Wednesday, December 20, 2006

Because their aim is better than their judgment

In the first hour of today's program, the usually sensible John and Ken discussed Virginia 's Representative Virgil Goode's protest against Keith Ellison's desire to use a Qur'an, rather than the Bible, in his Congressional swearing in ceremony.
-Did John and Ken defend the traditional practice of using the Text on which the United States (and Western Civilization) is founded?

-Did the tireless Defenders of Common Sense effectively, rationally, and unequivocally criticize and condemn the proposed elevation of the Qur'an within American government, a text directly responsible (along with Sira and Hadith) for the slaughter of millions of innocents over the last one and one-half millennia?

-Did the Great Scholars explain to their audience how Islam exploded out of Saudi Arabia (after conquering and slaughtering all dissent within it) and into Palestine, the Middle East, North Africa, Western Europe, Eastern Europe, and Persia, beheading, raping, and enslaving what were primarily Christian, Jewish, Zoroastrian, and pagan lands?

-Did our Intrepid Hosts expose the alarming facts of Ellison's past advocacy on behalf of cop killers, his racist statements, his ties to terrorists, or his connections to the jihad-facilitating publicity stunt with the Six Imams (noted, in part, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here)?
No, they made fun of Goode.

For two men who obviously pride themselves on their reason, honesty, and courage, they displayed none of the above. They did exactly what CAIR--jihad propagandists with documented ties to terrorists--did in their press statement on the letter: they mocked Goode, calling him an Islamophobe.

Here is a brief excerpt from a report on the letter and the ensuing, fabricated controversy. Notice who's complaining:
The Council on American-Islamic Relations, a civil rights group, called on Goode to apologize for the letter.

"Representative Goode's Islamophobic remarks send a message of intolerance that is unworthy of anyone elected to public office," said Corey Saylor, legislative director for CAIR. "There can be no reasonable defense for such bigotry."

Saylor said Goode's remarks follow a recent commentary by radio talk show host Dennis Prager, a member of the United States Holocaust Memorial Council. Prager that swearing an oath on the Quran "undermines American civilization." CAIR has asked President George W. Bush to remove Prager from the taxpayer-supported council.

A spokesman for Goode said no apology was forthcoming, and that the congressman stands by the letter.

CAIR is not a civil rights group, and resisting the promotion of a text requiring the faithful to "...kill the unbelievers wherever you find them," is not bigotry.

As soon as they began reading Goode's statement, John and Ken broke into moronic Southern accents. Why were they so quickly hateful toward a person expressing concern for Americans' safety, especially in defense of an adherent of the ideology which has inspired and sustained Muslim violence against non-Muslims and Apostates for nearly fourteen centuries? Why would they defend the use of one of the documents foundational to Islamic terrorism?

Is it because Goode is from the South? Because he appears to be some sort of Christian?

John and Ken want to appear tolerant, but preaching acceptance of a genocidal hate ideology surpassing in barbarity, totality, longevity, and effectiveness even Nazism is neither enlightened nor patriotic; it is suicidally-stupid.

Demonstrating their utter dearth of knowledge of Qur'an, Hadith, and Sira (Islam's foundational, "sacred" texts) and one and one-half millennia of Islamic bloodlust, they reassured their listeners, "...Ellison is swearing in on a Qur'an; at least he's not helping al Qaeda" (paraphrased).

Al Qaeda, Hezbollah, Hamas, and all other jihadists are motivated to violence by Islam's ancient theological texts, including Qur'an. Just as the founder of their religion did, ancient and modern mujahideen "...fight the people until all confess there is no god but Allah and Mohammed is his prophet." Advocating tolerance for Qur'an and Islam is, in effect, aiding jihad.

This leads one to wonder, would John and Ken have have been so tolerant of a Nazi congressman swearing his oath on a copy of Mein Kampf during World War II? For that is nearly perfectly analogous to our present situation.

(In fact, there are only two significant differences between the two situations. First, most of contemporary America's media, political, and academic elite are so thoroughly etiolated by multiculturalism and political correctness--and so thoroughly ignorant of the enemy's history and religious motivation for that history--that not only do we tolerate those who desire our conversion, submission, or death, we punish those who question the wisdom of such credulity! Second, Hitler did not appeal to deity, but Mohammed did.)

So, one must ask, as I hope all of John and Ken's listeners will ask of them, which of the following of Allah's commands and Mohammed's words and deeds (as found in Qur'an, Hadith, and Sira) do they find so innocuous? And if Allah's apostle is considered the perfect or ideal man in Islam whose example is to be followed religiously (he is and it is), what does this mean for the billion practitioners of his faith (and for us who allow their presence within the lands of the Infidel)?

Can John and Ken know which Muslims will never support in any way jihad against "unbelievers"? Who among them will always and unconditionally support equal rights for non-Muslims and women in all spheres of society, never supporting the overthrow of the constitutions of free nations for Shari'a, the rule of Allah?

Here is just a small sampling of that which Representative Goode resists, that which John and Ken find as harmless as a catalog:

...the Messenger of Allah [Mohammed]...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, do not embezzle the spoils; do not break your pledge; and do not mutilate (the dead) bodies; do not kill the children. When you meet your enemies who are polytheists, invite them to three courses of action. If they respond to any one of these, you also accept it and withhold yourself from doing them any harm. Invite them to (accept) Islam; if they respond to you, accept it from them and desist from fighting against them...If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya. If they agree to pay, accept it from them and hold off your hands. If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah's help and fight them...'" (Muslim, Book 019, Number 4294).

Can the implications of such a religious creed be any more horrifying for non-Muslims? Can the source and sustenance of Islamic terrorism be more plainly stated? Can it be any more obvious why Qur'an and Islam are seditious, why they are enemies of our Constitution, our Life and Liberty, and have no place in a free society?

But because we are so easily deceived--when the truth is too terrible to comprehend, we easily and eagerly accept any lie to assuage our fears--here is a small sampling of Allah and his false prophet on warfare to make the world Islam:
"...fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practise regular charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful" (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).

"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, 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).

"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, and offer the prayers perfectly and give the obligatory charity, so if they perform at that, then they save their lives and property from me except for Islamic laws and then their reckoning (accounts) will be done by Allah'" (Bukhari Volume 1, Book 2, Number 24).

“Muhammad said, ‘A single endeavor of fighting in Allah’s Cause is better than the world and whatever is in it’” (Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 50).

“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).

"Allah hath purchased of the believers their persons and their goods; for theirs (in return) is the garden (of Paradise): they fight in His cause, and slay and are slain: a promise binding on Him in truth, through the Law, the Gospel, and the Qur'an: and who is more faithful to his covenant than Allah? then rejoice in the bargain which ye have concluded: that is the achievement supreme" (Qur'an 9:11).

"O ye who believe! what is the matter with you, that, when ye are asked to go forth in the cause of Allah, ye cling heavily to the earth? Do ye prefer the life of this world to the Hereafter? But little is the comfort of this life, as compared with the Hereafter. Unless ye go forth, He will punish you with a grievous penalty, and put others in your place; but Him ye would not harm in the least. For Allah hath power over all things" (Qur'an 9:38, 39).
Allah and Mohammed on terrorism:
"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).
Islam on Mohammed's raping of his nine-year-old "wife" and justifying it by saying Allah ordained it:
“My mother came to me while I was being swung on a swing between two branches and got me down. My nurse took over and wiped my face with some water and started leading me. When I was at the door she stopped so I could catch my breath. I was brought in while Muhammad was sitting on a bed in our house. My mother made me sit on his lap. The other men and women got up and left. The Prophet consummated his marriage with me in my house when I was nine years old” (Tabari 9:131).

