Tuesday, March 30, 2010

Common Sense, Addressed to the non-Muslim Inhabitants of America

In an article that should be titled "Muslim Students want "Our Lord" phrase off diplomas," the efforts by several students -- including two Muslims named in the piece -- are noted. Several comments from readers (cbc13 in particular) regurgitate the same politically-correct poison: If you criticize Islam or resist its advance, you're a hateful, bigoted, racist xenophobe. Such "critiques" are obliterated easily with basic facts and a little . . .

Addressed to the non-Muslim




on the following interesting

To oppose Hate is not "hate." Instead of insulting those resisting genocide, pedophilia, rape, mutilation, torture, slavery, theft, extortion, wife-beating, polygamy, religious and gender apartheid, deceit, and blasphemy in Allah's name (all of which are commanded or endorsed by Muhammad and his allah), you ought to be joining them.

Islam sends Muslim souls to hell and creates for non-Muslims (and Muslim apostates, women, and little girls) hell-on-Earth. Why do you tolerate, obfuscate, and apologize for such barbarity?

If you are a Christian, how can you defend blaspheming the Son of God?  (If you're not, do you think your god gets treated any better?)
"In blasphemy indeed are those that say that Allah is Christ the son of Mary. Say: "Who then hath the least power against Allah, if His will were to destroy Christ the son of Mary, his mother, and all every - one that is on the earth? For to Allah belongeth the dominion of the heavens and the earth, and all that is between. He createth what He pleaseth. For Allah hath power over all things" (Qur'an 5:17).
"They do blaspheme who say: Allah is one of three in a Trinity: for there is no god except One Allah. If they desist not from their word (of blasphemy), verily a grievous penalty will befall the blasphemers among them" (Qur'an 5:73). "The Jews call 'Uzair a son of Allah, and the Christians call Christ the son of Allah. That is a saying from their mouth; (in this) they but imitate what the unbelievers of old used to say. Allah's curse be on them: how they are deluded away from the Truth" (Qur'an 9:30)!
Why do you support murderous anti-Semitism?
"Allah's Apostle said, 'The Hour will not be established until you fight with the Jews, and the stone behind which a Jew will be hiding will say, "O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, so kill him"'" (Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 177).
". . . We were (sitting) in the mosque when the Messenger of Allah . . . came to us and said: (Let us) go to the Jews. We went out with him until we came to them. The Messenger of Allah . . . stood up and called out to them (saying): O ye assembly of Jews, accept Islam (and) you will be safe [. . .] "he killed their men, and distributed their women, children and properties among the Muslims, except that some of them had joined the Messenger of Allah . . . who granted them security. They embraced Islam. The Messenger of Allah . . . turned out all the Jews of Medlina. Banu Qainuqa' (the tribe of 'Abdullah b. Salim) and the Jews of Banu Haritha and every other Jew who was in Medina [. . .] "It has been narrated by 'Umar b. al-Khattib that he heard the Messenger of Allah . . . say: I will expel the Jews and Christians from the Arabian Peninsula and will not leave any but Muslim" (Muslim Book 19, Number 4363-4366)."
Why do you advocate dismembering non-Muslims?  Ibn Kathir says of the following verse: "'Wage war' mentioned here means, oppose and contradict, and it includes disbelief, blocking roads and spreading fear in the fairways. Mischief in the land refers to various types of evil." So, Muhammad requires execution, crucifixion, or cutting off hands and feet from opposite sides for "disbelief":
"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)?
Why do you defend murdering those who would leave Islam?
"Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him" (Bukhari Volume 9, Book 84, Number 57)?
Why do you support raping the wives of non-Muslims who've been made into sex slaves?
"Also (prohibited are) women already married, except those whom your right hands possess . . . " (Qur'an 4:24)?
Why do you tolerate Allah-ordained pedophilia?
"Narrated 'Aisha: that the Prophet married her when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old, and then she remained with him for nine years (i.e., till his death)" (Bukhari Volume 7, Book 62, Number 64 and 65)?
Why do you defend genocide on religious grounds?
"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)?
Why do you obfuscate for those advancing an ideology that would take your heads and rape and enslave your wives and daughters?  Instead, defend our unalienable, God-given rights to Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.
Where's your Common Sense, America?

Monday, March 29, 2010

The Minnesota Daily denying access to the truth, or Refuting common Islamic deceptions

All accounts "moderated" now (saw an "Access Denied" message once), indicating either that all posts are now being censored or the site is filtering my IP address (there are ways around that!)

Update 3/30: Moderation was disabled, so the post below is up on the site.  The truth will out, anyway.  In response to the inaptly named justice786:
In your zeal to serve Allah, you do a disservice to God and Man. Below are (again) refutations of your many half-truths, logical fallacies, and outright lies.
"It is interesting that you quote the verse that you did because it shows again that you only use English translations."
Arabic is a human language. "kill the pagans wherever you find them" (Qur'an 9:5) is not a mistranslation.
"In the Quran (chapter 3, verse 28) . . . The term God is using in this verse . . . is "aulia" which actually means "supporter" . . . ."
"helper" is synonymous with "supporter," none of which negates verse after verse of brutality toward non-Muslims, including Jews and Christians. Besides that: "O ye who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends and protectors: They are but friends and protectors to each other. And he amongst you that turns to them (for friendship) is of them. Verily Allah guideth not a people unjust" (Qur'an 5:51), and, "Those who reject (Truth), among the People of the Book and among the Polytheists, will be in Hell-Fire, to dwell therein (for aye). They are the worst of creatures" (Qur'an 98:6).
"So you see my dear friend Muhammad, if you understood the original arabic of the Qur'an, you would know that you can still be my friend, though not my ally."
I pointed out that you are not my “friend,” because however one might define the term, butchery and slavery are not elements of its definition.
"I have many friends from the Christian and Jewish religions as well as other faith-based communities, and we have a great relationship."
The master-dhimmi relationship is great . . . for the master. If Islam ever gains the ascendancy here, I doubt they’ll share your opinion.
"Yes, several posts ago, Muslims were told to go home."
Not by me, which is what you said. Changing your language to “were told” from “you told” is a tacit admission that you were wrong, but you don’t have the decency to admit that.
"My wife is a former born again Christian"
Whatever the deficiencies of American Evangelicalism, that’s still a fall from heaven to hell.
"and native American . . . my Navy son . . . ."
And if we were in Australia, they'd be aborigines. You must be quite a fisherman, since that’s another a red herring: The issue is not national origin or ancestry, but your genocidal pedophile's commands to enslave or slaughter all who refuse the "invitation" to Islam and your eagerness to advance that by deceiving others.
"Actually, you have changed the topic everytime I clarified a point"
I was responding to comments made here, including yours. Don't be silly.
"Your comments on the above article had nothing to do with Muslims in business in Minnesota."
Your comments here are obfuscations for jihad. Jihad and shari'a are "Muslim business," in Minnesota and everywhere. That's the problem.
"You love quoting from the Qur'an or from Hadiths without any understanding of the original arabic, or the context of the hadith, or actually of the Seerah (life and example of the Prophet (s)."
It should be clear that I understand your religion very well. Using Islamic translations of Islamic texts written in a human language is legitimate. And you've yet to demonstrate where I've taken anything "out-of-context."

