Muhammad was a feminist, but to what end?

I've heard the Muslim claim that Muhammad "protected" female babies.

It turns out that that was same kind of "protection" afforded non-Muslims as dhimmis: Reserved for Muhammad's Abuse Only.

And since he was "a beautiful pattern of conduct for those who want to please" Allah, Muslim men to this day are affording women (and little girls) that same "exalted" status.

Fahasha trumpets the inherent feminism of Islam with this:

1.The Muslim woman has equal rights as the Muslim man has.
2. She enjoys property and inheritance rights. (Which other religion grants women these rights?). She can also conduct her own separate business.
3. She can marry any Muslim of her choice. If her parents choose a partner for her, her consent must be taken.
4. The dowry in Islam is a gift from a husband to his wife.
5. A Muslim widow is encouraged to remarry, and her remarriage is the responsibility of the Muslim society.

Yes, under Islam, women have the right to be beaten, to be raped by their husbands, to have their testimony count half of a man's, to be a victim of polygamy, to be murdered for "lewdness," to receive half the inheritance of a male, and more.

And beginning at the age of nine, to be raped as a disgusting pedophile's "wife," in Allah-pleasing imitation of Muhammad:

“. . . 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).

“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).

Profanity only adds to the impression of obvious Muslim tolerance and erudition

From bignasxl, also concerned about the volatile combination of my ability to read at grade-level and my possession of Islamic texts.

Once infidels start reading, they start getting ideas, they start thinking for themselves. Who knows where the madness will end?

Someone might . . . tell the truth?

i quote you mad? Well i guess you are mad and thats why you spoke about the quran which you have no knowledge of.In particular about killing non muslims as that was only done in war asshole.No real muslim can go aroung killing kafirs just because they arrenot us...Are you insane?Oh yead you did say the statement your mad

Blame Muhammad, not me. Those are his words, not mine.

You sound like a reasonable and rational Muslim, bignasxl. Not at all intolerant or prone to irrational and violent outbursts, which is itself just an ugly stereotype propagated by the Zionist-controlled media. No basis in fact at all, at all.

Profanity only adds to the impression of your obvious tolerance and erudition.

You claim again that I do not know Qur'an. As I stated in my last note to you, it should be easy to point out my error. Why don't you?

One fact you may have missed in your years of careful exploration of the Islamic texts is that even if the killing is "only done in war asshole," Islam is in a state of permanent war against against the non-Muslim world "until all religion is for Allah." You remember that verse, right?

I know that only the caliph can call for offensive jihad, but since even "unbelief" is considered a crime against Allah and an oppression of Muslims ("mischief" anyone?), guess what? You've got your justification for "war asshole"!

Surely, even you can read your own prophet's commands to slaughter those who refuse the "invitation" to Islam and to paying jizya.

The least you can do is be honest about it.

(By the way, you wrote "mad" when you meant "made." I was quoting you.)

"Mercy, kindness, forgiveness." Muslims keep using those words. I do not think they mean what they think they mean.

From enef, concerned about my focus on certain less-than-palatable aspects of Islam:

Amillennialist,those verses r hadeeth,im not an expert in it so im not gonna speak about it but Ill check on it.im sure theres good explanation behind it,I want to know it as well.i think so coz ive came across lots of other hadeeth saying good things,these few about terror must hv good reasons.maybe its in context of war.words cannot be interpreted just by words right?need to look at it from various angles

if all info u have about islam is actually from the media,or what u see by the actions of the bad muslims,MOST of the info actually are LIES.try to explore islam by urself objectively,no emotional bias.read the Koran (not the fake 1 of course) n then judge by urself.read it AS A WHOLE,not just taking pieces that show as if islam is terror.coz u wont understand it in the right context.

but i see that u just take piesces from Quran that shows as if islam is very bad,u dont take it as a whole.

btw,have u read the whole quran?

there is no compulsion in religion.the right direction is henceforth distinct from error al-baqarah, 2:256

Here are the "various angles":

In the early days of his prophetic career, when Muhammad was militarily weak, the revelations he received spoke peacefully regarding the "People of the Book."

Later, as Muhammad grew in strength -- and he met continued resistance to his message and movement -- his revelations permitted self-defense/retaliation.

Then came the third stage.

Here Muhammad's revelations made violence in self-defense/retaliation/revenge mandatory. In fact, 2:191 uses the same language as The Verse of the Sword -- "kill the unbelievers wherever you find them" -- but in the context of retaliation.

Regrettably, this verse is neither moral nor as innocuous as non-Muslims might hope, since it ranks "persecution/tumult and oppression [as] worse than slaughter"!

Because of passages like this, Islam considers even "unbelief" an offense against Allah. Consider:

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

According to this verse, one of the crimes for which a non-Muslim is to be "executed, crucified, or have his hand and foot from opposite sides cut off" is "mischief."

Defense of self and others is moral and the desire for revenge understandable, but violence over religious belief?

The final stage in the evolution of jihad was the mandate for offensive warfare against all who refuse both the "invitation" to Islam and slavery as dhimmis (second-class, door-mat, punching-bag status, allowed primarily to Jews and Christians), until the whole world is under Islamic law.

