Unintentional Islamic truthfulness

Fighting, slaying, seizing, beleaguering, and lying in wait are, literally, what Muslims mean by "Muslim-Jewish Engagement."

Here's to a brief moment of honesty. Salud!

Should we believe the media or our lyin' eyes?

You won't get any facts from the Islamophobic mainstream media or politicians. Here's what's really going on with flotilla jihad:

"Slaughter the Muslims!"*

Robert Spencer reports on a Muslim who, after disrupting an address by an Israeli minister at Oxford with shouts of "Slaughter the Jews!" claims that he was "misunderstood" and explains why that defense is more offensive and ominous than it might appear at first glance.  Note the vile filth Muhammad's depravity and barbarism, which included raping the wife of a man he had tortured and decapitated earlier that day:

another sleazy Islamic supremacist claims he was "misunderstood." You would think that after awhile they'd be too embarrassed to bring out this tired, lame excuse yet again, but they seem to be immune from embarrassment.

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

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

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

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

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

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

That's what Noor Rashid is now claiming that he did say. This is supposed to reassure us.

*If you think you read, "Slaughter the Muslims!" then clearly, you misunderstood.
It's okay to threaten and actually harm and kill Jews, but don't tell the truth about Muhammad!

Hitler only a pretender to Muhammad's throne

And what did it take to defeat Hitler?

Certainly not "talks without preconditions," "overseas contingency operations," bowing to der Fuhrer, betraying our allies, apologizing for our self-defense and the defense of others, or billions of dollars and thousands of lives to "win the hearts and minds" of those who hate us.

For the nescient, treasonous, and suicidal, comments on the nexus between Islam, Nazism, and Communism, from Bostom:

During an interview conducted in the late 1930s (published in 1939), Carl Jung, the Swiss psychiatrist and founder of analytical psychiatry, was asked “…had he any views on what was likely to be the next step in religious development?” Jung replied, in reference to the Nazi fervor that had gripped Germany,

We do not know whether Hitler is going to found a new Islam. He is already on the way; he is like Muhammad. The emotion in Germany is Islamic; warlike and Islamic. They are all drunk with wild god. That can be the historic future.

Albert Speer, who was Hitler’s Minister of Armaments and War Production, wrote a contrite memoir of his World War II experiences while serving a 20-year prison sentence imposed by the Nuremberg tribunal. Speer’s narrative includes this discussion, which captures Hitler’s racist views of Arabs on the one hand, and his effusive praise for Islam on the other:

Hitler had been much impressed by a scrap of history he had learned from a delegation of distinguished Arabs. When the Mohammedans attempted to penetrate beyond France into Central Europe during the eighth century, his visitors had told him, they had been driven back at the Battle of Tours. Had the Arabs won this battle, the world would be Mohammedan today. For theirs was a religion that believed in spreading the faith by the sword and subjugating all nations to that faith. Such a creed was perfectly suited to the Germanic temperament.

Hitler said that the conquering Arabs, because of their racial inferiority, would in the long run have been unable to contend with the harsher climate and conditions of the country. They could not have kept down the more vigorous natives, so that ultimately not Arabs but Islamized Germans could have stood at the head of this Mohammedan Empire.

Hitler usually concluded this historical speculation by remarking, “You see, it’s been our misfortune to have the wrong religion. Why didn’t we have the religion of the Japanese, who regard sacrifice for the Fatherland as the highest good? The Mohammedan religion too would have been much more compatible to us than Christianity. Why did it have to be Christianity with its meekness and flabbiness?"

A similar ambivalence characterized Nazi Germany’s support for Arab Muslim causes in the World War II era. For example, in December 1937, Hitler even proposed omitting his “racial ladder” theory – which denigrated the Arabs – from a forthcoming Arabic translation of Mein Kampf. And a Berlin Foreign Ministry spokesman, during a November, 1942 press conference reported in the New York Times, took “great pains” to assure Arabs that Nazi anti-Semitic policies were directed at Jews exclusively. The spokesman elaborated:

The difference between Germany’s attitude toward Jews and Arabs has been clearly shown in the exchange of letters between the former Prime Minister of Iraq, Rashid Ali, and the German Institute for Racial Problems. We have never said the Arabs were inferior as a race. On the contrary, we have always pointed out the glorious historic past of the Arab people.

Although now, inexplicably, almost ignored in their entirety, writings produced for 100 years between the mid-19th through mid-20th Centuries, by important scholars and intellectuals, in addition to Carl Jung – for example, the historians Jacob Burckhardt, Waldemar Gurian, and Stoyan Pribichevich, philosopher Bertrand Russell, Protestant theologian Karl Barth, sociologist Jules Monnerot, and most notably, the renowned 20th Century scholar of Islamic Law, G.H. Bousquet – referred to Islam as a despotic, or in 20th Century parlance, totalitarian ideology.

Being imbued with fanaticism was the ultimate source of Muhammad’s great strength, and led to his triumph as a despot, according to the 19th Century Swiss historian Burckhardt:

Muhammad is personally very fanatical; that is his basic strength. His fanaticism is that of a radical simplifier and to that extent is quite genuine. It is of the toughest variety, namely doctrinaire passion, and his victory is one of the greatest victories of fanaticism and triviality. All idolatry, everything mythical, everything free in religion, all the multifarious ramifications of the hitherto existing faith, transport him into a real rage, and he hits upon a moment when large strata of his nation were highly receptive to an extreme simplification of the religious.

Burckhardt emphasizes that the Arabs, Muhammad’s henchmen, were not barbarians and had their own ingenuities, and spiritual traditions. Muhammad’s successful preaching among them capitalized upon an apparent longing for supra-tribal unification, “an extreme simplification.” Muhammad’s genius “lies in divining this.” Utilizing portions of the most varied existing traditions and taking advantage of the fact that “the peoples who were now attacked may also have been somewhat tired of their existing theology and mythology,” Muhammad

…with the aid of at least ten people, looks over the faiths of the Jews, Christians, and Parsis [Zoroastrians], and steals from them any scraps that he can use, shaping these elements according to his imagination. Thus everyone found in Muhammad’s sermons some echo of his accustomed faith. The very extraordinary thing is that with all this Muhammad achieved not merely lifetime success, the homage of Arabia, but founded a world religion that is viable to this day and has a tremendously high opinion of itself.

Burckhardt concludes that despite this achievement, Muhammad was not a great man, although he accepts the understandable inclination,

…to deduce great causes from great effects, thus, from Muhammad’s achievement, greatness of the originator. At the very least, one wants to concede in Muhammad’s case that he was no fraud, was serious about things, etc. However, it is possible to be in error sometime with this deduction regarding greatness and to mistake mere might for greatness. In this instance it is rather the low qualities of human nature that have received a powerful presentation. Islam is a triumph of triviality, and the great majority of mankind is trivial…But triviality likes to be tyrannical and is fond of imposing its yoke upon nobler spirits. Islam wanted to deprive distinguished old nations of their myths, the Persians of their Book of Kings, and for 1200 years it has actually prohibited sculpture and painting to tremendously large populations.

University of Notre Dame historian Waldemar Gurian, a refugee, who witnessed first hand the Communist and Fascist totalitarian movements in Europe, concluded (circa 1945) that Hitler, in a manner analogous to the 7th Century precedent of Muhammad as described by Burckhardt, had been the simplifier of German nationalism.

