Craven censorship at Beliefnet

Apparently, someone there doesn't appreciate the command of Allah and the example of his false prophet exposed.

From "Why Revile Muslims?"

9/23/2007 2:26 PM

lupus-rex,

You're throwing out the baby with the bath water right after throwing dirty bath water on the baby!

Just because one religion in particular (you know who you are) commands offensive warfare against those who will neither convert nor submit to the rule of its god does not mean that all religions do so.

You're also making a false dichotomy between Reason and Faith. To believe that one necessarily excludes the other is in itself *irrational.* A truly reasonable person will examine all available evidence on a topic before drawing any conclusions.

We have centuries of historical and archaeological evidence supporting the intervention of YHWH in the affairs of man, culminating ultimately with the incarnation, death, and resurrection of the Son of God.

9/23/2007 8:59 PM

Examples:

-A monument inscription referencing Pontius Pilate

-the Pool of Gibeon

-Excavations of Thebes confirming the description of its fall by the prophet Nahum

-A great colonial archway spanning the Via Egnatia crossing the river Gangites, where the Apostle Paul converted Lydia.

A multitude of evidences from the past demonstrate the reliability of the Biblical texts as accurate records of history.

In light of this -- and the fact that much of what is recorded in those documents is eyewitness testimony often professed upon pain of death -- you cannot dismiss honestly the Biblical accounts as "fantasy" or "fairy tales."

From "Is Allah fair?"

9/23/2007 2:49 PM

Of course, none of the passages cited by oleander were universal commands for offensive warfare against all non-believers to make the world Hebrew, and all were judgments in response to sin.

What did Christ do? He forgave the woman caught in adultery, saving her from death by stoning (the legal punishment for that crime under the Mosaic Covenant). He commanded, "Love your enemies." He healed the sick, comforted the despairing, and raised the dead. He spoke words of life and light, and He committed no sin.

Ultimately, He sacrificed His own life to reconcile all people to His Father.

On the other hand, Mohammed practiced the raiding, enslaving, raping, and slaughtering of non-Muslims when they would neither convert (or if they were "People of the Book") nor submit and pay the jizya, and he commanded his followers to do the same.

From Little Aisha:

9/23/2007 12:23 PM

A saint for defending Christendom against bloodthirsty savages bent on raping, pillaging, and slaughtering in fulfillment of "divine" command and prophetic example, as you know.

9/23/2007 1:49 PM

rabello,

Are you really so careless in your thinking, or is that only an attempt at deceiving those who really are careless?

Of course all people commit evil. The key point on which your argument fails is that those examples you cite are of those whose behavior clearly violates Christ's command and example. Such behavior is abhorred by all decent people.

Mohammed, however, claims to have raped his little "wife" at Allah's ordaining. In Islam, that makes such evil not only permissible, but divine.

Do you realize what you've done? You've tried not only to justify Mohammed's depravity, you've done it by equating him with monsters.

Finally, your analogy emphasizes the fact that in the West such behavior is illegal and generally condemned. In Islam, it is considered part of a "beautiful pattern of conduct" (Qur'an 33:21).

9/23/2007 2:00 PM

By the way, those zealously obeying commands to "kill the unbelievers wherever you find them" are properly characterized as "bloodthirsty" and "savage."

To deny this only makes you a part of the problem.

Perhaps you should open up a dictionary and close your Edward Said.

It is not "prejudice against Arabo-Islamic peoples and their culture" to tell the truth about the command of Allah, the example of his apostle, and the faithful's nearly 1400 years of rape, slavery, and murder of non-Muslims to make the world Islam.

9/23/2007 3:13 PM

WorldCitizen,

Does your obviously well-worn defense of Mohammed's predilection for pre-pubescent partners come from religious conviction, or civilizational self-loathing?

As for the age-appropriateness of a "prophet" in his fifties raping a nine-year-old, what moral, decent man of any generation desires sexual gratification from a child?

Morality is not time-dependent as you seem to imply. Neither was Aisha physically ready. Hadith record her playing with dolls, which would not have been allowed of a girl in puberty.

Your argument shows only the immorality of seventh-century Arabic culture and your perverseness in trying to justify it.

9/23/2007 3:18 PM

"the immorality of seventh-century Arabic culture" only if it was actually permitted.

This would not be the only time "divine" revelation legitimized Mohammed's licentiousness.

9/23/2007 3:48 PM

Is not Mohammed's pedophilia evil?

WC was justifying it.

Defending Islam by attacking Christ

From this Debate Islam thread.

Funny how pointing out the utter depravity of Allah and his prophet often leads to defending Christ. An easier and more drastic contrast cannot be made.

"Professed upon pain of death?? People will say anything when threatened with pain and death, so that does not prove anything."

What evidence do you have that those men lied, or are you just making things up?

Christ's Apostles all saw Him tortured and slaughtered. They knew He was dead. They were hiding behind locked doors for fear of the authorities.

Within hours, they all (but for the Apostle John, who was still persecuted) died horrible deaths because they resolutely held to their testimony that Christ had risen from the dead.

Why would any one of them die for what they knew to be a lie? Would not at least one of them have said, "Hey, wait a minute! This is all a misunderstanding. I was only speaking metaphorically!"?

"There is evidence of that by the fact that the date of the calenders were reset to his birth."

Our calendars were reset because of the impact of His life, words, and work. Do you have a religion named after you? Does nearly a third of the world's population worship you? Has anyone built, written, painted, or composed anything at all in your honor?

"what was written about him many decades after death cannot be taken as word for word correct."

Why not? Do you automatically dismiss all eyewitness testimony? What evidence do you have that they erred?

What was written about Christ was written by His Apostles, all of whom were eyewitnesses to everything He did and said in His public ministry. Add to that the work of those who interviewed eyewitnesses to all that had happened and you've got every reason to believe their accounts of the life, death, and resurrection of the Son of God.

You also have the testimony of the prophets who foretold what Christ would do. You have the testimony of the Church fathers and the first Christians who suffered persecution and death for their confession.

Ironically, you also have the involuntary validation of the Apostles' message by the authorities who had Christ put to death. Would not those who hated Him and His movement so much that they murdered an obviously holy man have produced the corpse to destroy forever what you consider the Apostles' "fairy tale"?

They did not because they could not.

"To do so is rather naive in my opinion."

Is it not "naive" -- and intellectually irresponsible -- to dismiss out-of-hand the overwhelming amount of eyewitness testimony regarding the greatest Man Who ever lived? A Man of Whose words and deeds we have more historical evidence than any other figure of the ancient world?

