Mohammed is 1.2 billion Muslims, or Establishing Shari'a, one family at a time

She says they "misinterpret their texts," but he says they're "fanatical." Which is it?

He defends Mohammed, right or wrong.

Quoting Mohammed's own words is insulting 1.2 billion Muslims. I thought all Muslims were not the same.

Which is it? Or does it depend on whether or not Mohammed's words and deeds are being examined? What does that say about Mohammed? What does that say about those making such an "argument"?

A Christian family cannot discuss openly religious topics. A free man in a free society (and his wife!) must face character assassination, verbal abuse, and threats of violence over a factual statement (which is, coincidentally, no different than an American during World War II lamenting, "It's too bad Hitler made our boys' sacrifices necessary").

So this is the lay of the land: A non-Muslim is forbidden from quoting Mohammed.

If I can't quote Mohammed, and I can't quote the Bible, what can I quote? A cookbook?! [Hat tip to Zell Miller.]

One of the sad ironies here is that this is exactly one of the restrictions placed historically upon dhimmis, the Jews and Christians subjugated, humiliated, and oppressed under Islamic law, just as Mohammed commanded.

-Mention Mohammed and be bullied into silence.

-Everyone falls in line because the two tyrants throw a fit.

-Essentially, it's, "Shut up dhimmi. Don't talk about Mohammed, or else!"

It's insane.

Why are only the Muslim and his spouse apoplectic over quoting Mohammed? Why are not they being pressured into tolerance of others' freedoms of speech? Why must everyone submit to the bullies' sensibilities?

If the prophet from hell was such an "ideal man," what is wrong with looking at what he said and did? Of what are they afraid? Is not such rage at a non-Muslim looking at those texts an admission of shame over his words and deeds?

Why attack me for quoting what Mohammed said and did? Why not attack Mohammed for what he said and did?

How can a decent person defend universal, open-ended commands to slaughter, rape, and enslave?

So much for the thin veneer of false Muslim civility. I've seen it vaporize in online discussions over the word of Allah and the example of Mohammed, but I've not seen it in person and not from someone who previously had seemed decent.

Insane anger. Irrationality. And this, an observation intended to make the observer look good, or a threat? "If someone was fanatical about their religion, they'd kill you."

I will not be silent. I will not submit, for this is what they defend:

"Each of us was raped by between three and six men. One woman refused to have sex with them, so they split her head into pieces with an axe in front of us." This happened in Darfur, from which Sudanese military personnel actually airlifted women to Khartoum to serve as sex slaves. Meanwhile, Indira Dzetskelova, the mother of one of the child hostages in Beslan, Russia, reports that "several 15-year-old girls were raped by terrorists." Her daughter "heard their terrible cries and screams when those monsters took them away."

This indicates that there are two things the massacre in Beslan has in common with the ongoing massacres in Darfur: both, no less than the 9/11 attacks, are examples of Islamic jihad terrorism, and both are characterized by rape. The jihadist element has been made clear by the ringleaders of both atrocities. Sudanese General Mohamed Beshir Suleiman recently declared: "The door of the jihad is still open and if it has been closed in the south it will be opened in Darfur."

[. . .]

As for Beslan, the Chechen jihadist leader Shamil Besayev warned the Russian government last winter: "Praise Allah, we are dreaming of dying in jihad, we are dreaming of dying on the way of Allah, so that we could earn paradise and mercy of Allah."

What does rape, then, have to do with these religious conflicts? Unfortunately, everything. The Islamic legal manual 'Umdat al-Salik, which carries the endorsement of Al-Azhar University, the most respected authority in Sunni Islam, stipulates: "When a child or a woman is taken captive, they become slaves by the fact of capture, and the woman's previous marriage is immediately annulled."

Why? So that they are free to become the concubines of their captors. The Qur'an permits Muslim men to have intercourse with their wives and their slave girls: "Forbidden to you are ... married women, except those whom you own as slaves" (Sura 4:23-24). After one successful battle, Muhammad tells his men, "Go and take any slave girl." He took one for himself also. After the notorious massacre of the Jewish Qurayzah tribe, he did it again. According to his earliest biographer, Ibn Ishaq, Muhammad "went out to the market of Medina (which is still its market today) and dug trenches in it. Then he sent for [the men of Banu Qurayza] and struck off their heads in those trenches as they were brought out to him in batches." After killing "600 or 700 in all, though some put the figure as high as 800 or 900," the Prophet [sic] of Islam took one of the widows he had just made, Rayhana bint Amr, as another concubine. Emerging victorious in another battle, according to a generally accepted Islamic tradition, Muhammad's men present him with an ethical question: "We took women captives, and we wanted to do 'azl [coitus interruptus] with them." Muhammad told them: "It is better that you should not do it, for Allah has written whom He is going to create till the Day of Resurrection.'" When Muhammad says "it is better that you should not do it," he's referring to coitus interruptus, not to raping their captives. He takes that for granted.