A fanatical simplifier who appeared as the unifier of various German traditions in the service of simple national aims and who was seen by many differing German group – even by some people outside Germany – as the fulfiller of their wishes and sharer of their beliefs, with some distortions and exaggerations – such, as long as he had success, was Adolf Hitler.

Based upon the same clear understandings (and devoid of our era’s dulling, politically correct constraints), Karl Barth, like Carl Jung (cited earlier), offered this warning, also published in 1939:

Participation in this life, according to it the only worthy and blessed life, is what National Socialism, as a political experiment, promises to those who will of their own accord share in this experiment. And now it becomes understandable why, at the point where it meets with resistance, it can only crush and kill – with the might and right which belongs to Divinity! Islam of old as we know proceeded in this way. It is impossible to understand National Socialism unless we see it in fact as a new Islam [emphasis in original], its myth as a new Allah, and Hitler as this new Allah’s Prophet.

Both philosopher Bertrand Russell, in 1920, and sociologist Jules Monnerot three decades later (in 1953), viewed the 20th Century’s other major strain of totalitarianism, emergent Bolshevism and established Soviet-style Communism, as in Monnerot’s words, “The Twentieth-Century Islam.” Russell wrote presciently in his 1920, Theory and Practice of Bolshevism, that,

Among religions, Bolshevism is to be reckoned with Mohammedanism rather than with Christianity and Buddhism. Christianity and Buddhism are primarily personal religions, with mystical doctrines and a love of contemplation. Mohammedanism and Bolshevism are practical, social, unspiritual, concerned to win the empire of this world.

By 1953, Monnerot (in his Sociology and Psychology of Communism) saw the “absolute tyranny” of Soviet Communism as “comparable to Islam,” for being both “a secular religion [emphasis in original] and as a universal State [emphasis in original].” He elaborated, in particular, on this concordance between the triumphal emergence of the Islamic and Soviet empires, as follows:

This merging of religion and politics was a major characteristic of the Islamic world in its victorious period. It allowed the head of State to operate beyond his own frontiers in the capacity of commander of the faithful (Amir-al-muminin); and in this way a Caliph was able to count upon his docile instruments, or captive souls, wherever there were men who recognized his authority. The territorial frontiers which seemed to remove some of his subjects from his jurisdiction were nothing more than material obstacles; armed force might compel him to feign respect for the frontier, but propaganda and subterranenan warfare could continue no less actively beyond it.

Religions of this kind acknowledge no frontiers. Soviet Russia is merely the geographical centre from which communist influence radiates; it is an ‘Islam’ on the march, and it regards its frontiers at any given moment as purely provisional and temporary. Communism, like victorious Islam, makes no distinction between politics and religion…

In a brilliant, dispassionate contemporary analysis, Ibn Warraq describes 14 characteristics of “Ur Fascism” as enumerated by Umberto Eco, analyzing their potential relationship to the major determinants of Islamic governance and aspirations, through the present. He adduces salient examples which reflect the key attributes discussed by Eco: the unique institution of Jihad war; the establishment of a Caliphate under “Allah’s vicegerent on earth,” the Caliph – ruled by Islamic Law, i.e., Sharia, a rigid system of subservience and sacralized discrimination against non-Muslims and Muslim women, devoid of basic freedoms of conscience, and expression. Warraq’s assessment confirms what G.H. Bousquet concluded (in 1950) from his career studying the historical development and implementation of Islamic Law:

Islam first came before the world as a doubly totalitarian system. It claimed to impose itself on the whole world and it claimed also, by the divinely appointed Muhammadan law, by the principles of fiqh [jurisprudence], to regulate down to the smallest details the whole life of the Islamic community and of every individual believer… the study of Muhammadan Law (dry and forbidding though it may appear)… is of great importance to the world of today.

But already in the mid-19th Century, Burckhardt, expanding upon his characterization of Islam’s founder, Muhammad, as a despot, described the theocratic polity he created as a particularly extreme religious despotism, created (and expanded) via jihad, which sought to invalidate the pre-Islamic past of its new votaries, by shaming that heritage.

All religions are exclusive, but Islam is quite notably so, and immediately it developed into a state which seemed to be all of a piece with the religion. The Koran is its spiritual and secular book of law. Its statutes embrace all areas of life...and remain set and rigid; the very narrow Arab mind imposes this nature on many nationalities and thus remolds them for all time (a profound, extensive spiritual bondage!) This is the power of Islam in itself. At the same time, the form of the world empire as well as of the states gradually detaching themselves from it cannot be anything but a despotic monarchy. The very reason and excuse for existence, the holy war, and the possible world conquest, do not brook any other form.

The strongest proof of real, extremely despotic power in Islam is the fact that it has been able to invalidate, in such large measure, the entire history (customs, religion, previous way of looking at things, earlier imagination) of the peoples converted to it. It accomplished this only by instilling into them a new religious arrogance which was stronger than everything and induced them to be ashamed [emphasis in original] of their past.

Historian Stoyan Pribichevich’s 1938 study of the Balkans “World Without End” demonstrates how Burckhardt’s conception of Islamic despotism applied to Ottoman rule. Pribichevich provides these illustrations, beginning with his characterization of the Ottoman Sultans:

Each was a blood descendant of Osman [d. 1326, founder of the Ottoman dynasty]; the commander of all armed forces; the Caliph, the religious chief of all Moslems; the Padishah or King of Kings with the power of life and death over even his own cabinet ministers; the indisputable executor of the Prophet’s will – the Shadow of God on Earth

Although the Sultan had a Council composed of ranking dignitaries, headed by an erstwhile “Prime Minister,” the Grand Vizier who advised him, Pribichevich notes:

But like the Janissaries [military slaves taken from the families of the subjugated Christian populations while adolescents, and forcibly converted to Islam, as part of the Ottoman devshirme levy system] they were Kuls, slaves whose lives and properties belonged to the master. Cases occurred where a Grand Vizier was put to death at a mere whim of the Sultan.

Thus Pribichevich concludes, regarding the Ottoman Sultanate, “Of all known dictators the Sultans were the most dictatorial.”

And Pribichevich goes on to explain how this dictatorial Ottoman Sultanate operated within the overall context of Islam’s religio-political totalitarian system, consistent with Bousquet’s observation (from 1950), based upon the latter’s analysis of Islamic Law:

Then, Islam was a totalitarian religion. The Koran regulated not only the relationship of man to God, but all aspects of political organization, economics, and private conduct. Although the Sultan was the sole legislator, his laws, the sheri [Shari’a], were expected to conform to the sacred text. Now, for the proper interpretation of the Prophet’s phrases, there was a body of learned priests and jurists, the Ulemas. While no born Moslem could become a member of the Janissaries, no ex-Christian was ever allowed to enter the sacred corporation of the Ulemas. These theologians were not the slaves of the Sultan, but their opinions nevertheless were only advisory. So, the whole exotic structure of the Ottoman state can be summed up this way: the Koran was the empire’s Constitution; the Sultan, its absolute executor; the Janissaries, the soldiers and administrators; and the thinking Ulemas, a sort of Supreme Court.