Some people unfamiliar with its context will interpret The Verse of the Sword as a command to kill all non-Muslims indiscriminately. That would be taking the passage out-of-context, for non-Muslims are first to be offered conversion to Islam. If they refuse, then they are to pay jizya and submit themselves to degradation and humiliation at the hands of Muslims (see the Pact of Umar).

The third, and last, option is war.

As for your questions about where I get my information on Islam, they are telling. Does my writing sound like someone who's just "copying and pasting" from . . . where, exactly? Not CNN. Not Fox. Not the U. S. government.

If anything, our media, politicians, and academics are too deferential to Islamic sensibilities, too willing to bury their heads in the sand regarding the "theological" foundation of jihad. Too afraid to be called a name.

You're engaging in what's called an "ad hominem" attack; Instead of addressing whether or not what I write is true, you're questioning my integrity.

You know what's curious? You ask me if I've read the whole Qur'an, implying that if I do, I'll discover the context of the passages in question, and then they'll be no longer Verses of Blood and Death. You talk about reading it like someone who has no idea of what it contains.

Anyone who's studied Qur'an knows that it doesn't read like any other book: It's contents are arranged neither chronologically nor by topic; instead, its chapters are arranged by size and filled with statements possessing frequently no obvious connection to those that precede or follow them. And since Qur'an is supposed to be Allah's own words, there is little or no historical context to be discerned from surrounding verses, which is why ahadith and sira play such an important role in putting Qur'an "in context."

And all the Islamic quotations I use are taken from Islamic sources.

As for "no compulsion in religion," you have two problems. First, it is true that no one can force inner belief, but one can coerce, control, regulate, and punish overt behavior and speech. Second, if one considers "no compulsion" contradicted by, "kill the unbelievers wherever you find them," and, "Fight against . . . the People of the Book . . . until they feel themselves subdued and pay the jizya" (Qur'an 9:5 and 29), then you've got the Islamic doctrine of naskh, which says that when two revelations contradict each other, the more recent one abrogates that which preceded it.

Why have a "Doctrine of Abrogation" if verses are not abrogated?

Regardless, The Verse of the Sword is Allah's last word on jihad.

Finally, as to your concern that I "just take piesces from Quran that shows as if islam is very bad,[I] dont take it as a whole," I would make two points: First, I am concerned about the passages that command the faithful to enslave, rape, and slaughter me and mine. Second, "those pieces" are not about how to wear your hair, or what kind of ingredients to use to make really great soup.

Shouldn't commands for genocide, murder, rape, slavery, and oppression of non-Muslims, apostates, women, and children demand everyone's attention and condemnation?

To claim that it is unreasonable to focus on Allah's malevolence and bloodlust because there are some good parts in Islam is like saying, "How can you condemn Adolph Hitler? He was a great speaker! And he liked kittens!" or, "Sure, Ted Bundy tortured and slaughtered a bunch of innocent people, but what hygiene! And what a charmer!"

Allah's "mercy," "kindness," and being "oft-forgiving" are for only those non-Muslims who convert.

The rest are "fuel for the fire."

Instead of asking why I'm bothered by Muhammad and his allah's perverse and bloody dictates, you should be asking yourself why you are not.

So, enef, do you denounce Muhammad and Allah's commands to enslave or slaughter all who refuse Islam?

What we need is another Reconquista

Of the UK, France, the Netherlands, Kosovo, Constantinople, Dearborn, the White House . . . .

Another quick one, from here:

"BTW, Muslims are seeking a right of return to Spain since they were expelled in the 1600's or thereabouts, a few hundred years after their conquest of southern Spain."

In 1492, Spain completed the Reconquista of their own lands by finally defeating the Moors at Granada.

It took them nearly eight hundred years [to free themselves from Islamic tyranny].

Most other Infidel lands were not so fortunate.

Can you name anyone else who's broken Allah's death grip?

Israel? That's going well.

Once Dar al-Islam, always Dar al-Islam.

Moral equivalence kills historical truth

Just like Islam.

From here:

"Islam is exactly where Christianity was 700 years after its creation."

It is well-known that eighth century Christians routinely beheaded school girls [to shouts of "Christ is LORD!"] as they invaded, raped, and erased the civilizations around them.

Just as [some] labor[ ] to create a moral equivalence between Israel and the savages who terrorize it, so too you make Christianity equal to the same savage[ ideology].

Gunner gets it

"The problem is not Israel; it's Islam."

Hitler was an underachiever compared to Muhammad

Different eras and backgrounds, but similar goals: Subjugate the world and eliminate the Jews.

History shows that when someone says they want to enslave or slaughter you and yours, it would be wise to pay attention to them.

Just like Hitler, who warned Europe of what he would accomplish in his own totalitarian death manifesto, Mein Kampf (literally, "my struggle"), so did Muhammad warn the world of his own "struggle" (literally, "jihad") to subjugate and slaughter all non-Muslims in his own Mein Kampf, Qur'an (note especially Sura 9, Allah's Final Solution).

Few listened to Hitler until he was invading their homelands.

Who's listening today?

The ties between the two most vile monsters the world has ever known don't end there. Hitler recognized in Islam an ideology that would have facilitated the achievement of his goals, going so far as to lament that Germany was Christian rather than Islamic.

