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 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, and "Mother" and "Gene" share identical addresses at

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:


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):

" make the whole of Arabia a perfect Dar-ul-Islam," " extend the influence of Islam to the adjoining countries," " crush the mischiefs of the hypocrites," and " 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?


“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: " 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?):


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.