With Muhammad revered throughout the Islamic world as al-insan al-kamil, the perfect man, the rapes of Darfur and Beslan are nothing surprising. What is surprising, or ought to be, is the silence from the Islamic world about the rapes in both cases.

Where are the reformers who will dare to say that Muhammad's example must not be followed in this case?

Certainly not where I was last night.

Christian children decapitated, crucified, and raped in the name of Allah, just as Mohammed commanded and practiced

Mohammed killed over religion:

"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).

"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).

Mohammed commanded and practiced terrorism to advance his religion:

"Against them make ready your strength to the utmost of your power, including steeds of war, to strike terror into (the hearts of) the enemies, of Allah and your enemies, and others besides, whom ye may not know, but whom Allah doth know. Whatever ye shall spend in the cause of Allah, shall be repaid unto you, and ye shall not be treated unjustly" (Qur'an 8:60).

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

Mohammed gave no thought to slaughtering innocents if they stood in his way:

"The Prophet passed by me at a place called Al-Abwa or Waddan, and was asked whether it was permissible to attack the pagan warriors at night with the probability of exposing their women and children to danger. The Prophet replied, "They (i.e. women and children) are from them (i.e. pagans)." (Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 256).

No crime was too unnatural for Mohammed:

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

This evil spreads unchecked throughout the West.

And what of all those Christians and other non-Muslims, women, and apostates tormented around the world by Allah's minions?

In Iraq, Pakistan, and Egypt, Christians suffer unspeakable atrocities at the hands of Muslims, just as Allah and his false prophet demand.

Where is President Bush? He's established Sharia in several nations now, he brings in millions of Muslims without questioning whether or not they actually believe their god's commands to convert, subjugate and humiliate, or kill his fellow citizens, people he's sworn to defend, and he gives no thought to either the thousands of Americans sacrificing life and limb to protect Muslims who may or may not want them dead or to those Christians and other non-Muslims experiencing Islamic revival.

Could President Bush have done more to aid the global jihad and the persecution of the Church if he had tried?

Whose behavior more closely matches the word of Allah and the example of Mohammed, the apparently decent, secular, "moderate" Muslim, or the monsters below?

Muslim militants are crucifying children to terrorize their Christian parents into fleeing Iraq, a parliamentary committee studying the persecution of religious minorities heard yesterday.

Since the war began in 2003, about 12 children, many as young as 10, have been kidnapped and killed, then nailed to makeshift crosses near their homes to terrify and torment their parents.

One infant was snatched, decapitated, burned and left on his mother's doorstep, the committee was told.

Filham Isaac, speaking for the Nineveh Advocacy Committee, told the human rights committee that Iraqi Christian churches were bombed, clergy murdered and unveiled Iraqi women raped or scarred with acid.

It's part of a systemic -- and very effective -- campaign to ethnically cleanse the area of any non-Muslims, he said. Chaldean and Assyrian Christians, known as Chaldo-Assyrians, were once the largest Christian minority in Iraq. They are also the oldest, descendants of ancient Mesopotamians who adopted Christianity in the first century.

The Chaldean Catholic Church, the Syrian Catholic Church, the Syriac Orthodox Church and the Church of the East are among the Christian churches in Iraq.

Today, about 300,000, or one in three, is a refugee, he said.

"It's at a crisis point," Mr. Isaac's colleague, Zaya Oshana, said later. "Christians will be completely annihilated."

Yet, the Chaldo-Assyrians do not want to leave their country en masse.

Instead, they are asking for help to settle the Nineveh Plains, in northwest Iraq, where they can have some independence and form their own state. The land is rich there, and there may be oil, too.

There is some support in the United States and Europe for this independent area, and international news reports indicate more than 700 police officers have begun training to protect the Christians in Iraq, but another 4,000 would be needed to fully secure the region and establish checkpoints on all highways and roads leading into the villages.