"No doubt the writers of those books had their own agendas...all men do, and that must be taken into account when reading these books of the Bible."

What was their agenda? How do you know?

The Apostles didn't hold unswervingly to the confession of Christ's resurrection because of money -- many of them lost their worldly possessions. They didn't do it for prestige -- their "heresy" cost them their social standing and their reputations. They didn't do it to please their families -- they were often disowned for their faith. They didn't do it for political benefit -- the religious and secular authorities of their day persecuted and killed them without mercy. They certainly didn't do it for power or glory -- by their own hand they confessed their sinfulness. They took their place in the Church as the servants of all (not a "public servant" like a politician, but an actual servant). They testified to the greatness of the risen Messiah.

The only reasonable explanation left to a intellectually-honest person is that the Apostles knew beyond any doubt that the Son of God had risen from the dead.

Peace.

Besides Josephus, here are two other non-Christians testifying to the person of Christ (credit to myrick007):

Cornelius Tacitus was a Roman Historian who lived c.55-A.D. c.117. He writes of "Christus" in his ANNALS Book XV, Chapter 44:

"Nero looked around for a scapegoat, and inflicted the most fiendish tortures on a group of persons already hated by the people for their crimes. This was the sect known as Christians. Their founder, one Christus, had been put to death by the procurator Pontius Pilate in the reign of Tiberius. This checked the abominable superstition for a while, but it broke out again and spread, not merely through Judea, where it originated, but even to Rome itself, the great reservoir and collecting ground for every kind of depravity and filth. Those who confessed to being Christians were at once arrested, but on their testimony a great crowd of people were convicted, not so much on the charge of arson, but of hatred of the entire human race."

LUCIAN: (120-180 A.D.)

A Greek satirist that spoke scornfully of Christ and Christians, affirming that they were real and historical people, never saying that they were fictional characters.

"The Christians, you know, worship a man to this day—the distinguished personage who introduced their novel rites, and was crucified on that account....You see, these misguided creatures start with the general conviction that they are immortal for all time, which explains the contempt of death and voluntary self-devotion which are so common among them; and then it was impressed on them by their original lawgiver that they are all brothers, from the moment that they are converted, and deny the gods of Greece, and worship the crucified sage, and live after his laws. All this they take quite on faith, with the result that they despise all worldly goods alike, regarding them merely as common property."

Avoiding answering straightforward questions about Islam out of fear or disingenuousness?

Whether it's Hugh Hewitt, Affad Shaikh, Ahmed Bedier, or any other apologist for Islam, answering simple, factual questions often proves to be more than they are able (or willing) to bear.

More from my YouTube acquaintance:

translating is more than changing words into english you have to change around sentences all together, i'm not trying to be a jerk about the language thing but it doesn't seem like you understand what i'm getting at. in english you wouldn't say you're going to the house of Amillennialist, you'd say "I'm going to Amillennialist's house." . However accurate the interpretations/translations are they wont ever be accepted because you're altering the word of Allah. Also, some words in Arabic could have 17 different meanings, so with the bias of the translator it could change the meaning of the whole verse.

I was going to say something else but it'd be rude, especially since it's Ramadan. But, we have no right to argue over what the Quran says if we can't even read Arabic. No matter how good of a translation you have, you're not reading what Allah sent to Muhammad . . . you're reading what a man thinks the Quran says. If someone took the bible and put it into his own words you wouldn't think of it to be the word of God would you? Of course not.

Have you found that the translations of Qur'an and Hadith I use misrepresent the meaning of the texts at all? If so, where? If not, why do you persist in this argument?

As I've noted previously, the three translations to which I refer are commonly-accepted Muslim translations. In validating their renderings of the Verse of the Sword at a local bookstore, all but one of the eleven different Qur'ans being sold there conveyed the same command for offensive warfare against non-Muslims.

And your example makes my point: translation without losing essential meaning is absolutely possible. Either way, you end up at my house. :)

Now that we've established that, will you answer a few simple questions directly?

Does Allah command the faithful to "kill the unbelievers wherever you find them," or not? (Qur'an 9:5)

Does Islam traditionally teach that with the last revelations of Qur'an to Mohammed, the former verses requiring and permitting tolerance of and cooperation with non-Muslims have been abrogated (naskh) by the commands for offensive warfare until "all religion is for Allah," or not?

Did Mohammed command the faithful to convert, subjugate and humiliate, and kill non-Muslims to make the world Islam, or not? (Qur'an 9:5, 9:29, Muslim Book 19, Number 4294, etc.)

Did he confess that he was commanded to war against non-Muslims until all submit to Allah's rule, or not? (Bukhari Volume 1, Book 2, Number 24)

Did Mohammed admit that "terror" was his means of success, or not? (Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 220)

Did Allah promise Paradise to those who kill and are killed for him, or not? (Qur'an 9:111)

Did Mohammed begin raping little Aisha when she was nine, or not? Did Allah "ordain" his pedophilia, or not? (Tabari 9:131, Bukhari Volume 9, Book 87, Number 139-140)

Did Mohammed, whom Allah describes as a "beautiful pattern of conduct" steal, rape, enslave, and slaughter -- and in so doing provide a model for his followers to emulate -- or not? (Qur'an 33:21)

If not, why not? About what do you have reason to be rude? And how can you justify the evil commanded and carried out by Allah and his apostle?

Does not a deity that not only tolerates but actually sanctifies heresy, deceit, theft, rape, pedophilia, slavery, and genocide prove itself false?

Is not the prophet of such a god also false? And do not those who teach, preach, and practice such a faith consorting with hell?

Jesus came to show us the Father, to die for our sins, and to rise again from the dead. Through Him alone can we see the eternal, omnipotent, and omniscient YHWH.

I urge you to leave the ones who call Christ a blasphemer, liar, and accursed (Qur'an 5:17, 5:73, and 9:30, for example) and to put your faith in the Son of God.

This was offered as representative of my acquaintance's position on interpreting Qur'an. The only problem is that it is a propaganda piece meant to deceive the ignorant and gullible.

Here is my response:

Your "scholar" is either incompetent or deceitful. If incompetent, why is that his errors all fall on the side of misrepresenting Islam as affording non-Muslims full equality under law, freedom of conscience, and true respect?

In arguing that the Verse of the Sword, Qur'an 9:5, is taken out of context by critics of Islam, he takes 9:5 out of context! There are passages and chapters that allow or require fighting in self-defense. 9:5 is not one of them.