Finally, investigative journalist John Roy Carlson’s 1948-1950 interviews of Arab Muslim religious and political leaders provide consummate independent validation of these Western assessments. Perhaps most revealing were the candid observations of Aboul Saud, whom Carlson described as a “pleasant English-speaking member of the Arab League Office.” Aboul Saud explained to Carlson that Islam was an authoritarian religio-political creed which encompassed all of a Muslim’s spiritual and temporal existence. He stated plainly,

You might describe Mohammedanism as a religious form of State Socialism…The Koran give the State the right to nationalize industry, distribute land, or expropriate the right to nationalize industry, distribute land, or expropriate property. It grants the ruler of the State unlimited powers, so long as he does not go against the Koran. The Koran is our personal as well as our political constitution.

And after interviewing Muslim Brotherhood founder Hassan al-Banna himself, who “preached the doctrine of the Koran in one hand and the sword in the other,” Carlson observed:

It became clear to me why the average Egyptian worshipped the use of force. Terror was synonymous with power! This was one reason why most Egyptians, regardless of class or calling had admired Nazi Germany. It helped explain the sensational growth of the Ikhwan el Muslimin [Muslim Brotherhood]

[. . .]

34 years ago (1974), Bat Ye’or published a remarkably foresighted analysis of the Islamic anti-Semitism and resurgent Jihadism in her native Egypt, being packaged for dissemination throughout the Muslim world. The primary, core Antisemitic and Jihadist motifs were Islamic, derived from Islam’s foundational texts, on to which European, especially Nazi elements were grafted.

The pejorative characteristics of Jews as they are described in Muslim religious texts are applied to modern Jews. Anti-Judaism and anti-Zionism are equivalent – due to the inferior status of Jews in Islam, and because divine will dooms Jews to wandering and misery, the Jewish state appears to Muslims as an unbearable affront and a sin against Allah. Therefore it must be destroyed by Jihad.

Here the Pan-Arab and anti-Western theses that consider Israel as an advanced instrument of the West in the Islamic world, come to reinforce religious anti-Judaism. The religious and political fuse in a purely Islamic context onto which are grafted foreign elements. If, on the doctrinal level, Nazi influence is secondary to the Islamic base, the technique with which the Antisemitic material has been reworked, and the political purposes being pursued, present striking similarites with Hitler’s Germany. That anti-Jewish opinions have been widely spread in Arab nationalist circles since the 1930s is not in doubt. But their confirmation at [Al] Azhar [University] by the most important authorities of Islam enabled them to be definitively imposed, with the cachet of infallible authenticity, upon illiterate masses that were strongly attached to religious traditions.

Nazi academic and propagandist of extermination Johannes von Leers’ writings and personal career trajectory – as a favored contributor in Goebbel’s propaganda ministry, to his eventual adoption of Islam (as Omar Amin von Leers) while working as an anti-Western, and anti-Semitic/anti-Zionist propagandist under Nasser’s regime from the mid-1950s, until his death in 1965 – epitomizes this convergence of Jihad, Islamic anti-Semitism, and racist, Nazi anti-Semitism, as described by Bat Ye’or.

Leers – who was Goebbel’s favorite Nazi propagandist of annihilation – expressed two decades before eventually converting to Islam, in Blut und Rasse in der Gesetzgebung (Blood and Race in Legislation, 1936), his admiration for “the imperious and warlike Islam [of the peoples] who still had a clear Nordic racial component,” while also extolling in Der Kardinal und die Germanen (“The Cardinal and the Germans,” 1934) Islam’s ecumenical “tolerance.” In subsequent essays published during 1938 and 1942, von Leers produced analyses focused primarily on Muhammad’s interactions with the Jews of Medina. Collectively, these essays reveal his pious reverence for Islam and its prophet, and a thorough understanding of the sacralized Islamic sources for this narrative, i.e., the Koran, hadith, and sira, which is entirely consistent with standard Muslim apologetics.

Citing (or referring to) the relevant foundational text sources (i.e., Koran 13:36; 8:55-58; 59:1-15; the sira and canonical hadith descriptions of the fate of individual Jews such as Abu Afak and Ka’b ibn Ashraf, and the Jewish tribes Banu Qaynuqa, Banu Nadir, Banu Qurayzah, as well as the Jews of the Khaybar oasis), von Leers in his 1942 essay “Judiasm and Islam as Opposites,” chronicles Muhammad’s successful campaigns which vanquished these Jews, killing and dispersing them, “…or at most allow[ing] them to remain in certain places if they paid a poll tax.” Von Leers further describes the accounts (from the hadith, and more elaborately, the sira) of Muhammad’s poisoning by a Khaybar Jewess, and also notes the canonical hadith which records Caliph Umar’s rationale for his putative expulsion from northern Arabia of those remaining Jews who survived Muhammad’s earlier campaigns:

On his deathbed Mohammed is supposed to have said: “There must not be two religions in Arabia.” One of his successors, the caliph Omar, resolutely drove the Jews out of Arabia.

And von Leers even invokes the apocalyptic canonical hadith which 46 years later became the keystone of Hamas’ 1988 charter sanctioning a Jihad genocide against the Jewish State of Israel:

Ibn Huraira even communicates to us the following assertion of the great man of God: “Judgment Day will come only when the Moslems have inflicted an annihilating defeat on the Jews, when every stone and every tree behind which a Jew has hidden says to believers: ‘Behind me stands a Jew, smite him.’”

Von Leers’ 1942 essay concludes by simultaneously extolling the “model” of oppression the Jews experienced under Islamic suzerainty, and the nobility of Muhammad, Islam, and the contemporary Muslims of the World War II era, foreshadowing his own conversion to Islam just over a decade later:

They [the Jews] were subjected to a very restrictive and oppressive special regulation that completely crippled Jewish activities. All reporters of the time when the Islamic lands still completely obeyed their own laws agree that the Jews were particularly despised… Mohammed’s opposition to the Jews undoubtedly had an effect – oriental Jewry was completely paralyzed by Islam. Its back was broken. Oriental Jewry has played almost no role in Judaism’s massive rise to power over the last two centuries. Scorned, the Jews vegetated in the dirty alleys of the mellah, and were subject to a special regulation that did not allow them to profiteer, as they did in Europe, or even to receive stolen goods, but instead kept them fearful and under pressure. Had the rest of the world adopted a similar method, today we would have no Jewish question – and here we must absolutely note that there were also Islamic rulers, among them especially the Spanish caliphs of the House of Muawiyah, who did not adhere to Islam’s traditional hostility to Jews – to their own disadvantage. However, as a religion Islam has performed the immortal service of preventing the Jews from carrying out their threatened conquest of Arabia and of defeating the dreadful doctrine of Jehovah through a pure faith that opened the way to higher culture for many peoples and gave them an education and humane training, so that still today a Moslem who takes his religion seriously is one of the most worthy phenomena in this world in turmoil.

And even earlier, in a 1938 essay, von Leers further sympathized with, “the leading role of the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem [Hajj Amin el-Husseini] in the Arabians’ battles against the Jewish invasion in Palestine.” Von Leers observes that to the pious Muslim, “…the Jew is an enemy, not simply an ‘unbeliever’ who might perhaps be converted or, despite the fact that he does not belong to Islam, might still be a person of some estimation. Rather, the Jew is the predestined opponent of the Muslim, one who desired to bring down the work of the Prophet.”

