A lack of fact-based argumentation reflects a lack of intellectual integrity

In their rabid desire to condemn government (not that it doesn't deserve criticism) some are plunging into the deep end with libelous conspiracy theories here:

1) ...Bush orchestrated 9/11.

2) I thought conservatives prided themselves on substantive responses and fact-based argumentation rather than baseless emotional retorts.

3) So, we're supposed to believe that the same institution which orchestrated...which lied to the American people about...and still asserts that...was somehow incapable of perpetrating a similar fraud on the American people in 2001? ...The shame lies with Goldberg and company, not Reynolds, even if Reynolds is incorrect.

4) American history clearly indicates that whatever the U.S. government's official story might happen to be, it is a false one.

The fact that some past government officials have lied to and unjustly killed American citizens is not proof that President Bush "orchestrated 9/11," as is conceded here:

I don't know who was responsible for 9/11.

Osama thinks he does.

He admitted to being behind 9/11. Osama and his co-religionists have been killing Americans for at least two decades, and 9/11 was the second time WTC had been hit (the first being during Clinton's presidency in '93, and not even hardcore Clinton-haters claim that was his doing).

From The News Hour (hardly Republican propagandists):

"...bin Laden...said: "Despite entering the fourth year after Sept. 11, Bush is still deceiving you and hiding the truth from you and therefore the reasons are still there to repeat what happened."

Bin Laden said he thought of the method of attacking U.S. skyscrapers when he saw Israeli aircraft bombing tower blocks in Lebanon in 1982.

"We decided to destroy towers in America," he said. "God knows that it had not occurred to our mind to attack the towers, but after our patience ran out and we saw the injustice and inflexibility of the American-Israeli alliance toward our people in Palestine and Lebanon, this came to my mind."

"...To the U.S. people, my talk is to you about the best way to avoid another disaster. I tell you: Security is an important element of human life and free people do not give up their security.

"If Bush says we hate freedom, let him tell us why we didn't attack Sweden, for example. It is known that those who hate freedom do not have dignified souls, like those of the 19 blessed ones," he said, referring to the 19 hijackers.

"We fought you because we are free ... and want to regain freedom for our nation. As you undermine our security, we undermine yours."

...In September 2003, Al-Jazeera aired a tape of bin Laden with his deputy Ayman al-Zawahiri in which he mentions five Sept. 11 hijackers by name."

And from Wikipedia:

In an audiotape aired on Al Jazeera on May 21, 2006, bin Laden said he had personally directed the 19 hijackers.

...Statements of al-Qaeda recorded after 9/11 add weight to the U.S account of who was responsible for the attacks....

President Bush deserves criticism for many things. However, absent actual evidence of the President's planning, supporting, or allowing 9/11, giving any support to the idea that he "orchestrated" it demonstrates a lack of intellectual integrity.

It is good to be jealous of Liberty. Conspiracy theories against a President finally fighting back against--and killing--the jihadists whose god and false prophet command them to kill us does nothing to advance it (or one's credibility).

Conflating the Two Kingdoms

...is what you get when you distort Scripture to suit your agenda. From the comments here, in response to Mark Call:

Vote fraud: Several good sources for this exist; see the book...

Since Hazim was questioning whether any vote counted, I suggested that rather than agitate, he do something about that fraud of which he was personally aware.

I was in no way suggesting that electoral fraud never occurs.

I was merely "trying to point out that your responses seemed to be aimed at something other than what I had written."

No, you responded to me based on what you had written elsewhere, as you admitted.

My comments on your post were addressing...your post.

...Or why Romans 13 doesn't mean 'obey Adolf, Vladimir, Slick, or W'.

Romans 13, written while under the reign of Caesar, states in part:

"Everyone must obey state authorities, because no authority exists without God's permission, and the existing authorities have been put there by God. Whoever opposes the existing authority opposes what God has ordered; and anyone who does so will bring judgment on himself....they are God's servants working for your own good....They are God's servants and carry out God's punishment on those who do evil. For this reason you must obey the authorities---not just because of God's punishment, but also as a matter of conscience. That is also why you pay taxes, because the authorities are working for God when they fulfill their duties. Pay, then, what you owe them; pay them your personal and property taxes, and show respect and honor for them all.

Peter stated, "Respect everyone, love other believers, honor God, and respect the Emperor."

Christ Himself said, "...pay to the Emperor what belongs to the Emperor, and pay to God what belongs to God."

Jesus also declared to the Roman governor judging Him, "You wouldn't have any authority over me if it hadn't been given to you from above."

Paul, Peter, and Christ all speak of obeying and honoring the government over them even when that authority was Nero. They all submitted to the governing authority, even when that submission meant vile humiliation and brutal death. Unless you have Scriptural evidence of God making exceptions to His command and example--apart from when an authority requires a Christian to sin--you are contradicting God.

Otherwise, start learning what it means when He says "Come out of her..."

Revelation 18 states in part:

"...Fallen! Babylon the Great has fallen! She has become a home for demons. She is a prison for every evil spirit, every unclean bird, and every unclean and hated beast. All the nations fell because of the wine of her sexual sins. The kings of the earth had sex with her. Her luxurious wealth has made the merchants of the earth rich."

"I heard another voice from heaven saying, "Come out of Babylon, my people, so that you do not participate in her sins and suffer from any of her plagues. Her sins are piled as high as heaven, and God has remembered her crimes. Do to her what she has done. Give her twice as much as she gave. Serve her a drink in her own cup twice as large as the drink she served others. She gave herself glory and luxury. Now give her just as much torture and misery."

Since Babylon fell a long time ago (and because the Biblical text actually says it), it seems that here God is admonishing His people to avoid sharing in the world's sins.

Your earlier posts in this thread suggest you interpret "Come out of Babylon" to mean that Christians should have no participation in any way with man-made government.

If this is what you mean, what would you say of Christ telling His people to pay their taxes and honor and obey the authorities? What would you say of the Roman centurian to whom Christ gave praise rather than correction? What would you say of God's people who served in human governments over the millennia like Joseph, David, or Daniel? What would you say of Christ's encouraging those believers under actual slavery (not like us in our present condition) to serve their masters as they serve Him, knowing that they are truly free men?

It seems more in line with the rest of Scripture to understand Revelation 18's "Come out of Babylon" in these terms:

"You unfaithful people! Don't you know that love for this evil world is hatred toward God? Whoever wants to be a friend of this world is an enemy of God" (James 4).

"Don't love the world and what it offers. Those who love the world don't have the Father's love in them. Not everything that the world offers-physical gratification, greed, and extravagant lifestyles-comes from the Father. It comes from the world, and the world and its evil desires are passing away. But the person who does what God wants lives forever" (1 John 2).

"I have given them your message. But the world has hated them because they don't belong to the world any more than I belong to the world. I'm not asking you to take them out of the world but to protect them from the evil one. They don't belong to the world any more than I belong to the world. Use the truth to make them holy. Your words are truth" (John 17).

We do need a Savior

He sent His Son because of our sin, not our capacity for good. Apart from that, it looks to be a super movie. Superman by Megan Basham:

Superman had to survive a lot more than the evil plotting of Lex Luthor to make it to the big screen this summer. First he had to survive the executives at Warner Bros.

