On the Deity of Christ

He is the Son of the living God:

1st John 1:1-10

That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, concerning the Word of life -- the life was manifested, and we have seen, and bear witness, and declare to you that eternal life which was with the Father and was manifested to us -- that which we have seen and heard we declare to you, that you also may have fellowship with us; and truly our fellowship is with the Father and with His Son Jesus Christ. And these things we write to you that your joy may be full.

This is the message which we have heard from Him and declare to you, that God is light and in Him is no darkness at all. If we say that we have fellowship with Him, and walk in darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth. But if we walk in the light as He is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus Christ His Son cleanses us from all sin. If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar, and His word is not in us.

John 21:19b-24

And when He had spoken this, He said to him, "Follow Me."

Then Peter, turning around, saw the disciple whom Jesus loved following, who also had leaned on His breast at the supper, and said, "Lord, who is the one who betrays You?" Peter, seeing him, said to Jesus, "But Lord, what about this man?"

Jesus said to him, "If I will that he remain till I come, what is that to you? You follow Me." Then this saying went out among the brethren that this disciple would not die. Yet Jesus did not say to him that he would not die, but, "If I will that he remain till I come, what is that to you?" This is the disciple who testifies of these things, and wrote these things; and we know that his testimony is true.

1st John 2:21-25

I have not written to you because you do not know the truth, but because you know it, and that no lie is of the truth. Who is a liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist who denies the Father and the Son. Whoever denies the Son does not have the Father either; he who acknowledges the Son has the Father also.

Therefore let that abide in you which you heard from the beginning. If what you heard from the beginning abides in you, you also will abide in the Son and in the Father. And this is the promise that He has promised us -- eternal life.

Our Lord promised, "Whoever acknowledges Me before men, I will acknowledge him before My Father in heaven. Whoever denies Me before men, I will deny before My Father in heaven."

Mohammed on children

The Son of God warned that those who cause a little one to sin would be better off if a large stone were tied around their neck and they were thrown into the sea.

What does Islam say of Mohammed's love for children?

“The Prophet married Aisha in Mecca three years before the Hijrah, after the death of Khadija. At the time she was six” (Tabari VII:7).

“When the Apostle came to Medina he was fifty-three” (Ishaq: 281).

“In May, 623 A.D./A.H. 1 [three years later], Allah’s Messenger consummated his marriage to Aisha” (Tabari VII:6).

“When the Prophet married Aisha, she was very young and not yet ready for consummation” (Tabari IX:128).

“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 IX:131).

“The Prophet said, ‘A virgin should not be married till she is asked for her consent.’ ‘O Apostle! How will the virgin express her consent?’ He said, ‘By remaining silent’” (Bukhari Volume 9, Book 86, Number 98).

“Allah’s Apostle told Aisha, ‘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 139-40).

“There are special features in me [Aisha] that have not been in any woman...the Messenger married me when I was seven; my marriage was consummated when I was nine; he married me when I was a virgin, no other man having shared me with him; inspiration came to him when he and I were in a single blanket...’” (Tabari VII:7).

“The people used to send presents to the Prophet on the day of Aisha’s turn. Aisha said, ‘His other wives gathered in the apartment of Um Salama and said, “Um, the people send presents on the day of Aisha’s turn and we too, love the good presents just as much as she does. You should tell Allah’s Apostle to order the people to send their presents to him regardless of whose turn it may be.” Um repeated that to the Prophet...After the third time, the Prophet said, “Um, don’t trouble me by harming Aisha, for by Allah, the Divine Inspiration [Qur’an surahs] never came to me while I was under the blanket of any woman among you
except her”’” (Bukhari Volume 5, Book 57, Number 119).

“The Prophet said, ‘Aisha, this is Gabriel. He sends his greetings and salutations.’ Aisha said, ‘Salutations and greetings to him, and Allah’s Blessings.’ Addressing the Prophet she said, ‘You see what I don’t see’” (Bukhari Volume 4, Book 54, Number 440).

“I participated in a Ghazwa [raid] with the Prophet. I said, ‘Apostle, I am a bridegroom.’ He asked me whether I had married a virgin or matron. I answered, ‘A matron.’ He said, ‘Why not a virgin who would have played with you? Then you could have played with her.’ ‘Apostle! My father was martyred and I have some young sisters, so I felt it not proper that I should marry a young girl as young as them’” (Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 211).

“Allah’s Apostle said, ‘Whoever obeys me, obeys Allah, and whoever disobeys me, disobeys Allah, and whoever obeys the ruler I appoint, obeys me, and whoever disobeys him, disobeys me’” (Bukhari Volume 9, Book 89, Number 251).

Muhammad was “inspired” while indulging the marital impulse with a child. What does this say about Mohammed? His god? His people sending gifts when it was "Aisha's turn"? What does it say about those who follow him?

+ Word of the Day +

From Life Of The World:

Acts 6:8-7:2a, 51-59

And Stephen, full of faith and power, did great wonders and signs among the people. Then there arose some from what is called the Synagogue of the Freedmen (Cyrenians, Alexandrians, and those from Cilicia and Asia), disputing with Stephen. And they were not able to resist the wisdom and the Spirit by which he spoke. Then they secretly induced men to say, "We have heard him speak blasphemous words against Moses and God." And they stirred up the people, the elders, and the scribes; and they came upon him, seized him, and brought him to the council.

They also set up false witnesses who said, "This man does not cease to speak blasphemous words against this holy place and the law; for we have heard him say that this Jesus of Nazareth will destroy this place and change the customs which Moses delivered to us." And all who sat in the council, looking steadfastly at him, saw his face as the face of an angel.

Then the high priest said, "Are these things so?"

And he said, "Brethren and fathers, listen: you stiff-necked and uncircumcised in heart and ears! You always resist the Holy Spirit; as your fathers did, so do you. Which of the prophets did your fathers not persecute? And they killed those who foretold the coming of the Just One, of whom you now have become the betrayers and murderers, who have received the law by the direction of angels and have not kept it."

When they heard these things they were cut to the heart, and they gnashed at him with their teeth. But he, being full of the Holy Spirit, gazed into heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God, and said, "Look! I see the heavens opened and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God!"

Then they cried out with a loud voice, stopped their ears, and ran at him with one accord; and they cast him out of the city and stoned him. And the witnesses laid down their clothes at the feet of a young man named Saul. And they stoned Stephen as he was calling on God and saying, "Lord Jesus, receive my spirit."

Matthew 10:16-22

"Behold, I send you out as sheep in the midst of wolves. Therefore be wise as serpents and harmless as doves. But beware of men, for they will deliver you up to councils and scourge you in their synagogues. You will be brought before governors and kings for My sake, as a testimony to them and to the Gentiles. But when they deliver you up, do not worry about how or what you should speak. For it will be given to you in that hour what you should speak; for it is not you who speak, but the Spirit of your Father who speaks in you.

"Now brother will deliver up brother to death, and a father his child; and children will rise up against parents and cause them to be put to death. And you will be hated by all for My name's sake. But he who endures to the end will be saved."

2nd Chronicles 24:19-21

Yet He sent prophets to them, to bring them back to the LORD; and they testified against them, but they would not listen. Then the Spirit of God came upon Zechariah the son of Jehoiada the priest, who stood above the people, and said to them, "Thus says God: 'Why do you transgress the commandments of the LORD, so that you cannot prosper? Because you have forsaken the LORD, He also has forsaken you.' " So they conspired against him, and at the command of the king they stoned him with stones in the court of the house of the LORD.

So it is when speaking the truth of God.

Mohamed on Mohammed, part II

A reader from Egypt continues...

First of all..Please don't direct any swears to Islam or even my prophet Mohamed..and you will receive the same respect;

How generous. You will find that I tend to stick to the facts.

I hope you don't consider telling the truth "swears."

as Islam orders me-in QURA'AN to:"Invite (all) to the Way of
thy Lord with wisdom and beautiful preaching; and argue with
them in ways that are best and most gracious: for thy Lord
knoweth best.."16:125

Islam also orders you to:

Say to the Unbelievers, if (now) they desist (from Unbelief), their past would be forgiven them; but if they persist, the punishment of those before them is already (a matter of warning for them). And fight them on until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah altogether and everywhere; but if they cease, verily Allah doth see all that they do" (Qur'an 8:38-8:39).

Mohamed continues:

...about first request:(..Islam actually teaches equality of rights and freedom of religion for all (including unbelievers))..you'll find the verse which say:"Let there be no compulsion in religion.."2:256

And the context for that passage is that those to whom the (false) prophet was referring were being tortured and killed for Allah.

If that is not enough to demonstrate the "tolerance" of Mohammed and his god, what about this from Bukhari Volume 9, Book 84, Number 57:

Narrated 'Ikrima:

Some Zanadiqa (atheists) were brought to 'Ali and he burnt them. The news of this event, reached Ibn 'Abbas who said, 'If I had been in his place, I would not have burnt them, as Allah's Apostle forbade it, saying, 'Do not punish anybody with Allah's punishment (fire).' I would have killed them according to the statement of Allah's Apostle, 'Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him.''