Muslim SS divisions.

"Hitlers' mufti" (not, "Hitler's pope").

Jews targeted. Hitler's six million? Islam calls that "a start."

Let the wise look to Allah, here:

"Muslims worship death because their culture makes it inevitable. The same culture that stunts their societal growth."

It is the word of Allah and the example of his apostle that create and sustain that culture of death and intellectual etiolation, for -- as Islam's "sacred" texts reveal -- complete mental submission to the revealed will of Allah is required of the faithful.

So too must the ummah convert, subdue and humiliate, and kill non-Muslims to make the world Islam.

Mental submission to a worldview so utterly contrary to conscience twists men's souls.

There is no Liberty, no full equality of rights for Infidels and women, and no free intellectual inquiry.

Only unquestioning obedience to Muhammad and his god is acceptable.

Nightmare? No, it's a flashback

It's deja vu all over again. It's Groundhog Day.

Cue Sonny and Cher's, "I got you, Babe."

If only it were a nightmare! We'd wake up and only have to worry about our "president" bankrupting and disarming the world's only superpower.

Instead, it's the same abhorrent play performed on stages 'round the world year after year for the last one and one-half millennia.

Coming to a theater near you (if it isn't already there), a plot the most depraved playwright from Hell could conjure, here:

"…Deep inside the Pentagon...a nightmare scenario hangs in the air, unmentioned but unmistakable."

Like this one? A murderous, lying, thieving, raping, heretical pedophile receives self-serving revelations -- including the "divine" mandate to convert, subdue and humiliate, or kill those not of his faith. Obediently, his followers invade foreign lands and rape, enslave, and butcher its residents until those nations cease to exist.

That's no nightmare. That's a drama that's been played out on the stage of history for the last nearly one and one-half millennia throughout the Middle East, Africa, Asia, and parts of Europe.

Doing nothing in the face of an existential threat is foolish. Recognizing the Source and Sustenance of Jihad would go a long way toward enabling us to use our blood and treasure more effectively and efficiently.

The myth of Islamic knowledge

What beneficial or beautiful thing has Islam ever produced?

It's greatest accomplishments were not its own, they were stolen from the dhimmi populations conquered at Muhammad's command.

No, Islam has contributed nothing to the world, unless you count "sacralized" slaughter, rape, and slavery "advances."

Refutation of a typically self-loathing and tyrant-friendly "analysis" in defense of Islam, from here:

"Remember, in medieval times and the early Renaissance, scientists and astronomers in the West were being persecuted (Galileo, Copernicus, and others) while Arab astronomers and mathematicans were making great contributions to the body of world knowledge."

After centuries of slaughtering Western Infidels[,] destroying their work[,] and [usurping their] knowledge in service to Allah.

[And the persecution of scientists by European Christendom has been exaggerated.]

"Algebra, for example, is an Arabic word."

Which means that Arabic had words.

You leave out Heron of Alexandria, Diophantus [the true "Father of Algebra"], and Aryabhata, among others.

"The zero is a concept given to us by Babylonians (and Hindus)."

Your "father of algebra" attributes zero to Brahmagupta, who [developed] a decimal-based number system. He was [orthodox] Hindu.

The Babylonians used zero as a placeholder in representing another number, while the Romans and Ptolemy used it to show a lack of quantity.

Faith in democracy misguided

That in which so many people put their faith as "democracy" is actually the worldview derived from the doctrines of Christ and codified as a system of government in America's Declaration of Independence and Constitution -- especially the Bill of Rights.

These two documents recognize and guarantee the equality of rights -- especially the Rights to Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness -- to all, regardless of race, national origin, socioeconomic status, political party, or non-genocidal, non-totalitarian "religion" (yes, I exclude intentionally Islam and every other fascist, murderous ideology, for the Constitution is not a suicide pact).

Of what value is "democracy" when the majority recognize they can vote to themselves the fruits of a prosperous minority's labor?

Even worse, when the majority demands shari'a and the Hell on Earth that it creates?

More from here, where a poster stumbles on a possible remedy for Islam in the West:

"Democracy doesn't lose every time
Someone metioned this earlier. However, with all of its imperfections, no one mentioned Turkey. When you take a closer look at what Ataturk had to do to establish democracy there, one can see a possible model for other countries in the middle east."

Democracy is only a tool used by [faithful] Muslims to institute Shari'a.

And Ataturk suppressed Islam by force and forbade its traditional political expression.

Are you implying we should do the same?

An outlandish denial of facts, typical for Islamo-biased research

Falsehoods in defense of Allah, refuted here:

"My research indicated that the Arabs sided with the Germans because they wanted to get rid of the British!"

That may have been a motivation. Now the British are gone. What is Islam's excuse? Is there more to this picture than meets your eye?

Yes, there is. About Jews, Islam's "sacred" texts state:

"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).

"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).

And Allah calls Mohammed a "beautiful pattern of conduct." He is considered the "Ideal Man."

The outlandish fact-denier continues:

"That makes sense if you are capable of honestly trying to look at history from the others' perspective."

