Loreena McKennitt's buying what they're selling in Marrakesh Night Market

A foreign culture, moonlight, exotic foods, mystery, a general excitement in a crowded market ... what's not to like?

How about genocidal anti-Semitism? Universal commands to enslave or slaughter all who refuse the "invitation" to convert? Sacralized gender oppression, including rape, wife-beating, polygyny, and worse-than-second-class-status?

I'm sure Ms. McKennitt is unaware of what she's been sold. (Imagine the buyer's remorse when she finally unwraps that package!)

A response to the artist's musings here:

"women are veiled to a great degree ... I am stuck by the sense of intrigue the environment creates; as much is concealed as is revealed ... "

I love Loreena McKennitt, but she is totally out of her element here. These musings indicate a Westerner on vacation romanticizing the "other," a naive stranger delighted in her "tolerance" and "openness" but substituting her imagination for the reality of where she is.

A love of exploration, other cultures, and human creativity is wonderful, but all of those -- love, exploration, culture, creativity -- are diametric to Islam.

In other words, there may be moderate Muslims, but Islam itself is not moderate. And that's why a veil -- which might be mysterious on Ingrid Bergman or Audrey Hepburn -- is, on the devout, merely a symbol of Muhammad's violent misogyny and genocidal intolerance.

A culture's being infected with "kill the pagans wherever you find them" (Qur'an 9:5) -- and assorted other crimes against humanity -- disqualifies it from being exotically-romantic, doesn't it?

"Bigotry" workshops for public school teachers promoting ... Islam?

It's not hard to read between the lines. "Bigotry" and "tone of recent debates" are references to the growing fact-based discussion of Islam.

How ironic that these propagandists would use George Washington's Letter to the Hebrew Congregations of Newport to whitewash their mendacity:

-First, it was Washington's Christian faith that informed his affection for his fellow (Jewish) citizens and moved the heirs of Western Civilization from "tolerance" to "Liberty."

-Second, these liars pretend to defend religious freedom by discussing its "limits." They want to move us from "Liberty" back to "tolerance" and eventually to "persecution" and "murder." You know, "Islam."

-Third, there's only one major "religion" on Earth that wants to rape, enslave, and slaughter those who refuse its "invitation" to convert -- Islam -- and that's the one "faith" they're trying to protect from honest examination.

-Fourth, it's not Christians who need an education on tolerance; it's Muslims who need re-education to stop killing Jews (and the rest of us).

Because America "gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance," Islam must be exposed, resisted, repelled, and eventually, defeated.

California just keeps on giving:

Facing History and Ourselves, One Nation: Many Faiths TAH Project, San Joaquin COE, CSU San Bernardino-ELC and the California 3Rs Project invite you to participate in Give Bigotry No Sanction – The Meaning of Religious Liberty in America George Washington’s 1790 Letter to the Hebrew Congregation in Newport, RI

Join Facing History and Ourselves and the One Nation: Many Faiths TAH project for a look at the letter of George Washington in 1790 to the Hebrew Congregation at the Touro Synagogue in Newport, Rhode Island. This letter is a landmark in the history of religious freedom in America and part of a founding moment in U.S. history when the country was negotiating how a democracy accommodates the “deepest differences” among its people.

Today this letter can serve as a guide in today’s changing global landscape, where Buddhists, Christians, Muslims, Hindus, and Jews, as well as people who belong to no religion, find themselves living alongside neighbors whose beliefs and practices are often quite different than their own. With this new diversity, there is a growing need worldwide to discuss religious freedom—and its limits—in secular, democratic societies.

These are not easy conversations, and the tone of recent debates about religious difference suggests that we need to get better at talking about these issues, or else risk further polarization. Lesson materials and resources are provided for teachers to use Washington’s letters in their classrooms or other discussion forums.

Join us for one of the following 3 programs. There is no fee but registration is required
Select one of the following events and contact people. Email that contact person the date of your workshop, your name, school name, school street address, city, zip code, and phone number.
__________________
November 3, 2012
8:30 a.m. – 2:30 p.m.
San Joaquin COE – Nelson Education Center
2901 Arch Airport Rd, Stockton CA 95206
To register, contact Veray Wickham vwickham@sjcoe.net 209-468-9021
DEADLINE: October 26, 2012
__________________
December 1, 2012
8:30 a.m. - 2:30 p.m.
Best Western Heritage Inn
8179 Spruce Avenue Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
To register, contact Margaret Hill mhill@csusb.edu 909-946-9035
DEADLINE: November 26, 2012
_____________________
January 12, 2013
9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.
Skirball Cultural Center, Los Angeles
To register: http://www2.facinghistory.org/workshops
DEADLINE: January 7, 2013

Here's a link to the source.

Timothy Marr and Joseph M. Hennessey believe that your "misunderstanding" of Islam is the reason (at least in part) for 9/11 and other Muslim atrocities

But what can you expect from someone who regurgitates Edward Said?

At least we have this to show for it. (Who knew that Captayne John Smith -- yes, Pocahontas' John Smith -- fought against jihad?)

Captayne John Smith, defender of the West against Muhammad's hordes.
Because, unlike Disney's fictionalized American Indians,
Muslims don't paint with all the colors of the wind.

Offered in defense of my comments on The Cultural Roots of American Islamicism:

Joseph,

According to the BOOK DESCRIPTION, Marr argues that "Historical, literary, and imagined encounters with Muslim history and practices provided a backdrop where different Americans oriented the direction of their national project, the morality of the social institutions, and the contours of their romantic imaginations. This history sits as an important background to help understand present conflicts between the Muslim world and the United States," as if we are somehow to blame.

Among the EDITORIAL REVIEWS, we find:

-Melani McAlister saying that our "global cultural imaginings" help explain the conflict between Islam and America.

-Iftikhar Malik claiming that "American mis-images of Islam" and their "reverberations even today" help explain the conflict between Islam and America.

-Anouar Majid asserting that "America's conflicted view of Islam" helps explain the conflict between Islam and America.

And MARR HIMSELF acknowledges that teaching for three years in Pakistan "opened my eyes to Islamic cultures and to the kindness of Muslims . . . That extended time . . . helped me begin to understand cultural distortions in the ways that Islam is represented and interpreted in American situations . . . It is my hope that this book will contribute to a fuller analysis of the impasses between Americans and global Muslims . . . I have been sustained . . . by the vision of Bahá'u'lláh [apparently Marr doesn't realize that the Bahá'í are persecuted by devout Muslims] that the earth is one common homeland consisting of a single human family sharing a diverse world culture."

The fundamental impasse between America and Islam is the difference between Heaven and hell. It's the difference between God-given, inalienable rights on the one hand and "kill the pagans wherever you find them" on the other.

Do you understand now that our present conflict with Islam has nothing to do with OUR perception of the "Muslim world"? That's like claiming that OUR "misunderstanding" of Imperial Japan helps explain the "conflict" in the Pacific. Or that the Holocaust was due to the Jews of Europe "misunderstanding" Hitler.

Stop blaming the victim, Joseph.

Islam is, and has always been, a totalitarian, brutal, genocidal "faith" because that is what Muhammad preached and practiced. Neither our perception nor the perceptions of the other non-Muslim civilizations attacked by Islam over the last one and one-half millennia have ANYTHING to do with why they hate us. Rather, it is Muslims' perception of the genocidal pedophile Muhammad as the apostle of a god that is the root cause of the global jihad.