If Islam requires the subjugation, oppression, and murder of Infidels who do not convert of their own free will, how "free" is their conversion when those unbelievers see the consequences of remaining an unbeliever?

and you'll find Prophet Mohamed saying"They have the same rights of us,and same duties on us"..and Omar Ibn Al-khatab using non-muslims-as employes-in House of Money(Bait Al Mal).

Equal rights? Subjugation is not equality.

You'll also find Mohammed saying, "Fight...the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued" (Qur'an 9:29). The dhimmitude described here is not equality of rights, it is humiliation, oppression, vile submission.

and what about second request;there is three verses after each other that reply on it..it's in 2:190-191-192 and say:"190. Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you,but do not transgress limits; for Allah loveth not transgressors. 191. And slay them wherever ye catch them, and turn them out from where they have Turned you out; for tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter; but fight them not at the Sacred Mosque,unless they (first) fight you there; but if they fight you, slay them. Such is the reward of those who suppress faith. 192. But if they cease, Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful."

This is one of the passages that requires warfare in self-defense. This is entirely appropriate.

However, this passage does nothing to ameliorate or negate the universal commands for warfare against the Infidel found in numerous Qur'anic passages (exemplified by the Verse of the Sword, 9:5: "...kill the unbelievers wherever you find them.").

...I want to reveal a basic point:verses you mentioned are talking about events that passed(from 1400 years)when unbelievers were fighting Muslims.. and another important point;from rules of wars in Islam is not to kill an old man,a child or a woman or to cut a tree and to leave mens who are worshipping in hermitages(monastics)..so how QURA'AN get back and order Muslims to kill with no borders..

Again, the passage from Surah 2 regarding self-defense in no way negates the universal commands for warfare against non-Muslims found in Surah 9 and elsewhere.

I asked you to demonstrate from its context that 9:5 was a passage about self-defense. You have not, and you can't, because it doesn't say that. The command is universal, not limited, and it requires offensive warfare for Allah (as traditional Islam itself argues).

We have Christian friends and neighbors who we treat them with respect and we don't ever feel any hatred towards them...and I personally know a Christian person and I treat him normally;and that what Islam orders us in Sunnah as Prophet Mohame said that:"Who hurts any of non-muslims like who hurts me and who hurts me like who hurts ALLAH"

This is the right islamic rules which most of muslims understand and do..

Egypt is good for non-Muslims, right? They can build their religious buildings as freely as any Muslim can build a mosque, right? They can practice their faith in public without restriction just as any Muslim can practice, right? They are able to share their religious faith as freely as any Muslim can speak of Allah, right? They don't have to worry about their daughters being kidnapped and told by the police that they don't have to worry, since now, "...she's in the hands of Islam," right?

It is good that you feel no enmity toward the one Christian you know personally. However, I have not been addressing you nor your feelings; I have been addressing Islam's teachings (as found in Qur'an, Hadith, and Sira). Allah and his prophet command the fighting against, subduing and humiliating, and killing of non-Muslims. It is this that I find unpalatable.

I wonder that your eyes went to verses you mentioned and don't go to verses I mentioned however both of them are in QUR'AN:)

Then how do you reconcile the contradiction?

How can you cite one passage commanding fighting for self-defense, but ignore the numerous passages commanding (offensive) warring against, mutiliating, and killing the Infidel?

In fact, your statement is an admission that the Qur'an commands offensive warfare against non-Muslims, which you've repeatedly denied.

Since you argued that "ALL" Qur'anic passages described war in self-defense and not offensive warfare, is it now reasonable to wonder about your honesty in this matter?

Islam is a religion for material life and also spiritual life..I worship ALLAH well which lead me to be successful in my life and to love my country and you'll find alot of evidences from QURA'AN and Sunnah which say that..and you can search for it..

Hard work and patriotism are both (usually) good things. I've been addressing that in Islam which requires harming non-Muslims.

Truly murderous language

A reader, Mohamed, recently expressed his concern over my use of the term "murderous" in connection with his namesake.

Rather than bristle at my (justified) use of the adjective, why not revulse at the actual practice of it carried out at the command of Mohammed (Qur'an and Hadith) over the last fourteen centuries ?

"Murderous" is appropriate since Mohammed personally carried out or ordered directly the murders of thousands of people. Additionally, "revelations" commanding the killing of unbelievers in the Qur'an and his commands to kill in Hadith makes the use of the term, in a word, appropriate.

Mohamed wrote:

"The truth of Islam is that it's the religion of mercy..I dare to say it..

"Mercy?" From Qur'an 5:33:

"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...."

My guest continued:

Terrorism is what Americans are doing in Iraq,Terrorism is what Israel doing in Palastine,,,,

America and its allies have removed a monster who killed, tortured, and oppressed millions of Muslims. Those fighting against the Coalition now target innocent Iraqi men, women, and children, yet you claim that we are the terrorists. Whose side are you on?

Israel has its citizens routinely slaughtered going to lunch, or shopping, or to worship, and when they target the vile wretches responsible, they are blamed? If Israel wanted to kill innocent Muslims, they would have no problem completely wiping out every nation in their neighborhood (especially those calling for their annihilation), as demonstrated in every open war carried out against them by their "merciful" Islamic neighbors since the 40's.

Mohamed continued...

I think with your dialectic we will say to Palastinian people: "When Israel come to fight and kill you cooperate with them"

Instead, the "Palestinian" people ought to stop carrying out terrorism against Israel. If anything, Israel has been overly generous, accommodating, and merciful.

ALL verses and Hadith talking about "killing the unbelievers wherever you find them" is when someone come to fight you and what unbeliever;it's the one who fight you not his sons,wives or any other one....

"ALL"? That is false.

A passage like Qur’an 2:191 talks about warfare in self-defense...

And slay them wherever ye catch them, and turn them out from where they have Turned you out; for tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter; but fight them not at the Sacred Mosque, unless they (first) fight you there; but if they fight you, slay them. Such is the reward of those who suppress faith.

Here the context suggests slaying and “turning out” is to be done in retaliation for “they have turned you out”. This is one of only two verses I've seen that command killing for a wrong first done by an enemy. The other commands are universal, since they make no distinction.

I asked you to demonstrate from the text itself that 9:5 and other passages like it are talking about warfare in self-defense, but you have not done that.

In fact, you can't, because at this point in Allah's "revelation" to Mohammed, offensive warfare against the non-Muslim world to spread the rule of Islam is now required of all able-bodied Muslims.

An excerpt from An exegesis on ‘Jihad in Islam', by Syed Kamran Mirza:

“The well-known Egyptian scholar, Sayyid Qutb, (Sayyid Qutb, Milestones, Revised Edition, chapter. 4, “Jihaad in the Cause of God") notes four stages in the development of jihad:

1. While the earliest Muslims remained in Mecca before fleeing to Medina, God did not allow them to fight;

2. Permission is given to Muslims to fight against their oppressors;

3. God commands Muslims to fight those fighting them;

4. God commands the Muslims to fight against all polytheists.

“Sayyid Qutb views each stage to be replaced by the next stage in this order (the fourth stage to remain permanent). To justify the universal and permanent dimensions of jihad he cites the following Qur’anic passages:

Qur'an 4:74: They ought to fight in the way of God who have sold the life of this world for the life of the Hereafter; and whoever fights in the way of God and is killed or becomes victorious, to him shall We (God) give a great reward....

Qur'an 8:38-40: ...and fight them until there is no oppression and the religion is wholly for God....

Qur'an 9:29-32: Fight against those among the People of the Book (Jews and Christians) who do not believe in God and the Last Day, who do not forbid what God and His messenger have forbidden, until they are subdued and pay jizyah (tax on non-Muslims) ...

“Sayyid Qutb, however, pours scorn upon those who view jihad as solely defensive:

'... They are ignorant of the nature of Islam and of its function, and that it has a right to take the initiative for human freedom. Thus wherever an Islamic community exists which is a concrete example of the Divinely-ordained system of life, it has a God-given right to step forward and take control of the political authority so that it may establish the Divine system on earth, while it leaves the matter of belief to individual conscience.'”

Mohamed concluded with...

I repeat:
DON'T TALK ABOUT A THING TILL YOU UNDERSTAND IT...

That's good advice. Demonstrate from their contexts that verses like Qur'an 9:5 are talking about self-defense, and then we can talk.

I'll be waiting.

Carrera's Craven Capitulation (or is it Closet Crescent Credulity?)

How can one whose entire contribution to a thread regarding Qur'an and Hadith which consists of this...

1697: Until I can read the Quoran/Koran in Arabic I don't trust any translation. I trust my muslim friends though but that is also becaus ethey have candy.

1698: That IS funny... I love this. People are scared...for no reason.

1700: It it's all a load of hogwash based on poor translation, isolationism and xenphobia (look them up).

Conclude with this?