You define "honestly trying to look at history from the others' perspective" to mean that you should look at history from the opposite perspective. With regard to Islam, that is a suicidally false assumption to make.

"The idea that because there was no "state" means that you can come in and do whatever you want is false."

There was no "Palestinian nation" to which you earlier appealed.

"The Arabs reacted violently from the time that large numbers of Jews immigrated, so there is no way that anybody can say that this situation was ever acceptable to them."

As noted above, Islam's own authoritative documents reveal that Muslim (not Arab) Jew-hatred is almost one and one-half millennia old and required by Allah.

"I think the Kurds should have their own country."

I agree. From what I read, it appears the Kurds are (at least for now) more America-friendly than their fellow Iraqis.

"The fact that no one is worked up about it is the same reason so much genocide goes on in places like Africa and Americans don't get real excited - because it has never been put to them that this would be a situation vital to their own interests - until now, now that people are starting to realize that it is a global situation. Nothing is as simple as you would have people believe."

What is that reason? The genocide in Africa has been ongoing for centuries because jihad requires it.

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

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

incognito's lies no longer ... incognito

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

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

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

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

False.

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

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

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

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

False. Citations, please. Be specific.

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

Obviously, chronology equals causation.

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

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

"There was large-scale destruction of Jewish populations even before the establishment of Christianity as the state religion of the Roman Empire..."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

incognito advocates racism and injustice

He begins with:

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

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

[Truth] would be more effective.

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

Clumsy ad hominem.

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

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

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

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

"Maybe Christians should ask themselves, 'What would Jesus do?'"

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

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

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

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

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

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

That's racist! [Or at least, "ancestrist."]

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

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

Harm is harm. Why not deal with it justly?

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

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

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

But you didn't mean that, did you?


More from incognito

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

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

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

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

"You obviously did not read my previous posts."

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

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

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

That would be under "Hind-sight is 20/20."

What do you about jihad now?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Second, the war was not "ill-conceived," and neither did the President lie about Saddam's WMD.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"THAT IS THE BEGINNING OF HOLY WAR."

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

You really ought to do some reading.

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

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

incognito speaks, and the world listens

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

Even the ones after Qur'an was written!

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

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

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

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

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

Please tell us what they were.

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

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

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

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

". . . the Messenger of Allah . . . would say: 'Fight in the name of Allah and in the way of Allah. Fight against those who disbelieve in Allah. Make a holy war . . . . When you meet your enemies who are polytheists, invite them to three courses of action. . . . Invite them to (accept) Islam. . . . If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya. . . . If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah's help and fight them . . .'" (Muslim Book 019, Number 4294).

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

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

". . . fight them [Unbelievers] on until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah altogether and everywhere . . . " (Qur'an 8:38, 39).

"O ye who believe! fight the unbelievers who gird you about, and let them find firmness in you: and know that Allah is with those who fear Him" (Qur'an 9:123).

"Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you." (Qur'an 2:216).

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

“A man came to Allah’s Apostle and said, ‘Instruct me as to such a deed as equals Jihad in reward.’ He replied, ‘I do not find such a deed’” (Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 44).

"Remember thy Lord inspired the angels (with the message): 'I am with you: give firmness to the Believers: I will instill terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers: smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them'" (Qur'an 8:12).

“Allah’s Apostle said, ‘I have been made victorious with terror. The treasures of the world were brought to me and put in my hand’” (Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 220).

incognito continues:

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

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

I supported President Bush's toppling of Saddam.

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

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

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

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

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

Speaking out of ignorance does not add to your credibility.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That is unsurprising.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"you all"? "people like you"?

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

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

incognito's inexcusable incognizance

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

9/11.

Old-fashioned anti-Semitism

Roy writes . . . old-fashioned nonsense here:

"Yes, the Middle East is in a mess, but there is plenty of blame to go around. Centuries under foreign rule, whether Ottoman or European. Then a European state (Israel) planted right in the middle of the Arab world."

It's always the Jews' fault, isn't it, Roy?

"Even to mention its possibility was to incur Israeli wrath, charges of anti-Semitism, etc."

Just as it was completely unreasonable for Israel to hesitate rewarding the people who tried to destroy it then, so it is today, right Roy?

"The Palestinians become so frustrated that they foolishly elect Hamas."

Whenever I'm really frustrated that the nation I tried to slaughter utterly shamed me I elect bloodthirsty, child-killing, sadists too.

"Plenty of blame to go around, as in most such confrontations . . . What we need (and have needed) is a fair resolution of that issue."

Here is what passes for "fair" in Roy's eyes:

"There must be a viable Palestinian state with control of its own borders, air, and water, with the Arab section of Jerusalem as its capital. Palestinians whose homes were taken or demolished etc need to be compensated. Many of the 9000 Palestinians prisoners need to be released. Etc."

In other words, Roy defines "fair" as "reward murderers, liars, and thieves for their murdering, lying, and stealing."

"In exchange, the Palestinians must give up all terrorism and recognize Israel."

That's already been tried. Every time Israel sacrifices, Arab Muslims (not "Palestinians") displaced by Muslim [greed for Jewish blood] slaughter more innocent Israelis.

"Together, side by side, the two states could set an example for the rest of the world."