The committee also heard from the Ahmadiyya, an offshoot of Islam that began in India about 100 years ago. Ahmadi Muslims differ from mainstream Muslims on their views of Jesus, and on their interpretation of jihad, which they say must be non-violent.

However, they told the committee that they are increasingly persecuted in Pakistan, where they are told they are not Muslim at all and, therefore, their beliefs are an insult to Islam.

Nadeem Siddiq, general counsel for the Ahmadiyya Muslim Jama'at Community of Canada, told the committee the Pakistani government has been capitulating to mullahs who call them a "cancer" and forbid them from carrying out their prayers, or even mentioning Allah on their wedding invitations.

"They say by 'posing' as Muslims, we hurt real Muslims. The mullahs are still not happy. They want our properties confiscated and they want us charged."

Coptic Christians from Egypt had much the same story, with young girls regularly kidnapped, raped or forced to marry Muslim men. Despite these difficulties, there is no mechanism to claim refugee status in the beleaguered countries. Sam Fanous, of the Canadian Coptic Association, told the MPs that the Canadian Embassy in Cairo needed Canadian, not area Muslim, staff to evaluate refugee claims.

The committee passed a motion to research the issue further and to call for more testimony from minorities suffering religious persecution worldwide.

What do Muslims call those who reject offensive warfare against non-Muslims to make the world Islam?

Ahmadiyya Muslim Jama'at are called, "heretics."

Moderate Indonesia stepped-up efforts recently to coerce them into orthodoxy; now a publisher in Texas is threatened by their non-heretical -- that is, traditional, orthodox -- coreligionists for calling the Ahmadiyya "Muslims."

In the comments on that post I note an essential distinction which must be made when discussing Islam: Muslim and non-Muslim alike attempt often to equate Islam with Christianity, either to demean Christianity or to deceive the ignorant and gullible into thinking that Islam is harmless.

It is essential that we understand the difference between the two. Clarity on this point can save not only one's neck (literally), but also one's soul.

"I appreciate your arguing against the Religion of Inveterate Sadism, but I would like to offer another perspective on what makes Christianity and Islam so different from each other.

If you approach the Biblical texts objectively and in the way in which they were intended to be taken by their authors (symbolism as symbolism, poetry as poetry, history as history, eyewitness account as eyewitness account), you find a Christ Who died for the sins of even His enemies and Who commands His people to imitate His example.

If you approach the Islamic core texts objectively and in the way in which its god and prophet intended, you find Muslims commanded to use any means necessary -- including offensive violence -- to subjugate all people to the tyranny of Allah.

Adherents of Christianity (and those who've grown up in a society influenced by it) differ from the faithful of Islam -- to the degree that both behave in ways consistent with their gods' commands -- because Allah is the moral inverse of Christ."

Great figures from history recognizing the depravity of Islam

If great men like Thomas Jefferson, John Adams and his son John Quincy, George S. Patton, Jr., and Winston Churchill understood Islam, why can't their lesser successors today?

Here's John Quincy Adams observing that jihad progresses not only by violence, but also by fraud -- by preaching, demographics, economics, and the subversion of non-Muslim societal institutions from within (jihad by stealth).

". . . he [Muhammad] declared undistinguishing and exterminating war, as a part of his religion, against all the rest of mankind…The precept of the Koran is, perpetual war against all who deny, that Mahomet is the prophet of God…the faithful follower of the prophet may submit to the imperious necessities of defeat: but the command to propagate the Moslem creed by the sword is always obligatory, when it can be made effective. The commands of the prophet may be performed alike, by fraud, or by force."

Following is General George S. Patton, Jr., on the retarding effects of Islam.

A few things to keep in mind: First, by "Arab" Patton clearly meant "Muslim," since many Arabs were Christian. Second, by 700 much of the West was Christian; to the degree that its people obeyed the commands of Christ, the West was already morally advanced. Finally, it's not just a lack of development, it's making "divine" the violation of Christ's commands that destroys human souls.

"One cannot but ponder the question: What if the Arabs had been Christians? To me it seems certain that the fatalistic teachings of Mohammed and the utter degradation of women is the outstanding cause for the arrested development of the Arab. He is exactly as he was around the year 700, while we have kept on developing. Here, I think, is a text for some eloquent sermon on the virtues of Christianity."

