “seed” of non-violence? Non-violence and cooperation are only tools to be used to gain whatever advantages possible until strong enough to succeed martially.

Jihad, or holy war, could nowadays be interpreted as a “struggle of the heart” rather than the defence of the Muslim community against its enemies, he said.

Someone should have told Mohammed, the first “heart struggler.” Billions would have been spared rape, torture, slavery, and death.

If jihad only meant defense of the ummah, that would be acceptable. Every person has a right to self-defense.

The problem is, not only does “defense” include violence even in response to cartoons, Allah goes beyond that. He requires offensive warfare against non-Muslims to make the world Islam.

He added that both faiths could offer society an ideal of peaceful co-existence despite their violent histories because they were guided by beliefs that transcended human conflict.

A disgusting moral equivalence, for Allah requires human conflict.

The Archbishop’s lecture to a Christian Muslim Forum conference in Cambridge follows mounting criticism of religion as dangerous and destablising.

One is.

But Dr Williams argued that religion should not be judged by the failures of its adherents but on its vision of a social order that is “without fear, oppression, the violence of exclusion and the search for scapegoats”.

I’m all for that sort of judgment. Let’s get started with Islam, shall we? It turns out that when its adherents are successful in obeying its essential doctrines, humanity suffers. For Mohammed practiced and taught:

“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 them, and Allah will punish them by your hands, cover them with shame, help you (to victory) over them, heal the breasts of Believers . . . ” (Qur’an 9:14).

“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 last bit of absolute ignorance and moral cowardice from the archbishop:

He compared the “act of nightmare violence” six years ago, when extremists flew aeroplanes into the twin towers in New York, with the birth of Mahatma Gandhi’s non-violent protest movement on September 11, 1906, in Johannesburg.

He said that Gandhi’s movement showed it was possible to reject a response to oppression that “simply mirrors what has been done by the oppressor.”

Saddam and his sons fed people into wood chippers feet first, tortured unsuccessful athletes, raped women they took off the streets, and slaughtered villages.

For nearly fourteen hundred years, Muslims have imitated Mohammed’s example toward and obeyed his commands regarding non-Muslims, apostates, and women by lying, stealing, destroying, enslaving, raping, maiming, and slaughtering them.

America exports MTV and Big Macs and liberates oppressed Muslims.

Clearly, we had it coming.

Archbishop of Canterbury an immoral and moronic slave

In Uncategorized on September 11, 2007 at 3:06 PM

On the sixth anniversary of 9/11, a head of European Christianity remembers the depravity by blaming the victims.

From here:

The Archbishop of Canterbury used the eve of the anniversary of the September 11 attacks on America yesterday to defend religion against claims that it promotes division and violence.

Dr Rowan Williams said that although Islam and Christianity had histories scarred with violence, they carried the “seeds of non-violence and non possessive witness.”

To equate Christianity and Islam in their capacities to inspire violence demonstrates not only the archbishop’s ignorance of Islam, but also his lack of moral fortitude.

An essential difference between the two religions is that one God commands, “Love your enemies,” while the other mandates, “kill the unbelievers wherever you find them.”

Apart from its beginning, while Mohammed’s movement was numerically, politically, militarily, and economically weak, where does Islam possess even a “seed” of non-violence? Non-violence and cooperation are only tools to be used to gain whatever advantages possible until strong enough to succeed martially.

Jihad, or holy war, could nowadays be interpreted as a “struggle of the heart” rather than the defence of the Muslim community against its enemies, he said.

Someone should have told Mohammed, the first “heart struggler.” Billions would have been spared rape, torture, slavery, and death.

If jihad only meant defense of the ummah, that would be acceptable. Every person has a right to self-defense.

The problem is, not only does “defense” include violence even in response to cartoons, Allah goes beyond that. He requires offensive warfare against non-Muslims to make the world Islam.

He added that both faiths could offer society an ideal of peaceful co-existence despite their violent histories because they were guided by beliefs that transcended human conflict.

A disgusting moral equivalence, for Allah requires human conflict.

The Archbishop’s lecture to a Christian Muslim Forum conference in Cambridge follows mounting criticism of religion as dangerous and destablising.

One is.

But Dr Williams argued that religion should not be judged by the failures of its adherents but on its vision of a social order that is “without fear, oppression, the violence of exclusion and the search for scapegoats”.

I’m all for that sort of judgment. Let’s get started with Islam, shall we? It turns out that when its adherents are successful in obeying its essential doctrines, humanity suffers. For Mohammed practiced and taught:

“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 them, and Allah will punish them by your hands, cover them with shame, help you (to victory) over them, heal the breasts of Believers . . . ” (Qur’an 9:14).

“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 last bit of absolute ignorance and moral cowardice from the archbishop:

He compared the “act of nightmare violence” six years ago, when extremists flew aeroplanes into the twin towers in New York, with the birth of Mahatma Gandhi’s non-violent protest movement on September 11, 1906, in Johannesburg.

He said that Gandhi’s movement showed it was possible to reject a response to oppression that “simply mirrors what has been done by the oppressor.”

Saddam and his sons fed people into wood chippers feet first, tortured unsuccessful athletes, raped women they took off the streets, and slaughtered villages.

For nearly fourteen hundred years, Muslims have imitated Mohammed’s example toward and obeyed his commands regarding non-Muslims, apostates, and women by lying, stealing, destroying, enslaving, raping, maiming, and slaughtering them.

America exports MTV and Big Macs and liberates oppressed Muslims.

Clearly, we had it coming.

Archbishop of Canterbury an immoral and moronic slave

In Uncategorized on September 11, 2007 at 2:06 PM

On the sixth anniversary of 9/11, a head of European Christianity remembers the depravity by blaming the victims.

From here:

The Archbishop of Canterbury used the eve of the anniversary of the September 11 attacks on America yesterday to defend religion against claims that it promotes division and violence.

Dr Rowan Williams said that although Islam and Christianity had histories scarred with violence, they carried the “seeds of non-violence and non possessive witness.”

To equate Christianity and Islam in their capacities to inspire violence demonstrates not only the archbishop’s ignorance of Islam, but also his lack of moral fortitude.

An essential difference between the two religions is that one God commands, “Love your enemies,” while the other mandates, “kill the unbelievers wherever you find them.”

Apart from its beginning, while Mohammed’s movement was numerically, politically, militarily, and economically weak, where does Islam possess even a “seed” of non-violence? Non-violence and cooperation are only tools to be used to gain whatever advantages possible until strong enough to succeed martially.

Jihad, or holy war, could nowadays be interpreted as a “struggle of the heart” rather than the defence of the Muslim community against its enemies, he said.

Someone should have told Mohammed, the first “heart struggler.” Billions would have been spared rape, torture, slavery, and death.

If jihad only meant defense of the ummah, that would be acceptable. Every person has a right to self-defense.

The problem is, not only does “defense” include violence even in response to cartoons, Allah goes beyond that. He requires offensive warfare against non-Muslims to make the world Islam.

He added that both faiths could offer society an ideal of peaceful co-existence despite their violent histories because they were guided by beliefs that transcended human conflict.

A disgusting moral equivalence, for Allah requires human conflict.

The Archbishop’s lecture to a Christian Muslim Forum conference in Cambridge follows mounting criticism of religion as dangerous and destablising.

One is.

But Dr Williams argued that religion should not be judged by the failures of its adherents but on its vision of a social order that is “without fear, oppression, the violence of exclusion and the search for scapegoats”.

I’m all for that sort of judgment. Let’s get started with Islam, shall we? It turns out that when its adherents are successful in obeying its essential doctrines, humanity suffers. For Mohammed practiced and taught:

“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 them, and Allah will punish them by your hands, cover them with shame, help you (to victory) over them, heal the breasts of Believers . . . ” (Qur’an 9:14).

“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 last bit of absolute ignorance and moral cowardice from the archbishop:

He compared the “act of nightmare violence” six years ago, when extremists flew aeroplanes into the twin towers in New York, with the birth of Mahatma Gandhi’s non-violent protest movement on September 11, 1906, in Johannesburg.

He said that Gandhi’s movement showed it was possible to reject a response to oppression that “simply mirrors what has been done by the oppressor.”

Saddam and his sons fed people into wood chippers feet first, tortured unsuccessful athletes, raped women they took off the streets, and slaughtered villages.

For nearly fourteen hundred years, Muslims have imitated Mohammed’s example toward and obeyed his commands regarding non-Muslims, apostates, and women by lying, stealing, destroying, enslaving, raping, maiming, and slaughtering them.

America exports MTV and Big Macs and liberates oppressed Muslims.

Clearly, we had it coming.

Muslims commemorate 9/11 . . .

In Uncategorized on September 11, 2007 at 10:33 AM

. . . by shedding more Infidel blood.

Actually, the events that make today’s date noteworthy may or may not inspire the faithful to carry out such good deeds for Allah.

Nevertheless, it is worth remembering that we face an enemy whose core motivation for our slaughter is the will of their god. Apart from our conversion or subjugation and humiliation, the only option left is death.

The observant Infidel should note that the violent acts recorded below are obviously expressions of despair in response to poverty. No? Iraq. The Jews? Colonialism? The Crusades? Asma bint Marwan?

From TheReligionofPeace.com:

9/11/2007 (Yala, Thailand) – A young Buddhist man is shot to death by Islamists.

9/11/2007 (Pattani, Thailand) – A middle-aged Buddhist man is shot to death by Muslim radicals while riding his motorbike.

9/11/2007 (Ordzhonikidzov, Ingushetia) – Two young men and their father are brutally murdered in their home by suspected Islamic militants.

9/11/2007 (Dera Ismail Khan, Pakistan) – Seventeen people are killed when a suicide bomber detonates on a minibus.

9/11/2007 (Helmand, Afghanistan) – Two Afghan truck drivers are murdered by a suicide bomber.

Muslims commemorate 9/11 . . .

In Uncategorized on September 11, 2007 at 10:33 AM

. . . by shedding more Infidel blood.