They're already an example of the effectiveness of good-will negotiations with Islam.

More from Roy:

"(4) The sort of intolerance toward Islam apparent in many posts confirms the deep religious prejudice (and ignorance) of many posters. Why not read some of Karen Armstrong's writings? We need to have more understanding, less bigotry."

[If you want to understand Islam, Karen Armstrong is one of the last places you should turn.]

What you define as "understanding" is more correctly termed "ignorance;" what you call "bigotry" is more accurately named "honesty."

Exactly what part of ". . . kill the unbelievers wherever you find them . . ." (Qur'an 9:5) do you find so tolerable?

How does a knowledge of 1400 years of global Jihad and the religious texts that inspire and invigorate it qualify as "prejudice"?

If it seems that you are unacquainted with Islam's actual theology and history, citing Karen Armstrong only proves it.

Roy finishes with a flourish:

"the Hebrew scriptures are full of mass muder, even genocide. Consider Joshua slaughtering every inhabitant in Jericho, Ai, etc. And what about Saul's slaughter of the Amalekites - every one of them. And the crowds cheering David - Saul kills thousands, David kills tens of thousands, or whatever. If we judge Judaism by such stories from its scriptures it certainly would appear to be a religion of violence."

Again, a false moral equivalence wrapped in a tu quoque argument! Why do you avoid addressing the bloodlust of Allah and his false prophet?

Nearly all of the warfare recorded in the Old Testament writings are accounts of historical events, not one command requires offensive warfare to make the world Zion.

And as for the command given to conquer the Promised Land, that was limited to a specific target, place, and time. It was a divine judgment of those peoples carried out by Ancient Israel (who later suffered a similar judgment at the hands of foreign powers because of their wickedness).

It is in no way comparable to the universal commands given by Allah and his apostle for offensive warfare against all non-Muslims to make the world Islam.

"The solution? Talk and talk and talk, instead of demonizing and speaking arrogantly."

Thank you very much, Neville Chamberlain.

Talking with those whose religious obligation it is to convert, subjugate, or kill you doesn't seem like an effective strategy, unless your goal is to give them enough time to slit your throat.

And telling the truth is not demonizing.

"Basis for negotiation: we will recognize Israel if you will encourage a viable Palestinian state"

So, Muslim terrorists attack innocent Israelis, and Israel must reward the killers to gain their recognition?

That's not negotiation, that's suicide.

"Dignity and humiliation are major components of the problem. You don't gain peace and understanding when you treat subject people like dirt. I was in Israel four times and saw firsthand the humiliation of Palestinians."

Is that humiliation Israel's fault for defending itself, or the "Palestinians'" fault for repeatedly attacking them in the first place?

Stop blaming the victim.

Israel constantly sacrifices for the good of its Muslim neighbors. Where are their Coreligionists of Peace?

Those who slaughter innocents deserve much worse than humiliation.

How does one reconcile Islam and Christianity?

A former apparently-moderate Muslim hissed once in a fit of Islamic rage that his wife was a Muslim and a Christian.

This woman sounds as though she chose the confusion directly, and not through marriage:

". . . she is a Muslim and a Christian. . . She made the comment that she didn't want to try and resolve the differences between the two theologies, then stated she wants to found an institute to study them."

Here's the resolution . . .

Muhammad said:

"In blasphemy indeed are those that say that Allah is Christ the son of Mary. . ." (Qur'an 5:17).

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

". . . 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)!

But Jesus said, "Before Abraham was born, I AM!"

So, Muhammad calls the Son of God a "blasphemer."

In other words, there is no way to make peace between the two.

I just saved her (and perhaps taxpayers) millions of dollars.

Promoting ignorance of Islam is no virtue

Sgt. A. promotes ignorance of Islam here:

"Shame on you. Those folks are human beings; as misguided as many of them are, they are NOT all murderers or evil men. I will not condone this sort of hateful talk, either from conservatives OR progressives."

Recognizing that Allah and his false prophet Muhammad require the faithful to convert, subdue and humiliate, and kill non-Muslims to make the world Islam is not hateful, it is necessary.

Apparently, you not only condone ignorance of Islam, you propagate it. Shame on you.

"YOU go over there and watch the women and kids sprawled on the ground from an IED blast where they were hanging up clothes to dry. . ."

The death of Muslim innocents is a great evil, but it is due to their Co-religionists of Peace and their god. Blame Muhammad.

". . . YOU go over there and watch a man patiently teaching his young son to drive a cart and tell me they ought all to die. YOU go over there and work with the Iraqi police and tell me they're all just like Al Qaeda and ought to die."

Straw men.

Some of the police do serve Jihad. So too some of the cart-driving instructors. And some of those women and children who happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time undoubtedly advocate the absolute rule of Allah over all Infidel lands.

Did you mourn the innocents of Dresden? Hiroshima? Nagasaki? The South? Or would you have preferred the Republic fall?

Do you mourn the innocents of jihadist terror? 9/11, London 7/7, Madrid 3/11, Beslan, Bali, Indonesia, Somalia, Sudan (even before Darfur), Serbia, the Philippines, India, Egypt, Iraq, Israel?