The author also attempts to deceive those unfamiliar with Islam into believing that Jews and Christians are respected in that faith. While it is true that early in Mohammed's prophetic career tolerance -- and even honor -- of Jews and Christians existed, that was eventually replaced by words and deeds like:

"And well ye knew those amongst you who transgressed in the matter of the Sabbath: We said to them: "Be ye apes, despised and rejected" (Qur'an 2:65).

"Shall I point out to you something much worse than this, (as judged) by the treatment it received from Allah? Those who incurred the curse of Allah and His wrath, those of whom some He transformed into apes and swine, those who worshipped evil; these are (many times) worse in rank, and far more astray from the even path" (Qur'an 5:60)!

"Allah's Apostle said, 'The Hour will not be established until you fight with the Jews, and the stone behind which a Jew will be hiding will say. "O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, so kill him"'" (Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 177).

". . . We were (sitting) in the mosque when the Messenger of Allah . . . came to us and said: (Let us) go to the Jews. We went out with him until we came to them. The Messenger of Allah . . . stood up and called out to them (saying): O ye assembly of Jews, accept Islam (and) you will be safe.

. . . .

"he killed their men, and distributed their women, children and properties among the Muslims, except that some of them had joined the Messenger of Allah . . . who granted them security. They embraced Islam. The Messenger of Allah . . . turned out all the Jews of Medlina. Banu Qainuqa' (the tribe of 'Abdullah b. Salim) and the Jews of Banu Haritha and every other Jew who was in Medina.

. . . .

"It has been narrated by 'Umar b. al-Khattib that he heard the Messenger of Allah . . . say: I will expel the Jews and Christians from the Arabian Peninsula and will not leave any but Muslim" (Muslim Book 19, Number 4363-4366).

"'There is none born but is created to his true nature (Islam). It is his parents who make him a Jew or a Christian or a Magian quite as beasts produce their young with their limbs perfect. Do you see anything deficient in them?' Then he quoted the Qur'an, 'The nature made by Allah in which He has created men there is no altering of Allah's creation; that is the right religion'" (Muslim Book 33, Number 6423).

"Abu Burda reported on the authority of his father that Allah's Apostle . . . said: No Muslim would die but Allah would admit in his stead a Jew or a Christian in Hell-Fire. 'Umar b. Abd al-'Aziz took an oath: By One besides Whom there is no god but He, thrice that his father had narrated that to him from Allah's Messenger . . ." (Muslim Book 37, Number 6666).

"Yahya related to me from Malik that he heard that Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz gave a decision that when a jew or christian was killed, his blood-money was half the blood-money of a free muslim.

"Malik said, 'What is done in our community, is that a muslim is not killed for a kafir unless the muslim kills him by deceit. Then he is killed for it.'

. . . .

"Malik said, 'The blood-monies of the Jew, Christian, and Magian in their injuries, is according to the injury of the muslims in their blood-moneys. The head wound is a twentieth of his full blood-money. The wound that opens the head is a third of his blood-money. The belly-wound is a third of his blood-money. All their injuries are according to this calculation' (Muwatta Book 43, Number 43.15.8b).

"O ye who believe! take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends and protectors: They are but friends and protectors to each other. And he amongst you that turns to them (for friendship) is of them. Verily Allah guideth not a people unjust" (Qur'an 5:51).

"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)!

"It is not befitting to (the majesty of) Allah that He should beget a son" (Qur'an 19:35).

"Those who believe fight in the way of Allah, and those who disbelieve fight in the way of the Shaitan. Fight therefore against the friends of the Shaitan; surely the strategy of the Shaitan is weak" (Qur'an 4:76).

"Those who reject (Truth), among the People of the Book and among the Polytheists, will be in Hell-Fire, to dwell therein (for aye). They are the worst of creatures" (Qur'an 98:6).

Finally, your expert blames those who criticize Islamic violence for creating Islamic violence! Mohammed did say, "War is deceit."

Defending the indefensible

More from my "Stop the Clash of Civilizations" acquaintance at YouTube:

do you speak any other languages? because it doesn't seem so. learning a language and reading things in that language is different than having someone translate it for you. any muslim person you ask will tell you to learn arabic and interpret the quran yourself, not to just read it in english and that's that.

"Frequently, columnists and pundits who try to smear Islam quote verse 9:5 incompletely and out of context. The full verse reads as follows: "But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them: seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, establish regular prayers, and practice regular charity, then open the way for them: for God is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.""

So Muhammad[PBUH]said to fight those who oppose you fiercely, but once they repent or etc. to "open the way for them" because Allah is forgiving. And if the pagans and their allies didn't attack the Muslims, the Muslims wouldn't of even fought them because they wouldn't of had a reason.

Again, how can you learn a language other than your native tongue without translation?

The fact that it can be done demonstrates that translations can be reliable. Any loss of meaning in a particular translation is not necessarily significant enough to distort the intent of the passage in its original language. Besides that, no one has demonstrated the common English translations of 9:5 to be distortions of the Arabic. Stop hiding your advocacy of genocide, rape, slavery behind "I'm still learning Arabic."

Whether I speak none, one, or several other languages has no bearing on the truth of your assertion that it is impossible to understand Qur'an and Sunnah except in Arabic.

Finally, your quote about misinterpreting 9:5 has no bearing on my previous comments and is itself a misrepresentation of the passage!

You say that Mohammed said to fight "those who oppose you fiercely," but that is nowhere to be found in 9:5. The Verse of the Sword is a command for offensive warfare against unbelievers; it is not regarding self-defense (though you will find the same wording in that context in Surah 2).

In the context of the rest of Islam's "sacred" texts, it is clear that this warfare is to be carried out against non-Muslims who refuse to convert (and Jews and Christians who also refuse to submit and pay the jizya):

"the Messenger of Allah . . . would say: 'Fight in the name of Allah and in the way of Allah. Fight against those who disbelieve in Allah. Make a holy war. . . . 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 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 19, Number 4294).

As your prophet and 1400 years of Islamic history makes clear, the only reason the Muslims have to "kill the unbelievers" in 9:5 is their refusal to submit to Allah's rule as either believers or dhimmis. Sparing those who "repent" -- convert to Islam and are therefore now Muslim -- hardly makes the passage, its god and prophet, and your defense of it any less evil or perverse.

Dr. Walid Phares is an improvement, but still the Religion Which We Shall Not Name goes unnamed

300 unindicted co-conspirators in the Holy Land Foundation federal terrorism case expose themselves for what they are -- faithful Muslims working to destroy America from within. In so doing, they also explode the myth of the moderate Muslim majority.