1704: ... I told him many many ages ago that the translation is bad and bogus because the English itself was grammatically incorrect, incoherent and contradictory....

By which he probably meant...

1390:

YUSUFALI: But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, an seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practise regular charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.

Nice "translation" considering "ye" is only the word "the" so I think it is slightly off.

Either Carrera reads Arabic (which he denied above), or he has been deceived (by his Muslim "friends"?).

We know:

1. Yusuf-Ali's rendering (above) is a standard English translation of the Qur'an, and 9:5 as rendered here is consistent with every other Muslim translation I've ever read (including Pickthal, Shakir, and nearly a dozen different publications of the Qur'an at a local brick-and-mortar).

2. This rendering is consistent with numerous other passages from the Qur'an and Hadith commanding the fighting against, subduing, and killing of non-Muslims.

3. In translating from one language to another a direct, literal, word-for-word translation can lose the meaning of the original, so sometimes pronouns, articles, prepositions, etc., must be added.

In light of these facts, whom should be believed, the mountain of traditionally-accepted Islamic (Muslim) sources...

...or Carrera?

Mohammed a (self-confessed) terrorist

As documented by Bukhari:

Volume 4, Book 52, Number 220:

Narrated Abu Huraira:

Allah's Apostle said, 'I have been sent with the shortest expressions bearing the widest meanings, and I have been made victorious with terror (cast in the hearts of the enemy), and while I was sleeping, the keys of the treasures of the world were brought to me and put in my hand.' Abu Huraira added: Allah's Apostle has left the world and now you, people, are bringing out those treasures (i.e. the Prophet did not benefit by them).

If Mohammed is considered the best of men, what are the implications for his followers? For those who will not follow?

What's in a name? Dhimmitude by any other word would be as wretched

Rather than refute my assertions regarding the teachings of Qur'an and Hadith with anything remotely resembling a fact, an administrator ended without merit my ability to post at x3dfx, leaving several challenges unanswered.

Here are those comments I had too little time to address, with my responses.

Post #1

Bonehed316 wrote:

...I have never once seen amil say he hates anyone. That is your interpretation of his presentation of evidence that appears, to me, to be unbiased, as he has cited multiple sources from non-redneck people, and asked you to cite sources to the contrary. We all know muslims who arent america hating extremists, and we all know christians who are (pick any liberal), lol. What's it matter? Does it mean the bible says to hate america? Does it mean the Quran doesnt say whatever it says? Not everyone listens to a book, and there are many cosmic forces that affect peoples actions.

Thank you, Bonehed316.

Facts can be quite annoying for apologists of Qur'anic Islam.

@Mac, elmo thinks everything is politics (and in a way he has a point). People's beleifs (if they are strong enough to have a voice) often do affect them in many parts of life.

Christ made a distinction between two Kingdoms: the Civil and the Spiritual, which is why Christianity can produce a Republic under a Constitution safeguarding its citizens' "...unalienable rights...[including] Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness."

Allah makes no distinction between the civil and the religious, which is why those nations are so oppressive in which Shariah rules (especially for the Infidel).

Post #2

ElMoIsEvIl wrote:

...I've herd exactly what the Qu'ran says. It does say that on Judgement day those who believe and God and who are Muslim will have to take up arms against the forces of evil led by non-believers.

Where?

That is what the Qu'ran says and ironically the Old Testement (bible) says the same thing.

That's false. Please provide citations from the Qur'an and Bible to support this claim.

Problem is those who interprete that entire piece figure that Judgment day is Right now, and that they must take up arms against any non believers of Islam (infidels) when in fact it says God.

That also is false. Where is does the Qur'an state for this?

Is this intentionally deceptive? Are you really so unfamiliar with your own religion? Have you been so thoroughly propagandized that you are eager to defend a god that commands violence against you (Allah specifically commands fighting against, subduing, and killing non-Muslims; see Qur'an 9:5, 9:14, 9:29, 8:39)?

Stop conflating Qur'anic and Christian theology. Unlike Christianity, which teaches that Christ will judge the world at the Last Day, Islam teaches that Muslims must do the punishing now.

Another thing is that parts of the Qu'ran, much like the bible are written my MAN.

Which parts? How do you know?

Islam claims that Allah revealed the Qur'an to Mohammed, and that the faithful recorded and preserved it. Christianity teaches that men wrote as they were "carried along" by the Holy Spirit.

They're holy scriptures written during the Crusades by men on either side.

It is true that portions of the Qur'an were "revealed" to Mohammed while he and his followers were fighting against, subduing, enslaving, raping, and killing for Allah.

However, the last of the Bible was written a thousand years before the first Crusade.

Much of the blame for the fall was placed on the...corruption of Rome's Senators....And it is with this that Homosexuality was said to be a sin... because the fall of Rome was blamed on the wrath of God... when in fact it's historic, not religious.

No, homosexuality has been a sin since before Moses (see Genesis) because the LORD defines it as such.

Parts with words spoken by prophet mohammed himself do not instigate hatred, death and violence.

According to Islam, the Qur'an is the perfect word of Allah, revealed to Mohammed and spoken by him to others who recorded it.

So, Allah's commands (as found in the Qur'an), spoken by Mohammed, and the (false) prophet's own orders (as found in Hadith) to fight against, subdue, terrorize, maim, and kill infidels (and apostates) do not inspire the actions they explicitly command?

Post #3

iamthebandfanman wrote:

and im glad you find her racist extreme views funny and witty.
one things for sure, they are definitely funny...but i think you may have to have some sort of logic and reason to be witty at all so u lost me on that one.

Speaking of Ann Coulter, have you ever heard of hyperbole? Irony? Sarcasm? Anger at the murder of nearly three thousand innocent Americans?

She may be overly sardonic and harsh at times, but she is right and smart, which is why the Left (a.k.a., Veracity-challenged-Americans) hate her so much.

What evidence do you have of her racism? The passage you cite as evidence of her "racist extreme views" is one paragraph in a column from September 14, 2001.

In the context of her article, she is making the point that in a war one side wins, and the other side loses, and since the United States is fighting against an enemy more hateful, violent, and ruthless than Nazism we should be at least as serious about defending ourselves as we were in World War II.

Ms. Coulter writes:

This is no time to be precious about locating the exact individuals directly involved in this particular terrorist attack. Those responsible include anyone anywhere in the world who smiled in response to the annihilation of patriots like Barbara Olson.

We don't need long investigations of the forensic evidence to determine with scientific accuracy the person or persons who ordered this specific attack. We don't need an "international coalition." We don't need a study on "terrorism." We certainly didn't need a congressional resolution condemning the attack this week.

The nation has been invaded by a fanatical, murderous cult. And we welcome them. We are so good and so pure we would never engage in discriminatory racial or "religious" profiling.

People who want our country destroyed live here, work for our airlines, and are submitted to the exact same airport shakedown as a lumberman from Idaho. This would be like having the Wehrmacht immigrate to America and work for our airlines during World War II. Except the Wehrmacht was not so bloodthirsty.

"All of our lives" don't need to change, as they keep prattling on TV. Every single time there is a terrorist attack -- or a plane crashes because of pilot error -- Americans allow their rights to be contracted for no purpose whatsoever.

The airport kabuki theater of magnetometers, asinine questions about whether passengers "packed their own bags," and the hostile, lumpen mesomorphs ripping open our luggage somehow allowed over a dozen armed hijackers to board four American planes almost simultaneously on Bloody Tuesday. (Did those fabulous security procedures stop a single hijacker anyplace in America that day?)

Airports scrupulously apply the same laughably ineffective airport harassment to Suzy Chapstick as to Muslim hijackers. It is preposterous to assume every passenger is a potential crazed homicidal maniac. We know who the homicidal maniacs are. They are the ones cheering and dancing right now.

We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity. We weren't punctilious about locating and punishing only Hitler and his top officers. We carpet-bombed German cities; we killed civilians. That's war. And this is war.

Were we "tolerant," "inclusive," or "understanding" of Nazis and their hellish ideology? Should we have been? Why are you not angry? Why are you so willing to allow our enemy to exploit America's goodness and openness against us?

MacCaroni can "lol" about blowing up Iran for threatening Israel, but Coulter argues we should fight with a ferocity against Jihad at least as great as that with which we struggled against Hitler, and you condemn her.

Whose side are you on?

the fact that you do read and listen to what she says speaks volumes of your open mindedness....

The fact that you don't speaks volumes of yours (or that you should read more carefully).

i suggest no-one argue with you seeing thats all you want, drama. someone to disagree with you so you can snarl at your keyboard and try to show some sign of intelligence from your hands.

Drama? Who brought up Ms. Coulter anyway? Oh, yes! It was you:

i suggest you go read some ann coulter sir, lol. specifically some of her work about her feelings on the war on terror and iraq. and dont act like she doesnt represent a large portion of extreme right whackos, cause people do actually follow everything she says.

iamthebandfanman concluded with:

here , ill do the research for you , since im sure you looked and saw what she said (or maybe you didnt since you blindly follow).