Do you shed a tear for the Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, animists, pagans, and other non-Muslims persecuted, enslaved, raped, and slaughtered in their own lands because Allah demands it?

What of all the civilizations, cultures, languages, and lives destroyed by almost one and one-half millennia of Allah's malevolence? Do you weep for them at all?

Are you even aware of it?

Your good intentions and natural compassion apparently blind you to the enemy we face, and I doubt those charged with preparing you for battle told you the truth.

"I am so proud that the vast majority of soldiers have no use for your despicable approach."

His approach is to let Islam be Islam, undoubtedly so that more of our soldiers do not needlessly die for those who take Infidel blood and treasure as an fitting tribute to the supremacy of Islam and the Muslim (or don't you know this?).

"You have every right to voice your opinion, but the one you chose to articulate is a vile, disgusting one, and I hope nobody else here subscribes to it."

You have every right to voice your opinion, but the one you choose to articulate is a vile and disgusting one, for it is born of ignorance of nearly fourteen centuries of global jihad, and -- to the extent that it "informs" and directs public policy, homeland security, and our war effort -- it prevents us from defending ourselves as effectively as we must.

Unfortunately, too many here -- nearly all our political, media, and academic leadership -- subscribe to it.

Allowing Muslims to fulfill their god's blood-lust (it must be satisfied!) against each other rather than against good-willed (if naive) Infidels seems not a bad plan at this point.

Where is the Arab Ghandi or King?

The question was asked here:

"Where is the Arab Ghandi or King?"

He was beheaded as an Apostate.

And, it is "Islamic," not "Arab," for that which retards Islamic civilization is not race but belief.

Victor Davis Hansen is a brilliant historian, but it is clear from this essay that he too fails to understand the Source and Sustenance of the Global Jihad.

It is true that a variety of factors may be the actual final stimulus that pushes a person to physically carry out a terrorist act, but those factors are not unique to "Middle Easterners."

If a lack of technological, legal, or economic development and opportunity were the causes of terrorism, why is it (nearly) only Muslims engage in it? And why is it that this "radicalization" of the Religionists of Peace occurs around the world? What is the common denominator?

It is the word of Allah and the example of his apostle Mohammed. Their "sacred" texts state in part:

". . . the Messenger of Allah . . . would say: 'Fight in the name of Allah and in the way of Allah. Fight against those who disbelieve in Allah. Make a holy war . . . . When you meet your enemies who are polytheists, invite them to three courses of action. . . . Invite them to (accept) Islam. . . . If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya. . . . If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah's help and fight them . . .'" (Muslim Book 019, Number 4294).

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

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

". . . fight them [Unbelievers] on until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah altogether and everywhere . . . " (Qur'an 8:38, 39).

"O ye who believe! fight the unbelievers who gird you about, and let them find firmness in you: and know that Allah is with those who fear Him" (Qur'an 9:123).

"Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you." (Qur'an 2:216).

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

“A man came to Allah’s Apostle and said, ‘Instruct me as to such a deed as equals Jihad in reward.’ He replied, ‘I do not find such a deed’” (Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 44).

"Remember thy Lord inspired the angels (with the message): 'I am with you: give firmness to the Believers: I will instill terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers: smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them'" (Qur'an 8:12).

“Allah’s Apostle said, ‘I have been made victorious with terror. The treasures of the world were brought to me and put in my hand’” (Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 220).

More madness trying to explain the madness in the Middle East

Even a great historian like Victor Davis Hanson is loath to state clearly what motivates the bloodlust of Allah. And too many Western Infidels, even at a place like Townhall, are all too willing to follow him in that blindness here.

To be fair, this article was written two years ago, and Mr. Hanson does mention shari'a, Islamic fundamentalism, and religious thugs. It also seems that he wanders too closely to "poverty causes jihad" and other distractions from the truth.

We need Mr. Hanson and other leaders to state more clearly that the Source and Sustenance of Islamic malevolence is the command of Allah and the example of Muhammad.

Hugh Hewitt still has a way to go, though. I heard him just yesterday use the abominations "Islamicist extremist" and "Qur'anic law -- supposedly" (paraphrased, in relation to the stoning of Soraya M.).

We need people to tell the truth. This is America. The tide will turn.

An actual answer to the question "Can Muhammad and Jefferson Coexist?"

[This post was begun June 17, 2007.

Since America faces an existential threat at the hands of its own “president,” his co-ideologues in one of our two major political parties, and his coreligionists waging war against us within and without our borders, the points it raises about Islam and its incompatibility with the principles of the American Republic are as timely as ever, especially as our own leadership accelerates our descent into oblivion.

All citizens must find the zeal for Liberty embodied by Jefferson and his fellow Founding Fathers.]

In an article entitled, "Can Muhammad and Jefferson Coexist?" the author raises several factors that relate to the answer to that question. Perhaps it is intended to serve as a starting point for discussion, because the essay never really answers the question clearly.

The answer is: Only if Jefferson were to convert, submit, or die, for that is all Muhammad and his allah allow the “infidel.”

The comments were interesting in that though there was the usual politically-correct, multiculturalist, morally-relative nonsense, quite a few posts were very clearly on the side of reality.