Actually, the events that make today’s date noteworthy may or may not inspire the faithful to carry out such good deeds for Allah.

Nevertheless, it is worth remembering that we face an enemy whose core motivation for our slaughter is the will of their god. Apart from our conversion or subjugation and humiliation, the only option left is death.

The observant Infidel should note that the violent acts recorded below are obviously expressions of despair in response to poverty. No? Iraq. The Jews? Colonialism? The Crusades? Asma bint Marwan?

From TheReligionofPeace.com:

9/11/2007 (Yala, Thailand) – A young Buddhist man is shot to death by Islamists.

9/11/2007 (Pattani, Thailand) – A middle-aged Buddhist man is shot to death by Muslim radicals while riding his motorbike.

9/11/2007 (Ordzhonikidzov, Ingushetia) – Two young men and their father are brutally murdered in their home by suspected Islamic militants.

9/11/2007 (Dera Ismail Khan, Pakistan) – Seventeen people are killed when a suicide bomber detonates on a minibus.

9/11/2007 (Helmand, Afghanistan) – Two Afghan truck drivers are murdered by a suicide bomber.

9/11 belongs to Allah

In Uncategorized on September 11, 2007 at 10:27 AM

Spencer is correct, as usual.

Now it has been six years. The global jihad proceeds apace, with well over 9,000 deadly attacks carried out in the course of those six years by believers in the proposition that “Islam must dominate, and not be dominated.” Yet we are no closer as a society to recognizing how exactly to combat this foe, and our responses flail wildly — witness this report that prisons have removed Jewish and Christian books from their libraries so as to allow them, within today’s suffocating multiculturalist ethos, to remove also books advocating jihad violence and Islamic supremacism.

This is just one small example of a large-scale misallocation of resources and time that results from our fear and inability to say plainly that we are engaged in a defensive action against a global jihad, and that therefore we will unapologetically and forthrightly take action against the jihadists and their ideology without having to pretend that it is not a Muslim problem, or that Judaism and Christianity have exactly the same problem today.

American Muslim advocacy groups have made it impossible to take such a stand by adopting a spurious victim status that has enabled them to claim — and enabled the claim to be accepted — that sensible anti-jihad measures and investigations are “anti-Muslim.” Instead of inviting and participating in an open investigation of the roots of the jihad ideology of Islamic supremacism in core Islamic texts and teachings, so as to work with people of good will toward finding positive ways to neutralize the ability of jihadists to use those texts to recruit terrorists and incite violence, they have cowed the establishment media (liberal and conservative) and government officials into thinking that such investigations manifest “Islamophobia” and bigotry.

Six years after 9/11, the jihad proceeds apace, and the UN investigates…Islamophobia.

Want to end Islamophobia? End violent attacks committed by Muslims in the name of Islam. I guarantee that Islamophobia will then vanish utterly.

Six years after, the fact that such elementary common sense is not taken for granted, but reviled and dismissed, does not bode well for the continuation of this conflict, as continue it surely will. Unless we begin to speak clearly about what we are facing and who is making us face it, the jihadists will continue, as they do now, to take advantage of our willful ignorance.

9/11 belongs to Allah

In Uncategorized on September 11, 2007 at 10:27 AM

Spencer is correct, as usual.

Now it has been six years. The global jihad proceeds apace, with well over 9,000 deadly attacks carried out in the course of those six years by believers in the proposition that “Islam must dominate, and not be dominated.” Yet we are no closer as a society to recognizing how exactly to combat this foe, and our responses flail wildly — witness this report that prisons have removed Jewish and Christian books from their libraries so as to allow them, within today’s suffocating multiculturalist ethos, to remove also books advocating jihad violence and Islamic supremacism.

This is just one small example of a large-scale misallocation of resources and time that results from our fear and inability to say plainly that we are engaged in a defensive action against a global jihad, and that therefore we will unapologetically and forthrightly take action against the jihadists and their ideology without having to pretend that it is not a Muslim problem, or that Judaism and Christianity have exactly the same problem today.

American Muslim advocacy groups have made it impossible to take such a stand by adopting a spurious victim status that has enabled them to claim — and enabled the claim to be accepted — that sensible anti-jihad measures and investigations are “anti-Muslim.” Instead of inviting and participating in an open investigation of the roots of the jihad ideology of Islamic supremacism in core Islamic texts and teachings, so as to work with people of good will toward finding positive ways to neutralize the ability of jihadists to use those texts to recruit terrorists and incite violence, they have cowed the establishment media (liberal and conservative) and government officials into thinking that such investigations manifest “Islamophobia” and bigotry.

Six years after 9/11, the jihad proceeds apace, and the UN investigates…Islamophobia.

Want to end Islamophobia? End violent attacks committed by Muslims in the name of Islam. I guarantee that Islamophobia will then vanish utterly.

Six years after, the fact that such elementary common sense is not taken for granted, but reviled and dismissed, does not bode well for the continuation of this conflict, as continue it surely will. Unless we begin to speak clearly about what we are facing and who is making us face it, the jihadists will continue, as they do now, to take advantage of our willful ignorance.

The ideological roots of Islamic anti-Semitism is not "Nazi Jew-hatred," it is Islam

In Uncategorized on September 11, 2007 at 9:57 AM

An interesting article entitled “Jew-Hatred and Jihad,” by Matthias Küntzel offers several important observations on the nature of Muslim anti-Semitism.

The author is correct in his detailing of Nazism’s parallels to and cooperation with modern Muslim groups, and he notes somewhere in the middle of his essay the anti-Semitism practiced by Mohammed. Unfortunately, even though he is closer than most, this author misses identifying what inspires and sustains Allah’s War Against Humanity.

The ideological roots of Islamic anti-Semitism is not “Nazi Jew-hatred,” it is Islam. Neither will modernization split “moderate” Muslims from “Islamists” — it only provides the enemies of Western Civilization the opportunity to enslave and kill us with our own devices. Finally, that “real choice” is not between life and a death cult, it is between Allah and unbelief. That’s why the “mullahs’ programs” are theirs in the first place; both Jew-hatred and jihad are commanded by Allah and were practiced by his false prophet:

“And well ye knew those amongst you who transgressed in the matter of the Sabbath: We said to them: “Be ye apes, despised and rejected” (Qur’an 2:65). “Shall I point out to you something much worse than this, (as judged) by the treatment it received from Allah? Those who incurred the curse of Allah and His wrath, those of whom some He transformed into apes and swine, those who worshipped evil; these are (many times) worse in rank, and far more astray from the even path” (Qur’an 5:60)!

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

“. . . 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).

And as for jihad:

“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 them, and Allah will punish them by your hands, cover them with shame, help you (to victory) over them, heal the breasts of Believers . . . ” (Qur’an 9:14).

“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).

“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).

Until the West’s leaders — political, military, religious, media, and academic — recognize this, we will continue in misguided, inefficient, and impotent efforts at our own defense.

From the Standard:

It is, of course, true that Islamists seek to exploit social problems for their own ends. But Islamism is not an ideology that ignites protest as it rubs up against social injustice. On the contrary, what provokes Islamist violence is any sign of modern development in the Muslim world: scientific inquiry, political or personal self-determination, economic progress, women’s equality, freedom of expression in cinema and theater. The radicalization of Islam is less the consequence of poverty and lack of opportunity than their cause. The refusal to see this and to recognize the substance of Islamist ideology–the death cult, the hatred of Jews, and the profound hatred of freedom–leads back again and again to the mistaken “discovery” that the “root cause” of terrorism is U.S. policies. Ultimately, the refusal to recognize al Qaeda’s true motives results in a reversal of responsibility: The more deadly the terrorism, the greater the American guilt. The appeal of this approach is related to the specious hope it holds out: If suicide terrorism has its roots in U.S. policy, then a change in U.S. policy can assuage terrorism and the fear it induces. Al Qaeda, meanwhile, benefits, since the bloodier its attacks, the greater the anger against .  .  . the United States.

The same pattern explains the bizarre reaction to the Middle East conflict that is widespread in the West: The average observer, ignorant of the anti-Jewish content of the Hamas Charter, has to find some other explanation for terrorism against Jews, which must be–Israel. It is not the terrorists who are guilty, but their victims. Finding suicide terrorism incomprehensible, Westerners rationalize it as an act of despair that invites sympathy. Tout comprendre, c’est tout pardonner. Here, too, following the principle of “the more barbaric the anti-Jewish terror, the greater the Israeli guilt,” the bombers’ victims become the scapegoat for global terrorism. The old stereotype of Jewish guilt is thus amplified in contemporary form–and only encourages the terrorists.

A struggle against Islamism waged in ignorance of Islamist ideology weakens the West. The attribution of guilt to Israel and the United States adds fuel to the flames of Islamist propaganda and drives the wedge deeper into the Western camp rather than where it belongs–in the Muslim world.

Such blindness is especially hazardous in the case of the Iranian nuclear program, whose danger arises from the unique ideological stew surrounding it: the mish-mash of Jew-hatred, Holocaust denial, and Shiite death-cult messianism that is the context for Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons and advanced missiles. Here the worst-case scenario is not an increase in suicide bombing attacks against individuals, but a perhaps suicidal nuclear attack on the Israeli state. Back in Munich in 1938, many believed they could resolve the Sudeten German problem with Hitler without considering how it fit into the Nazis’ overall -strategy. In the same way today, in U.N. Security Council decisions and the positions of the Permanent Five, the technical aspects of Iran’s nuclear program are often divorced from their ideological context.

The problem is not that the Islamists hide their goals. The problem is that the West does not listen. Osama bin Laden’s chief reproach of the Americans in his “Letter to the American People” is that they act as free citizens who make their own laws instead of accepting sharia. The same hatred of freedom can be found in Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s letter to the American president: “Those with insight can already hear the sounds of the shattering and fall of the ideology and thoughts of the liberal democratic systems.”