What context makes "kill the pagans wherever you find them" (Qur'an 9:5) not murderous refuse, again?
"You do not unfortunately have any understanding of fiqh or of the Shari'ah. It is easy when one uses a cut and paste approach to anything to show what you perceive to be total contradictions when in fact there are not."
A false ad hominem and an outright lie. Apparently, you confuse “basic human decency” with “understanding.” Just because I don’t agree with Allah’s bloodlust, doesn’t mean I don’t understand it.

Neither do I "perceive total contradictions;" you're only hoping to create in the minds of those unfamiliar with Islamic texts, tenets, and timelines the perception of misunderstanding.

As for contradictions, naskh, the doctrine of abrogation, is your false prophet's idea, not mine: “The Prophet said, ‘If I take an oath and later find something else better than that, then I do what is better and expiate my oath'" (Bukhari Volume 7, Book 67, Number 427), and, “Whatever communications We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, We bring one better than it or like it . . .” (Qur'an 2:106)?

And those are proof texts, so that non-Muslims (and Muslims of good will) can see just what it is that Allah requires.
"I have already answered your question about apostasy. Again, no one was killed only for being an apostate during the life of the Prophet (s). Traitors were killed and some of them happened to be apostates. Killing someone for "apostasy" would be against verse 2: 256 in the Qur'an, the final source of revelation and the word of God."
Two problems there: Leaving Islam is considered treason because Muhammad was a totalitarian warlord, and Muhammad ordered the deaths of those who committed apostasy: "Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him" (Bukhari Volume 9, Book 84, Number 57).
"Islam itself is tolerant of other faiths. Look at how Islam talks about the "People of the Book", Jews and Christians, allows Muslims to eat of the food of the People fo the Book, and even get married to people of the book without their having to change their faith. Some of my best friends are Muslims married to Christians or Jews."
You even get to rape the People of the Book. Muslim men marry non-Muslim women (making them stupidly “Muslim-Christians,” etc.), but the opposite is not allowed.

I've posted several passages showing Muhammad's special love for Jews and Christians, which you cannot refute. Murdering and enslaving those who refuse to convert to Islam is not "tolerance."
"Arabic is the language of the Qur'an. How many versions of the bible do you have?"
One Bible. I use several translations, all of which are good. None of them contradict the others on points of doctrine. Regardless, that’s just another red herring.
"There is only one correct version of the Qur'an and it is the Arabic version ."
After the other, competing versions were destroyed. And don’t forget the Satanic Verses. (Shouldn’t verses commanding genocide on religious grounds be considered “incorrect”?)
"I demonstrated to you in #1 above that your ignorance of Arabic"
No, you demonstrated your contempt for the non-Muslims who frequent this site, and what you presume is our ignorance.

Unfortunately, like so many in the West, I'm too familiar with Arabic. Islam is just like Nazism: two murderous cults ruining perfectly good human languages (Arabic and German) used for centuries by Christians. What a shame.

You’re assertion is irrational and self-contradictory: Either you grew up speaking Arabic or you did not. If you did and accurate translation is impossible as you claim, then how can you know that the English is in error, since you know English only through translation? If you grew up NOT speaking Arabic and accurate translation is impossible as you claim, then you don't know what the Arabic actually says.

And that’s the unintentional irony of the murderous and deceitful. Well done!
"and reliance on translations has led you to misinterpret what the Qur'an says, and to castigate Muslims when it is inappropriate."
You’ve not demonstrated that I’ve misinterpreted anything. And I’ve only castigated you for lying in defense of genocide, pedophilia, and slavery. If instead of obfuscating for Allah’s tyranny you oppose it, I’ll commend you.
"Islam has a very clearcut etiquette when it comes to war. No killing of old people, children and women."
Except when it doesn’t: "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). And not to mention Abu Afak, Asma bint Marwan, and others.
"No scorched earth approach. War is only for two reasons: defense or to free people from oppression."
You hope that no one here knows that "unbelief in Allah" is considered "oppression" by Muslims. The mere existence of non-Muslims is considered an obstacle to Islam and an oppression of Muslims.

And there is, of course, this: "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).
"There is no pedophilia in Islam (some cultures marry women at a younger age than the US where the age of sexual consent is as low as 12 years old in some states)."
That’s a clumsy tu quoque. Allah’s “beautiful pattern of conduct” Muhammad did it, so you should too: "Narrated 'Aisha: that the Prophet married her when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old, and then she remained with him for nine years (i.e., till his death)" (Bukhari Volume 7, Book 62, Number 64 and 65).

And don’t forget the Qur’anic stipulations on divorcing prepubescent females: "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).
"Show me a verse in the Qur'an where rape, mutiliation, or torture are allowed."
I have, repeatedly. Clearly, you don't care to deal with this subject matter or me truthfully, or you would not lie shamelessly, even when I've already exposed your mendacity.

Raping sex slaves (not to mention Muhammad''s raping numerous captives, and little prepubescent 'Aisha): “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).

Mutilation and torture (not to mention Muhammad's torturing a captive Jew for the location of hidden wealth): "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).

Ibn Kathir says of this verse: "'Wage war' mentioned here means, oppose and contradict, and it includes disbelief, blocking roads and spreading fear in the fairways. Mischief in the land refers to various types of evil." So, Muhammad requires execution, crucifixion, or cutting off hands and feet from opposite sides for "disbelief."
"Islam came to put an end to slavery, and there are many examples of the Prophet (s) freeing slaves. This is contrast to even my country the US where it took a civil war to put an end to slavery."
Freeing his own slaves (he was entitled to one-fifth of the booty from a razzia. Which means he was a practitioner. And what do you think the dhimma system was but a system of religious discrimination, humiliation, and extortion?

And playing a tu quoque meant to shame into silence is dishonest and ineffective. You ought to be embarrassed. But I suppose that in worshiping a bloodthirsty devil, one must compromise not only one’s intellect but one’s conscience.
"Show me where the Qur'an advocates theft and extortion."
Jizya and dhimma are extortion (“Pay us and we’ll protect you . . . from ourselves!”): "Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued" (Qur'an 9:29).
“Misinterpreting the verse about disciplining your wife is a favorite hobby of people who attack Islam.”
But not something of which I am guilty. Your own authorities teach it. “Beat” is “beat.”
“There is no record of the Prophet (s) ever laying a hand on any of his wives”
Which is why I use the words “commanded” and “endorsed.” But he did teach beating wives from whom you fear disobedience, and ‘Aisha, the pedophile prophet’s favorite “wife,” lamented at the suffering of Muslim women.
“there are hadiths where he talks about the best of Muslims being those who are the best to their women.”
You know as well as I that being “the best to their women” would include beating them, since the purpose would be to discipline them for Allah and Paradise (possibly).
“surely the protection afforded by a polygamous marriage is better than none or potential sexual promiscuity.”
Especially when victims of rape get murdered for adultery. (I”ll save you the need to lie about this one: Because Muhammad wanted to protect himself from an awkward situation with ‘Aisha, he required four witnesses to adultery. So a Muslim woman who reports being raped but lacks the witnesses is admitting to unlawful sexual intercourse. What’s a devout Muslim to do, but punish such “mischief”?