Being that most of my time in the Comments at Townhall is spent at Hugh Hewitt's site pointing out to him that his Islam is a false one (or to Mormons that their christ is a false messiah), it is refreshing and encouraging to see that others recognize the nature of Qur'anic, historical, traditional Islam.

Answering the question and refuting Jihad's apologists, from here:

Terror is fundamental to Islam

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

and,

"Remember thy Lord inspired the angels (with the message): 'I am with you: give firmness to the Believers: I will instill terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers: smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them'" (Qur'an 8:12).

Be happy, free, and wrong

Steve wrote:

"Obviously, someone can be a bad Muslim as easily as someone can be a bad Christian. The issue isn't what they claim to be, but rather what they are."

But "good" and "bad" must be defined in light of each religion's authoritative texts, not human opinion.

A "good" Christian will tell the truth, love, serve, do good, and refrain from harming others because that is what Christ commands.

A "good" Muslim will fight against, subdue and humiliate, and kill non-Muslims to establish the tyranny of Allah over all mankind because that is what his god requires and his prophet practiced:

". . . the Messenger of Allah . . . would say: 'Fight in the name of Allah and in the way of Allah. Fight against those who disbelieve in Allah. Make a holy war . . . When you meet your enemies who are polytheists, invite them to three courses of action . . . Invite them to (accept) Islam . . . If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya . . . If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah's help and fight them...'" (Muslim Book 019, Number 4294).

Steve continues:

"America claims to have a separation of church and state . . . ."

The separation to which Jefferson referred was a protection of religion against government, not a protection of government against religion.

"Men have used violence to serve their own glory for thousands of years, and expect obedience and honor from those they rule over. A Nazi, a communist, an Islamist and a democratic imperialist are all wired the same way, the only difference is the self-satisfying text that they reference."

How naive. The difference between all those you name and a Muslim is that the followers of Mahomet have the permanent, unalterable, and "divine" commands to: ". . . 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), and:

"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).

Not only this, but the faithful Muslim also has the words and deeds of Mohammed -- described by Allah as a "beautiful pattern of conduct" -- to emulate. Mohammed 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).

"Christ and Socrates would be crucified for their pursuit of virtue . . . ."

Christ was killed for speaking the words and doing the work of His Father.

". . . Look at the resistance to amnesty for illegal aliens, for example. The door to the inn is still closed, and a child is born in a land with little compassion but with huge warehouses and grand houses of hypocrisy."

That hypocrisy exists is true. That our nation lacks virtue is for growing numbers of our people also true.

That defending one's borders and enforcing the rule of law (we still have quite generous legal immigration rules) is immoral or cruel is suicidally false.

To justify the destruction of American sovereignty and the end of the rule of law by conflating it with the birth of the Son of God is sacrilege.

In response to JFP

JFP observed:

"Theoretically, yes
Just as there are many interpretations of the Bible, so there can be many interpretations of the Qur'an."

The many interpretations are the fault of human error, arrogance, and carelessness.

They are not indicative of any weakness or ambiguity in the Biblical texts.

The same is true of Islam's authoritative documents. Qur'an, Hadith, and Sira say what they say. It is the ignorant and the liar who claim the texts say anything other than what they clearly do.

There is no indication from these *Islamic* records that Mohammad and his followers understood these texts should be taken in any way other than with fatal literalism.

The nearly fourteen centuries of Infidel blood spilled, their women and children raped and enslaved, and the destruction of their religions, cultures, and nations in obedience to those texts also demonstrate that Muslims traditionally take Allah and his apostle at their word.

"When this point is brought up to secularists, what do they say?
1. They call us racist, as though that solves the problem.
2. They say it is too remote a possibility to worry about . . . ."

Which should cause all thinking Infidels to question whether or not these people are really "secularists" in fear of non-Muslim over-generalizations or actually apologists for jihad deceiving ignorant and gullible people of good will.

In response to Phylo

Can Phylo's arguments co-exist w/ truth? He writes:

"Can Jesus coexist with Jefferson?"

The answer is, clearly, "yes," since Jesus commanded His people to "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and give to God what is God's."

(And in case this little fact eluded your apparently vigorous intellectual curiosity, the Founding Fathers were overwhelmingly Christians.)

Phylo continues:

"This article is pure demagoguery. It's nothing but a play on his audiences fears and prejudices. I swear the Republicans are aching to start a war with the Muslims. This is crazy."

And your argument here is an impassioned appeal to people's cowardice and ignorance.

What is truly crazy is that six years out from 9/11 (and centuries out from America's first taste of Muslim terror) so many people fail to realize that Islam is at war with us.

Phylo reinforces the impression he has no understanding of Christianity or Islam with:

"I wonder if any of you who read this article will recognize that the exact same question could be asked of Christians and Jews."

An implied equivalence in the answers betraying either your deficient knowledge, reason, moral judgment, or some combination of the three.

Find some Methodists beheading girls on their way to school, shouting "Christ is LORD!" and citing their Biblical justification for it. Then we can talk.

Phylo:

"So how can a good Christian still honor Jefferson?"

[Considering Jefferson’s self-professed preference for the doctrines of Christ above all others, “vigorously,” I’d say.]

