Since Myrick's plan defends America, what does that reveal about those who oppose it?

This article raises three troubling points. First, why would a truly moderate Muslim object to anything in Representative Myrick's plan? Second, why does this piece's author regurgitate uncritically jihadist propaganda?

Most disturbingly, why is it necessary -- nearly seven years after 9/11 -- for a lone member of the House of Representatives to propose such common sense actions in defense of Western Civilization? Why have not President Bush and the Department of Homeland Obfuscation made such a plan redundant sometime during the last half-decade?

Instead of securing our borders, expelling jihadists and their sympathizers, and holding up to public ridicule the will of Allah and the example of Mohammed as recorded in Qur'an, ahadith collections, and Sira, the President and his fellow dhimmis hold iftar dinners, equate Allah's perversions with the words of Christ, and ban the use of the word "jihad" to describe jihad.

"Reporters" like this not only allow the President and his cronies to continue in such laziness (treason?), they also promote Islamic inanity.

There is little time left for non-Muslims to awake from their slumber.

"A spokesman for a Charlotte-area Islamic group Monday accused U.S. Rep. Sue Myrick of leading a 'fear campaign' with her proposal to curb the expansion of radical Islam.

Myrick, a Charlotte Republican, proposed a 10-point 'Wake Up America' plan this month that, among other things, calls for investigations into the selection of the Pentagon's Arabic translators and some Muslim military and prison chaplains.

"Myrick's latest attempt at fighting terrorism is nothing more than a fear campaign," said Jibril Hough, a spokesman for the Islamic Center of Charlotte. "It is nothing more than a new McCarthyism, or Myrickism. As Muslims, we have become expendable as politicians like Myrick seek political gain."

Myrick said she wants the group to give a point-by-point rebuttal of her plan.

"I'd be glad to have a dialogue with them," she said. "The whole point is that we're trying to get people to work together."

Myrick's proposal has also drawn criticism from the Washington-based Council on American-Islamic Relations. One of her proposals was to investigate the group's nonprofit status.

Joining Hough at a Monday news conference was Ross Overby, a Democrat hoping to challenge Myrick in the 9th District.

"There is no duty more important than securing our country," Overby said. "I believe we build our security when we focus on intelligence and engage the world, including Muslim communities here at home and abroad."

Hough said Overby's primary challenger, Harry Taylor, declined to participate in the news conference."

Islam may be "The Religion of Peace," but it is certainly not a religion of truth

More from here, since Muslims do not stop lying.

04/22/08 4:34 am

So much for legendary Muslim civility

Let's see, BK,

My comment's length was necessary to quickly but sufficiently orient readers here unfamiliar with Islamic "sacred" texts who might otherwise be deceived by the nonsense Eteraz asserts.

As to the other descriptors, my post was pointing out the perfect word of Allah, the example of Mohammed, and Muslim perfidy in their defense.

You call that "crazy."

Allah will not be pleased.

04/22/08 4:38 am

Not equivalent situations

If Christians were destroying property and lives over blasphemous depictions of Christ, it would make the news.

If Muslims want to stop receiving bad press, they ought to stop enslaving, slaughtering, and threatening to enslave or slaughter non-Muslims.

04/22/08 5:06 am

Speaking of masquerading haters . . .

That's quite a clumsy and transparent attempt to avoid addressing the fact that Allah and Mohammed require the slaughter of non-Muslims and apostates.

On the chance that a reader here might be tempted to give your or Eteraz's comments any credence, I will address a few of your "points."

I am not associated with Eteraz.

I remember you from a thread at his site. Different page, same tune.

I think it is impolite to bring vitriole to a blog I am not too
familiar with

False civility about to vanish in 3 . . . 2 . . . 1 . . .

Islamophobes

POOF!

False, ad hominem, and a red herring, since the issue is Allah and Mohammed's requiring the faithful to enslave or slaughter all who refuse the "invitation" to Islam.

How dishonest, but then Mohammed did declare, "War is deceit," didn't he?

What Wilders and other nuts at Jihadwatch, etc. do is pretend that Islam is a religion of 4 or 5 verses which should be interpreted by Wilders as absolute and throw out all other Chapters and Verses of the Holy Quran, especially the contradictory ones, and throw out the context and make everything relevant to European nativism, racism and isolationism.

Several falsehoods in just a few lines! Quite impressive, BK!

1) "nuts at Jihadwatch" is an ad hominem attack and again avoids the ugly truth of your ideology.

2) No one is pretending that Islam is "4 or 5 verses;" rather than misrepresent my or others' positions, why not deal with Allah's malevolence?

3) As for the "contradictory ones," doesn't the fact that your god contradicts itself concern you?

And aren't you familar with naskh, the doctrine of Abrogation? Surely you know that when a later passage contradicts an earlier one, the later revelation stands. That's why Mohammed's early tolerance and cooperation were replaced with murderous bloodlust.

4) False charges of "nativism, racism, and isolationism" are meant to distract attention from the fact that you worship a god and prophet who require the conversion, enslavement, or death of all non-Muslims to make the world Islam.

Why don't you do something about that?

Rabid anti-Muslim rhetoric is SUCH a bore.

I quote Mohammed, but you call it a "bore."

Allah will not be pleased.

Both of you have had you hand played for you for the past six or eight years by the neocons and to no avail. The middle east has not been recast in your image like a Golden Calf to worship.

Another false charge meant to avoid the real issue, which is: Islam kills.

On one side, we have al-Qaeda. And on
the other, we have these nuts.

Equating those who kill in Allah's name, at his command, and in accord with his apostle's example with those who report on those commands and example.

You have no shame, do you?

Hate speak and haters masquerading as human rights champions

I will continue to expose the perfidy of such people -- people like you -- as I have opportunity.

04/22/08 5:30 am

Last reply for the night

So many non-Muslim have become experts on quoting the Qarun to preach and condemn the violent and offensive parts of it. But these same peopl have not read the Bible (old and New Testament) and found the violent and offensive parts of it, otherwise they wouldn't be acting so sanctimonious.

That is an admission that Qur'an contains "violent and offensive parts." That's a step in the right direction.

However, your implication that the violence in Qur'an (and Sunnah) is of the same kind as that recorded in certain Biblical texts is a tu quoque argument. That's dishonest of you.

The Islamic texts require the enslavement or slaughter of all non-Muslims who refuse the "invitation" to Islam.

Violence recorded in the Bible includes: 1) Accounts of what people have done; 2) Capital punishment under the Mosaic Law for the people of Israel only; and 3) A one-time, narrowly-focused, limited command for Israel to wage war against several nations.

There is no Biblical command to war against anyone on the basis of their religion. In fact, Jesus said, "Love your enemies," and "treat your neighbor as yourself."

Where is that in Islam for non-Muslims? Instead, you have passages like 9:5: "kill the unbelievers wherever you find them . . . ."

like him have nothing to say about the fact that the Untied Statas accepts trillions of
dollars of investment money from the Saudis.

Spurious. That is a growing threat to America and serves to highlight the greed of our politicians.

the Untied States makes billions of dollars selling weapons to Saudi Arabia,

Arming those funding the global jihad is foolish.

You have nothing to say baout the fact that certain Western
coutnries while preaching human rights and democracy, go around
engaging in regime chage (even democratically ellected ones) and
support brutal dictators and kings who do their bidding?

Saddam was removed to protect American interests.

Was he not a "brutal dictator"?

As for Christians murdering and raping (another tu quoque!), it should be noted that when a Christian does such things, it is always in direct opposition to Christ's command and example.

However, when Muslims commit such crimes against non-Muslims who refuse conversion or submission, it is in obedience to Allah's command and Mohammed's example.

But I guess you and Geert Willders are not too concerned about these
Christians because the United Staes, Israel, and Europe benefit from
the diamonds and other natural resources, sales of weapons and the
slave labor.

As a matter of fact, I am currently enjoying [the] diamonds and natural resources prepared for me by my slave labor.

Another spurious ad hominem attack.

Renounce Mohammed's depravity and you will gain credibility.

Muslims who feign moderation in order to demonize critics of Islam are a threat to the West . . .

. . . not a courageous politician seeking to inform -- and thereby save -- his fellow citizens from an ancient and revitalized existential threat.

Ali Eteraz equates Geert Wilders -- a man documenting Islamic men preaching Islamic words and carrying out Islamic carnage -- with those very same malevolent monsters.

Disgusting.

And when Eteraz mentions the Dutch Parliament to legitimize his desire to censor Wilders, either he doesn't realize that that august body is teeming with cowards and appeasers who make Chamberlain look like Churchill (unlikely), or he hopes that his readers are too ignorant or lazy to do anything other than swallow what he's implying: If Wilders own government opposes him, he must be bad (and you are too, if you don't join the program).

Such an argument tells you all you need to know about on whose side Ali Eteraz and his ilk are in this civilizational struggle.

In response to more logical fallacies and half truths in defense of Allah from a promising practitioner of Islamic Newspeak:

Ali Eteraz still deceiving and hoping no one will notice, I see.

The author has conceded previously that Qur'anic verses requiring offensive violence against non-Muslims exist, but rather than address that fact in this forum and offer his "remedy" (his empty assertion that those commands were only for Mohammed; how can a mandate addressed to Muslims be only for Mohammed?), he employs an embarrassingly transparent ad hominem attack against Wilders.

Even if one or two of the passages in Fitna do not specifically apply to the carnage carried out in Allah's name with which they were connected (for example, burning is Allah's punishment, not for Muslims to use), the truth is that Wilders could have used so many others, for Qur'an and Sunnah demand slavery or death for all who refuse the "invitation" to Islam.

But again, just as in his misleading and stupidly disingenuous "refutation" of OBL's alleged misapplication of The Verse of the Sword," Ali Eteraz hopes that his charges of "Islamo-xeno-arabo-phobia!" and other red herrings will prevent non-Muslims from noticing that his god and prophet require the conversion, subjugation and humiliation, and death of all non-Muslims "until all religion is for Allah."