Over the past ten years, rumors repeatedly flew that a new superman film was on the verge of production. Among those projects the studio gave the go ahead only to later pull the plug on were one whose screenwriter promised a “campy” treatment that would anger the “far right”; one that landed the man of steel in a psychoanalyst’s office, cracking under the pressures of being a superhero; and one that was reportedly “heavily-influenced by The Matrix.” An adaptation helmed by off-beat Batman director Tim Burton even got as far as casting, with Nicholas Cage wearing the iconic red cape and Chris Rock as Jimmy Olsen.

Thank Jor-El none of those versions made it into theaters. Instead, screenwriters Michael Dougherty and Dan Harris and director Bryan Singer have reincarnated a current, yet classic Superman who has no inner conflict about his mission in life and remains unwaveringly devoted to truth and justice (though, conspicuously, there is no mention of “The American Way”).

After a five-year hiatus from Earth to investigate the remains of his destroyed home planet Krypton, Kal-El a.k.a Clark Kent a.k.a Superman (newcomer Brandon Routh) returns to discover that the world, as it is wont to do, has moved on without him. His arch-nemesis Lex Luthor (Kevin Spacey) is once again threatening national security, having received early release from prison by a lenient appeals court. Lois Lane (Kate Bosworth) is now the mother of a five-year-old and lives with her fiancé Richard White, nephew of Daily Planet Editor-in-Chief Perry White. Worse, she has penned the prevailing media attitude toward super-heroics with her Pulitzer-prize winning article, “Why the World Doesn’t Need Superman.” Now not only must Superman stop Luther from killing billions in his plan to create a Krypton on Earth, he must also prove to the public that it’s his prerogative to do so.

Casting Brandon Routh as the mythological hero was a stroke of genius on the part [of] Singer. The young actor manages to call Christopher Reeve to mind so vividly in his speech patterns and mannerisms, that his performance could almost be called a tribute. Yet Routh also makes the character his own. His Clark Kent is equally awkward and charming, as his Superman is dashing, but Routh adds a sense of melancholic depth to the man who must, by virtue of his ability, remain an outsider. This melancholy never gives way to the self doubt we’ve seen in other recent superhero films; but instead adds to Superman’s certainty that his purpose is to be a light of virtue in the world.

While this storyline is unquestionably traditional, by introducing the question of whether there is a need for Superman, Singer and his team comically deal with modern mores. The idea that the Pulitzer Prize committee would award a point of view that disparages something so fundamentally good and (previously) American as Superman is laughable, but also all too possible. It may do so only for humor’s sake, but conservative audiences won’t be able to resist a plot that introduces the argument that Superman imposes his do-gooding on the world, with Superman coming out the victor.

Similarly, rather than sidestepping the Superman/Christ connection, Singer plays it for everything its worth. As Superman tells Lois: "You wrote that the world doesn't need a savior. But every day I hear people crying for one." Later, after Lex and his thugs beat Superman down Gesthemane-style, he rises, arms spread in a cross formation to the sun as his Kryptonian father’s voice intones over the air, “It is because of their [the human race] capacity for good that I sent them my only son.”

Clerks director Kevin Smith (who was at one point during the decade-long Superman production saga commissioned to write a screenplay) reminded the W.B.’s executives that “Superman's angst is not that he doesn't want to be Superman. If he has any, it's that he can't do it all — he can't do enough to save everyone… Batman is about angst; Superman is about hope."

Smith got it exactly right and it looks like the studio listened. Mainstream Americans may have responded with gusto to the conflicted darkness of the Batman franchise, but that doesn’t mean they’re too sophisticated to embrace light as well. Add to this the fact that the film’s incredible action sequences and delightful cast also make it supremely entertaining, and it would take an audience of steel to resist this Superman.

Stephen Stein killing the messenger

Ann Coulter can be harsh. She offends. She can be merciless.

Ann Coulter tells the truth.

Her use of hyperbole and sarcasm is often misunderstood as mean-spiritedness or cruelty by the reading--and logic--impaired.

The only thing actually heartless about Ann Coulter's commentary is that she tells the truth without compromise and in a way that makes plain the absolute absurdity (and immorality) of her criticism's target. That is what so enrages her critics on the Left (her critics on the Right are just cowards).

In the following article, Rabbi Stephen Stein demonstrates his inability (or unwillingness) to tell the truth about Islam (and his own relgion) in falsely criticizing the courageous Wafa Sultan.

The attempted demonization of Ms. Sultan by comparing her to Ms. Coulter for daring to expose those forces whose divinely-ordained goal is the destruction of everything Free People hold dear is shameful and inexcusable.

Still, in the equating there is a kind of compliment.

Islam's Ann Coulter:

Stephen Julius Stein is a rabbi at Wilshire Boulevard Temple, where he also directs inter-religious programming.

June 25, 2006

RECENTLY I WAS one of about 100 L.A. Jews invited to attend a fundraiser for a Jewish organization that seeks to counteract anti-Israel disinformation and propaganda. The guest speaker was Wafa Sultan, the Syrian American woman who in February gave a now legendary interview on Al Jazeera television, during which she said that "the Muslims are the ones who began the clash of civilizations" and "I don't believe you can reform Islam."

Islam is the world's most prolific and pugnacious propagator of that putrid propaganda, but does Stein realize this?

Sultan is (mostly) right--technically, Allah began the Clash of Civilizations--actually, the War Against Humanity--fourteen hundred years ago when, through his false prophet he commanded the faithful to fight against, subdue and humiliate, and kill non-Muslims to make the world Islam. And the murderous pedophile himself stated, "Far from mercy, far from mercy those who change the religion after me."

In light of this, a good, pious Muslim must war against non-Muslims, and no, Islam can never change.

The audience warmly greeted Sultan, a psychiatrist who immigrated to Southern California in 1989. One of Time magazine's 100 "pioneers and heroes," she said she was neither a Christian, Muslim nor Jew but a secular human being. "I have 1.3 billion patients," she quipped early in her remarks, referring to the global Muslim population. Sultan went on to condemn inhumane acts committed in God's name, to denounce Islamic martyrdom and to decry terror as a tool to subjugate communities. Those statements all made perfect sense.

Here Stein repeats the awful stupidity of equating Islam's deity with the God of the Bible, a false argument Islam traditionally uses to try to make gullible, "tolerant" Westerners even less willing to scrutinize its obviously perverse doctrines.

Then this provocative voice said something odd: "Only Arab Muslims can read the Koran properly because you have to speak Arabic to know what it means — you cannot translate it." Any translation is, by definition, interpretation, and Arabic is no more difficult to accurately translate than Hebrew. In fact, the Hebrew of the Bible poses many more formidable translation problems than Arabic. Are Christians and Jews who cannot read it ill-equipped to live by its meanings?

The "only Arabic-speakers get it" argument is one often heard from Muslims who wish to deceive potentially-aware non-Muslims into thinking their Book from Hell doesn't say what it so clearly and tragically does.

Not only this, but--just as with translations of especially Hebrew--some of the force of the language is lost in the translation. For example, where in the Qur'an Allah tells a man to beat his wife if she does not listen to him, some translators will render it as "(lightly) beat her."