“Allah’s Apostle told Aisha [his six-year-old bride and nine-year-old sexual "partner"], ‘You were shown to me twice in my dreams. I beheld a man or angel carrying you in a silken cloth. He said to me, “She is yours, so uncover her.” And behold, it was you. I would then say to myself, “If this is from Allah, then it must happen”’” (Bukhari Volume 9, Book 87, Number 139-140).
The "divine" command for beheading:
"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).

"Therefore, when ye meet the Unbelievers (in fight), smite at their necks; At length, when ye have thoroughly subdued them, bind a bond firmly (on them): thereafter (is the time for) either generosity or ransom: Until the war lays down its burdens. Thus (are ye commanded): but if it had been Allah's Will, He could certainly have exacted retribution from them (Himself); but (He lets you fight) in order to test you, some with others. But those who are slain in the Way of Allah,- He will never let their deeds be lost" (Qur'an 47:4).
How Allah deals with prisoners of war:
"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).
Mohammed on the immutability of Islam (apart from what he himself decides to change):
"I heard the Prophet saying...'Far removed (from mercy), far removed (from mercy), those who changed (the religion) after me!'" (Bukhari Volume 9, Book 88, Number 174).

“The Prophet said, ‘If I take an oath and later find something else better than that, then I do what is better and expiate my oath'" (Bukhari Volume 7, Book 67, Number 427).
On the abrogation of earlier, more peaceful "revelations" in favor of the numerous Verses of Blood (the first reason "There is no compulsion in religion" is meaningless):
“Whatever communications We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, We bring one better than it or like it. Do you not know that Allah has power over all things” (Qur'an 2:106)?
Mohammed on freedom of religion:
"Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him" (Bukhari Volume 9, Book 84, Number 57).
The false prophet on truthfulness:
"War is deceit" (Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 268).
And why what Mohammed says matters so much to Muslims:
"Ye have indeed in the Messenger of Allah a beautiful pattern (of conduct) for any one whose hope is in Allah and the Final Day, and who engages much in the Praise of Allah" (Qur'an 33:21).
Praising "a beautiful pattern" of murdering, thieving, lying, heretical pedophile. This is what John and Ken find so harmless. Rather than indulging their pettiness with mock southern accents, they ought to be working on their Arabic.

Promoting uninspired falsehood as serious criticism

Such is commonplace among Islam's apologists, whether they are Muslims defending the faith or Allah's Useful Idiots blinded by their ill-conceived (and suicidal) notions of "tolerance" and their rabid hatred for Christ and the civilization built upon His teachings.

Following is what one brave soul left as a rebuttal to this, along with my comments.
Anonymous said...

you say that "Allah's War Against Humanity has been ongoing and global for almost fourteen hundred years." Does that include colonialism that was the ruling factor since the 1300's?

In just these few words, Anonymous demonstrates the relatively complete historical and textual ignorance and the really poor reasoning skills one must firmly possess in order to defend Islam. Whether such malformed falsehood is propaganda intended to deceive gullible and unwitting non-Muslims, or it is only an expression of the utter lack of intellectual integrity and the abundance of civilizational self-loathing bred by the West's academic, media, and political elites, is hard to say.

Whether or not "colonialism" was the "ruling factor since the 1300's" is irrelevant to the point, which is that Allah has been waging war against non-Muslims through Mohammed and his followers for nearly one and one-half millennia. It is a fact that Qur'an and Sunnah--the unalterable word of Allah and the words and deeds of his false prophet--require the faithful, good, observant Muslim to fight against, subdue and humilate, and kill "unbelievers" to make the world Islam. Anyone who denies this is either ignorant of Islam's core, authoritative texts and history, or they are a liar. Which is Anonymous?
And if you would like to argue about the Ottooman empire, u can read some history and learn that the Ottoman Empire was no more a Moslem Empire than the British and French Christian Empires.

Besides what do you say for the Portugese and Spanish inquisitions? All the Western Empires?
Again, more poor "reasoning." The Ottomans expanded, conquered, killed, raped, and enslaved in the name of Allah. If not, why did they steal, enslave, and forcibly convert young Christian, European boys, making them into savage Muslim warriors who eventually were used to brutalize their own people? Why is it that when the Hagia Sofia was taken it was desecrated and turned into a mosque? Perhaps Anonymous can explain why it is the Ottomans committed genocide against Christians for generations.

Though it might be impossible to tell by looking at them today, the British and the French were once Christian nations. The critical distinction to make here (and I'm a bit surprised that Anonymous didn't pummel this deceased equine) is that a Christian nation's carrying out expansive, offensive warfare is in no way obedient to Scripture; Muslim nations executing offensive jihad against non-Muslims is in fulfillment of their "holy" texts.

Nowhere in the Bible will you find commands for Christians to torture, imprison, or in any other way coerce non-Christians on matters of faith. In contrast, Qur'an and Sunnah are replete with exhortations to war against, mutilate, crucify, and decapitate those who do not submit to Allah's rule. Any violations of (the true) God's commands by Christians are evil. However, they in no way justify, ameliorate, or deny Mohammed's bloodlust.

[It is worth noting that unlike Islam, Christianity grew up (truly) persecuted and remained non-violent for centuries. After hundreds of years of enduring Islam's Allah-ordained fusion of religion and state and its merciless application of force on the Apostate/Infidel, would it be unreasonable to assume that perhaps the practice of Christianity in those nations had been warped by its unwelcomed role model?]
It is not Allah who has waged war against humanity, it's humans that waged war against humans. Greed and hate are the reason, religion the means (no matter what religion it is).
It is true that greed and hate motivate offensive warfare. In the case of Islam, greed, hate, deceit, and lust (and every evil that serve them) are made divine.
Your hate blogging is so full of holes and illogical arguments, it's ridiculous! If u were'nt so blindid by hate, u would have done better unbiased research. No matter, your ignorance has wasted enough of my time.
Telling the truth about a faith's founding personality, foundational texts, and its history is "hate"? Yes, many of the words here are hateful, but they are not mine. They belong to Allah and the prophet from Hell.

Wednesday, December 06, 2006

The Left's icon of virtue and integrity strikes another blow against...virtue and integrity

But what does it matter when it hurts only Jews?

When you have to appeal to Dan Rather, Michael Moore, and President Jimmy "I'm anti-Semitic enough to be Muslim" Carter as your models of honest intellectual inquiry, it's time to put your hand down and hope no one noticed you wanted to speak. (You're right: Carter is not as bad as Clinton--yet. Carter only allowed faithful Muslims to overcome an American ally in Iran with an almost-nuclear Ahmadinejad as the result; Clinton actually bombed Christians to help Islamic terrorists in Yugoslavia).

Now Carter is jeopardizing Clinton's claim to the "distinction" of being America's First Muslim President by his most recent effort to totally rewrite and misrepresent the Islam-Israeli Conflict. (Why is it that when the Left makes a "misstatement," it always leans in favor of the enemies of Liberty?)

Below is an excerpt of an announcement from an expert on the Middle East closely-affiliated with President Carter trying to distance himself from the former Chief Executive's latest mutilation of the truth. From Errors, omissions, inventions and falsehoods:
President Carter's book on the Middle East, a title too inflammatory to even print, is not based on unvarnished analyses; it is replete with factual errors, copied materials not cited, superficialities, glaring omissions, and simply invented segments. Aside from the one-sided nature of the book, meant to provoke, there are recollections cited from meetings where I was the third person in the room, and my notes of those meetings show little similarity to points claimed in the book. Being a former President does not give one a unique privilege to invent information or to unpack it with cuts, deftly slanted to provide a particular outlook. Having little access to Arabic and Hebrew sources, I believe, clearly handicapped his understanding and analyses of how history has unfolded over the last decade. Falsehoods, if repeated often enough become meta-truths, and they then can become the erroneous baseline for shaping and reinforcing attitudes and for policy-making. The history and interpretation of the Arab-Israeli conflict is already drowning in half-truths, suppositions, and self-serving myths; more are not necessary. In due course, I shall detail these points and reflect on their origins.