If only Muslims venerated Charlie and the Chocolate Factory rather than the word of Allah and the example of Mohammed. I'd trade "Oompa-Loompas" for "Allahu Akbars!" any time.

Here is what Ali Eteraz hopes to obfuscate:

Some of the Source and Sustenance of 1350 years of Allah's War Against Humanity:

"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 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).

"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 until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and polytheism: i.e. worshipping others besides Allah) and the religion (worship) will all be for Allah Alone (in the whole of the world). But if they cease (worshipping others besides Allah), then certainly, Allah is All-Seer of what they do" (Qur'an 8:38; ayah 39 from Noble Qur'an).

[. . .]

There is much more to be found on th[is topic] (and others) from Islam's own "sacred" texts.

And in response to a comment by one of Eteraz's coreligionists:

04/20/08 4:40 am

I see Ali has brought along at least one of his hatchet men.

Let's look at Buzz Kill's "arguments," shall we?

Intelligent open free societies must constantly struggle to find the
right tension between absolute free speech and limited free speech.
Anyone that thinks American or European socities are built on the
bedrock of the first amendment or absolute free speech, which must be
doggedly protected, have never apparently heard of a libel suit, Bong
Hits 4 Jesus ( Morse v. Frederick ) or yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater."

Equating the reporting of the preaching and practice of religious texts with 1) lying and 2) a threat to public safety is accurate only when those texts are Islamic. But that's not what he meant, is it?

The blame lies not with the person reporting those facts, but with those commands and those who preach, defend, and seek to fulfill them today.

There are limits to free speech. Not every piece of grandstanding hate
speech deserves a soapbox in town hall. Sometimes, people must use the
judgement and exercise their free will to not allow hate into their
cities and towns.

Wilders opposes hate in his cities and towns, which is why he is exposing the word of Allah and the example of Mohammed.

In accord with Mohammed's example, Buzz Kill seeks to silence criticism of the pedophile prophet.

To demonize those exposing malice is perverse. He should be ashamed.

This has become particularly difficult with the internet and
something of a puzzle to solve.

Free speech is a problem only for tyrants and those with something to hide.

in this incident, at a time when anti-Muslim emotions have not been whipped up to the point of genocide, we can sit quietly and debate what we would and should do in times when political or religious hatred has become dangerously manipulated.

That's the pot calling the china "black." Nice try at "manipulating" the discourse.

Wilders exposes the genocidal impulse foundational to Islam, but Buzz Kill accuses those who would defend themselves against that impulse of harboring one!

Typical Muslim apologist: Blame the victim!

Apparently, Buzz Kill's shame knows no bounds.

Wilders is a Hitler with bad timing.

Ridiculous ad hominem.

I have an idea: Rather than libel someone exposing and denouncing the threat to humanity posed by the command of Allah and the example of Mohammed, why don't Ali Eteraz and Buzz Kill join him?

Some free speech doesn't promote freedom.

Not when it obfuscates for evil, as AE's column and BK's post do.

Man is saved by YHWH's grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone

Some thoughts in response to now-lost comments at Atlas Shrugs:

"Christianity is a simplified form of Judaism, originally designed for the Greek and Roman pagan masses."

The Christian Bible -- Old and New Testament -- was written by Jews. The Apostles were Jews. The first Christians were Jews. Jesus was (and is) the promised Messiah.

Christianity is for the Jews if it is for anyone.

"its little testament (the "New" testament) has superceded the Jewish testament (the "Old" testament)."

Israel did such a nice job upholding the Mosaic Covenant?

Christ came to fulfill all that was written about Him in the Law and Prophets.

The Old Covenant that came by way of Moses was one of works. The New Covenant, written in the Messiah's blood, is one of faith.

"the Muslims say they've superceded both Jews and Christians."

The perfect Lamb of God Who takes away the sin of the world on one hand, a lying, stealing, enslaving, raping, murderous, genocidal pedophile on the other.

The distinction is clear.

"All individuals who follow the Golden Rule have a "share in the world to come."

But YHWH says that the "soul that sins is the one who will die."

How can you possibly put your hope for eternal life in your works?

There is only one Sacrifice for sins, and that was made two thousand years ago by the true Paschal Lamb.

Islam: What the West needs to know

Another must-see video, from here.

We're at the last stage, the beginning of the end of the West

This will be our lament -- if there's anyone left to mourn.

From Alexander Fraser Tyler, warning the Founding Fathers of the dangers of democracy, since the Athenian republic had fallen because of an inherent weakness in democracy . . . allowing the ignorant, easily-manipulated [or selfish] common people to determine government policy:

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury.

"From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship.

"The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been two hundred years. These nations have progressed through this sequence: From bondage to spiritual faith; from spiritual faith to great courage; from courage to liberty; from liberty to abundance; from abundance to selfishness; from selfishness to complacency; from complacency to apathy; from apathy to dependence; from dependence back again into bondage."

And here is Aldous Huxley in the Forward to Brave New World, describing the end of the American experiment:

"Only a large-scale popular movement toward decentralization and self-help can arrest the present tendency toward statism . . . A really efficient totalitarian state would be one in which the all-powerful executive of political bosses and their army of managers control a population of slaves who do not have to be coerced, because they love their servitude. To make them love it is the task assigned, in present-day totalitarian states, to ministries of propaganda, newspaper editors and schoolteachers."

Socialism is slavery, in Jefferson's own words

Socialism is a form of statism that plays upon muddied, emotional misconceptions of charity and equality to justify appealing to others' greed and sense of entitlement for their votes.

The one who works and has the fruit of his labor taken from him at the point of a gun is made a slave to the State; the one who receives from the State the fruit of others' labor is made not only a dependent, but a thief.

The responsibility to earn one's daily bread is transferred to the State; the Christian responsibility for charity is transferred away also.

In matters of self-defense and national security, the same abdication of individual responsibility occurs. A citizen threatened by another calls for police rather than defend himself, and it is easy for a man to think to himself when his nation is at war, "Why should I go to fight? We have people who are paid to do that."

(What will become of that large, professional, standing army in the hands of a tyrant?)

The best solution for preserving Liberty is a militia, free men fulfilling their individual responsibilities to defend hearth and home, as our forefathers did.

From here:

On April 13, every American should raise a champagne glass high to toast the farmer, architect, scholar, revolutionary and American president born that spring day in 1743: Thomas Jefferson. One of our greatest Founding Fathers, Jefferson lovingly carved much of the government and character of his precious gem, America.

He penned numerous documents extolling the revolutionary ideas of his time, including the stirring words on the parchment that is the soul of America, "The Declaration of Independence." Yet how many of our current citizens – and elected officials – truly understand its meaning?

The Declaration launched the first country in history based on the principle that every individual possesses certain "unalienable" rights. According to Jefferson's writings, "free people [claim] their rights as derived from the laws of nature, and not as the gift of their Chief Magistrate." No tyrant can violate the rights of man, nor can any majority vote in Congress. "[T]he majority, oppressing an individual," says Jefferson, "is guilty of a crime ... and by acting on the law of the strongest breaks up the foundations of society."

Our rights belong to us as individuals, with each of us possessing the same rights. There are no "rights" of groups to any special favors or privileges. It is inappropriate, for example, for pizza eaters to lobby Congress for a "right" to a free pizza every Thursday. If Congress grants their wish, out of concern for their nourishment or their votes, it acts outside of its proper function. According to Jefferson, "Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare but only those specifically enumerated [in the Constitution]."

Our rights to life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness are rights to take action; they are not entitlements to the goods and services of others. Jefferson defined liberty as "unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others." This means we may act in our own behalf, for example, to earn money and buy a house, but we may not expect the government to tax others to provide us with a house for free.

Life requires productive work and effort to sustain it, a fact that Jefferson considered to be our glory. When his Monticello farm fell on hard times, he began producing nails, and did so proudly because "every honest employment is deemed honorable [in America]. ... My new trade of nail-making is to me in this country what an additional title of nobility ... [is] in Europe." He scorned the "idleness" of the European aristocracy, calling their courts "the weakest and worst part of mankind." What would he think of our current government's grants and handouts to countless special interest groups, a practice that rewards people for non-effort?

Our right to property means we have the right to keep the things we acquire. Does a rich person have less of a right to property than a poor person? According to Jefferson: "To take from one because it is thought his own industry ... has acquired too much, in order to spare others who ... have not exercised equal industry and skill is to violate the first principle of association, the guarantee to everyone the free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it." What would he think of the persistent cries of today's politicians to "tax the rich," thereby depriving them of their property and the pursuit of their happiness?

Jefferson ardently championed the spiritual and intellectual independence of the individual. He was so proud of authoring the "Bill for Establishing Religious Freedom" in Virginia that he had this fact etched on his tombstone. The bill ended the practice of paying the clergy with public funds because "to compel a man to furnish ... money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves is sinful and tyrannical." Jefferson believed that religion was a completely private matter and fought for a "wall of separation between church and state." He was "against all maneuvers to bring about a legal ascendancy of one sect over another"; and he swore "eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man." What would he think of today's attempts by religious lobbyists and elected officials to dictate public policy based on their faith?

Since, all laws are the codification of someone's morality, and American Liberty is founded upon the doctrines of Christ, the author's intent here is unclear. She continues:

Because we possess rights, governments are instituted. Wise government, explains Jefferson, "shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned." Government acts only to protect us from acts of force or fraud, apprehending perpetrators who pick our pockets or break our legs; otherwise, it does not regulate or control our lives in any way. Jefferson was "for a government rigorously frugal and simple ... and not for a multiplication of officers and salaries merely to make partisans. ..." What would he think of the 150,000-page Code of Federal Regulations and the swarms of agencies, commissions and departments that today swallow 40 percent of our national income?