Another surprising remark soon followed: "All Muslim women — even American ones, though they won't admit it — are living in a state of domination." Do they include my friend Nagwa Eletreby, a Boeing engineer and expert on cockpit controls, who did not seek her husband's permission to help me dress the Torah scroll? Or how about my friend Azima Abdel-Aziz, a New York University graduate who traveled to Israel with 15 Jews and 14 other Muslims — and left her husband at home?

Sultan's remark is only surprising to Westerners who have for too long lived blithely unaware of what the rest of humanity has suffered at the hands of Islam for the past one and one-half millennia.

Allah has made clear that women do not enjoy rights equal to men including, but not limited to:

1) A man has the right to beat his wife if she displeases him;

2) It takes four male witnesses to substantiate adultery, meaning that women raped under Shari'a are often punished instead of the rapist;

3) Women do not have the same inheritance rights as do men under Islam;

4) A woman's testimony does not equal a man's;

5) A woman "possessed by a man's right hand" (taken as a spoil of war) is freely his for the raping; and,

6) female children as young as nine are open season for the sexual gratification of their pedophilic "husbands" following the example of Mohammed, who said that Allah gave to him his six-year-old bride Aisha, and with whom he consummated their "marriage" when she was nine and he in his fifties.

Stein continues:

There is no subjugation in the homes of these and other American Muslim women I know. They are equal, fully contributing members of their families.

Here again is the suicidally-foolish citing of Western exceptions that demonstrate Allah's rule. One only needs to look at the mandates of Islamic "sacred" texts and their implementation (Shari'a) to know that under Islam, those women will most likely not enjoy such independence. And it's worse if they're non-Muslims who really get to experience the peace and tolerance of Allah (which often consists of kidnappings, rapes, forced marriages and conversions, and generic persecution and humiliation).

The more Sultan talked, the more evident it became that progress in the Muslim world was not her interest. Even more troubling, it was not what the Jewish audience wanted to hear about. Applause, even cheers, interrupted her calumnies.

How can one be interested in what does not, cannot, nor ever has existed? (I suppose Western multiculturalists are fascinated with peaceful Islam, so it is not impossible!)

And as for "calumnies?" It is Stein who is here guilty of slander. Sultan told the truth and he condemns her for it.

Perhaps the audience is significantly more aware of Islam than is the rabbi.

Judea Pearl, an attendee and father of murdered journalist Daniel Pearl, was one of the few voices of restraint and nuance heard that afternoon. In response to Sultan's assertion that the Koran contains only verses of evil and domination...

If Sultan stated that the Qur'an contains only verses of evil and domination, she would be guilty of only a minor, technical error. Though Islam's "holy" texts contain some benign verses, the overarching theme sounded by Allah and his apostle in Qur'an and Sunnah is: War against the world to make it Islam. There is no other option for those who will not convert or willingly submit to its rule.

...Pearl said he understood the book also included "verses of peace" that proponents of Islam uphold as the religion's true intent. The Koran's verses on war and brutality, Pearl contended, were "cultural baggage," as are similar verses in the Torah. Unfortunately, his words were drowned out by the cheers for Sultan's full-court press against Islam and Muslims.

If Pearl/Stein thinks "proponents" is a synonym for "liars" and "uphold" a synonym for "falsely assert," then he is right.

Pearl should realize that it is that "cultural baggage"--the command of Allah and the example of his false prophet as found in Qur'an and Sunnah--that slaughtered his son like an animal.

(And what a sterling defense of the word of YHWH by Stein!)

My disappointment in and disagreement with Sultan turned into dismay. She never alluded to any healthy, peaceful Islamic alternative.

That's because there isn't one. Stein's disapproval should be directed where it is warranted: at Islam, the cause of all this suffering and death, not at a messenger.

...You might wonder why a rabbi is so uneasy about Sultan's assault on Muslims and Islam. Here's why: Contrary to practically every mosque in the U.S., the Islamic Center has a regulation in its charter barring funding from foreign countries. As a result, it is an American institution dedicated to propagating an American Muslim identity. Maher and Hassan Hathout are the philosophical and spiritual pillars of the mosque. They also have been partners of Wilshire Boulevard Temple rabbis and others throughout L.A. for decades.

And will this group be condemned as apostates by traditional, mainline Islam? The rabbi himself cites this group as an exception to "practically every mosque in the U.S." Does this support Stein's criticism of Sultan, or her criticism of Islam?

And who are the Hathouts? From The Counterterrorism Blog:

Maher Hathout is the Senior Advisor and one of the founders of MPAC. Hassan Hathout served as MPAC’s President and co-founded the Islamic Center of Southern California with his brother, Maher. The Islamic Center of Southern California is MPAC’s sister organization and publishes MPAC’s publication, The Minaret. ...“Hassan Hathout is a close disciple of the late Hassan al-Banna of Egypt.” ...A March 1998 Minaret article titled, “In Appreciation of Dr. Hassan Hathout,” also details Hassan’s ties to al-Banna:

“My father would tell me that Hassan Hathout was a companion of Hassan al-Banna…Hassan Hathout would speak of al-Banna with such love and adoration; he would speak of a relationship not guided by politics or law but by a basic sense of human decency.”

In 1997, Maher Hathout delivered an address at the State Department on emerging Islamic trends....

“In his [Hathout’s] view the reformists, represented by leaders like Jamaluddin Afghani, Muhammad Abdu, Mohammad Iqbal, Hassan al-Banna and Maududi, Ghannoushi, Erbakan and Turabi, have advocated a pluralistic society that would work for peace and justice for all. They have, however, according to Dr. Hathout, been ignored, despite the fact that ‘they represent the masses and speak their language.’”

And who is Hassan al-Banna, the subject of Hathouts's adoration? Again from The Counterterrorism Blog:

In 1928, Hassan al-Banna founded the Muslim Brotherhood, a rigidly conservative and highly secretive Egyptian-based organization dedicated to resurrecting a Muslim empire. According to al-Banna, “[i]t is the nature of Islam to dominate, not to be dominated, to impose its law on all nations and to extend its power to the entire planet.” Al-Banna also gave the group the motto it still uses today: “God is our purpose, the Prophet our leader, the Quran our constitution, jihad our way and dying for God our supreme objective.” The 9/11 Commission Report describes the Brotherhood’s influence on Osama bin Laden, stating that “Bin Laden relies heavily on the Egyptian writer Sayyid Qutb.” Qutb is one of the most influential, early Brotherhood theoreticians. The 9/11 Commission Report also describes the Muslim Brotherhood’s influence on Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman: “In speeches and writings, the sightless Rahman, often called the “Blind Sheikh,” preached the message of Sayyid Qutb’s Milestones, characterizing the United States as the oppressor of Muslims worldwide and asserting that it was their religious duty to fight against God’s enemies. An FBI informant learned of a plan to bomb major New York landmarks, including the Holland and Lincoln tunnels. Disrupting this “landmarks plot,” the FBI in June 1993 arrested Rahman and various confederates.”