--from War As I Knew It, by General George S. Patton, Jr., 1947

Facts do not intimidate the truthful

Only liars and tyrants fear the truth.

Throughout Western lands, Muslims, their apologists, and Useful Idiot Dhimmis work to silence more than just mockery of Mohammed, they demonize and dismiss those who cite accurately his own words and actions as recorded in Islam's core texts.

This censorship is part of the non-violent -- but still tyrannical, fascist, supremacist, and fatal -- "striving" to make the world Islam. Robert Spencer refers to these more subtle efforts as the "stealth jihad," of which using the West's own legal, social, economic, and political systems to destroy it from within are all a part.

John Quincy Adams seems to have recognized this non-violent jihad, referring to it as performing Mohammed's commands "by fraud."

Osama bin Laden erred in using violence too soon against us; exploiting the civilizational self-loathing of the West's enemies within still advances Islam and kills far fewer Muslims.

Here are two questions to ask "moderate" Muslims and those Infidels foolishly defending the prophet from hell:

1. If Mohammed was such a great guy, what's the problem with looking at his words and deeds?

2. If Islam's "sacred" texts don't command offensive warfare against non-Muslims to make the world Islam, then what have you got to hide?

Tantrums and other arguments in defense of Islam

If you kick and scream loudly enough, you may just get Shari'a.

What do you do when you're told to be quiet because you'll make an emotional tyrant upset?

In other words, you can lie about me and mine, but don't dare quote Mohammed!

Nevermind that a soul under Allah is in danger of Hell, or that non-Muslim, female, and apostate apologists for Islam will not escape the evil which they defend, the onset of which they hasten.

You find lying apologists for Islam even in the jungle

In response to several threadbare lies in defense of Islam from a "review" at Amazon.com of Robert Spencer's Religion of Peace, Why Christianity Is and Islam Isn't, found here.

Faruk Ekmekci is subtle. Unfortunately for him, his half-truths and other falsehoods are effective only with the ignorant and gullible, and their numbers thin every day.

In attempting to defend Mohammed, he attacks Moses and Spencer. Rather than addressing what the prophet from hell actually said and did, he engages in ad hominem attacks and straw man arguments (that seems familiar!).

Alleging that both Islam and Christianity/Judaism have "obscure sides" -- as if the commands of YHWH and His Christ are morally equivalent to the utter depravity of Mohammed and his allah -- is absurd.

He argues:

"But you shall destroy their altars, break their sacred pillars, and cut down their wooden images (For you shall worship no other god, for the Lord, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God.)" Exodus 14 [sic]

That was a command for Ancient Israel under Moses, not a universal, open-ended command for offensive warfare against Gentiles to make the world Hebrew, as is found in Islam (and it's not Exodus 14).

"When the Lord your God brings you into the land you are entering to possess and drives out before you may nations...then you must destroy them totally. Make no treaty with them and show them no mercy." Deuteronomy 7:1-2 [sic]

A judgment against those nations for their evil and limited to that time, place, and people. Again, not a universal, open-ended command for offensive warfare against Gentiles to make the world Hebrew, as is found in Islam.

"...do not leave alive anything that breaths. Completely destroy them...as the Lord your God has commanded you..." Deuteronomy 20:16

Same as previous; It should be noted that Israel itself faced the same judgment for adopting the same evil practices. Still, this is not a universal, open-ended command for offensive warfare against Gentiles to make the world Hebrew, as is found in Islam.

"And they warred against the Midianites, as the Lord commanded Moses; and they slew all the males." Numbers 31:7 (estimated 100,000 Midianites were killed in just one war)

That was war in retaliation for Midian's attacks against Israel when it was helpless. It was also to prevent future apostasy by Israel. Still no universal, open-ended command for offensive warfare against Gentiles to make the world Hebrew, as is found in Islam.

"Now king Solomon loved many foreign women, besides the daughter of Pharaoh, women of the Moabites, Ammonites, Edomites, Zidonians, and Hittites;" / "And he had seven hundred wives, princesses, and three hundred concubines; and his wives turned away his heart." I Kings 1,3.

Recording Solomon's sin is not an endorsement of it. Clearly, his behavior was contradicted by Divine law.

The Texts also record Solomon's worshiping false gods; does that mean that the Bible wants us to worship false gods?