Jefferson believed citizens to be capable of self-sufficiency because they possess reason. "Fix reason firmly to her seat and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion." He expected people to use their minds to overcome obstacles and control their own lives. He gently chastised his 15-year-old daughter when she had difficulty reading an ancient text on Roman history without the aid of her teacher. "If you always lean on your master, you will never be able to proceed without him. It is part of the American character to consider nothing as desperate – to surmount every difficulty. ..." Americans, he continued, "are obliged to invent and to execute; to find the means within ourselves and not to lean on others." To do otherwise, his daughter would be "thought a very helpless animal, and less esteemed." What would he think of today's entitlement programs, which destroy a person's capacity to think and act for himself, and transform him into a helpless dependent?

Within a mere page in the calendar of history, the powerful doctrine of individual rights led to the abolition of slavery, the suffrage of women and the spread of freedom to many countries around the globe. It all began with the founding of America.

Jefferson fought for a country in which the government had no power to encroach on the mind, the life, the liberty or the property of the individual. He fought for a country in which the individual was unshackled for the first time in history and could live for the pursuit of his own happiness, instead of being a pawn in the hands of the state. The way to pay tribute to Jefferson – and to ourselves – is to protest the hammering of our rights by officials who can't tell a diamond from a rhinestone, to hold dear the jewel that is America, and to polish the ideals for which Jefferson in the Declaration pledged his life, his fortune and his sacred honor.

Death by a thousand cuts

James Madison identified succinctly the strategy of many of our democratically-elected "public servants" (and their counterparts in the slow jihad):

"Since the general civilization of mankind, I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of freedoms of the people by gradual and silent encroachment of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations."

For several generations, American Education has been in the hands of those who despise Liberty and the God Who gave it to us. Science (fiction) and the Media have pounded the same rhythm, and the Church has cowered.

Since at least FDR (or Lincoln -- still thinking about that), the American president has violated (or done little to restore) the Constitutional limitations placed upon his power.

And not only the Executive, but also the Legislative and Judicial branches have gone far beyond the chains set upon them by the Constitution. What government official doesn't violate its principles in attempting to satiate his or her lust for power (McClintock, Thomas, and their few fellow patriots in power excepted)?

And in our ignorance, greed, and apathy, We the People not only allow this usurpation of our Rights won for us (and preserved today) by much better men (and women), we continue to vote for thieves and tyrants, surrender to them our birthright, and then thank them for the privilege of doing so.

[Seeing the success of America's own God-haters (mostly atheists, Communists, Socialists, and the sexually deviant), what approach has Islam adopted in its goal of establishing the tyranny of Allah over the United States?

Taking down our Towers has gotten many of them killed (have fun in Paradise, devils!), so most Muslims continue the slow jihad against us in our courts, legislatures, executive offices, financial institutions, and media.]

President Bush was supposed to be a Conservative. Considering the contempt for the Constitution and American sovereignty he shares with most Democrats, the only difference between President Bush and a liberal is that he expresses a muddled religiosity without supporting abortion or overtly hating the military.

On President Bush's perfidy, from here:

When President Bush expressed disappointment with the Supreme Court ruling that said neither he nor the World Court had the authority to order a Texas court to reopen a death penalty case involving a foreign national, I was a little puzzled.

I know it was Bush who sided with international law over U.S. sovereignty to set up the case. I know it was Bush who sided with a brutal murderer-rapist over state courts to set up the case. I know it was Bush who sided with Mexico and the World Court over common sense, decency and the rule of law.

But I was still a little taken aback by Bush's continued protests – even when the highest court in the land had rebuked him in a 6-3 decision.

Why was I surprised about Bush's reaction to the ruling in the case of Ernesto Medellin v. Texas that will clear the way for the execution for his part in a gang rape and murder attack on Jennifer Ertman, 14, and Elizabeth Peña, 15, as they walked home from a friend's home?

Well, I couldn't help think about the first time I met George W. Bush – before he became president. This was the one and only meeting I needed to know, without a doubt, Bush was clueless – destined, if elected, to be an inept leader faithless to the principles of American independence and self-government.

It was in that meeting that someone asked the former governor of Texas what he would do if a piece of legislation clearly unconstitutional arrived on his desk at the White House.

I will never forget Bush's chilling answer to that question.

"How will I know if it's unconstitutional?" he asked.

Perhaps in the last nine years Bush has realized that every American – and certainly every elected official – has an obligation to consider the Constitution, a duty to understand it and the intellectual integrity to determine whether our laws live up to the founding document of our republic.

Back then, he apparently thought only Supreme Court justices were qualified and empowered to make that determination. Last month, when the Supreme Court in convincing fashion stood up to Bush, the World Court, Mexico and the injustice they were all trying to ram down Americans' throats, apparently Bush believed the justices decided wrongly.

It was the right decision.

And it was a little surprising given the dangerous predilection of several members of the court to consider foreign laws in their deliberations.

While we should be encouraged by the ruling, Americans should be very concerned by the way elected leaders like Bush and appointed officials like some of our Supreme Court justices actually believe there are earthly, man-made laws higher that our own Constitution.

If that is so, then Americans are no longer a people in control of their own destiny. We are no longer a people empowered to govern ourselves. We no longer have a government of the people, by the people and for the people. We no longer have a government accountable to the will of the people and the rule of law.

Obviously, that is where globalists like Bush want to take America – where foreigners can dictate to Americans how they will mete out justice, where foreigners will tell Americans how to take care of their own property and manage their own environment, where foreigners will instruct Americans on how to conduct their foreign and domestic affairs.

This is the tragedy of the times in which we live. Our founders told us that only a moral people, only an educated people, only a freedom-loving people, only a people willing to sacrifice were suited to the kind of government they gave us. I'm no longer sure the American people are capable of self-government. I'm no longer sure the American people are worthy of the opportunity for self-government.

I'm reminded of what Judge Learned Hand wrote in 1944: "Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; when it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court can save it."

In the context of slavery, Thomas Jefferson said:

"can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with his wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just: that his justice cannot sleep for ever . . . ."

Americans make themselves slaves.

American public schools as anti-American indoctrination centers

Government tends toward tyranny. Our Founding Fathers established a Constitution and Bill of Rights to protect us from our own government by limiting its power and safeguarding our unalienable Rights.

This is why liberals and other tyrants seek to undermine the Constitution and its Bill of Rights at every opportunity. This is why liberals have a strong, natural affinity for Islam; they've never met a totalitarian ideology they didn't like (and that's why they hate Christianity, the foundation of Liberty).

Whether America's fall is to Soviet-style Communism or the malevolence of Allah, only too late will the Left realize it's been dancing with the devil.

A note on the author's last paragraph: The person who pulled the trigger is responsible for the young man's death; this powerful indictment of today's public education system and its efforts at creating slaves, not Americans, stands:

"[State-controlled] education is a weapon, whose effect depends on who holds it in his hands and at whom it is aimed." ~ Joseph Stalin

As I traverse through the old neighborhoods of Detroit where I was born, played, went to school and church, I am a silent witness to utter devastation – block after block, mile after mile, neighborhood after neighborhood – eastside, westside, northwest side, southside. In many respects, save for a few isolated areas, Detroit is perhaps America's largest ghetto.

How did Detroit fall so far, so fast? Was the cause the riots of 1967, which 41 years ago drove out the white majority en masse along with white-owned businesses and the know-how of middle and upper class? Could it be the ascendancy of Detroit's first black mayor in 1974, that five-term firebrand, the irascible Coleman A. Young (1974-94), who in his acceptance speech essentially gave the middle finger salute to the 92 percent white and the 8 percent black demographic who didn't vote for him, saying, in effect, get the hell out of town?

Could any (or all) of those factors be the cause of the fall of Detroit?

As I traveled through Detroit's old neighborhoods, it suddenly came to me like a bright light from heaven. Yes, liberalism, or the secular faith that FDR-style, Big Government programs are indispensable to remedy all societal problems, is viewed by over 90 percent of blacks (and at least 50 percent of whites) as the 11th Commandment. Conversely, what institution or organization put those diabolical ideas inside people's minds?

It was the public schools all along! Stalin was right that the offensive-weapon effects of state-controlled education "depends upon who holds it in his hands and at whom it is aimed." Whose hands are America's public education system in? That's right, the teachers and their powerful teachers union, the National Education Association.

The NEA is less an education association interested in improving quality education for all American students and more of a liberal special-interest group hell-bent on teaching socialist dogma and treacherous propaganda – "America sucks!" "Hip-Hop Summits," "safe sex," abortion, evolution, 2+2=5, outcome-based education, "Heather has two mommies," "Daddy's Roommate," metal detectors and other insanities.

Republicans weren't much better in the area of education reform. In 1994, after 40 years of being the loyal opposition, they regained congressional power under Newt Gingrich yet failed to even try to disband the moribund Department of Education, a bureaucracy instituted by President Jimmy Carter as a political payoff to the NEA.

FDR-style socialism and liberalism, established through the Department of [Propaganda] Education, is killing my people here in Detroit, in big and medium-sized cities and even in small towns across America, and our politicians from President Bush on down are doing nothing to stop the genocide.

Bush's education initiative, "No Child Left Behind," is a joke. A recent study by Gen. Colin Powell's "America's Promise Alliance" lists Detroit as having the worst public schools in America; over 75 percent of Detroit public school students drop out between grades 9 and 12. According to my mathematical calculations, that's a lot of children left behind.

Like many of America's oldest, largest cities, Detroit's state-controlled public schools date back to the 1830s and 1840s . . . this bloated, centralized, top-down administrative structure with its open hostility to morality and the Judeo-Christian traditions of intellectual thought has been ruthlessly enforced with Stalinesque efficiency through 75 years of litigation by leftist organizations.

[. . .]

Stalinism's greatest triumph against education through atheistic communism was not in killing hundreds of millions of people all over the world, but by killing the people's ability to reason, to think coherently, rationally based on logic, morality and classical modes of argumentation. Nowadays, it's all about emotion. A brilliant example of this is that Manchurian Candidate, Democrat Sen. Barack Obama. I'm convinced that he is devoid of reasoning and logical thinking. He and his wife, Michelle, ha[ve] drunk every drop of Kool-Aid that Harvard Law School could pour down their throats (and then some).