And who is Turabi? More from TCB:

It is ironic Hathout is lauding Hassan Turabi as a reformer. A prominent Muslim Brotherhood member, Hasan al-Turabi was the head of the National Islamic Front, which the U.S. government has condemned for supporting terrorism, launching a genocidal war in southern Sudan, and for continued human rights violations. Turabi also gave Osama bin Laden sanctuary in Sudan. As part of his plan to turn the country into a global militant Islamist base, Hassan Turabi invited Bin Laden to Sudan in 1991. The two, bounded by a personal friendship and shared ideology, began a close financial and military cooperation that lasted until Bin Laden left Sudan in 1996.

Stein continues:

The Hathouts' mosque has twice endorsed pilgrimages to Israel and the Palestinian territories, its members traveling with fellow L.A.-area Jews and Christians. It invites Jews to pray with them, to make music with them, to celebrate Ramadan with them. This is the mosque whose day school teaches students about Rosh Hashana, Yom Kippur and Hanukkah alongside lessons in Arabic and the Koran. Recently, the Islamic Center joined the food pantry collective of Hope-Net, helping feed the hungry and homeless.

All commendable activities. How then would the rabbi explain the severe contradiction between Hathouts' personal and ideological connections and their apparent acts of good will? Could it be that they are carrying out peacefully Islam's goal as explicated by al-Banna? Could it be that they are engaging in taqiyya? Is Stein aware of Mohammed's declaration that "War is deceit"?

Make no mistake: I am not an Islamic apologist.

It sure sounds like it.

But Sultan's over-the-top, indefensible remarks at the fundraiser, along with her failure to mention the important, continuing efforts of the Islamic Center, insulted all Muslims and Jews in L.A. and throughout the nation who are trying to bridge the cultural gap between the two groups. And that's one reason why I eventually walked out of the event.

What is indefensible is Stein's condemnation of someone risking life and limb to expose the dangers posed by traditional, Qur'anic Islam, thereby unwittingly aiding its jihad against us.

One cannot bridge a "cultural gap" with a group dedicated to its destruction and subjugation.

Here's another: As I experienced the fervor sparked by Sultan's anti-Muslim tirade and stoked by a roomful of apparently unsuspecting Jews...,

There was an "unsuspecting Jew" in the room, but it wasn't one of those cheering Sultan.

...I thought: What if down the street there was a roomful of Muslims listening to a self-loathing Jew, cheering her on as she spoke of the evils inherent in the Torah, in which it is commanded that a child must be stoned to death if he insults his parents, in which Israelites are ordered by God to conquer cities and, in so doing, to kill all women and children — and this imagined Jew completely ignored all of what Judaism teaches afterward?

This is a false analogy. First, the command for warfare in the Old Testament was specific and limited to one time, place, and target. Second, there are Muslims down the street, across the city, and in every state listening not to some "self-loathing Jew," but to their god and his false prophet making these timeless, universal statements:

Allah and the false prophet Mohammed 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 them, and Allah will punish them by your hands, cover them with shame, help you (to victory) over them, heal the breasts of Believers..." (Qur'an 9:14).

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

"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).

"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, and offer the prayers perfectly and give the obligatory charity, so if they perform a 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).

"Not equal are those believers who sit (at home) and receive no hurt, and those who strive and fight in the cause of Allah with their goods and their persons. Allah hath granted a grade higher to those who strive and fight with their goods and persons than to those who sit (at home)...But those who strive and fight Hath He distinguished above those who sit (at home) by a special reward..." (Qur'an 4:95).

“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 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).

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 139-40).

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).

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)!

Mohammed on the immutability of Islam:

"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).

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).

Stein concludes:

In a world far too often dominated by politicians imbued with religious fundamentalism of all flavors — Jewish, Christian, Muslim — we need the thoughtfulness, self-awareness and subtlety that comes from progressive religious expression. We have that in Judaism, in Christianity — and in Islam, right in our backyard. If only Sultan, applauded in many quarters yet miscast as a voice of reason and reform in Islam, were paying attention.

Would the rabbi consider Moses a fundamentalist? Jesus?

Islam is in our backyard, and there is subtlety there, but little awareness of others on the part of Mr. Stein.

How will lying--I mean, "progressive religious expression"--about Islam's core doctrines and traditional, historic practice bring about its much needed reform? And how can the West defend itself against Islam when a religious leader as gullible as the rabbi is afforded a public platform forum by a major newspaper for the dissemination of his libel?

America's aiding Islam's rape jihad against Coptic Christianity's daughters

In The U.S. Continues to Send Aid to the Egyptian Government, Islam's ongoing war against Christian daughters--and our tax money aiding it--is described:

The Silent Genocide of Egypt’s Christians Persists, Christian Women are Kidnapped, Raped and Forced to Stay with their Captors

To: National & International Desks

Contact: Rafique Iscandar, American Coptic Union, 201-798-1451, americancu@hotmail.com

MEDIA ADVISORY, June 26 /Christian Newswire/ -- Coptic Christian girls and women have been the targets of kidnap, rape and forced marriages by Islamic Fundamentalists in Egypt. According to the research conducted by the American Coptic Union, over 500,000 Coptic females have become victims of this tragedy since 1981. These crimes are part of the silent genocide that is destroying Egypt’s once vibrant Coptic community.

Though concerned family members have reported kidnapping incidents, the US-supported Egyptian regime, led by Hosni Mubarak, ignores the kidnapping of Coptic females while participating in its spread. Many of the victims do not return to their grieving families. Those who do, suffer long-term psychological trauma.

At a New York Council of Churches press conference, held on June 28, 1999, Kees Hulsman, a senior correspondent in Egypt, announced that approximately 15,000 to 20,000 Coptic girls have been kidnapped each year since 1980.

In “Confessions of a Former Islamist,” published by FrontPage Magazine in 2005, Ahmed Awny Shalakamy details his cruel work of drugging, kidnapping and raping Coptic females, and says he was paid by one of the Islamic proselytizing organizations to do this. Shalakamy’s account was first reported by Maria Sliwa of Freedom Now News, who says that the Egyptian Government’s silence in response to these crimes is deafening.

While Egypt has chosen to ignore its 800-year-old traditional laws, which are family laws specifically for Christians, it has opted to implement legislation based on Islamic law (Islamic Shariaa or codes), which discriminates against non-Muslims.

Another discriminatory law in Egypt is Act-290-1992. According to this law, if a female is raped the perpetrator is automatically considered married to her. Christian females have been kidnapped, raped, and forcibly married to their rapists without any government action because of this law. Although the law was slightly changed because of Hillary Clinton’s intervention during her visit to Egypt in 2000, the trend of forced marriages is still ongoing.

The Registration and Documenting Notarization Office in Egypt, legally issues false documents. Two underage Christian sisters, who were kidnapped by a Muslim Sheik, received certificates by this agency identifying them as Muslim. Another certificate that was issued, replaced the name of the sisters’ biological father with that of the Sheik. This application of the discriminatory laws in Egypt assists the perpetrators in their victimization of Coptic females.

Despite the continued requests by the American Coptic Union to U.S. representatives and human rights organizations for their help, the victimization of Coptic females continues.

The American Coptic Union is requesting that the U.S. Government reconsider its relations with Egypt based on Egypt’s escalating human rights violations against Coptic Christians. This sentiment was shared by Sen. Sam Brownback, Rep. Frank Wolf, and Rep. Thomas Tancredo during a Press Conference on Nov. 9, 2005. U.S. governmental agencies and advocacy organizations such as the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF), the Office of the Ambassador for International Religious Freedom, and Freedom House must revisit and review the Coptic problem as an ongoing and silent genocide.