That is a different question. Was the switch intentional or accidental?

Of course, a "good" Christian will honor what is honorable. Much of Jefferson's contribution to America and the world is quite remarkable.

Phylo continued:

"And how does Jesus' admonition to sell everything and follow him comport with capitalism? Can Jesus and Adam Smith co-exist?"

Another false comparison. But that's easy for one with little intellectual integrity to do.

The command from Matthew 19 (and the parallel accounts in Mark 10 and Luke 18) was given to a specific person, at a specific time, and for a specific purpose.

If ownership of property were immoral, Christ would not have forbidden stealing.

More from Phylo:

"And how can a good Jew live in a country that doesn't stone gays to death?"

Another command taken out of its proper context! Your lack of truthfulness is disappointing.

Capital punishment for homosexual behavior (and many other sins) was for the nation of Israel living under the Mosaic Covenant. It was not a universal command.

Shari'a in Dearborn, Michigan

Know your place, dhimmi, or else.

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

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

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

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

The contrast between Christ and Allah, Heaven and Hell, stark and devastating

It is telling that Muslims never admit before non-Muslims what their god demands and their false prophet practiced (until it is too late, that is).

You'll notice in the comments from Mr. Fadly that he never addresses the sacralizing of depravity in Islam, he engages only in ad hominem attacks, false tu quoques and moral equivalences, and diversions from the fundamental issue, Islam's brutal and perverse totalitarian ideology.

Here's the latest in a series of posts pointing out what the typical Islamic apologist doesn't want you to know:

Mohamed wrote,

"you must 'love your enemies' . . . you love all terrorists , , , As for Islamic beliefs we Muslims don't have to love those who kill children and attack innocents"

No, you [Muslims] are those who "kill children and attack innocents."

"Allah only forbids you, with regard to those who fight you for (your) Faith . . . It is such as turn to them (in these circumstances), that do wrong." 60: 8, 9

There is a big difference between "loving" who fire off my brother, and "not loving" who fire off my brothers.

You said you were doing research, but not about Christ's teachings apparently, since you're grossly misrepresenting them. Does that bother you at all?

Jesus did not command, "Excuse immorality and reward the criminal." He made a distinction between "Two Kingdoms," the spiritual and civil realms (a distinction absent from Islam, since Muhammad used his "faith" as a tool to satiate his lusts).

The individual Christian is to love even his enemies. Christ forbids personal revenge. The state, on the other hand, is to punish evil and defend its citizens.

Jesus taught and practiced, "Love your enemies," even praying for those who were murdering Him. He died for the sins of all people, even those who hate Him.

Jesus taught that His Father causes the sun to shine on the just and unjust and the rain to fall on the just and unjust. He says that if we are only kind to those who are kind to us, we are no better than unbelievers. In this context, Jesus commands, "Be perfect, as your Father in Heaven is perfect."

Christ teaches His people to pray, "Forgive us our sins, as we forgive those who sin against us," and, "If you do not forgive others' sins, neither will yours be forgiven."

You don't understand that your sin makes you an enemy of Christ. He commanded, "love YHWH with all your heart, mind, and strength," "You believe in the Father; believe also in Me," and, "all must honor the Son as they honor the Father."

You break those commandments every day as a Muslim.

"The soul that sins is the one who will die." You justly deserve God's wrath because of your sin.

What hope do you have for eternal life? How can you think you will escape Hell?

What does Allah offer? The possibility that your good works might outweigh your sins? The only sure way for you to enter Paradise is to slaughter or be slaughtered for Allah (Qur'an 9:111).

Do you really think virgins wait there for you? Boys "like pearls"?

Loving one's enemies doesn't mean rewarding or excusing their evil. Nor are we to stand by in the face of evil. Self-defense and the defense of others are appropriate.

Christ also forbids "throwing one's pearls before swine, lest they trample them and turn again and rend you." We are not to give foolishly what is valuable to those who will not appreciate it.

Love means doing what is best for another person, and that is telling the truth, turning someone from evil. It is, ultimately, pointing to Christ and His forgiveness.

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

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

It is ironic that you use your god as a point of reference in trying to -- what are you trying to do exactly, show Christ was wrong? -- since your god forbids "dealing kindly and justly with" non-Muslims when they "fight you for faith." Isn't that odd?

There is only one major world religion whose deity commands fighting others over religious belief. That would be Muhammad's, as his own texts demonstrate (to his shame).

You follow a god that calls killing unbelievers because they are unbelievers "just." A god that sanctions beating wives, valuing females at half the value of a male (if that), and raping nine-year-olds. A god that approves of lying if it aids the spread of shari'a. A god that demands slavery or death for all who refuse the "invitation" to Islam.

In effect, by choosing this topic, you've highlighted the fact that the God of the Bible, YHWH, loves all even though all sin, and proved this by becoming flesh and dying on a cross for us, while al-Ilah wants everyone who won't submit as a slave or dead.

You've highlighted the fact that Christ assures all of Heaven, but Allah gives Paradise to those who butcher unbelievers for him.

There's that stark contrast again, and it's devastating.

But the love of God in Christ for you and your co-religionists is greater.