Not too long ago, Hugh Hewitt invited one of them, CAIR, to be a guest on his radio program as representatives of American Muslims. Then his backwards, buck-toothed, red-necked, inbred listeners gave him a crash course on Islam. Shocked enough to scramble for a guest to refute his other guest, but not enough for him to actually examine and admit the nature of Islam even to this day, Hugh still persists in the "tiny minority of extremists" fantasy -- except when trying to justify the president's actions in the War of Self-Defense Against Allah.

The sad irony is, CAIR and Muslim groups like them are representative of Islam, since its god and founder require the establishment of the rule of Allah over all mankind using any means necessary, including -- but not limited to -- offensive warfare against non-Muslims.

As the unindicted referenced above confess, Muslims in America use our own political processes, legal system, civil liberties, and useful idiots to undermine the Constitution.

Dr. Walid Phares was a guest on Mr. Hewitt's program recently. Correctly, Dr. Phares identifies theology/ideology as the source of Islamic terrorism; unfortunately, he mentions neither Qur'an, Hadith, Islam, nor Mohammed, instead using terms like, "Islamist jihadism."

That makes him safe (for now) for Hugh to have on his show, but what will he do once the good doctor begins to point out the core elements of Islam that inspire and sustain the carnage? Will Hugh tell the truth, or obfuscate?

In the excerpt of their exchange below, note what is neither said nor asked.

Phares wonders who is advising the government on how to address Islamic terrorism (could it be the same people who told Hugh to give CAIR a public platform for their subversive propaganda?) The host doesn't follow up on that.

Neither does Hugh probe for more on what Phares calls "the real debate." This is what Hugh, Hannity, Rush, PotUS, and the rest are all afraid to address.

Hugh then talks about the "Salafist edge," as if that is all it is. He's hoping -- just as when he discovered the word "Wahabbism" -- that it's just a few misunderstanderers of Islam, people perverting the "great world religion" who want to enslave or kill us.

If Hugh were to do even the most minute amount of research, he would find that both terms refer to those who believe Qur'an is the perfect word of Allah and that Mohammed's words and deeds are "a beautiful pattern of conduct."

In other words, "Islam."

And why haven't we "begun the war of ideas"? Why can't we discuss it openly -- in Congress, on television, on Hugh's show? Because the truth is too terrifying? Because our political, media, and religious so-called "leaders" would rather be thought polite, tolerant, and enlightened? Because we don't have the courage to defend our civilization?

From here:

WP: There is this, there is also something that is beyond our realm. Who is advising government on how to treat it? Who in the Homeland Security, national security, and other type of circles that deal with that, is telling…not just whom, but what are they telling the government to do? Not to treat it as a jihadist movement, not to treat it as a terrorist movement, but as only individual criminals? For what reasons, we don’t know. We really don’t know.

HH: Has anyone engaged in this conversation with you? The Homeland Security cabinet secretary, Chertoff, or anyone?

WP: Not the secretary himself, but I have testified many times to DHS, to the FBI, to Congress, even DOD, and there are a lot of discussions back and forth, a lot of intelligent people out there. But again, when it reaches the level of lobby groups that can reach out to Congress, or reach out to the administration and say hey, we cannot discuss those issues, this is theology, this is not terrorism. And you know, my school tells me no. This is ideology, and we need to discuss it. We need to inform the American citizen of what’s going on. This is where the real debate begins.

HH: Now I’m really baiting the hook for the longer conversation after I’ve absorbed your new book, The War Of Ideas. But is it possible to turn the Salafist edge back on itself? Is it possible to win that war of ideas? Or just do we have to wait and watch it run its very destructive and horrible course?

WP: No, absolutely, we can begin the war or ideas. At this…we have not. And then we can, with time, turn the tide and win it. But we have not even began the real steps such as discussing it openly in Congress, have the right legislation for it, and have huge funding that is going in all directions, but not in the right directions, that is to fund the NGO’s, women’s movements, students movements, and all the intellectuals who in the Arab and Muslim world, including in the Diaspora, are completely anti-Salafist, pro-democracy. We have not begun to talk to them.

Democrats would openly declare jihad against America, except they're cowards and don't speak Arabic

They don't mind impugning the character, motivations, and actions of an American hero, but as those who would enslave or slaughter them, they appoint to committees on anti-Semitism.

Coulter on jihad's useful, idiotic, perfidious hacks:

Democrats claim Gen. David Petraeus' report to Congress on the surge was a put-up job with a pre-ordained conclusion. As if their response wasn't. Democrats yearn for America to be defeated on the battlefield and oppose any use of the military – except when they can find individual malcontents in the military willing to denounce the war and call for a humiliating retreat.

It's been the same naysaying from these people since before we even invaded Iraq – despite the fact that their representatives in Congress voted in favor of that war.

Mark Bowden, author of "Black Hawk Down," warned Americans in the Aug. 30, 2002, Los Angeles Times of 60,000 to 100,000 dead American troops if we invaded Iraq – comparing an Iraq war to Vietnam and a Russian battle in Chechnya. He said Iraqis would fight the Americans "tenaciously" and raised the prospect of Saddam using weapons of mass destruction against our troops, an attack on Israel "and possibly in the United States."

On Sept. 14, 2002, the New York Times' Frank Rich warned of another al-Qaida attack in the U.S. if we invaded Iraq, noting that since "major al-Qaida attacks are planned well in advance and have historically been separated by intervals of 12 to 24 months, we will find out how much we've been distracted soon enough."

This week makes it six years since a major al-Qaida attack. I guess we weren't distracted. But it looks like al-Qaida has been.

Weeks before the invasion, in March 2003, the Times' Nicholas Kristof warned in a couple of columns that if we invaded Iraq, "the Turks, Kurds, Iraqis and Americans will all end up fighting over the oil fields of Kirkuk or Mosul." He said: "The world has turned its back on the Kurds more times than I can count, and there are signs that we're planning to betray them again." He announced that "the United States is perceived as the world's newest Libya."

The day after we invaded, Kristof cited a Muslim scholar for the proposition that if Iraqis felt defeated, they would embrace Islamic fundamentalism.

We took Baghdad in about 17 days flat with amazingly few casualties. There were no al-Qaida attacks in America, no attacks on Israel, no invasion by Turkey, no attacks on our troops with chemical weapons, no ayatollahs running Iraq. We didn't turn our back on the Kurds. There were certainly not 100,000 dead American troops.