Not to confront the ideological roots of Islamism–notably its well-documented connection to Nazi Jew-hatred–stymies any Western push for political, economic, and cultural modernization in the Muslim world. Yet only such modernization can split the majority of Muslims, who would benefit from social progress, from the Islamists, who are willing to die to prevent it. Without challenging the ideological roots of Islamism, it is impossible to confront the Muslim world with the real choices before it: Will it choose life and hope, or does it prefer the cult of death? Will it stand up for individual and social self-determination, or will it finally submit to the mullahs’ program of Jew-hatred and jihad?

The ideological roots of Islamic anti-Semitism is not "Nazi Jew-hatred," it is Islam

In Uncategorized on September 11, 2007 at 9:57 AM

An interesting article entitled “Jew-Hatred and Jihad,” by Matthias Küntzel offers several important observations on the nature of Muslim anti-Semitism.

The author is correct in his detailing of Nazism’s parallels to and cooperation with modern Muslim groups, and he notes somewhere in the middle of his essay the anti-Semitism practiced by Mohammed. Unfortunately, even though he is closer than most, this author misses identifying what inspires and sustains Allah’s War Against Humanity.

The ideological roots of Islamic anti-Semitism is not “Nazi Jew-hatred,” it is Islam. Neither will modernization split “moderate” Muslims from “Islamists” — it only provides the enemies of Western Civilization the opportunity to enslave and kill us with our own devices. Finally, that “real choice” is not between life and a death cult, it is between Allah and unbelief. That’s why the “mullahs’ programs” are theirs in the first place; both Jew-hatred and jihad are commanded by Allah and were practiced by his false prophet:

“And well ye knew those amongst you who transgressed in the matter of the Sabbath: We said to them: “Be ye apes, despised and rejected” (Qur’an 2:65). “Shall I point out to you something much worse than this, (as judged) by the treatment it received from Allah? Those who incurred the curse of Allah and His wrath, those of whom some He transformed into apes and swine, those who worshipped evil; these are (many times) worse in rank, and far more astray from the even path” (Qur’an 5:60)!

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

“. . . 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).

And as for jihad:

“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 them, and Allah will punish them by your hands, cover them with shame, help you (to victory) over them, heal the breasts of Believers . . . ” (Qur’an 9:14).

“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).

“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).

Until the West’s leaders — political, military, religious, media, and academic — recognize this, we will continue in misguided, inefficient, and impotent efforts at our own defense.

From the Standard:

It is, of course, true that Islamists seek to exploit social problems for their own ends. But Islamism is not an ideology that ignites protest as it rubs up against social injustice. On the contrary, what provokes Islamist violence is any sign of modern development in the Muslim world: scientific inquiry, political or personal self-determination, economic progress, women’s equality, freedom of expression in cinema and theater. The radicalization of Islam is less the consequence of poverty and lack of opportunity than their cause. The refusal to see this and to recognize the substance of Islamist ideology–the death cult, the hatred of Jews, and the profound hatred of freedom–leads back again and again to the mistaken “discovery” that the “root cause” of terrorism is U.S. policies. Ultimately, the refusal to recognize al Qaeda’s true motives results in a reversal of responsibility: The more deadly the terrorism, the greater the American guilt. The appeal of this approach is related to the specious hope it holds out: If suicide terrorism has its roots in U.S. policy, then a change in U.S. policy can assuage terrorism and the fear it induces. Al Qaeda, meanwhile, benefits, since the bloodier its attacks, the greater the anger against .  .  . the United States.

The same pattern explains the bizarre reaction to the Middle East conflict that is widespread in the West: The average observer, ignorant of the anti-Jewish content of the Hamas Charter, has to find some other explanation for terrorism against Jews, which must be–Israel. It is not the terrorists who are guilty, but their victims. Finding suicide terrorism incomprehensible, Westerners rationalize it as an act of despair that invites sympathy. Tout comprendre, c’est tout pardonner. Here, too, following the principle of “the more barbaric the anti-Jewish terror, the greater the Israeli guilt,” the bombers’ victims become the scapegoat for global terrorism. The old stereotype of Jewish guilt is thus amplified in contemporary form–and only encourages the terrorists.

A struggle against Islamism waged in ignorance of Islamist ideology weakens the West. The attribution of guilt to Israel and the United States adds fuel to the flames of Islamist propaganda and drives the wedge deeper into the Western camp rather than where it belongs–in the Muslim world.

Such blindness is especially hazardous in the case of the Iranian nuclear program, whose danger arises from the unique ideological stew surrounding it: the mish-mash of Jew-hatred, Holocaust denial, and Shiite death-cult messianism that is the context for Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons and advanced missiles. Here the worst-case scenario is not an increase in suicide bombing attacks against individuals, but a perhaps suicidal nuclear attack on the Israeli state. Back in Munich in 1938, many believed they could resolve the Sudeten German problem with Hitler without considering how it fit into the Nazis’ overall -strategy. In the same way today, in U.N. Security Council decisions and the positions of the Permanent Five, the technical aspects of Iran’s nuclear program are often divorced from their ideological context.

The problem is not that the Islamists hide their goals. The problem is that the West does not listen. Osama bin Laden’s chief reproach of the Americans in his “Letter to the American People” is that they act as free citizens who make their own laws instead of accepting sharia. The same hatred of freedom can be found in Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s letter to the American president: “Those with insight can already hear the sounds of the shattering and fall of the ideology and thoughts of the liberal democratic systems.”

Not to confront the ideological roots of Islamism–notably its well-documented connection to Nazi Jew-hatred–stymies any Western push for political, economic, and cultural modernization in the Muslim world. Yet only such modernization can split the majority of Muslims, who would benefit from social progress, from the Islamists, who are willing to die to prevent it. Without challenging the ideological roots of Islamism, it is impossible to confront the Muslim world with the real choices before it: Will it choose life and hope, or does it prefer the cult of death? Will it stand up for individual and social self-determination, or will it finally submit to the mullahs’ program of Jew-hatred and jihad?

Muslims commemorate 9/11 . . .

In Uncategorized on September 11, 2007 at 9:33 AM

. . . by shedding more Infidel blood.

Actually, the events that make today’s date noteworthy may or may not inspire the faithful to carry out such good deeds for Allah.

Nevertheless, it is worth remembering that we face an enemy whose core motivation for our slaughter is the will of their god. Apart from our conversion or subjugation and humiliation, the only option left is death.

The observant Infidel should note that the violent acts recorded below are obviously expressions of despair in response to poverty. No? Iraq. The Jews? Colonialism? The Crusades? Asma bint Marwan?

From TheReligionofPeace.com:

9/11/2007 (Yala, Thailand) – A young Buddhist man is shot to death by Islamists.

9/11/2007 (Pattani, Thailand) – A middle-aged Buddhist man is shot to death by Muslim radicals while riding his motorbike.

9/11/2007 (Ordzhonikidzov, Ingushetia) – Two young men and their father are brutally murdered in their home by suspected Islamic militants.

9/11/2007 (Dera Ismail Khan, Pakistan) – Seventeen people are killed when a suicide bomber detonates on a minibus.

9/11/2007 (Helmand, Afghanistan) – Two Afghan truck drivers are murdered by a suicide bomber.

9/11 belongs to Allah

In Uncategorized on September 11, 2007 at 9:27 AM

Spencer is correct, as usual.

Now it has been six years. The global jihad proceeds apace, with well over 9,000 deadly attacks carried out in the course of those six years by believers in the proposition that “Islam must dominate, and not be dominated.” Yet we are no closer as a society to recognizing how exactly to combat this foe, and our responses flail wildly — witness this report that prisons have removed Jewish and Christian books from their libraries so as to allow them, within today’s suffocating multiculturalist ethos, to remove also books advocating jihad violence and Islamic supremacism.

This is just one small example of a large-scale misallocation of resources and time that results from our fear and inability to say plainly that we are engaged in a defensive action against a global jihad, and that therefore we will unapologetically and forthrightly take action against the jihadists and their ideology without having to pretend that it is not a Muslim problem, or that Judaism and Christianity have exactly the same problem today.

American Muslim advocacy groups have made it impossible to take such a stand by adopting a spurious victim status that has enabled them to claim — and enabled the claim to be accepted — that sensible anti-jihad measures and investigations are “anti-Muslim.” Instead of inviting and participating in an open investigation of the roots of the jihad ideology of Islamic supremacism in core Islamic texts and teachings, so as to work with people of good will toward finding positive ways to neutralize the ability of jihadists to use those texts to recruit terrorists and incite violence, they have cowed the establishment media (liberal and conservative) and government officials into thinking that such investigations manifest “Islamophobia” and bigotry.

Six years after 9/11, the jihad proceeds apace, and the UN investigates…Islamophobia.

Want to end Islamophobia? End violent attacks committed by Muslims in the name of Islam. I guarantee that Islamophobia will then vanish utterly.

Six years after, the fact that such elementary common sense is not taken for granted, but reviled and dismissed, does not bode well for the continuation of this conflict, as continue it surely will. Unless we begin to speak clearly about what we are facing and who is making us face it, the jihadists will continue, as they do now, to take advantage of our willful ignorance.

The ideological roots of Islamic anti-Semitism is not "Nazi Jew-hatred," it is Islam

In Uncategorized on September 11, 2007 at 8:57 AM

An interesting article entitled “Jew-Hatred and Jihad,” by Matthias Küntzel offers several important observations on the nature of Muslim anti-Semitism.

The author is correct in his detailing of Nazism’s parallels to and cooperation with modern Muslim groups, and he notes somewhere in the middle of his essay the anti-Semitism practiced by Mohammed. Unfortunately, even though he is closer than most, this author misses identifying what inspires and sustains Allah’s War Against Humanity.