Leers’ description of the origins of the Muslim “forename” (Omar Amin) that he adopted as part of his formal conversion to Islam in a November, 1957 letter to American Nazi H. Keith Thompson, highlights his personal and doctrinal connections to the Mufti, with whom he engaged in a longstanding collaboration:

I myself have embraced Islam and accepted the new forename Omar Amin, Omar according to the great Caliph Omar who was a grim enemy of the Jews, Amin in honor of my friend Hadj Amin el Husseini, the Grand Mufti.

Leers’ ceaseless efforts as a formal propagandist for the Nasser regime and Arab League were complemented by a staggering array of additional writing activities before and during this last decade of his life, including: translating modern Arabic treatises on Jihad and Islamic financing into German; writing the Foreword to an anti-Zionist analysis of the Arab-Israeli conflict by an Egyptian scholar; and reviewing and promoting the works of neo-Nazi and Fascist ideologues as editor (while in Buenos Aires) of Der Weg (most prominently, his 1951 review of Francis Parker Yockey’s “Imperium”), while maintaining a prolific worldwide correspondence with individual Fascists, designed to garner their support for his global Jihad. Thus he wrote (again, to American Nazi H. Keith Thompson) in 1957 and 1958,

[1957] The Islamic bloc is today the only spiritual power in the world fighting for a real religion and human values and freedom. Besides that, it is a wonderful religion with a great philosophy and enormous richness of wisdom. I think sometime if my nation had got Islam instead of Christianity we should not have had all the traitors we had in World War II, two million women would not have been burnt as “witches” by the Christian churches, there would have been no Thirty Years War which destroyed Germany and killed more than half our nation.

[1958] One thing is clear – more and more patriot Germans join the great Arab revolution against beastly imperialism. In Algeria half a company of German soldiers, dragging with them two French officers and two non-commissioned officers, have cut their throats in the view of the Algerian revolutionaries and have gone on the side of the Algerians and have embraced Islam. That is good! To hell with Christianity, for in Christianity’s name Germany has been sold to our oppressors! Our place as an oppressed nation under the execrable Western colonialist Bonn government must be on the side of the Arab nationalist revolt against the West….I hamd ul Allah! (“Thanks be to Allah!”)

This recently declassified October 1957 U.S. intelligence report on von Leers’ writings and activities for Egypt and the Arab League independently confirms his complete adoption of the triumphalist Muslim worldview, desirous of nothing less than the destruction of Judeo-Christian civilization by Jihad:

He [Dr. Omar Amin von Leers] is becoming more and more a religious zealot, even to the extent of advocating an expansion of Islam in Europe in order to bring about stronger unity through a common religion. This expansion he believes can come not only from contact with the Arabs in the Near East and Africa but with Islamic elements in the USSR. The results he envisions as the formation of a political bloc against which neither East nor West could prevail.

Leers’ final vision of an Islamic supremacist hegemony – as formulated in the two decades after World War II – has had a profound influence on contemporary trends, now robust, from Morocco to Indonesia, and within Muslim communities living in Western, and other non-Muslim societies across the globe. All too prevalent today, numerous examples of this shared vision can be adduced, ranging from the activities and pronouncements of well-known jihad terror organizations (such as al Qaeda, Hezbollah, and Hamas), to the mainstream Organization of the Islamic Conference, and individuals, such as the profoundly influential Muslim cleric (“Spiritual adviser” to the Muslim Brotherhood, al-Jazeera television personality, and head of the European Fatwa Council) Yusuf al-Qaradawi, and the Mufti-Leers disciple, and Swiss convert to Islam, Ahmed Huber – a former manager of Al Taqwa financial institution, alleged to have laundered money for Osama bin Laden.

The extent to which Nazi convert to Islam Omar Amin von Leers’ ugly vision has been implemented over the past 50 years – his “successful” living legacy – supports a simple, profoundly disturbing conception articulated by writer Lawrence Auster. Oblivious to the firmly entrenched politically correct orthodoxy, Auster has termed Muhammad a “successful Hitler.” Auster argues that Muhammad, whom he also calls “one of the great geniuses of history,” conceived

… a highly flexible and therefore sustainable ideology and program of subversion, conquest, and domination (as well as a sustainable way of life), while Hitler's ideology and program had no internal brakes. It was pedal to the metal, aiming at the instant and total destruction of other countries and of Western civilization as a whole, and thus making it necessary for other countries utterly to destroy Hitlerism

More non sequiturs, ad hominem attacks, false moral equivalences, half-truths, and outright lies offered in defense of Islam -- and against Israel

In other words, we have here more of the typical Muslim blame game: "This conflict is your fault for defending yourselves!"

I realize that to know and believe in Islam as it is defined by the words of Allah and the example of Muhammad requires the dulling or disuse of one's reason (and conscience), but it is difficult to believe some people's persistence in malicious falsehood, even after having those lies exposed and refuted repeatedly.

Yet, here we go again. Mohamed writes:

But ... did "Islam" committed the Babylonian captivity in 586 BCE.?

What about Qana massacre in 1996 and 2006 [. . .] Bahr el-Baqar massacre in 1970 [. . .] Kafr Qassim massacre in 1956 [. . .] King David Hotel bombing in 1946 [. . .] Deir Yassin massacre in 1946 [. . .] bombing crowded Arab markets since 1938?

Were these really about Islam?

If those events are "not really about Islam" as you imply, that makes them non sequiturs and irrelevant to the question of whether or not Islam is the root cause of the conflict between Israel and its neighbors.

The Religion of Slaughter requires the slavery or death of all who refuse its "invitation" to convert; though you still will not admit this fact outright, you concede it by explaining how we "infidels" should appreciate Islam's rules for when and how to butcher us.

In the incidents you mention in which Israel was at fault, they apologized and punished their own people. This is diametric to Islam; when a Muslim murderer butchers innocent Jews, they're celebrated as heroes, especially if they die doing so.

I have news for you: Your suhada aren't enjoying their perpetual virgins and boys "like pearls;" they're burning in Hell.

The one report of Israelis claiming they were told to ignore the risk to civilians doesn't help you either, since not only do your alleged "Zionist pigs" state that they were going after terrorists, but those sources were also anonymous.

Experience has shown that Muslims not only attack Israelis from among their own (usually non-Muslim) civilians or mosques, but that they also fabricate Israeli "atrocities" to try to influence world opinion.

Be honest.

When there have been more than 1300 victims in the last Israeli (Jewish for now) war against Palestinians in Gaza strip, HALF OF THEM ARE CHILDREN, and the other half are mainly civilians.

Please convince us that Israelis were just defending themselves [. . .] Palestinians were using THEIR CHILDREN as human shields [. . .] When Israeli soldiers testified that they had clear order to SHOOT WITHOUT ANY DISCRIMINATION [. . .] Can you please convince us how Israelis are kind-hearted, peaceful guys who want to express their love to Palestinians [. . .] When Israeli government is changing the Arabic names of streets. Can you convince us how Israelis are welcoming Arabs as citizens among them [. . . .]

You can't have it both ways. You want Israel to be a massive, overpowering, ruthless, military juggernaut that delights in innocent Muslim blood yet -- according to your own words -- they've killed barely more than a thousand "civilians."

Your coreligionists more than doubled that output in only one sunny morning here a few years ago.