"If your brother, the son of your mother, or your son, or your daughter, or the wife of your bosom, or your friend who is as your own soul, entices you secretly, saying, `Let us go and serve other gods,' . . . your hand shall be first against him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people." Deuteronomy 13:6-9

For Ancient Israel under the Mosaic Law only; not a universal, open-ended command for offensive warfare against Gentiles to make the world Hebrew, as is found in Islam.

"...and your desire shall be to your husband, and he shall rule over you." Genesis 3:16

Descriptive, not prescriptive, and not the institutionalized brutalization and degradation of women and girls found in Islam's core texts.

"If a man is found lying with the wife of another man, both of them shall die, the man who lay with the woman, and the woman; so you shall purge the evil from Israel. / "If there is a betrothed virgin, and a man meets her in the city and lies with her, / then you shall bring them both out to the gate of that city, and you shall stone them to death with stones, the young woman because she did not cry for help though she was in the city, and the man because he violated his neighbor's wife; so you shall purge the evil from the midst of you." Deuteronomy 22:22-24

Again, only for Ancient Israel under the Mosaic Law, not a universal, open-ended command for offensive warfare against Gentiles to make the world Hebrew, as is found in Islam

To conclude, assuming the textual accuracy of the Bible, and even assuming the correctness of Spencer interpretations, Muhammad would still be an average Biblical prophet. It does not make sense to me, therefore, to welcome Biblical prophets and curse Muhammad.

That is an outright lie.

No prophet of YHWH claimed that their sin was His revelation. On the other hand, whatever perverse, reprehensible, or bloodthirsty impulse Mohammed had, he always received a convenient revelation justifying or requiring it.

We have to understand that the problem is common. Extremism in general is the enemy, not the jihad of a specific people. Let's face and address it sincerely and without bigotry.

By "bigotry," Mr. Ekmekci means "looking at the evidence," and the problem is "common" -- among Muslims, since it is Mohammed who commanded the faithful to "slay the pagans wherever you find them" (Qur'an 9:5).

"Extremism" following Christ would result in Christians loving their enemies, doing good to others, and truth-telling. "Extremism" following Allah gets slavery, slaughter, pedophilia, and rape. In other words, "extremism" in a religion just gets you more of what its god commands.

As a final note on Spencer besides his inconsistency, he is also a twister of facts, and convenient ignorer of counter data.

Mr. Ekmekci can provide (mostly accurate) citations of Biblical passages (even as he misrepresents their meaning), but he can't demonstrate specifically where Spencer has erred?

Just like Mohammed.

How convenient.

Fitzgerald on fun, and indispensable, learning

The good news is, more and more of us know and continue to learn about the Religion of Gratuitous Decapitation.

Reflections on knowing Islam the way Allah and the prophet from hell define it, by Hugh Fitzgerald:

Up and down the coasts of Europe one can find ruins, the remnants of ancient watchtowers and fortifications. One is seldom provided with any explanation; when something is written very occasionally in a guidebook, there is mention of "invaders." Who were these “invaders”? The history of Muslim raiders, up and down those European coasts, the pillaging and razing of villages and towns, the murders, the vandalism, the seizure and enslavement of, over time, at least a million people from Western Europe, with the raiders even getting as far as Ireland and, in one celebrated case, Iceland, is hardly known to the Western world.

Giles Milton's book White Gold focuses on one Cornishman, Thomas Pellow, who was seized and brought back to Morocco in the mid-18th century. There the vast palace complex of Moulay Ismail, which Western tourists come to admire, was built on the sites of, and making use of the stone taken from, the prior non-Muslim structures. So many of the so-called "wonders of Muslim architecture" were built in this way, including the celebrated Omayyad Mosque in Damascus, which is on the site of, and makes use of, the St. John the Baptist Church that was previously on the same site. And who do you think built the Taj Mahal? Muslim soldiers, or enslaved Hindus?