The decade I spent at the Carter Center (1983-1993) as the first permanent Executive Director and as the first Fellow were intellectually enriching for Emory as an institution, the general public, the interns who learned with us, and for me professionally. Setting standards for rigorous interchange and careful analyses spilled out to the other programs that shaped the Center's early years. There was mutual respect for all views; we carefully avoided polemics or special pleading. This book does not hold to those standards. My continued association with the Center leaves the impression that I am sanctioning a series of egregious errors and polemical conclusions which appeared in President Carter's book. I can not allow that impression to stand.
But I bet President Carter will and so will his anti-American, anti-Israeli minions.

And neither will the hordes of Allah who benefit from his propaganda complain.

Tuesday, December 05, 2006

The Religion of Non-Violence threatening...more violence

A warning of the Golden Age of Islamic Tolerance being revived in Alexandria from our friend Neferteeti.

It is worth noting that a deceiver in the Comments is taking advantage of what many Western leftists provide: an uncritical and craven echoing of Islam's propaganda.

It is always the "unbeliever's" fault for Muslim violence. It is always Israel, or Iraq, or insert-name-of-victim-of-Islam's-violence-here's fault.

What Islam's propagandists (and the Left's Useful Idiots) fail to consider is that Allah's War Against Humanity has been ongoing and global for almost fourteen hundred years. Iraq is three years old. Israel is nearly sixty.

The West's leaders have failed. In their slavish devotion to political correctness, they have not prepared their people for what is to come, and they allow our Christian brothers and sisters (and other non-Muslims--our natural allies in this War of Self-Defense Against the Malevolence of Allah) to suffer and die needlessly.

Will the West continue to handicap itself in its defense against Islam? Will it continue to turn a blind eye to those in dire need? Must the tragedy of Constantinople be played out again forever?

Tuesday, November 28, 2006

Shining a light in the dark places of history

Pope Benedict's visit to Byzantium highlights four things: Islam's historic barbarism against non-Muslims; the hatred and contempt its adherents feel toward the Infidel, even in today's tolerant, secular, modern, EU-courting Turkey; the unjustifiable millennium-old division within Christendom, the absence of which five centuries ago may have prevented the unspeakable evil carried out inside the walls of the great city Constantinople and its jewel, Hagia Sofia; and the utter ignorance and malfeasance of the West's intellectual, political, and media elite.

Benedict visits Turkey:
ANKARA, Turkey - Pope Benedict XVI urged leaders of all religions Tuesday to "utterly refuse" to support any form of violence in the name of faith, while Turkey's top Muslim cleric complained to the pontiff of growing "Islamophobia" in the world.
Here we see the Pope's discretion and Islam's utter inability to avoid the ironic. If the world is Islamophobic ("phobic" implies the irrational fear of something), then it is because too many of the Ummah are carrying out violence against and seeking to intimidate into compliance non-Muslims in the name of their god.

By one count, Muslims have carried out nearly 7000 terrorist attacks since 9/11.
As he began his first visit to a Muslim country - a trip that drew extraordinary security but few onlookers - Benedict sought a careful balance as he extended friendship and brotherhood to Muslims, hoping to end the outcry from many Muslims over his remarks linking Islam to violence.
The outcry was not because of a false claim, it was because a non-Muslim had the audacity to speak of the Religion of Hate in a less-than-approving tone.
...the German pope also hammered away at key points of his 18-month papacy, telling diplomats that leaders of all religions must "utterly refuse to sanction recourse to violence as a legitimate expression of faith."
Obviously, Benedict was referring in a very diplomatic way to the Religion Which Cannot Be Named, since it is Mahomet's god requiring the fighting against, subduing and humiliating, and killing of non-Muslims to make the world Islam.

I haven't seen lately any Methodists beheading girls on their way to school as an "act of charity."
He avoided mention of any specific religion, even as he decried terrorism and the "disturbing conflicts across the Middle East."
This begs the question: If Media can read between the lines when Benedict gently admonishes Islam, why can't it comprehend the giant, fifty-foot billboards from Allah painted in Infidel and Apostate blood? Why must it always be "alienated youths" or "insurgents" reacting to perceived (and fabricated) offenses?
Benedict also said guarantees of religious freedom are essential for a just society, and the Vatican said he raised specific issues such as property rights of Turkey's tiny 32,000-member Catholic community during talks with Turkish officials.
And how did the people of what was once a Christian kingdom come to have its religious liberties denied? A quick read of "On the Fall of Constantinople" (top right) will help answer that question.
His comments could be reinforced later during the four-day visit when the pope meets in Istanbul with Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I, the spiritual leader of the world's Orthodox Christians.

The pope is expected to call for greater rights and protections for Christian minorities in the Muslim world, including the small Greek Orthodox community in Turkey.
That there is any Christian presence left in Muslim lands is testament to the grace of God and the spirit of the people.
...Benedict's journey is extraordinarily sensitive, a closely watched pilgrimage full of symbolism that could offer hope of religious reconciliation or deepen what many say is a growing divide between the Christian and Islamic worlds.
What is the reason for that divide? Could the commands to "...kill the unbelievers wherever you find them," "Fight against...the People of the Book until they feel themselves subdued and pay the jizya," and "When you meet the unbelievers...invite them to three courses of action...[convert, submit, or war]" have something to do with it?

With religious adherence to such commands, what hope is there of reconciliation?
Seeking to ease anger over his perceived criticism of Islam, Benedict met with Ali Bardakoglu, who heads religious affairs in Turkey, warmly grasping hands. Benedict sat nearby as the Muslim cleric defended his religion.

"The so-called conviction that the sword is used to expand Islam in the world and growing Islamophobia hurts all Muslims," Bardakoglu said.
Rather than condemn fear and criticism of an ideology that commands the Sword to subdue the world under Allah, perhaps Mr. Bardakoglu should work to dissuade his coreligionists from pursuing that ideology.
The comment appeared to be a reference to Benedict's remarks in a speech in September when he quoted a 14th-century Christian emperor who characterized the Prophet Muhammad's teachings as "evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by thy sword the faith he preached."
Why did Manuel II Palaeologus "characterize" the false prophet Mohammed's teachings in this way? It is because he had personally experienced the faithful carrying out those commands against his kingdom and its people. In fact, Constantine XI, Manuel's son, died defending the Great City against the hordes of Allah in 1453. Its fall meant the slaughter (and worse) of many of its inhabitants.
The Vatican described the cleric's speech as "positive, respectful and non-polemical," applauding what the church sees as efforts for a true dialogue between faiths.
It's hard to talk with a blade at your throat.
On Sunday, more than 25,000 Turks showed up to an anti-Vatican protest in Istanbul, asking the pope to stay at home, but on the streets of Ankara most people went about their usual business and only a tiny protest was held outside the religious affairs office hours before the pope arrived.
So much for that "tiny minority of extremists."
"All feel the same responsibility in this difficult moment in history, let's work together," Benedict said during his flight from Rome to Ankara, where more than 3,000 police and sharpshooters joined a security effort that surpassed even the visit of President Bush two years ago.
Islam is the Religion of Tolerance.
"We know that the scope of this trip is dialogue and brotherhood and the commitment for understanding between cultures ... and for reconciliation," he said.
There can be no brotherhood between good and evil.
Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan - in a last-minute change of plans - welcomed the pope at the foot of the plane and described the visit as "very meaningful." Erdogan's political party has Islamic roots, though the government is secular.

In his first official act, Benedict visited the mausoleum of Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, the founder of modern Turkey, and wrote a message in a guest book calling Turkey "a meeting point of different religions and cultures and a bridge between Asia and Europe."
Turkey will soon be formerly secular, since despite the efforts of Ataturk to suppress the expression of Islam and separate it from its Allah-ordained legal and political supremacy, its people are moving ever closer to establishing the rule of Allah.