You've got a few more logical fallacies here; whether or not Israelis are "nice" has nothing to do with the Islamic mandate to convert, enslave, or kill Jews and other non-Muslims.

Neither does the way in which Israel treats its Muslim citizens have anything to do with Muhammad's utterly depraved lust for Jewish blood, so that is also a red herring.

You've also got a false moral equivalence here since while Israel might -- change a street name, seriously? -- Muslims change the placement of Jewish body parts.

Most importantly, any Israeli "crimes" (real or imagined; mostly imagined, but when real, admitted and atoned for) do nothing to negate the fact that Muhammad was a raving, foaming-at-the-mouth, lunatic anti-Semite, as I've pointed out to you before from your own "sacred" texts:

". . . 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)."

The real problem is -- as even Hamas states in their charter -- that Israel exists. You and your fellow Muslims will not be satisfied until the Jews are no more.

You want to blame the conflict in Israel on Israel, but when Muhammad was beheading hundreds of Jews who had surrendered, raping their wives, and leaving "none but Muslim," how many "indiscriminate acts" had the Israelis committed?

Since Ancient Israel (Judea) had been destroyed five hundred years before Muhammad was born, and modern Israel wouldn't be formed for another 1300 years after he died, the answer is . . .

None at all.

Stop blaming the victim.

Have the decency to tell the truth about what your god and prophet require.

Then have the courage to denounce their pure hate.

Gunner gets it

"The problem is not Israel; it's Islam."

An outlandish denial of facts, typical for Islamo-biased research

Falsehoods in defense of Allah, refuted here:

"My research indicated that the Arabs sided with the Germans because they wanted to get rid of the British!"

That may have been a motivation. Now the British are gone. What is Islam's excuse? Is there more to this picture than meets your eye?

Yes, there is. About Jews, Islam's "sacred" texts state:

"And well ye knew those amongst you who transgressed in the matter of the Sabbath: We said to them: "Be ye apes, despised and rejected" (Qur'an 2:65).

"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 (may peace be upon him) who granted them security. They embraced Islam. The Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) 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 (may peace be upon him) say: I will expel the Jews and Christians from the Arabian Peninsula and will not leave any but Muslim" (Muslim Book 019, Number 4363-4366).

And Allah calls Mohammed a "beautiful pattern of conduct." He is considered the "Ideal Man."

The outlandish fact-denier continues:

"That makes sense if you are capable of honestly trying to look at history from the others' perspective."

You define "honestly trying to look at history from the others' perspective" to mean that you should look at history from the opposite perspective. With regard to Islam, that is a suicidally false assumption to make.

"The idea that because there was no "state" means that you can come in and do whatever you want is false."

There was no "Palestinian nation" to which you earlier appealed.

"The Arabs reacted violently from the time that large numbers of Jews immigrated, so there is no way that anybody can say that this situation was ever acceptable to them."

As noted above, Islam's own authoritative documents reveal that Muslim (not Arab) Jew-hatred is almost one and one-half millennia old and required by Allah.

"I think the Kurds should have their own country."

I agree. From what I read, it appears the Kurds are (at least for now) more America-friendly than their fellow Iraqis.

"The fact that no one is worked up about it is the same reason so much genocide goes on in places like Africa and Americans don't get real excited - because it has never been put to them that this would be a situation vital to their own interests - until now, now that people are starting to realize that it is a global situation. Nothing is as simple as you would have people believe."

What is that reason? The genocide in Africa has been ongoing for centuries because jihad requires it.

Muslims deny the Holocaust except when they want to have another one

In the ongoing effort to deceive people of good will into remaining inert while the world burns and the New Holocaust begins, devout Muslims use a number of semantic games when discussing jihad and Jews. Though Muslims in the West seem less reticent to hide their true feelings ("Kill the Jews," calls for bigger ovens, and actual violence defile cities in the West now, even in America), many still hide their true sentiments. One of the terms I've seen used in this blood game -- one recently popular with Islam's Useful Idiots among the Radical Left -- is "anti-Zionism."

I suppose their thinking is that too many people will object to obvious calls for killing or otherwise harming Jews, but if you cloak anti-Semitic bloodlust in the language of politics, that's nothing to get upset about, right?

I discovered here Islamic anti-Semitism wrapped up in this deceptive language. Following are excerpts of the author's original post, his follow-ups, and my responses. As you read through you'll note Mr. Asif's healthy doses of logical fallacies, half-truths, outright falsehoods, and misrepresentations of Islam.

In my original comments, I gave the author the benefit of the doubt -- perhaps he was a victim of years of Islamic propaganda. Based on his further comments, it appears rather that he is a practitioner of it.

Subtle Muslim misdirection and rabid Islamic anti-Semitism cloaked in anti-Zionist's clothing, from Asad Asif, freshly dissected:

Israel has been an arrogant little child crying wolf over the last few years. There was the attack on Lebanon some time back and now there has been an attack on Palestine. Both attacks were marked by an overt and disproportionate use of force and an over the top response vis-a-vis the killing of children and women by Israel, apart from the number of deaths involved on both sides.

Who is responsible for the deaths of Muslim innocents? What the author fails to note is that in both cases, Israel was responding to months and years of terrorist attacks against its own women, children, and men, its innocent civilians suffering rocket attacks, suicide bombings, shooting sprees, and bulldozers crushing mothers in their cars with their babies in the back seat.

Neither does the author address the fact that Islam's monsters fire at Israelis from among their own women and children so that when Israelis respond, Arab women and children get hurt. As if that isn't enough, the "Palestinians" stage faux-atrocities for Western consumption, all of it cynical propaganda. (How sick are these worms that in order to kill Jews, they sacrifice their own women and children? If a Muslim wants to argue that it is not Jew-hatred, but love of Allah, that motivates them, then that only proves that their god and apostle come straight from the pit of Hell.)

As for Israel's "overt, disproportionate, and over the top" response, apparently the author would prefer that Israel launch a secret non-response. If it were Muslims who possessed the military advantage over Israel, is there any doubt about what would be Israel's fate?

To an obedient Muslim, the only thing worse than a Jew is a Jew who fights back.

I am not stating here that Israel is the only party to be blamed but the minimal response potential of both targets of Israel is not a winning argument in Israel's favor. The settlements in Palestinian lands annexed by Israel were a deliberate provocation and puts the residents of those settlements at risk. It's as if one knows that an area is prone to severe earthquakes and still makes sky scrapers on that land and then selling it off as being a safe place. This kind of provocation is designed to get a response and Israel is no stranger to crying wolf. Only a fool would be lured by this again and again.

Here is more evidence of the author's lack of both basic moral decency and historical literacy. Israel isn't to be blamed. They are not targeting innocents; their enemies are. Land that Israel has taken over the years came into their possession because their Muslim enemies waged war against them repeatedly and were humiliated each time. This land Israel has been returning to its enemies in the suicidal hope that land will buy peace.

Words like "crying wolf" and "fool" are only attempts to shame into silence those who would state basic truth.

Hamas' rockets definitely didn't kill as many Israelis compared to how many Palestinians were killed by Israel. Some would rightly call it a genocide; ironic considering that Jews themselves faced a genocide at the hands of Hitler. Is it a psychotic dysfunction that has Israel blaming the Palestinians and Arabs, by extension, for the Jewish genocide and consequently committing a counter genocide? Lest Israelis are forgetting, they were persecuted by Europeans. And Hitler certainly wasn't a Muslim!

