On the distance between Heaven and hell

It's the span between Christ and Allah.

If only we had leaders today with the clarity and courage of John Quincy Adams (link found here, emphases in the original).

Instead we have "great world religion of peace" and "Let's not jump to any conclusions."

"And he [Jesus] declared, that the enjoyment of felicity in the world hereafter, would be reward of the practice of benevolence here. His whole law was resolvable into the precept of love; peace on earth – good will toward man, was the early object of his mission; and the authoritative demonstration of the immortality of man, was that, which constituted the more than earthly tribute of glory to God in the highest . . . The first conquest of the religion of Jesus, was over the unsocial passions of his disciples. It elevated the standard of the human character in the scale of existence . . . On the Christian system of morals, man is an immortal spirit, confined for a short space of time, in an earthly tabernacle. Kindness to his fellow mortals embraces the whole compass of his duties upon earth, and the whole promise of happiness to his spirit hereafter. THE ESSENCE OF THIS DOCTRINE IS, TO EXALT THE SPIRITUAL OVER THE BRUTAL PART OF HIS NATURE.

[. . .]

“In the seventh century of the Christian era, a wandering Arab of the lineage of Hagar [i.e., Muhammad], the Egyptian, combining the powers of transcendent genius, with the preternatural energy of a fanatic, and the fraudulent spirit of an impostor, proclaimed himself as a messenger from Heaven, and spread desolation and delusion over an extensive portion of the earth. Adopting from the sublime conception of the Mosaic law, the doctrine of one omnipotent God; he connected indissolubly with it, the audacious falsehood, that he was himself his prophet and apostle. Adopting from the new Revelation of Jesus, the faith and hope of immortal life, and of future retribution, he humbled it to the dust by adapting all the rewards and sanctions of his religion to the gratification of the sexual passion. He poisoned the sources of human felicity at the fountain, by degrading the condition of the female sex, and the allowance of polygamy; and he declared undistinguishing and exterminating war, as a part of his religion, against all the rest of mankind. THE ESSENCE OF HIS DOCTRINE WAS VIOLENCE AND LUST: TO EXALT THE BRUTAL OVER THE SPIRITUAL PART OF HUMAN NATURE

[. . .]

"Between these two religions, thus contrasted in their characters, a war of twelve hundred years has already raged. The war is yet flagrant . . . While the merciless and dissolute dogmas of the false prophet shall furnish motives to human action, there can never be peace upon earth, and good will towards men” (Blunt, pp. 268-269).

And from page 300 (emphases added):

The fundamental doctrine of the Christian religion, is the extirpation of hatred from the human heart. It forbids the exercise of it, even towards enemies. There is no denomination of Christians, which denies or misunderstands this doctrine. All understand it alike—all acknowledge its obligations; and however imperfectly, in the purposes of Divine Providence, its efficacy has been shown in the practice of Christians, it has not been wholly inoperative upon them. Its effect has been upon the manners of nations. It has mitigated the horrors of war—it has softened the features of slavery—it has humanized the intercourse of social life. The unqualified acknowledgement of a duty does not, indeed, suffice to insure its performance. Hatred is yet a passion, but too powerful upon the hearts of Christians. Yet they cannot indulge it, except by the sacrifice of their principles, and the conscious violation of their duties. No state paper from a Christian hand, could, without trampling the precepts of its Lord and Master, have commenced by an open proclamation of hatred to any portion of the human race. The Ottoman lays it down as the foundation of his discourse.

Falsely equating Islam with Christianity? Now that's "egregious stupidity."

From here:

Great, more Jesusnazi horse[deleted]. Thankfully, Choadette McJesusstein won't get the cash and this [deleted] will be relegated to the trash can where it most rightfully belongs.

I can't wait until my grandchildren look back at history at religion and ask "People actually believed that egregious stupidity?"

Don't murder.

Don't commit adultery.

Don't steal.

Don't lie.

Don't want what belongs to another.

Love your neighbor as yourself.

Love your enemies.

The foundation of Western Civilization and its advances in the sciences, law, morality, music, art, and literature.

You call that "egregious stupidity," and you hope your children do too.