To demonstrate that I offered John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, John Quincy Adams, Ibn Kathir, and Muhammad in their own words. But you call that "ignorant."

So, if you like books that get fundamental historical fact completely upside-down, blame victims for the atrocities committed against them, and aid our enemies during a time of war, then please, buy this book.

Why isn't Tom Scheck of Minnesota Public Radio telling the whole story about Keith Ellison, a.k.a. Hakim Muhammad?

Mr. Scheck,

In your article at http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2012/07/20/politics/ellison-denounces-bachmann-accusations/, you write as though Ellison-Muhammad is an innocent victim with legitimate complaints. Are you intentionally deceiving your readers, or are you really so uninformed?

Why aren't you reporting on Ellison-Muhammad's ties to the Muslim Brotherhood (http://www.jihadwatch.org/2012/07/keith-ellison-d-muslim-brotherhood-whitewashes-his-own-links-to-brotherhood-and-hamas-linked-cair.html)?

Why aren't you warning your audience of the Brotherhood's stated goal of bringing down Western Civilization from within (with its non-Muslim citizens' help)? In "An Explanatory Memorandum on the General Strategic Goal for the Brotherhood in North America" (http://www.investigativeproject.org/document/id/20), the MB states that Muslims should view their lives in the West as:

a "Civilization-Jihadist Process" with all the word means. The Ikhwan must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and "sabotaging" its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God's religion is made victorious over all other religions. Without this level of understanding, we are not up to this challenge and have not prepared ourselves for Jihad yet. It is a Muslim's destiny to perform Jihad and work wherever he is and wherever he lands until the final hour comes . . . ."

Why aren't you reporting on the multitude of MB "friends" in the U.S., including CAIR, MSA, ISNA, MPAC, et al.? Why aren't you reporting that CAIR is tied to Hamas, a Muslim terrorist group which in its charter confesses its goal to wipe Israel from the Earth? Why are you printing CAIR's "description" of itself as if it were merely a special interest group without pointing out that it is an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation trial, a major terrorist funding case (http://www.jihadwatch.org/2010/10/hamas-linked-cair-is-still-an-unindicted-co-conspirator-so-is-isna.html)?

Please do your duty, Mr. Scheck.

Regards,

Santiago Matamoros

Ron Paul is not the answer; he thinks the Barbary Wars were George W. Bush's fault

America's oldest military monument, carved of marble from a quarry used by Michelangelo.
Dedicated to those who perished in our Republic's first War of Self-Defense Against Allah, the First Barbary War.

Interesting images on the monument dedicated to defending America against jihad.
Are those Buddhists? After all, why would Religionists of Peace appear on an American war memorial?

In response to some comments on an article regarding Obama's trampling of the Constitution:

I've always admired Ron Paul for his defense of the Constitution.

However, I cannot support him as Commander-in-Chief, since he's stated his belief that if we leave Islam alone, it will leave us alone.

Nothing is further from the truth. Islam exploded out of Arabia nearly one and one-half millennia ago and has since waged war against the non-Muslim world on the basis of universal, open-ended commands like "kill the pagans wherever you find them" (Qur'an 9:5).

Paul's position on jihad is essentially the Left's: When Muslims attack us, it's our fault.

If you really believe that, then how do explain the Barbary pirates attacking American shipping just after the Revolution? (George W. Bush wouldn't be born for another two centuries!) You historians will recall what Adams and Jefferson discovered when they asked our Muslim antagonists why they were attacking us, since we had done nothing to them:

"In March 1785, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams went to London to negotiate with Tripoli's envoy, Ambassador Sidi Haji Abdrahaman (or Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja). Upon inquiring "concerning the ground of the pretensions to make war upon nations who had done them no injury", the ambassador replied:

"'It was written in their Koran, that all nations which had not acknowledged the Prophet were sinners, whom it was the right and duty of the faithful to plunder and enslave; and that every mussulman who was slain in this warfare was sure to go to paradise. He said, also, that the man who was the first to board a vessel had one slave over and above his share, and that when they sprang to the deck of an enemy's ship, every sailor held a dagger in each hand and a third in his mouth; which usually struck such terror into the foe that they cried out for quarter at once'" ("First Barbary War," Wikipedia; Jefferson reported this revelation to Secretary of Foreign Affairs John Jay, who reported it to Congress. America's oldest military monument is dedicated to our first effort against Islamic jihad).

Obama says, "Respect Islam." Paul says, "It's our fault." Romney says, "There's nothing inherently violent about Islam." That's utter nescience (or worse, treason).

We need to fill the Oval Office -- and the Congress! -- with citizens who understand not only that government exists to protect our rights (and not that we live as a resource for the State to exploit), but that while there may be moderate Muslims (research "taqiyya"), Islam itself is not "moderate."

Islam or "Islamism" the difference between Liberty and death

"Give me shari'a, or give me death"? "Forbid it, Almighty God!"
We know what course Mr. Henry would take.

Islam forbids anything critical of the genocidal pedophile Muhammad, even if it's true. When non-Muslims refuse to state plainly that Muslims' killing, maiming, and raping in Allah's name is Just Plain Islam, when they try to distinguish falsely between true, historical, Qur'anic, Islam-the-way-Muhammad-intended Islam and a fiction like "Islamism," they're implying that Islamic supremacism and violence in service to it are merely aberrations carried out by "extremists highjacking a great world religion of peace" (Thank you, President Bush).

In fact, McCarthy, et al. are self-imposing Islamic law. More importantly, they're aiding its establishment over the rest of us.

You can't defeat an enemy you cannot name, and you can't survive an enemy you let in the gates. A genocidal, pedophilic, totalitarian ideology by any other name is just as odious.

Two cents on the Spencer vs. McCarthy debate over misdefining Islam:

The problem with non-Muslims' putting all their hopes for avoiding the inevitable Armageddon with Islam in some sort of "reformation" is that the success of the Protestant one -- Luther's, at least -- was in pointing the Church back to the Word of God, which leads to truth, the forgiveness of sins, and freedom.

Attention paid to Islam's core texts is exactly what the non-Muslim world and Muslim apostates, women, and little girls (and boys) don't need. Muslims pointing to Islam's "sacred" texts are directing their coreligionists to "kill the pagans wherever you find them . . . Fight . . . the People of the Book until they pay the jizya with willing submission and feel themselves subdued . . . [Paradise] belongs to those who slay and are slain [fighting in Allah's cause]" (Qur'an 9).

To Andy McCarthy and the rest of you alleged Islamorealists: Don't wish for an Islamic reformation. You're already in one.

Only the deranged, the perverse, and Muslims can ask, "what makes you any better than muslims who stone women for similar* reasons set out in the Bible?"

Could it be that . . . I'm not stoning anyone?

This is not about "being better than" anyone; we are all sinners deserving of God's wrath and dependent solely on His mercy in Christ. This is about telling the truth, by which souls are saved from hell and non-Muslims are saved from hell-on-Earth.