No, but he wished he were, and all of Germany, too. (Considering impending Eurabia, perhaps his dream will be realized.)

If Israel kills more Muslims in self-defense than Muslims kill Israelis in service to Allah, then that only demonstrates the stupidity of those seeking paradise by killing or being killed for their false god.

As for "genocide," this is a typical case of Muslims attributing to their victims that of which they are guilty. Genocide is what Allah, Mohammed, and Hamas demand: All those who refuse conversion or slavery are to be slaughtered without mercy.

There's also a glaring bit of Islamic Illogic here: The Jews possess overwhelming military might so that anything they do in self-defense is "disproportionate," and they are committing genocide against the "Palestinians," but only a relatively small number of terrorists and their human-shields have died. You can't have it both ways.

With regard to Hitler, he lamented the fact that Germany had been a Christian nation. Hitler believed that under Islam, his dreams of domination would have been fulfilled. As noted by Winston Churchill, Geert Wilders, and any honest person familiar with Mein Kampf and the Islamic authoritative texts, comparisons between Hitler and Mohammed's texts and ideologies are appropriate.

To be fair, Hitler never claimed "the devil made me do it," as did Mohammed. Neither was he as "successful" as the prophet from Hell.

It's no wonder that Israel is hated so much by the Muslim world. Take note of the use of the word "Israel" and not "Jews". Muslims don't really have that much of a beef with Jews. After all, according to Islamic scriptures, Jews, Christians and Muslims are folloowers of the the three religions of the Books. There are Jews in Iran; plenty of them but they aren't hated, unlike the Jews in Israel. The same is true for the most part, for Jewish communities in America and elsewhere. The oppression created by Israel is a major cause for the hate against it.

Again, Muslims hate Israel because -- according to Mohammed -- Allah commands them to do so. Additionally, since Mohammed is the "ideal man," a "beautiful pattern of conduct for those who want to please" their god -- and he butchered Jews with glee, slaughtering hundreds of prisoners of war in a day, then raping those whose husbands, fathers, and brothers he'd just beheaded -- Muslims also must hate Jews. Also an offense to Islam is the fact that since Israel is a non-Muslim state on land that had been conquered by Allah's minions, its very existence is an insult. Finally, as noted above, Muslims hate those who defend themselves against Allah's tyranny.

Unfortunately, America's unending support for Israeli oppression results in America being tarred with the same brush as Israelis.

So, Muslims hate America because of Israel?

This is a common Muslim (and now, Leftist) deceit. When American ships and sailors were attacked, captured, enslaved, and slaughtered by the Barbary Pirates, was that because of our support for an Israel which would not exist for another 150 years?

That is unfortunate and unfair but the reasoning for it is understandable. Supporting a wrong incriminates you with being a a part of the wrong itself.

So, Israel's existence is a wrong? Sounds just like Hamas.

the "Change" Obama promised will certainly not be applicable in this instance unless the American public opts for looking after their own interests rather than those of Israel's which is earning them global dislike. That's a thing that has been long overdue.

"unless the American public opts for looking after their own interests"? And that sounds like a threat.

On a positive note, changes and realizations seem to be coming forth from within the Jewish communities themselves about Israel. This is very encouraging.

During the recent protests over Israeli self-defense, some Jews were siding publicly with those slaughtering Israelis, so perhaps this is a reference to liberal Jews' tendency to self-loathe (as Leftists tend to do). I wonder what the author thinks of the recent electoral success of Israel's more sensible elements.

Here is the reply I posted originally at the author's site:

How familiar are you with the history of modern Israel?

In the decades since it was formed after World War II, Israel has endured attacks by its Muslim neighbors. The "Palestinians" are Arab Muslims who were told that as soon as Israel was wiped out, they would take over. The only problem was, Israel defeated its enemies repeatedly.

Why haven't the Muslim nations surrounding Israel taken in their co-religionists?

The truth is that Islamic anti-Semitism is as old as Islam, since Allah and his apostle command it:

"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).

"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).

"And well ye knew those amongst you who transgressed in the matter of the Sabbath: We said to them: "Be ye apes, despised and rejected" (Qur'an 2:65).

"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)."

Here are excerpts of the author's three-part reply with my commentary:

How familiar are you with the history of Israel? The very creation of Israel in the Middle East was a fool's errand. I find it astounding that the Allied forces of WWII thought that giving the Jews of that time, a wedge of land smack dab in the middle of Middle East was wise. One is led to wonder why they didn't place Israel somewhere in Europe. The most obvious answer seems to be Europe's guilt over the holocaust which is evidenced even today in numerous laws against any discussion on the academic debate regarding the holocaust. As the situation existed post-WWII, the Palestinian Arabs were the native residents of that area but were displaced by the influx of Jews worldwide heading to their illegally created "homeland".

If the creation of modern Israel in its ancient location was a "fool's errand" or "unwise," why is that? It is because of the hatred of its Muslim neighbors. More than the natural resentment that any people would have at a new nation moving in, what is the reason for that hatred? It is due to the anti-Semitism that infuses Islam (an attitude so pervasive that even Arab Christians living among Muslims often adopt it).

Are the repeated mentions of the Holocaust an attempt at exploit European (or Western, or White) guilt? Or is the author just dying to deny that it ever occurred?

That's one of the aspects of Islamic anti-Semitism that would be funny if it weren't so sick: Muslims deny the Holocaust except when they want to have another one.

As to your contention that Israel has faced attacks, I would contend that the very residents whose homes were stolen from them [through the creation of Israel] have faced a far higher number of attacks and casualties at the hands of Israeli forces. A thing perceived as a threat by Israeli minds might be just that; a perception with no grounds in reality.

"might be"? Liar or coward.

Innocent Jewish men, women, and children as victims of Muslim bloodlust are the results of Muslim imagination, not figments of anyone's. The only reason there is any violence between Israel and its Muslim neighbors is because one side seeks to obey Allah and imitate Mohammed, the genocidal anti-Semite.

Again, Israel stole no one's land -- Muslim Turks lost it to the West, which then gave (less than they had promised) to Israel.

If Muslims stop committing terrorism against Israel, there would be peace.

You ask why haven't Muslim states around Israel taken in their "co-religionists". I ask you; why haven't the Christians and Jews of Europe taken in the Jews from Israel? In fact, there are plenty of successful followers of Judaism in America. Why haven't they taken in Israeli Jews?

Bald dishonesty here in several respects. First, a false tu quoque: Alleging that Europeans are guilty of excluding Jews does nothing to address the fact that the Arab/Muslim nations surrounding Israel have not only excluded their co-religionists, they've done little more than use the "Palestinians" as tools to incite other Muslims against Israel (and to extort jizya from Western nations). Second, a false analogy: Europeans have not excluded Jews -- who in general contribute greatly to the well-being of any nation of which they are a part -- they don't even exclude Muslims. Finally, why take in Jews in Israel when they are . . . in Israel?

Israel without Jews? More Muslim wishful thinking, it appears.