But liberals soon began raising yet more pointless quibbles. For most of 2003, they said the war was a failure because we hadn't captured Saddam Hussein. Then we captured Saddam, and Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean complained that "the capture of Saddam has not made America safer." (On the other hand, Howard Dean's failure to be elected president definitely made America safer.)

Next, liberals said the war was a failure because we hadn't captured Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. Then we killed al-Zarqawi and a half-dozen of his aides in an air raid. Then they said the war was a failure because ... you get the picture.

The Democrats' current talking point is that "there can be no military solution in Iraq without a political solution." But back when we were imposing a political solution, Democrats' talking point was that there could be no political solution without a military solution.

They said the first Iraqi election, scheduled for January 2005, wouldn't happen because there was no "security."

Noted Middle East peace and security expert Jimmy Carter told NBC's "Today" show in September 2004 that he was confident the elections would not take place. "I personally do not believe they're going to be ready for the election in January ... because there's no security there," he said.

At the first presidential debate in September 2004, Sen. John Kerry used his closing statement to criticize the scheduled Iraqi elections, saying: "They can't have an election right now. The president's not getting the job done."

About the same time, U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan said he doubted there would be elections in January, saying, "You cannot have credible elections if the security conditions continue as they are now" – although he may have been referring here to a possible vote of the U.N. Security Council.

In October 2004, Nicholas Lemann wrote in The New Yorker that "it may not be safe enough there for the scheduled elections to be held in January."

Days before the first election in Iraq in January 2005, the New York Times began an article on the election this way:

"Hejaz Hazim, a computer engineer who could not find a job in computers and now cleans clothes, slammed his iron into a dress shirt the other day and let off a burst of steam about the coming election.

"'This election is bogus,' Mr. Hazim said. 'There is no drinking water in this city. There is no security. Why should I vote?'"

If there's a more artful articulation of the time-honored linkage between drinking water and voting, I have yet to hear it.

And then, as scheduled, in January 2005, millions of citizens in a country that has never had a free election risked their lives to cast ballots in a free democratic election. They've voted twice more since then.

Now our forces are killing lots of al-Qaida jihadists, preventing another terrorist attack on U.S. soil, and giving democracy in Iraq a chance – and Democrats say we are "losing" this war. I think that's a direct quote from their leader in the Senate, Harry Reid, but it may have been the Osama bin Laden tape released this week. I always get those two confused.

OK, they knew what Petraeus was going to say. But we knew what the Democrats were going to say. If liberals are not traitors, their only fallback argument at this point is that they're really stupid.

John Mark Reynolds competes with the Archbishop of Canterbury to determine who genuflects more pathetically and enthusiastically at the feet of Allah

Next, he'll suggest we start using "Allah" on Sundays. After all, OBL is just misrepresenting what really is the same god, right? "A rose by any other name . . . ."

And Hugh Hewitt considers him an authority.

John Mark Reynolds critiques OBL through the prism of his own religiosity and ignorance. Islam is as different from Christianity as evil is from good.

Reynolds first demonstrates his utter ignorance of Islam with: "I certainly do not believe Osama represents mainstream Islam and my comments are directed towards his views and not to that faith."

Allah will not be pleased.

OBL invites unbelievers to Islam, then he wars against those who refuse. What did Mohammed do? Exactly that:

"the Messenger of Allah . . . would say: 'Fight in the name of Allah and in the way of Allah. Fight against those who disbelieve in Allah. Make a holy war. . . . 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 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 19, Number 4294).

Since Reynolds demonstrates he knows nothing of Islam, why does he feel qualified at all to speak?

"On the other hand, where the ideology of Osama (not Islam, but his twisted version of it) . . . ."

So says the philosopher. On what evidence does he base his conclusion that OBL has "twisted" anything?

Certainly not on the word of Allah or the example of his prophet:

"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 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).

"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 was asked, 'What is the best deed?' He replied, 'To believe in Allah and His Apostle (Muhammad).' The questioner then asked, 'What is the next (in goodness)?' He replied, 'To participate in Jihad (religious fighting) in Allah's Cause.' The questioner again asked, 'What is the next (in goodness)?' He replied, 'To perform Hajj (pilgrimage to Mecca). . .'" (Bukhari Volume 1, Book 2, Number 25).

John Mark Reynolds, Hugh Hewitt, and Joe Carter can celebrate their tolerance and magnanimity in their mis-defining Islam in terms of its apostates, heretics, propagandists, and sleepers, but those who've discovered the ugly and alarming truth about Islam know better than to give their suicidally-false delusions any credence.

"He [OBL] represents no state. His allies are on the run everywhere."

Actually, his allies control mosques and madrassas in not only Muslim lands, but also in the lands of the Infidel -- Dar al-Harb (the Abode of War -- I wonder, why does Islam call it that?).

OBL's allies are elected by popular vote into positions of power throughout the Muslim world. Our own government consorts with them, participating in their conferences, recruiting among them for positions in our government, and contributing funds and arms to them overseas.

This week, Europeans With a Clue protested the Islamization of Europe in Brussels, the "administrative centre" of the EU. What was that city's response? Its police brutalized and arrested the protesters!

Reynolds can rightfully say that from wherever our military confronts them, OBL's co-religionists run.

Unfortunately, many of them are running also for Congress, city councils, and other positions of influence among the Infidels.

"Instead, it is sign of the effect of Osama’s ideology on those who would defy the just rules of war and of honor as accepted by all the great monotheistic traditions of the world."

Cowardice. Vile submission. Blasphemy.
"great monotheistic traditions of the world" is code for "No, no, Islam is just as good as Christianity. No, even better!"

It is a disgraceful, bald-faced lie to try to connect Islam to Judaism and Christianity as did Mohammed, who attempted to make his heresy palatable to the "People of the Book" early on. Once they rejected his false god, it was war upon them both.

I'll bet Reynolds knows nothing of Allah and Mohammed's true sentiments toward Jews and Christians. Here's a taste:

"Allah's Apostle said, 'The Hour will not be established until you fight with the Jews, and the stone behind which a Jew will be hiding will say. "O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, so kill him"'" (Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 177).

"It has been narrated by 'Umar b. al-Khattib that he heard the Messenger of Allah . . . say: I will expel the Jews and Christians from the Arabian Peninsula and will not leave any but Muslim" (Muslim Book 19, Number 4363-4366).

"O ye who believe! take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends and protectors: They are but friends and protectors to each other. And he amongst you that turns to them (for friendship) is of them. Verily Allah guideth not a people unjust" (Qur'an 5:51).