The ideological roots of Islamic anti-Semitism is not “Nazi Jew-hatred,” it is Islam. Neither will modernization split “moderate” Muslims from “Islamists” — it only provides the enemies of Western Civilization the opportunity to enslave and kill us with our own devices. Finally, that “real choice” is not between life and a death cult, it is between Allah and unbelief. That’s why the “mullahs’ programs” are theirs in the first place; both Jew-hatred and jihad are commanded by Allah and were practiced by his false prophet:

“And well ye knew those amongst you who transgressed in the matter of the Sabbath: We said to them: “Be ye apes, despised and rejected” (Qur’an 2:65). “Shall I point out to you something much worse than this, (as judged) by the treatment it received from Allah? Those who incurred the curse of Allah and His wrath, those of whom some He transformed into apes and swine, those who worshipped evil; these are (many times) worse in rank, and far more astray from the even path” (Qur’an 5:60)!

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

“. . . 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).

And as for jihad:

“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 them, and Allah will punish them by your hands, cover them with shame, help you (to victory) over them, heal the breasts of Believers . . . ” (Qur’an 9:14).

“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).

“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).

Until the West’s leaders — political, military, religious, media, and academic — recognize this, we will continue in misguided, inefficient, and impotent efforts at our own defense.

From the Standard:

It is, of course, true that Islamists seek to exploit social problems for their own ends. But Islamism is not an ideology that ignites protest as it rubs up against social injustice. On the contrary, what provokes Islamist violence is any sign of modern development in the Muslim world: scientific inquiry, political or personal self-determination, economic progress, women’s equality, freedom of expression in cinema and theater. The radicalization of Islam is less the consequence of poverty and lack of opportunity than their cause. The refusal to see this and to recognize the substance of Islamist ideology–the death cult, the hatred of Jews, and the profound hatred of freedom–leads back again and again to the mistaken “discovery” that the “root cause” of terrorism is U.S. policies. Ultimately, the refusal to recognize al Qaeda’s true motives results in a reversal of responsibility: The more deadly the terrorism, the greater the American guilt. The appeal of this approach is related to the specious hope it holds out: If suicide terrorism has its roots in U.S. policy, then a change in U.S. policy can assuage terrorism and the fear it induces. Al Qaeda, meanwhile, benefits, since the bloodier its attacks, the greater the anger against .  .  . the United States.

The same pattern explains the bizarre reaction to the Middle East conflict that is widespread in the West: The average observer, ignorant of the anti-Jewish content of the Hamas Charter, has to find some other explanation for terrorism against Jews, which must be–Israel. It is not the terrorists who are guilty, but their victims. Finding suicide terrorism incomprehensible, Westerners rationalize it as an act of despair that invites sympathy. Tout comprendre, c’est tout pardonner. Here, too, following the principle of “the more barbaric the anti-Jewish terror, the greater the Israeli guilt,” the bombers’ victims become the scapegoat for global terrorism. The old stereotype of Jewish guilt is thus amplified in contemporary form–and only encourages the terrorists.

A struggle against Islamism waged in ignorance of Islamist ideology weakens the West. The attribution of guilt to Israel and the United States adds fuel to the flames of Islamist propaganda and drives the wedge deeper into the Western camp rather than where it belongs–in the Muslim world.

Such blindness is especially hazardous in the case of the Iranian nuclear program, whose danger arises from the unique ideological stew surrounding it: the mish-mash of Jew-hatred, Holocaust denial, and Shiite death-cult messianism that is the context for Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons and advanced missiles. Here the worst-case scenario is not an increase in suicide bombing attacks against individuals, but a perhaps suicidal nuclear attack on the Israeli state. Back in Munich in 1938, many believed they could resolve the Sudeten German problem with Hitler without considering how it fit into the Nazis’ overall -strategy. In the same way today, in U.N. Security Council decisions and the positions of the Permanent Five, the technical aspects of Iran’s nuclear program are often divorced from their ideological context.

The problem is not that the Islamists hide their goals. The problem is that the West does not listen. Osama bin Laden’s chief reproach of the Americans in his “Letter to the American People” is that they act as free citizens who make their own laws instead of accepting sharia. The same hatred of freedom can be found in Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s letter to the American president: “Those with insight can already hear the sounds of the shattering and fall of the ideology and thoughts of the liberal democratic systems.”

Not to confront the ideological roots of Islamism–notably its well-documented connection to Nazi Jew-hatred–stymies any Western push for political, economic, and cultural modernization in the Muslim world. Yet only such modernization can split the majority of Muslims, who would benefit from social progress, from the Islamists, who are willing to die to prevent it. Without challenging the ideological roots of Islamism, it is impossible to confront the Muslim world with the real choices before it: Will it choose life and hope, or does it prefer the cult of death? Will it stand up for individual and social self-determination, or will it finally submit to the mullahs’ program of Jew-hatred and jihad?

Exposing the errors of those who defend Islam by attacking others

In Uncategorized on August 30, 2007 at 2:45 PM

From here.

I. matoko wrote:

“if the Qu’ran is a manual for violent jihaadism as poseur/buffoon Spencer asserts, why arent there a billion jihaadis? we all read the Qu’ran…we have to.”

You pride yourself on your intellect, but that statement is not only dishonest, it is irrational.

Where does Spencer call Qur’an a “manual for violent jihaadism”?

Even if he does, what does that have to do with what the texts actually say? Nothing.

As you admit, “we all read the Qu’ran [sic]…we have to.” Do you obey it?

Whether none, one, or a billion Muslims do this or that does not necessarily reflect accurately on the commands of Allah and the example of his apostle as recorded in Qur’an and Sunnah.

How do we know what Allah requires and what Mohammed said and did? We go to the texts.

In them Mahomet and his god demand (and sanctify) the conversion, subjugation and humiliation, and killing of non-Muslims to make the world Islam.

Do you have the wit and courage to admit that, matoko?

II. She replied:

errr….polytheists, pagans, are not “the people of the book” are they?

. . . i have no obligation to persecute other monotheists.

Red herring.

At least you admit your obligation to “persecute” “polytheists.”

Speaking of not reading:

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 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).

“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)!

“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).

She continued:

“u believe in the same god as me.”

I could never believe in a god that calls a lying, thieving, raping, murdering, enslaving, genocidal pedophile “a beautiful pattern of conduct” as does your Allah.

The name of the God of the Bible is YHWH. His Son claimed that name for Himself.

Arguing that using an Arabic noun meaning “god” makes all deities the same one indicates a severe lack of critical thinking.

Using your “logic,” Allah = Astarte = Molech = Vishnu, since they all are gods.

Jesus said He is the Son of YHWH. Allah says that those who claim he has a son are blasphemers.

Jesus said, “Love your enemies.” Mohammed said, “kill the unbelievers wherever you find them.”

Jesus said that if anyone causes a child to sin it would be better for him to be drowned in the depths of the sea. Mohammed raped little Aisha, and Allah “ordained” it!

Jesus said that all must honor Him as they honor the Father and that He and His Father are One. Mohammed calls Him “accursed.”

It is clear that only the ignorant and the liar can claim that Allah and Christ are the same god.

spencer has only one school of quranic exegesis, jihaadi-style.

The same way Mohammed interpreted it, which was just as his god commanded.

he interprets the Qu’ran exactly the way the jihaadis do…and also the way you do it seems.

What do the texts actually say?

Rather than address that, you engage in name-calling and advancing foolish, false equivalences and red herrings.

Apparently, your answer to my earlier question is, “No.”

and….Issa is a prophet.
i dont believe he is the son of god

You have a false “Issa.” The Christ of history is the Son of God, just as He said.

“…science do not really support it, that was all tacked on after his death.”

Mohammed “tacked on” the nonsense contradicting Christ’s own confession.

If you insist on arguing otherwise, prove it.

You can’t, since we have not only the extant Scriptures Christ validated, but also His very words, those Mohammed claimed were twisted by Christians.

III. matoko continues:

2. all religions fostered science and reason when SCIENCE WAS NOT SEPERABLE FROM RELIGION

Which explains the numerous scientific breakthroughs of the Islamic world over the last thousand years.

Both religions KILLED heretics and persecuted scientists also . . . Both religions caused wars–EQUALLY

That is preposterous.

The essential distinction that you and others who advance this argument fail to make (or hope that others fail to make) is that such violence is forbidden by the Bible, while in Islam it is required:

“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).

“Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not” (Qur’an 2:216).

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

She continues:

3. no religion supports science now

Not true. Real Science — not atheistic naturalism — is completely compatible with the teachings of the Bible.

ID theory is one perfectly elegant example of xianity REJECTING the scientific method.

Apparently you wrongly associate the Scientific Method with the Neo-Darwinian Creation Myth.

Since both Darwin and ID attempt to explain that which occurred beyond the purview of Science, neither can be truly scientific.

However, one theory is clearly much more strongly supported by actual science, common sense, and experience, and it’s not the “Goo to Zoo to You” psychosis.

4. Spencer relies also on quranic exegesis . . . He has told me that he has no quranic exegesis of his own. So to prove Islam is inherently violent, he uses only one school…jihaadi school.

Again, what do the texts say? What does Allah require? What did Mohammed do and say?

If Spencer merely states what Allah has commanded and what Mohammed said and did — and that is what the “jihaadi school” teaches and preaches — then what does that say about the monster Allah and his false prophet?

You would serve yourself well to point out specific factual errors rather than engage in emotional ad hominem attacks and other logical fallacies and untruths.

the jihaadis interpret the Qu’an exactly the same way Spencer does.
That is not a valid method of proof.

They interpret it just as Mohammed did, yet you condemn them! Allah will not be pleased.

But!! any muslim that kills another muslim is NOT a follower of Islam (also in the Qu’ran). So most jihaadis are not muslims.

So, the ones who kill only non-Muslims, they’re true Muslims? Thanks for clarifying that!

Of course, those jihadists would say that the Muslims they kill were not true Muslims, or were aiding the Infidel, or were necessarily unavoidable collateral damage.

and they [serial killers and mass murderers] have had the benefit of the judeo-xian sharia that permeates our culture and government

Yes, equality of rights and the preservation of essential Liberties are the moral equivalence of Islamic Shari’a.

Shameful.

The essential difference, again, is that unlike Christianity (the God of which commanded, “Love your enemies”), Islam requires murder to subdue the world under the tyranny of Allah.