Stalin was right: "[State-controlled] education is a weapon, whose effect depends on who holds it in his hands and at whom it is aimed." By their allegiance to diabolical liberalism, the Democrat Party, the NEA and the white liberals controlling the teachers unions, together with their willing accomplices – principals and teachers in big cities across America – have killed Jamaal Hurt just as surely as his fellow comrade who pulled the trigger.

Divide and conquer

And the President and his administration continue to play the unwitting dhimmis in making it happen.

If they understood Islam, they would know that after Israel, we're next.

They are unwitting, aren't they?

The long, uninterrupted string of concessions to Islam -- establishing outright the rule of Allah in Afghanistan, Iraq, Kosovo, continually betraying Israel, the billions in jizya to Muslim nations which hate us, the vile submission to Islam shown in our female diplomats' covering their heads, hosting iftar dinners at the White House, and nauseating words equating falsely the "words of the Qur'an" with the Word of Christ -- are done only out of ignorance and incompetence, right?

What happened to Saddam Hussein's WMD?

Everyone knew he had them. Even the previous administration cited the danger Saddam posed and concluded regime change was necessary.

Unfortunately, political opportunists and those eager to believe the worst about President Bush claim now that he "lied us into war."

The reason our forces have not found Home Depots full of WMD in Iraq -- though smaller amounts and plans for reconstituting those programs have been found -- is because Saddam sent his weapons to Syria during the year the President tried to cajole his political opponents into supporting the effort.

Here are excerpts from an interview with Georges Sada and his underreported claims regarding what happened to Saddam's WMD:

Kevin McCullough: Gen. Georges Sada, welcome to the WMCA MuscleHead Revolution broadcast.

Georges Sada: Thank you very much, Kevin.

KMC: There is a common conception, that is going around in America today, and I'd like to play you a sound bite from last night's Democratic response to President George W. Bush's State of the Union address.

SOUNDBITE: (Gov. Tim Keane, D-Va.) "We now know that the American people were given inaccurate information about reasons for invading Iraq."

KMC: General, were there weapons of mass destruction ... what had Saddam Hussein done with them, and where did they go?

GS: Well here I can say 2,000 times, that the WMDs were in Iraq, and that they were used against Kurds in the north, and people in the south against Shia people, and these weapons were there up to the summer of the year 2002. When a natural disaster happened in Syria, a dam was collapsed, and Saddam said he wanted to do an air-bridge humanitarian aid to Syrian people, those who were flooded in the area. But that was not true.

The thing he did was, he converted two aircraft, two airplanes, a 747 Jumbo, and a 727 and WMDs, raw materials, many other equipment were put in that two aircraft, by the special Republican Guard, in a very secret way and they were transported to Syria to Damascus and they did 56 flights, to make all – whatever has to do with weapons of mass destruction to be in Syria. AND besides to that, 18-wheel tractor trucks, civilian trucks, were also loaded of what couldn't go in the aircraft, and this was also transported to Syria.

KMC: You're saying 56 flights, 747s and 727s, transported – under the guise of humanitarian aid for victims of the dam break in Syria – Saddam Hussein transported his illegal weapons to Syria via that method, and also some 18-wheel trucks were also used in that effort?

GS: That's TRUE!

KMC: General, simply for telling these things to us today, you run the risk of being retaliated against by Saddam Hussein's friends and allies, why did you choose to speak out particularly at this time.

GS: You see actually, I was not speaking this, I was not even writing the book, but, what happened in year 2004 on 26th of April, when the terrorists wanted to explode many tons of these same chemical weapons that we had in Jordan, Amman, and they were trying to destroy the prime minister's office, and the Jordanian Intelligence and the American Embassy. You see 20,000 people were expected to die of that explosion. As a friendly country, Jordan, the Jordan which I love, this had effected on me very much, and then on Feb. 2, 2005, I was in a conference in Phoenix, Ariz., where I met my two friends, Michael Coleman and Dr. Teddy Lowe of World Compassion. They listened to these stories that I had mentioned in the conference. They came and asked me very warmly to make the book of this because this is very important and these informations. So I was persuaded by their two people to write the book, and since Feb. 2, 2005, till now we have worked on the book.

KMC: Let's talk about who you are ... what was your rank within the Saddam Hussein regime?

GS: I was the air-wise marshall, in the Air Force, (second highest rank in the Iraqi military) and I was one of the people who did not attend the Baath Party. And that's why I was forced to retire in 1986.

KMC: You were never a member of the Baath Party?

GS: No never ... And they asked me in '86, it is not possible to be in this rank and second man in the air force and you are not a Baath Party. I said "sorry I can not attend that party, because you said in your principles that the body of the party is Arab, and the spirit of the party is Islam. And myself am neither Arab nor Muslim. I am an Assyrian Christian; therefore I don't fit in this party. And I'm sorry to tell you. I don't want to bluff you ... I just can not attend."

They said, "OK, if you will not attend the party then you will be retired."

I said, "OK, let me retire."

So I was retired in '86, but when Saddam invaded Kuwait on Aug. 2, 1990, I was the first man to be recalled again to join the active duty, by the regime, by Saddam and to be the adviser on the air force.

And this marks the beginning of the Muslim conquest of Minnesota

Sadly, it is only one of many outposts across the nation.

Do you think the naming of the school is a coincidence? This is the sort of sly joke that those who know are able to play on the ignorant (just ask my good friend Santiago Matamoros).

Now that this Islamic exploitation of our ignorance has been discovered, what will the people of Minnesota do? Submit? Defend it, as President Bush, Dr. Rice, Mayor Giuliani, and The Three Senators do? Or will they defend themselves and stand for Liberty as in the olden times?

From WND:

A Minnesota teacher who substituted for two fifth-grade classes at a publicly funded school located in the same building as an Islamic mosque says religion appears to be a significant focus of the education.

Amanda Getz of Bloomington, Minn., told a columnist for the Minneapolis Star-Tribune her duties at Tarek ibn Ziyad Academy in Inver Grove Heights included taking students to the bathroom, four at a time, to perform "their ritual washing."

Then, the teacher told columnist Katherine Kersten, "teachers led the kids into the gym, where a man dressed in white with a white cap, who had been at the school all day," was preparing to lead prayer.

Beside him, another man "was prostrating himself in prayer on a carpet as the students entered," the teacher said.

The Star-Tribune previously documented that the charter high school for kindergarten through eighth-grade students is named after a Muslim warlord, shares the address of the Muslim American Society of Minnesota, is led by two imams, is composed almost exclusively (99 percent) of blacks and has as its top goal to preserve "our values."

And it's all funded by the taxpayers of Minnesota.

Kersten wrote she had asked for permission to visit the school and was denied. The school also declined to return a WND telephone request for an interview.

The institution has drawn objections from a number of people, including Robert Spencer, the expert who monitors such developments at Jihad Watch.

"Can you imagine a public school founded by two Christian ministers, and housed in the same building as a church? Add to that – in the same building – a prominent chapel. And let's say the students are required to fast during Lent, and attend Bible studies right after school. All with your tax dollars," he wrote. "Inconceivable? Sure."

If such a place existed, Spencer said, "the ACLU lawyers would descend on it like locusts. It would be shut down before you could say 'separation of church and state,' to the accompaniment of New York Times and Washington Post editorials full of indignant foreboding, warning darkly about the growing influence of the Religious Right in America."

Kersten's latest report documents the teacher's observations at the school.

Getz told Kersten that the orders when she arrived were to prepare for the "assembly" at the school by having the children do their ritual washing and take them to the gymnasium.

"The prayer I saw was not voluntary," Getz told the columnist. "The kids were corralled by adults and required to go to the assembly where prayer occurred."

She said, "When I arrived, I was told 'after school we have Islamic Studies,' and I might have to stay for hall duty. The teachers had written assignments on the blackboard for classes like math and social studies. Islamic Studies was the last one – the board said the kids were studying the Quran. The students were told to copy it into their planner, along with everything else. That gave me the impression that Islamic Studies was a subject like any other."

She also reported the fifth-graders stayed in the classroom after the end of the school day, and the "man in white" who led prayers during the assembly came in to teach Islam.

"TIZA has, in effect, extended the school day – buses leave only after Islamic Studies are over," noted the columnist. "Getz did not see evidence of other extra-curricular activity, except for a group of small children playing outside."

Kersten continued, "Significantly, 77 percent of TIZA parents say their 'main reason for choosing TIZA … was because of after-school programs conducted by various non-profit organizations at the end of the school period in the school building,' according to a TIZA report."

Kersten noted earlier that the school shares the same building as the headquarters of the Muslim American Society of Minnesota, whose mission is "establishing Islam in Minnesota." There also is a mosque in the building, and TIZA's executive director, Asad Zaman, is a Muslim imam, and its sponsor is a group called Islamic Relief.

"Why does the Minnesota Department of Education allow this sort of religious activity at a public school?" Kersten questioned.

She noted the ACLU of Minnesota is looking into the situation, and "the Minnesota Department of Education has also begun a review" now.

"TIZA's operation as a public, taxpayer-funded school is troubling on several fronts. TIZA is skirting the law by operating what is essentially an Islamic school at taxpayer expense," Kersten wrote. "The Department of Education has failed to provide the oversight necessary to catch these illegalities, and appears to lack the tools to do so. In addition, there's a double standard at work here – if TIZA were a Christian school, it would likely be gone in a heartbeat."

Kersten previously revealed other links between the school and Islam, including a carpeted space for prayer, halal food in the cafeteria and fasting for students during Ramadan.

Just last year, the program for the 2007 MAS-Minnesota convention, under the motto "Establishing Islam in Minnesota" asked the question, "Did you know that MAS-MN … houses a full-time elementary school?"

On the adjacent page was an ad for Tarek ibn Ziyad.

The Minnesota Department of Education confirmed the academy pocketed more than $65,000 in state money for the 2006-2007 year under one program alone.