And there’s this: "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).
“There is no religious apartheid in Islam”
Dhimma. Pact of Umar.
“men and women have equal but not identical rights.”
Yes, women have the right to be raped beginning at age nine (even on a camel’s saddle!), to receive half the inheritance of a brother, to possess a lesser standing in court, to be beaten for “fearing” disobedience, etc.
“Deceit and blasphemy are not supported by any verse that I know in the Qur'an.”
Deceit in Qur’an: "Let not the believers take for friends or helpers Unbelievers rather than believers: if any do that, in nothing will there be help from Allah: except by way of precaution, that ye may Guard yourselves from them. But Allah cautions you (To remember) Himself; for the final goal is to Allah" (Qur'an 3:28).

Deceit in ahadith: "War is deceit" (Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 268), and, "Allah's Apostle said, 'Who is willing to kill Ka'b bin Al-Ashraf who has hurt Allah and His Apostle?' Thereupon Muhammad bin Maslama got up saying, 'O Allah's Apostle! Would you like that I kill him?' The Prophet said, 'Yes,' Muhammad bin Maslama said, 'Then allow me to say a (false) thing (i.e. to deceive Kab).' The Prophet said, 'You may say it' (Bukhari, Volume 5, Book 59, Number 369).

Blaspheming YHWH: "In blasphemy indeed are those that say that Allah is Christ the son of Mary . . ." (Qur'an 5:17), "They do blaspheme who say: Allah is one of three in a Trinity: for there is no god except One Allah. If they desist not from their word (of blasphemy), verily a grievous penalty will befall the blasphemers among them" (Qur'an 5:73), and "the Christians call Christ the son of Allah. That is a saying from their mouth; (in this) they but imitate what the unbelievers of old used to say. Allah's curse be on them: how they are deluded away from the Truth" (Qur'an 9:30)!
“In the end, it is very easy to make accusations when one studies another person's faith at the surface, does not understand the language in which the Qur'an was revealed, and cobbles together their own cut and paste approach to Islam.”
Which has nothing to do with me. Stay on topic.
“When I talk to my Christian or Jewish friends, I don't talk to them about my perception of their faith. I let them tell me about how they perceive and practice their faith.”
If I want to know the truth about Islam, I’ll go to its god, founder, “sacred” texts, and history, not a maliciously-deceitful propagandist.
“Islam is the fastest growing religion in the USA, and will continue to be the fastest growing religion, God Willing.”
He is not.
“If you don't believe me, just go to the website, www.Islamicity.com, and watch how many American men and women of different faiths and backgrounds are embracing Islam every hour of every days.”
Muslims would never, ever lie, right?
“the Qur'an says in Chapter 109, "Say, O you that reject faith. I worship not that which ye worship, Nor will ye worship that which I worship. And I will not worship that which ye have been wont to worship, Nor will ye worship that which I worship. To you be your Way, and to me mine.'
But you said translations were useless.

Friday, March 26, 2010

The Minnesota Daily censoring and obfuscating for jihad

In an article detailing another step in sharia's advance here in the United States, a lively exchange between Muslims and their Useful Idiot Dhimmis and decent human beings got off to a good start.

Now, at least my comments are moderated. Whether or not my words exposing the vile dishonesty of jihad's agents will be censored remains to be seen; in the event that The Minnesota Daily lacks the decency to post my most recent comment in response to someone referring first to his "Muslim wife" serving in the military and then going into full Obfuscation Mode and revealing himself to be the most shameless of dhimmis or a Muslim himself, it is posted below (with minor editing).

[Update 11:38 PM: Using another account to post, no moderation.  So, apparently The Minnesota Daily only allows lies in service to Allah to go unmoderated.  Update 1:04 AM: Another account "moderated."  At least I got a few choice lines in.]

Here's justice786's falsehood-filled response to my earlier comments:
Actually you are wrong. It is not a non-sequitur. My wife, an American Muslima, served on the staff of an admiral during the Iran hostage crisis, and is of native American origin. When you tell her to go home, she is right at home. What about you? Which foreign country do your forefathers come from? Shouldn't you go back there?

You also changed subject from the topic of the article. That is all right. To answer your comment, Islam is for freedom of religion. If you read the Qur'an yourself and understood arabic (not the English translation) instead of cutting and pasting from websites, you would understand the verse, "Let there be no compulsion in religion" from Surah 2, verse 256. Islam through the Qur'an and the traditions of the Prophet (s) has never ordered Muslim to establish Islamic law over all humanity. Again you are misinterpreting the Qur'an because you do not understand the original arabic source.
My reply:
Where did I tell anyone to "go home"?

And my ancestors were here millennia before yours, so even if yours were not a silly and intellectually-vacuous "argument," you'd still lose on that point.

I see that you passed Obfuscation for Infidels 101, so let me expose your duplicity:

1. I did not "change subject from the topic of the article," I responded to several comments here, including yours, which is what you do in a Comments section. So my words are on-topic.

2. Islam is not "for freedom of religion." Muhammad declared, "If anyone changes his (Islamic) religion, then kill him" (Sahih Bukhari). Surahs 2, 8, 5, and 9 also put the lie to your claim.

3. Arabic is a human language, just like any other, so it can be translated. Sure, on occasion subtle nuances can be lost, but "kill the pagans wherever you find them" is not a mistranslation of "Love your neighbor as yourself." Besides that, numerous English translations by Muslims show your assertion to be nonsensical.

4. The "no compulsion" verse is trotted out often by apologists for jihad. The only problem is -- and you must know this since you're obviously practiced in lying for Allah -- that numerous other passages command or endorse violence against non-Muslims to make the world Islam. And even if that verse is not abrogated (the doctrine of naskh) by the later Verses of Blood, you know as well as I that inner belief cannot be forced, but outward obedience is another thing entirely, so technically, of course, "there is no compulsion in religion."