If I hadn't looked I would be blindly following you, and considering your comments so far, that doesn't seem the wisest thing to do.

www.townhall.com/opinion/...60244.html

"We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity. We weren't punctilious about locating and punishing only Hitler and his top officers. We carpet-bombed German cities; we killed civilians. That's war. And this is war." - Ann Coulter

So, either you think we should have been more gentle with Hitler and Nazism, or you think the Jihadists aren't really all that bad.

Which is it?

Post #4

ElMoIsEvIl jumped back into the fray with...

[Amillennialist]...likes Ann Coulter?

She's like Mrs Hitler. She's probably the most Fasciste Right-Wing lunatic this side of Bill O'Reilly...

That you equate someone who believes in and defends American Liberty with a mass murderer says more about your knowledge of them (or your definition of "fascist") than it does Ms. Coulter.

Not that Amil had any credibility... but this brings him down to an even lower low.

I've provided a good deal of evidence for my arguments. You've demonstrated little more than an embarrassing misunderstanding of both Islam and Christianity (and their books), but it's my credibility that's lacking?

Post #5

In response to my comment that Christians are to refute all false doctrines nonviolently, JoSFh NV wrote:

How do you know tho mate?
IMHO its suggestive of destroying knowledge (burning/smashing).

We know from the context of the passage and the passage itself:

"We destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ" (2 Corinthians 10:5).

And then...

Tho thats an opinion. IMHO Islam is a religion of peace providing the voices of the reformist Muslims are louder than the mad fanatics (Bin Laden. Abu Hamzer. Sheik Abdhul Mohammed etc).

The problem is that Allah and his apostle's words will always be loudest.

Post #6

rashly commented...

I completely disagree. Religions are much more than just texts and the people and the culture behind the religion are much more important. The way it affects people and the way it is in people's minds represents a religion much more than a text can.

Belief determines action. In a religion, certain doctrines are defined as orthodox. In Islam, the words of Allah (Qur'an) and the words and actions of Mohammed (Sunnah) are the final arbiters of truth, and so they define doctrine.

History has proven that people who follow the texts of religions too closely are the people that cause the problems in the world.

It depends on the text.

What would the world be like if people followed the texts that command, "Love your neighbor as yourself"?

What is the world like when people follow the texts that command, "...kill the unbelivers wherever you find them"?

The world changes and many things in ancient texts no longer apply to life these days.

Jesus said, "Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will never pass away."

Post #7

JoFSh NV asked...

There are some interpretations of the Quran here whats your take on them?

Quranic texts

Faith Freedom International is an important site in the struggle against Qur'anic Islam (of course, I would disagree with the implication on one page that Christ was "self-serving").

From their site:

Faith Freedom International is a grassroots worldwide movement of ex-Muslims and all those who are concerned about the rise of the Islamic threat.

...Hardly anyone can write anything more damaging to Islam than the Quran itself. All you need to see that Islam is not a religion from God but a dangerous cult that promotes hate and violence, is read the Quran.

...The majority of the Muslims are decent people who do not know the truth. They will leave Islam after seeing its ugly face. It may take them some time to recover from the shock and denial but eventually they will do the right thing.

...The majority of the Muslims are good people who are innocently led to believe that Islam is a religion of God. These people are seeing the truth for the first time and are leaving Islam in big numbers. Those who still remain Muslims after reading these verses, have no humanity or conscience. They must be filled with shame and shunned. They are the terrorists or their supporters and the enemies of mankind. They are in minority but still they number millions. Once the decent Muslims leave Islam, the terrorists will lose their moral base of support. This is the only way to combat the Islamic terrorism.

I looked at your link's 9:5, and that looks like the other 9:5's I've seen.

An insignificant victory for Jihad...

...but since it's difficult to speak when your throat's been slashed, it's a victory nonetheless.

A Muppetophobe wrote...

He [Amillennialist] doesn't know anything about Islam. All he knows is what Islam hating peeps write on a website.

Rather than engage in ad hominem attacks, please demonstrate from Qur'an and Hadith where I've misquoted them. Show from them that the passages I've cited do not state what I claim.

Refute my statements regarding the history of Jihad (but be careful, neither phydeux V5 nor iamthebandfanman tried that).

I'll be waiting.

He doesn't understand that the lines in the Qu'ran were interpreted and translated by Muslim hating redneck folk.

(Which "Muslim hating redneck folk" would that be? Is that Muslim-hating-redneck-folk-aphobia?)

The citations I've provided have been from Muslim sources. Are you implying those Muslims are lying about their own Qur'an and Sunnah?

I have many Muslim friends, in fact I even work with one. We talk Religion all the time and he "in all honesty" celebrates Christmas as it is a holiday worth celebrating for him.

How many Muslims do you know who drink alcohol? Interact with unescorted, unmarried females? Eat pork (or other foods considered haram)?

How many Muslims do you know who in good faith "take friends" from among the unbelievers (though Allah forbids that in his Qur'an)?

How many Muslims do you know who would reject the idea of offensive warfare for Allah as immoral (though he commands it and his prophet said it was the greatest deed one could perform for Allah)?

Probably quite a few (Mohammed calls them "hypocrites".)

But I am not discussing particular Muslims. I am discussing Allah and his prophet.

The issue is not what "many Muslims I know" say or do, but what Allah and his prophet said and did.

Most Muslims see Christ as Mohammed or Moses. They see them all as being on in the same. A Prophet sent down from God to teach.

Islam describes them as all being prophets, but it considers Mohammed the last and greatest of them (and describing Christ as only a prophet--and one lesser than Mohammed at that--is enough to demonstrate that the religions are in no way reconcilable).

The Teachings are all the same, it is those who wrote certain segments of the books that thwarted and twisted certain teachings.

If the people "who wrote certain segments of the books" "thwarted and twisted certain teachings," how do you know they did that, since all we have today is what they wrote? What exactly did they thwart and twist? How do you know?

The teachings (as determined from the texts considered sacred by each religion) are demonstrably not the same (for specific examples, see my previous post in this thread comparing a few of the sayings and doings of Christ and Mohammed).

In the bible we have the same twisted ideals which are contained in the Romans scriptures. These were not words spoken by Jesus or God but words spoken by men... Romans to be exact.

I'm a little unclear as to the identity of the "Romans" to whom you refer. Do you mean the New Testament epistle or the Roman Catholic Church?

If the former, the "Romans" were recipients of Paul's letter by that name. They were Christians living in Rome.

If the latter, the Roman Catholic church considers as authoritative in matters of doctrine the Bible and the traditions of the church.

Regardless of to whom you refer, what "twisted ideals" are in the Bible, what are the "Roman scriptures," and which words were not "spoken by Jesus or God"?

Please, be specific and provide citations.

It is in these teachings that the whole Anti-@#%$ propaganda come from amongst other hateful toxic spew.

Can you clarify this?

I am Roman Catholic.. but I believe Jesus NOT to be the son of God in the context the Church tries and teach us (trying to convince us Jesus is superior to Mohammed and Moses).

The deity of Christ has always been believed and taught by the Christian Church, because Christ claimed it.

What did Jesus say? He said, "Before Abraham was born, I AM" (John 8:58)! To a Jewish audience of the first century, that would be blasphemy because, being well-versed in the Law and Prophets, they would know that YHWH revealed Himself to Moses by that very name, and that by claiming the name of God for Himself, Jesus was making Himself equal with YHWH.

That alone should be enough evidence that Jesus is the unique Son of God and superior to all men, but if it isn't, consider Jesus' testimony before the high priest under oath and facing death:

"The high priest said to him, "I charge you under oath by the living God: Tell us if you are the Christ, the Son of God."

"Yes, it is as you say," Jesus replied. "But I say to all of you: In the future you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven."

Then the high priest tore his clothes and said, "He has spoken blasphemy! Why do we need any more witnesses? Look, now you have heard the blasphemy" (Matthew 26:63b-65).

And after He had been scourged, beaten, and crucified, those who handed Him over to be put Him to death confirmed His claim:

In the same way the chief priests, the teachers of the law and the elders mocked him. "He saved others," they said, "but he can't save himself! He's the King of Israel! Let him come down now from the cross, and we will believe in him. He trusts in God. Let God rescue him now if he wants him, for he said, 'I am the Son of God'" (Matthew 27:41-43).

That Someone continued...

Jesus had said that we are ALL the sons and daughters of God and in that context that he was the son of God.

Where?

He placed himself as a equal to us not a superior being.

In the sense that God became flesh. He took on our humanity and became our Brother (but He still possessed the Divine nature).

These are the same teachings prophet Mohammed and Moses taught.

Since Mohammed claimed that anyone who says Allah has a son is a blasphemer, and Christ claimed to be the unique Son of God (as demonstrated above), it should be clear that Christ's teachings are not the same as Mohammed's.