You've made any sardonic reply on my part superfluous.

Well-played.

And to those equating falsely "all religions" -- especially Islam and Christianity -- let's see if you're able to discern any contrast between Christ and Muhammad.

According to eyewitnesses of both men (as recorded in each religion's authoritative texts):

Christ spoke only the truth, committed no sin, healed the sick, raised the dead, died for the sins of the whole world, and resurrected. He commanded His people to love even their enemies, just as He prayed for those who murdered Him.

On the other hand, Muhammad committed genocide, pedophilia, rape, mutilation, slavery, theft, extortion, deception, and blasphemy and commanded his followers to do the same, claiming "allah made me do it."

In other words, Christ overcame sin, death, and the devil by His own precious blood, but the criminally-insane Muhammad "sacralized" the violation of all Ten Commandments and the Golden Rule.

Even suicidally-ignorant, anti-Christian bigots should be able to pick out a difference or two there.

Presidential treason, or The Emperor's New Niqab

A president's first job is to protect the American people, something President Bush -- despite his faults -- obviously took seriously.

Obama? Not so much.

Clare M. Lopez tells the truth about jihad at Ft. Hood and our national security leadership's inability -- or unwillingness, beginning with The Other Hussein -- to defend properly American life and limb.

It's because they refuse to tell the truth about the Emperor's New Niqab, Islam:

A week after a Muslim jihadi gunned down more than 40 fellow citizens at Ft. Hood, Texas, America’s national security leadership still won’t admit that the attack had anything to do with Islam. By failing to acknowledge that connection, those with a constitutional duty to defend this nation “against all enemies foreign and domestic” consistently substitute a policy of political correctness at the expense of military readiness. The fact is that the 5 November 2009 attack that took the lives of thirteen American patriots was not just an act of terrorism: it was an act of war. When a gunman from the ranks of Islamic Jihad mounts an armed assault against a military target in complete consistency with the enemy doctrine of war, it is time to recognize that the U.S. actually is at war -- not just in Afghanistan or Iraq, but with all those who follow the call of Jihad. These are the Jihad Wars and the stakes are clear: shall Americans live in security under the Constitution or shall the enemy within and without compel us to submit to Shari’a (Islamic law)?

The few courageous commentators, like Colonel Ralph Peters, Bill O’Reilly, and Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn.), who dare to notice that U.S. Army Major Nidal Malik Hasan was born and raised a Muslim, yelled “Allahu Akbar (“God is the greatest”) while shooting people in the back, and sought Islamic fatwas from American-born Yemeni al-Qa’eda cleric Anwar al-Awlaki (who’d been his imam at the Dar Al-Hijrah Islamic Center in Falls Church, Virginia), have been ignored. Hasan told colleagues, "I'm a Muslim first and an American second." He proselytized his psychiatric patients, many with PTSD, trying to convert them to Islam -- and they complained about it. He gave a Power Point presentation while at the military’s Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences entitled ‘Why the War on Terror is a War on Islam" in which a classmate says he “justified suicide bombing" and spewed "anti-American propaganda.”

The Army knew about all of this. Further, the 9/11 Commission, Congress, and the FBI had all focused on al-Awlaki’s links to al-Qa’eda eight year ago. DIA issued an internal report in 2003 warning that Muslim soldiers in the U.S. military pose a possible security threat after Sgt. Hasan Akbar, a Muslim convert, killed two and wounded 15 others at a military camp outside Baghdad.

But in the days since the Ft. Hood massacre, U.S. Army Chief of Staff General George Casey has appeared more worried about the possibility that diversity in the military could become “a casualty” than he has about his constitutional duty to ensure force protection within the ranks of this country’s military, unit cohesion, and readiness to defeat this nation’s enemies. The reality that Maj. Hasan and Sgt. Akbar should alert us to is that some of those enemies are already inside the gates. They do not wear an enemy uniform or fight within the bounds of the Geneva Convention code. They pose as loyal Americans but render their true allegiance to Islam and Shari’a.

Obama's grandmother a "Christian" . . .

. . . Just like Obama.