5. Your own "sacred" texts demonstrate your mendacity; since Muhammad is the "Ideal Man" and a "beautiful pattern of conduct" for those who want to please Allah, his words and actions are definitive:
"Allah's Apostle said: 'I have been ordered (by Allah) to fight against the people until they testify that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that Muhammad is Allah's Apostle . . . '" (Bukhari Volume 1, Book 2, Number 24).
"Say to the Unbelievers, if (now) they desist (from Unbelief), their past would be forgiven them; but if they persist, the punishment of those before them is already (a matter of warning for them). And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and polytheism: i.e. worshipping others besides Allah) and the religion (worship) will all be for Allah Alone (in the whole of the world). But if they cease (worshipping others besides Allah), then certainly, Allah is All-Seer of what they do" (Qur'an 8:38; ayah 39 from Noble Qur'an).
6. The only website from which I "copy and paste" is my own. Every passage I post I've verified for myself. I provide specific citations so that honest readers can determine the facts for themselves and not be deceived by shameless dissemblers like you.

Even if your embarrassing ad hominem were true -- it is not, obviously -- that still doesn't take away from the fact that Muhammad commanded or endorsed and practiced genocide, pedophilia, rape, mutilation, torture, slavery, theft, extortion, wife-beating, polygamy, religious and gender apartheid, deceit, and blasphemy and claimed "Allah made me do it, and so must you!"

You may find a significant concentration of the ignorant and gullible in media and government, but the American people are educating themselves. Your days of pulling the niqab over non-Muslim eyes are at an end.

Monday, March 22, 2010

Their children were forced to watch

This is for what B. Hussein, Grover Norquist, the Left, CAIR, Hamas, Mohamed Fadly, and the rest apologize and obfuscate.  This is why the West's "leadership" betrays Israel.

Islam is pure evil. It is vile. It is hell.  Stop defending it. Stop lying for it. Stop excusing it.

If there ever were a time to use Western military might, this is it. Now.

Islam must be stopped.
Pakistani Christian burned alive, wife raped by police for refusing to convert to Islam (Jihad Watch):

RAWALPINDI, PAKISTAN (BosNewsLife)-- A Christian man was fighting for his life in Pakistan's Punjab province Saturday, March 20, after Muslim leaders backed by police burned him alive for refusing to convert to Islam, while his wife was raped by police officers, Christian and hospital sources familiar with the case told BosNewsLife.

Arshed Masih was burned Friday, March 19, in front of a police station in the city of Rawalpindi near Pakistan's capital Islamabad, following apparent death threats from his Muslim employer Sheikh Mohammad Sultan, an influential businessman, and religious leaders, said the Rawalpindi Holy Family Hospital.

His wife, Martha Arshed, was allegedly raped by police officers. Their three children -- ranging in age from 7 to 12-- were reportedly forced to witness the attacks against their parents.

Pelosi reveals elitists' arrogance

Let them do whatever they want to us and our posterity. They know better than we do what to do with our own property.

And now the left has driven one more uranium-tipped projectile into America's coffin. As Pamela Geller rightly notes, the nescient, allegedly-pro-life Democrats voted yes for this monstrosity on the word of a ghoul who's never met a baby he didn't want to slaughter. How foolish!

Unless Americans are successful repealing this death blow from the Left's murderous hand, the Republic is doomed.

Where are you, America?

Tuesday, March 16, 2010

The Dark Ages were brought on by religious barbarians, but not by the ones you were taught had done it

"Magua's heart is twisted; he would make himself into what twisted him."
-Nathaniel of the Yengeese; Hawkeye, adopted son
of Chingachgook of the Mohican people
That line from The Last of the Mohicans, uttered regarding its murderous antagonist, reveals what can happen also to a society long-tormented: it can adopt the values and perspectives of its tormentors, a kind of societal Stockholm Syndrome.  Is it hard to understand (the exaggerated, but still un-Christian) Spanish Inquisition as a response to eight hundred years of Islamic "tolerance"?  If John Calvin -- hailed by some as a contributor to the Reformation (in reality, he was only a heretic riding Luther's coattails) -- can incorporate Islam's unholy fatalism into his ungodly Double Predestination, then what limit exists to the depravity into which a people can descend?

Islam laid siege to Christendom from the time of the genocidal pedophile's "prophetic" career until modern times when -- as Winston Churchill observed -- Europe's technological superiority delivered it from Allah's clutches.  (In fact, so thoroughly was the West rescued that it lost all memory of nearly one and one-half millennia of siege, slaughter, and slavery at Muslim hands, so that it now not only invites jihad's agents within its borders, it punishes its own citizens who dare to state merely what Islam's "sacred" texts declare about itself.)  From the Holy Land to Byzantium to Iberia to Tours to Greece to the Balkans to Vienna, if not for the grace of God and ingenuity and courage of its people, Western Christianity would have fallen entirely under Muhammad's yoke centuries ago.

In Holy Warriors: Islam and the Demise of Classical Civilization, John O'Neill puts the first responsibility for the Dark Ages where it belongs: Not on Romanized, baptized barbarians or the Roman Catholic Church, but on the prophet from hell and those who followed him (note the mention of Muslim mercenaries menacing the Mediterranean; even a newborn America had to deal with the malevolence of the Barbary Pirates):
One of the most enduring problems of history is the decline of Classical Civilization. How was it that the civilization of Greece and Rome, which had endured almost a thousand years, a civilization which prized learning, science and reason, gave way to the world of the Medieval; an age which saw, for a while, the almost complete disappearance of the rationalist spirit of Greece and Rome? The traditional view was that after their seizure of Italy in the fifth century, the Barbarian tribes of Germany and Scythia had reduced Europe to an economic and cultural wasteland, initiating a Dark Age, which was to last half a millennium. After the Reformation, another suspect was added to the list: Christianity, or, more accurately, Catholic Christianity. In this view Christianity was corrupted beyond recognition after the time of Constantine and from the fourth century onwards a power-hungry Church hierarchy, in cahoots with the Imperial authorities, kept the population of Europe in subservience and ignorance, effectively completing the destructive work of the Barbarians.

In this ground-breaking work, historian John J. O'Neill examines a great variety of evidence from many specialties and reaches an astonishing and novel conclusion: Classical Civilization was not destroyed by Barbarians or by Christians. It survived intact into the early seventh century. The Vandals and Goths who seized the Western Empire in the fifth century had become completely romanized by the start of the sixth century. Artistic and intellectual life flourished, as did the economy and the cities built earlier under the Empire. Yet sometime in the middle of the seventh century everything changed. Cities were abandoned, literacy plummeted, royal authority declined and local strongmen, or "barons", seized control of the provinces. The Middle Ages had begun.