A Christian/Muslim debate from the 12th Century

Truth always defeats error. There is much worthy of note in this exchange. From Medieval Sourcebook:

A Christian/Muslim debate from the 12th Century

Translated by Karim Hakkoum and Fr. Dale A. Johnson, 1989

Taken, with permission from http://www.teleport.com/~hamarabi/posts.html, dalej@colubs.com

This remarkable document is a part of a larger genre of Christian literature. Although dated 1165, the document which is in the hands of the family of the late Karim Hakkoum of Portland, Oregon, apparently was owned and perhaps copied by his father in 1914 in Aleppo, Syria.

We publish the first of three installments of this record of a debate between a Christian Abbot George and Moslem clerics under the protection of Saladin.

INTRODUCTION

In the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, one God, Amen. With the help of God, we begin writing a debate that happened between the monk Georgi and three Moslem theologians, in the presence of the prince Al-Khana, Al-Mushar Abul-Mulk, Gazi Al-Zaher Usef Ibn Ayub Al-Salah, the Moslem King of Aleppo and Syria, and during the reign of Leo the Armenian, son of Etienne, King of the Armenian tribe, in October 6615 from our Father Adam and 1165 A.D. God help us! The story says that the Abbot of the convent of "St. Simon the Fisherman" paid a visit to the King of Aleppo and its dependencies. The Abbot was accompanied by some of his monks. The King welcomed them, gave orders to secure all their demands, and allowed them to stay at his father's tent. Among the followers of the Abbot was an old monk who was very versed in knowledge. He spoke very well, too. Everybody liked to listen to him. he entered the convent in his childhood and profited of the books there; he acquired the virtues and the good manners of the monks. He was Abbot for many years until he became old. he was called "the monk Georgi" (George). When he met the Prince, he invoked God for him.

The Prince was pleased and asked him to have a seat. When the Abbot had been convocated by the King to fulfill all his requirements, the prince asked the monk (Georgi) to stay and continued talking to him and inquired about the convent and the mode of living of the monks. Let us relate (now) the questions of the Prince:

DEBATE ON NATURE OF MONASTIC LIFE

The Prince-- O monk, don't you eat any meat?

The Monk-- No! We don't eat any at all.

The Prince-- Don't you get married?

The Monk-- No, Prince; on the contrary, we avoid women.

The Prince-- Why? Is this from God? But he created humankind as a man and a woman. He said also: "...have meat for eating." (You may eat the meat).

The Monk-- We do not forbid (eating) the meat. But we intend to have a light life, not material, in order to be nearer to God by lightening our body. The iron is purified from its impurities the closer it is to the fire. And as water becomes clearer, the water allows the sunlight to penetrate (it)--Don't you see that the rays let the light pierce through as far as they're thin and transparent? Don't you know that steam rising from the ground outshines the sunlight? The reason, O Prince, that is inside of us from God, becomes dark with luxurious life, and it keeps us away from God at the range of its darkness. And with our distance from God we attach ourselves to the corporal matters and to the love of the actual life. We avoid not only meat and women, but all corporal delights and everything that charms the five faculties. We expect, by using these privations, to obtain the graces of God in His eternal kingdom. He said,"you will not get the joy in the eternal world, if you don't endure the sorrows and difficulties in the perishable world."

The Prince-- O monk, you are just right. But, God granted us these and those.

The Monk-- Our God permitted to you to do as you like and gave you the liberty to enjoy the corporal felicities when He says: "I'll give you in the heaven a river of milk, a river of honey and beautiful women."

The Prince and the Monk were talking so, when three theologians came to the Prince and saluted him. He ordered them to sit down. And when they saw the monk, they spoke with the Prince in Turkish, saying,"where is this monk from? for what purpose is he in your presence?"

The Prince: This monk is from Simon's convent; he came to us with other monks to resolve some problems with the Sultan (King). How do you like his appearance? One of them called Abu-Zaher, from Baghdad said, "may I be made your ransom, O Prince, he has a smiling mouth and a handsome face. How regretful that he is Christian."

The Prince: Would you like to have a debate with him in the matter of religion? They answered yes.

DEBATE ON THE SALVIFIC NATURE OF GOD

Then, they looked at each other. Thus, one of them, called Abu-Salamah Ibn Saad, from Mossul said,

Abu-Salamah (The Moslem) --"O monk, we revere and honor your Christ and make his rank over all prophets, except Mohammad, Prophet and Apostle of God. But you, Christians, decreased his esteem and you do not honor him, while God honored him and inspired him the Koran, as a light and mercy. You do not agree that he is the Prophet of God; so he shall confute you on the Resurrection.

The Monk-- Abu-Salamah, each question has an answer, But we did not come to your place to have a religious debate with you; But as petitioners. We do not need to talk to you, but with what it pleases you; because we know that the fury is yours and that you are boasting about that. A wise man said," Be cautious with them as long as you live in their house."

The Moslem-- Fear God, O Monk, because of what you mentioned. We are a people of law and justice; and nobody here is willing to discuss with you in a bad way.

Then, the Prince glanced at the Monk and said,-- "O Monk, I had been born from a Greek (Christian) woman. So, you can answer as you like, without fear. "Then he pulled out his own seal from his finger and put it on the finger of the monk.

The Monk-- Abu-Salamah, we do not want to give lies instead of truth. But we fear that you bring lies following the roughness of your nature. Don't you say that we do not revere Mohammed, nor confess that he is Apostle of God? Well, we will give you a clear proof from God (to ascertain our sayings).

The Moslem-- You could not succeed, at all, even if you try to do the impossible efforts.

The Monk-- The truth will appear. Abu-Salamah, don't you confess that God created all creatures?

The Moslem-- Yes, all which are in the heaven and in the earth; everything visible and invisible have been created by God, by His will.

The Monk-- Are there any people created by God and some people created by another God?

The Moslem-- No! The Creator created them and He is the One God I worship, and there is not another God.

The Monk-- Do you think that God willed the salvation of the whole world or He wants to save only a specified people among His creatures and destroy the rest? Don't you confess that God is rich, generous, and magnanimous? If you don't, then you attribute avarice to God; like a man who prepared food for a hundred persons, but when they came, he drove them out and said," Go away, I have no food for you!" By this way, he showed his avarice.

The Moslem-- I confess that God is rich, generous, magnanimous and the Creator of all creatures, and that He desires their salvation.

The Monk-- If God wants the salvation of the whole world, His messengers should be sent to the whole world, too. And anyone who pretends to be a Messenger of God needs a sign to corroborate his assertions; he needs also a power from God to confirm his message.

The Moslem-- What is the power and the sign?

The Monk-- Those that were with the Apostles of Christ.

The Moslem-- What is the power?

The Monk-- They are three: to make miracles, to speak various languages and avoid worldly things. While you have three opposite traits.

The Moslem-- Like what?

The Monk-- the menace with sword, tribute, and conviction. Those traits have been found in Mohammed. Evidence of God's Authority in the Apostles

Then, the Monk turned out to the Prince and said, " by God, O Prince if someone comes now to you and pretends to be a messenger of the King to you for so and so purposes, and you did not find in his possession a letter or a seal from the King , will you believe that he is the messenger of the King ?