If you've actually rad teh bible you'll hear of Jesus asking those who follow the word of god to rid themseklves of temptation by ridding themselves of eartly posessions

Actually, He said to remove whatever it is in life that causes us to sin (and to worship Him, but that's one of those "thwarted and twisted" parts, right?).

He did condemn greed and the love of money, but when He spoke of rejecting material things, it was in two specific contexts. On one occasion, He was sending some of His disciples on a specific mission (He later told them to provide for themselves those material things which they needed to live). In another instance, Jesus was making a point to a wealthy young man who loved money more than God.

you'll also hear of Jesus stopping descrimination against a Prostitute and healing the sick and blind. You'll also hear the Hippy teachings of Love one another and peaceful teachings...all words spoken by Moses, Jesus or Mohammed are Liberal and this is a fact.

I know Jesus said, "Love your enemies." Please tell me where Mohammed said this.

(Be careful! Passages like Qur'an 9:5 might throw a wrench into your "Mohammed-as-hippie" historical revisionism.)

Amil, Jesus taught us to love one another NO MATTER WHAT THE DIFFERENCES. If you call yourself a Catholic or Christian then I would ask you quit your Islam hating ways

I quote Qur'an and Hadith and you say I hate Islam. That must mean you consider the "perfect" word of Allah and the sayings and doings of the "best of men" improper (or even immoral).

Isn't that Islamophobia?

and start following your God's teachings instead.

But I thought you said they were "thwarted and twisted" and "not the words of Jesus and God."

You're free to continu following your Satanic ways

Quoting the word of Allah is "satanic"? Check your mail. I suspect there's a fatwa with your name on it.

The short-sightedness of appeasement and the necessity for action

Russia is selling out to Iran, co-religionists to those who murder innocent Russian schoolchildren and theater-goers. Their willingness to aid Islam will provide only a short respite (if any) from Jihad.

From My Way News:

"Also under discussion is what the United States and other states would consider their 'red line' -- the point at which Iran has crossed into a dangerous activity that cannot be tolerated.

'We cannot achieve anything until we are certain we see things the same way,' the second European diplomat said.

Iran froze work at its Isfahan nuclear facility in late 2004 under a deal with Britain, France and Germany but resumed uranium conversion in August 2005.

Tehran has threatened to go further and begin uranium enrichment, the most sensitive part of the nuclear cycle. The United States, Britain, France and Germany generally agree any further steps would be unacceptable but Russia is more lenient, officials said."

The United States cannot afford Iran having the ability to use/sell/give away nuclear weapons. Israel can afford it even less.

The explosive matter will hit the Isfahan soon.

Dhimmitude at x3dfx

During the days of 3Dfx, a now defunct video graphics chip manufacturer, I was a regular reader/participant in their Discussion forums. When the company died five years ago, I found my way to a board named, aptly enough, x3dfx.

I was recently accused of racism, intolerance, hatred, bigotry, stupidity--in general, I was treated most unkindly--until finally I was permanently banned for posting Qur'anic texts and facts regarding Islamic theology and history (and refusing to submit to one moderator's false charges). Though one or two others spoke up in my defense, the ban remained.

When Islam left its calling card in the UK on July 7th, I went back to the forum to see if anyone had realized that perhaps something was going on that didn't quite fit the West's politically correct, multicultural paradigm. Again, presenting factual information in a respectful way received a less-than-civil reception.

Today, after quite a bit of time away, I returned to the forum. Upon seeing a thread discussing Iran's (and the Muslim world's) hatred of Israel, it seemed like the right time to add some context to the discussion.

You can probably predict how that turned out.

Here's the text of my four posts in response to others' comments. Perhaps you'll find something useful here.

Post #1

One Who Shall Remain Nameless wondered...

How someone like Iran's president could attain such a position. [-Paraphrase mine.]

He's in such a high position because since the Islamic revolution of the late 70's, Iran has been a theocracy. It is the will of (much of) the people. From Jihad Watch:

"A senior Iranian cleric on Friday backed President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's recent comment that the Holocaust was a myth, the official IRNA news agency reported.

``The recent comments made by the president ... are completely logical and are what all Iranians say,'' Ayatollah Ali Meshkini told worshippers at Friday prayers in the city of Qom.

Ahmadinejad on Wednesday said the Holocaust was a myth and suggested Israel be moved to North America or Europe, comments that drew swift international condemnation.

``After the Second World War, the Zionists have spread lies that Hitler, Austria and Germany killed more than six million Jews in the furnaces in order to create a favorable situation for themselves in the world,'' said Meshkini.

Meshkini is chairman of Iran's Assembly of Experts, a clerical body that elects and supervises the performance of Iran's Supreme Leader, currently Ayatollah Ali Khamenei."

I have read (and heard) that many of Iran's younger generation are much less Islamic and more pro-West, but what can college kids do against theologically-justified governmental force?

And what else can one expect when Islam (Shariah) is the law of the land?

Post #2

Another Who Shall Remain Nameless commented...

The United States and its allies ought to take decisive military action against Iran. [-Paraphrase mine.]

Continental Europe (read France and their sycophantic neighbors) will do nothing until it is too late (and then call the US for help). England, though starting off well by aiding the US effort in Iraq and talking tough after July 7th, is now showing signs of appeasement by weakening its stance regarding shutting down pro-Jihad mosques within its borders (and having loathesome, lying, closet-Muslim/flaming dhimmi George Galloway as one of England's most visible spokesmen doesn't inspire confidence either).

The US has positioned itself well in the Middle East; whether Iran or Syria is next is hard to tell. Both have aided Muslims seeking to kill Americans with personnel, supplies, money, and safe passage.

Whether or not the United States acts, Israel will have to defend itself; to do nothing against an enemy who has repeatedly threatened it with extinction would be, once Iran has acquired nuclear capability, national suicide.

"That and the israelis building up a federal state with the palestinians would be an ideal solution, wouldn't it?"

Israel already allows Arabs full citizenship; they have more rights than their fellow "Palestinians" do in neighboring Arab lands.

And since Oslo, Israel has repeatedly given up land it rightfully won in battle against enemies who attacked it without provocation.

Israel will never have peace with its Muslim neighbors: under traditional Islam, once a land has been conquered by it, it always belongs to Islam. Just as the Nobel Peace Prize-winning terrorist Arafat declared (and Iran's president has recently reaffirmed), Islam's goal is to drive Israel into the sea, to wipe it from the face of the earth.

Post #3

An Anti-Dhimmi noted...

Iran has a long history of supporting terrorism. They are a danger to the free world. [-Paraphrase mine.]

Suicide bombing may be a relatively new tactic used in Jihad, but the idea of dying while trying to kill the enemies of Islam is not.

The Qur'an promises that the faithful who die fighting "in the cause of Allah" (that means war against the enemies of Allah, i.e., unbelievers) will enter Paradise (and that means virgins, boys, wine, honey, milk, etc.).

Mohammed himself, that paragon of tolerance, said that to fight Jihad is the greatest of works.

"These folks are also strong believes in an Islamic world. They hate the Jews and the western world. Max this isnt the first time Iran has said it wants Israel wiped off the face of the planet.
What should worry President Bush is Iran has Weapons of Mass Destruction and is full of fanatical Muslims willing to die for the eradication of the West and the Jewish people."

Because the Qur'an commands its adherents to "fight until all religion is for Allah;" to fight against "the People of the Book [Jews and Christians] until they feel themselves subdued and pay the jizya;" and to "kill the unbelievers wherever you find them."

This warfare against non-Muslims for the sake of spreading Islam has continued globally since the time of Mohammed.

We tend to focus on Jihad against Europe and the United States, but millions (billions?) of Eastern Europeans, Middle Easterners, Africans, Central Asians, Indians, and Southeast Asians have been slaughtered, enslaved, subjugated, or converted by force by Islam.

We're just waking up to it in the West.

Post #4

Another Realizing the Danger observed...

Iran's president is hateful and damaging the minds of the youth of his country. [-Paraphrase mine.]

He is only preaching traditional Islamic doctrine (the Qur'an describes Allah making Jews into apes and pigs; a recent Middle Eastern children's show relates that "fact" using some sort of claymation technique).

What are you, some kind of Islamophobe?

[That is sarcasm, but not intended at you--it is for those (like A Great Intellect) who have accused me of intolerance and racism for pointing out what others believe and teach!]

"Fact is back then during the holocaust Hitler would have killed him anyway for being "nomadic desert trash". The Nazi's didn't care who you were, if you weren't Arian (the idealistic German race as Hitler put it), you were as good as dead and were after the SS dealt with you."

Yes, Hitler was bad, but he was not intolerant of all Middle Eastern people.

The Grand Mufti of Jerusalem was one of his special associates, going so far as to encourage Nazis slaughtering Jews at a concentration camp he was visiting to work more diligently.

Renting a room at the Hotel California

You can check out any time you like, but you can never leave (or, if you prefer, "Just when I thought that I was out they pull me back in!")

And you thought leaving the Mafia was difficult.