In reply to someone throwing Muhammad's hellish bathwater on the Baby:

Hi, I'm Richard and I think Islam . . . ,

Essentially, you're mad because you're not God. You don't like his definition of "sin" (thanks for admitting that). Fine. Create a universe, and then you can make up your own rules. Until then, can't you at least deal honestly with the Biblical texts? Do you misrepresent the Bible and its God out of ignorance only, or is it just pure cosmos envy?

(Let's see, you hate, defame, and blaspheme the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob and His Christ, attribute sinful human qualities to God (God's "jealousy" is His desire for all to live, not a misogynist's possessiveness), make yourself your own god, and blame God for human evil. Are you sure you're not Muslim?)

If you really were concerned about the Problem of Pain and not just sniping, I'd point out that whatever evils and injustices you want to attribute to God, He endured the greatest evil and injustice of all, willingly sacrificing His own Son (Who willingly made the sacrifice) to pay for the sins of all. God reconciled men to Himself in Christ's body on the cross. The greater mystery is not why God allows suffering, but why He would suffer and die for a sinful humanity which rages against Him.

As for your "arguments" . . .

We have ample historical and archaeological evidence of Christ's words and deeds; what exists for the Greek or other pagan mythologies? Only the historically-illiterate can claim that Christ was a myth. Not even the most hateful liberal "theologians" do so. Not even Muslims.

Your characterization of Christians as "sheep who want to be enslaved and lead [sic] around by the nose" may be true of a lot of Christians, but that's because of human nature, not because of Christ. The greatness of Western Civilization (reaching its zenith in America) is due to Christ's words and deeds, as attested to by Thomas Jefferson, (possibly) Patrick Henry, John Quincy Adams, and Alexis de Tocqueville, to name a few:

"The Christian religion, when divested of the rags in which they [the clergy] have enveloped it, and brought to the original purity and simplicity of it's benevolent institutor, is a religion of all others most friendly to liberty, science, and the freest expansion of the human mind." -T. Jefferson

"It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason peoples of other faith have been afforded asylum, prosperity and freedom of worship here." -attributed commonly to Patrick Henry

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

"The Americans combine the notions of Christianity and of liberty so intimately in their minds, that it is impossible to make them conceive the one without the other; and with them this conviction does not spring from that barren traditionary faith which seems to vegetate in the soul rather than to live." -A. de Tocqueville

As for "God created evil," that's just a postmodern, atheistic way of blaming your parents for your own bad behavior. Because if someone does evil, then it must be the fault of whoever made him, right? (You do know that's what Adam did when he first sinned, don't you?) Why do you continue to attribute human evil to God? It's not God murdering, raping, and pillaging or causing the innocent to suffer.

You wonder why God "let[s] millions of innocent children starve to death in Africa while allowing us to live with abundance?" You admit your wealth; why aren't you doing something about it instead of whining and blaming God? You do know that most of those children starving in Africa are starving because of Islam, don't you? So, you're blaming God for non-Muslims suffering at the hands of Allah. Are you sure you're not Muslim?

As for straw men, I've set up none; you stated literally that "Jesus approves of slavery." That's ridiculous. You should be embarrassed.

The laws to which you object were for the nation of Israel only, whom YHWH delivered out of slavery in Egypt to be His own people. Perhaps you missed this little detail, but ancient Israel entered voluntarily into the covenant with YHWH; they agreed to obey all the laws He gave them through Moses. How can you complain about someone else's agreements entered into of their own free will? Since those laws were for ancient Israel only, if you don't like them, you don't have to follow them.

And that highlights one of the fundamental distinctions between Moses and Muhammad: Moses' laws were part of a contract and did not apply to those outside of Israel. In Islam, no one has a choice, anywhere, at any time, unless you call only conversion, slavery, or death "possibilities."

Providing means for dealing with a permanent global institution does not indicate approval or acceptance. (You see the same thing with divorce: God intended one man-one woman for life and hates divorce, but provides certain allowances for it because of the "hardness of men's hearts.") Since the Mosaic laws regarding slavery applied to only ancient Israel and not the non-Hebrew world, any implied or stated equivalence between the Mosaic Law and Islam is obviously ill-judged.

As for the commands to Christians regarding slavery, they are part of a larger principle, which is that Christians are to share the Gospel in word and deed no matter their station in life, the salvation of souls being more important than physical circumstances. That's why slaves who become Christians were told to obey their masters.

Where is the command to enslave? Nowhere. And you might remember that Jesus didn't lead an armed rebellion against the pagan Romans who oppressed Israel (as many expected); on the contrary, He taught His followers to honor Caesar. (And He happened to allow the Romans to murder Him for the sins of the world. What a mean god! He's just like Allah!)

And of course, unsurprisingly, you left out these declarations:

Were you a slave when called? Do not be concerned about it. (But if you can gain your freedom, avail yourself of the opportunity.) (1 Corinthians)

For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery (Galatians).

For you were called to freedom, brothers. Only do not use your freedom as an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another (Galatians).

If Christ "set us free for freedom," then how can you say that He "approves of slavery"?

As for stoning, only the deranged, the perverse, and Muslims can ask, "what makes you any better than muslims who stone women for similar reasons set out in the Bible?" The question is absurd on its face. Those kinds of false tu quoques are trotted out regularly by Islam's apologists. Are you sure you're not Muslim?

You oppose ancient Israel's method of capital punishment. Of course, stoning is horrific. What form of taking someone's life isn't? So, what should Moses have done? Nothing? (I thought you wanted evil punished?) Where was he going to find a gun? At his local Wal-Mart? Where was he going to plug in an electric chair? Unless you oppose capital punishment, you can't complain about stoning when that was one of the few options available for execution.

As for the reasons for capital punishment and to whom it applied, the Mosaic Law did not sanction stoning women hypocritically or for being raped and not having four witnesses, as does Islam. The regulations under Moses were not a means for keeping a nation oppressed and subservient to a warlord's wishes. And you may recall an account of Christ saving a woman from stoning for adultery by pointing out the hypocrisy of her accusers. Does that need explanation?

A last point: Christianity -- the doctrines derived from the Biblical texts regarding the Messiah -- originated with Moses, not Nicea. That's a common Muslim lie.

Are you sure you're not Muslim?

*"Similar" is not "same." That's just another false moral equivalence and tu quoque.

Looking for imperfections in me might be easier than facing the truth about Islam, but it definitely isn't "better"

The following is offered in response to a well-meaning but suicidally-erring Tsaritsyn, here:

Thank you for your concern, Tsaritsyn. Allow me to share mine with you:

-Why do you believe that just because you don't personally know any Muslims who rape in emulation of Muhammad that Muslims don't rape in emulation of Muhammad?

-Why do you believe that just because you aren't personally aware of any Muslims raping in Allah's name that Allah doesn't command Muslims to rape non-Muslims (and Muslim women and little girls)?

-Why do you libel a "brother" in defense of Islamic genocide, pedophilia, rape, and slavery?

-Why do you believe that my telling the truth about Islam endangers my soul?

-Why do you freely call me a "hypocrite" -- for which you have no evidence -- but refuse to denounce genocide, pedophilia, rape, and slavery in Allah's name and in emulation of Muhammad, of which you have fourteen hundred years of evidence?

-If I've erred or lied regarding Islam, why don't you point that out? If I've told the truth, then why the character assassination?