"In blasphemy indeed are those that say that Allah is Christ the son of Mary." (Qur'an 5:17).

"It is not befitting to (the majesty of) Allah that He should beget a son" (Qur'an 19:35).

More from Reynolds:

"Osama fights like a terrorist and not like the noble Saladin"

What exactly makes that persecutor of Christ's church "noble"?

From Robert Spencer at JihadWatch.org:

"Saladin was no stranger to massacre: when his forces decisively defeated the Crusaders at Hattin on July 3, 1187, he ordered the mass execution of his Christian opponents. According to his secretary, Imad ed-Din, Saladin “'ordered that they should be beheaded, choosing to have them dead rather than in prison. With him was a whole band of scholars and Sufis and a certain number of devout men and ascetics; each begged to be allowed to kill one of them, and drew his sword and rolled back his sleeve. Saladin, his face joyful, was sitting on his dais; the unbelievers showed black despair.'”

"Also, when Saladin and his men entered Jerusalem later that year, their magnanimity was actually pragmatism. He had initially planned to put to death all the Christians in the city. However, when the Christian commander inside Jerusalem, Balian of Ibelin, threatened in turn to destroy the city and kill all the Muslims there before Saladin could get inside, Saladin relented — although once inside the city he did enslave many of the Christians who could not afford to buy their way out of town."

Reynolds continues with a flourish of ignorance:

"His version of Islam is a newcomer to the world and an extreme version of it."

In light of Allah's commands to subjugate and humiliate or kill non-Muslims who refuse to convert (and Mohammed's obedience to those mandates), how exactly is OBL's Islam "new" or "extreme"? It's exactly what Allah ordered.

Osama is no friend of global Islam. He despises the proud and noble Turkish nation and its modern state. He loathes the Islam of most Egyptians and of the Persian people. He sows only discord amongst brothers, amongst people of the Book, and has no plan and no viable alternative.

Here again, Reynolds validates the language of blasphemy and persecution with "people of the Book." He proves his ignorance of Islam by claiming that OBL "sows only discord" (he's carrying out the will of Allah), and by praising an Egypt that destroys and oppresses its Coptic Christians, works toward Shari'a, and gives popular support to the Muslim Brotherhood. Just as inexplicably stupidly, Reynolds refers to the "proud and noble Turkish nation." The one that has slaughtered Christian Greeks, Armenians, and Slavs for centuries? The "modern state" that now -- apart from a pro-secular military --would have OBL's Islam in control of the government?

He is not a leader of a government, because he has no capacity to govern. Where ideas similar to his have been given a chance (in pockets of Iraq), the people have united to throw out the thugs who have made a popular idol of a man who confuses his will with the Will of God.

The last -- and greatest -- abomination: John Mark Reynolds refers to Allah as "God." In doing so, this "theologian" and "philosopher" blasphemes the Son of the Living God.

What greater insult could even a devil make against Christ than to equate Him with the god from hell?

Christ commands, "Love your enemies." Allah commands, "kill the unbelievers wherever you find them."

Christ committed no sin. Allah calls Mohammed -- a lying, thieving, raping, enslaving, murderous pedophile -- "a beautiful pattern of conduct."

Christ claimed to be the Son of God. Allah says that those who claim Allah has a son is a blasphemer, accursed, and deluded.

John Mark Reynolds should recant. Instead, Hugh Hewitt will slap him on the back and they'll have a threesome on his program with Joe Carter, mocking all the Islamophobes calling in to point out their utter lack of intellectual integrity and moral fortitude.

Archbishop of Canterbury an immoral and moronic slave

On the sixth anniversary of 9/11, a head of European Christianity remembers the depravity by blaming the victims.

From here:

The Archbishop of Canterbury used the eve of the anniversary of the September 11 attacks on America yesterday to defend religion against claims that it promotes division and violence.

Dr Rowan Williams said that although Islam and Christianity had histories scarred with violence, they carried the “seeds of non-violence and non possessive witness.”

To equate Christianity and Islam in their capacities to inspire violence demonstrates not only the archbishop's ignorance of Islam, but also his lack of moral fortitude.

An essential difference between the two religions is that one God commands, "Love your enemies," while the other mandates, "kill the unbelievers wherever you find them."

Apart from its beginning, while Mohammed's movement was numerically, politically, militarily, and economically weak, where does Islam possess even a "seed" of non-violence? Non-violence and cooperation are only tools to be used to gain whatever advantages possible until strong enough to succeed martially.

Jihad, or holy war, could nowadays be interpreted as a “struggle of the heart” rather than the defence of the Muslim community against its enemies, he said.

Someone should have told Mohammed, the first "heart struggler." Billions would have been spared rape, torture, slavery, and death.

If jihad only meant defense of the ummah, that would be acceptable. Every person has a right to self-defense.

The problem is, not only does "defense" include violence even in response to cartoons, Allah goes beyond that. He requires offensive warfare against non-Muslims to make the world Islam.

He added that both faiths could offer society an ideal of peaceful co-existence despite their violent histories because they were guided by beliefs that transcended human conflict.

A disgusting moral equivalence, for Allah requires human conflict.

The Archbishop’s lecture to a Christian Muslim Forum conference in Cambridge follows mounting criticism of religion as dangerous and destablising.

One is.

But Dr Williams argued that religion should not be judged by the failures of its adherents but on its vision of a social order that is “without fear, oppression, the violence of exclusion and the search for scapegoats”.

I'm all for that sort of judgment. Let's get started with Islam, shall we? It turns out that when its adherents are successful in obeying its essential doctrines, humanity suffers. For Mohammed practiced and taught:

"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 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).

"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).

The last bit of absolute ignorance and moral cowardice from the archbishop:

He compared the “act of nightmare violence” six years ago, when extremists flew aeroplanes into the twin towers in New York, with the birth of Mahatma Gandhi’s non-violent protest movement on September 11, 1906, in Johannesburg.

He said that Gandhi’s movement showed it was possible to reject a response to oppression that “simply mirrors what has been done by the oppressor.”

Saddam and his sons fed people into wood chippers feet first, tortured unsuccessful athletes, raped women they took off the streets, and slaughtered villages.

For nearly fourteen hundred years, Muslims have imitated Mohammed's example toward and obeyed his commands regarding non-Muslims, apostates, and women by lying, stealing, destroying, enslaving, raping, maiming, and slaughtering them.

America exports MTV and Big Macs and liberates oppressed Muslims.