Are you unable or unwilling to make that essential moral distinction?

lol. does that mean judeo-xian cultures are inherenty violent?

Human nature is inherently violent. Judeo-Christian cultures will tend to restrain that tendency rather than glorify it, as does Islam.

IV. Later . . .

How can someone who apparently endorses the absurdly unscientific proposition that Life arose apart from Life or Life’s programs condemn anyone as “anti-scientific method”?

Exposing the errors of those who defend Islam by attacking others

In Uncategorized on August 30, 2007 at 2:45 PM

From here.

I. matoko wrote:

“if the Qu’ran is a manual for violent jihaadism as poseur/buffoon Spencer asserts, why arent there a billion jihaadis? we all read the Qu’ran…we have to.”

You pride yourself on your intellect, but that statement is not only dishonest, it is irrational.

Where does Spencer call Qur’an a “manual for violent jihaadism”?

Even if he does, what does that have to do with what the texts actually say? Nothing.

As you admit, “we all read the Qu’ran [sic]…we have to.” Do you obey it?

Whether none, one, or a billion Muslims do this or that does not necessarily reflect accurately on the commands of Allah and the example of his apostle as recorded in Qur’an and Sunnah.

How do we know what Allah requires and what Mohammed said and did? We go to the texts.

In them Mahomet and his god demand (and sanctify) the conversion, subjugation and humiliation, and killing of non-Muslims to make the world Islam.

Do you have the wit and courage to admit that, matoko?

II. She replied:

errr….polytheists, pagans, are not “the people of the book” are they?

. . . i have no obligation to persecute other monotheists.

Red herring.

At least you admit your obligation to “persecute” “polytheists.”

Speaking of not reading:

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 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).

“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)!

“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).

She continued:

“u believe in the same god as me.”

I could never believe in a god that calls a lying, thieving, raping, murdering, enslaving, genocidal pedophile “a beautiful pattern of conduct” as does your Allah.

The name of the God of the Bible is YHWH. His Son claimed that name for Himself.

Arguing that using an Arabic noun meaning “god” makes all deities the same one indicates a severe lack of critical thinking.

Using your “logic,” Allah = Astarte = Molech = Vishnu, since they all are gods.

Jesus said He is the Son of YHWH. Allah says that those who claim he has a son are blasphemers.

Jesus said, “Love your enemies.” Mohammed said, “kill the unbelievers wherever you find them.”

Jesus said that if anyone causes a child to sin it would be better for him to be drowned in the depths of the sea. Mohammed raped little Aisha, and Allah “ordained” it!

Jesus said that all must honor Him as they honor the Father and that He and His Father are One. Mohammed calls Him “accursed.”

It is clear that only the ignorant and the liar can claim that Allah and Christ are the same god.

spencer has only one school of quranic exegesis, jihaadi-style.

The same way Mohammed interpreted it, which was just as his god commanded.

he interprets the Qu’ran exactly the way the jihaadis do…and also the way you do it seems.

What do the texts actually say?

Rather than address that, you engage in name-calling and advancing foolish, false equivalences and red herrings.

Apparently, your answer to my earlier question is, “No.”

and….Issa is a prophet.
i dont believe he is the son of god

You have a false “Issa.” The Christ of history is the Son of God, just as He said.

“…science do not really support it, that was all tacked on after his death.”

Mohammed “tacked on” the nonsense contradicting Christ’s own confession.

If you insist on arguing otherwise, prove it.

You can’t, since we have not only the extant Scriptures Christ validated, but also His very words, those Mohammed claimed were twisted by Christians.

III. matoko continues:

2. all religions fostered science and reason when SCIENCE WAS NOT SEPERABLE FROM RELIGION

Which explains the numerous scientific breakthroughs of the Islamic world over the last thousand years.

Both religions KILLED heretics and persecuted scientists also . . . Both religions caused wars–EQUALLY

That is preposterous.

The essential distinction that you and others who advance this argument fail to make (or hope that others fail to make) is that such violence is forbidden by the Bible, while in Islam it is required:

“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).

“Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not” (Qur’an 2:216).

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

She continues:

3. no religion supports science now

Not true. Real Science — not atheistic naturalism — is completely compatible with the teachings of the Bible.

ID theory is one perfectly elegant example of xianity REJECTING the scientific method.

Apparently you wrongly associate the Scientific Method with the Neo-Darwinian Creation Myth.

Since both Darwin and ID attempt to explain that which occurred beyond the purview of Science, neither can be truly scientific.

However, one theory is clearly much more strongly supported by actual science, common sense, and experience, and it’s not the “Goo to Zoo to You” psychosis.

4. Spencer relies also on quranic exegesis . . . He has told me that he has no quranic exegesis of his own. So to prove Islam is inherently violent, he uses only one school…jihaadi school.

Again, what do the texts say? What does Allah require? What did Mohammed do and say?

If Spencer merely states what Allah has commanded and what Mohammed said and did — and that is what the “jihaadi school” teaches and preaches — then what does that say about the monster Allah and his false prophet?

You would serve yourself well to point out specific factual errors rather than engage in emotional ad hominem attacks and other logical fallacies and untruths.

the jihaadis interpret the Qu’an exactly the same way Spencer does.
That is not a valid method of proof.

They interpret it just as Mohammed did, yet you condemn them! Allah will not be pleased.

But!! any muslim that kills another muslim is NOT a follower of Islam (also in the Qu’ran). So most jihaadis are not muslims.

So, the ones who kill only non-Muslims, they’re true Muslims? Thanks for clarifying that!

Of course, those jihadists would say that the Muslims they kill were not true Muslims, or were aiding the Infidel, or were necessarily unavoidable collateral damage.

and they [serial killers and mass murderers] have had the benefit of the judeo-xian sharia that permeates our culture and government

Yes, equality of rights and the preservation of essential Liberties are the moral equivalence of Islamic Shari’a.

Shameful.

The essential difference, again, is that unlike Christianity (the God of which commanded, “Love your enemies”), Islam requires murder to subdue the world under the tyranny of Allah.

Are you unable or unwilling to make that essential moral distinction?

lol. does that mean judeo-xian cultures are inherenty violent?

Human nature is inherently violent. Judeo-Christian cultures will tend to restrain that tendency rather than glorify it, as does Islam.

IV. Later . . .

How can someone who apparently endorses the absurdly unscientific proposition that Life arose apart from Life or Life’s programs condemn anyone as “anti-scientific method”?

Exposing the errors of those who defend Islam by attacking others

In Uncategorized on August 30, 2007 at 1:45 PM

From here.

I. matoko wrote:

“if the Qu’ran is a manual for violent jihaadism as poseur/buffoon Spencer asserts, why arent there a billion jihaadis? we all read the Qu’ran…we have to.”

You pride yourself on your intellect, but that statement is not only dishonest, it is irrational.

Where does Spencer call Qur’an a “manual for violent jihaadism”?

Even if he does, what does that have to do with what the texts actually say? Nothing.

As you admit, “we all read the Qu’ran [sic]…we have to.” Do you obey it?

Whether none, one, or a billion Muslims do this or that does not necessarily reflect accurately on the commands of Allah and the example of his apostle as recorded in Qur’an and Sunnah.

How do we know what Allah requires and what Mohammed said and did? We go to the texts.

In them Mahomet and his god demand (and sanctify) the conversion, subjugation and humiliation, and killing of non-Muslims to make the world Islam.

Do you have the wit and courage to admit that, matoko?

II. She replied:

errr….polytheists, pagans, are not “the people of the book” are they?

. . . i have no obligation to persecute other monotheists.

Red herring.

At least you admit your obligation to “persecute” “polytheists.”

Speaking of not reading:

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 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).

“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)!

“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).

She continued:

“u believe in the same god as me.”

I could never believe in a god that calls a lying, thieving, raping, murdering, enslaving, genocidal pedophile “a beautiful pattern of conduct” as does your Allah.

The name of the God of the Bible is YHWH. His Son claimed that name for Himself.

Arguing that using an Arabic noun meaning “god” makes all deities the same one indicates a severe lack of critical thinking.

Using your “logic,” Allah = Astarte = Molech = Vishnu, since they all are gods.

Jesus said He is the Son of YHWH. Allah says that those who claim he has a son are blasphemers.

Jesus said, “Love your enemies.” Mohammed said, “kill the unbelievers wherever you find them.”

Jesus said that if anyone causes a child to sin it would be better for him to be drowned in the depths of the sea. Mohammed raped little Aisha, and Allah “ordained” it!

Jesus said that all must honor Him as they honor the Father and that He and His Father are One. Mohammed calls Him “accursed.”

It is clear that only the ignorant and the liar can claim that Allah and Christ are the same god.

spencer has only one school of quranic exegesis, jihaadi-style.

The same way Mohammed interpreted it, which was just as his god commanded.

he interprets the Qu’ran exactly the way the jihaadis do…and also the way you do it seems.

What do the texts actually say?

Rather than address that, you engage in name-calling and advancing foolish, false equivalences and red herrings.

Apparently, your answer to my earlier question is, “No.”

and….Issa is a prophet.
i dont believe he is the son of god

You have a false “Issa.” The Christ of history is the Son of God, just as He said.

“…science do not really support it, that was all tacked on after his death.”

Mohammed “tacked on” the nonsense contradicting Christ’s own confession.

If you insist on arguing otherwise, prove it.

You can’t, since we have not only the extant Scriptures Christ validated, but also His very words, those Mohammed claimed were twisted by Christians.

III. matoko continues:

2. all religions fostered science and reason when SCIENCE WAS NOT SEPERABLE FROM RELIGION

Which explains the numerous scientific breakthroughs of the Islamic world over the last thousand years.

Both religions KILLED heretics and persecuted scientists also . . . Both religions caused wars–EQUALLY

That is preposterous.

The essential distinction that you and others who advance this argument fail to make (or hope that others fail to make) is that such violence is forbidden by the Bible, while in Islam it is required:

“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).

“Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not” (Qur’an 2:216).

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

She continues:

3. no religion supports science now

Not true. Real Science — not atheistic naturalism — is completely compatible with the teachings of the Bible.

ID theory is one perfectly elegant example of xianity REJECTING the scientific method.

Apparently you wrongly associate the Scientific Method with the Neo-Darwinian Creation Myth.

Since both Darwin and ID attempt to explain that which occurred beyond the purview of Science, neither can be truly scientific.

However, one theory is clearly much more strongly supported by actual science, common sense, and experience, and it’s not the “Goo to Zoo to You” psychosis.

4. Spencer relies also on quranic exegesis . . . He has told me that he has no quranic exegesis of his own. So to prove Islam is inherently violent, he uses only one school…jihaadi school.

Again, what do the texts say? What does Allah require? What did Mohammed do and say?

If Spencer merely states what Allah has commanded and what Mohammed said and did — and that is what the “jihaadi school” teaches and preaches — then what does that say about the monster Allah and his false prophet?

You would serve yourself well to point out specific factual errors rather than engage in emotional ad hominem attacks and other logical fallacies and untruths.

the jihaadis interpret the Qu’an exactly the same way Spencer does.
That is not a valid method of proof.

They interpret it just as Mohammed did, yet you condemn them! Allah will not be pleased.

But!! any muslim that kills another muslim is NOT a follower of Islam (also in the Qu’ran). So most jihaadis are not muslims.

So, the ones who kill only non-Muslims, they’re true Muslims? Thanks for clarifying that!

Of course, those jihadists would say that the Muslims they kill were not true Muslims, or were aiding the Infidel, or were necessarily unavoidable collateral damage.

and they [serial killers and mass murderers] have had the benefit of the judeo-xian sharia that permeates our culture and government

Yes, equality of rights and the preservation of essential Liberties are the moral equivalence of Islamic Shari’a.

Shameful.

The essential difference, again, is that unlike Christianity (the God of which commanded, “Love your enemies”), Islam requires murder to subdue the world under the tyranny of Allah.

Are you unable or unwilling to make that essential moral distinction?

lol. does that mean judeo-xian cultures are inherenty violent?

Human nature is inherently violent. Judeo-Christian cultures will tend to restrain that tendency rather than glorify it, as does Islam.

IV. Later . . .

How can someone who apparently endorses the absurdly unscientific proposition that Life arose apart from Life or Life’s programs condemn anyone as “anti-scientific method”?

Refusing to connect the dots

In Uncategorized on August 15, 2007 at 9:47 AM

It’s all a Great Mystery. Muslim immigrants come to this country, attend mosques and visit Islamic web sites, and become “radicals.” And our government officials, law enforcement, and the Media have no idea how it could happen (over and over and over again). After years of this pattern of behavior, is there no one in a leadership position able to connect the dots?

This is equivalent to, during World War II, noticing Nazis killing Jews and invading, occupying, and slaughtering their neighbors and then offering the disclaimers “We’re not talking about all Nazis,” or, “There is no connection between Nazi ideology and Nazi violence,” or, “Nazism is a great world ideology hijacked by a tiny minority of extremists,” or, “Nazism inspires genocide? What are you, some kind of Germanophobe. (Of course, Islam is an ideology, not a race. “Naziophobe” didn’t quite have the same ring.)

In a news report today, law enforcement warned the public about the terrorist threat posed by recent Muslim immigrants, stating that they gravitate to mosques and web sites where they adopt the “radical” ideology. The spokesman also noted that it is very difficult to identify these terrorists because they blend into the larger Muslim population so well.

The report ended with a disclaimer that the government was not unfairly discriminating against Muslims.

This is another example of our politically-correct, dhimmi government officials and media subduing their intellect (and compromising the American people’s safety) in order to avoid stating the obvious connection between Islam and Islamic terrorism.

Even without knowing Islamic “sacred” texts, Americans intuitively understand from Muslim mayhem and murder carried out around the world in the name of Allah that perhaps there is something about Islam that inspires such barbarism.

Refusing to connect the dots

In Uncategorized on August 15, 2007 at 8:47 AM

It’s all a Great Mystery. Muslim immigrants come to this country, attend mosques and visit Islamic web sites, and become “radicals.” And our government officials, law enforcement, and the Media have no idea how it could happen (over and over and over again). After years of this pattern of behavior, is there no one in a leadership position able to connect the dots?

This is equivalent to, during World War II, noticing Nazis killing Jews and invading, occupying, and slaughtering their neighbors and then offering the disclaimers “We’re not talking about all Nazis,” or, “There is no connection between Nazi ideology and Nazi violence,” or, “Nazism is a great world ideology hijacked by a tiny minority of extremists,” or, “Nazism inspires genocide? What are you, some kind of Germanophobe. (Of course, Islam is an ideology, not a race. “Naziophobe” didn’t quite have the same ring.)

In a news report today, law enforcement warned the public about the terrorist threat posed by recent Muslim immigrants, stating that they gravitate to mosques and web sites where they adopt the “radical” ideology. The spokesman also noted that it is very difficult to identify these terrorists because they blend into the larger Muslim population so well.

The report ended with a disclaimer that the government was not unfairly discriminating against Muslims.

This is another example of our politically-correct, dhimmi government officials and media subduing their intellect (and compromising the American people’s safety) in order to avoid stating the obvious connection between Islam and Islamic terrorism.

Even without knowing Islamic “sacred” texts, Americans intuitively understand from Muslim mayhem and murder carried out around the world in the name of Allah that perhaps there is something about Islam that inspires such barbarism.

Blinding the lazy and fearful to jihad’s encroachment

In Uncategorized on August 6, 2007 at 7:23 PM
Why would the proponents of jihad (offensive warfare against non-Muslims to make the world Islam) want us to misunderstand the term? Could it be so that we keep our defenses down while Islam continues its political, legal, media, academic, and economic offensives against the West?

Preventing the West from Understanding Jihad, by Walid Phares.

In the years that followed 9/11, two phenomena characterized the Western public’s understanding of the terrorists’ ideology. The first characteristic stemmed from the statements made by the Jihadists themselves. More than ever, Islamist militants and Jihadi cadres didn’t waste any opportunity to declare, clarify, explain, and detail the meaning of their aqida (doctrine) and their intentions to apply Jihadism by all means possible. Unfortunately for them, though, those extremely violent means changed international public opinion: the public now was convinced that there was an ideology of Jihadism, and that its adherents meant business worldwide.

From Ayman al Zawahiri in Arabic to Azzam al Amriki in American English, via all of the videotapes made by “martyrs” in Britain, Iraq, and Afghanistan, the public obtained all the evidence necessary. Against all the faulty academic literature of the 1990’s, the statements by the Jihadists themselves were very convincing.

The second phenomenon of help to the public was the surfacing of a new literature produced by alternative scholars, analysts, journalists, experts, and researchers who, from different backgrounds and countries, filled in some of the gaps is “Jihadi studies.” Producing books, articles, and blogs from Europe, India, the Middle East, and North America, a combination of Third World-born and Western-issued scholarship began to provide the “missing link” as to what Jihadism is all about. These factors came together to shift the debate from “Jihad is spiritual yoga” to “Why didn’t we know it was something else as well?” And this movement triggered, in response, one of the last attempts to prevent Jihad from being fully understood.

In the 1990’s, apologist literature attempted to convince readers and audiences in the West that Jihad was a “spiritual experience only, and not a menace.” That explanation has now been shattered by Bin Laden and Ahmedinijad. So in the post-9/11 age, a second strategy to delay public understanding of Jihadism and thereby gain time for its adherents to achieve their goals has evolved. It might be called the “good cop, bad cop” strategy. Over the past few years, a new story began to make inroads in Washington and the rest of the national defense apparatus. A group of academics and interest groups are circulating the idea that in reality Jihad can develop in two forms: good Jihad and bad Jihad.

The practice of not using “Jihad” and “Jihadism” was lately defended by two academics at the National Defense University who based their arguments on a study published by a Washington lobbyist, Jim Guirard. On June 22, 2006, Jim Garamone, writing for the American Forces Press Service, published the study of Douglas Streusand and Harry Tunnel under the title “Loosely Interpreted Arabic terms can promote enemy ideology.” Streusand told CNN that “Jihad is a term of great and positive import in Islam. It is commonly defined as striving or struggle, and can mean an internal or external struggle for faith.”

The article was posted under the title “Cultural Ignorance Leads to Misuse of Islamic Terms” by the US-based Islamist organization CAIR. Since then the concept of deflecting attention away from the study of Jihadism has penetrated large segments of defense newsletters and is omnipresent in Academia. More troubling though, is the fact that scholars who have seen the strategic threat of al Qaeda and Hezbollah have unfortunately fallen for the fallacy of the Hiraba. Professor Michael Waller of the Institute of World Politics in Washington wrote recently that “Jihad has been hijacked” as he bases his argument on Jim Guirard’s lobbying pieces. Satisfied with this trend taking root in the Defense intelligentsia of America, Islamist intellectuals and activists are hurrying to support this new tactic.

The good holy war is when the right religious and political authorities declare it against the correct enemy and at the right time. The bad Jihad, called also Hiraba, is the wrong war, declared by bad (and irresponsible) people against the wrong enemy (for the moment), and without an appropriate authorization by the “real” Muslim leadership. According to this thesis those Muslims who wage a Hiraba, a wrong war, are called Mufsidoon, from the Arabic word for “spoilers.” The advocates of this ruse recommend that the United States and its allies stop calling the Jihadists by that name and identifying the concept of Jihadism as the problem. In short, they argue that “Jihad is good, but the Mufsidoon, the bad guys and the terrorists, spoiled the original legitimate sense.

