Because their aim is better than their judgment

In the first hour of today's program, the usually sensible John and Ken discussed Virginia 's Representative Virgil Goode's protest against Keith Ellison's desire to use a Qur'an, rather than the Bible, in his Congressional swearing in ceremony.

-Did John and Ken defend the traditional practice of using the Text on which the United States (and Western Civilization) is founded?

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

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

-Did our Intrepid Hosts expose the alarming facts of Ellison's past advocacy on behalf of cop killers, his racist statements, his ties to terrorists, or his connections to the jihad-facilitating publicity stunt with the Six Imams (noted, in part, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here)?

No, they made fun of Goode.

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

Here is a brief excerpt from a report on the letter and the ensuing, fabricated controversy. Notice who's complaining:

The Council on American-Islamic Relations, a civil rights group, called on Goode to apologize for the letter.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But because we are so easily deceived--when the truth is too terrible to comprehend, we easily and eagerly accept any lie to assuage our fears--here is a small sampling of Allah and his false prophet on warfare to make the world Islam:

"...fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practise regular charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful" (Qur’an 9:5).

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

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

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

"Allah's Apostle said: 'I have been ordered (by Allah) to fight against the people until they testify that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that Muhammad is Allah's Apostle, and offer the prayers perfectly and give the obligatory charity, so if they perform at that, then they save their lives and property from me except for Islamic laws and then their reckoning (accounts) will be done by Allah'" (Bukhari Volume 1, Book 2, Number 24).

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

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

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

"O ye who believe! what is the matter with you, that, when ye are asked to go forth in the cause of Allah, ye cling heavily to the earth? Do ye prefer the life of this world to the Hereafter? But little is the comfort of this life, as compared with the Hereafter. Unless ye go forth, He will punish you with a grievous penalty, and put others in your place; but Him ye would not harm in the least. For Allah hath power over all things" (Qur'an 9:38, 39).

Allah and Mohammed on terrorism:

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

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

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

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

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

The "divine" command for beheading:

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

"Therefore, when ye meet the Unbelievers (in fight), smite at their necks; At length, when ye have thoroughly subdued them, bind a bond firmly (on them): thereafter (is the time for) either generosity or ransom: Until the war lays down its burdens. Thus (are ye commanded): but if it had been Allah's Will, He could certainly have exacted retribution from them (Himself); but (He lets you fight) in order to test you, some with others. But those who are slain in the Way of Allah,- He will never let their deeds be lost" (Qur'an 47:4).

How Allah deals with prisoners of war:

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

Mohammed on the immutability of Islam (apart from what he himself decides to change):

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

“The Prophet said, ‘If I take an oath and later find something else better than that, then I do what is better and expiate my oath'" (Bukhari Volume 7, Book 67, Number 427).

On the abrogation of earlier, more peaceful "revelations" in favor of the numerous Verses of Blood (the first reason "There is no compulsion in religion" is meaningless):

“Whatever communications We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, We bring one better than it or like it. Do you not know that Allah has power over all things” (Qur'an 2:106)?

Mohammed on freedom of religion:

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

The false prophet on truthfulness:

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

And why what Mohammed says matters so much to Muslims:

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

Praising "a beautiful pattern" of murdering, thieving, lying, heretical pedophile. This is what John and Ken find so harmless. Rather than indulging their pettiness with mock southern accents, they ought to be working on their Arabic.

Promoting uninspired falsehood as serious criticism

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

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

Anonymous said...

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

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

Whether or not "colonialism" was the "ruling factor since the 1300's" is irrelevant to the point, which is that Allah has been waging war against non-Muslims through Mohammed and his followers for nearly one and one-half millennia. It is a fact that Qur'an and Sunnah--the unalterable word of Allah and the words and deeds of his false prophet--require the faithful, good, observant Muslim to fight against, subdue and humilate, and kill "unbelievers" to make the world Islam. Anyone who denies this is either ignorant of Islam's core, authoritative texts and history, or they are a liar. Which is Anonymous?

And if you would like to argue about the Ottooman empire, u can read some history and learn that the Ottoman Empire was no more a Moslem Empire than the British and French Christian Empires.

Besides what do you say for the Portugese and Spanish inquisitions? All the Western Empires?

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

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

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

[It is worth noting that unlike Islam, Christianity grew up (truly) persecuted and remained non-violent for centuries. After hundreds of years of enduring Islam's Allah-ordained fusion of religion and state and its merciless application of force on the Apostate/Infidel, would it be unreasonable to assume that perhaps the practice of Christianity in those nations had been warped by its unwelcomed role model?]

It is not Allah who has waged war against humanity, it's humans that waged war against humans. Greed and hate are the reason, religion the means (no matter what religion it is).

It is true that greed and hate motivate offensive warfare. In the case of Islam, greed, hate, deceit, and lust (and every evil that serve them) are made divine.

Your hate blogging is so full of holes and illogical arguments, it's ridiculous! If u were'nt so blindid by hate, u would have done better unbiased research. No matter, your ignorance has wasted enough of my time.

Telling the truth about a faith's founding personality, foundational texts, and its history is "hate"? Yes, many of the words here are hateful, but they are not mine. They belong to Allah and the prophet from Hell.

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

But what does it matter when it hurts only Jews?

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

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

Below is an excerpt of an announcement from an expert on the Middle East closely-affiliated with President Carter trying to distance himself from the former Chief Executive's latest mutilation of the truth. From Errors, omissions, inventions and falsehoods:

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

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

But I bet President Carter will and so will his anti-American, anti-Israeli minions.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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