Which explains everything . . . The "prettiest sound on Earth" . . . twenty-years in his Jew-and-America-hating spiritual mentor's "church" . . . lying for Islam in Cairo . . . his trip to Pakistan . . . his bleed-'em-dry military "strategy" in Afghanistan . . . his strong-arming Israel . . . talking to Ahmadinejad while he plays with his nukes . . . his obviously ridiculous obfuscating for Nidal Hasan's terrorism . . . his bankrupting and disarming the Republic . . . his ties to Muslim and other terrorists . . . .

Why, Christians are often invited into Mecca by the Saudi tyrant, aren't they?

From here:

The grandmother of US president Barack Obama has arrived in Saudi Arabia for the 'Hajj' or Islamic pilgrimage to the holy cities of Mecca and Medina, a Saudi daily said on Wednesday. Sarah Obama, 87, is being accompanied by a nephew and Obama's cousin, Omran.

On Wednesday Sarah Obama was in the valley of Mina with an African delegation, according to the Saudi daily Okaz.

Obama, the mother of the American president's father, lives in a village in Kenya and is one of the many guests of Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah bin Abdul Aziz al-Saud . . . .

America's suicidal self-loathing and the malice of the enemy within

Mark Steyn puts America's suicidal self-loathing and the malice of the enemy within into perspective here:

For the purposes of argument, let's accept the media's insistence that Major Hasan is a lone crazy.

So who's nuttier?

The guy who gives a lecture to other military doctors in which he says non-Muslims should be beheaded and have boiling oil poured down their throats?

Or the guys who say "Hey, let's have this fellow counsel our traumatized veterans and then promote him to major and put him on a Homeland Security panel?

Or the Army Chief of Staff who thinks the priority should be to celebrate diversity, even unto death?

Or the Secretary of Homeland Security who warns that the principal threat we face now is an outbreak of Islamophobia?

Or the president who says we cannot "fully know" why Major Hasan did what he did, so why trouble ourselves any further?

Or the columnist who, when a man hands out copies of the Koran before gunning down his victims while yelling "Allahu akbar," says you're racist if you bring up his religion?

Or his media colleagues who put Americans in the same position as East Germans twenty years ago of having to get hold of a foreign newspaper to find out what's going on?

General Casey has a point: An army that lets you check either the "home team" or "enemy" box according to taste is certainly diverse. But the logic in the remarks of Secretary Napolitano and others is that the real problem is that most Americans are knuckledragging bigots just waiting to go bananas. As Melanie Phillips wrote in her book Londonistan:

Minority-rights doctrine has produced a moral inversion, in which those doing wrong are excused if they belong to a 'victim' group, while those at the receiving end of their behaviour are blamed simply because they belong to the 'oppressive' majority.

To the injury of November 5, we add the insults of American officialdom and their poodle media. In a nutshell:

The real enemy — in the sense of the most important enemy — isn’t a bunch of flea-bitten jihadis sitting in a cave somewhere. It’s Western civilization’s craziness. We are setting our hair on fire and putting it out with a hammer.

New site, same tired logical fallacies, historical revisions, and outright falsehoods in defense of jihad

Offered in response to a "rebuttal," from here.* I hope Ms. Siddiqi is sincere but misinformed.

Hello, Maheen,

“freedom does not protect you from looking ignorant when you quote sacred text out of context.”

Please, show me where I’ve misrepresented the Islamic texts I posted. It should be easy to do, since I am so “ignorant.” (Didn’t Mr. Appel say we were supposed to be nice?)

“I encourage you to educate yourself on the sacred tradition of hijab and follow it through its heritage in all of the Abrahamic faiths, including Christianity.”

What “sacred tradtion” has hijab outside of Islam?

It is true that propriety in worship in the ancient church included clear gender
distinctions, but that was completely devoid of the tyranny in Muhammad’s
“revelation” and practice.

“Christianity too has quite a violent past but one should not blame the religion for the work of the ignorant. I do not attribute the savage crusades to the peaceful Christian friends that I have, and likewise, you should not attribute the evil works of some Muslims to the beautiful faith of Islam and other Muslims.”