The Prince-- By God, no! On the contrary, I'll consider him like a liar and traitor.

The Moslem-- What are the signs and the proof of the Apostles of Christ attesting their acquisition of the power to make miracles, to speak various languages and to preach in the whole world?

The Monk-- The sign is in your presence and the proof is evident: at any direction you look, east, west, south or north, you find the devotion to Christ at the farthest regions of the world. No one region is empty of it (this devotion). This is an evident proof that the Apostles of Christ traveled through the whole earth and spoke all languages. You cannot find a people, a language or a tongue without knowledge of Christ. The prophet David predicted that when he said," They went to whole earth and their speeches have grown in the regions of the world." This is also an evident proof that the Apostles spoke all languages. Do you have, Abu-Salamah, any doubt on those two things?

Abu-Salamah-- This is evident, without any doubt. Sermon on the Power and the Sign

The Monk-- I'll prove, now, that they made miracles, not by the force of their words, but by the power of their Sender, from the submission of the barbarian peoples to them. Their preachings were not dependent on their tolerance, neither menace, nor by the sword. They didn't take money. They were, in majority, illiterate fishermen and tent tailors. But the power received from Christ helped them to govern this world. When the Christ had sent them to preach in the world, He entered the room where they were gathered after His resurrection, while the doors were closed. He gave them peace, first because they were fearing the Jews. Then He blew on them and said," receive the Holy Spirit. This Spirit will be your voice. By this voice, you will raise the dead, heal the sick, and vanquish the Kings. If you remit the sins of people they will be pardoned; but if you retain them, they will be so. Give free of charge, as you received so." He told them also," Don't bear a staff, neither haversack not food; don't have two clothes, nor two shoes. Don't bear copper in your girdle." Now tell me, what's stronger of that sign? If you tell me that their orders were too soft, I'll answer you that those were not theirs, but of the Christ, their Master. Here they are, "To whom who slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the left one"; and, "if someone wants your cloth, give him your coat also"; and, "if someone uses you for one mile, go two miles with him. Love your enemies. Bless those who persecute you. Do good to those who afflict you." Tell me, who could listen to these ordinances and accept them, if the miracles did not astonish the whole world? Then, they believed them (the Apostles) and trusted their preaching. Look, O Moslem, at the preachings of the Apostles, as they preached to the speakers, scientists and the Kings, saying, "believe in God. He has been born from a woman; he ate food and drank water; has been beaten and whipped; people mocked him and spit on His face; they slapped him and put on his head a crown of thorns; he has been crucified and buried; (but) he rose from the dead." No one believed them. But people mocked them; denied their sayings, beat and chased them away. The Apostles said, " People, if you deny our preachings, we shall prove the truth. In fact: bring to us the crippled, blind and leper people, along with crazy, dislocated and dead people." They said, " In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, stand up, you dead person." That person rose from the dead. As well as from other sicknesses, which were healed also. Then, people believed them and worshipped their God; for their acts testified for them. Some people closed their eyes and their ears, like the snake that closed her ears to avoid hearing the magician's voice. But those who worshipped Satan, through adultery, voluptuousnesses, viciousness, and avidity and the target of which was to satisfy the desires of their bodies: all of those became as a flume (of smoke) and their idolatric adoration is over. The heavens, the earth, God and his angels testify that the Apostles are the messengers of the Christ and that their religion is the right one. And your prophet, Mohammed also testified for them, saying in the Koran, " We inspired the Koran as a light and guidance and confirming what is in their hands (Christian) from the Bible and the Gospels." So, if your prophet and your Book confirmed the Gospel, you have to do so, otherwise you treat your prophet and your books as liars. Debate on the Integrity of the Gospels

The Moslem-- I trust the Gospel and all its contents. But you altered it to be as you wanted.

The Monk--Do not say something you can't prove, because, in the end, you will be ashamed, like that one who prefers to cover the sunlight. Tell me, Abu-Salamah, how many years had passed from the Christ until Mohammed?

The Moslem-- I don't know.

The Monk-- I give the answer: from the Christ to Mohammed, six hundred and some more years passed.

The Prince--You're right, Monk. That is what we found in the history.

The Monk-- Were the Christians, then, in the whole world?

The Moslem-- Yes, they were.

The Monk-- Like in the present time?

The Moslem--Yes and more (then they are now).

The Monk-- Could you count (the number of ) the Gospels which existed (in that time) on the earth (in the world) in various languages?

The Moslem-- We couldn't.

The Monk-- Let us suppose that some people in the West had altered their Gospels. So, how did they reach those who are at the end of the earth in the East? Same thing for those who are in the North towards the South. It's impossible. If that was possible you were, then, founding the apocryphal Gospels with a part of Christians. While if you pay for a trip over the whole world, you will find the Gospels in various languages analogous to those received from the Apostles of our Lord the Christ. No difference between any of them, even in one letter, except the particular traits of each language. I, hereby, give you an example which lets you believe me: If someone comes and shows a Koran different from that known to you now, and says, " this is the Koran inspired by the Prophet," while it is not, will you accept it?

The Prince-- No, on the contrary we shall kill him and burn his book.

The Monk-- How could you equalize the Master and the servant, the Creator and the created or God and the man? Debate on the Integrity of Mohammed

The Moslem-- Don't you know, Monk, that Mohammed governed the Arabs, and that he is God's Prophet and Messenger, because he guided Ishmail's descendants and passed them from the idolatry to the worship of the Living God, like what did Christ and his Apostles?

The Monk-- I know that Mohammed ruled the Arabs and passed them from the idolatry to the acquaintance of God, but not to the true acquaintance, because he intended to rule them in order to have them under his jurisdiction, much more than to give them information about the Creator. If you can be patient a little and calm yourself, I'll give you a testimony on behalf of me and all Christians concerning your prophet Mohammed, to let you know why we do not honor him, neither call him Prophet or Messenger.

The Moslem-- As the Prince allowed you to speak as you like and gave you security, and the permission to speak about Islam, you can say anything you want.

The Prince-- Abu-Salamah, the Monk spoke as it is suitable to the truth and as accepted by reason.

Abu-Salamah-- Give us what you gave about Mohammed.