It is ironic that you accuse me of hypocrisy for pointing out the manifold crimes against God and Man carried out in obedience to Allah and its genocidal pedophile Muhammad, since though you admit (reluctantly and obliquely) that Islam kills, instead of doing something about that, you attack . . . me. In other words, Muslims commit the vilest atrocities against non-Muslims (and Muslim apostates, women, and little girls) -- including your "brothers and sisters" about whom you claim to care so much -- and rather than speak and act in their defense, you condemn me for pointing out the evil committed against them!

You're confusing crimes committed by people regardless of (or contrary to) their own belief system with crimes committed by others in obedience to one belief system in particular. In other words, when a Christian murders, rapes, or enslaves, he violates Christ's commands. When a Muslim murders a non-Muslim or Muslim apostate in service to Islam, it is in fulfillment of Allah's mandates. Do you see the distinction?

Of course, all people commit evil. The problem is that rather than condemn genocide, pedophilia, rape, and slavery -- as any decent religion should -- Islam calls them "beautiful," "Allah-pleasing," and "the best deed after believing," when done in imitation of and in obedience to Muhammad.

And isn't that instructive? Christ declared that the Second Greatest Commandment is to love your neighbor as yourself. Muhammad declared that the second greatest deed is to war against unbelievers. Do you see that distinction?

I agree that my posts contain "anger." But since I'm merely quoting Muhammad and referencing Muslim activity in imitation of him, don't blame me, blame him and his followers. The bloodlust, rape, and rapine belong to Allah's apostle alone, for he commanded the faithful Muslim to butcher and enslave those who refuse the "invitation" to convert.

It takes a special kind of ignorance, depravity, or cowardice to equate hatred of evil with the evil itself. Does your god hate evil? If he does, then why are you worried about my spiritual condition and not your own indifference? If he does not hate evil, then why do you worship him?

If I am angry, what is the target of my anger? Could it be the wanton slaughter of innocents -- men, women, and children, young and old -- in obedience to a god and prophet who mock and blaspheme Christ and rape and murder His Bride, the Church? Could it be the Allah-Pleasing Example who beheaded the men of one Jewish tribe who had surrendered to him and then distributed their women and children to his men for rape and slavery? Could it be fourteen hundred years of violating little, prepubescent nine-year-old girls and declaring that "Allah made me do it, and so should you"? Aren't such crimes deserving of scathing attacks? The harshest condemnation? Withering rebuke?

So, what "plank" must I remove in order to condemn jihad and shari'a? Whom have I decapitated to shouts of "Jesus is greatest!"? Whose wives do I keep as sex slaves because a god told me that it makes him happy? Whose little ones am I warping into malevolent fiends in order to have them war against their own blood?

Not even the godless need any compass more than the innate knowledge of right and wrong God gives to all people to understand that it is immoral to murder, enslave, torture, and rape your neighbor. How much more should a Christian, whose God has given us the Ten Commandments, the Golden Rule, and His own Son for the forgiveness of our sins, recognize, expose, and condemn such barbaric evil?

Why don't you see this? Could something be obstructing your vision? Perhaps you ought to examine yourself: Why doesn't the wholesale slaughter of non-Muslims in Allah's name make you angry? Why do you not rage at the rape of non-Muslim women and children to shouts of "Allahu akbar!"? Why do you see the atrocities carried out daily in Allah's name around the world and work up indignation only for those who point out those atrocities?

And what should resorting to argumentum ad hominem show you about yourself? If I've met no, one, some, many, most, or all Muslims, does that negate what Muslims do in waging jihad? Does it ameliorate or negate Allah's brutal commands? How does the number of my Muslim family members, friends, acquaintances, co-workers, neighbors, or fellow citizens change what Muhammad commanded and practiced?

Even if I were the most hateful xenophobe, would that mean that three thousand innocents weren't murdered at Allah's command on 9/11? Would that mean that Muslims haven't committed nearly seventeen thousand terrorist attacks since 9/11 alone? Would that mean that Allah's slaves haven't butchered, raped, and enslaved non-Muslims around the world for the last nearly one and one-half millennia? That Allah doesn't require the enslavement or slaughter of all who refuse the "invitation" to convert?

You confuse individual religious expression for what a particular deity requires. You don't make this mistake when you're libeling me, but you make it easily enough when you're obfuscating for Islam. Why is that?

Christ commanded His people, "Be perfect, as your Father in heaven is perfect." How many Christians do you know who've stopped sinning? Sure, there might be some who claim that they don't sin anymore, but at the moment they do so, they've violated the Eighth Commandment. (For that matter, how many Christians do you know who can identify the Eighth Commandment?) Why should Muslims be any different?

Like adherents to any other creed, the individual Muslim may be ignorant of his religion's authoritative texts. He might know what his texts state but reject them (or portions of them) as human invention. He might know what his texts state and believe that the words are true but reject their applicability to his time and place. He might know what his god commands but ignore the parts he finds problematic. Or perhaps he knows and believes his religion but values his own life and comfort too much to act on his god's commands.

And there are two (worse) cases unique to Islam: The individual, apparently-peaceful Muslim may be exploiting a loophole provided by Muhammad which allows him to please Allah (though not as much) by supporting jihad in nonviolent ways. Or he might be practicing taqiyya, deceiving his non-Muslim neighbors to protect himself (or Islam) as circumstances dictate.

As for what to do? Admit the truth about Islam, and inform others. Resist the advance of shari'a in America. Elect politicians who understand and oppose it.

With regard to following Christ's example, did he obfuscate for, excuse, or ignore evil? To those whose sin He forgave did He say, "Don't worry about it. No, really. It's not wrong; it's just an alternative lifestyle choice. There's nothing to forgive"? Is Christ indifferent to the suffering of innocents? Does he ignore the murderer but attack the murdered?

More personally, if jihadists were about to rape your wife or daughters, would the Son of God want you to stand there wondering about the planks in your own eyes, or would he prefer instead that you act like a man and do something to protect those entrusted to your care? Christ chastised Peter's effort at His defense not because He was a pacifist (have you never read Matthew? The Pentateuch? Revelation?), but because His intention was to die for the sins of all, and Peter's reaction was an obstacle to that. Jesus submitted to human evil in obedience to His Father for the forgiveness of our sins.

I know Christ's warnings against an improper use of language. When I consider my own words, I tremble. As for "how he talked to people," please identify Who said the following:

"woe to you!"

"you devour widows' houses . . . ."

"you make him twice as much a child of hell as yourselves."

"blind guides!"

"blind fools!"

"You serpents, you brood of vipers . . . !"

"white-washed sepulchres!"

"how are you to escape being sentenced to hell?"

"den of thieves!"

"it would be better for him if a great millstone were hung around his neck and he were thrown into the sea."

"Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels."

"I wish they'd go the whole way and emasculate themselves!"*

*That last one is St. Paul. You know the other Speaker.

You believe that "looking for imperfections" in me is "better, and harder" than defending all that you hold dear against the most vile totalitarian ideology in human history. It's a whole lot easier to attack and defame a Christian warning about the danger posed by jihad and shari'a than it is to defy those waging jihad and promoting shari'a, isn't it?

"Muhammad - the messenger of Allah - and those with him are harsh and stern against the disbelievers, but kind and compassionate amongst themselves" (Qur'an 48:29).