When researched, it turns out that this theory was produced by clerics of the Wahhabi regime in Saudi Arabia and the Muslim Brotherhood, as a plan to prevent Jihad and Jihadism from being depicted by the West and the international community as an illegal and therefore sanctioned activity. It was then forwarded to American- and Western-based interest groups to be spread within the Untied States, particularly within the defense and security apparatus. Such a deception further confuses U.S. national security perception of the enemy and plunges democracies back into the “black hole” of the 1990’s. This last attempt to blur the vision of democracies can be exposed with knowledge of the Jihadi terror strategies and tactics, one of which is known as Taqiya, the doctrine on deception and deflection.

First, the argument of “good Jihad” raises the question of how there can be a legitimate concept of religious war in the twenty-first century to start with. Jihad historically was as “good” as any other religious war over the last 2,000 years. If a “good Jihad” is the one authorized by a caliph and directed under his auspices, then other world leaders also can wage a “good crusade” at will, as long as it is licensed by the proper authority. But in fact, all religious wars are proscribed by international law, period.

Second, the authors of this lobbyist-concocted theory claim that a wrong Jihad is called a Hiraba. But in Arab Muslim history, a Hiraba (unauthorized warring) was when a group of warriors launched itself against the enemy without orders from the real commander. Obviously, this implies that a “genuine” war against a real enemy does exist and that these hotheaded soldiers have simply acted without orders. Hence this cunning explanation puts “spin” on Jihad but leaves the core idea of Jihadism completely intact. The “spoilers” depart from the plan, attack prematurely, and cause damage to the caliphate’s long-terms plans. These Mufsidoon “fail” their commanders by unleashing a war of their own, instead of waiting for orders.

This scenario fits the relations of the global Jihadists, who are the regimes and international groups slowly planning to gain power against the infidels and the “hotheaded” Osama bin Laden. Thus the promoters of this theory of Hiraba and Mufsidoon are representing the views of classical Wahhabis and the Muslim Brotherhood in their criticism of the “great leap forward” made by bin Laden. But by convincing Westerners that al Qaeda and its allies are not the real Jihadists, but some renegades, the advocates of this school would be causing the vision of Western defense to become blurred again so that more time could be gained by a larger, more powerful wave of Jihadism that is biding its time to strike when it chooses, under a coherent international leadership.

Blinding the lazy and fearful to jihad’s encroachment

In Uncategorized on August 6, 2007 at 7:23 PM
Why would the proponents of jihad (offensive warfare against non-Muslims to make the world Islam) want us to misunderstand the term? Could it be so that we keep our defenses down while Islam continues its political, legal, media, academic, and economic offensives against the West?

Preventing the West from Understanding Jihad, by Walid Phares.

In the years that followed 9/11, two phenomena characterized the Western public’s understanding of the terrorists’ ideology. The first characteristic stemmed from the statements made by the Jihadists themselves. More than ever, Islamist militants and Jihadi cadres didn’t waste any opportunity to declare, clarify, explain, and detail the meaning of their aqida (doctrine) and their intentions to apply Jihadism by all means possible. Unfortunately for them, though, those extremely violent means changed international public opinion: the public now was convinced that there was an ideology of Jihadism, and that its adherents meant business worldwide.

From Ayman al Zawahiri in Arabic to Azzam al Amriki in American English, via all of the videotapes made by “martyrs” in Britain, Iraq, and Afghanistan, the public obtained all the evidence necessary. Against all the faulty academic literature of the 1990’s, the statements by the Jihadists themselves were very convincing.

The second phenomenon of help to the public was the surfacing of a new literature produced by alternative scholars, analysts, journalists, experts, and researchers who, from different backgrounds and countries, filled in some of the gaps is “Jihadi studies.” Producing books, articles, and blogs from Europe, India, the Middle East, and North America, a combination of Third World-born and Western-issued scholarship began to provide the “missing link” as to what Jihadism is all about. These factors came together to shift the debate from “Jihad is spiritual yoga” to “Why didn’t we know it was something else as well?” And this movement triggered, in response, one of the last attempts to prevent Jihad from being fully understood.

In the 1990’s, apologist literature attempted to convince readers and audiences in the West that Jihad was a “spiritual experience only, and not a menace.” That explanation has now been shattered by Bin Laden and Ahmedinijad. So in the post-9/11 age, a second strategy to delay public understanding of Jihadism and thereby gain time for its adherents to achieve their goals has evolved. It might be called the “good cop, bad cop” strategy. Over the past few years, a new story began to make inroads in Washington and the rest of the national defense apparatus. A group of academics and interest groups are circulating the idea that in reality Jihad can develop in two forms: good Jihad and bad Jihad.

The practice of not using “Jihad” and “Jihadism” was lately defended by two academics at the National Defense University who based their arguments on a study published by a Washington lobbyist, Jim Guirard. On June 22, 2006, Jim Garamone, writing for the American Forces Press Service, published the study of Douglas Streusand and Harry Tunnel under the title “Loosely Interpreted Arabic terms can promote enemy ideology.” Streusand told CNN that “Jihad is a term of great and positive import in Islam. It is commonly defined as striving or struggle, and can mean an internal or external struggle for faith.”

The article was posted under the title “Cultural Ignorance Leads to Misuse of Islamic Terms” by the US-based Islamist organization CAIR. Since then the concept of deflecting attention away from the study of Jihadism has penetrated large segments of defense newsletters and is omnipresent in Academia. More troubling though, is the fact that scholars who have seen the strategic threat of al Qaeda and Hezbollah have unfortunately fallen for the fallacy of the Hiraba. Professor Michael Waller of the Institute of World Politics in Washington wrote recently that “Jihad has been hijacked” as he bases his argument on Jim Guirard’s lobbying pieces. Satisfied with this trend taking root in the Defense intelligentsia of America, Islamist intellectuals and activists are hurrying to support this new tactic.

The good holy war is when the right religious and political authorities declare it against the correct enemy and at the right time. The bad Jihad, called also Hiraba, is the wrong war, declared by bad (and irresponsible) people against the wrong enemy (for the moment), and without an appropriate authorization by the “real” Muslim leadership. According to this thesis those Muslims who wage a Hiraba, a wrong war, are called Mufsidoon, from the Arabic word for “spoilers.” The advocates of this ruse recommend that the United States and its allies stop calling the Jihadists by that name and identifying the concept of Jihadism as the problem. In short, they argue that “Jihad is good, but the Mufsidoon, the bad guys and the terrorists, spoiled the original legitimate sense.

When researched, it turns out that this theory was produced by clerics of the Wahhabi regime in Saudi Arabia and the Muslim Brotherhood, as a plan to prevent Jihad and Jihadism from being depicted by the West and the international community as an illegal and therefore sanctioned activity. It was then forwarded to American- and Western-based interest groups to be spread within the Untied States, particularly within the defense and security apparatus. Such a deception further confuses U.S. national security perception of the enemy and plunges democracies back into the “black hole” of the 1990’s. This last attempt to blur the vision of democracies can be exposed with knowledge of the Jihadi terror strategies and tactics, one of which is known as Taqiya, the doctrine on deception and deflection.

First, the argument of “good Jihad” raises the question of how there can be a legitimate concept of religious war in the twenty-first century to start with. Jihad historically was as “good” as any other religious war over the last 2,000 years. If a “good Jihad” is the one authorized by a caliph and directed under his auspices, then other world leaders also can wage a “good crusade” at will, as long as it is licensed by the proper authority. But in fact, all religious wars are proscribed by international law, period.

Second, the authors of this lobbyist-concocted theory claim that a wrong Jihad is called a Hiraba. But in Arab Muslim history, a Hiraba (unauthorized warring) was when a group of warriors launched itself against the enemy without orders from the real commander. Obviously, this implies that a “genuine” war against a real enemy does exist and that these hotheaded soldiers have simply acted without orders. Hence this cunning explanation puts “spin” on Jihad but leaves the core idea of Jihadism completely intact. The “spoilers” depart from the plan, attack prematurely, and cause damage to the caliphate’s long-terms plans. These Mufsidoon “fail” their commanders by unleashing a war of their own, instead of waiting for orders.

This scenario fits the relations of the global Jihadists, who are the regimes and international groups slowly planning to gain power against the infidels and the “hotheaded” Osama bin Laden. Thus the promoters of this theory of Hiraba and Mufsidoon are representing the views of classical Wahhabis and the Muslim Brotherhood in their criticism of the “great leap forward” made by bin Laden. But by convincing Westerners that al Qaeda and its allies are not the real Jihadists, but some renegades, the advocates of this school would be causing the vision of Western defense to become blurred again so that more time could be gained by a larger, more powerful wave of Jihadism that is biding its time to strike when it chooses, under a coherent international leadership.

Blinding the lazy and fearful to jihad’s encroachment

In Uncategorized on August 6, 2007 at 6:23 PM
Why would the proponents of jihad (offensive warfare against non-Muslims to make the world Islam) want us to misunderstand the term? Could it be so that we keep our defenses down while Islam continues its political, legal, media, academic, and economic offensives against the West?

Preventing the West from Understanding Jihad, by Walid Phares.

In the years that followed 9/11, two phenomena characterized the Western public’s understanding of the terrorists’ ideology. The first characteristic stemmed from the statements made by the Jihadists themselves. More than ever, Islamist militants and Jihadi cadres didn’t waste any opportunity to declare, clarify, explain, and detail the meaning of their aqida (doctrine) and their intentions to apply Jihadism by all means possible. Unfortunately for them, though, those extremely violent means changed international public opinion: the public now was convinced that there was an ideology of Jihadism, and that its adherents meant business worldwide.

From Ayman al Zawahiri in Arabic to Azzam al Amriki in American English, via all of the videotapes made by “martyrs” in Britain, Iraq, and Afghanistan, the public obtained all the evidence necessary. Against all the faulty academic literature of the 1990’s, the statements by the Jihadists themselves were very convincing.

The second phenomenon of help to the public was the surfacing of a new literature produced by alternative scholars, analysts, journalists, experts, and researchers who, from different backgrounds and countries, filled in some of the gaps is “Jihadi studies.” Producing books, articles, and blogs from Europe, India, the Middle East, and North America, a combination of Third World-born and Western-issued scholarship began to provide the “missing link” as to what Jihadism is all about. These factors came together to shift the debate from “Jihad is spiritual yoga” to “Why didn’t we know it was something else as well?” And this movement triggered, in response, one of the last attempts to prevent Jihad from being fully understood.