The Monk-- You should know, Abu-Salamah, that Mohammed was from the tribe of Koreish, and descendant of Ishmail, son of Hagar the Egyptian, slave of Sarah, spouse of Abraham. He was an Arab nomad and camel driver. In his trips, he came to Jerusalem where he had been welcomed by a Christian Nestorian, called Buheira. When he asked Mohammed about his religion, he found him to be one of the pagans. Those were the sons of Ishmail. They worshipped an idol called AL-AKBAR (the greatest). They used to put around him poems containing desire and love written on tablets which they suspended over that idol. They served for prayers and had been called the seven "usudallakat" (suspended). When he (Buheira) knew that he (Mohammed) was from that tribe, he got sympathy for him, due to the similarity of languages, the friendship, and the desire of knowledge. Then he read to him some chapters from the Gospels, the Bible and the Psalms. When he returned home, he said to his friends, " Woe unto you! You are in flagrant error and your worship is null and unprofitable". They told him, " What is your problem, Mohammed?" He answered, " I found the true God." They asked, " What is his name?" He replied, " His name is ALLAH. He created the heaven and the earth and all creatures in it. He sent me to you as a light and a sign of his compassion." They said, " Could you show him to us to know where he is?" He said, " He resides in the heaven and sees all, but he is invisible." They told him, " We have a deity which we worship and honor. We inherited this worship from our ancestors who gave us the liberty to satisfy our desires with everything we own." Then Mohammed told them, " That one who sent me to you told me that he grants you what is better and greater than what you say." They asked, " What is it?" He said, " It is a paradise where he transfers you after your death. It contains food, drinks, and women." They asked, " What is the form of the food, drink, and women" He replied, " Rivers of honey, milk and wine, with beautiful women; there you will be not thirsty nor full of tears." they said, " Are you the Messenger of God?" He replied, " Yes." They said, " We fear our god AL-AKBAR." He said, " worship God and honor AL-AKBAR." Some of them said, " We believe in God, you said the truth," Then he passed through another group from koreish, Muhammed's tribe. He, later met another group. Those people allowed their members to marry their daughters and sisters. Those were their customs, before they knew God. Mohammed wrote to Buheira all what happened to him. Buheira prohibited those customs and with big efforts, he succeeded to draw them to the first cousins. When he got enough adherents from Arabs and their aristocracy, some remained reticent. Then he desired the monarchy (sovereignty) for himself and formed an armed detachment to fight his contradictors and said, " Those who enter the Islam, will be safe;" and said, " The inhabitants of the heaven and the earth entered the Islam by their will and (some) by force." Then, he attacked a group convinced another group with adorned words and arguments. His target was to rule them and rush them in order to reach the rest of women, because he was very avid of them. He desired them at a high degree. In confirmation of that, he was not satisfied with his numerous women, but desired Zeid's wife when he saw her and took her from him by force, pretending that God gave her to him as a wife, instead of Zeid. He spoke to his followers in this concern saying, " After Zeid had accomplished his desires from her, We (God) gave her to you as a wife, Mohammed." He pretended that God inspired him to do so. But his followers said, " Messenger of God, what God granted you is not permitted to anyone else."

The Moslem-- Woe unto you, uncircumcised! Zeid had asked him to take her and sworn that she will be unlawful for him.

The Monk-- He had to, otherwise he would have the same destiny as others.

The Moslem-- What happened to them?

The Monk-- Didn't you hear about the bedouin killed by your prophet, on his bed, while God forbids killing even the birds in their beds. When asked by his followers, " Who killed the slave?" "My sword," replied Mohammed.

The Moslem-- If you find some faults in the life of Mohammed to blame him for, you must confess that he had the biggest and most important honor and the greatest credit with God for what he did to Ishmail's descendants.

The Monk-- He guided you following his will, not as would like God. And Mohammed did not ignore that he and you are far from the truth and the right way, saying, " I don't know what happens to me and to you. Are we in the clarity or in the dark?" He said also, " Fear God as hard as you could, maybe you will succeed." And he assigned that in each prayer you request to be guided to the right way by saying, " Guide us (O God) to the right way." So, if you are right, then you don't need to ask for the righteousness. Bur he asks God for help. But let us forget what we said. Have an example about this. Suppose, O Prince, that I left your presence in search of without leaving the way guiding to the Fatherland . I'll not need guidance but the help to reach the Fatherland. .

The Prince-- Quite right,

The Monk-- If Mohammed knew that you were on the right way, he would not order you to request from God the guidance and the maturity. Besides, knowing that his prayer is not accepted by God, he ordered you to pray for him, and told you, " You, believers, pray for him and grant him salvation."

The Moslem-- Don't you know God and his angels pray for Mohammed? Don't we have to pray for him, too?

The Monk-- You should, preferably, pray for yourself and ask the pardon for yourself; not to be like that one who is hungry and asks food for others; or like that one who suffers from an injury and asks medicine for somebody else, So, if you, with God and his angels pray for Mohammed, who will accept your prayers? If this is your opinion, you equalize God and angels with the mankind.

The Moslem-- The prayer of God is a grace accorded to his worshippers.

The Monk-- Who has benefited from the grace of God and his angels doesn't need your prayers. You should better pray for yourself.

The Moslem-- Don't you pray, you Christians, on your Christ?

The Monk-- Absolutely not! On the contrary we pray to him, because he is our God and Creator and he accepts the prayer of his servants if they do, and forgives their faults.

The Moslem-- What an evident blasphemy and bad idea! You worship a created man, born from a woman, who suffered ignominy. That is what you confess, and you, Monk, do not deny that. You mock with insolence our Prophet Mohammed, the Chosen.

The Monk-- Upon my life, we do not bring anything from ourselves but from your Book and your Koran. Don't you confess that Mohammed was Bedouin and from Koreish?

The Moslem-- Yes.

The Monk-- Don't you know that he had many women, some against and some concubines. Don't you agree that he was so passionate towards women that he used the sword to kill those who did not obey him, and that he took Zeid's wife?

The Moslem-- Yes, that was God's order, for God inspired him to do so.

The Monk-- Don't you confess that he died and had been buried with thirty members with him under the soil? We mentioned only a few of the attributes of your Prophet, those which you admitted. So why do you contest it?

The Moslem-- Woe unto you! We contest what you make God a child, and that the Christ is God's son, and that he is Eternal God and Creator of the creatures while he is human and was born from a woman and God considers him like Adam to whom he said, " Be!" and he has been (created).

The Monk-- So, Abu-Salamah, you believe in all what your Prophet mentioned in your Book and that (this book) was inspired by God?

The Moslem-- Yes, everything mentioned in the Koran was inspired to Mohammed.

The Monk-- The Koran doesn't mention that the Christ is the Spirit of God and his Word given by God to Mary?

The Moslem-- Not eternal (word) but created.

The Monk-- Was God, at any time, dumb, deaf, or empty from any word or spirit?

The Moslem--God forbid! God, his Word and Spirit are always (present).

The Monk-- Is God's Word Creator or created?

The Moslem-- Creator.

The Monk-- You worship God along with his Spirit and Word, isn't it?

The Moslem-- I adore God, His Word and His Spirit.

The Monk-- Say now, then, " I believe in God, in His Spirit and in His Word."

The Moslem-- I believe in God and in His Spirit and in His Word. But I do not make them three, but one God.

The Monk-- This is my opinion, too; and my beliefs and those of all Christians of Orthodox faith. I like now to explain the meanings of the Holy Eternity: the Father is God; the Son is His Word; and the third (person is) the Holy Spirit.

The Prince was laying down. He then stood up, glanced to the Moslem, laughed and told him,-- " Abu-Salamah, the Monk Christianized you and introduced you to the Christian's religion; you are then Christian."

Abu-Salamah was furious. Then, a jurisprudent called Abul-Fadl Al-Halabi, told his friends: If you had permitted me from the beginning, I had a dialogue with the Monk and I showed you his defeat. Afterwards, he looked at the Prince and said, -- "Be informed, O Prince, that the non-believers are in the fire (in the hell) and whoever approaches them burns himself, and Satan who is the spirit of the tyranny speaks through their mouths."