[At least she admits Islam's "violent past." Now, to address the Source and Sustenance of that bloodshed!]

That’s a false moral equivalence and a false tu quoque, two “arguments” offered often by jihad’s apologists in response to the genocidal content of their own authoritative texts.

Where have I blamed “other Muslims”? Where did I “attribute the evil works of some Muslims to . . . Islam”?

I quoted Allah and his apostle.

Ironically (and tragically, for non-Muslims) enough, so do those Muslims practicing the “evil works.”

How are you going to convince them that they too are “ignorant” and taking passages “out-of-context”?

How will you persuade ["]all four Sunni schools of jurisprudence, Sahih Muslim, Sahih Bukhari, Sunan Abu Dawud, Ibn Kathir, Ibn Juzayy, Tafsir al-Jalalayn, Ibn Taymiyya, Ibn Khaldun, Muhammad Muhsin Khan, S. K. Malik [. . .] Averroes, al-Ghazzali, numerous Shi’ites,[" (credit Robert Spencer)] etc. of their grievous error?

Are you honestly unaware of Islam’s traditional understanding and practice of offensive jihad against non-Muslims? If not, will you engage in honest discourse? If you are unaware, how can you engage in intelligent discourse?

Christians did commit great sins during the Crusades. (Do you know why the first was called by Pope Urban II? It was for the defense of Christians under siege by . . . Islam.)

When Christians murder, do they do so in fulfillment of Christ’s commands and in accord with His example or not? Since you are expert enough in Christian theology to claim that the hijab is a sacred tradition in Christianity, you must know the answer.

Produce one verse that has Christ commanding believers to enslave or slaughter non-Christians.

Since you are so well-versed in Islamic theology that you can say that I am “ignorant” and taking passages “out-of-context,” when Muslims slaughter innocent non-Muslims in Allah’s name, is that in fulfillment of his commands and Muhammad’s example, or not?

When, “Allah’s Apostle said, ‘I have been made victorious with terror . . . ’” (Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 220), did he really mean, “I’ve succeeded by love and good deeds”?

“If you go so far as to denigrate the Prophet Muhammad”

“denigrate”?

Muhammad married little Aisha when she was six and began raping her when she was nine. What “context” makes that okay? Does that not deserve “denigration”? Are you aware that one of Khomeini’s first acts when he came to power was to lower the marriageable age of girls in Iran to nine? Why is that?

What about Muhammad’s assassinations of those who mocked him — Asma bint Marwan, Abu Akaf? The beheading of the 600-900 bound prisoners of the Banu Qurayza? Muhammad and his followers raping women whose brothers, fathers, and husbands they had just slaughtered? The attack on the innocent Jewish farmers, tilling their fields in the Khaybar Oasis [(credit Hugh Fitzgerald)]? What decent person should not feel rage at such evil?

That is the “Perfect Man,” “uswa hasana[,]” you defend.

If someone who commits theft, slavery, rape, pedophilia, genocide, and blasphemy — and commands others to do the same, calling it “divine” — does not deserve to be denigrated, who does?

More importantly, how can any decent person aware of what Muhammad said and did not condemn his words and deeds?

You claim respect for the Prophets of YHWH and His Christ — how then can you defend Muhammad? For he stated that whoever claims Allah has a son is a blasphemer. If Allah is YHWH (He is not), then Muhammad is calling Jesus a “blasphemer,” since Christ called Himself the Son of God.

“Just look at Spain. Muslims, Christians, Jews, and agnostics/atheists all lived peacefully under the Muslim rule of Spain for hundreds upon hundreds of years; however, the moment Christians overthrew the Muslims, they slaughtered every Muslim man, woman, elderly and child.”

If things were so peaceful, why did the Spaniards slaughter “every Muslim” as soon as they regained their freedom? Why did they overthrow them in the first place?

So, is that what you’ve been taught, or is that what you’ve been taught to offer as a rebuttal to non-Muslims who discover Islam’s texts and history?

“Do a little more reading with the aid of understanding of what you read in a historical context, and you will find a lot of your false notions answered.”