And there you go with the word 'anti-semitism'. Cry me a river, why don't you? I do not consider questioning or criticizing anything Jewish as being anti-semitism. Crying out 'anti-semitism' on every issue is just begging for pity but I haven't got any to spare this time around, particularly after the recent attack on Palestinians.

Now misrepresenting my comments. Perhaps this works with the ignorant, gullible, and intellectually-lazy. It will not work with those who are paying attention.

Pointing out that Muslims slaughter Jews for Allah is not "crying anti-semitism over questioning or criticizing anything Jewish and on every issue." Shameful.

Hating Jews because they are Jews is anti-Semitism. Commanding the enslavement or slaughter of Jews because they are Jews is anti-Semitism. Firing rockets into homes and schools and blowing up innocent civilians shopping, dining, and worshiping is anti-Semtism. Calling for "bigger ovens" in a second Holocaust is anti-Semitism. Slaughtering 700 Jewish men who had surrendered and then raping their women is anti-Semitism. Exhorting Nazi soldiers manning concentration camps to kill Jews with diligence is anti-Semitism. Stoking Muslim zeal for Jewish blood by declaring that a tree will shout, "O Muslim, there is a Jew behind me, so kill him!" is anti-Semitism.

Of all these things Muslims, their false prophet, and their allah from hell are guilty.

So, the mask of false Muslim civility begins to slip.

This "Islamic anti-semitism" is a myth you propagate to justify inhumane actions by the state of Israel.

So, I am responsible for the contents of Qur'an, ahadith, and Sira. I made Mohammed do it.

Allah will not be pleased.

Unless there is a perpetual cycle of hate mongering, Israel won't get the dole-out from the US and the undeserved pity from the rest of the world.

"Palestinians" receive billions for supporting terrorism and getting their hats handed to them over and over again. Speaking of "undeserved pity."

Here comes some deception regarding Islam's core texts:

You quote:

"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).

You didn't include the context of this verse of the Quran derived from the previous verses. It's like you say a single sentence out of an entire story and that becomes the basis of any claim you make. This is deliberately twisting the meaning.Here is the common Muslim canard "Out of context! Out of context!" which should be easy to demonstrate. Strangely, the author offers not one word of context, just lies.

The truth is, the context of this verse is that (according to Mohammed, and he wouldn't lie, right?) Allah was granting immunity from slaughter to only those tribes under contract to Mohammed who had not violated the terms of their extortion.

Of course, the intent is not to go out and decapitate imprudently; Mohammed had rules about under what circumstances to butcher non-Muslims. "Unbelievers" had to be offered first conversion to Islam. Those who refused were then offered slavery (jizya, slavery as dhimmis), since you can't extort money from nor rape the dead (though I did read that Mohammed used to "lie" on a corpse). Those who refused humiliating slavery were offered death.

That's the context Muslims don't want you to know.

More falsehood from Mr. Asif:

This verse says that if the People of the Book (Christians & Jews) deny God, the Day of Judgment and the injunctions of the Divine, and reject belief in the truth (literally, "the Religion of the Truth" -- the Truth being another name for God in Arabic) they must pay a tax; fight them until they pay it freely.

If you have to fight someone so that they'll pay, then they are not paying it "freely."

By definition, Christians do not reject God, they believe in YHWH and His Messiah.

Christians do reject Mohammed's allah. And no, Christians and Muslims do not worship the same deity, for if they did, Muslims would worship Christ and condemn Mohammed and his allah for their blasphemies against Him.

(At this point comes another common Muslim "argument" -- No, using the same common noun "god" for more than one deity does not mean they are the same deity. Besides that, Allah says that it has no son; YHWH calls Christ His One and Only Son, and Christ confirms that, taking the Divine name "I AM" for Himself.)

When you consider the verse itself, it mentions belief in God and the Day of Judgment. These two beliefs are found in both Christian and Jewish scriptures [particularly the older, less corrupted versions].

What are those "older, less corrupted versions"? Nothing but another Islamic lie, for the Biblical texts we possess today are reliable copies of the original documents. Manuscript copies of Isaiah dating to before the time of Christ demonstrate that the manuscripts used for centuries by translators are reliable copies.

About Jizya; it is a tax. Can you tell me why you think non-Muslims in an Islamic shouldn't pay taxes when the Muslims themselves are paying Zakat (enforced by the state) as one tax amongst other taxes?

Zakat is charity. Since when is charity "enforced by the state"? Shouldn't that set off warning bells in one's mind that perhaps Allah is a tyrant?

As for jizya, it is "protection money" (as in extortion) imposed (along with many other unjust restrictions and degradations) on non-Muslims enslaved under Islam.

Why should non-Muslims be exempted from a tax when the very Muslims living in an Islamic state are paying taxes? Don't you think it as being discriminatory?

Mr. Asif ought to be embarrassed by his slight-of-keyboard here. Jizya is imposed on conquered non-Muslims. That is discriminatory.

Perhaps now would be a good time for Mr. Asif to stop lying.

Do you protest in the same manner when Muslims have to pay taxes in non-Islamic states just like the other citizens? There is a lot of hue and cry over assimilating in the host country these days. Why isn't it applicable to non-Muslims in an Islamic state?

And yet Muslims won't assimilate. Why is that?

The apparent eagerness with which this author twists facts is astounding. And evil.

If unlike non-Muslims in a non-Muslim state, Muslims had to pay extortion money to prevent their being slaughtered, I am sure this author would complain. If Muslims were subjected to the same disgraceful barbarism which non-Muslims have been forced to endure under the dhimma for millennia, I'm sure Mr. Asif would say something.

Nevertheless, this tax doesn't exist these days in most Islamic countries so it is a moot point.

It is only moot in "most" countries because the Caliphate was destroyed and faithful Muslims are not yet powerful enough to enforce sharia.

Isn't it interesting that this Muslim knows just enough about Islam to tell only the half of the truth that, if believed by non-Muslims, would make them vulnerable to jihad?

Don't base your thinking on reading something for 10 minutes after searching for it on the internet and then twisting it out of context.

A false ad hominem attack, and another statement which, if it were true, should be easy to demonstrate, yet the author makes no attempt to do so. Why is that?

Those who believe, those who are Jews, Christians, and Sabaeans, all who believe in God and the Last Day and act rightly will have their reward with their Lord. They will feel no fear and will know no sorrow. (Qur'an, 2:62)

And who are "those who believe"? Those who convert to Islam, for here is some of what this propagandist is not quoting:

"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)."

"Abu Burda reported on the authority of his father that Allah's Apostle . . . said: No Muslim would die but Allah would admit in his stead a Jew or a Christian in Hell-Fire. 'Umar b. Abd al-'Aziz took an oath: By One besides Whom there is no god but He, thrice that his father had narrated that to him from Allah's Messenger . . ." (Muslim Book 37, Number 6666).

"Those who disbelieve, neither their possessions nor their (numerous) progeny will avail them aught against Allah: They are themselves but fuel for the Fire" (Qur'an 3:10).

"Yahya related to me from Malik that he heard that Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz gave a decision that when a Jew or Christian was killed, his blood-money was half the blood-money of a free muslim.

"Malik said, 'What is done in our community, is that a muslim is not killed for a kafir unless the muslim kills him by deceit. Then he is killed for it.'

[. . .]