The Monk-- Why do you insult us? Why do you attribute to us what is related to you and to your prophet? Didn't we talk and prove that the Christ is the Spirit of God and His Word from your Koran and your Prophet? If you are sure that what we cited is satanic, it should be from your Prophet and your Book.

The Prince-- Shame of you, Abul-Fadl! Your silence was better and more fruitful than your speech. I wish God had furnished you with silence and dumbness; then we would have been quite at ease.

Then Abdul-Fadl, ashamed, went away.

A story never heard in today's classrooms

In today's climate of Western self-loathing, one person whose reputation has suffered greatly at the hands of historical revisionists (read: liars) is Christopher Columbus. His great expedition of 1492 was not begun to enslave and slaughter innocents; rather his goal was the propagation of the Faith.

Here is Columbus in his own words:

...in the present month, in consequence of the information which I had given your Highnesses respecting the countries of India and of a Prince, called Great Can, which in our language signifies King of Kings, how, at many times he, and his predecessors had sent to Rome soliciting instructors who might teach him our holy faith, and the holy Father had never granted his request, whereby great numbers of people were lost, believing in idolatry and doctrines of perdition. Your Highnesses, as Catholic Christians, and princes who love and promote the holy Christian faith, and are enemies of the doctrine of Mahomet, and of all idolatry and heresy, determined to send me, Christopher Columbus, to the above-mentioned countries of India, to see the said princes, people, and territories, and to learn their disposition and the proper method of converting them to our holy faith....

Islam's killing two of its own birds with one stone

Two of the more common lies propagated today in defense of Islam (deceptions becoming more and more difficult for even the most stubbornly-ignorant Western multiculturalist to deny) are that 1) Islam is tolerant and peaceful; and 2) it is only a "tiny minority of extremists" who support violence against Infidels and Apostates to make the world Islam.

The following story explodes both myths. (And this without Shari'a officially instituted.)

Pray for our Christian brothers and sisters suffering under Islam's tyranny. Pray for non-Christians at the mercy of Allah. Pray for those twisted by Qur'an and Sunnah into the soulless monsters who carry out such atrocities in obedience to Allah and his false prophet.

From Compass Direct, Islam rapes a Pakistani Christian for leaving it.

Attacked by her own family, one Muslim’s decision to convert to Christianity highlights the precarious situation of Muslims in Pakistan who leave their faith.

Sehar Muhammad Shafi, 24, has fled her home city of Karachi with her husband and two young daughters after being attacked and raped for changing her faith.

With help from the Center for Legal Aid Assistance and Settlement, the Christian couple has relocated to another city. But as long as Shafi and her family remain in Pakistan, they must hide the truth of Shafi’s conversion.

Shafi was born the fourth child of a Muslim proselytizer in Pakistan’s largest city, Karachi. Her family belonged to Ahle Sunnat wa-al Jimmat, a non-violent Muslim group that focused on converting non-Muslims. Members were instructed not to share food and eating utensils with “pagans” considered unclean.

Shafi’s father taught fellow members of his religious community how to proselytize. As a teenager, Shafi often attended her father’s training sessions on how to convert non-Muslims.

“It wasn’t normal for a girl to participate in those sessions,” the young woman told Compass. “But I was the daughter of an ‘evangelist’ and was eager to bring others to my faith.”

In 1999, Shafi began work for a medical company, Glaxo Wellcome plc, where she focused her energy on proselytizing a co-worker, a Christian named Naveed Paul. Paul had an interest in apologetics and engaged Shafi in religious discussions, inviting her to church with him.

Four years later, Shafi decided to become a Christian, and a local pastor secretly baptized her. “I had shared Islam with [Paul] and wanted to convert him, but instead I realized that my life was empty without Jesus,” Shafi said.

...Shafi’s family was not aware of her conversion, but sometimes they would beat her when they found her singing Psalms to herself. Once they ripped up a Bible they discovered her reading.

In January 2004, Shafi and Paul were secretly married and broke all ties with Shafi’s Muslim family. After the birth of their daughter, Angela Rose, in January 2005, Shafi contacted her parents and told them that she had married a Christian man.

One Sunday evening a month later, a large mob attacked the convert’s home. Shafi said that she and her family barely escaped with their lives out the back door of their apartment. The young woman said she believes that her family had discovered her location and organized the attack.

Resettling elsewhere in Karachi, the convert called her parents from a local pay phone and asked them to stop harassing her. After hanging up, Shafi’s parents called back to the phone booth owner and explained that their daughter had converted to Christianity.

The booth owner, whom Shafi only knew as Rana, followed the Christian woman to her home and then informed her parents of her whereabouts. Later that night, while Paul had gone out to check his e-mail at an internet café, Rana forced his way into Shafi’s home.

The phone booth owner told Shafi that he was going to punish her for committing the “unpardonable sin” of “apostasy” and raped her at gunpoint.

“I was terrified,” the young woman told Compass.

When Paul returned home, he and his family immediately fled, hoping to avoid another attack from Shafi’s family.

The couple initially sought shelter with Paul’s relatives and later with a group of nuns. Paul’s relatives soon asked the couple to leave, fearing that they would be targeted for hosting a convert.

The Christian couple stayed with the nuns for eight months but was eventually forced to flee after one of the sisters treated them badly and informed the Muslim community that Shafi was a convert.

Paul and Shafi tried to leave the country but were denied foreign visas.

This past April, Shafi and Paul, with 18-month-old Angela Rose and 6-month-old daughter Magdalene, secretly fled to another Pakistani city, where they are trying to start life over. But Shafi told Compass that her family continues to live with the fear of being discovered.

“My husband is keen to get a marketing job,” Shafi commented. “But I don’t want him to do something that open, where he will be known.”

Though returning to Islam would seemingly solve many of Shafi’s problems, the Christian woman said that leaving her new-found faith is not an option.

“It is not a joke to change religions,” she said. “We’ve fallen in love with Jesus, so how could we betray him?”

...Though Pakistani law does not outlaw conversion from Islam to another religion, those who leave the Muslim faith are often harassed by police and relatives.

Pakistani Muslims often cut all ties with a family member who converts to another religion. “Apostates” – those who renounce Islam – can experience difficulty finding a job, and they may even face torture and death at the hands of vigilante extremists.

For veteran Pakistani human rights activist I.A. Rehman, most religious freedom violations in Pakistan stem from the religious orientation of the state.

After coming to power in 1977, military general Zia Ul-Haq based Pakistan’s legal system on Islamic law.

According to Rehman, director of the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan, many Pakistani Muslims view leaving Islam – “apostasy” – as a form of blasphemy, a crime that merits either life imprisonment or death under Pakistani law.

Thus, though Pakistani law does now outlaw conversion from Islam to another faith, in effect “changing religion is not a constitutional right,” Rehman said. “Every non-Muslim is welcome to change his religion, but on the other hand a Muslim cannot change his faith.”

During recent debate surrounding the trial of Abdul Rahman, a Muslim convert to Christianity in Afghanistan, Pakistani clerics reinforced their stance that “apostates” be punished with death.

“Pakistan’s top cleric, Mufti Munib ur Rehman, announced that ‘if a state is truly Islamic,’ it would have to kill the apostate,” Pakistani newspaper Daily Times reported in a March 29 editorial.