Who or what had caused this? As O'Neill notes, by the 1920s Belgian historian Henri Pirenne had located the proverbial "smoking gun"; but it was not in the hands of the Barbarians or the Christians: it was held by those who, even then, it had become fashionable to credit with saving, rather than destroying, Classical Civilization: the Arabs. In a conclusion that will have resonance for the modern world, O'Neill argues convincingly that all we regard as "Medieval" had its origin in Islam, and that the Muslims terminated Classical Civilization in Europe just as surely as they did in the Middle East. O'Neill shows how the sudden relapse of Europe in the seventh century was due entirely to the economic blockade imposed by Islam's war against Christendom. The Mediterranean, which had previously been a cultural highway, now became a frontier, and a very dangerous frontier at it. Prompted by Islam's doctrine of perpetual war against nonbelievers, Muslim pirates scoured the Mediterranean, effectively ending all trade between Europe and the great centers of civilization in the Near East. The flow of gold ended, as did the supply of all luxury items. And so too did the supply of papyrus from Egypt, without which Europeans were forced to rely on expensive parchment. Not surprisingly, literacy plummeted. Worst of all, the great cities of the West, which depended upon the trade in luxury items from the East, began to decline.

As the dominant power of the time, ideas originating in the Islamic world now began to penetrate Europe. From their Muslim foes Christian Europeans began to think in terms that would have been unimaginable a century earlier. The idea of "Holy War" entered the mindset of Christians, and, under the influence of Islam, the rationalism of Greece and Rome began to be replaced by a literal and intolerant interpretation of "The Book." Classical civilization was dead.

"Authentic Jews" peddling inauthentic history . . . and theology

(The true) God is not racist.

Some are so tormented by sentiments of racial inferiority that they are unable to evaluate and represent facts faithfully.  Like those who want to make Jesus African, so too some want desperately for Hebrews/Jews from Abraham to Moses to the Sephardim (Iberian Jews) to be black (this trend is color-blind; some want Anglo-Saxons to be the lost tribes of Israel).  Following are a few observations on one site's false claims regarding Israel and Africa:
"This makes it seem likely that the Afroasiatic languages originated in Africa and then spread to the Asian continent."
Since all descend from Noah and his sons, and their common language was confused at Babel, no language "originated" in Africa.
"the ancient Hebrews came out of North AFRICA (Egypt)."
The Israelites came out of slavery in Egypt led by Moses, at YHWH's command, and by His power.  Their ancestors -- Jacob and his family -- entered the land as honored guests because Joseph was so esteemed that he attained a position in all of Egypt second only to Pharaoh's.  His father Jacob (Israel) was the grandson of Abraham, and he was from Mesopotamia ("Ur of the Chaldees"), not Africa.

Sometime before the Exodus, while in exile from Egypt, Moses married Zipporah, a Cushite (Ethiopian) woman, a daughter of Reuel, the priest of Midian.  Five hundred years later, King Solomon received the Queen of Sheba (Ethiopia) as a guest in Israel.  Regarding "Cushite" and "Sheba," some dispute the two terms as referencing Ethiopia, but the imperial family of Ethiopia traces its lineage to the union of Solomon and the Queen, and Josephus identified her as a "Queen of Egypt and Ethiopia."  He comments regarding the nation of Cush, son of Ham and grandson of Noah:
"For of the four sons of Ham, time has not at all hurt the name of Cush ["Chus"]; for the Ethiopians, over whom he reigned, are even at this day, both by themselves and by all men in Asia, called Cushites ["Chusites"]" (Antiquities of the Jews 1.6.2).
So, one branch of "authentic" Jews is Ethiopian.

The author of Authentic Jews continues:
"The largest centers of Jewish population and learning were once in Africa, NOT EUROPE."
Until Islam.  And before that, in Israel, Mesopotamia, Persia, Babylon.  Wherever Jews go, there is a center of learning.

Here is more evidence that racial grievances and the need for religious/political esteem has compromised the author's intellectual integrity:
It was April 9th, 1865, on the Roman/Gregorian calendar but, the HEBREW calendar corresponding date was the 13th day of the Hebrew month of Abib/Nissan, the Hebrew year being 5625, on a Sunday.
The news of Gen. R.E. Lee's surrender was received in Washington DC after nine o'clock on Sunday evening, April 9th, and at a somewhat later hour in other cities.
This made it Passover, for the sun was down, that is when the Hebrews in the U.S.A were freed, 1435 was when the Portuguese began removing the YIsraelites from West Afrika, and 1865 was when General Lee surrendered in the civil war.
430 Yrs is how long our forefathers were in slavery in Kemet {Egypt}.

Both times the Israelites were freed on the Passover, after 430 Years!
The author's history here is just wrong: America was not a nation until 1776 by Declaration, and in reality at the successful conclusion of our War of Independence in 1783.  American slavery ended by Proclamation in 1863 and in practice at the close of the War Between the States in 1865.  The longest "American" slavery could have lasted was 89 years.  Even if you include Colonial times, slavery there began as indentured servitude for a variety of "races;" it was not until the seventeenth century that slavery in America became distinctly racial:
in Maryland and Virginia, both of which passed laws that made black indentured servants slaves for life; these laws also segregated free blacks from European-Americans by making intermarriage between blacks and whites illegal.

If you want to consider the Atlantic (Old World/New World) Slave Trade, the earliest date I can find for the beginning of the capture, transport, and selling of African slaves is 1444 (or 1441) by the Portuguese; Brazil abolished slavery in 1888 (that's 447 years).

And none of this includes Islam's millennium of enslaving Africans, or the practice of slavery in general throughout human history, which includes African kings taking slaves for human sacrifice and the Aztecs doing the same.  As soon as one group of people was strong enough to use force against its neighbor, slavery was born.

I appreciate a person wanting to take pride in one's ancestry.  But that should be grounded in truth.  All of us are descended from Noah and his sons; the flexibility in genetic expression allowing the variety in human appearance we see today does not change the fact that we are one race.  Sadly, the "authentic Jew" is so focused on "blackness" that it's affected his ability to deal honestly with the facts.

So, who are "authentic Jews"?

A Jew might say, "It depends on the Jew you're asking;" an Evangelical might answer, "Someone who observes the Mosaic Law;" a Muslim might respond, "Those who 're-vert' to Islam;" and a liberal might reply with, "Those who vote Democrat."  But what does the God of Israel say?

The Apostle Paul, a Pharisee who referred once to himself as a "Hebrew of Hebrews" and recognized the myriad  blessings God had given to the nation of Israel, says that the "true Israel" are not those who are genetically-Jewish only, but those who live by faith in the Promised Messiah, whether they are Jew or Gentile. He writes:
"not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel, and not all are children of Abraham because they are his offspring, but 'Through Isaac shall your offspring be named.' This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as offspring" (Romans 9:6-8).
"no one is a Jew who is merely one outwardly, nor is circumcision outward and physical. But a Jew is one inwardly, and circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter. His praise is not from man but from God" (Romans 2:28-29).
We ourselves are Jews by birth and not Gentile sinners; yet we know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified" (Galatians 2:15-16).
Christ is the Savior of the Jew first and then the Gentile, the Messiah promised to Adam, Abraham, and Moses.  He is our salvation.