"Malik said, 'The blood-monies of the Jew, Christian, and Magian in their injuries, is according to the injury of the muslims in their blood-moneys. The head wound is a twentieth of his full blood-money. The wound that opens the head is a third of his blood-money. The belly-wound is a third of his blood-money. All their injuries are according to this calculation'" (Muwatta Book 43, Number 43.15.8b).

"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).

"Those who believe fight in the way of Allah, and those who disbelieve fight in the way of the Shaitan. Fight therefore against the friends of the Shaitan; surely the strategy of the Shaitan is weak" (Qur'an 4:76).

"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).

The lies continue:

How do you justify your hatred in light of this verse?

"Hatred"?

I hate genocide. Slavery. Rape. Pedophilia. Lies. Religious (and secular) tyranny.

The question should be, why don't Muslims? Because Mohammed and his allah will it so.

Following on, you quote Sahih Bukhari:

"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).

You are again taking things out of context. This is directed at the idol worshipers of Makkah; the Quraish tribe amongst others, a tribe to which Prophet Muhammad . . . himself belonged before he was given the task to spread Islam.

So, Mohammed was ordered to slaughter his own people until they submitted to Allah?

Perhaps it is unwise for Muslims to try to argue for Mohammed and his god from their own texts. Stick to the logical fallacies, outright fabrications, and violent intimidation. They're more effective.

In fact, at the conquest of Makkah, no one who stayed at home was killed and the idols inside the Kaaba were smashed. Nothing more needs to be said in light of this, about Islam as a religion of peace... A conquest with no bloodshed and pardon to all who had tortured the early followers of Islam.

The kind of peace Islam desires is the kind that occurs when all the competition is dead or in chains.

Don't imply that just because Mohammed may not have butchered those who "stayed at home" this time meant that he did not slaughter enthusiastically and often any and all who refused to submit to his plans.

Just ask Asma bint Marwan.

"And well ye knew those amongst you who transgressed in the matter of the Sabbath: We said to them: "Be ye apes, despised and rejected" (Qur'an 2:65).

It should be borne in mind that the expression “like an ape” is often used in classical Arabic to describe a person who is unable to restrain his gross appetites or passions. The verse is directed at Sabbath-breakers, not Jews in general so I don't know where you are coming from on this one trying to portray it as being something against all Jews.

It is strange that this author doesn't know "where [I'm] coming from," since I state explicitly that Islamic anti-Semitism comes directly from the command of Allah and the example of Mohammed:

"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).

Feigned Muslim ignorance in service to Islamic barbarity in 3 . . . 2 . . . 1 . . .

The sign of the Day of Judgment you mention in your next quote is not now so I don't see any reason for all this hatred.

If only he had had a heart-to-heart with Mohammed before things got out-of-hand.

The remaining quotes are not complete. Chosen phrases whose incomplete meaning satisfies your lame argument do not constitute as being a valid argument.

Again, it ought to be easy to demonstrate my error. I'll be waiting.

I fail to see the reasoning behind the hatred Israel has for Muslims. History should speak for itself regarding the uneven hand dealt to the Palestinians by Israel.

Only if history is a liar like Mr. Asif.

If Israel were hateful, the "Palestinians" would have been relocated about six feet underground.

If anything, Israel has been too accommodating to its enemies.

Mr. Asif's assaults on God and Man end with this:

In fact, at the time of the Prophet Muhammad [. . .] Jews were included as part of the Muslim community...they were part of the "ummah," so to speak . . . They were equal members of the city, one "community with the believers," with the freedom to practice their religion. At one time in history, Muslims and Jews were one nation under God.

This must explain:

". . . 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)."

The racist in the White House

Sure, before the election, America knew (or should have known from his own writings) that B. Hussein was racist. That one of his benefactors exhorted his listeners to rip white people apart, assuring them that Allah likes it. That B. Hussein's spiritual adviser of twenty years -- the person to whose insane rants the President subjected his two little daughters -- is a white-hating, friend of quasi-Muslim anti-Semites. That Obama's allied himself with various Jew-hating liberals.

But that was just the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy making things up, right?

Well, for those who hoped that all that was just political expediency, the Most Powerful Man on Earth has affirmed his support of Muslim terrorists by phoning first Mahmoud Abbas. He also included in his inaugural ceremony a "benediction" that could have been delivered by the vile irReverend Wright himself. Joseph Lowery ended his blasphemy with this wretchedness:

Lord, in the memory of all the saints who from their labors rest, and in the joy of a new beginning, we ask you to help us work for that day when black will not be asked to get in back, when brown can stick around ... when yellow will be mellow ... when the red man can get ahead, man; and when white will embrace what is right.

Would such racist condescension be accepted from anyone else?

Just to show the "prayer" wasn't an accident, Obama adviser Robert Reich fretted recently over how to keep white males from benefiting from government welfare in a post called (oddly enough), "The Stimulus: How to Create Jobs Without Them All Going to Skilled Professionals and White Male Construction Workers" (no, I didn't make that up!):

if there aren't enough skilled professionals to do the jobs involving new technologies, the stimulus will just increase the wages of the professionals who already have the right skills rather than generate many new jobs in these fields. And if construction jobs go mainly to white males who already dominate the construction trades, many people who need jobs the most -- women, minorities, and the poor and long-term unemployed -- will be shut out.

What to do? There's no easy solution to either dilemma.

You wouldn't want people being hired on the basis of merit. And we can't have things like bridges or very tall buildings being built by skilled professionals.

The federal government discriminating on the basis of color. Someone ought to make a law against that.

So, terrorists will have their four-star halal resort in Guantanamo closed, interrogation techniques used to obtain information from them that have saved untold innocent lives are banned, and they are afforded greater legal protection by the nation they're trying to destroy, but Americans are discriminated against on the basis of their skin color.

Martin Luther King never dreamt of such a thing.

How can this be ...

. . . since Islam is the "Religion of Peace"?

From WND, Mein Kampf bestseller in Turkey:

The infamous manifesto penned in prison during the 1920s by one of history's greatest despots has become a bestseller in Turkey, a troubling sign of increasing anti-Semitism and anti-Americanism.

Since January, Mein Kampf has sold more than 50,000 copies, rising to No. 4 on the bestseller list. The book outlines Hitler's plans for world domination and his intense hatred of the Jewish people.

"A lot of people in the West don't realize this has always been a popular book among radical Muslims," says Steve Hagerman, founder of Turkish World Outreach. "They think it's a tragedy Hitler didn't win the war. This is symptomatic of growing anti-Semitism and anti-Americanism in the country."

Hagerman is concerned about a resurgence of conservative Islam in Turkey, which he believes is promoted and funded by Iran and Saudi Arabia.

"Turkey is a different place right now," Hagerman observes. "The military, the radical Muslims and the secularists are becoming more and more anti-American," he says. "Literalist Islam is teaching the Muslims to hate the Jews and to hate democracy. Their belief in Muslim eschatology is that the world is destined to be conquered by Islam."

Let's do the math: "radical Muslims" = "conservative Islam" = "Literalist Islam" = hatred of Jews = hatred of democracy = the world will be conquered by Islam.

This is because the Qur'an is the most vile piece of hate literature ever devised by man. Islam has caused vastly more death, pain, and destruction than has Nazism, Communism and any other "-ism" you can name.

At least Hitler never claimed to be speaking for a (malevolent and perverse) god.