Turkey should fit right in with France in the Eurabian Union.
...It was his first visit to a Muslim country as pontiff. The original goal of the pope's trip to Turkey was to meet Bartholomew I, leader of the world's 300 million Orthodox Christians. The two major branches of Christianity represented by Bartholomew and Benedict split in 1054 over differences in opinion on the power of the papacy, and the two spiritual heads will meet in an attempt to breach the divide and reunite the churches.

Benedict leaves Ankara on Wednesday for Ephesus, where the Virgin Mary is thought to have spent her last years, and will then travel to Istanbul.

A closely watched moment of the trip will come Thursday during Benedict's visit to Haghia Sophia, a 1,500-year-old site that was originally a Byzantine church and then turned into a mosque after the Muslim conquest of Istanbul - then known as Constantinople - in 1453. It is now a museum, and Turks would take offense at any religious gestures by the pontiff, who also plans to visit the nearby Blue Mosque.

In 1967, Pope Paul VI fell to his knees in prayer, touching off protests by Turks claiming he violated the secular nature of the domed complex. In 1979, Pope John Paul II made no overt religious signs during his visit.
Islam cannot tolerate Christians worshiping in lands Muslims have rightfully conquered. And the tragedy of Christian lands being enslaved, raped, and slaughtered by Islam is about to be performed in places whose peoples are not only unaware of the horror to come, they are inviting into their lands the actors who will carry it out.

Tuesday, November 21, 2006

Flier Rage, courtesy of the Religion of Perpetual Inflammation and Logical Fallacies

Served up with healthy portions of moral equivalence, ad hominem attacks, tu quoque arguments, and half-truths, we have Muslim anger at what appears to be a succinct, decent criticism of those elements of Islamic theology that inspire violence against non-Muslims and apostates in the name of Allah.

From this article (and a KABC television news report), there is no evidence Pastor Yancey made any factually-inaccurate statements; nor does it appear that he wrote anything hateful or inciting violence against innocents (unless telling the truth is false, hateful, or rage-inducing, which it often is for that "tiny minority of extremists").

What we have here is a Muslim propagandist (read a "CAIR-quality liar") trying to diffuse criticism and deflect attention from Islam (and its god and prophet's hateful commands) by intimidating into silence someone telling the truth.

Mr. Omeira offers no substantive (or honest) response to Yancey's statements of fact, just ad hominem attacks and tu quoque arguments. Omeira actually brings up...you guessed it--the Crusades!).

(Notice in the article's introduction the subtle bias: "interfaith hostilities" actually should read, "Muslims are mad," and "...Muslims say attacks their religion," really should say, "Muslims' religion attacks." Perhaps Mr. Shoaf likes wordplay.)

From "Baptist flier inflames Muslims" (what doesn't inflame Muslims? Perhaps Islam ought to be renamed the "Religion of Perpetual Inflammation"):

Interfaith hostilities flared in the Antelope Valley in recent days over the distribution, by a Christian church, of a flier that Muslims say attacks their religion, a message that ties all Muslims to the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

The color tract, which bears the logo of First Baptist Church of Quartz Hill, features the red, white and blue Stars and Stripes along with the words: "Remember 9/11: In the name of Allah they brought destruction and death to thousands … in the name of Jesus you can have life eternal, heaven, and salvation through faith in him."

The flier goes on to state, "Allah says, 'Sacrifice your life to me, and you can get to heaven.' The God of the Christians and Jews sacrificed His only begotten Son to get you to heaven."

The advertising piece concludes by urging the reader to "Repent, Believe, and Receive."

Now the matter is on the agenda for discussion by the Antelope Valley Human Relations Task Force at its Monday, Nov. 20, meeting.

And whom do you think will be taken to task? Those who follow the god and prophet who command the fighting against, subduing and humiliating, and killing of non-Muslims to make the world Islam, or a lone (gasp!) white, male Christian telling the truth?

Muslims offended...

There's a surprise!

How can a person like this be a "chaplain" (nice appropriation of a formerly perfectly-good English word) involved in any way with prisoners, people already at odds against society?

Abdul-Wahab Omeira, chaplain of California State Prison Los Angeles County in Lancaster and a leader of the local Muslim community, told the Valley Press he met on Nov. 8 with Audie Yancey, pastor of First Baptist Church of Quartz Hill, to discuss the offense the printed material caused Muslims.

...For his part, Yancey denied that he meant any offense to Muslims and said he distributed the fliers, of which he reported "only 200 went out," "out of love for Muslims."

From what the print and broadcast reports I've seen show, Yancey has said and done nothing for which he should apologize.

Next this article's author disgracefully spreads Muslim heresy (even if it is unintentional, being tolerant of evil and spreading its lies makes him culpable for its consequences):

Muslims consider Mohammed, who founded Islam, to be the last of the Five Prophets through whom Allah addressed humanity.

The other four were Abraham, Moses, David and Jesus.

Don't you see? They believe in the same god we do. Nevermind the fact that Mohammed commanded (among other atrocities) offensive warfare to make the world Islam.

Instead of grilling (and by implication, calling into question the intellectual integrity and intentions of) a well-meaning and rightfully-alarmed citizen, why aren't Norman Shoaf and KABC's Leo Stallworth asking the offended why they follow a god and prophet who declare:

...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, do not embezzle the spoils; do not break your pledge; and do not mutilate (the dead) bodies; do not kill the children. When you meet your enemies who are polytheists, invite them to three courses of action. If they respond to any one of these, you also accept it and withhold yourself from doing them any harm. Invite them to (accept) Islam; if they respond to you, accept it from them and desist from fighting against them...If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya. If they agree to pay, accept it from them and hold off your hands. If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah's help and fight them...'" (Muslim, Book 019, Number 4294).

Out of context? What context makes this any more palatable to non-Muslims, any less totalitarian, brutal, and contrary to human Liberty?

Islamophobic? Racist? How is citing someone's authoritative texts anything other than...citing someone's authoritative texts?

Considering that additional revelations from Allah only make Pastor Yancey look more perceptive, prescient, and patriotic, Mr. Shoaf and Mr. Stallworth more intellectually irresponsible, and Mr. Omeira more deceitful, let us consider these texts:
"...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).

"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, 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. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not" (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).

“Muhammad said, ‘A single endeavor of fighting in Allah’s Cause is better than the world and whatever is in it’” (Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 50).

“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).
Which one of those exactly expresses tolerance? Which deserves our acceptance? Which earns its adherents admission into non-Muslim lands?

Here is more of why Omeira and other Muslims are so desperate to silence Yancey and others like him. Allah and his (false) prophet (considered the "ideal" man in Islam) on terrorism:
"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).
Following is another reason why non-Muslims (and Muslims who love their daughters) ought to be unapologetically outraged at--and intolerant of--Islam. Mohammed and Aisha on his raping her, his nine-year-old "wife," and justifying it by saying Allah ordained it (remember, as Islam's "perfect model of conduct," the faithful are to emulate every aspect of Mohammed's life):
“My mother came to me while I was being swung on a swing between two branches and got me down. My nurse took over and wiped my face with some water and started leading me. When I was at the door she stopped so I could catch my breath. I was brought in while Muhammad was sitting on a bed in our house. My mother made me sit on his lap. The other men and women got up and left. The Prophet consummated his marriage with me in my house when I was nine years old” (Tabari 9:131).

"Allah’s Apostle told Aisha [his six-year-old bride and nine-year-old sexual "partner"], ‘You were shown to me twice in my dreams. I beheld a man or angel carrying you in a silken cloth. He said to me, “She is yours, so uncover her.” And behold, it was you. I would then say to myself, “
If this is from Allah, then it must happen”’” (Bukhari Volume 9, Book 87, Number 139-140).