The punishment for leaving Islam is death? But that's just a tiny minority of misunderstanding, radically extremist Islamofascist fundamentalists who think so, right? No, it comes from the godfather himself, courtesy of the USC-MSA Compendium of Muslim Texts:

Volume 9, Book 84, Number 57:

Narrated 'Ikrima:

Some Zanadiqa (atheists) were brought to 'Ali and he burnt them. The news of this event, reached Ibn 'Abbas who said, 'If I had been in his place, I would not have burnt them, as Allah's Apostle forbade it, saying, 'Do not punish anybody with Allah's punishment (fire).' I would have killed them according to the statement of Allah's Apostle, 'Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him.''

Volume 9, Book 84, Number 58:

Narrated Abu Burda:

Abu Musa said, 'I came to the Prophet along with two men (from the tribe) of Ash'ariyin, one on my right and the other on my left, while Allah's Apostle was brushing his teeth (with a Siwak), and both men asked him for some employment. The Prophet said, 'O Abu Musa (O 'Abdullah bin Qais!).' I said, 'By Him Who sent you with the Truth, these two men did not tell me what was in their hearts and I did not feel (realize) that they were seeking employment.' As if I were looking now at his Siwak being drawn to a corner under his lips, and he said, 'We never (or, we do not) appoint for our affairs anyone who seeks to be employed. But O Abu Musa! (or 'Abdullah bin Qais!) Go to Yemen.'' The Prophet then sent Mu'adh bin Jabal after him and when Mu'adh reached him, he spread out a cushion for him and requested him to get down (and sit on the cushion). Behold: There was a fettered man beside Abu Muisa. Mu'adh asked, 'Who is this (man)?' Abu Muisa said, 'He was a Jew and became a Muslim and then reverted back to Judaism.' Then Abu Muisa requested Mu'adh to sit down but Mu'adh said, 'I will not sit down till he has been killed. This is the judgment of Allah and His Apostle (for such cases) and repeated it thrice. Then Abu Musa ordered that the man be killed, and he was killed. Abu Musa added, 'Then we discussed the night prayers and one of us said, 'I pray and sleep, and I hope that Allah will reward me."

He was rewarded, but I bet it wasn't what he expected.

Since no student is greater than his master...

...is it any wonder if his followers do what he did?

In traditional Islam, the Qur'an and Sunnah are both essential and authoritative, and Mohammed is considered the perfect man whose life is to be imitated.

The "...sayings and deeds of Prophet Muhammad...[are] known as the sunnah....The reports of the Prophet's sayings and deeds are called ahadith.

One source of ahadith is Sahih Bukhari. Bukhari "lived a couple of centuries after the Prophet's death and worked extremely hard to collect his ahadith. Each report in his collection was checked for compatibility with the Qur'an, and the veracity of the chain of reporters had to be painstakingly established. Bukhari's collection is recognized by the overwhelming majority of the Muslim world to be one of the most authentic collections of the Sunnah of the Prophet."

With that in mind, here is a gem from that paragon of virtue, the founder of the Religion of Peace, courtesy of the USC Trojans:

Volume 8, Book 82, Number 796:

Narrated Anas:

A group of people from 'Ukl (tribe) came to the Prophet and they were living with the people of As-Suffa, but they became ill as the climate of Medina did not suit them, so they said, 'O Allah's Apostle! Provide us with milk.' The Prophet said, I see no other way for you than to use the camels of Allah's Apostle.' So they went and drank the milk and urine of the camels, (as medicine) and became healthy and fat. Then they killed the shepherd and took the camels away. When a help-seeker came to Allah's Apostle, he sent some men in their pursuit, and they were captured and brought before mid day. The Prophet ordered for some iron pieces to be made red hot, and their eyes were branded with them and their hands and feet were cut off and were not cauterized. Then they were put at a place called Al-Harra, and when they asked for water to drink they were not given till they died. (Abu Qilaba said, 'Those people committed theft and murder and fought against Allah and His Apostle.')

And Jesus commanded, "Love your enemies."

A sign of life

Courtesy of Jihad Watch, an article by Paul Sperry at FrontPage revealing a sign of hope for America in its struggle against Jihad. It appears that at least one government agency is realizing that the reason there is so much bloodshed in the name of Allah is because he commands it and his (false) prophet taught and practiced it.

The degree to which the Public and its officials admit this unsettling truth will determine to a great extent the severity and duration of our nation's suffering under this malignant ideology.

(And how long will President Bush resist admitting to the world the impossibly horrific truth about Islam?)

Now for the first time, a key Pentagon intelligence agency involved in homeland security is delving into Islam's holy texts to answer whether Islam is being radicalized by the terrorists or is already radical. Military brass want a better understanding of what's motivating the insurgents in Iraq and the terrorists around the globe, including those inside America who may be preparing to strike domestic military bases. The enemy appears indefatigable, even more active now than before 9/11.

Are the terrorists really driven by self-serving politics and personal demons? Or are they driven by religion? And if it's religion, are they following a manual of war contained in their scripture?

...Dealing with the threat on a tactical and operational level through counterstrikes and capture has proven only marginally successful. Now military leaders want to combat it from a strategic standpoint, using informational warfare, among other things. A critical part of that strategy involves studying Islam, including the Quran and the hadiths, or traditions of Muhammad.

"Today we are confronted with a stateless threat that does not have at the strategic level targetable entities: no capitals, no economic base, no military formations or installations," states a new Pentagon briefing paper I've obtained. "Yet political Islam wages an ideological battle against the non-Islamic world at the tactical, operational and strategic level. The West's response is focused at the tactical and operation level, leaving the strategic level -- Islam -- unaddressed."

So far the conclusions of intelligence analysts assigned to the project, who include both private contractors and career military officials, contradict the commonly held notion that Islam is a peaceful religion hijacked or distorted by terrorists. They've found that the terrorists for the most part are following a war-fighting doctrine articulated through Muhammad in the Quran, elaborated on in the hadiths, codified in Islamic or sharia law, and reinforced by recent interpretations or fatwahs.

That's it in a nutshell. That's Islam 101, not the Islam is the "Religion of Peace," "a great world religion," "one of the Abrahamic faiths," "five pillars" silliness.

"Islam is an ideological engine of war (Jihad)," concludes the sensitive Pentagon briefing paper. And "no one is looking for its off switch."

That's because of taqiyya and kitman (Mohammed said, "War is deceit"), multiculturalism, and the West's suicidal self-loathing, ignorance, and good-natured gullibility.

Why? One major reason, the briefing states, is government-wide "indecision [over] whether Islam is radical or being radicalized."

So, which is it? "Strategic themes suggest Islam is radical by nature," according to the briefing, which goes on to cite the 26 chapters of the Quran dealing with violent jihad and the examples of the Muslim prophet, who it says sponsored "terror and slaughter" against unbelievers.

"Muhammad's behaviors today would be defined as radical," the defense document says, and Muslims today are commanded by their "militant" holy book to follow his example. It adds: Western leaders can no longer afford to overlook the "cult characteristics of Islam."

Those noting such facts are often treated with little charity.

It also ties Muslim charity to war. Zakat, the alms-giving pillar of Islam, is described in the briefing as "an asymmetrical war-fighting funding mechanism." Which in English translates to: combat support under the guise of tithing. Of the eight obligatory categories of disbursement of Muslim charitable donations, it notes that two are for funding jihad, or holy war. Indeed, authorities have traced millions of dollars received by major jihadi terror groups like Hamas and al-Qaida back to Saudi and other foreign Isamic charities and also U.S. Muslim charities, such as the Holy Land Foundation.

According to the Quran, jihad is not something a Muslim can opt out of. It demands able-bodied believers join the fight. Those unable -- women and the elderly -- are not exempt; they must give "asylum and aid" (Surah 8:74) to those who do fight the unbelievers in the cause of Allah.

Which answers in part a question often asked: "If the Qur'an says what you claim it does, why aren't more Muslims going around killing unbelievers?"

Of course, the rest of the answer is that many Muslims do not actually know what the Qur'an and Sunnah state, not all are willing to risk physical harm in "the cause of Allah," and many others are waiting until strong enough to fight successfully against the Infidel.
In analyzing the threat on the domestic front, the Pentagon briefing draws perhaps its most disturbing conclusions. It argues the U.S. has not suffered from scattered insurgent attacks -- as opposed to the concentrated and catastrophic attack by al-Qaida on 9-11 -- in large part because it has a relatively small Muslim population. But that could change as the Muslim minority grows and gains more influence.

The internal document explains that Islam divides offensive jihad into a "three-phase attack strategy" for gaining control of lands for Allah. The first phase is the "Meccan," or weakened, period, whereby a small Muslim minority asserts itself through largely peaceful and political measures involving Islamic NGOs -- such as the Islamic Society of North America, which investigators say has its roots in the militant Muslim Brotherhood, and Muslim pressure groups, such as the Council on American-Islamic Relations, whose leaders are on record expressing their desire to Islamize America.