WND previously reported in Idaho the five pillars of Islam were taught under the guise of history, "religion guidelines' used in public schools were assembled with help from a terror suspect and U.S. courts upheld mandatory Islamic training in schools.

The Minnesota school's own website explains it tries to provide students a "learning environment that recognizes and appreciates the traditions, histories, civilizations and accomplishments of Africa, Asia and the Middle East."

It boasts of a "rigorous Arabic language program" as well as "an environment that fosters your cultural values and heritage."

The school says it is named after Tarek ibn Ziyad, the "Ummayad administrator of medieval Spain. Thirteen hundred years ago, serving in the multifaceted roles of activist, leader, explorer, teacher, administrator and peacemaker, he inspired his fellow citizens to the same striving for human greatness that we hope to instill in our students today."

Even Islamic websites, however, explain that Tarek ibn Ziyad invaded Spain from Africa in a bloody battle after ordering the boats that had carried his soldiers burned so they could not retreat.

"This marked the beginning of the Muslim conquest of Spain. Muslims ruled the country for hundreds of years so gloriously and well that Spain became afterwards the fountain-head of culture and civilization for the whole continent of Europe," the Islamists boast.

There is no defense for Barack Hussein Obama's 20-year endorsement of an America-hating racist

Or for his own racism and deceit.

UCLA Bruin and Laker great Kareem Abdul-Jabbar has a 'blog.

Comments are moderated there; we'll see if Kareem will post this.

I disagree respectfully with any defense of the "reverend" Wright.

If he has experienced discrimination, then anger and resentment are understandable. As a free man in a free society, he has the right to speak his mind.

Slavery and the discriminatory laws that followed were evil, unjust, and contrary to America's founding creed, but it was Americans (Christians at that) who brought the nation's laws in-line with its confession.

The Declaration itself, the Abolitionist movement, the election of Abraham Lincoln (the staunchly anti-slavery and first Republican president), and the Civil Rights Act are all the will of the American people. They are expressions of their fundamental belief in justice and Liberty derived [ultimately] from Christ's teachings.

(It always saddens me when African-Americans -- understandably embittered by racism they've experienced -- reject Christianity as a "white man's religion" and embrace Islam, not realizing that both are Middle Eastern religions and that while Christ taught true equality for all, Mohammed commanded slavery [of] and offensive warfare against all who refuse the invitation to Islam.)

Racist, hate-filled rants from a pulpit would be despised if coming from a white man; racism and hate should be no more acceptable coming from a black man.

As for the senator, what discrimination has Barack Obama experienced? He is living proof that in America all have the opportunity to achieve success as they define it.

Senator Obama grew up in Hawaii, is of a mixed-race background, lived for a time asa Muslim in Indonesia, was elected to state government, and is now a United States Senator with an excellent chance at becoming president.

How is America racist?

Thought cannot be legislated. All people -- regardless of ethnicity -- can be racist, ascomments by Wright and Obama prove.

Not voting for someone because of the amount of melanin in their skin is wrong; voting for someone because of it is irresponsible.

I will not vote for Obama, not because of his skin color, but because of his 20-year endorsement of an America-hating racist, his own racism and deceit, his ties to Muslim thugs in Kenya, and his rabid socialism.

Update, April 10: Since submitting my comments for moderation several days ago, one new post has been added, and it wasn't mine. So much for Kareem's tolerance for uncomfortable facts.

Barack Hussein Obama, racist, liar, and future Muslim-in-Chief?

I asked a coworker today, "How about the good reverend?"

"People are blowing it out-of-proportion."

"An America-hating racist?"

"I can understand why he thinks like that." This from an Irish-German overachiever.

When asked if such nonsense would be tolerated from a white guy, my coworker responded with something along the lines of, he wouldn't understand.

So, black racism is okay.

This is another example of white, liberal guilt masking the latent, passive racism of holding (most) non-whites to a lower standard of expectations: "You can't expect better from a (insert ethnicity here)."

It's the same thing that happens with Islam. Genocide? Slavery? Gang-rape of non-Muslims? We just don't understand their culture.

Barack Hussein Obama is a racist. Will anyone have the guts to call him on it?

Ann Coulter with some salient observations on our future Racist-in-Chief:

If characters from "The Hills" were to emote about race, I imagine it would sound like B. Hussein Obama's autobiography, "Dreams From My Father."

Has anybody read this book? Inasmuch as the book reveals Obama to be a flabbergasting lunatic, I gather the answer is no. Obama is about to be our next president: You might want to take a peek. If only people had read "Mein Kampf" ...

Nearly every page -- save the ones dedicated to cataloguing the mundane details of his life -- is bristling with anger at some imputed racist incident. The last time I heard this much race-baiting invective I was ... in my usual front-row pew, as I am every Sunday morning, at Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago.

Obama tells a story about taking two white friends from the high school basketball team to a "black party." Despite their deep-seated, unconscious hatred of blacks, the friends readily accepted. At the party, they managed not to scream the N-word, but instead "made some small talk, took a couple of the girls out on the dance floor."

But with his racial hair-trigger, Obama sensed the whites were not comfortable because "they kept smiling a lot." And then, in an incident reminiscent of the darkest days of the Jim Crow South ... they asked to leave after spending only about an hour at the party! It was practically an etiquette lynching!

So either they hated black people with the hot, hot hate of a thousand suns, or they were athletes who had come to a party late, after a Saturday night basketball game.

In the car on the way home, one of the friends empathizes with Obama, saying: "You know, man, that really taught me something. I mean, I can see how it must be tough for you and Ray sometimes, at school parties ... being the only black guys and all."

And thus Obama felt the cruel lash of racism! He actually writes that his response to his friend's perfectly lovely remark was: "A part of me wanted to punch him right there."

Listen, I don't want anybody telling Obama about Bill Clinton's "I feel your pain" line.

Wanting to punch his white friend in the stomach was the introductory anecdote to a full-page psychotic rant about living by "the white man's rules." (One rule he missed was: "Never punch out your empathetic white friend after dragging him to a crappy all-black party.")

Obama's gaseous disquisition on the "white man's rules" leads to this charming crescendo: "Should you refuse this defeat and lash out at your captors, they would have a name for that, too, a name that could cage you just as good. Paranoid. Militant. Violent. Nigger."

For those of you in the "When is Obama gonna play the 'N-word' card?" pool, the winner is ... Page 85! Congratulations!

When his mother expresses concern about Obama's high school friend being busted for drugs, Obama says he patted his mother's hand and told her not to worry.

This, too, prompted Obama to share with his readers a life lesson on how to handle white people: "It was usually an effective tactic, another one of those tricks I had learned: People were satisfied so long as you were courteous and smiled and made no sudden moves. They were more than satisfied, they were relieved -- such a pleasant surprise to find a well-mannered young black man who didn't seem angry all the time."

First of all, I note that this technique seems to be the basis of Obama's entire presidential campaign. But moreover -- he was talking about his own mother! As Obama says: "Any distinction between good and bad whites held negligible meaning." Say, do you think a white person who said that about blacks would be a leading presidential candidate?

The man is stark bonkersville.

He says the reason black people keep to themselves is that it's "easier than spending all your time mad or trying to guess whatever it was that white folks were thinking about you."

Here's a little inside scoop about white people: We're not thinking about you. Especially WASPs. We think everybody is inferior, and we are perfectly charming about it.

In college, Obama explains to a girl why he was reading Joseph Conrad's 1902 classic, "Heart of Darkness": "I read the book to help me understand just what it is that makes white people so afraid. Their demons. The way ideas get twisted around. I helps me understand how people learn to hate."

By contrast, Malcolm X's autobiography "spoke" to Obama. One line in particular "stayed with me," he says. "He spoke of a wish he'd once had, the wish that the white blood that ran through him, there by an act of violence, might somehow be expunged."

Forget Rev. Jeremiah Wright -- Wright is Booker T. Washington compared to this guy.

Obama lied about hearing his mentor's anti-American and racist tirades. He's lied about his past immersion in Islam. Is he also lying about his devotion to Allah?

Obama's comfort with Wright's comfort with Farrakhan makes more sense now.

More disturbing information from WND on Obama's non-Muslim upbringing:

JERUSALEM – Was Sen. Barack Obama a Muslim? Did he ever practice Islam?

The presidential candidate officially rejects the claims, but the issue of Obama's personal faith has re-emerged amid conflicting accounts of his enrollment as a Muslim during elementary school in Indonesia, the world's most populous Muslim nation.

Widely distributed reports have noted in January 1968, Obama was registered as a Muslim at Jakarta's Roman Catholic Franciscus Assisi Primary School under the name Barry Soetoro. He was listed as an Indonesian citizen whose stepfather, listed on school documents as "L Soetoro Ma," worked for the topography department of the Indonesian Army.

Catholic schools in Indonesia routinely accept non-Catholic students, but exempt them from studying religion. Obama's school documents, though, wrongly list him as being Indonesian.

After attending the Assisi Primary School, Obama was enrolled – also as a Muslim, according to documents – in the Besuki Primary School, a public school in Jakarta.

The Loatze blog run by an American expatriate in Southeast Asia who visited the Besuki school, noted, "All Indonesian students are required to study religion at school and a young 'Barry Soetoro' being a Muslim would have been required to study Islam daily in school. He would have been taught to read and write Arabic, to recite his prayers properly, to read and recite from the Quran and to study the laws of Islam."

Indeed, the Israel Insider online magazine points out in Obama's autobiography, "Dreams From My Father," he acknowledges studying the Quran and describes the public school as "a Muslim school."

"In the Muslim school, the teacher wrote to tell mother I made faces during Quranic studies," wrote Obama.

The Indonesian media have been flooded with accounts of Obama's childhood Islamic studies, some describing him as a religious Muslim .

Speaking to the country's Kaltim Post, Tine Hahiyary, who was principal of Obama's school while he was enrolled there, said she recalls he studied the Quran in Arabic.