And for those hoping for Moderate Muslims to create a new, tolerant Islam, here is Mohammed on the immutability of his faith (apart from what he himself decides to change, no doubt with only the best of motives):

"I heard the Prophet saying...'Far removed (from mercy), far removed (from mercy), those who changed (the religion) after me!'" (Bukhari Volume 9, Book 88, Number 174).

“The Prophet said, ‘If I take an oath and later find something else better than that, then I do what is better and expiate my oath'" (Bukhari Volume 7, Book 67, Number 427).
Here's Mohammed on freedom of religion:
"Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him" (Bukhari Volume 9, Book 84, Number 57).
And on truthfulness:
"War is deceit" (Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 268).
Finally, here is why what the false prophet says matters so much to Muslims, straight from Allah (by way of Mohammed, of course--how convenient!):
"Ye have indeed in the Messenger of Allah a beautiful pattern (of conduct) for any one whose hope is in Allah and the Final Day, and who engages much in the Praise of Allah" (Qur'an 33:21).

Now back to the further undermining of Western Civilization by Islam's apologists and our own Useful Idiots:

...Yancey, who served as a drill sergeant and saw battle in Vietnam during a 20-year Marine career, said he sends out such tracts each month as an outreach to the community. He confirmed that the tract in question was distributed for the month of September.

Yancey told the Valley Press he had been in the process of writing a letter of clarification and apology that he hoped would be published in the Valley Press for the community to read. He said he had been reading the Quran so that he could "get it straight from the Quran what Mohammed said."

"But Mr. Omeira forced the issue," Yancey said, by publicizing Muslim offense at the September tract, and Yancey subsequently spoke with a Valley Press reporter to clarify his church's position.

"I'm not here to mock you or put you down," Omeira said he told Yancey during their meeting. "My intent is not to debate."

"I am here to tell you what you did was wrong."

"You are morally responsible for any hate crime against my community, and for making our kids hate each other," Omeira said....

In other words: "Don't make yourself aware of what motivates the enemy, but if you do, you'd better keep it to yourself!"

What a liar! Yancey tells the truth about Omeira's co-religionists murdering for Allah, and he's morally responsible?

It is Allah who teaches to hate the Infidel. If those targeted by the Religion of Moral Equivalence, Subtle Propaganda, and Logical Fallacies react with a natural (and healthy) aversion to such tyranny, whose fault is that, the truth-teller's, or the god and prophet who command such evil?

Telling the truth is not a hate crime. Neither is self-defense against a ruthless and deceptive foe.

"When the terrorists come, they won't care what religion we are. They want to kill us all."

Or convert us. Or subdue us. Or enslave us.

Here comes one of Islam's favorite subtle deceptions (how Clintonian of him!):

...Of the flier's assertion that "In the name of Allah they brought destruction and death to thousands," Omeira said he asked Yancey, "Did the terrorists actually say this?"

Of course, the terrorists did not actually say, "In the name of...they...," but their actions are consistent with Allah's commands (which is what "in the name of" means!) for offensive warfare as found in Islam's "sacred" texts. And the article's author let's this little trick go unchallenged!

Here comes the implication of dishonesty on the part of the pastor (perhaps the author is practicing for when he gets that call from the New York Times or some other pro-American, pro-Western beacon of truth.)

He said he gave Yancey a copy of the Quran - the one the Baptist pastor said he afterward took up reading - and challenged him, "If you can find that statement in the Quran, I will go and admit it to the whole community."

What Omeira won't admit to ignorant, intellectually-lazy, politically correct Americans is the truth--until it is too late.

The Quran never instructs believers to fight and kill, Omeira said, except in self-defense.

Of course, it doesn't say, "fight and kill." It does say, "fight," and it does say, "kill" (and "execute," "crucifixion," "put out the eyes," and "...kill the unbelievers wherever you find them").

Qur'an does allow (and then later, require) fighting in self-defense. Unfortunately for Mr. Omeira (and the victims of Mohammed's malevolence throughout history around the world), the Prophet from Hell also requires offensive warfare to establish the rule of Allah over all Mankind.

Yancey said he had read through the Quran's first three suras (chapters) and scanned the rest of Islam's holy book.

"The Quran forbids Mr. Omeira from associating with non-Muslims," Yancey said. "According to the Quran, he is not practicing Islam.

"The Quran also tells Muslims to 'fight in the way of Allah,' and that if you die while fighting, you are guaranteed to go to heaven.

"I'm not sure what the Quran promises to those who don't fight - whether they go to heaven or not."

Yancey said the tract's statement, "In the name of Allah they brought destruction and death to thousands," referred to the 9-11 terrorists.

He admitted that an extensive search of the Internet did not produce corroboration for the statement, but asserted that he and an assistant had seen the statement.

Of course they were fulfilling their duty to Allah, as his revelations (above) require. Omeira's challenge is merely a distraction, a straw man.

...According to Omeira, Yancey told him, "I want Muslims to see that Jesus Christ died for their sins, and that they can have eternal life."

Omeira said he told Yancey that if the pastor wanted to debate, they should do so in public.

Which would only give someone skilled in deception for Allah to apparently refute the claims of someone beginning to educate himself on Islam (a job our political, academic, and media elites should have been doing since at least 9/11).

Here comes some false moral equivalence from the practitioner of the Religion of Truth:

He reported that Yancey declined an invitation to speak to the Muslim community at the local mosque by saying, "I'm not allowed to do that. My book (the Bible) doesn't allow me to."

"That's what bin Laden says," Omeira replied, "that 'we can't dialogue.' "

Of course, Yancey has planned and carried out flying planes into buildings in the name of Christ.

Actually, bin Laden cites the command of Allah and the example of his messenger, as I am sure Omeira knows.

Neither does Omeira want dialogue, if by "dialogue" we mean a truthful examination of the facts. All he wants is larger forum in which to twist, misrepresent, and obfuscate in order to deceive the Islam-illiterate members of the community and media.

Next are two lies: First, that Islamic terrorism is a "perversion" of Islam (as noted above from Mohammed's own words, he and his god see terrorism as an effective means to our end); and second, the tu quoque argument that says that a millennium-old action in defense of other Christians--after centuries of Muslim murder, mayhem, and misanthropy against them--is in some way equivalent to Jihad. And both Shoaf and Stallworth appear to swallow that whole:

"I am not responsible for how someone misused Islam," Omeira said, "any more than I can blame Christians as a whole for the violence that took place during the Crusades, or the Spanish Inquisition, or the rapes of Muslim women and killings of Muslims during the conflict in Bosnia. These crimes were committed by individuals."

(How dare Omeira bring up Bosnia. Islam has been slaughtering, raping, and enslaving Christians there for centuries, most recently with the aid of the First Muslim President, Bill Clinton.)

In the case of Islamic terrorism (which is the point!), these "committed individuals" are merely obeying their god and role model.

God can bring himself to individual humans in whatever way God chooses, Omeira said.

And if that happens to be through a murderous, thieving, lying, heretical pedophile, all the better!

"I have used the metaphor of a dart board," Omeira said. "God is the bullseye - but any stripe can get you there."

Not according to Allah. Not according to Christ. But, since so many Americans believe in nothing (or don't know what they believe) this sort of appeal to ambiguity probably seems quite tolerant of him.

And of course, the implication is, "We are the same. Don't criticize us. What are you, racist?"

Two faiths vary

That's an understatement! For those who claim the god of Islam is the God of the Bible, Allah doesn't think so:

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

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

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

"I have Muslim friends who I love very much," Yancey told the Valley Press. "The tract explains the difference between two religions. Of course I was trying to put my religion in the best light.

It deserves to be in the best light. Expose Islam to the light and what you get is this sort of personal attack and deception in response.