Clearly, we had it coming.

Muslims commemorate 9/11 . . .

. . . by shedding more Infidel blood.

Actually, the events that make today's date noteworthy may or may not inspire the faithful to carry out such good deeds for Allah.

Nevertheless, it is worth remembering that we face an enemy whose core motivation for our slaughter is the will of their god. Apart from our conversion or subjugation and humiliation, the only option left is death.

The observant Infidel should note that the violent acts recorded below are obviously expressions of despair in response to poverty. No? Iraq. The Jews? Colonialism? The Crusades? Asma bint Marwan?

From TheReligionofPeace.com:

9/11/2007 (Yala, Thailand) - A young Buddhist man is shot to death by Islamists.

9/11/2007 (Pattani, Thailand) - A middle-aged Buddhist man is shot to death by Muslim radicals while riding his motorbike.

9/11/2007 (Ordzhonikidzov, Ingushetia) - Two young men and their father are brutally murdered in their home by suspected Islamic militants.

9/11/2007 (Dera Ismail Khan, Pakistan) - Seventeen people are killed when a suicide bomber detonates on a minibus.

9/11/2007 (Helmand, Afghanistan) - Two Afghan truck drivers are murdered by a suicide bomber.

9/11 belongs to Allah

Spencer is correct, as usual.

Now it has been six years. The global jihad proceeds apace, with well over 9,000 deadly attacks carried out in the course of those six years by believers in the proposition that "Islam must dominate, and not be dominated." Yet we are no closer as a society to recognizing how exactly to combat this foe, and our responses flail wildly -- witness this report that prisons have removed Jewish and Christian books from their libraries so as to allow them, within today's suffocating multiculturalist ethos, to remove also books advocating jihad violence and Islamic supremacism.

This is just one small example of a large-scale misallocation of resources and time that results from our fear and inability to say plainly that we are engaged in a defensive action against a global jihad, and that therefore we will unapologetically and forthrightly take action against the jihadists and their ideology without having to pretend that it is not a Muslim problem, or that Judaism and Christianity have exactly the same problem today.

American Muslim advocacy groups have made it impossible to take such a stand by adopting a spurious victim status that has enabled them to claim -- and enabled the claim to be accepted -- that sensible anti-jihad measures and investigations are "anti-Muslim." Instead of inviting and participating in an open investigation of the roots of the jihad ideology of Islamic supremacism in core Islamic texts and teachings, so as to work with people of good will toward finding positive ways to neutralize the ability of jihadists to use those texts to recruit terrorists and incite violence, they have cowed the establishment media (liberal and conservative) and government officials into thinking that such investigations manifest "Islamophobia" and bigotry.

Six years after 9/11, the jihad proceeds apace, and the UN investigates...Islamophobia.

Want to end Islamophobia? End violent attacks committed by Muslims in the name of Islam. I guarantee that Islamophobia will then vanish utterly.

Six years after, the fact that such elementary common sense is not taken for granted, but reviled and dismissed, does not bode well for the continuation of this conflict, as continue it surely will. Unless we begin to speak clearly about what we are facing and who is making us face it, the jihadists will continue, as they do now, to take advantage of our willful ignorance.

The ideological roots of Islamic anti-Semitism is not "Nazi Jew-hatred," it is Islam

An interesting article entitled "Jew-Hatred and Jihad," by Matthias Küntzel offers several important observations on the nature of Muslim anti-Semitism.

The author is correct in his detailing of Nazism's parallels to and cooperation with modern Muslim groups, and he notes somewhere in the middle of his essay the anti-Semitism practiced by Mohammed. Unfortunately, even though he is closer than most, this author misses identifying what inspires and sustains Allah's War Against Humanity.

The ideological roots of Islamic anti-Semitism is not "Nazi Jew-hatred," it is Islam. Neither will modernization split "moderate" Muslims from "Islamists" -- it only provides the enemies of Western Civilization the opportunity to enslave and kill us with our own devices. Finally, that "real choice" is not between life and a death cult, it is between Allah and unbelief. That's why the "mullahs' programs" are theirs in the first place; both Jew-hatred and jihad are commanded by Allah and were practiced by his false prophet:

"And well ye knew those amongst you who transgressed in the matter of the Sabbath: We said to them: "Be ye apes, despised and rejected" (Qur'an 2:65). "Shall I point out to you something much worse than this, (as judged) by the treatment it received from Allah? Those who incurred the curse of Allah and His wrath, those of whom some He transformed into apes and swine, those who worshipped evil; these are (many times) worse in rank, and far more astray from the even path" (Qur'an 5:60)!

"Allah's Apostle said, 'The Hour will not be established until you fight with the Jews, and the stone behind which a Jew will be hiding will say. "O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, so kill him"'" (Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 177).

". . . We were (sitting) in the mosque when the Messenger of Allah . . . came to us and said: (Let us) go to the Jews. We went out with him until we came to them. The Messenger of Allah . . . stood up and called out to them (saying): O ye assembly of Jews, accept Islam (and) you will be safe.

. . . .

"he killed their men, and distributed their women, children and properties among the Muslims, except that some of them had joined the Messenger of Allah . . . who granted them security. They embraced Islam. The Messenger of Allah . . . turned out all the Jews of Medlina. Banu Qainuqa' (the tribe of 'Abdullah b. Salim) and the Jews of Banu Haritha and every other Jew who was in Medina.

. . . .

"It has been narrated by 'Umar b. al-Khattib that he heard the Messenger of Allah . . . say: I will expel the Jews and Christians from the Arabian Peninsula and will not leave any but Muslim" (Muslim Book 19, Number 4363-4366).

And as for jihad:

"the Messenger of Allah . . . would say: 'Fight in the name of Allah and in the way of Allah. Fight against those who disbelieve in Allah. Make a holy war. . . . 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 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 19, Number 4294)."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 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).

"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 was asked, 'What is the best deed?' He replied, 'To believe in Allah and His Apostle (Muhammad).' The questioner then asked, 'What is the next (in goodness)?' He replied, 'To participate in Jihad (religious fighting) in Allah's Cause.' The questioner again asked, 'What is the next (in goodness)?' He replied, 'To perform Hajj (pilgrimage to Mecca). . .'" (Bukhari Volume 1, Book 2, Number 25).

Until the West's leaders -- political, military, religious, media, and academic -- recognize this, we will continue in misguided, inefficient, and impotent efforts at our own defense.