To justify genocide, pedophilia, rape, and slavery, one needs only to point to Muhammad

In response to Tsaritsyn, who asks, "how is your view, or your argument any different [than those who misquote, propagandize, and stereotype]?"

I'm telling the truth. If not, point out my error.

And if I'm quoting the Islamic texts, what "only one interpretation" am I "assuming"?

How I understand the texts doesn't matter. What matters is how Muslims interpret them. The fact is, devout Muslims have traditionally understood Muhammad's words and deeds as recorded in Qur'an, hadith, and sira literally. Centuries of commentary on those texts explain, for example, that even disbelief is "warring against Allah." Al-Ghazali, the "greatest Muslim after Muhammad," affirmed the necessity of warring against and subjugating non-Muslims. This is why no major school of Islamic jurisprudence rejects offensive warfare against "unbelievers" who refuse both the "invitation" to convert and the demand for surrender and tribute. That's 99% of official Islam.

In speaking of Christ and Allah, I've had everything flung at me. But Abraham, the Crusades, the Inquisition, etc., etc., ad infinitum, ad absurdum, ad nauseam, are merely false tu quoques, deflections, red herrings, distractions, as if those events -- even if they were proof of Christianity/Judaism being "just as bad" as Islam, which they are not -- negate fourteen hundred years of genocide, rape, and slavery in obedience to Allah and in emulation of his genocidal pedophile Muhammad.

In fact, those false charges from Muslims and their Useful Idiot dhimmis highlight the distinction between Christianity and Islam: When God commanded Abraham to offer his son Isaac as a test, did he command Abraham to kill other peoples' sons? But Allah promises paradise to those who kill and are killed fighting in its cause (Qur'an 9:111; no, that's not a typo).

As for the Crusades and Inquisition, where is the Biblical command for them? Nowhere. Period.

Besides that, the first Crusade was called in response to centuries of Christians under attack by . . . you guessed it! Islam. And the Spanish Inquisition? That was a reaction to eight hundred years of Islamic rule in Andalusia.

(I wonder, where did Christians get the idea to use political power in pursuit of religious goals? Could it have been from their Muslim overlords?)

No, only by misquoting Biblical passages can one justify evil with them; with Islam, to justify genocide, pedophilia, rape, and slavery, one needs only to imitate Muhammad.

As for anti-Semitic propaganda, where have I "twisted facts"? Which Jews are blowing up schools or beheading girls to shouts of "YHWH is greatest!"? Even if they were, to which Biblical text can they point in support of such barbarity? But the jihadists who butcher, rape, and maim every day around the world -- and have done so for the last nearly one and one-half millennia -- find ample justification for their crimes against God and Man from Muhammad's words and deeds.

"kill the pagans wherever you find them" (Qur'an 9:5).

Add "hatred of Christianity" to the list of reasons "Why nobody understands Islam"

The redoubtable Ronald Craig sees fit to throw the dirty bath water on the baby with this revealing bit:

"'Abrahamic' is one of Muhammad's lies."

Really? And "Christianity" is monotheistic. Please. LOL.

"Another example of those who hate Christianity so much that they'd ignore or otherwise facilitate the jihad against them[=it?]." (I think you meant "it" there.)

Nah, I hate human stupidity in general too much to waste time specifically on "Christianity". But yes, if you little spiritual sons of Abraham want to wipe each other out and can do it without dragging down the rest of the world with you (not in your plans, I know!), sure, I'd be more than happy to look the other way while you do so.

And seriously, all the hate-mongering you're engaged in? (Yeah, I know, you're just "defending" yourself. LOL!)

WWJD?

Here's my reply:

Speaking of "human stupidity," it's clear that you've wasted no time on either Christianity or Islam.

Here are a few points to consider:

-Christianity is not polytheistic: "Let us make man in our image" ("image" not "images"). "You shall have no other gods before Me." "Hear, O Israel, the LORD our God, the LORD is one." "The Father and I are one." "baptizing them in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit . . . " ("name," not "names").

Just because we can't comprehend YHWH's nature doesn't mean we can't apprehend His nature when He reveals it.

-If Muhammad had been a son of Abraham, he would have said and done what Abraham said and did. According to his own texts, Muhammad "sacralized" the violation of all Ten Commandments and the Golden Rule. Clearly, he was no son of Abraham.

-I did not mean "it." Jihad is being waged against you, but your antagonism towards Christianity blinds you to that.

-"you little spiritual sons of Abraham want to wipe each other out and can do it without dragging the rest of the world with you" indicates an utter ignorance of Islam. Even though you know nothing about Christianity, you ought to know by now that Islam is at war with the non-Muslim world, regardless of creed. You think you're safe, but Allah has special hatred for the godless like you.

-How is telling the truth about Muhammad -- whose words and deeds are actual hate; it takes a special kind of nescience (or perverseness) to confuse the two -- "hate-mongering"? No doubt, in your mind Churchill was hateful for telling the truth about Hitler before he began devouring Europe. Do you understand that, Ronald? Muhammad beheads fathers and rapes and enslaves their wives and daughters -- including prepubescent little girls -- and you're calling Christians "hate-mongers."

-We know what Jesus did. Unlike you, He never apologized for evil or conflated it with its resistance.

Deal honestly with the facts as they exist, Ronald.

That tune playing in the salon? It'll be a dirge, if there's anyone left to mourn

A self-loathing, Islamophilic (probably more a case of "anti-Christian") "journalist" attacks those exposing the existential threat posed to the West by Islam, and the devout and the suicidal rush in to his defense.

In response to this piece of perverse and destructive dhimmi propaganda at Salon:

In one breath the author of this article describes opposition to "radical Islamists" as "Islamophobia."

Which is it? If some seek to slaughter in Allah's name and in accord with Muhammad's example, then how can anyone's opposition to their "sacralized" genocide (and pedophilia, rape, and slavery) be a "phobia"?

As for Ozzie's outright, bald-faced lie that Islam does not produce terrorists, that is exactly diametric to the truth: Muhammad commanded his followers to enslave or slaughter all who refuse the "invitation" to convert, himself declaring:

"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).

"It is not for any prophet to have captives until he hath made slaughter in the land. Ye desire the lure of this world and Allah desireth (for you) the Hereafter, and Allah is Mighty, Wise" (Qur'an 8:67).

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

Not only do you have venomous Muslims deceiving the ignorant, but you have the crippling and libelous equating of Christianity and Islam:

It is intellectually-dishonest (and suicidally-foolish) to try to equate Christianity and Islam (though to those who declare that Islam is "just as bad" as Christianity, thanks for admitting that Islam is "bad").

It is true that human beings of all religious persuasions do evil, but it is not true that all religions inspire violence equally.

Christ committed no sin, spoke only the truth, healed the sick, raised the dead, died for the sins of the whole world, and resurrected, commanding His people to love even their enemies.

On the other hand, Muhammad made "holy" the violation of all Ten Commandments and the Golden Rule, preaching and practicing genocide, pedophilia, rape, slavery, torture, mutilation, theft, extortion, religious and gender apartheid, wife-beating, polygyny, deceit, and blasphemy, claiming that "Allah made me do it, and so will you . . . or else."

No, the difference between Christ and Allah is literally the difference between Heaven and hell.