You’re going to have to show from Qur’an, ahadith, and sira that:

-When Muhammad commanded, “Invite . . . demand the jizya . . . then fight,” he really meant, “Invite . . . make small talk . . . befriend.”

-When Muhammad told some Jews, “accept Islam and you’ll be safe,” he really meant, “Let’s have a potluck! How ’bout those Greeks?”

-When Muhammad began raping little nine-year-old Aisha, he was really only giving the local kids a puppet show.

-When Muhammad commanded that whomever leaves Islam should be murdered, he really only meant to exclude him from Bingo.

Here’s a final quotation for you; perhaps [Moses ben Maimon] didn’t really mean what he said, just like Muhammad:

Remember, my coreligionists, that on account of the vast number of our sins, God has hurled us in the midst of this people, the Arabs [Muslims], who have persecuted us severely, and passed baneful and discriminatory legislation against us … Never did a nation molest, degrade, debase, and hate us as much as they . . .

[Although we were dishonored by them beyond human endurance, and had to put up with their fabrications, yet we behave like him who is depicted by the inspired writer: “But I am as a deaf man, I hear not, and I am as a dumb man that openeth not his mouth (Psalm 38: 14).

Similarly our sages instructed us to bear the prevarications and preposterousness of Ishmael in silence . . .

We have acquiesced, both old and young, to inure ourselves to humiliation . . .

All this notwithstanding, we do not escape this continual maltreatment which well nigh crushes us.

No matter how we suffer and elect to remain at peace with them [Muslims] they stir up strife and sedition . . .]

-Maimonides, victim of Islam in conquered Spain[, Iggeret Taiman (Epistle to Yemen), edited by A S Halkin; translated by B. Cohen, New York, 1952]

Al-Andalus [or any other Muslim-dominated land] was no paradise for non-Muslims. It was — to varying degrees — just what Allah requires (Qur’an 9:29). Pact of Umar, anyone? You know what that requires, right?

Again, please show from the Islamic texts where I’ve erred. Show me where I’ve been false or unfair.

I encourage you to put your faith in Christ, the Son of God, Who reconciled you to His Father in His body on the cross. True religion is in Him alone.

And here is how Maimonides ended up in Cairo:

Moses was only thirteen years old when Cordova fell into the hands of the fanatical Almohades, and Maimon and all his coreligionists there were compelled to choose between Islam and exile. Maimon and his family chose the latter course, and for twelve years led a nomadic life, wandering hither and thither in Spain.

In 1160 they settled at Fez, where, unknown to the authorities, they hoped to pass as Moslems. This dual life, however, became increasingly dangerous. Maimonides' reputation was steadily growing, and the authorities began to inquire into the religious disposition of this highly-gifted young man.

He was even charged by an informer with the crime of having relapsed from Islam, and, but for the intercession of a Moslem friend, the poet and theologian Abu al-'Arab al-Mu'ishah, he would have shared the fate of his friend Judah ibn Shoshan, who had shortly before been executed on a similar charge. These circumstances caused the members of Maimonides' family to leave Fez. In 1165 they embarked, went to Acre, to Jerusalem, and then to Fostat (Cairo), where they settled.

Death or Islam?  Wandering for twelve years?  Trying to pass as Muslims?  Shared the fate of his friend, executed for "relapsing from Islam"?

So much for that "Golden Age of Islam in Al-Andalus."

*Updated November 16, 2009 a.D.  Originally posted 05/11/09 at 12:28 AM

A visit to Ms. Siddiqi's  site shows that she never had the decency to post my incisive and irrefutable rebuttal.

Link between Ft. Hood terrorist Hasan and other Muslim killers discovered

Islam.

"We can never know why"? Everyone knows why . . .

Only the ignorant, treacherous, and perverse argue otherwise.

Hugh Hewitt rejects the monitoring of American mosques, even though at least three-fourths teach Islamic supremacism in accord with Qur'an and sunnah.

John and Ken finally find the voice to denounce Islam, though they still moderate the truth with "-isms" and "-ists."

Both are more truthful than the allegedly former-Muslim Obama.

And after so many lives taken, broken, and destroyed in the name of Allah, some referred (sarcastically, in the beginning) to the cause of Hasan's slaughtering as "Pre-Traumatic Stress Disorder."