"The flier was attacking the people it speaks about - the terrorists," he said, pointing to the flier.

Addressing the facts is what Omeira wants to avoid at all costs.

Omeira said Yancey asked him why "you people," referring to Muslims, aren't doing something about terror.

"I asked him if he had attended the meeting I put together after the London terror bombings," Omeira said.

Why would anyone want to associate with the adherents of a faith that had just killed and maimed innocents?

Omeira said he also has helped sponsor the Antelope Valley's annual 9-11 memorial service as well as an interfaith service for the National Day of Prayer.

Ecumenism sports no temporal danger--unless one of those faiths wants to eat the others.

Here come four (!) ad hominem attacks attempting to shame the pastor into silence, again repeated dutifully by Mr. Shoaf:

"What you are doing is un-American," Omeira said he told Yancey.

"You are dividing us. This country means a lot to us, and we must protect it. What you are doing is hurtful to our community.

"Our strength is in our diversity and plurality," the chaplain said of the United States.

"(Yancey) thinks he has the monopoly on righteousness," Omeira said.

The nerve of that Infidel, Yancey! Doesn't he know he's supposed to uncritically and enthusiastically accept and endorse the dominion of Allah over America?

(And by "community," is Mr. Omeira referring to all, including non-Muslims, or does he mean only the Ummah?)

...Omeira said he took the issue up with the Human Relations Task Force only after an apology was not immediately forthcoming from Yancey.

"I was coming to him in love," Omeira said.

Love of what? Not the truth. More Taqiyyaspeak for the naive and gullible among his audience.

"He said he had been terrorized by a phone call he had received and that I should talk to his attorney general."

This article doesn't note it, but another report said that Yancey and his wife felt forced to give up protection of their grandchildren out of fear for their safety. And that is just a hint of a shadow of a wisp of a suggestion of a taste of what non-Muslims have experienced at the hands of Allah over the centuries.

Omeira said the phone call to which Yancey referred had come from Bob Forshay, a member of the Human Relations Task Force.

Omeira said members of the local Muslim community received hate mail after the flier appeared....

No decent person wants innocent Muslims to suffer.

Those Muslims who truly reject forever the effort (including, but not limited to, Jihad) to make the world Islam and implement Shari'ah, who support permanently equal rights for non-Muslims and women under the United States Constitution, and who actually do abhor the command of Allah and the perversion of Mohammed--they should encourage and support Pastor Yancey and others like him seeking to bring to light the temporal and eternal danger posed by Islam, and they should be challenging and exposing and deporting those advocate, support, or carry out actions against the well-being of the United States.

Our Constitution is a safeguard against the infringement of American Liberty, not a shackle to prevent our self-defense.

Saturday, November 18, 2006

A summary of the Faith once for all delivered to the Saints

The Apostles' Creed (ca. A.D. 200):
Credo in Deum Patrem omnipotentem;
Creatorem coeli et terrae.

Et in Jesum Christum, Filium ejus unicum, Dominum nostrum;
qui conceptus est de Spiritu Sancto, natus ex Maria virgine;
passus sub Pontio Pilato, crucifixus, mortuus, et sepultus;
descendit ad inferna;
tertia die resurrexit a mortuis;
ascendit ad coelos;
sedet ad dexteram Dei Patris omnipotentis;
inde venturus (est) judicare vivos et mortuos.

Credo in Spiritum Sanctum;
sanctam ecclesiam catholicam;
sanctorum communionem;
remissionem peccatorum;
carnis resurrectionem;
vitam oeternam. Amen.
And here is Martin Luther on the Creed:
The First Article
On Creation

I believe in God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth.
What does this mean?

I believe that God has made me and all creatures; that He has given me my body and soul, eyes, ears, and all my members, my reason and all my senses, and still takes care of them.

He also gives me clothing and shoes, food and drink, house and home, wife and children, land, animals, and all I have. He richly and daily provides me with all that I need to support this body and life.

He defends me against all danger and guards and protects me from all evil.

All this He does only out of fatherly, divine goodness and mercy, without any merit or worthiness in me. For all this it is my duty to thank and praise, serve and obey Him.

This is most certainly true.
The Second Article
Redemption

[I believe] in Jesus Christ, His-only Son, our Lord, who was conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died and was buried.

He descended into hell.

The third day He rose again from the dead.

He ascended into heaven and sits at the right hand of God, the Father Almighty. From thence He will come to judge the living and the dead.
What does this mean?

I believe that Jesus Christ, true God, begotten of the Father from eternity, and also true man, born of the Virgin Mary, is my Lord, who has redeemed me, a lost and condemned person, purchased and won me from all sins, from death, and from the power of the devil; not with gold or silver, but with His holy, precious blood and with His innocent suffering and death, that I may be His own and live under Him in His kingdom and serve Him in everlasting righteousness, innocence, and blessedness, just as He is risen from the dead, lives and reigns to all eternity.

This is most certainly true.
The Third Article
Sanctification

I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy Christian church, the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and the life everlasting. Amen.
What does this mean?

I believe that I cannot by my own reason or strength believe in Jesus Christ, my Lord, or come to Him; but the Holy Spirit has called me by the Gospel, enlightened me with His gifts, sanctified and kept me in the true faith.

In the same way He calls, gathers, enlightens, and sanctifies the whole Christian church on earth, and keeps it with Jesus Christ in the one true faith.

In this Christian church He daily and richly forgives all my sins and the sins of all believers.

On the Last Day He will raise me and all the dead, and give eternal life to me and all believers in Christ.

This is most certainly true.

Wednesday, November 15, 2006

What have they got to hide but everything?

This thread in response to an article on Representative Brown-Waite's letter to CAIR is interesting. It began with several people advancing the deceptive, ad hominem, tu quoque arguments commonly used by Islam's apologists. It appears now that after LGF posted on the subject, the comments have turned in favor of Humanity.

Below are several of my thoughts from that thread.

It is not true that all religions are basically peaceful. Violence in the name of Islam is consistent with its god's commands and its prophet's example, while violence in the name of Christianity violates Christ's command and example.

Following is the text of an e-mail sent to Tampa Bay's Fox television station in response to their piece bullying Ginny Brown-Waite:

Judging from your segment on Congresswoman Brown-Waite's refusal to condemn the Hogans, it seems not unreasonable to assume that if you had covered World War II after Pearl Harbor you would have poked and prodded FDR about other fascists besides the Nazis ("Why are you such a Germanophobe"?); you would have quizzed him about other monarchies (Why must you dwell on Imperial Japan?), and you would have uncritically broadcast blurbs from Nazi propagandists denying the Holocaust.

The Hogans and Brown-Waite are correct: Islam's authoritative texts (Qur'an, Sira, and Hadith) require the fighting against, subduing and humiliating, and killing of non-Muslims to make the world Islam.

Muslim apologists for Jihad seeking to deceive naive Western Infidels try to discredit and demonize those critical of their god and prophet as "Islamophobes," "racist," or "extreme." Other times, they accuse them of taking Islamic "holy" texts "out of context."

Such accusations are shown to be only pitiful, deceptive, and false ad hominem attacks when Allah and his apostle are allowed to speak for themselves.

Rather than mock a responsible public servant and swallow whole the jihadist propaganda fed to you by Ahmed Bedier, why don't you ask him why he worships a god and follows a prophet who state:

"...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 prevail...faith in Allah altogether and everywhere..." (Qur'an 8:38, 39).

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

"Allah'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).

“Muhammad said, ‘A single endeavor of fighting in Allah’s Cause is better than the world and whatever is in it’” (Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 50).

“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).

"Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him" (Bukhari Volume 9, Book 84, Number 57).

"War is deceit" (Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 268).

"Ye have indeed in the Messenger of Allah a beautiful pattern (of conduct) for any one whose hope is in Allah and the Final Day, and who engages much in the Praise of Allah" (Qur'an 33:21).