Defending the rape, enslavement, and slaughter of non-Muslims in Allah's name isn't all it's cracked up to be

Some of the better responses (okay, my replies) to the immoral and criminally-nescient fluff piece in defense of Islam here which point out the scriptural and historical justification for jihad and shari'a keep disappearing. Strange.  Must be Islamophilic electrons.

(I know it's supposed to be a humor site, but that apologist isn't joking and regardless, there's nothing funny about lying in defense of the raping and enslaving of your women and children because they're the "wrong" religion.)


Why is it that both Muslims and non-Muslims who seek to protect the Religion of Perpetual Denial of Responsibility must resort not to defending Islam, but to attacking whomever is pointing out what Islam actually says and does?

Here are a few of their favorites:

1) [Insert religion here (usually Christianity, but the Jews -- the Jews! -- are gaining popularity nowadays] is just as bad (not realizing that they're admitting that Islam is "bad");

2) Hitler [McVeigh, or some other non-Christian] engaged in slaughter (failing to recognize the numeric disparity: One non-Christian monster vs. millions of Muslim ones. I suppose that for Muslim apologists and their Useful Idiot dhimmis, Mathematics just isn't their game);

3) Playing the victim, or European colonialism/poverty/George W. Bush causes jihad (despite the fact that Christians and other non-Muslims who are oppressed -- especially under Islam -- aren't beheading their neighbors while praising their deities);

4) Not all Muslims are terrorists (as if that means that Muslims are not raping, maiming, and butchering non-Muslims every day around the world in obedience to Allah and in accord with Muhammad's example).

Here is a response to the murderously-ignorant and kuffarophobic Julie's clueless defense of Islam. Enjoy!

Julie,

The implication that non-Muslim opposition to jihad and shari'a is somehow morally equivalent to someone holding a grudge for something that happened generations earlier is laughable on its face. Muslims are raping, enslaving, and killing now, today, and their atrocities are done in accord with their genocidal pedophile's teachings [and doings]. Undoubtedly, you've never studied Qur'an, hadith, nor sira.

Of course, not all Muslims are terrorists, but nearly all of today's terrorists are Muslim, and they've carried out more than sixteen thousand terrorist attacks since 9/11 alone. Just because all don't kill doesn't mean that those who do are "extremists hijacking a great world religion of peace."

As for "allah," you're right that the word can be used as a common noun to refer to any deity (you don't note this, but Arabic-speaking Christians use the term to refer to the God of the Bible), but we're unconcerned with YHWH, Vishnu, or Molech, since their followers are not blowing up worshipers of other religions at their holy places.

We're concerned with Muhammad's allah, because it requires its adherents to use any means necessary -- including violence -- to make the world Islam, a fact which serves to highlight the absurdity of your reference to ancient Israel.

A one-time, limited, Divine judgment for horrific crimes (including child sacrifice) and for warring against previously-defenseless Israel 3500 years ago is not the same as timeless, eternal, universal, open-ended allah-mandated rape, slavery, and slaughter carried out for the last nearly one and one-half millennia and currently.

Once 3500 years ago versus the last fourteen hundred years and now. Note the contrast.

As for your shamefully nescient tu quoques and false moral equivalences: "Christians did it too," "Christians would be strapping on bomb-vests," and "McVeigh! McVeigh!"?

Millions of Christians today suffer poverty and injustice (especially in Muslim lands). How often do we hear of poor and oppressed Christians beheading the daughters of other religions to shouts of "Jesus is LORD!"? But Muslims commit such crimes piously and with regularity.

Neither did early Christianity commit violence. Islam always has, and does so still. Why?

The reason is because Christ committed no sin, spoke only the truth, healed the sick, raised the dead, died for the sins of the whole world, and resurrected, commanding His people to love even their enemies. What about Muhammad?

According to Islam's own "sacred" texts, he preached and practiced genocide, pedophilia, rape, slavery, torture, mutilation, the assassination of political opponents, religious and gender apartheid, wife-beating, polygyny, theft, extortion, deceit, blasphemy, sedition, and treason, declaring that, "Allah made me do it, and you will too . . . or else."

And McVeigh? He was no Christian. Phelps claims he is. To which of Christ's words or deeds can anyone point in justifying their actions? But Muslims every day point to numerous ayat and ahadith in defense of their crimes.

(As for the library at Alexandria, one historical source blames Caesar. Muslims also take credit for it. Don't be so eager to defame Christians in your defense of Muslim slaughter.)

How is it "vicious" to state plainly the fact that Islam advocates and practices genocide? Isn't it more "vicious" to command, preach, and practice genocide? Why are you attacking those merely exposing Islam's "sacred" texts? Why aren't you attacking those who actually believe those texts and put them into practice?

If one participant in a "cycle of violence" worships a god and prophet who require "holy war" against "unbelievers" until they convert, submit, or die, how do you expect that "cycle of violence" to end if its targets put down their arms? Your moral vanity results only in non-Muslims in either chains or the grave.

I hope you're just a Muslim obfuscating for Islam. Muhammad declared that "War is deceit," so I'd expect that from you. But if you're not, if you're just someone with so much murderous animosity toward Christians that you aid those you think are going to stick it to "good white Christian folk," then you're in for a rude awakening.

You really ought to study Islam's core texts, history, and current events. It's not Methodists or Korean War veterans setting off car bombs in front of places of worship, is it?

Prejudice against Islam

In response to this post, Ray McIntyre offered this:

Let me see:

Muslims died in the WTC buildings. The Mosque is 2 blocks from the WTC ground Zero area. It is being built by a Sufi group, sufis are among those people that those who attacked the WTC attack, murder and whose graves they desecrate.

But I don't imagine this will dent your prejudice and fear.

Many are prejudiced regarding Islam. The question is, who is judging Islam unfairly and out of ignorance? Are those who've read its "sacred" texts "bigoted," or are those who know nothing of what Muhammad actually said and did misrepresenting the "great world religion"?

Here's my reply to someone in the latter group:

It is clear that even nine years after 9/11, nothing's "dented" your prejudice regarding Islam.

Despite propaganda to the contrary, Sufis do not reject jihad against non-Muslims*. No major school of Islamic jurisprudence does. If you want to find genuinely non-violent Muslims, you have to go to groups like the Ahmadiyya Muslim Jama'at, who are persecuted as apostates by their more orthodox coreligionists, even in modern, moderate, Muslim nations like Indonesia.

To your ad-hominem-in-place-of-argument: Even if I were prejudiced and fearful, what does that have to do with what Muslims do in obedience to their god and prophet? What about what I've written is false? What does "two blocks" have to do with whether or not we should allow a trophy mosque at Ground Zero? (By the way, "Mosque at Ground Zero" was the name its backers came up with, not its opposition.)

If I quote Muhammad, then where is the "prejudice"? If I cite nearly one and one-half millennia of slavery, rape, and slaughter in Allah's name and in accord with Muhammad's example, where is the "phobia"?

Let's examine your logic a bit: Some Muslims who weren't flying planes died in 9/11. Does that mean that their coreligionists flying the planes weren't Muslim? Weren't trying to kill and terrorize non-Muslims? Weren't acting on the words and deeds of their "Ideal Man," the genocidal pedophile Muhammad?

Just the other day a Muslima suicide bomber killed dozens of her fellow Muslims. For fourteen centuries, Sunni have slaughtered Shia and Shia Sunni. None of that internecine violence negates the fact that Muhammad was a bloodthirsty, child-raping tyrant. In fact, Muhammad's words and deeds explain that violence.