In the second "preparation" phase, a "reasonably influential" Muslim minority starts to turn more militant. The briefing uses Britain and the Netherlands as examples.

And in the final jihad period, or "Medina Stage," a large minority uses its strength of numbers and power to rise up against the majority, as Muslim youth recently demonstrated in terrorizing France, the Pentagon paper notes.

It also notes that unlike Judaism and Christianity, Islam advocates expansion by force. The final command of jihad, as revealed to Muhammad in the Quran, is to conquer the world in the name of Islam. The defense briefing adds that Islam is also unique in classifying unbelievers as "standing enemies against whom it is legitimate to wage war."

Right now political leaders don't understand the true nature of the threat, it says, because the intelligence community has yet to educate them. They still think Muslim terrorists, even suicide bombers, are mindless "criminals" motivated by "hatred of our freedoms," rather than religious zealots motivated by their faith. And as a result, we have no real strategic plan for winning a war against jihadists.

Even many intelligence analysts and investigators working in the field with the Joint Terrorism Task Forces have a shallow understanding of Islam.

"I don't like to criticize our intelligence services, because we did win the Cold War," says a Northern Command intelligence official. "However, all of these organizations have made only limited progress adjusting to the current threat or the sharing of information."

Why? "All suffer heavily from political correctness," he explains.

PC still infects the Pentagon, four years after jihadists hit the nation's military headquarters.

"A lot of folks here have a very pedestrian understanding of Islam and the Islamic threat," a Pentagon intelligence analyst working on the project told me. "We're getting Islam 101, and we need Islam 404."

Actually, it is not Islam 101, it is Taqiyya 101.

The hardest part of formulating a strategic response to the threat is defining Islam as a political and military enemy. Once that psychological barrier has been crossed, defense sources tell me, the development of countermeasures -- such as educating the public about the militant nature of Islam and exploiting "critical vulnerabilities" or rifts within the Muslim faith and community -- can begin.

"Most Americans don't realize we are in a war of survival -- a war that is going to continue for decades," the Northcom official warns.

"Decades" is optimistic, for how can Jihad end as long as one person believes the Qur'an is the word of Allah and Mohammed is his prophet?

It remains to be seen, however, whether our PC-addled political leaders would ever adopt such controversial measures.

If our leaders neglect their responsibility, the people will not.

University of Southern California aids the Jihad Against the West

As noted here in an article on Muslims in America and what they like to read, "A number of books by leading Islamist A.A. Maududi are recommended. Mr. Maududi was a reactionary who argued for purging Islam of 'foreign influences' in preparation for a jihad that would subject the world to a caliphate. By Mr. Maududi's own admission, this caliphate would 'bear a kind of resemblance to the fascist and communist states.'"

A visit to USC's Muslim Student Association's recently-redesigned (and attractive) website reveals a commentary on the Qur'an by Syed Abu-Ala' Maududi. (This site advertises a book called Towards Understanding Islam by Maududi, A. A., and Maudoodi, Syed Abul Ala. The book's cover shows only A. A. Maududi.)

Apparently, football is not the only thing they promote at USC.

The myth of the principled compromise

You can't have it both ways--you either stand up for what you believe or you compromise your beliefs (in which case one must question either the merit of your belief or your integrity, or both).

The Governor will keep his word or he won't, but Theodore gets one right with the comment below:

"'Schwarzenegger, far from representing the salvation of California's Republican Party, stands for its complete immolation ... Pragmatism in politics is self-defeating in the long run. It is a euphemism for the slow sacrifice of one's principles. The constant substitution of 'electable' moderates for principled conservatives is what repeatedly kills the Republican Party and prevents it from ever realizing even a small part of its platform when it is in power.'"

The People want someone worthy of their confidence. We don't want moral cowards. We don't want appeasers. We don't want two-faced, two-tongued "moderates." We want someone who really believes in the goodness and greatness of America (which is a reason Reagan was so popular).

This is why atheism/socialism/nihilism/globalism will never be winning attributes for any candidate. And this is why Liberals talk like an American until they are elected.

By the way, I voted for McClintock.

Religiously-inspired (not Racial) violence erupts in Sydney

Strange. "Whites" attacked, but "youths" broke windows. What is the BBC implying? Whom are they protecting? And why do they have so little respect for the intelligence of their readership?

Despite the selective specificity, the article mentions that the unbelievers planned this in retaliation for an earlier attack against lifeguards by (apparently) Muslim thugs.

Perhaps this is just a case of poor, alcohol-induced, racists indiscriminately administering Beach Justice to an oppressed and innocent minority. Or it could be a sign that non-Muslims are tired of being told to be tolerant while they are intimidated, misused, and abused by Islam in their own country.

Regardless, this bit from the BBC offers some insight into Australia's anti-Dhimmitude impulse:

The president of the Islamic Friendship Association of Australia, Keysar Trad, accused the media of whipping up racial tension.

"Sections of the media took this issue far too far, and one can only surmise that the way these issues was dealt with on talk-back radio amounts to incitement," he said.

Which is Islamspeak for, "The infidels are starting to defend themselves."

And we can't have that, can we?

The BBC buries its head in the sand even more deeply

This reminds me of the Oklahoma City bombing, the El Al attack at LAX, the Texas oil refinery "accident," the "troubled" youth outside an OU football game, et al, in America.

From the If-you-pretend-it-isn't-there-it-just-might-go-away-department: Clues destroyed as inferno rages:

Police officers - including anti-terrorist detectives - are investigating, but say there is 'nothing to suggest' the fire was anything other than an accident.

Could that be because there were, well, "Clues destroyed"?

Hertfordshire's Chief Fire Officer Roy Wilsher said: 'The damage a fire of this intensity will cause may, or may not, leave clues for the fire investigation team.

"This is possibly the largest incident of its kind in peacetime Europe."

Except that Europe is not at peace; it is in a Life-and-Death struggle against Islam that it is apparently unable (or unwilling) to recognize.

Despite what those dhimmis in the West precipitating their own subjugation might argue...

There is a Clash of Civilizations, but it is not the result of two equally-reasonable and equally-morally-sound-but-different groups of people seeing things through different-but-equally-valid points-of-view. It is one civilization (the one that likes to call home "Dar al-Islam") clashing with all other infidel civilizations (whether Jewish, Christian, Hindu, Buddhist, animist, secular, "apostate" or whatever).

The real problem with Islam is not that it is ancient and unchanged (for the Hebrew Scriptures are much older and reliably preserved), but that its sacred texts say what they do.

When you have a god commanding its faithful to fight against, subjugate, and kill non-Muslims wherever they are found, and when you have a monster like Mohammed, revered as the "perfect man," slaughtering, enslaving, and raping his enemies (and all who refuse to submit to Allah were his enemies and still are the enemies of Islam), you're going to have some trouble, especially with those infidels who prefer their daughters (and throats) undefiled.

To her credit, this author notes that it is the Qur'an that commands and sustains jihad against non-Muslims everywhere. Mohammed's example and fourteen centuries of bloodshed demonstrate beyond any doubt that these texts were intended to be taken literally, to Mankind's horror and Islam's shame.

From A clash of cultures:

Often on my travels, these days, I meet Muslims who complain about being misunderstood by the world. Islam is a religion of peace, they say, it can never condone violence and yet on account of a handful of bad people, the world labels all Muslims terrorists. Generally, this leads to someone or other saying that the problem is that the jehadis have distorted the message of the Prophet of Islam and the world chooses to use this as an excuse to hate all Muslims. Why is this happening? Why should Islam be blamed for the activities of a handful of fanatics? Conclusion? It must be because of the ‘evil’ propaganda of Jews, Hindus and Christians.

The problem, alas, is more complicated. It is not just suicide bombers and mad mullahs who are giving Islam a bad name, it is the fact that in so many ways the religion seems out of touch with the world as it is today. The most recent example of this disconnect came last week when a court in Saudi Arabia ordered that the eye of an Indian worker, Abdul Lateef Naushad, be gouged out in the interests of justice because in a physical fight with a Saudi he caused him to lose the vision in one of his eyes. This was three years ago and Naushad has been in prison ever since which would be punishment enough (for a fight) in most countries but not in Saudi Arabia which as the crucible of the Islamic faith believes that justice means ‘an eye for an eye’ just as it did in the days of the Prophet. Islamic justice also ordains that thieves pay by having their hands chopped off and adulterous couples be stoned to death. These may have been progressive measures 1,400 years ago but in today’s world they are acts of barbarism and this is where the disconnect begins between Islam and the rest of us.

What most of us see as barbaric behaviour Muslims are ordered to accept as justice because that is how it was when the Prophet was still with us. It goes beyond criminal justice to culture, education, social behaviour and the attire of women. The Prophet thought idol worship a bad thing so when Allah’s most devoted warriors took charge of Afghanistan they blew Bamiyan’s magnificent Buddhas to smithereens. The world saw it as an act of unspeakable vandalism but there are Muslims who saw what the Taliban did as God’s work or at least something we should try and understand. A Muslim diplomat I talked to at the time said, ‘‘You see they were not all bad. They stopped poppy cultivation and drug trafficking to gain the acceptance of the world but when this did not happen they may have resorted to this to draw attention to themselves.’’ He did not see that in the eyes of non-Muslims their treatment of women alone would have been reason enough for them to be treated as untouchables.

