Sunday, February 21, 2010

Butchering the not-yet-born in ways that animals can't be is not "health care"

Whether or not the brief Tim Tebow Super Bowl spot for Focus on the Family was lighthearted is unimportant, for the topic it addresses is so grave (the ad directs viewers where to go to hear his family's story).  That subject? Whether or not to murder your baby before it's born.

How in the world can that cause controversy, except with bloodthirsty ghouls?  Abortion is the latest holocaust.

Offered in response to someone disgusted with preserving the lives of the innocent:
Disgusted's disgusting projection:
The fuss was about CBS Kowtowing to a group that promotes murder yet they won't air ads from any group sponsoring a public option and true health care reform. Maybe if Les Moonves lost a family member to a right wing murdering psychopath he might think twice next time. CBS has long since abrogated the right to use our airwaves.
You defend the slaughter of tens of millions of children as a "constitutional right," and you're calling others "murdering psychopaths"?

Butchering the not-yet-born in ways that animals can't be is not "health care."
Shame on you, murderous tyrant.

Friday, February 12, 2010

"Slaughter the Muslims!"*

Robert Spencer reports on a Muslim who, after disrupting an address by an Israeli minister at Oxford with shouts of "Slaughter the Jews!" claims that he was "misunderstood" and explains why that defense is more offensive and ominous than it might appear at first glance.  Note the vile filth Muhammad's depravity and barbarism, which included raping the wife of a man he had tortured and decapitated earlier that day:
another sleazy Islamic supremacist claims he was "misunderstood." You would think that after awhile they'd be too embarrassed to bring out this tired, lame excuse yet again, but they seem to be immune from embarrassment.

And compounding the problem here is that his explanation hardly makes matters better. He is counting on his audience not knowing anything about Khaybar. Among jihadis the slogan is familiar: "Khaybar, Khaybar, ya Yahoud, jaish Muhammad sa yaoud" -- that is, "Khaybar, Khaybar, O Jews, the army of Muhammad will return."

Khaybar. As I explain in my book The Truth About Muhammad, Muhammad led a Muslim force against the Khaybar oasis, which was inhabited by Jews -- many of whom he had previously exiled from Medina. When he did so, he was not responding to any provocation. One of the Muslims later remembered: "When the apostle raided a people he waited until the morning. If he heard a call to prayer he held back; if he did not hear it he attacked. We came to Khaybar by night, and the apostle passed the night there; and when morning came he did not hear the call to prayer, so he rode and we rode with him....We met the workers of Khaybar coming out in the morning with their spades and baskets. When they saw the apostle and the army they cried, 'Muhammad with his force,' and turned tail and fled. The apostle said, 'Allah Akbar! Khaybar is destroyed. When we arrive in a people's square it is a bad morning for those who have been warned.'"

The Muslim advance was inexorable. "The apostle," according to Muhammad's earliest biographer, Ibn Ishaq, "seized the property piece by piece and conquered the forts one by one as he came to them." Another biographer of Muhammad, Ibn Sa'd, reports that the battle was fierce: the "polytheists...killed a large number of [Muhammad's] Companions and he also put to death a very large number of them....He killed ninety-three men of the Jews..." Muhammad and his men offered the fajr prayer, the Islamic dawn prayer, before it was light, and then entered Khaybar itself. The Muslims immediately set out to locate the inhabitants' wealth. A Jewish leader of Khaybar, Kinana bin al-Rabi, was brought before Muhammad; Kinana was supposed to have been entrusted with the treasure of on of the Jewish tribes of Arabia, the Banu Nadir. Kinana denied knowing where this treasure was, but Muhammad pressed him: "Do you know that if we find you have it I shall kill you?" Kinana said yes, that he did know that.

Some of the treasure was found. To find the rest, Muhammad gave orders concerning Kinana: "Torture him until you extract what he has." One of the Muslims built a fire on Kinana's chest, but Kinana would not give up his secret. When he was at the point of death, one of the Muslims beheaded him. Kinana's wife was taken as a war prize; Muhammad claimed her for himself and hastily arranged a wedding ceremony that night. He halted the Muslims' caravan out of Khaybar later that night in order to consummate the marriage.

Muhammad agreed to let the people of Khaybar to go into exile, allowing them to keep as much of their property as they could carry. The Prophet of Islam, however, commanded them to leave behind all their gold and silver. He had intended to expel all of them, but some, who were farmers, begged him to allow them to let them stay if they gave him half their yield annually. Muhammad agreed: "I will allow you to continue here, so long as we would desire." He warned them: "If we wish to expel you we will expel you." They no longer had any rights that did not depend upon the good will and sufferance of Muhammad and the Muslims. And indeed, when the Muslims discovered some treasure that some of the Khaybar Jews had hidden, he ordered the women of the tribe enslaved and seized the perpetrators' land. A hadith notes that "the Prophet had their warriors killed, their offspring and woman taken as captives."