"At that time, I was not Barry's teacher but he is still in my memory" claimed Tine, who is 80 years old. The Kaltim Post says Obama's teacher, named Hendri, died.

"I remember that he studied 'mengaji (recitation of the Quran)," Tine said, according to an English translation by Loatze.

Mengaji, or the act of reading the Quran with its correct Arabic punctuation, is usually taught to more religious pupils and is not known as a secular study.

Also, Loatze documented the Indonesian daily Banjarmasin Post caught up with Rony Amir, an Obama classmate and Muslim, who describe[d] Obama as "previously quite religious in Islam."

"We previously often asked him to the prayer room close to the house. If he was wearing a sarong (waist fabric worn for religious or casual occasions) he looked funny," Amir said.

The Los Angeles Times, which sent a reporter to Jakarta, quoted Zulfin Adi, who identified himself as among Obama's closest childhood friends, stating the presidential candidate prayed in a mosque, something Obama's campaign claimed he never did.

"We prayed but not really seriously, just following actions done by older people in the mosque. But as kids, we loved to meet our friends and went to the mosque together and played," said Adi.

Obama's official campaign site has a page titled "Obama has never been a Muslim, and is a committed Christian." The page states, "Obama never prayed in a mosque. He has never been a Muslim, was not raised a Muslim, and is a committed Christian who attends the United Church of Christ."

But the campaign changed its tune when it issued a slightly different statement to the Times stating Obama "has never been a practicing Muslim."

An article last month by the Chicago Tribune seems to dispute Adi's statements to the L.A. Times. The Tribune catches up with Obama's declared childhood friend, who now describes himself as only knowing Obama for a few months in 1970 when his family moved to the neighborhood. Adi said he was unsure about his recollections of Obama

But the Tribune found Obama did attend mosque.

"Interviews with dozens of former classmates, teachers, neighbors and friends show that Obama was not a regular practicing Muslim when he was in Indonesia," states the Tribune article.

It quotes the presidential candidate's former neighbors and 3rd grade teacher recalling Obama "occasionally followed his stepfather to the mosque for Friday prayers."

Daniel Pipes, director of the Middle East Forum, notes the Tribune article – cited by liberal blogs as refuting claims Obama is Muslim – actually implies Obama was an irregularly practicing Muslim and twice confirms Obama attended mosque services.

In a free-ranging interview with the New York Times, Obama described the Muslim call to prayer as "one of the prettiest sounds on Earth at sunset.”

The Times' Nicholos Kristof wrote Obama recited, "with a first-class [Arabic] accent," the opening lines of the Muslim call to prayer.

Israel Insider's Reuven Koret notes the first few lines state:

"Allah is Supreme! Allah is Supreme!
Allah is Supreme! Allah is Supreme!
I witness that there is no god but Allah
I witness that there is no god but Allah
I witness that Muhammad is his prophet... "

Some attention also has been paid to Obama's paternal side of the family. His father, described in some reports as an atheist, polygamist and alcoholic, was buried in Kenya as a Muslim. Obama Sr., also named Barack Obama, had three sons with another woman who reportedly all are Muslim.

Obama's brother Roy is described as a practicing Muslim.

Writing in a chapter of his book describing his 1992 wedding, the presidential candidate stated: "The person who made me proudest of all was Roy. Actually, now we call him Abongo, his Luo name, for two years ago he decided to reassert his African heritage. He converted to Islam, and has sworn off pork and tobacco and alcohol."

Still, Obama says he was raised by his Christian mother and repeatedly has labeled as "smears" several reports attempting to paint him as a Muslim.

"Let's make clear what the facts are: I am a Christian. I have been sworn in with a Bible. I pledge allegiance [to the American flag] and lead the pledge of allegiance sometimes in the United States Senate when I'm presiding," he told the UK's Times Online earlier this year.

Another faithful Muslim dutifully lying to deceive Christians (and other non-Muslims) who should know better

From Cal Thomas's article here.

The West's ignorance of what made it great is appalling. Add to that our gluttonous appetite for self-mortification (not the good kind), and we're doomed.

svirk,

I am surprised at your dishonesty.

It must be dishonesty, for how can someone claiming to know so much about Islam (and Christianity) misrepresent consistently both Christ and Allah?

You must know that the life of Mohammed is so revered among Muslims that what he said and did -- and even that which he saw and allowed -- are considered determinative for Muslim theology, practice, and law. Allah calls Mohammed a "beautiful pattern (of conduct) for those who want to please him (Qur'an 33:21).

And, what did Mohammed say? "Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him" (Bukhari Volume 9, Book 84, Number 57).

This is why Muslims want to kill apostates.

But you already knew that, didn't you?

You misrepresent also Christ and the Biblical texts.

There are commands to violence in the Old Testament. These are either punishments for crimes under the Mosaic Law for the people of Israel only, provisions made to ameliorate the effects of sin in a barbaric world, or the one-time, limited command to Israel to complete the dispossession of the land of Canaan, a Divine judgment for sin that would fall upon Israel centuries later for the same sins.

And that was Moses, not Jesus, commanding death for apostasy, and it was only for the nation of Israel under the Mosaic Law.

Please be honest.

The truth is, the problem lies with Allah and Mohammed, for they command the enslavement or slaughter of all who refuse the "invitation" to Islam:

"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 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 19, Number 4294).

So, Allah demands death for apostasy.

Will you be leaving Islam now?

Eteraz's new "reading" of Islamic "sacred" texts as effective in defeating jihad as his "response" to bin Laden's use of Qur'an 9:5

In response to a post (and subsequent comments) at Ali Eteraz's site trashing Fitna. The April 1, 5:29 pm comment is a highlight.

Also worth noting is Ali Eteraz's admission that the commands to enslave and slaughter non-Muslims exist. His strategy for dealing with them? Pretend they were limited to Mohammed alone.

One wonders, how will he convince Muslims that the commands to subdue and humiliate or kill non-Muslims who refuse the "invitation" to Islam were only for Mohammed and not the audience they explicitly address?

No one's done it in nearly one and one-half millennia.

Perhaps Eteraz's proposed new "reading" of Qur'an and Sunnah is intended for non-Muslims, rather than Muslims:

"I think Muslims that subsequently thought they had to engage in unlimited warfare were wrong. They were never permitted to engage in it.”

“As to the verses/hadith you cite, in my reading, they would be limited to Muhammad.”

April 1st, 2008 at 10:02 am

apg,

That’s a misrepresentation of history and an abuse of language, for how can one be said to “respect” the Gospels and at the same time blaspheme its Christ and rape, enslave, and murder His people?

“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 [Jews and Christians], until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued” (Qur’an 9:29).

April 1st, 2008 at 10:05 am

Here’s a buzz kill:

The reason apg’s problem is with Islam and not “misunderstanderers” of it is because Mohammed demanded, “Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him” (Bukhari Volume 9, Book 84, Number 57).

How can one separate the command of Allah and the example of Mohammed from Islam and still have Islam?

“Allah’s Apostle said, ‘I have been made victorious with terror’” (Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 220)

April 1st, 2008 at 10:51 am

eteraz,

You know (or if you don’t, you ought to) that the hadith cited does not contradict the verse on compulsion.

Mohammed said that Muslims must first invite “unbelievers” to accept Islam. That is not compulsion.

If they refuse, then they are to demand the jizya (and its concomitant depredations).

If non-Muslims refuse to pay that, then it is war.

Brush up, or be honest:

“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).

April 1st, 2008 at 11:04 am

apg,

Does your apostasy require ad hominem attacks in defense of Islam?

As for “racist-hate speecher,” how dishonest of you! Islam is an ideology, not a race. Second, how is it hateful to quote Allah and his apostle?

What are you, some kind of Islamophobe?

To your points:

1) Christ is God Incarnate. To describe Him as anything less is blasphemy.

In addition, Allah through Mohammed says that anyone who says Allah has a son is a blasphemer. Christ says that He is the Son of God.

Notice also in the last passage, those who call Christ the Son of God are “unbelievers”:

“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)!

2) As for rape, yes, all societies have men (and sometimes women) who commit the crime. Throughout history, it has been used as a weapon of war.

In Islam, it is made "divine" by Mohammed’s example and declarations:

“If ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly with the orphans, marry women of your choice, two or three or four; but if ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly (with them), then only one, or (a captive) that your right hands possess, that will be more suitable, to prevent you from doing injustice,” (Qur’an 4:3).

“Also (prohibited are) women already married, except those whom your right hands possess . . . ” (Qur’an 4:24).

Do we need to mention the numerous women Mohammed personally raped after slaughtering their husbands and peoples?

And shall we bring up little Aisha?

“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).

Does that make me a “racist-hate speecher,” or Mohammed an enslaving, raping, pedophile?

And doesn’t your continued defense of this make you less an apostate and more an apologist for these crimes against humanity?

April 1st, 2008 at 12:37 pm

apg,

Some of us have responsibilities that call us away from the keyboard, so do not assume that a lull in posting is an indication of ignorance.

As to your “Muslim scholars” comment, the implication is that because they’ve “addressed” Mohammed’s divinely-ordained child rape, it’s nothing about which to worry?

Tell that to all the little ones destroyed by monsters following your prophet’s example:

“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).

[. . .]

April 1st, 2008 at 1:21 pm

Your lack of reading comprehension is telling, Danial.

I am not “surfing the web” when I should be working. I am exposing the command of Allah, the example of Mohammed and the perfidy of their apologists.

Perhaps you ought to be working [against jihad and sharia] instead of defending genocide, rape, and slavery in the name of Allah.

The truth will out.

April 1st, 2008 at 1:28 pm

eteraz,

Who is responsible ultimately for the “disgusting conflation” of Islamic “sacred” texts and violence against non-Muslims, women, and apostates from Islam?

And who defines “criminal” and “illegitimate” in Islam so that whatever advances the cause of Allah is “legitimate” and whoever disbelieves is “criminal”?