Sunday, March 07, 2010

The whole armor of God

The Apostle Paul wrote:
Put on the whole armor of God, that you may be able to stand against the schemes of the devil. For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places. Therefore take up the whole armor of God, that you may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand firm.

Stand therefore, having fastened on the belt of truth, and having put on the breastplate of righteousness, and, as shoes for your feet, having put on the readiness given by the gospel of peace. In all circumstances take up the shield of faith, with which you can extinguish all the flaming darts of the evil one; and take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God, praying at all times in the Spirit, with all prayer and supplication. To that end keep alert with all perseverance, making supplication for all the saints, and also for me, that words may be given to me in opening my mouth boldly to proclaim the mystery of the gospel, for which I am an ambassador in chains, that I may declare it boldly, as I ought to speak (Ephesians 6:11-20).
I always thought of this as a list of things that I had to do: I had to be more truthful ("fasten the belt of truth"), I had to be more righteous ("put on the breastplate of righteousness"), I had to have more faith ("take up the shield of faith"), I had to somehow be saved ("take the helmet of salvation"), I had to pray more and better ("praying at all times in the Spirit").

And isn't that what you hear from all variety of Christians? You've got to "walk the walk" and "make a decision for Christ" and "give your heart to Jesus." And if you still have a nagging suspicion that you're not good enough, if you're still sinning, then you need to "give your life over to Jesus completely." (Even years in a church that actually teaches that we can do nothing to save ourselves, I have never, ever heard a pastor say anything about this passage to disabuse me of this understanding.)

But I was wrong.

The Apostle is not telling me, a sinner, to "put on the whole armor of God" by depending on my truthfulness; Christ is the truth ("I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me," John 14:6). I can never be righteous enough, but Christ is our righteousness ("Christ Jesus . . . became to us wisdom from God, righteousness and sanctification and redemption," 1 Corinthians 1:30). I can never be faithful enough, but Christ is faithful ("Then I saw heaven opened, and behold, a white horse! The one sitting on it is called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he judges and makes war," Revelation 19:11). And Christ is our salvation: ". . . Jesus . . . became the source of eternal salvation to all who obey him" (Hebrews 5:7-9). As for prayer? "if anyone does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous. He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world" (1 John 2:1-2).

We "put on the whole armor of God" by "putting on Christ;" that is, by faith in Him:
"for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ" (Galatians 3:26-27).
Or rather, we have been clothed with Christ.  And that is the Good News ("gospel") which Paul declared. Christ was crucified for us sinners, giving to the whole world the forgiveness of sins, eternal life, and salvation. Through Him we have peace with God.

Muslim doctor pulls the hijab over the eyes of non-Muslims by obfuscating for Muhammad's demonic hatred of women (and little girls)

Qanta Ahmed, making deceit in service to Muhammad's vile misogyny look fashionable.

In a post full of fatal, fetid falsehoods, Qanta Ahmed advances Allah's War Against Humanity by feeding one half-truth after another to non-Muslims.  (Thanks to CNN for helping her!)  Here are a few of the more criminal bits, with commentary:
A judge in Saudi Arabia has said husbands are allowed to slap their wives if they spend lavishly, a Saudi newspaper reported this past weekend. In one fell swoop, the judge debased Islam, vilified the kingdom and disregarded the ideals the Saudi monarch himself embraces.
That's reassuring!  Islam and true Muslims are against wife-beating, right?  Here comes more of the dissembling non-Muslims afraid to examine Islam's texts, tenets, and timelines for themselves swallow whole:
Islam is very clear on this issue: Both a husband physically chastising his wife for "overspending" and a judge "upholding justice" by sanctioning this abuse would be acting counter to Islam's ideals of compassion and justice.
How can a "religion" which commands the slavery or slaughter of all who refuse the "invitation" to convert be considered either "compassionate" or "just"? Regardless, Muhammad claimed that his god told him, “. . . 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).

The good doctor continues:
There is no basis in Islamic theology to support domestic abuse of any kind and specifically none pertaining to the matter of a wife's spending pattern.
Of course, Muhammad's wife-beating is not "abuse," it's Allah-pleasing, since Islam's deity calls the prophet from hell "a beautiful pattern (of conduct) for anyone whose hope is in Allah and the Final Day, and who engages much in the Praise of Allah" (Qur'an 33:21).
Last year, in his annual speech marking Saudi Arabia's National Day, the king first described threats to Islam from within its ranks.
By which he meant either truly decent people who through no fault of their own find themselves Muslim and work against its monstrous doctrines, or those devout Muslims waging war against hypocrites like him.
In March, more than 1,600 academics from more than 30 countries convened in Riyadh at the first symposium studying domestic violence in the kingdom. Together, international academics examined, measured and evaluated the growing reports of domestic violence and child abuse in the kingdom with a view to formulating solutions.
How does a Muslim "solve" what Muhammad and his allah committed, commanded, and condoned?  Here is one of Islam's "solutions":
"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).
The prevaricating practitioner adds the old "slavery is freedom" line:
In my time working in Saudi Arabia as an intensive care specialist, I came to learn that for most Saudi women, the abbaya is not a tool of oppression but rather one of liberation.
And that "freedom" is due to the insanely insecure and jealous Muhammad's hiding his property from others' view, realizing that since he desired to rape anything that moved, so must his followers:
"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).

"Narrated 'Aisha: 'Allah's Apostle used to offer the Fajr prayer and some believing women covered with their veiling sheets used to attend the Fajr prayer with him and then they would return to their homes unrecognized'" (Bukhari Volume 1, Book 8, Number 368).

[Explanatory note: Shaikh Ibn Uthaimin in tafseer of this hadith explains: "This hadith makes it clear that the Islamic dress is concealing of the entire body as explained in this hadith. Only with the complete cover including the face and hands can a woman not be recognized. This was the understanding and practice of the Sahaba and they were the best of group, the noblest in the sight of Allah . . . with the most complete Imaan and noblest of characters. so if the practice of the women of the sahaba was to wear the complete veil then how can we deviate from their path?"]
Here's more insulting nonsense, as if being able to work as a physician negates centuries of absolute barbarism and degradation of women and little girls:
For the observant Saudi lady who has often been raised in an environment that highly prizes securing the beauty and guarding the modesty of their womenfolk, donning abbayas allows them to work as chemical engineers at Aramaco or as fellow intensive care physicians in intensive care units at the nation's state-of-the-art hospitals.

