Friday, April 13, 2007

Only a hint of a beginning

I respect Hugh Hewitt. Admitting the "painful facts" to which he points is only a hint of a beginning.

From here:

And/but/so wrote:
"Honestly, since you labeled everyone who voted for Hamas (as well as most of the Muslims in the Middle East) Jihadist terrorist supporters . . . ,"
Are they not? Can you imagine any terrorist group being elected to national prominence in the United States -- even if we had anything remotely resembling such an organization?

What is the one factor common among all "Islamofascists"? Poverty? Frustration and humiliation at not being accepted by racist whites? Colonialism? Western decadence? Envy of our freedoms? Hatred of President Bush?

No, it is the word of Allah and the example of his apostle that unites and motivates jihadists and their supporters, for Mohammed commanded and practiced:
"Fight in the name of Allah and in the way of Allah. Fight against those who disbelieve in Allah. Make a holy war . . . . When you meet your enemies who are polytheists, invite them to three courses of action. . . . 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 refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah's help and fight them...'" (Muslim Book 019, Number 4294).
In the West, we always hear of the "Five Pillars" of Islam, and they are innocuous. It is this "Sixth Pillar" -- Jihad -- of which we do not hear (and of which Muslims-In-the-Know want us to hear nothing) that is required of all able-bodied Muslims.

In traditional, historical, Qur'anic Islam, the faithful must struggle in Allah's cause to make the world Islam. Offensive warfare against non-Muslims (violent Jihad) is one way of accomplishing this.

And violent Jihad is not limited to suicide bombings, as Muslim bloodlust throughout history confirms. How did Islam slaughter and subdue the Middle East, North Africa, Western and Eastern Europe, and Asia?

And though today Islam lacks the organized armies it once did, we still see all sorts of rape, enslavement, shootings, beheadings, and explosions in the name of Allah: Spain, Serbia, Turkey, Madrid, Beslan, Indonesia, Thailand, Malaysia, Sudan, Somalia, Ethiopia, Niger, etc., all testify to the creativity of Allah's servants today.

Besides violent Jihad, there is the slow, "peaceful", Civil Jihad, whereby those who would subjugate the world to the Tyranny of Allah are using the West's own liberties and legal systems to undermine and eventually replace constitutional government with Shari'a.

Add to that Islam's demographics (especially in Europe), and it is clear that within our lifetimes, we will see Islam plunge one or more European nations into a new Dark Age, only this time, the barbarians may have nuclear weapons and the ideological impetus to use them.

These are the issues Hugh and Dean ought to be addressing, not trying to shield Mormonism from the criticism it deserves or trying to "prove" that which is self-evident (that many liberals are ignorant, craven, or both).
". . . the next logical question is what to do about it. . . . how about filling us in on the solution?"
1. Admit that it is the "tiny minority of Islamo-fascist fundamentalist extremists" who are teaching and practicing the will of Islam's god and founder, not the heretics and apostates who want to distort or ignore their own religion's scriptures and history.

Pope Benedict and Emperor Manuel II Palaeologus were correct.

2. End all aid (financial and otherwise) to Muslim nations.

3. Expel Islam's "sacred" texts and their preaching from all non-Muslim lands. Short of this, treat them with the contempt and venom Mein Kampf or any other genocidal hate manifesto deserves.

4. Confine Islam to its own borders and rescue the non-Muslims within them.

5. End the West's dependence on Muslim oil, the Accident of Geology that has fueled the resurgence of Jihad around the world.

Sticks and stones make break bones, but they don't blow up synagogues.

6. Crush all governments supporting and exporting violent Jihad, just as Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany were no longer allowed to practice their own totalitarian ideologies.


ScarletPimpernel wrote:
"How many Islamists want to kill us? We just don't know."
It is not just "kill". As noted above, Allah and his false prophet require the fighting against, subduing and humiliating, and killing of non-Muslims to make the world Islam.

Instead, the question to ask is: "Do you support the establishment of Shari'a [Islamic law, cruel to non-Muslims, apostates, and women] in your nation?"
"So stop being alarmists, silly."
"Alarmist"? "Silly"?

Were the formerly pagan, Jewish, and Christian tribes of Arabia "alarmist" or "silly" when Mohammed and his Ummah raped, enslaved, and slaughtered them?

Were the formerly great empires of Constantinople and Persia "alarmist" or "silly" when they were conquered, humiliated, and destroyed by the faithful of Allah?

Were the predominantly Christian/Jewish lands of Palestine and North Africa "alarmist" or "silly" when their peoples were converted, subdued, and slaughtered so thoroughly by Mohammed's successors that now their pre-Islamic history is forgotten or denied by many?

Was Spain "alarmist" or "silly" for having to fight for SEVEN AND ONE-HALF CENTURIES to free itself from Muslim rule?

Were the peoples of eastern Europe "alarmist" or "silly" for enduring for over a millennium the rape, kidnapping, and butchering of its men, women, and children (only recently curtailed by the defeat of the Ottoman Empire)?

Were a million Armenians "alarmist" or "silly" when they became victims of "divinely-mandated" genocide?

Was Vienna "alarmist" or "silly" when Islam stormed its gates as late as the seventeenth century?

Was India "alarmist" or "silly" as 70-80 MILLION of its people were butchered by the Religion of Peace?

Are the ten percent of young African boys who survive being captured, enslaved, castrated (without anesthetic), and forced to march for miles into their servitude "alarmist" or "silly"?

Who is being "alarmist" or "silly" when Muslims enter a village in Sudan, ask the women "Muslim or Christian?" and then slice off the breasts of and leave to die in the street those who answered wrongly?

Is it "alarmist" or "silly" when a Copt father -- whose daughter has been kidnapped, raped, and forcibly married and converted into the Religion of Tolerance -- goes to the local sheriff to report the atrocity and has that government official respond, "Don't worry. She's safe in the hands of Islam now"?

Is it "alarmist" or "silly" to note children being slaughtered (some even raped) the first day of school (Beslan), or beheaded on their way to school (Indonesia), in the name of Allah?

How is it "alarmist" or "silly" to note that around the world today, wherever there is a significant Muslim population, intimidation, destruction, and death follow, as in France, where several of its cities face the long-term prospect of being swallowed by "Zones Urbaines Sensibles"?

How is "alarmist" or "silly" to recognize that one fifth of the world's population has the POTENTIAL to know, believe, and emulate their prophet's declarations, two of which are:
"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).
“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).

dstarr wrote:
"Given enough supporters, the real crazies can operate . . . The supporters, being less than hard core, are open to reason and persuasion, unlike the hard core crazies.
Bottom line, what counts is the size of the support base, not the number of crazies."
The "crazies" obey the command of Allah and follow the teachings and example of Mohammed.