How stupid. How treacherous.

Muslims like Muslims Against Shari'a and M. Zuhdi Jasser excepted -- I commend their honesty and decency -- every Muslim who knows what their god and prophet require regarding offensive and retaliatory jihad against non-Muslims but does not denounce those teachings publicly and permanently is a terrorist or terrorist-supporter.

For every one who actually carries out violence against "unbelievers," how many more support, approve of, or appreciate jihad attacks like Hasan's?

If you want to claim that most Muslims are peace-loving, law-abiding, faithfully-serving-in-the-Armed-Forces kinds of Muslims, then I have a question for you: How do you distinguish between those who actually reject permanently offensive warfare against "unbelievers," the rape and degradation of women and little girls, and death for apostates and those who instead obey Allah?

Would you have us wait until blood is spilled again?  That may soothe your false sense of self-righteousness, your rotting facade of "tolerance," but what about the dead and wounded?  What about lives which in this world cannot be mended?

And when your sons and daughters are the ones raped, beheaded, or vaporized in Allah's name, what will you say?  "How could I have known?"

The truth is, as long as you persist in the pernicious lie that Islam is a "great world religion of peace," you can have no sure way of determining who is sympathetic (or worse) to jihad.

But I have a way: Point out to your decent, he's-a-swell-fellow, wouldn't-hurt-a-fly, he's-just-like-us Muslim what Allah commands and what Muhammad said and did.

Do they admit, condemn, and denounce those teachings, or do they explode?

If someone believes that their god commands, "kill the pagans wherever you find them . . . Fight against . . . the People of the Book until they feel themselves subdued and pay the jizya . . . Paradise [belongs to those who] kill and are killed [fighting in Allah's cause]" (Qur'an 9), then that person is an agent of jihad, whether they contribute to it with their actions, "charitable contributions," litigation, materiel, logistics, votes, letters to the editor, prayers, or reproductive organs.

Since Allah commands and Muhammad practiced offensive warfare against non-Muslims in order to make the world Islam, what EXACTLY is the difference between an "Islamo-fascist, fundamentalist, extremist, fanatical, radical, jihadist, Islamicisi-cisi-cisi-cist" and a "moderate" Muslim?

And B. Hussein Obama aids jihad by outright lying about Islam in general (the Cairo Address) and Hasan's motivations in particular ("We can never know why.").

America, you've surrendered the keys to the kingdom -- you've given defense of the kingdom -- to the Muslim barbarian hordes.

Devout Muslim slaughters and wounds dozens of Americans, and what is our government's response?

Protect Muslims.

That would be like protecting Imperial Japanese pilots in America the week after Pearl Harbor.

It is not enough that our politicians are bankrupting and disarming the nation.

They work now with the Organization of the Islamic Conference, the United Nations, and the Department of Homeland Security to criminalize telling the truth about Islam.

Just so we're clear about this: Muslims butcher innocent people in obedience to Allah and in accord with Muhammad's example, but when free men state that simple fact, we're the criminals.

From here:

The U.S. Homeland Security secretary says she is working to prevent a possible wave of anti-Muslim sentiment after the shootings at Fort Hood in Texas.

Janet Napolitano says her agency is working with groups across the United States to try to deflect any backlash against American Muslims following Thursday's rampage by Army Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, a Musim who reportedly expressed growing dismay over the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Would those "groups" include CAIR?  MPAC?  ISNA?  Hizb'allah?  Al Qaeda?  The Taliban?

You wouldn't want Americans thinking.  They might start getting ideas, putting two and two together, start defending themselves . . . .

Socialism or shari'a?

First one:

 Then the other:

These are the faces of the enemy.

This is the decline and fall of the American republic.

Considering Muhammad's rabid feminism, why would a woman -- or little girl -- ever want to leave?

In response to more Muslim misrepresentation of Muhammad's malignant malice and misogyny here:

Hey, Bob, Leigh14 is practicing taqiyya. You've just been had.