My Saudi female colleagues could therefore replace valves and fix aneurysms even if they couldn't make a three-point turn. I found them perfectly capable of managing the critically ill on mechanical ventilators and dialysis machines, all the while uncompromising of their values, maintaining their privacy in their veiled garments underneath their sterile gowns.
And a last insult.  To Ahmed, it is the victims of 9/11 who are guilty of persecuting Muslims ("Islamophobia"), rather than Islam itself being directly and solely responsible for one-and-one-half millennia of sending Muslim souls to hell and creating hell-on-Earth for non-Muslims:
This act of stupidity unfairly depicts the kingdom as draconian at a time when the tides of progressive reform are now waist-deep and rising. Such narrow perspectives only serve to fuel global Islamophobia that has greatly increased in the West post-9/11. Muslims around the world and within the kingdom can no longer tolerate this stance, and the king, the Custodian of the Two Holy Sites of Islam, isn't likely to, either.
Considering Muhammad's words and deeds and the totalitarian, savage ideology derived from them, "Islamophobia" is only possible among devout Muslim males.  To non-Muslims, apostates, Muslims who are not Muslim-enough, women, and little girls, no "fear" of Islam can ever be considered "irrational."

The world is "waist-deep and rising" in something from Islam, but that is neither "progress" nor "reform."

Saturday, March 06, 2010

Some wound with friendly-fire those standing in our defense

Here's an exchange (containing minor formatting changes and names redacted) with someone who, while not necessarily intending to advance Allah's War Against Humanity, does wound with friendly-fire those standing in the way of Islamic supremacism and tyranny.  Since the sniping is intentional, it seems necessary to give one with decent aim but poor judgment a rap on the beezer:
"Thanks a lot for forwarding Kyle-Anne Shiver’s piece. What an old fashioned laff riot. I visited her blog but was unable to find out much about her other than how she acquired her name; that fact that she converted to Catholicism; and that she has big hair."
You can't refute the author's statements of fact nor the conclusions drawn from them, so you attack her (and [an American Patriot]).

Argumentum ad hominem. The last refuge of cowards and tyrants.

By the way, my pointing out your lack of intellectual integrity does not constitute an endorsement of the author's solution to the Lesser Jihad (Islam's war against Israel). I'm responding only to what was shared here [in this e-mail exchange].
To which this gentleman responded:
Dear Mr. Matamoros,

If you wish to throw the gauntlet; if you, personally, have anything worth reading to write, I will respond. Kyle-Anne Shiver’s comment was intellectual garbage. It is your right to hate the President if you so desire. But do not for one nanosecond think that any of the crap to which you people subscribe is worth the time to parse and dissect.

[an American Patriot] sends post after post of untruths and empty calories from the blogosphere. You lap them up and accuse me of ad hominem, or in this instance, ad feminem attacks.

What we all need is fewer blogs and more content. Kyle-Anne Shiver’s description of herself is so lacking in content that if you fail to appreciate that, it says volumes about you, just as it said nothing about her.

Look at your last comment. If I were you, I would have the intellectual honesty to be embarrassed. But that’s your problem and [an American Patriot]’s problem. It doesn’t matter what you think; what you say; or what you do. You lack utterly the self awareness to be embarrassed.

So, bring it on if you wish . . . .
And my last step in this dance:
I'd prefer a civil discussion/debate.
Gauntlet-throwing is so Medieval, which I appreciate. But that's not what you want.  Rather than offer something substantive, you want to call names, demonize, and stifle dissent.  I'll play along . . .

I wrote: "You can't refute the author's statements of fact nor the conclusions drawn from them, so you attack her (and [an American Patriot])."  And you respond with . . . more argumentum ad hominem.  Thanks for proving my point.  (Speaking of "an utter lack of self-awareness" . . . .)
if you, personally, have anything worth reading to write
You wouldn't know, since you don't actually read what I write.
I'll respond
With more ad hominems and name-calling, no doubt.
It is your right to hate the President if you so desire.
. . . I'd vote for Obama in 2012 if he would tell the truth and act in defense of America and against totalitarianism, rather than bankrupting and disarming the nation, betraying our friends, and aiding Communist and Muslim tyrants.
But do not for one nanosecond think that any of the crap to which you people subscribe is worth the time to parse and dissect.
"You people"? What are you, racist?* [. . .]
[an American Patriot] sends post after post of untruths and empty calories from the blogosphere. You lap them up and accuse me of ad hominem, or in this instance, ad feminem attacks.
"hominem." [an American Patriot] is a man.  Besides that, he's an honest and passionate defender of American Liberty.  Both facts go a long way toward explaining why you hate him.
What we all need is fewer blogs and more content.
'blogs are a free man's modern Gutenberg press.  But that's your problem, isn't it?  You don't want individuals exercising their God-given, unalienable right to speak their minds. You'd rather silence them.
You're a tyrant.
Kyle-Anne Shiver’s description of herself is so lacking in content
Which goes to show (again) that you don't actually read, for if you did, you'd have seen that unlike you, I did not go scrounging around her site looking for fodder for personal attacks, I responded to the actual content in the earlier e-mail.

Regarding that, you have yet to point out any error. The only (possibly-) valid criticism of that article is her citation of the "siding with Muslims" quote -- "valid" only if you believe the claim that Obama was speaking of defending innocent people against unwarranted persecution, not of protecting the ummah against non-Muslims defending themselves against jihad.
that if you fail to appreciate that, it says volumes about you, just as it said nothing about her.
More of the Accidental Irony of the Dishonest.
Look at your last comment.
Why are you offended? Are you a leftist, a Muslim, or a cannibal?
If I were you, I would have the intellectual honesty to be embarrassed.
That's a certain text!  If you were me, at least you'd have some intellectual integrity, even if it were only enough to be embarrassed.
But that’s your problem and [an American Patriot]’s problem.
More ad hominem . . . .
It doesn’t matter what you think
Yes, you wouldn't want to let facts get in your way.
So, bring it on if you wish.
How very "W" of you . . . .
(Now you're googling frantically "Amillennialist" and "Santiago Matamoros" in order to find something over which you can call me names.)
* I know that was a low blow. I'm almost ashamed. But when someone is intentionally and repeatedly rude to a good man working in defense of Liberty, a good shot to the central nervous system seems apropos.

Friday, March 05, 2010

The truth about Islam finally makes it past Hannity and onto one of his shows

Perhaps he's starting to understand that we're not at war with a tactic, but a hellish, depraved totalitarian ideology. From the indomitable Pamela Geller's site:

Monday, March 01, 2010

When bad things happen to people who thought they were too good to have bad things happen to them


Those with an agenda against God often use human suffering as "proof" that there is no God or, if He exists, He is not good. Even those who believe in Him can interpret their own suffering as an indication that God has abandoned them or doesn't love them quite as much as they thought.

People try to make money writing books about why "bad things happen to good people," but if we're honest, then we must admit that there is no good in us. We know that we deserve nothing good from God. We know that many times, the pain we endure is the direct result of our own stupidity (or others'). In light of our sin, the question should not be, "Why do we suffer?" but, "Why don't we suffer more?" So then comes the sneaking suspicion that, "If I'm suffering, God must be punishing me."

What does He say?