From the Standard:

It is, of course, true that Islamists seek to exploit social problems for their own ends. But Islamism is not an ideology that ignites protest as it rubs up against social injustice. On the contrary, what provokes Islamist violence is any sign of modern development in the Muslim world: scientific inquiry, political or personal self-determination, economic progress, women's equality, freedom of expression in cinema and theater. The radicalization of Islam is less the consequence of poverty and lack of opportunity than their cause. The refusal to see this and to recognize the substance of Islamist ideology--the death cult, the hatred of Jews, and the profound hatred of freedom--leads back again and again to the mistaken "discovery" that the "root cause" of terrorism is U.S. policies. Ultimately, the refusal to recognize al Qaeda's true motives results in a reversal of responsibility: The more deadly the terrorism, the greater the American guilt. The appeal of this approach is related to the specious hope it holds out: If suicide terrorism has its roots in U.S. policy, then a change in U.S. policy can assuage terrorism and the fear it induces. Al Qaeda, meanwhile, benefits, since the bloodier its attacks, the greater the anger against .  .  . the United States.

The same pattern explains the bizarre reaction to the Middle East conflict that is widespread in the West: The average observer, ignorant of the anti-Jewish content of the Hamas Charter, has to find some other explanation for terrorism against Jews, which must be--Israel. It is not the terrorists who are guilty, but their victims. Finding suicide terrorism incomprehensible, Westerners rationalize it as an act of despair that invites sympathy. Tout comprendre, c'est tout pardonner. Here, too, following the principle of "the more barbaric the anti-Jewish terror, the greater the Israeli guilt," the bombers' victims become the scapegoat for global terrorism. The old stereotype of Jewish guilt is thus amplified in contemporary form--and only encourages the terrorists.

A struggle against Islamism waged in ignorance of Islamist ideology weakens the West. The attribution of guilt to Israel and the United States adds fuel to the flames of Islamist propaganda and drives the wedge deeper into the Western camp rather than where it belongs--in the Muslim world.

Such blindness is especially hazardous in the case of the Iranian nuclear program, whose danger arises from the unique ideological stew surrounding it: the mish-mash of Jew-hatred, Holocaust denial, and Shiite death-cult messianism that is the context for Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons and advanced missiles. Here the worst-case scenario is not an increase in suicide bombing attacks against individuals, but a perhaps suicidal nuclear attack on the Israeli state. Back in Munich in 1938, many believed they could resolve the Sudeten German problem with Hitler without considering how it fit into the Nazis' overall -strategy. In the same way today, in U.N. Security Council decisions and the positions of the Permanent Five, the technical aspects of Iran's nuclear program are often divorced from their ideological context.

The problem is not that the Islamists hide their goals. The problem is that the West does not listen. Osama bin Laden's chief reproach of the Americans in his "Letter to the American People" is that they act as free citizens who make their own laws instead of accepting sharia. The same hatred of freedom can be found in Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's letter to the American president: "Those with insight can already hear the sounds of the shattering and fall of the ideology and thoughts of the liberal democratic systems."

Not to confront the ideological roots of Islamism--notably its well-documented connection to Nazi Jew-hatred--stymies any Western push for political, economic, and cultural modernization in the Muslim world. Yet only such modernization can split the majority of Muslims, who would benefit from social progress, from the Islamists, who are willing to die to prevent it. Without challenging the ideological roots of Islamism, it is impossible to confront the Muslim world with the real choices before it: Will it choose life and hope, or does it prefer the cult of death? Will it stand up for individual and social self-determination, or will it finally submit to the mullahs' program of Jew-hatred and jihad?

Hugh Hewitt misreading Osama

From Hugh Hewitt today:

"But OBL's letter deserves more than a "skimming" and the trite, prepackaged responses such skimmings bring. . . . the "leader" of one of their two great enemies from within radical Islam . . . Osama no longer speaks to the American people as the potentate of an unstoppable international apocalyptic movement, but rather as someone, who if you were ignorant of his true identity, might just as well be a spokesman for the Muslim wing of a Western political party.

"There are new bin Ladens emerging in unlikely places . . . ."

Hugh "reads Osama" as well as he read CAIR when he invited its propagandists onto his program not long ago. This is because he is Islamically illiterate.

Mr. Hewitt's analysis of OBL's latest note, while not trite, is founded upon common misapprehensions of Islam.

For example, it is not "radical Islam," of which OBL is a spokesman, it is Islam.

In his latest missive, OBL does two things: 1) He invites non-Muslims to accept Islam in accord with the command and example of Mohammed:

"the Messenger of Allah . . . would say: 'Fight in the name of Allah and in the way of Allah. Fight against those who disbelieve in Allah. Make a holy war. . . . 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 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 19, Number 4294),

and 2) He speaks the language of the Left, hoping to further divide and weaken American (and Western) resolve.

Finally, Hugh wonders at "new bin Ladens emerging in unlikely places" and incorrectly indentifies OBL as our "original enemy."

The fact that offensive warfare against non-Muslims to make the world Islam is the command of Allah and the example of his apostle explains the appearance of "new bin Ladens" and identifies the non-Muslim world's true "original enemy."

This is the truth that Hugh is loath to face.

Later . . .

"And liberals are as devoutly faithful to this religion -- and as immune to reason -- as the believers of any creed."

Equating religious devotion with an "immunity to reason" is intellectually dishonest.

The two are not necessarily mutually-exclusive.

And then,

Mike's self-nullifying argument

"Absolutely not, not if you mean by prohibiting abortion. Nobody can claim a right to the use of another human being's body against their will -- only the owner of that body, the woman, can make the decision to bear all the risks, suffer all the discomforts, absorb all the costs and accept responsibility for the care of the child, a responsibility that attaches to the parents once a child is born."

Who "claims the right to the use of another human being's body against their will" in pregnancy but the unborn baby? Little fascist!

In your view, the only person who has a "right to the use of another human being's body against their will" is a mother when she murders her baby.

Thanks for clarifying.

Finally . . .

The source of "radical Islam" "good point - what does "victory" mean, when the source of radical Islam, namely Saudi Arabia and Iran, havent been dealt with."

Misidentifying the source of "radical Islam" makes any final defeat of our enemy impossible, while ensuring the continued wasting of American blood and treasure.

The word of Allah and the example of Mohammed -- as recorded in Qur'an and Sunnah, Islam's "sacred" texts -- is the source and sustenance of the global jihad.

Timeless courage

The Battle of Thermopylae.

300 free men standing in defense of Liberty against an enemy which would enslave or slaughter all who resist.

Their example can be no more timely.