So, why do you defend Muhammad's "sacralized" crimes against God and Man? Do you do so out of "prejudice" or "fear"?

*Al-Ghazali was “acclaimed in both the East and West as the greatest Muslim after Muhammad."

Here he is on jihad and dhimma (by way of Andrew Bostom):

"[O]ne must go on jihad (i.e., warlike razzias or raids) at least once a year . . . one may use a catapult against them [non-Muslims] when they are in a fortress, even if among them are women and children. One may set fire to them and/or drown them...If a person of the Ahl al-Kitab [People of The Book – primarily Jews and Christians] is enslaved, his marriage is [automatically] revoked . . . One may cut down their trees . . . One must destroy their useless books. Jihadists may take as booty whatever they decide . . . they may steal as much food as they need . . . .

"[T]he dhimmi is obliged not to mention Allah or His Apostle . . . Jews, Christians, and Majians must pay the jizya [poll tax on non-Muslims] . . . on offering up the jizya, the dhimmi must hang his head while the official takes hold of his beard and hits [the dhimmi] on the protruberant [sic] bone beneath his ear [i.e., the mandible] . . . They are not permitted to ostentatiously display their wine or church bells . . . their houses may not be higher than the Muslim’s, no matter how low that is. The dhimmi may not ride an elegant horse or mule; he may ride a donkey only if the saddle[-work] is of wood. He may not walk on the good part of the road. They [the dhimmis] have to wear [an identifying] patch [on their clothing], even women, and even in the [public] baths…[dhimmis] must hold their tongue…. [2] (From the Wagjiz, written in 1101 A.D)"

Why America is doomed

Muslims and their Useful Idiot dhimmis coming out of the woodwork to defend NPR's jihad against Juan Williams

A leftist accidentally told the truth today. Not only that, but he's black. NPR CEO Vivian Shiller can't allow that, can she?

Offered in response to someone claiming that Juan Williams had it coming:

"Juan believes that it is bad for someone to see themselves in terms of their religion, and if they do that they are to be feared. That is the comment of someone who has not risen above their own racism"

First, Williams was not commenting on all religions, he was commenting on Islam. I doubt that nuns make him sweat.

Second, Islam is an ideology, not a race. That anyone repeats that canard speaks only to their ignorance or deceitfulness.

To both you and the earlier poster worried about her husband: Once Muslims stop murdering non-Muslims to shouts of "Allahu akbar!" non-Muslims will stop being nervous around them. Stop the genocide, rape, and slavery and POOF! No more "discrimination."

Burning the text responsible for nearly one and one-half millennia of genocide, pedophilia, rape, and slavery is "hate," but practicing such depravity -- that's religious liberty!

Obvious racists burning Qur'an.
Do they know something we don't?

I didn't endorse Terry Jones' (apparent) publicity stunt (if he were acting on his convictions, the pile of refuse would have burned), and I don't advocate burning books in general, but has anyone noticed that all during the Islamophilic media's fabricated controversy (in defense of the Ground Zero mosque; it was no coincidence) over his plan to burn Qur'an, those enlightened defenders of the oppressed ignored the genocidal, pedophilic elephant in the room?

"After condemnations from around the world, Jones called off the burning."

Who's calling off "kill the pagans wherever you find them . . . Fight those who disbelieve . . . even if they are the People of the Book [Jews and Christians, mostly] . . . Paradise [belongs to those who] fight in his cause, and slay and are slain" (Qur'an 9)?

The West's political and media "leaders" are so blinded by their suicidal ignorance, guilt, and self-loathing, their hatred of Christianity, and their need for approval that rather than condemn Muhammad's medieval* Mein Kampf, they attack those who oppose its martial, monstrous, misogynistic mandates.

It is up to us to inform the ignorant, fire the treasonous, persuade the moderate, expose the deceitful, and oppose the devout. Vigorously.

*Another expression of the West's hatred of its Christian past, Islamic barbarity is compared often to Medieval Europe or Christianity's "early days," not realizing (or caring) that Christ was raising the dead six centuries before Muhammad was a gleam in satan's eye.

Lying Reza Aslan hijacks 9/11 by obfuscating for the ideology which inspired it

Reza Aslan, part of the actual "hate group" whose members hijacked planes and used them as missiles on 9/11, plays on the Left's self-loathing and contempt for Western Civilization by attacking those who oppose Muhammad's murderous and incestuous ideology.

(It's no little irony that one of hell's salesmen would spread its lies at a site named after its chief occupant.)

In response to someone all-too-eager to be deceived by the shameless Aslan:

How suicidally-foolish one must be to deny obvious facts in service to an intolerant, hateful, murderous ideology which denies freedom of speech and conscience and equality under the law to females and non-Muslims.

It is neither hateful, racist, bigoted, nor irrational to oppose "sacralized" genocide, pedophilia, rape, slavery, and sedition in the name of Muhammad's deity.

Rather than aid the downfall of Western Civilization and the extinction of the liberties you enjoy, educate yourselves regarding an ancient existential threat renewed in our day. There may be moderate Muslims (if Reza Aslan is one of them, why is he attacking those defending Life and Liberty?), but Islam itself is not moderate:

"the Messenger of Allah . . . would say: 'Fight in the name of Allah and in the way of Allah. Fight against those who disbelieve in Allah. Make a holy war. . . . When you meet your enemies who are polytheists, invite them to three courses of action. . . . Invite them to (accept) Islam; if they respond to you, accept it from them and desist from fighting against them. . . . If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya. If they agree to pay, accept it from them and hold off your hands. If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah's help and fight them . . .'" (Muslim Book 19, Number 4294).

"fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war) . . . " (Qur'an 9:5).

"Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued" (Qur'an 9:29).

"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."

"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).

"It is not for any prophet to have captives until he hath made slaughter in the land. Ye desire the lure of this world and Allah desireth (for you) the Hereafter, and Allah is Mighty, Wise" (Qur'an 8:67).

"Allah's Apostle said, '. . . I have been made victorious with terror . . .'" (Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 220).

Answering the unthinkable question

Offered in response to an apparent Muslim who answered "Islam is as Islam does" with "christianity is what christianity does...child molester," implying that Christianity is "just as bad as Islam," or worse:

Analogies can be helpful in showing the essence of a thing, and one might add clarity here: If this were 1943, you'd be arguing to firebomb London since murder occurs in the UK, too, rather than admitting the inhuman barbarism of National Socialism and the need to defeat it.

Evil is found in all societies: All non-Muslims sin and not all Muslims butcher, rape, and maim their neighbors to shouts of "Allahu akbar!" But the issue is not idiosyncratic religious expression which varies by knowledge, zeal, resources, and opportunity and may or may not reflect accurately the will of a particular deity, but what a god requires of its followers as defined by its authoritative texts.

If Islam really is a "religion of peace" no more likely to inspire violence than any other faith, then fine. Nuns must be patted-down by hijab-clad TSA employees, and we've all got to get body-scanned at the airport because there's just no way in the world of predicting who's going to explode until they're trying to land the plane.