Closer to home we have the story of Imrana who had the courage to declare publicly that she had been raped by her father-in-law and was ordered by local mullahs to immediately stop living with her husband because she was now ‘haraam’ for him. Panchayats and village priests in India are notorious for this kind of twisted justice but the difference between Hindus and Muslims is that there is no sacred Hindu book that can be used to sanction this sort of thing.

Hinduism has its own long list of horrific practices. Sati, untouchability, child marriage and the caste system are barbaric practices but none can claim religious sanction. Priests who try to attach them to sacred texts usually fail.

Christianity had its very bad moments when missionaries roamed the world shoving Bibles into unsuspecting hands and ordering subjugated peoples to convert to the ‘true’ faith. But, that was a long time ago.

The problem with Islam is that it has remained unchanged for centuries and continues to try and impose an Arab idea of religion, social behaviour and culture on the world. This causes alienation. V.S. Naipaul described it this way. ‘‘Islam is in its origins an Arab religion. Everyone not an Arab who is a Muslim is a convert. Islam is not simply a matter of conscience or private belief. It makes imperial demands. A convert’s world view alters. His holy places are in Arab lands; his sacred language is Arabic. His idea of history alters. He rejects his own; he becomes, whether he likes it or not, a part of the Arab story.’’

In Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand and in India you see signs of Muslims becoming party of the ‘Arab story’ in recent years in a way that they were not before and therein lies the problem.

The time for appeasement is over

From the Telegraph:

'The Koran is the Muslim Bible" is something that most Westerners would say by way of a shorthand description. Although Koran and Bible are the most sacred scriptures of their respective religions, the comparison may be misleading.

Last month, Dr Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, visited Pakistan. He went to the Islamic University in Islamabad, and told his audience what he thought Christianity was. He did this with scholarly, scrupulous fairness. Part of his speech, naturally, was about the Bible. He pointed out that it was composed by "ordinary human writers" over hundreds of years, and could therefore err about minor facts. The Bible was inspired by God, he said, but, "We do not think that God dictates the Bible to its writers, but that he works with and in their human minds to communicate his purpose". It "tells one story in different voices".

I am looking at a book called What Every Christian Should Know about Islam, published by the Islamic Foundation. So far as I know, it presents an orthodox account of Muslim belief. It says that Mohammed was probably illiterate, and that the Koran was therefore dictated by him from memory after he had received it in visions. It is not his teaching: it is the unmediated word of God: "The Holy Koran differs from any other religious text in that it was not written or edited by any human author; no word has been added to it or subtracted from it."

What this means is that all Muslims are what we call "fundamentalist" in a way that no Christian, not even the most literalist, can quite be. One man, the Prophet, was given the perfect truth in one form, and so the truth, and the form, are absolute. To question the status of the Koran as described above is to insult God.

Certain consequences flow. Because Islam sees itself as imposing a political order on the world, it makes enforceable law, including the law of blasphemy. In Pakistan, where Dr Williams was speaking, Article 295-B of the country's Penal Code makes it an offence - punishable by life imprisonment - to desecrate the Koran. Article 295-C forbids any defiling of the name of Mohammed. The penalty for this is death.

There are about three million Christians in Pakistan, and they are at the bottom of the social pile, low-caste street sweepers and cleaners of sewers - "untouchables". Nowadays, they are constantly persecuted, a persecution effectively, though not explicitly, sanctioned by the Penal Code. In the summer, according to the Barnabas Fund, which monitors these things, one of these Christian cleaners working in a military hospital was ordered to burn some papers: he was then accused of burning the Koran. Riots ensued, and Christian homes were destroyed.

Last month, in a town called Sangla Hill, a Christian man was playing cards with some Muslim friends. He won, and they resented this. The story was put about that the Christian had set fire to a copy of the Koran. Thousands of Muslims rioted, burning churches, schools, a convent and several Christian homes. The authorities did nothing to stop it, though they subsequently expressed regret that it had happened.

The Archbishop arrived in Pakistan not long after these outrages. In the wake of the regret expressed, he said: "I am immensely encouraged that the problems caused by the blasphemy laws are being recognised by very senior politicians." I wonder how immensely encouraging that news really is. There was no suggestion that the blasphemy laws should be done away with or even modified. They won't be, because President Musharraf would regard such change as literally more than his life was worth. If I were a Christian living in Sangla Hill this Christmas, rather than Dr Williams with a return ticket to Lambeth Palace in his cassock, I would not be feeling immensely encouraged.

The Archbishop asked two questions in Pakistan, which he linked. "Are we, … as Christians," he wondered, "in thrall to an uncritical support of a Western political, geopolitical agenda?" Then he asked Muslims: "Can those who live in Muslim states create the conditions in which a Christian can be fully a citizen?" Perhaps he was just trying to be polite, but the Archbishop was setting up a moral equivalence that is quite false. The answer to his first question is blatantly "No". Have you ever been to an Anglican (or indeed Catholic) church where the sermon offers "uncritical support of a Western political, geopolitical agenda"? I calculate that I have heard more than 1,000 Anglican and 500 Catholic sermons in my life and I have never heard such a message preached.

The other problem Dr Williams raised, however, is as real as real could be. There is no declaredly Muslim state which offers full civil rights to Christians. In Saudi Arabia, it is an offence to hold a Christian service in public. In Iran, the new president has said, "I want to stop Christianity in this country", and in the past month, a Protestant pastor has been murdered there because he himself converted from Islam and was converting others (all five schools of Islamic law agree that the penalty for conversion - "apostasy" - is death).

In Indonesia, three women have been given prison terms for taking Muslim girls to an after-school Christian club. In Egypt, Christians face increasing restriction on what they can build, as well as harassment in the form of rapes, kidnappings and forced conversions. And so on. Even in our own country, Muslims who convert to Christianity are often threatened by their own community and offered little help by the Church of England.

There is no doubting Dr Williams's sincere concern, but isn't it sad that his protests - and those of most Western Christian leaders - are so muted? If you read the Acts of the Apostles, you see that Christianity spread, perhaps only survived at all, because its disciples travelled to teach it and risked their lives doing so. St Peter and St Paul were both martyred in the persecutions of Nero. How many people would have signed up to the faith if the two saints had instead professed themselves "immensely encouraged" by the protestations of a few Roman senators that all this crucifixion business was going a bit too far, and sailed back home to Judaea?

It occurs to me that the Archbishop, and other Western church leaders, are indeed promoting a Western political agenda, but it is almost the opposite of the one he described. The agenda - and, in the case of the Anglican Church, this is very closely co-ordinated with the British Government - is to try to placate. Sorry about the Crusades, sorry about George Bush, sorry, sorry, sorry, they say, in the hope that Muslims will start to say sorry, too. But where is the evidence that this pre-emptive self-abasement is working? The grim fact is that the development of Christian/Muslim official dialogue has coincided with much greater Muslim persecution of other faiths than 30 years ago.

It comes naturally to Anglicans - the product of an imperial structure, still known in the Gulf as "the Queen's Church" - to want to have talks with the potentates of other religions and polities. But these jaunts remind me of peace delegations to the Soviet Union in the 1930s. They create a structure of unreality and leave millions of the victims of persecution where they were before the delegations arrived - frightened and alone.

Islam means terror? Yes, because its god commands it

The Qur'an commands the faithful to fight against, subjugate, and kill unbelievers wherever they are found, and to "strike terror" into the hearts of the infidels. So it is heartening to hear that some in the West understand the enemy we face.

From The Copenhagen Post:

Defeated mayoral candidate Louise Frevert’s website compared Muslims with tumours, causing a public outrage. Though she blamed the statement on her website editor, DF punished her by removing her from a number of spokesman posts in parliament, including the one on educational policies.

Her replacement, Martin Henriksen, however, has also been criticised for having a website that is equally anti-Muslim.

‘From its beginning, Islam has been a terrorist movement,’ Henriksen stated on his website, warning against letting Muslims run for office in parliament and municipal councils.

‘It’s well known that Islam is lying low, well-knowing that no Islamic group or state has the military power it takes to conquer us. The goal we know, the method is to quietly take over and infiltrate our democratic institutions,’ Henriksen said on his website.

Danish converts to Islam get their share of the blame as ‘moral criminals’.

‘These young Danes, who turn their backs on their heritage and thereby all of us, are committing an indescribable moral crime,’ the website stated.

The website was discussed in a DF parliamentary group meeting last Thursday, where Henriksen said he had received full backing from his fellow party members.

‘It shouldn’t come as a surprise to anyone that an MP from the Danish People’s Party is critical of Islam. It’s a part of the party’s policy, so I’m not removing anything from my website,’ Henriksen told national broadcaster DR.