The answer to both questions is clear: Allah and his apostle, for it is they who require the conversion, subjugation and humiliation, and murder of non-Muslims to make the world Islam:

“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 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).

“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 until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and polytheism: i.e. worshipping others besides Allah) and the religion (worship) will all be for Allah Alone (in the whole of the world). But if they cease (worshipping others besides Allah), then certainly, Allah is All-Seer of what they do” (Qur’an 8:38; ayah 39 from Noble Qur’an).

“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?” (Qur’an 9:111).

“Allah’s Apostle said, ‘I have been made victorious with terror’” (Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 220).

April 1st, 2008 at 2:10 pm

apg,

The Prophets whom I respect are of YHWH. It is unwise to reject their words just because Mohammed was a lying monster.

As to your other comments, I’ve already admitted that unspeakable crimes against women (and sometimes men) occur in all societies.

The difference which you fail to note (or hope no one else will) is that in civilized countries, such barbarities are crimes punishable under those nations’ laws; in Islam, such crimes are "divine," for what Mohammed said and did is a “beautiful pattern (of conduct)” for those who want to please Allah (Qur’an 33:21).

That’s the reason for “the focus on Islam.”

(And if they are Mohammed’s commands and actions, how is citing them, “insults”?)

Your Infidel Hall of Shame makes my point: You hold up as criminals those guilty of what your Mohammed did and taught!

My nation condemns pedophilia, rape, and polygamy, but Mohammed not only committed such crimes, he taught others to do the same!

Once Muslims make Mohammed’s many crimes against humanity crimes too under Islamic law, then we’ll have no reason to discuss them anymore, except as a vile stain on human history.

Don’t you get it?

I condemn such evil. You defend it. Who’s in denial?

Perhaps if you end the ad hominem attacks, tu quoques, and other logical fallacies against people exposing them, you’ll be able to do something about the Islamic texts requiring such evil.

April 1st, 2008 at 2:24 pm:

eteraz,

You “responded to” the Verse of the Sword. Good. Then there’s nothing to worry about.

Unless “responded to” only means “dissimulated” or “obfuscated.” Then there’s a problem.

No, I’m sure of it. There’s a problem.

Let me know when you have “responded to” the passages below and have convinced Muslims that you’ve “responded to” them effectively. Then you will have accomplished something.

“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).

April 1st, 2008 at 5:29 pm, to Ali Eteraz:

Mentioning your “response” to the Verse of the Sword in this context seems a bit dishonest on the face of it.

The article itself proves it. Were you hoping no one would actually read it?

In it, you do not demonstrate that Allah forbids waging offensive warfare against non-Muslims, nor do you show that Mohammed did not himself preach and practice slaughter.

In fact, you state clearly your intention (at the end!) to demonstrate only that OBL misused 9:5 in his fatwa, which is a point spurious to our discussion and misleading to ignorant Infidels.

If your obfuscating is unintentional, then you can revise your article to name and condemn publicly the numerous passages demanding mutilation and death for non-Muslims (and apostates) who refuse conversion or slavery.

(Shall we mention the pedophilia, rape, lying, and stealing?).

If you will not expose and reject publicly these passages, then you are part of the problem and can no longer pretend to be a friend to Infidels.

On a few of the points made in your article:

1) Claiming that “OBL’s reliance upon the verse is assinine at best and evil at worst” makes one wonder: If he used the verse properly, would killing Infidels because of their refusals to convert or submit and pay the jizya then be “proper and good”?

2) Surely you know that some Islamic commentators say that the reason the ninth sura omits the nonsense about “grace and mercy” is because there was to be no more grace or mercy for non-Muslims (except of course, to those who convert).

3) Another point you fail to make is that “helping others against the Muslims” or “having difficulty with certain treaties” are, for Mohammed, justifications for wanton slaughter in Allah’s name!

Apparently, that doesn’t bother you.

4) You also fail to connect this part of the sura to the larger context of Mohammed’s intentions for the non-Muslim world. This was – as many of your coreligionists argue – the end of Mohammed’s cooperation with non-Muslims and the beginnings of his expansion into non-Muslim lands outside Arabia:

"Narrated Jubair bin Haiya: ''Umar sent the Muslims to the great countries to fight the pagans . . . 'Umar said to him [Al-Hurmuzan] "I would like to consult you regarding these countries which I intend to invade."

'Al-Hurmuzan said, "Yes, the example of these countries and their inhabitants who are the enemies of the Muslims, is like a bird with a head, two wings and two legs . . . if its head got destroyed, then the two legs, two wings and the head would become useless.

'The head stands for Khosrau [Persia], and one wing stands for Caesar [Byzantium] and the other wing stands for Faris. So, order the Muslims to go towards Khosrau."

[. . .]

'Our Prophet, the Messenger of our Lord, has ordered us to fight you till you worship Allah Alone or give Jizya (i.e. tribute); and our Prophet has informed us that our Lord says: "Whoever amongst us is killed (i.e. martyred), shall go to Paradise to lead such a luxurious life as he has never seen, and whoever amongst us remain alive, shall become your master)" (Bukhari Volume 4, Book 53, Number 386).

5) Your assertion that, “looking at the circumstances and context of verse 9:5 it becomes very difficult to reach the conclusion that the verse is a timeless directive to all Muslims for all times to kill all polytheists in all places,” demonstrates your perfidy, since no one I know claims that.

That fact that the expression of Muslim bloodlust is limited to those who refuse to convert or submit and pay the jizya doesn’t negate nor extenuate the malevolence of so much of Qur’an and Sunnah.

6) As for “polytheists,” your comments here too seem designed to mislead. For though Jews and Christians (and others) came to be called “People of the Book,” Christians especially are charged with being “unbelievers” and therefore targets of many of the Verses of Blood, confessing Christ to be God Incarnate is an expression of polytheism, and both “People of the Book” and “polytheists” are doomed to hell.

7) As for why Jews, Christians, and other non-Muslims cannot set foot in Arabia, that is because Mohammed willed it so: "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).

8) Claiming that OBL has to prove Americans are all polytheists in order for Muslims to fly planes into buildings or behead schoolgirls -- or teasing about a jihadist’s shocking conclusions about Americans -- are silly red herrings intending to distract and deceive the careless and gullible [reader].

Finally, you admit that if there were an official Islamic state, then it would be alright to kill for Allah.

So, when that Islamic state is finally realized again, on whose side will you be?

April 1st, 2008 at 6:25 pm

Nattuk,

I commend your invective-light reply.

Again though, you reduce yourself to false ad hominem attacks.

I have gathered the commands of Allah and the example of Mohammed from Islamic sources. I’ve got a copy of Sirat Rasul Allah next to my keyboard.

The only thing I’ve asked of anyone here is to tell the truth and stop trying to defend (dishonorably) the indefensible.

I have accused eteraz of dishonesty because he offers his “response” to Qur’an 9:5 as if it meant Islam is a religion of peace. All he did was set up straw men, knock them down, and then ask for applause from the ignorant and gullible.

Did you even read his article? My reply?

I’ve also pointed out the lack of intellectual integrity of several posters here, since rather than point out my error, they’ve engaged in all sorts of (often unintelligible) personal attacks, tu quoque arguments, and other logical fallacies.

Even with your last statement, that is not an accurate representation of my writings.

Will you not be honest?

It would be my pleasure to discuss these matters with you.

April 2nd, 2008 at 1:54 am

eteraz,

Is that an intentional misrepresentation of what I wrote, or are you unable to help yourself?

Saying that the issue with 9:5 is that ALL Muslims for ALL time are required to kill ALL non-Muslims is setting up a straw man, for the passage does not say that, and I don’t know anyone who claims that it does.

Criticizing OBL’s application of 9:5 does nothing to nullify Allah and Mohammed’s commands to subdue and humiliate or kill those who refuse conversion.

Presenting your “response” in the context of this discussion as if to imply that Muslims are not required to wage offensive warfare in Allah’s cause is intellectually dishonest, since:

“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 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?” (Qur’an 9:111).

“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 until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and polytheism: i.e. worshipping others besides Allah) and the religion (worship) will all be for Allah Alone (in the whole of the world). But if they cease (worshipping others besides Allah), then certainly, Allah is All-Seer of what they do” (Qur’an 8:38; ayah 39 from Noble Qur’an).

“Allah’s Apostle said, ‘I have been made victorious with terror’” (Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 220).

April 2nd, 2008 at 2:05 am

Yes, thabet, 70 to 80 million Hindus alone slaughtered for Allah? A mere pittance.

If you count recent conflicts, yes, “Western” nations have killed many millions. However, your numbers game is really only a red herring.

The issue is, what does Allah command? What did Mohammed command and practice?

If you must play with the numbers, answer these two questions: Over the last 1350 years, how many non-Muslims have been slaughtered in obedience to Allah’s command and Mohammed’s example? Over the last two thousand years, how many people have been slaughtered in obedience to Christ’s commands?

What’s the total? A billion to [n]one?

April 2nd, 2008 at 2:15 am

Nattuk,

For the historically-illiterate and the immoral, the fall of Constantinople is something at which to laugh.

To the decent and the honest, it’s one of many concrete illustrations of your god and prophet’s commands.

And, no, it is not like the two losses you mention.

The end of the caliphate and the Reconquista were blessings to humanity since they ended (for the most part) centuries of Allah-ordained rape, oppression, and murder.

But when it’s non-Muslims suffering at the hands of Islam, it’s all fun and games, right?

So much for the veneer of civility. You honor Allah, truly.

April 2nd, 2008 at 2:32 am

Well, Buzz Kill,

Let’s do a little analysis, shall we? You seem to like that.

“Of course Eteraz is featured.”

A bit vicariously self-important, are we? If you read accurately, you’ll see that my work — and your inability to respond truthfully to any of the points I raise — are featured.

“He has no one commenting on the site. Knucklehead blog.”

I see your refutation of Allah’s commands to kill are coming along nicely.

Ad hominem attacks and name-calling, neither of which demonstrate that I’ve misrepresented anything. Eteraz has quite a few comments here, and that says nothing about his accuracy or truthfulness on this topic.