If, however, Islam is a system of beliefs that requires the utter depravity committed in its name around the world for the last fourteen hundred years, then you're suggesting that we ignore that explosives-laden elephant-in-the-room and base our self-defense on your assertion that Christians are "just as bad." (At least that's an admission that Muslims rape children.)

This is the unthinkable question: Is Islamic "extremism" condoned, encouraged, or commanded by the religion, or not? If jihad and shari'a are legitimate expressions of Allah's will and Muhammad's life, then your moral equivalences and tu quoques are not only false, but murderous.

When a Christian does evil, he or she does so in violation of Christ's commands. When a Muslim rapes little, prepubescent nine-year-old girls, he does so in emulation of Muhammad's example and with Allah's approval, for Muhammad boasted that Allah not only willed his raping the baby but declared his actions to be a "beautiful pattern of conduct" for those who want to please him.

(Did you catch that? Allah calls Muhammad's raping little children "beautiful." Will you condemn Muhammad's making poor, little, prepubescent 'Aisha his sex slave beginning when she was only nine-years-old? If not, why not?)

Jesus committed no sin, spoke only the truth, healed the sick, raised the dead, died for the sins of the whole world, and resurrected, commanding His people to love even their enemies and warning that "anyone who causes a little one to sin" would be better off having a large stone tied around his neck and being thrown into the depths of the sea.

On the other hand, Muhammad "pleased Allah" by committing genocide, pedophilia, rape, mutilation, torture, slavery, theft, extortion, wife-beating (commanded, at least), polygyny, religious and gender apartheid, the murder of critics, deceit, blasphemy, sedition, and treason, claiming that "the devil made me do it, and so will you -- or else."

We face an existential threat, one that has devoured civilizations for nearly one and one-half millennia. Defending Islam by attacking Christianity is not only irrational and immoral, it sends more Muslim souls to hell and advances hell-on-Earth for non-Muslims and Muslim apostates, women, and little girls.

Whose side are you on?

Update: Amazon's courageously deleted the above post.  Whom does that aid?

"So, should the guy with halal cart not be allowed within a certain radius of Ground Zero? Just curious..."

So asks someone to whom the obvious answer apparently is, "No, he should be allowed . . . ."

I disagree:

That depends, Ryan.

If it’s 1942, should the guy with the hibachi and a tattoo of “I heart Hirohito” be allowed anywhere near Pearl Harbor?

If it’s 1944, should the dude wearing the swastika armband and goosestepping down the sidewalk to his bratwurst stand be allowed anywhere near D.C.?

Today, should a registered sex offender wearing a t-shirt that declares “I like little girls” be allowed near your daughter?

Just curious.

Do you realize that the Muslims who flew our own planes into our own buildings did so because they believed that it pleased their god to kill non-Muslims? That they would earn “paradise,” a cosmic brothel populated by dozens of perpetual virgins and “boys like pearls” for killing or being killed while fighting in Allah’s cause (Qur’an 9:111; no, that citation is not a joke)?

Tragically, contrary to what the unaware, incurious, and possibly-compromised President Bush would have us believe (not to mention the “smartest president ever” who grew up Muslim, took Qur’an classes for the best students, received aid during his college years from an adviser to a member of the Saudi royal family, “vacationed” in Pakistan when Americans could not, described the Muslim call to prayer as “one of the prettiest sounds on Earth,” and “misspoke” in an interview by referring to “my Muslim faith”), Islam is not a “religion of peace,” and the 9/11 butchers were not “hijacking” a “great world religion.”

“Islam” means “submission,” not “peace,” and its founder Muhammad and his allah commanded the establishment of Islamic rule over all mankind by any means necessary, including violence: “kill the pagans wherever you find them . . . Fight against those who disbelieve in Allah . . . even if they are the People of the Book [Jews and Christians, primarily] until they pay the jizya [oppressive poll tax required of conquered "dhimmi" survivors] willingly and feel themselves subdued” (Qur’an 9).

So, Ryan, should the guy whose heart and mind belongs to Allah and his apostle Muhammad — who boasted, “I have been made victorious with terror” — be allowed anywhere near the site of one of his coreligionists’ bloodiest crimes?

Just curious.

The actual "siege" in Palestine

Like any good predator, Muslims justify their brutal depravity by blaming their victims.  It doesn't hurt that so many non-Muslims in the West today are not only ignorant of Islam, but easily manipulated through the use of implied charges of racism and feelings of civilizational guilt.

Offered in response to more of Mohamed Fadly's lies here (we'll see how long it takes for him to realize what I've posted.  That I've posted.):

You know that Allah forbids taking friends from among "unbelievers except as a precaution against them." You know that "submission to the state" is just your not-so-clever attempt to hide the fact that submission to the Islamic "state" is submission to Islamic law is submission to Islam is submission to the genocidal pedophile's base lusts, and IT IS NOT VOLUNTARY.

When the only choices you have are conversion, subjugation (slavery as dhimmis), or death, it's neither "religion" nor freedom of choice, it's hell-on-Earth.

And as for "Israeli Defense Ministry -which is responsible for the siege enforced against Palestinians inside Gaza," the responsibility for the "siege" (since when is self-defense a "siege"?) belongs solely to faithful Muslims obeying Allah's commands and emulating Muhammad's example in waging jihad.

Speaking of "siege's" this is the actual "siege" in "Palestine," as explained by Ibn Kathir:

[. . .]

Allah said next,

(So when the Sacred Months have passed...),

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

(then fight the Mushrikin wherever you find them)

means, on the earth in general, except for the Sacred Area, for Allah said, (And fight not with them at Al-Masjid Al-Haram, unless they fight you there. But if they attack you, then fight them. 2:191) Allah said here,

(and capture them)

executing some and keeping some as prisoners,

(and besiege them, and lie in wait for them in each and every ambush)

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

(But if they repent and perform the Salah, and give the Zakah, then leave their way free. Verily, Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.)

Abu Bakr As-Siddiq used this and other honorable Ayat as proof for fighting those who refrained from paying the Zakah. These Ayat allowed fighting people unless, and until, they embrace Islam and implement its rulings and obligations.

[. . .]

In the Two Sahihs, it is recorded that Ibn `Umar said that the Messenger of Allah said,

(I have been commanded to fight the people until they testify that there is no deity worthy of worship except Allah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, establish the prayer and pay the Zakah.)

This honorable Ayah (9:5) was called the Ayah of the Sword, about which Ad-Dahhak bin Muzahim said, "It abrogated every agreement of peace between the Prophet and any idolator, every treaty, and every term.'' Al-`Awfi said that Ibn `Abbas commented: "No idolator had any more treaty or promise of safety ever since Surah Bara'ah was revealed. The four months, in addition to, all peace treaties conducted before Bara'ah was revealed and announced had ended by the tenth of the month of Rabi` Al-Akhir . . . ."

So, the Verse of the Sword "abrogated every agreement of peace between the Prophet and any idolator, every treaty, and every term," leaving non-Muslims "no choice, but to die or embrace Islam."

Apes and pigs, right, Mohamed?

And to Moonlite, who's never met a "minority" who wasn't "oppressed" or a tyrant whom she didn't want to appease:

Every time there's a conflict, it's the more ignorant, more barbaric, "browner," non Judeo-Christians who must be the innocent victims, right? Right?

Wait 'til they're at your door, Ann Klein. You'll wish you had opposed the butchers instead of their [prey].