Thus when modern-day jihadists invoke Khaybar, as this hate mailer did indirectly by echoing the familiar chant about Muhammad's Army, they are doing much more than just recalling the glory days of Islam and its prophet. They are recalling an aggressive, surprise raid by Muhammad which resulted in the final eradication of the once considerable Jewish presence in Arabia. To the jihadists, Khaybar means the destruction of the Jews and the seizure of their property by the Muslims.

That's what Noor Rashid is now claiming that he did say. This is supposed to reassure us.
*If you think you read, "Slaughter the Muslims!" then clearly, you misunderstood.
It's okay to threaten and actually harm and kill Jews, but don't tell the truth about Muhammad!

Thursday, February 11, 2010

If you think that the second class status forced on the dhimmi peoples under Islamic tyranny was a "golden age," then you've got good times ahead

Since all people are born with a natural knowledge of God, why is it that only Muslims think it is a holy thing to enslave, rape, and slaughter for their deity?

In response to someone who needs to work on his social skills, here:
Being neither Greek, Turkish nor a believer in any of the 3 middle Eastern religions I would like to make the admittedly trite point that which if any of those faiths you happen to follow depends almost entirely upon where you happen to be born. (This observation is not an invitation for Amillennialist to give me a theological treatise on why the Creator chooses to separate the righteous from the infidels at birth.)

On a purely factual point, the Ottoman Empire did not require its citizens to convert to Islam. The Millet system gave a large degree of autonomy to other cultural and religious groups. That is why the Orthodox Church and the Greek culture survived intact during 500 years or so of Turkish domination and kept the dream of Byzantium alive.
That's an interesting rhetorical technique. Do you find that insult as a form of introduction is effective in making friends and influencing people?

If not an invitation to a dissertation, your uncharitable and arrogant nescience is certainly an invitation to correction.

First, the God of the Bible does not "separate the righteous from the infidels at birth." YHWH gives life to all, Christ died to pay completely for the sins of all, and the Holy Spirit brings the saving Gospel message to all. So, it is not God who separates and condemns, it is those who persist in evil who condemn themselves. Since all people are born with a conscience, an innate understanding of right and wrong (even though it is fallible in all of us, it's there), there's no way on Earth that a Muslim doesn't know that it's wrong to enslave, rape, and butcher others solely on the basis of religious belief.

Second, the whole "3 middle eastern religions" nonsense is a false construct set up by Muhammad and Muslims in order to confuse, propagandize, and deceive non-Muslims into either conversion or submission, for how can you criticize another religion just like yours, unless you're some kind of "Islamophobe," some kind of racist?

Finally, considering the history of jihad, its resurgence, and the fact that you reject the "3 middle eastern religions," you should know that when Islam comes to town in full force, you'll be one of the first under the sword. As a pagan/atheist/agnostic (?) you will not be afforded the "protections" (against Muslims) granted the "People of the Book," those mythological creatures you've been propagandized into thinking enjoyed such a golden age under Ottoman rule.

I suppose if you think that the second class status forced on the dhimmi peoples under Islamic tyranny -- which includes constant degradations, humiliations, oppressions, and violations of you and yours, including genocide and rape -- is acceptable, then you've got good times ahead.
He'll be enjoying them alone.

How can those who humiliate, enslave, rape, and butcher the Bride of Christ please her Groom?

A little more in reply to this:
I have serious problems with what Islam teaches, as you do. We must resist jihad and its attempts to attack, subvert and convert. That said we must resist the the human response of demonizing our adversaries or even more importantly, ALL Muslims.
Thank you for your courteous reply, Stavros.

I must ask, where did I "demonize ALL Muslims"? I referenced merely what Muhammad said and did and what his followers have done (and do) in obedience to him.  I even noted, "to the degree that his followers' knowledge, zeal, and resources allow."

If that's "demonizing ALL Muslims," then what does that say about their god? About those who knowingly follow such a demon?

You believe in Jesus. Then you have a responsibility to say what He says. Jesus did not preach that "living according to Christian principles" earns any favor with Him. Christ and His Apostles declared, "No one comes to the Father but by Me," and "all have sinned and . . . are justified freely by His grace . . . it is by grace you have been saved . . . not by works . . . ."