And a last bit on Mohammed's raping of his nine-year-old "wife" and justifying it by saying Allah ordained it:

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

“Allah’s Apostle told Aisha [his six-year-old bride and nine-year-old sexual "partner"], ‘You were shown to me twice in my dreams. I beheld a man or angel carrying you in a silken cloth. He said to me, “She is yours, so uncover her.” And behold, it was you. I would then say to myself, “If this is from Allah, then it must happen”’” (Bukhari Volume 9, Book 87, Number 139-140).

Again, rather than mock Americans defending their Liberty, expose the corruption and/or ignorance of Western dhimmis like Governor Bush and the deception and malice of Muslim apologists like Ahmed Bedier.

"JD's" e-mail address is US4usall@yahoo.com, and "Mother" and "Gene" share identical addresses at usforallofus@yahoo.com.

Of course, perhaps "Mother's" name is "Gene," her nickname is "JD," and everything makes sense.

Then again, there are so many of the standard, deceitful logical fallacies/false analogies/outright lies employed here in defense of Islam, I wouldn't be surprised to discover that most of the "You're a racist, xenophobe" and "Christians have killed more than Muslims" posts are from CAIR and their co-conspirators.

The jihadists and their sympathizers must be pretty desperate if they feel the need to post under multiple pseudonyms.

n wrote:

"Once again WE CAN PLAY THE QUOTE STUFF FROM The HOLY BOOK GAME WITH ALL BOOKS..."

You could, but what would be its relevance to the point, which is that Islam's foundational, authoritative texts require the faithful to fight against, subdue and humiliate, and kill non-Muslims to make the world Islam?

Instead of addressing that fact, n chooses to play MIS-quote the Holy Book by misrepresenting the passages cited above as equivalent to commands like the Verse of the Sword--"...kill the unbelievers wherever you find them" (Qur'an 9:5).

First, the Talmud is not the revelation of YHWH, despite any exalted position it might have in Judaism. Second, it does not require offensive warfare against unbelievers, as does Qur'an. Third, it is not Moses's confession (and profession) that his God commands him to fight against the people until all confess there is no God but YHWH and that Moses is His Prophet. Fourth, capital punishment under the Mosaic Law was for the people of Israel, not those outside of the nation (unlike Islam which commands warfare against non-Muslims).

One must conclude that n possesses either a lack of familiarity with the three religions' texts or an unwillingness to tell the truth.

Salame wrote:

"I cannot believe how hateful so many people are. You would all like to call the faith of Islam hateful and violent, yet I would never condemn your faiths or attack any of you for your beliefs."

First, making factual statements about what a text says is not hate, it is truth-telling.

Second, if commands like, "...kill the unbelievers wherever you find them," and "I have been ordered to fight against the people until all confess there is no god but Allah and Mohammed is his prophet" cannot be considered hateful and violent, what can?

Third, your god says that those who say Christ is the Son of God blaspheme (even though Jesus said this of Himself!). Do you reject this judgment from Allah? Whether you do or not, could not such a statement reasonably be considered a "condemnation" or "attack" on Christian belief (and on that of Christ Himself)?

Salame continued:

"I am a horrible terrorist of a person because I came from a Muslim background?? Yet you all are the ones that are spreading hatred. It's truly hypocrisy."

Of course, having a Muslim background does not make one horrible (or a terrorist). Knowingly advocating belief in a god that commands jihad to make the world Islam does. Ignorance of those commands only makes you an unwitting accomplice.

You can no longer say that you don't know.

And again, telling the truth about what Allah and his false prophet require does not make one hateful.

More from Salame:

"...when you want to speak about hate while basically telling 1/4 of the world that they are terrible people and that they should basically go to hell, I would ask you to look in the mirror and ask yourself what kind of peaceful message you are spreading."

Again, no one I know calls Muslims in general "terrible" or wishes them to go to Hell. However, since Allah and his apostle blaspheme the true God and His Christ--and command their people to war to impose the tyranny of Allah over all Mankind--they and those who support them definitely deserve such an epithet and fate.

And the message I spread is merely the truth about what Allah and his messenger believed, practiced, and command. Their message truly is hateful.

Salame concludes:

"I live my life through peace, tolerance, understanding, having an open mind, and spreading love and beauty. I was taught to live my life this way from my Muslim upbringing.... If the majority of the world could have had the same experience it would be a much more beautiful place."

Then you reject completely and forever all of Allah's commands and Mohammed's exhortations to fight against, subdue and humiliate, and kill non-Muslims to make the world Islam?

You also agree (and work to convince other Muslims) that Muslims and non-Muslims, male and female, should live permanently in a state of Liberty and equality under Law (not Shari'ah)?

If you really do intend such good will to non-Muslims also (and not just the ummah), it is not due to traditional, historical Islam, it is in spite of it.

Rather than engage in ad hominem attacks to silence criticism, why don't you do something about the propagation of the bloodlust of Allah and his prophet of death as codified in Qur'an, Sira, and Hadith?

By the way, the Crusades began as a call to aid Christians from the East suffering under the onslaught of Islam.

And contrary to the Religion of Peace, whose god and apostle command it, violence (except in self-defense or the defense of others) done by Christians is in spite of Christ's teachings and example.

In response to unrealjohn1...

Misreading (or misrepresenting) verses four and six of Surah 9 doesn't help your position.

These verses are *exceptions* to the command "...kill the unbelievers wherever you find them...." These were allowed for those who were keeping faithfully their agreements with Mohammed and for those who requested asylum so that they might hear the word of Allah (and thus perhaps become Muslim). In other words, these exceptions do not make 9:5 a verse on self-defense; they were allowing non-Muslims to live as long as it benefited Islam.

If you're going to try to play the "out of context" game, at least try to twist a passage that doesn't reinforce the point I was making: that Allah and his false prophet require the faithful to fight against, subdue and humiliate, and kill non-Muslims to make the world Islam.

As noted in Sahih Muslim, Book 19, Mohammed gave three choices to non-Muslims: convert to Islam, pay the jizya (live under the tyranny of Allah), or war.

Since you consider yourself well-versed enough in Islamic scripture to appeal to them, you obviously know this. That you would try to create the false impression that Surah 9 is regarding self-defense calls into question your ability (or willingness) to address these matters truthfully.

Besides that, what about "...kill the unbelievers wherever you find them" is not violent and hateful?

I agree that the historical context of a passage is important to properly understanding it. I agree that it is "ignorant" to engage in "misquoting stuff without understanding context time and reason."

Since you say you believe this, one must wonder why you would engage in it by trying to make the Verse of the Sword mean something other than what it actually says. Maududi makes the following observations regarding the historical background of Surah 9 (one of the last “revelations,” not an earlier one as you imply above):

"...to make the whole of Arabia a perfect Dar-ul-Islam," "...to extend the influence of Islam to the adjoining countries," "...to crush the mischiefs of the hypocrites," and "...to prepare the Muslims for Jihad against the non- Muslim world."

"Now that the administration of the whole of Arabia had come in the hands of the Believers, and all the opposing powers had become helpless, it was necessary to make a clear declaration of that policy which was to be adopted to make her a perfect Dar-ul-Islam."

"A clear declaration was made that all the treaties with the mushriks were abolished and the Muslims would be released from the treaty obligations with them after a respite of four months."

"...In order to enable the Muslims to extend the influence of Islam outside Arabia, they were enjoined to crush with sword the non- Muslim powers and to force them to accept the sovereignty of the Islamic State."

"...The object of Jihad was not to coerce them to accept Islam they were free to accept or not to accept it-but to prevent them from thrusting forcibly their deviations upon others and the coming generations. The Muslims were enjoined to tolerate their misguidance only to the extent that they might have the freedom to remain misguided, if they chose to be so, provided that they paid Jizyah (v. 29) as a sign of their subjugation to the Islamic State."