If you define Islam as a religion based on the Qur'an, these men are not Muslims, either. The Qur'an is the most liberal and supportive toward women of the three Abrahamic religious books.

This is true only if the definition of "liberal and supportive" includes rape, child-rape, wife-beating, considering a woman's testimony worth only half of a man's, valuing a daughter so little that she receives half the inheritance of a son, and requiring a rape victim to have four witnesses -- which, of course, she will not, and so will she be executed for [admitting to] sexual intercourse outside of marriage.

[On the other hand, Christ commands His people to "Love your neighbor as yourself," and, "Treat others the way you want to be treated." He declares through His apostle: "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus" (Galatians 3:28).]

Here is what Sunni Islam has to say about "honor killings":

"A manual of Islamic law certified by Al-Azhar as a reliable guide to Sunni orthodoxy says that 'retaliation is obligatory against anyone who kills a human being purely intentionally and without right.' However, 'not subject to retaliation' is 'a father or mother (or their fathers or mothers) for killing their offspring, or offspring's offspring.' ('Umdat al-Salik o1.1-2)."

Speaking of 'Umdat al-Salik:

"There is no doubt that this translation is a valuable and important work, whether as a textbook for teaching Islamic jurisprudence to English speakers, or as a legal reference for use by scholars, educated laymen, and students in this language." Dr. Taha Jabir al-'Alwani, International Institute of Islamic Thought (Herndon, VA; December 1990).

"...We certify that this translation corresponds to the Arabic original and conforms to the practice and faith of the orthodox Sunni community (Ahl al-Sunnah wa al-Jama'a)." al-Azhar, the Muslim world's most prestigious institution of higher Islamic learning (Cairo; February, 1991).

Leigh14 is correct about the "Christians" noted above; no one can murder, rape, or torture in obedience to Christ's commands.

On the other hand, not only the command of Allah -- Qur'an -- but the life of Muhammad -- recorded in [a]hadith and sira -- [is] considered authoritative by Islam.

Following is some of what Qur'an says regarding the treatment of females [. . .]

"Paradise" is a cosmic brothel:

"As to the Righteous (they will be) in a position of Security, Among Gardens and Springs; Dressed in fine silk and in rich brocade, they will face each other; So; and We shall join them to fair women with beautiful, big, and lustrous eyes" (Qur'an 44:51-54).

Allah-ordained child-rape:

"And for such of your women as despair of menstruation, if ye doubt, their period (of waiting) shall be three months along with those who have it not. And for those with child, their period shall be till they bring forth their burden. And whosoever keepeth his duty to Allah, He maketh his course easy for him" (Qur'an 65:4).

Beat your wives if "you fear desertion." Considering Muhammad's vile sadism, why would a woman -- or little girl -- ever want to run?

". . . good women are therefore obedient, guarding the unseen as Allah has guarded; and (as to) those on whose part you fear desertion, admonish them, and leave them alone in the sleeping-places and beat them . . . " (Qur'an 4:34).

Rape your wife at will:

"Your women are a tilth for you (to cultivate) so go to your tilth as ye will" (Qur'an 2:223).

A woman's testimony is worth only half of a man's:

"Get two witnesses, out of your own men, and if there are not two men, then a man and two women, such as ye choose, for witnesses, so that if one of them errs, the other can remind her" (Qur'an 2:282).

Polygamy, and raping your female slaves:

"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).

Murdering women accused of "lewdness":

"If any of your women are guilty of lewdness, take the evidence of four (Reliable) witnesses from amongst you against them; and if they testify, confine them to houses until death do claim them, or Allah ordain for them some (other) way . . ." (Qur'an 4:15).

A daughter receives only half of what a son does:

"Allah (thus) directs you as regards your children's (inheritance): to the male, a portion equal to that of two females" (Qur'an 4:11).

Why women must be hidden like someone's property:

"And say to the believing women that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty; that they should not display their beauty and ornaments except what (must ordinarily) appear thereof; that they should draw their veils over their bosoms and not display their beauty except to their husbands, their fathers, their husband's fathers, their sons, their husbands' sons, their brothers or their brothers' sons, or their sisters' sons, or their women, or the slaves whom their right hands possess, or male servants free of physical needs, or small children who have no sense of the shame of sex . . ." (Qur'an 24:31).