How can you think that anyone who calls Christ a "blasphemer" -- for Muhammad declared that anyone who claims that allah has a son is a blasphemer, and Christ called Himself the Son of God -- can please Him? How can anyone who extols as the "Ideal Man" (Muhammad) someone who committed genocide, pedophilia, rape, and slavery in his god's name please the Living God? How can those who humiliate, enslave, rape, and butcher the Bride of Christ please her Groom?

Muhammad lied. He was a liar and murderer from (almost) the beginning of his "prophetic" career. When he claimed to represent the God of the Bible, he did so in order to gain credibility among the Jews and Christians of Arabia. When they rightly rejected his blasphemy -- and after he had achieved sufficient military capacity -- he went to war against them.

When you equate Muhammad's allah with the Son of God, you blaspheme Him. To someone who knows Jesus' words and works that should be obvious, unless you're unfamiliar with what Muhammad actually said and did. If that's the case, then here's a bit on that (linked previously):
"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).

Wednesday, February 10, 2010

The history of Greeks and Turks has always been the history of Islamic supremacism and jihad

In reflecting on the conflict between Greeks and Turks, one author observes:
"I'm not sure why I am telling you this story except to point out that we share the same God and he listens to our prayers even when they are coming from those we consider our adversaries."
While searching for images of Black Tuesday, I discovered this site. I've had a chance to read only this post and all its comments, but I have to agree with a poster there, its author's content and style is top-notch.

A few thoughts in response to several of the points raised there:
The reason there will never be peace between Greeks and Turks is because one adheres to an ideology commanding the enslavement or slaughter of all who refuse the "invitation" to convert. The other is one of its many victims.

This goes a long way toward explaining not only the deep-seated animosity of Greeks toward Turks (how can you not feel some dissonance at 1400 years of Islamic rape, slavery, and slaughter?), but also the condescension, sense of entitlement, arrogance, and denial-of-wrongdoing by Muslims in general, and Turks in particular.

Of course, predators want to "forgive and forget" the past -- once their victims can defend themselves. That's why Muslim memories go back only a few decades and only to when they finally met "infidels" who were able to stand up for themselves. Muslims forget conveniently their nearly one and one-half millennia of genocide, slavery, rape, kidnap, and forcible conversion of non-Muslims -- including Greeks -- in obedience to Allah and in accord with Muhammad's example.

. . . With all due respect, we Christians and Muslims do not worship the same god. Jesus Christ committed no sin, healed the sick, raised the dead, spoke only the truth, died for the sins of the whole world, and resurrected. He commanded His people to love even their enemies, going so far as to pray (and die!) for those who were murdering Him.

On the other hand, Muhammad committed genocide, pedophilia, rape, torture, mutilation, slavery, theft, extortion, wife-abuse, polygamy, religious and gender apartheid, deceit, and blasphemy and taught others to do the same, claiming, "Allah made me do it." In other words, Muhammad violated all Ten Commandments and the Golden Rule and demanded under penalty of death that you should, too.

One should not be surprised when -- to the degree that his followers' knowledge, zeal, and resources allow -- Muslims wage war against their non-Muslim neighbors. Since conquering Rum (the Rome of the East, Byzantium) was one of Muhammad's personal goals -- and it was finally achieved on Black Tuesday, the Last Day of the World, May 29, 1453, it is clear that the history of Greeks and Turks has always been the history of Islamic supremacism and jihad.

Monday, February 08, 2010

Burying your head in the sand just presents to the enemy a larger and more attractive target

Denial and obfuscation worked for 1930's Europe, didn't it?

Notice the pastor's reaction to the truth about Islam: "It's people like you who are responsible for an escalation of the violence." Good thing he isn't jumping to any conclusions.

Let's be perfectly clear: Those who commend, command, and commit genocide, pedophilia, rape, mutilation, torture, slavery, theft, extortion, wife abuse, polygamy, religious and gender apartheid, deceit, and blasphemy in the name of Allah and in accord with Muhammad's example aren't the problem, it is those who point out those commands and that example who "escalate the violence."

In other words, non-Muslims' reading of Islamic texts causes jihad.

Apparently, this "pastor" believes that if we bury our heads in the sand, then the problem will just go away, when what we're really doing is just presenting a larger and more attractive target to Allah.

Educate yourselves in Islam's texts, tenets, and timelines. Educate others. We cannot defeat an enemy we do not know and our "leaders" refuse to name.

From here (emphasis added):
An expert on the advance of radical Islam in the United States says the Muslim Brotherhood is effectively employing a strategy of presenting 'Islam lite' to organizations, including Christian churches.