In the 1990’s, apologist literature attempted to convince readers and audiences in the West that Jihad was a “spiritual experience only, and not a menace.” That explanation has now been shattered by Bin Laden and Ahmedinijad. So in the post-9/11 age, a second strategy to delay public understanding of Jihadism and thereby gain time for its adherents to achieve their goals has evolved. It might be called the “good cop, bad cop” strategy. Over the past few years, a new story began to make inroads in Washington and the rest of the national defense apparatus. A group of academics and interest groups are circulating the idea that in reality Jihad can develop in two forms: good Jihad and bad Jihad.

The practice of not using “Jihad” and “Jihadism” was lately defended by two academics at the National Defense University who based their arguments on a study published by a Washington lobbyist, Jim Guirard. On June 22, 2006, Jim Garamone, writing for the American Forces Press Service, published the study of Douglas Streusand and Harry Tunnel under the title “Loosely Interpreted Arabic terms can promote enemy ideology.” Streusand told CNN that “Jihad is a term of great and positive import in Islam. It is commonly defined as striving or struggle, and can mean an internal or external struggle for faith.”

The article was posted under the title “Cultural Ignorance Leads to Misuse of Islamic Terms” by the US-based Islamist organization CAIR. Since then the concept of deflecting attention away from the study of Jihadism has penetrated large segments of defense newsletters and is omnipresent in Academia. More troubling though, is the fact that scholars who have seen the strategic threat of al Qaeda and Hezbollah have unfortunately fallen for the fallacy of the Hiraba. Professor Michael Waller of the Institute of World Politics in Washington wrote recently that “Jihad has been hijacked” as he bases his argument on Jim Guirard’s lobbying pieces. Satisfied with this trend taking root in the Defense intelligentsia of America, Islamist intellectuals and activists are hurrying to support this new tactic.

The good holy war is when the right religious and political authorities declare it against the correct enemy and at the right time. The bad Jihad, called also Hiraba, is the wrong war, declared by bad (and irresponsible) people against the wrong enemy (for the moment), and without an appropriate authorization by the “real” Muslim leadership. According to this thesis those Muslims who wage a Hiraba, a wrong war, are called Mufsidoon, from the Arabic word for “spoilers.” The advocates of this ruse recommend that the United States and its allies stop calling the Jihadists by that name and identifying the concept of Jihadism as the problem. In short, they argue that “Jihad is good, but the Mufsidoon, the bad guys and the terrorists, spoiled the original legitimate sense.

When researched, it turns out that this theory was produced by clerics of the Wahhabi regime in Saudi Arabia and the Muslim Brotherhood, as a plan to prevent Jihad and Jihadism from being depicted by the West and the international community as an illegal and therefore sanctioned activity. It was then forwarded to American- and Western-based interest groups to be spread within the Untied States, particularly within the defense and security apparatus. Such a deception further confuses U.S. national security perception of the enemy and plunges democracies back into the “black hole” of the 1990’s. This last attempt to blur the vision of democracies can be exposed with knowledge of the Jihadi terror strategies and tactics, one of which is known as Taqiya, the doctrine on deception and deflection.

First, the argument of “good Jihad” raises the question of how there can be a legitimate concept of religious war in the twenty-first century to start with. Jihad historically was as “good” as any other religious war over the last 2,000 years. If a “good Jihad” is the one authorized by a caliph and directed under his auspices, then other world leaders also can wage a “good crusade” at will, as long as it is licensed by the proper authority. But in fact, all religious wars are proscribed by international law, period.

Second, the authors of this lobbyist-concocted theory claim that a wrong Jihad is called a Hiraba. But in Arab Muslim history, a Hiraba (unauthorized warring) was when a group of warriors launched itself against the enemy without orders from the real commander. Obviously, this implies that a “genuine” war against a real enemy does exist and that these hotheaded soldiers have simply acted without orders. Hence this cunning explanation puts “spin” on Jihad but leaves the core idea of Jihadism completely intact. The “spoilers” depart from the plan, attack prematurely, and cause damage to the caliphate’s long-terms plans. These Mufsidoon “fail” their commanders by unleashing a war of their own, instead of waiting for orders.

This scenario fits the relations of the global Jihadists, who are the regimes and international groups slowly planning to gain power against the infidels and the “hotheaded” Osama bin Laden. Thus the promoters of this theory of Hiraba and Mufsidoon are representing the views of classical Wahhabis and the Muslim Brotherhood in their criticism of the “great leap forward” made by bin Laden. But by convincing Westerners that al Qaeda and its allies are not the real Jihadists, but some renegades, the advocates of this school would be causing the vision of Western defense to become blurred again so that more time could be gained by a larger, more powerful wave of Jihadism that is biding its time to strike when it chooses, under a coherent international leadership.

No, because that would mean killing themselves

In Uncategorized on August 3, 2007 at 10:22 AM

From the thread here.

one_party_under_god:

Are there any verses there that command killing of all gentiles?

Such as this:

“Even the best of the Gentiles should be killed.”

No, since “Gentile” means non-Jew. Muslims are Gentiles. (That would be one way to end the GWoT.)

Though Mohammed commanded slaughtering all non-Muslims who will not convert or submit, it seems he had a special soft spot for Jews:

“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).

“And well ye knew those amongst you who transgressed in the matter of the Sabbath: We said to them: “Be ye apes, despised and rejected” (Qur’an 2:65). “Shall I point out to you something much worse than this, (as judged) by the treatment it received from Allah? Those who incurred the curse of Allah and His wrath, those of whom some He transformed into apes and swine, those who worshipped evil; these are (many times) worse in rank, and far more astray from the even path” (Qur’an 5:60)!

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

“. . . 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 019, Number 4363-4366).

“Abu Burda reported on the authority of his father that Allah’s Apostle . . . said: No Muslim would die but Allah would admit in his stead a Jew or a Christian in Hell-Fire. ‘Umar b. Abd al-‘Aziz took an oath: By One besides Whom there is no god but He, thrice that his father had narrated that to him from Allah’s Messenger . . .” (Muslim Book 037, Number 6666).

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

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

. . . .

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

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

No, because that would mean killing themselves

In Uncategorized on August 3, 2007 at 10:22 AM

From the thread here.

one_party_under_god:

Are there any verses there that command killing of all gentiles?

Such as this:

“Even the best of the Gentiles should be killed.”

No, since “Gentile” means non-Jew. Muslims are Gentiles. (That would be one way to end the GWoT.)

Though Mohammed commanded slaughtering all non-Muslims who will not convert or submit, it seems he had a special soft spot for Jews:

“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).

“And well ye knew those amongst you who transgressed in the matter of the Sabbath: We said to them: “Be ye apes, despised and rejected” (Qur’an 2:65). “Shall I point out to you something much worse than this, (as judged) by the treatment it received from Allah? Those who incurred the curse of Allah and His wrath, those of whom some He transformed into apes and swine, those who worshipped evil; these are (many times) worse in rank, and far more astray from the even path” (Qur’an 5:60)!

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

“. . . 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 019, Number 4363-4366).

“Abu Burda reported on the authority of his father that Allah’s Apostle . . . said: No Muslim would die but Allah would admit in his stead a Jew or a Christian in Hell-Fire. ‘Umar b. Abd al-‘Aziz took an oath: By One besides Whom there is no god but He, thrice that his father had narrated that to him from Allah’s Messenger . . .” (Muslim Book 037, Number 6666).

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

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

. . . .

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

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

Critical thinking should be encouraged

In Uncategorized on August 3, 2007 at 10:20 AM

From the thread here.

DeuceFour :

While I would agree to an extent that the Qur’an and Mein Kampf are on a similar level, there is no need to mention Sean.

It would create a better OP to demonstrate similar articles from both books and then ask for discussion.

Hmmm. I just finished watching a segment on the Qur’an flushing at Pace. Sean is influential, this is his forum, and he made the false moral equivalence.

Should such an error be ignored?

Critical thinking should be encouraged

In Uncategorized on August 3, 2007 at 10:20 AM

From the thread here.

DeuceFour :

While I would agree to an extent that the Qur’an and Mein Kampf are on a similar level, there is no need to mention Sean.

It would create a better OP to demonstrate similar articles from both books and then ask for discussion.

Hmmm. I just finished watching a segment on the Qur’an flushing at Pace. Sean is influential, this is his forum, and he made the false moral equivalence.

Should such an error be ignored?

Qur’an is both a "religious" text and a "text of genocidal madness," so yes, they are on the same level

In Uncategorized on August 3, 2007 at 10:16 AM

From the thread here.

ChrisSpencer:

A religious text and a text of genocidal madness are on the same level? If your going to start making such incomprehensible comparison you might as well throw the Bible in there too.

The false moral equivalence above is incomprehensible. Perhaps you ought to reconsider expressing an opinion on a topic with which you are so unfamiliar.

Jesus taught, “Love your enemies.” Allah commands, “kill the unbelievers wherever you find them . . . .”

ChrisSpencer vs. Mohammed [on the anti-Semitism in Mein Kampf and Qur’an/Sunnah], Round 1:

“And well ye knew those amongst you who transgressed in the matter of the Sabbath: We said to them: “Be ye apes, despised and rejected” (Qur’an 2:65). “Shall I point out to you something much worse than this, (as judged) by the treatment it received from Allah? Those who incurred the curse of Allah and His wrath, those of whom some He transformed into apes and swine, those who worshipped evil; these are (many times) worse in rank, and far more astray from the even path” (Qur’an 5:60)!

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

“. . . 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 (may peace be upon him) who granted them security. They embraced Islam. The Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) 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 (may peace be upon him) say: I will expel the Jews and Christians from the Arabian Peninsula and will not leave any but Muslim” (Muslim Book 019, Number 4363-4366).