When you begin, as many Infidels have, to study Islam, and then extend your study beyond the texts, and then add the behavior of Muslims today, and then go still further and begin to study the history of Islamic conquest, and the Islamic exaggerated claims to achievement, and the Islamic treatment of all non-Muslims subjugated by Muslims and Muslim rule, all sorts of the dark past become necessarily illuminated. How many of us, a few years ago, had any idea about when the Turks arrived in Byzantium, or why Constantinople fell, or when? Who knew about the Seljuk Turks, or the Ottomans? Who was aware of where Aramaic was spoken, or that the Maronites were a non-Arab people living in present-day Lebanon long before the Arab Muslims arrived? Who knew, even -- why Tom Friedman has just in the last week or two discovered -- that there are Sunni and Shi'a Muslims, and that the difference is not a minor one, and did not originate with the Americans clumsily undoing all that splendid harmony that naturally reigned in Iraq just a few pre-Saddam years ago? This is all nonsense, of course, but it is predictable nonsense.

It is wonderful, isn't it, to begin to study the history of the Middle East, and the history of Byzantium, and the history of Europe, all because it now has an immediacy and a significance that we who were not history-haunted did not previously ascribe to it all. But now that we are menaced by those who are haunted not so much by history as their own crazed version of history, we are forced to study -- and we are forced to be quick studies.

. . . studying that history is now essential. It is necessary to learn what taqiyya is, and what constitutes an acceptable isnad-chain, and the details of Muhammad's life (as Muslims accept it). It is essential to find out that Muslims do not accept the principle of Pacta sunt servanda, but follow instead the model of the Treaty of al-Hudaibiyya. All this is all the more essential seeing how even the most reasonable westernized semi-truth-telling Muslim will continue to skitter around the central question . . . .

Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil of Mohammed or his allah

Be deaf, dumb, and blind about Islam, or else, which makes her a tyrant and you a coward.

Ominously, one of the restrictions placed upon non-Muslims enslaved as dhimmis over centuries of Islamic conquest, annihilation, and oppression was the proscription against speaking of Allah or Mohammed. Many in the West today censor themselves voluntarily, and many out of fear.

My latest reply to one defending Mohammed at the expense of everything else. Note her use of one of the tactics employed typically by Muslims and their Useful Idiot Dhimmis against criticism of Islam -- unjustified and ugly personal attacks. If you can't refute the facts, attack the person citing them!

Perhaps it's only justifying of one's own sin.

Facts do not intimidate the truthful.

Speaking of "chasing tails," you spend many words below attacking my integrity (again), my honesty, my compassion, and my judgment, and you attribute to me positions I've never held (argumentum ad hominem and "straw man" arguments -- both are logical fallacies and inherently dishonest), but you do not address what I actually wrote.

I attributed to Mohammed responsibility for today's jihad. In support of this, I cited accurately Islam's own "sacred" texts -- documents at which you admit you've never even looked. How is it "insensitive" to quote Mohammed's own words?

Instead of addressing my words, you accuse me falsely of:

"all follow the fanatical radical ways of those Muslims"

"condemn every religion for their followers actions?"

"all catholics and Christians alike are murderers?"

"all Latin, or Hispanic males are murderers?"

"are all catholic priests pedophiles?"

"you are not more sensitive when speaking and emailing about groups of people"

"It only gives us all I'm sure insight on how you feel, truly feel about them..."

" . . . belongs to this group you speak so poorly of"

"hasn't he shown you otherwise?"

"do all the guests seem to wage holy war against you"

"My Husband and his family ( Non murderers- as you have referred to them(muslims, not specifically his family, but since they are part of that group it is equally offensive)"

"Muslims who do not wage "holy war" LOL on anyone."

"I know it's hard for you, you have never walked a mile in anyone else's shoes and see only your ways and ideas as truths, perhaps someday you will have to see others in a different light"

"WHO then are you to look down and judge anyone?"

When have I written anything negative about your husband or his family? When have I written of anything being true about "all Muslims"? You're lying about me; prove it, or apologize.

If by "the past" you are referring to old articles about Islamic murder, those were news reports. Blame Muslims who kill for Allah, not me for being able to read.

A religion's adherents are not [necessarily representative of] its god/founder. You are conflating the two, not me.

For example, a pedophile priest is not representative of Christ, since He warned that anyone who causes a little child to sin would be better off if he had a large stone tied around his neck and were thrown into the depths of the sea. On the other hand, a Muslim who begins raping his six-year-old "bride" when she's nine does imitate Mohammed's example.

Speaking of Christ, did He approve of or excuse the sin of His dinner companions? Did Christ tell them that they've just chosen alternative lifestyles and Moses was insensitive with all those Commandments? No, He told them to stop sinning.