Raping married slaves:

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

Here are a couple of ahadith regarding Muhammad's favorite wife Aisha. He was in his fifties when he "married" her.

She was six.

And Aisha was a little, prepubescent nine-year-old when he began raping her:

"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).

"Narrated 'Aisha [Mohammed's six-year-old "bride" and nine-year-old sexual "partner"]: 'Allah's Apostle said (to me), "You were shown to me twice in (my) dream [before I married you]. Behold, a man was carrying you in a silken piece of cloth and said to me, 'She is your wife, 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 and 140).

But Christ warned:

"whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened around his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea" (Matthew 18:6).

Muhammad must be in a special part of hell.

Muslim butchers Americans at Ft. Hood; U.S. president and media obfuscate regarding motive

Here's a hint, feckless cowards, perfidious liars: Islam.

And why is an unindicted coconspirator in a federal terrorism funding trial with umbilical cords still attached to the Muslim Brotherhood -- whose stated purpose is to accomplish what the Muslim devil executed today -- being treated as anything other than enemies of humanity?

As long as America's "leaders" continue to obfuscate and outright lie for Islam, the bloodletting is only going to get worse.

A U.S. soldier opened fire Thursday at Fort Hood, Texas, killing at least 11 people and wounding 31 others, military officials said. The gunman was shot to death, and two other soldiers were in custody.

Lt. Gen. Robert W. Cone, commanding general of the Army’s III Corps, who briefed President Barack Obama on the shootings, said the gunman used two handguns.

NBC News’ Pete Williams reported that a U.S. official identified the gunman as Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, who was 39 or 40. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchinson, R-Texas, said military officials told her that the gunman was about to be deployed to Iraq and was “upset about it.” The Associated Press reported that Hasan was a mental health professional.

A senior administration official told NBC News that the shootings could have been a criminal matter rather than a terrorism-related attack and that there was no intelligence to suggest a plot against Fort Hood.

Yes, there is "no intelligence," since the only "plot" a Muslim needs to slaughter "the worst of creatures" is the command of Allah and the example of Muhammad.

Military and local hospital official said the victims were a mixture of men and women, military and civilian. At least one of those killed was a civilian police officer, Cone said. At least four local SWAT officers were among those wounded, NBC affiliate KCEN-TV of Waco reported.

Fort Hood, one of the largest military complexes in the world, was on lockdown, as were schools in the area. Dozens of agents of the FBI and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives responded to the post, federal officials said.

Muslim group condemns shootings
Speaking in Washington, Obama called the shootings a “horrific incident.”

Obama's part of a "Muslim group"?  Isn't that racist?

And it wasn't a "horrific incident," it was jihad.

If The Other Hussein is such a smart guy -- the smartest president we've ever had, according to Michael Beschloss -- and since he was educated in Islam as a devout Muslim, he ought to know jihad when he sees it.

That he won't admit that fact -- and thereby warn the American people and enable an effective and vigorous self-defense -- tells us all we need to know about where his allegiances lie.

“It’s difficult enough when we lose these great Americans in battles overseas,” Obama said at the Interior Department. “It’s horrifying that they should come under fire at an Army base on American soil.”

Noting the Arabic nature of the gunman’s name, the Council on American-Islamic Relations, a Washington interest group, condemned “this cowardly attack in the strongest terms possible and ask that the perpetrators be punished to the full extent of the law.”

Just like Hasan's fellow soldiers, who took his comment about wishing that "Muslims would rise up against the aggressors" to mean that he wanted Muslims to aid America against the terrorists, you probably think that CAIR is referring to Hasan and anyone who helped him as "the perpetrators."

They're actually referring to those who stopped Hasan.

”No political or religious ideology could ever justify or excuse such wanton and indiscriminate violence,” the council said in a statement. “The attack was particularly heinous in that it targeted the all-volunteer army that protects our nation. American Muslims stand with our fellow citizens in offering both prayers for the victims and sincere condolences to the families of those killed or injured.”

No ideology except their own, they mean.