"...In order to prepare the Muslims for Jihad against the whole non-Muslim world, it was necessary to cure them even of that slight weakness of faith from which they were still suffering. For there could be no greater internal danger to the Islamic Community than the weakness of faith, especially where it was going to engage itself single-handed in a' conflict with the whole non-Muslim world."

"...a clear declaration was made that in future the sole criterion of a Muslim's faith shall be the exertions he makes for the uplift of the Word of Allah and the role he plays in the conflict between Islam and kufr. Therefore, if anyone will show any hesitation in sacrificing his life, money, time and energies, his faith shall not be regarded as genuine."

"In this portion the Muslims have been urged to fight in the Way of Allah with the mushrik Arabs, the Jews and the Christians, who were duly warned of the consequences of their mischievous and inimical behaviour."

"In this discourse, the Muslims have been told clearly and explicitly that they will inherit the rewards promised by Allah only if they take active part in the conflict with kufr, for that is the criterion which distinguishes true Muslims from hypocrites. Therefore true Muslims should take active part in Jihad, without minding dangers, obstacles, difficulties, temptations and the like."

It is clear that if your misrepresentation of jihad is not intended to deceive non-Muslims, then it is serious error or apostasy. If it is the latter, Allah will not be pleased.

Salame, I appreciate your response and will address several of your points.

Salame wrote:

“I do not set out to change those minds that are so narrow and closed, so I will only react to a couple things said rather than sharing my knowledge with those who have already made their decisions and will not listen.”

This is a false, ad hominem attack.

It may be true that some minds are “narrow and closed,” but you cannot know to whom those minds belong. Automatically defining someone who disagrees with you (especially when their position is based solidly on the truth) is intellectually dishonest.

It would be better to address the argument.

Salame continued:

“Amill: My God, Allah, happens to be your God as well. "Allah" simply means "God" in arabic. It is the same God that you pray to, as well as the many different religious factions. There is no difference. As far as Jesus goes, I also pray to him. He is a messenger of OUR God (meaning yours and mine) and an important part of the Mulim faith.”

Do you worship rocks? Some people believe Nature is god. You must worship Satan. Some people consider him their deity. Vishnu? Astarte? Molech?

You’re misinterpreting the use of the same common noun for several different entities as meaning they are all the same entity. It would be like saying Mohammed is a man, and Adolph Hitler is a man, so they must be the same man. (I admit that that distinction is slight; imagine the gulf that exists in equating Christ and Allah!).

Jesus Christ is God Incarnate. Your Issa is a false christ (just as Mohammed’s versions of Moses, Abraham, and Mary are false, historically-inaccurate misrepresentations of the actual persons).

Jesus said that He is the Son of God. Your god, Allah, says that anyone who claims Allah has a son is a blasphemer. From this point alone it is obvious that your god cannot be my God.

Your god might lie or contradict itself, but my God does not. He tells the truth and He keeps His promises, and He would never send a murderous, thieving, lying, heretical pedophile as his last prophet when He had already sent His perfect Son.

Salame continued:

“If you would like to concentrate on those differences that seperate us, that is your path in life. I tend to focus on those things that bring us together as a human race. There are many similarities between your religion, no matter what that may be, and my spitritual practices. Bringing together people by finding similarities in differences is my path in life.”

If the topic involves people’s personal preferences, then I agree it is unprofitable to argue. When discerning truth from error, good from evil, life from death, not “concentrating on those differences” is immoral (and in the case of defending against Islam, suicidal).

“Focusing on those things that bring us together” sounds nice on the face of it, but in light of Allah’s mandates to fight against, subdue and humiliate, and kill non-Muslims to make the world Islam, it rings hollow (unless of course you have in mind bringing everyone together under the tyranny of Allah).

As far as “similarities between religions and spiritual practices,” it must be noted again that sharing some (or even many) characteristics does not make two separate entities identical. Imagine the heartache and rioting that would ensue if someone committed adultery with someone in many ways quite similar to his spouse. Would “But she looks just like you!” be an adequate defense?

Salame:

“It is very difficult for you to condemn my beliefs. I am like you. I am Christian (ahhh, yes...I am). I am also a Muslima (did you know that could be the case?).”

One cannot be a Christian (as defined by the Bible) and a Muslim (as defined by Qur’an and Sunnah). Such a statement is nonsensical, for it makes Allah and his false prophet’s command to “Fight...the People of the Book...,” into, “Fight...yourselves....”

Christ and Allah make mutually exclusive claims to deity. They cannot both be true.

Jesus said of Himself, "I AM the truth...."

That's pretty impressive, unrealjohn1. In one not-too-brief post you've managed to mangle the truth in nearly every single thought you expressed.

Here's a false charge of taking a passage out-of-context: "Once again read the Harry Potter example...Context and time...."

Here's a misrepresentation of a Biblical text (and perhaps the implication of a false moral equivalence): "...what if I quote to you just this part of exodus...That verse was talking about theft and that was during the old days...."

Here's an ad hominem attack and subtle slight-of-hand: "...you Quote half verses Stop copy Pasteing from anti-Islam sites for 2:191.Kill the unbelievers wherever you find them why don’t you give the full verse..."

Here's another misrepresentation (and the vitriol you've no doubt been struggling to suppress): On your next stupid point on Sayyid Abul A'la Maududi he is the founder of Jamaat-e-Islami(The terrorist Group) duh his explanasion would be extreme..."

Next is some historical revisionism and another false moral equivalence (based on that lie): that is like Quoteing the Christian preachers that told the crusaders to kill innocent arab woman and kids as the gernral christian view."

Here's another ad hominem attack (and a demonstration of an all-too-common misunderstanding of America's founding principles): That’s is same as Quoteing this as the genral view of American Christians and not that of one person Pat(phyco)Robertson “There is no such thing as separation of church and state in the Constitution...."

Another ad hominem attack for which you have absolutely no evidence (is the appellation "liar" yet deserved?):

STOP COPY PASTEING FROM ANTI-ISLAM SITES AND PEOPLE WHO spew hatred at Muslims TO MAke Money AND DO YOUR OWN RESEARCH"

In truth, I cited Qur'an 9:5 (one of many passages from Qur'an and Sunnah requiring offensive warfare against non-Muslims to make the world Islam), but instead of addressing that, you replaced it with a passage on self-defense.

This substitution is so subtle (and convenient) as to seem intentional. Did you really think no one would notice?

Being this deceitful in defense of Islam is very telling. What have you got to hide? (Just everything I've been pointing out from your own scriptures!)

I have not "copied and pasted from anti-Islam sites," as you falsely and maliciously claim. The Maududi excerpts come from the University of Southern California's Muslim Student Association's Compendium of Muslim Texts.

Your calling Maududi an "extremist" puts you in the tiny minority of those Muslims who think so, and it does nothing to address the fact that Mohammed himself said, "I have been ordered to fight the people until they confess there is no god but Allah and Mohammed is his prophet," and "I have been made victorious with terror."

Your assessment gives rise to several other (for the non-Muslim) disturbing implications: By your own definition, all those Muslims who consider Maududi acceptable (or better) are "extreme." That means that Egypt, "Palestine," Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, etc.,--all places where polls and elections demonstrate support for the views espoused by Maududi (of course they must be espoused and supported, since they are the command of Allah and the example of his false prophet)--are "extreme." This also means that USC's MSA is "extreme" for hosting texts calling for (and supporting the call for) offensive warfare against non-Muslims to make the world Islam. And of course, finally, it means that Islam itself is "extreme," for a religion is defined by its god, founder, and "sacred" texts.

So much for that "tiny minority of extremists." No doubt you'll be calling to alert the authorities immediately.

It is irrational (or dishonest) to accuse those who warn against hate of being hateful.