Whom did Christ condemn? Whom did He call a "brood of vipers" and "white-washed tombs"? Liars. Christ was harsh with those who lied about their sin and used religion as a cover for evil.

Christ exposed evil. He condemned lies.

One last item. Jesus says that He is the only way to heaven. Does He have "tunnel-vision"?

Your comments to [. . . ] were not only undeserved and uncharitable, but foolish and faithless. She is honest and considerate to a fault, and she's willing to endure your pettiness and insults because she loves you.

You should be ashamed of yourself.

Will you have the decency and integrity to apologize? Will you salvage your credibility, or will you persist in unfounded and scurrilous ad hominem attacks against those who love you and want the best for you and yours?

The days have gone down in the West

While some Muslims "striving in the cause of Allah" have discovered that warfare against the U.S. just gets them new and better infrastructure, billions of American tax dollars, Sharia enshrined in their new nations' constitutions, and a lot of dead mujahideen, others have found subverting American institutions from within to be more effective, safer, and a whole lot of fun.

As our politicians, academics, and media ignore (or accelerate) the collapse of the West, we ordinary citizens are doing our part. Just today, I witnessed a sure sign that the end is near. An elementary school held a Talent Show with Michael Jackson's Thriller as its theme. One of the performances was a dance routine set to "Beat It."

A pedophile singing about gang warfare is now mainstream.

We are doomed.

The Verse of the Sword, straight from the pit of hell

It would be nice if the appeasers and useful idiot dhimmis who spend much of their time and energy trying to convince us that Islam is a "religion of peace" would actually do a little reading for themselves.

Below is an authoritative interpretation of the Verse of the Sword.

Ali Eteraz, are you listening? President Bush? Hugh Hewitt? Anyone? Is this thing on?

This is the Ayah of the Sword

Mujahid, `Amr bin Shu`ayb, Muhammad bin Ishaq, Qatadah, As-Suddi and `Abdur-Rahman bin Zayd bin Aslam said that the four months mentioned in this Ayah are the four-month grace period mentioned in the earlier Ayah,

[فَسِيحُواْ فِى الاٌّرْضِ أَرْبَعَةَ أَشْهُرٍ]

(So travel freely for four months throughout the land.) Allah said next,

[فَإِذَا انسَلَخَ الأَشْهُرُ الْحُرُمُ]

(So when the Sacred Months have passed...), meaning, `Upon the end of the four months during which We prohibited you from fighting the idolators, and which is the grace period We gave them, then fight and kill the idolators wherever you may find them.' Allah's statement next,

[فَاقْتُلُواْ الْمُشْرِكِينَ حَيْثُ وَجَدتُّمُوهُمْ]

(then fight the Mushrikin wherever you find them), means, on the earth in general, except for the Sacred Area, for Allah said,

[وَلاَ تُقَـتِلُوهُمْ عِندَ الْمَسْجِدِ الْحَرَامِ حَتَّى يُقَـتِلُوكُمْ فِيهِ فَإِن قَـتَلُوكُمْ فَاقْتُلُوهُمْ]

(And fight not with them at Al-Masjid Al-Haram, unless they fight you there. But if they attack you, then fight them. )[2:191] Allah said here,

[وَخُذُوهُمْ]

(and capture them), executing some and keeping some as prisoners,

[وَاحْصُرُوهُمْ وَاقْعُدُواْ لَهُمْ كُلَّ مَرْصَدٍ]

(and besiege them, and lie in wait for them in each and every ambush), do not wait until you find them. Rather, seek and besiege them in their areas and forts, gather intelligence about them in the various roads and fairways so that what is made wide looks ever smaller to them. This way, they will have no choice, but to die or embrace Islam,

[فَإِن تَابُواْ وَأَقَامُواْ الصَّلَوةَ وَءاتَوُاْ الزَّكَوةَ فَخَلُّواْ سَبِيلَهُمْ إِنَّ اللَّهَ غَفُورٌ رَّحِيمٌ]

(But if they repent and perform the Salah, and give the Zakah, then leave their way free. Verily, Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.) Abu Bakr As-Siddiq used this and other honorable Ayat as proof for fighting those who refrained from paying the Zakah. These Ayat allowed fighting people unless, and until, they embrace Islam and implement its rulings and obligations. Allah mentioned the most important aspects of Islam here, including what is less important. Surely, the highest elements of Islam after the Two Testimonials, are the prayer, which is the right of Allah, the Exalted and Ever High, then the Zakah, which benefits the poor and needy. These are the most honorable acts that creatures perform, and this is why Allah often mentions the prayer and Zakah together. In the Two Sahihs, it is recorded that Ibn `Umar said that the Messenger of Allah said,