Dorothy Cutter, coordinator for the Hartford, Conn., chapter of Aglow Islamic Awareness, part of a national chain of Christian fellowships that study how Islamic law motivates Muslims to participate in jihad, said she heard of a United Church of Christ congregation where an Islamic speaker was a guest.

She contacted the church to see if she would be allowed to present some of the harsher truths about Islam.

'The pastor pushed the material back at me and said, 'It's people like you who are responsible for an escalation of the violence,'' Cutter said.

[. . .]

The Muslim disinformation methodology is illustrated by the 2006 controversy over a speech by Pope Benedict XVI in Regensberg, Germany.

The pope quoted from Manuel II Palaiologos, a Byzantine emperor who was one of the last Christian rulers before the fall of Constantinople to the Muslim Ottoman Empire.

"Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached," the pope said, citing the emperor.

Objecting vehemently to the pope's remarks, a group of 38 imams wrote an open letter to the pontiff.

"We would like to point out that 'holy war' is a term that does not exist in the Islamic languages," the imams said. "Jihad, it must be emphasized, means struggle, and specifically struggle in way of God. This struggle may take many forms, including the use of force."
That makes it all better, doesn't it?
One of the imams was the Islamic scholar Nuh Ha Mim Keller, who translated the classic book on Islamic Law, "Reliance of the Traveler." The book states in section 09.0, "Jihad means to war against non-Muslims, and it is etymologically derived from the word mujahada, signifying warfare to establish the religion."

Monday, February 01, 2010

Dismissing existential threats to Western Civilization: It's the only thing many of today's Europeans do better than Jew-hatred

Geert Wilders is today's Winston Churchill in a world full of Neville Chamberlains and Grima Wormtongues, clueless cowards and treasonous snakes typified by people like Rory Graycrow Underclass, who asks in response to the heroic Wilders' warnings to the West regarding its Islamic Enemy Within:
In 1400 years Islam has failed to take over Europe. Why is he so afraid it will happen now?
Such a question betrays a suicidal ignorance of nearly one and one-half millennia of jihad in Europe.

After Muhammad's death, his armies exploded out of Arabia and into the Holy Land, North Africa, Persia, Greater India, etc., nation after nation throughout Africa and Asia falling to Allah's butchers.  Formerly Christian, Jewish, Buddhist, Hindu, Zoroastrian, animist, and other non-Muslim societies were obliterated, consumed, mutilated, and subsumed by the Religion of Insatiable Bloodlust.

Neither was Europe spared.  The fact is, Islamic tyranny in Europe goes back to its beginnings.  In the west, Spain fought for eight hundred years to regain its freedom from its Islamic overlords, succeeding finally in 1492.  If not for Charles Martel ("The Hammer"), who stopped Islam's advance into France and the heart of Europe at the Battle of Tours/Poitiers in 732, western Europe would have fallen to Allah.  (And that would have meant no Michelangelo, no Beethoven, no Isaac Newton, no Albert Einstein, no Christopher Columbus, no George Washington, no Magna Carta, no Mayflower Compact, no Declaration of Independence, no Bill of Rights.)

The coastal areas of the British Isles and the Mediterranean also suffered jihad's depredations, both directly and by proxy.  Part of the Vikings' notorious malevolence was due to their contribution to the Islamic slave trade.  Italy, Sicily, Greece, and other coastal European regions suffered at the hands of Muslims themselves.

Eastern Europe fared no better than the rest.  Turkey is the epitome of why Geert Wilders is concerned about Islam.  Before it was forcibly secularized by Kemal Ataturk, Turkey was the Ottoman Empire; before that it was part of Byzantium, the great Christian empire.  After centuries of jihad, the Byzantine Empire was overthrown finally in 1453 when its great city Constantinople -- the "Rome of the East" -- and its magnificent church Hagia Sofia -- the jewel of Christendom -- fell to jihad.

And that doesn't include centuries of jihad in the Balkans.  Christian boys were kidnapped by Muhammad's monsters, forcibly converted, twisted into devils, and sent back to enslave and slaughter their own people.  Forget neither the Siege of Vienna in 1683, where Jan Sobieski repelled the last flagrant attempt by the ummah to conquer Europe.

What does any of that have to do with today?  Only this: Islam has not changed, its adherents are rediscovering what their god and prophet require of them, and rather than champions like Charles Martel and Jan Sobieski crushing jihad and halting the Islamization of their homelands, people like Rory Graycrow Underclass import the Religion of Pedophilia, Female Genital Mutilation, and Wife-beating.  They implement shari'a courts.  They obfuscate for, and punish criticism of, the barbaric ideology.

Why is Geert Wilders "so afraid it will happen now"?

Because it is happening now.