First, He says that sickness and death are the results of our sin. It's our fault in a general sense. In the Garden of Eden, in the middle of a Perfect World, Adam and Eve sinned, and we're still living with the consequences. Of this Paul writes:
sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned . . . death reigned from Adam to Moses . . . many died through one man's trespass . . . the judgment following one trespass brought condemnation . . . because of one man's trespass, death reigned through that one man . . . one trespass led to condemnation for all men . . . by the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners . . . sin reigned in death (Romans 5).
What was God's response to our first parents' sin? Hoops through which to jump? Law after law after impossible law? Fire and brimstone? Hell itself? No, God's response was mercy, the promise of a Savior, the Messiah, a Child Who would destroy the devil's work ("crush the serpent's head"). There were consequences to Adam and Eve's sin (the Curses), but those were intended to drive us to the Savior. In this context, it is worth noting that the statements of Law, death, and condemnation in Romans 5 noted above are followed immediately by the greater mercy of God, which is found in Christ alone:
the free gift is not like the trespass . . . much more have the grace of God and the free gift by the grace of that one man Jesus Christ abounded for many. And the free gift is not like the result of that one man's sin . . . the free gift following many trespasses brought justification . . . much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ . . . one act of righteousness [Christ's] leads to justification and life for all men . . . by the one man's [Christ's] obedience the many will be made righteous . . . where sin increased, grace abounded all the more, so that, as sin reigned in death, grace also might reign through righteousness leading to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord (Romans 5).
What else do we find in Scripture regarding human suffering?

The Apostle Peter warned against suffering because of our own sin: "let none of you suffer as a murderer or a thief or an evildoer or as a meddler" (1 Peter 4:15). Even heroes of the faith suffered publicly for their sin. For example, Moses was not allowed to enter the Promised Land (however, even in this God was merciful to Moses, for not only did He allow Moses to see the Promised Land before he died, but God buried him Himself and included him in the revelation of Christ's glory to the Apostles on the Mount of Transfiguration).

Christ explained that sometimes we suffer so that God can show His power in us:
As he [Jesus] passed by, he saw a man blind from birth. And his disciples asked him, "Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?" Jesus answered, "It was not that this man sinned, or his parents, but that the works of God might be displayed in him. We must work the works of him who sent me while it is day; night is coming, when no one can work. As long as I am in the world, I am the light of the world." Having said these things, he spat on the ground and made mud with the saliva. Then he anointed the man's eyes with the mud and said to him, "Go, wash in the pool of Siloam" (which means Sent). So he went and washed and came back seeing (John 9:1-7).
Because the devil, the world, and our sinful nature war against Christ and His people, sometimes we suffer only because we're Christians. Jesus warned, "If the world hates you, know that it has hated me before it hated you." (John 15:18). We see also from the author of Hebrews a listing of the "great cloud of witnesses," heroes of the faith.  Notice that after listing wonderful, miraculous, glorious victories -- "conquered kingdoms . . . stopped the mouths of lions . . . became mighty in war . . . [and] resurrection," come those believers who were tortured, mocked, flogged, chained, stoned, sawn in two:
And what more shall I say? For time would fail me to tell of Gideon, Barak, Samson, Jephthah, of David and Samuel and the prophets-- who through faith conquered kingdoms, enforced justice, obtained promises, stopped the mouths of lions, quenched the power of fire, escaped the edge of the sword, were made strong out of weakness, became mighty in war, put foreign armies to flight. Women received back their dead by resurrection. Some were tortured, refusing to accept release, so that they might rise again to a better life. Others suffered mocking and flogging, and even chains and imprisonment. They were stoned, they were sawn in two, they were killed with the sword. They went about in skins of sheep and goats, destitute, afflicted, mistreated -- of whom the world was not worthy -- wandering about in deserts and mountains, and in dens and caves of the earth. And all these, though commended through their faith . . . (Hebrews 11).
God causes us to grow through suffering:
More than that, we rejoice in our sufferings, knowing that suffering produces endurance, and endurance produces character, and character produces hope, and hope does not put us to shame, because God's love has been poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit who has been given to us (Romans 5:3-5).
Beloved, do not be surprised at the fiery trial when it comes upon you to test you, as though something strange were happening to you. But rejoice insofar as you share Christ's sufferings, that you may also rejoice and be glad when his glory is revealed. If you are insulted for the name of Christ, you are blessed, because the Spirit of glory and of God rests upon you . . . For it is time for judgment to begin at the household of God (1 Peter 4:12-14, 17).
Sometimes God uses our suffering to accomplish the saving of others, as we see in Joseph and the persecution of the first Christians:
'Say to Joseph, Please forgive the transgression of your brothers and their sin, because they did evil to you.' And now, please forgive the transgression of the servants of the God of your father." Joseph wept when they spoke to him. His brothers also came and fell down before him and said, "Behold, we are your servants." But Joseph said to them, "Do not fear, for am I in the place of God? As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good, to bring it about that many people should be kept alive, as they are today. So do not fear; I will provide for you and your little ones." Thus he comforted them and spoke kindly to them (Genesis 50:17-21).
And Saul approved of his execution. And there arose on that day a great persecution against the church in Jerusalem, and they were all scattered throughout the regions of Judea and Samaria, except the apostles. Devout men buried Stephen and made great lamentation over him. But Saul was ravaging the church, and entering house after house, he dragged off men and women and committed them to prison. Now those who were scattered went about preaching the word (Acts 8:1-4).
Sometimes when we suffer, we can't know why (see Job), but we do know that no matter what happens to us, God is with us, working through all things -- both good and bad -- for our benefit. Recall Joseph's gracious restoration of his brothers just noted and the words of the Apostle Paul:
we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose" (Romans 8:28).
The ultimate answer to every question of eternal consequence is Christ. What did the Son of God endure for us? The only person in the history of the world who deserved only good endured great evil on our account. God abandoned His only Son to torture and death for our salvation:
He was despised and rejected by men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief; and as one from whom men hide their faces he was despised, and we esteemed him not. Surely he has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows; yet we esteemed him stricken, smitten by God, and afflicted. But he was wounded for our transgressions; he was crushed for our iniquities; upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace, and with his stripes we are healed. All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned--every one--to his own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all (Isaiah 53:3-6).
in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them (2 Corinthians 5:19).

Whoever makes a practice of sinning is of the devil, for the devil has been sinning from the beginning. The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the works of the devil (1 John 3:8).

And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself" (John 12:32).
Because of Christ, we will live what the Beloved Apostle only witnessed in his revelation:
. . . I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and the sea was no more. And I saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, "Behold, the dwelling place of God is with man. He will dwell with them, and they will be his people, and God himself will be with them as their God. He will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and death shall be no more, neither shall there be mourning, nor crying, nor pain anymore, for the former things have passed away
[. . .]
I saw no temple in the city, for its temple is the Lord God the Almighty and the Lamb. And the city has no need of sun or moon to shine on it, for the glory of God gives it light, and its lamp is the Lamb (Revelation 21).
Thanks be to God!