«أُمِرْتُ أَنْ أُقَاتِلَ النَّاسَ حَتَّى يَشْهَدُوا أَنْ لَا إِلَهَ إِلَّا اللهُ وَأَنَّ مُحَمَّدًا رَسُولُ اللهِ وَيُقِيمُوا الصَّلَاةَ وَيُؤْتُوا الزَّكَاة»

(I have been commanded to fight the people until they testify that there is no deity worthy of worship except Allah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, establish the prayer and pay the Zakah.) This honorable Ayah (9:5) was called the Ayah of the Sword, about which Ad-Dahhak bin Muzahim said, "It abrogated every agreement of peace between the Prophet and any idolator, every treaty, and every term.'' Al-`Awfi said that Ibn `Abbas commented: "No idolator had any more treaty or promise of safety ever since Surah Bara'ah was revealed. The four months, in addition to, all peace treaties conducted before Bara'ah was revealed and announced had ended by the tenth of the month of Rabi` Al-Akhir.''

[وَإِنْ أَحَدٌ مِّنَ الْمُشْرِكِينَ اسْتَجَارَكَ فَأَجِرْهُ حَتَّى يَسْمَعَ كَلاَمَ اللَّهِ ثُمَّ أَبْلِغْهُ مَأْمَنَهُ ذَلِكَ بِأَنَّهُمْ قَوْمٌ لاَّ يَعْلَمُونَ ]

(6. And if anyone of the Mushrikin seeks your protection then grant him protection so that he may hear the Word of Allah (the Qur'an) and then escort him to where he can be secure, that is because they are men who know not.)

Nope, no compulsion in religion there.

Democrats clueless on, or in collusion with, jihad

So, let me get this straight:

Obama gives a speech that sounds pro-Israel; the next day his people "clarify," making his comments nothing more than political subterfuge;

He's discussed previously his belief that Hamas and Hezbollah have "legitimate" claims;

Yee, the Muslim ex-Army imam charged with espionage but released without trial for reasons of national security is one of Obama's superdelegates;

Barack Hussein Obama wants to talk with terrorists, rather than eliminate them; and,

Obama's got America-hating, racist friends and spiritual mentors who are friends of Jew-haters, not the least of which among these is Louis Farrakhan.

How can the Democrats be so wrong so often in the same direction?

Do Liberals hate America this much?

Patrick Henry on Slavery

Since Henry makes a clear distinction between "Christianity" and Christ, the Bible, and historical Christian practice, it is clear the term refers to the practice of the churches of his day, not to the religion of Christ.

From here:

"It is not a little surprising that Christianity, whose chief excellence consists in softening the human heart, in cherishing & improving its finer Feelings, should encourage a Practice so totally repugnant to the first Impression of right & wrong. What adds to the wonder is that this Abominable Practice has been introduced in the most enlightened Ages, Times that seem to have pretensions to boast of high Improvements in the Arts, Sciences, & refined Morality, have brought into general use, & guarded by many Laws, a Species of Violence & Tyranny, which our more rude & barbarous, but more honest Ancestors detested. Is it not amazing, that at a time, when the Rights of Humanity are defined & understood with precision, in a Country above all others fond of Liberty, that in such an Age, & such a Country we find Men, professing a Religion the most humane, mild, meek, gentle & generous, adopting a Principle as repugnant to humanity as it is inconsistent with the Bible and destructive to Liberty. . . .

I cannot but wish well to a people whose System imitates the Example of him whose Life was perfect. And believe me, I shall honour the Quakers for their noble Effort to abolish Slavery. It is equally calculated to promote moral & political Good.

Would any one believe that I am Master of Slaves of my own purchase! I am drawn along by the general inconvenience of living without them. . . .

I believe a time will come when the oppo. will be offered to abolish this lamentable Evil. Every thing we can do is to improve it, if it happens in our day, if not, let us transmit to our descendants together with our Slaves, a pity for their unhappy Lot, & an abhorrence for Slavery. If we cannot reduce this wished for Reformation to practice, let us treat the unhappy victims with lenity, & it is the furthest advance we can make toward Justice."