So, how does it feel, Buzz Kill, to be rendered impotent by the author of a “Knucklehead blog”?

“I think you can measure the crazy by the foot long screeds.”

Some men are longer than others.

If you reduce the nonsense, my comments pointing it out will be shorter.

“If you have multiple foot long . . . the Amillinealist ward of Severe Psychiatric Problems Center.”

More ad hominem, more name-calling. This is the Internet equivalent of a five-year-old administering a raspberry.

Nice work. You must be proud.

“The “I know more about Evil Islam than anyone on the planet” ward.”

I quote accurately Qur’an and ahadith, but you mock.

Allah will not be pleased.

“The “I am an expert on Islam cuz I read Jihad watch” wing of the Elders of Zion hospital.”

Several ad hominems in one sentence. Impressive.

So, let me know when you can show that Allah and Mohammed don’t require what they actually say they do.

You know where to find me.

I’ll be waiting.

April 2nd, 2008 at 2:58 am

Nattuk,

How is quoting Allah and his apostle “propaganda”? And since no one (including you) has demonstrated that I’ve misrepresented any of those passages, repetition of them is not unwarranted.

“It was with a view to preserving these periods of truce and thus to promoting peace among the frequently warring tribes that the Qur’an did not revoke, but rather confirmed, this ancient custom. See also 2:194 and 217.”

How nice. What about the slavery and genocide? [Those don't matter because] It’s only non-Muslims, I guess.

“[7] Read in conjunction with the two preceding verses, as well as with 2:190-194, the above verse relates to warfare already in progress with people who have become guilty of a breach of treaty obligations and of aggression.”

Sura 2 speaks of war in retaliation for being “turned out.” This speaks of war against non-Muslims, excluding those keeping their treaties, and even that is for a time only.

“One of them, “There shall be no coercion in matters of faith” (2:256), lays down categorically that any attempt at a forcible conversion of unbelievers is prohibited - which precludes the possibility of the Muslims’ demanding or expecting that a defeated enemy should embrace Islam as the price of immunity.”

I’ve already addressed that. The options for those who disbelieve in Allah are conversion, submission with humiliation and jizya, or war. The invitation to Islam is to come first, so technically, there is no compulsion to convert.

The other two options, however, don’t leave much of a choice, do they?.

“Thus, war is permissible only in self-defence (see surah 2, notes 167 and 168)”

Clearly false. The error here is adding the word “only.”

Over the course of Mohammed’s career, the revelations regarding war progressed from cooperation to allowing self-defense to requiring self-defense/retaliation, to requiring offensive warfare to make the world Islam.

I’ve provided several passages demonstrating this. Here’s one:

“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).

[More from Nattuk's reference:]

“does not imply an alternative of “conversion or death”, as some unfriendly critics of Islam choose to assume.”

That’s right, submission and humiliation along with paying the jizya is the third option I just noted.

“Does this answer your questions more thoroughly?”

It serves to point out the solidity of my position.

So, will you condemn these passages publicly?

At least reject them privately, for now.

“Oh, and nice going by the way, only posting your responses to our comments on your blog. Pro veritas, I see.”

There’s no deception, as you ungraciously imply. I provided the link to this page.

Additionally, it’s my site. If I were to include all your comments, it’d be your site, or eteraz’s, and Buzz Kill would be gloating even more enthusiastically about “dementia” (which is really just a manifestation of his deep-seated post envy).

Did I misrepresent what you wrote?

April 2nd, 2008 at 3:17 am

Nattuk,

Regarding the Ten Commandments, it is impossible for a Muslim to observe the first, since it requires worship only of YHWH and His Christ. This is the first Mohammed violates.

You must know that Muslims cannot observe the other commandments either since Mohammed broke them with respect to non-Muslims, women, and apostates, and he required others to do the same:

Misuse YHWH's name? Making the Son of God a "blasphemer" for claiming to be Who He is, and claiming that Allah is the God of the Bible both break this commandment.

Remember the Sabbath? Broken also.

Honor your father and mother? Father, yes, but Mohammed's misogyny hits Mom too.

Murder? Rape/Polygamy/Pedophilia? Lie? Steal? Covet? All broken for non-Muslims and nine-year-old girls.

Here are a few examples:

"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).

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

"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).

April 2nd, 2008 at 3:22 am

Well, Danial,

Let’s take Jason’s advice:

Jesus said, “Love your enemies,” and, “Do good to those who persecute you.”

Mohammed said, “kill the unbelievers wherever you find them” (Qur’an 9:5).

Jesus said that if someone causes a little child to sin, it would be better for them if they had a large stone tied around their neck and were thrown into the depths of the sea.

Mohammed married little Aisha when she was six and began raping her when she was nine, and he claimed that Allah ordained it.

By all means, let’s look at their lives.

April 2nd, 2008 at 3:42 am

eteraz,

I like your position on limiting the commands to enslave and kill those who refuse the invitation to Islam to Mohammed’s lifetime.

I do see some problems with it, however.

First, where do you find the textual justification for it?

Second, Mohammed’s successors didn’t limit those commands. They went to war against the non-Muslim world outside Arabia in Allah’s name and in accord with Mohammed’s expressed will and example.

Third, how will you get Islam — of which no major school rejects offensive warfare against non-Muslims — to adopt your new interpretation?

Fourth, if the command of Allah and the example of Mohammed really require peace, tolerance, and goodness toward non-Muslims — which I’ve not seen you claim, but certainly, you’ve implied it — then why must you limit them to the seventh century?

Fifth, what would OBL say of your exegesis? Has there ever been any significant movement along these lines in Islamic history?

Finally, why the need for innovation if it is obvious that the commands for rape, slavery, and murder in Allah’s name should be limited to the seventh century?

April 2nd, 2008 at 3:53 am

eteraz,

“I have already stated that my personal view is that Muhammad did engage in fighting and subduing his enemies. I have often stated on this blog that Muhammad wasn’t non-violent. He did engage in warfare.”

I am not a regular reader, so I was unaware of that. Thank you for clarifying.

“My difference with others is that they take his warfare as a permission that they too can engage in unlimited warfare as he did”

I wish all Muslims agreed with you.

So, you admit that Mohammed waged “unlimited” warfare. Thank you.

“Muhammad’s warfare was an exception, not the rule. Like I said in my Guardian piece, there are a number of instances in Islam where Muhammad had certain permissions and responsibilities that other Muslims didn’t. I think Muslims that subsequently thought they had to engage in unlimited warfare were wrong. They were never permitted to engage in it.”

Are not those exceptions stated explicitly? Do not passages where Mohammed commands the faithful to fight — for example, “until all religion is for Allah” — suggest that the faithful are to fight until Allah’s rule over mankind is total?

“As to the verses/hadith you cite, in my reading, they would be limited to Muhammad.”

Thank you for not denying them. Perhaps your less gracious [and honest] readers here will take note.

I commend you for your decency in your recent replies, for allowing contrary views to be posted here, and for admitting about Mohammed what many of his coreligionists will not.

April 2nd, 2008 at 4:09 am

thabet,

“Perhaps Amillennialist is also a fan of limpieza de sangre?”

Another ad hominem?

Is there anything else in your quiver, or is that it?

How about renouncing Mohammed’s evil against non-Muslims, women, apostates, and nine-year-old Aisha?

April 2nd, 2008 at 4:12 am

apg,

“ANSWER NOW TO ALL ME EXAMPLES OF CHRISTIAN VIOLENCE, ANSWER.”

Yelling a false tu quoque doesn’t make it any less false.

Christians committing evil against others is a violation of Christ’s commands and should be condemned.

Will you condemn Mohammed’s depravity and the evil committed in accord with his commands and example?

April 2nd, 2008 at 4:16 am

eteraz,

“You know how you were talking about straw-men? This is the best example of one. There’s not a single Muslim out of the thousands on this blog who take delight in people’s pain.”

No straw man; Nattuk was laughing about Constantinople.

April 2nd, 2008 at 4:22 am

eteraz,

“the Reconquista began by committing a pogrom upon the Jews. You should look up the history of the Sephardigm. They had to flee to the Muslim Ottoman Empire to save their skin. Jesus, I didn’t realize I was talking to a Christian supremacist, thought the handle was just a creative word. I wouldn’t have wasted my time.”

Did I give you too much credit too quickly?

The Reconquista was made necessary by Islamic supremacism, just as Allah and his apostle require.

The implication that I support any sort of injustice against others (regardless of religion) is shameful.

Speaking of Judeophiles, Mohammed and his allah are, aren’t they?

“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).

“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).

That Jews sought protection from Christians among Muslims shows just how disobedient to their gods both the Christians and Muslims were at the time.

[And no, the Reconquista was against Islam. It lasted 750 years.]

April 2nd, 2008 at 4:30 am

apg,

Your list includes at least one example of self-defense (the Reconquista).

Otherwise (without reading every item — forgive me if I don’t enjoy being insulted and yelled at — I’m funny that way), the other events appear to be clear examples of Christians (or Christians-In-Name-Only) violating Christ’s commands.

I denounce them.

Will you now make a list of Muslim crimes against non-Muslims carried out in accord with Allah’s commands and Mohammed’s example?

The count will be still a billion to none (which is what I intended to type in my earlier comment).

The thread is now closed; this is a fitting end from dina, April 2nd, 2008 at 12:03 pm:

Amillennialist, you did a superb job with the 10 Commandments. Much better than I could have done. I won’t even mention the Quran verses approving of lying, raping those who your right hand possesseth, beating your wives, etc. etc. It would seem superfluous after your dissertation. Thank you. I didn’t know you had a website until Nattuk…or was it Apg?…mentioned it. I am going to go look for it right after this.

I still wish Eterez would answer where and in what capacity Muslims “accept” the 10 C’s. Not all Muslims have access to Wikopedia and, without the Bible, they wouldn’t know to look it up there, either. They are all-encompassing for the moral life.

Thank you, dina.