Support Israel in its defense against jihad

A celebrity who urges her tweeps to pray for Israel in its war of self-defense against Allah gets ridiculed, demonized, and threatened with death.

The savages murdering innocent Israelis? Not so much.

A brief response in defense of Israel to someone making the same, tired Islamo-leftist propaganda points:

That moral equivalence is completely false. Both sides are not equally responsible for the violence.

Israel is acting only in self-defense and only because its Muslim neighbors are required by their religion to hate and murder Jews.

If the jihadists were to stop fighting, what would be the result? Peace.
If Israel were to stop fighting, what would be the result? No more Israel.

In the war between the Civilized Man and the savage, support the Civilized Man. Support Israel. Defeat jihad.

Site of Christ's baptism defended by Jews, mined by Muslims

So much for the dual myths of innocent "Palestinian" victimhood and Israeli oppression. How much longer will Western media and politicians sustain Muslim lies?

Christian Site Opened in the West Bank:

Israel opened the traditional baptism site of Jesus to daily visits on Tuesday, a move that required the removal of mines in the West Bank along the Jordanian border. The site is one of the most important in Christianity. Until now, it had not been regularly open to the public since Israel captured the site and the rest of the West Bank from Jordan in the 1967 war. Palestinian officials said the move was illegal and called it part of “Israel’s monopoly over our historic and touristic resources.”

No, Christ was a Jew in Israel. It's not your site, blasphemer.

Remembering 9/11*

While it is fitting and proper that we should remember those who fell on 9/11 and their families and continue to support our political, law enforcement, and military personnel who work to defend us, to continue to lie about or deny why the attack occurred is suicidal.

The command of Allah and the example of Muhammad require the faithful to use [any] means necessary, including violence, to establish the rule of Allah over all mankind (see for yourself here).

Muhammad offered non-Muslims three options: Conversion, slavery as dhimmis, or death.

Nowhere do you hear our political, media, or academic elites state this basic fact. Instead, you've got the president of the United States apologizing to Islam (in a "speech" from Al-Azhar University, whose president endorses suicide bombings), bowing to Muslim tyrants (the Saudi king), and negotiating with Islamic terrorists working to secure nukes (Iran), all while abandoning the only decent, free nation in that part of the world, Israel.

Islamic tyranny and intimidation must be resisted.

Islamic obfuscation and propaganda must be exposed and dispelled.

It is not racism to evaluate a set of beliefs. It is not phobic to state facts about what a text says. It is not intolerant to expose and condemn genocide, murder, pedophilia, rape, slavery, vandalism, extortion, theft, deceit, and religious and gender discrimination [carried out] in the name of a "god."

Many resources are available on-line. Jihad Watch is highly recommended. [I happen to like this site also.]

Here is just a taste of what Muhammad and his allah intend for you, and whether out of ignorance, cowardice, deceit, or simple human decency, the fact that Muslims you know do not advocate such behavior does nothing to negate what Muhammad [commanded] and practiced:

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

"Fight against . . . the People of the Book [Jews and Christians] . . . until they feel themselves subdued and pay the jizya" (Qur'an 9:29).

Remember 9/11, but not with helpless, limp-wristed, self-indulgent expressions of ignorance and confusion.

Remember 9/11 with an accurate understanding of the enemy, an ancient foe which seeks to devour all that you hold dear.

Remember 9/11 and honor our dead by determining to expose, denounce, and punish all who through ignorance, perversion, malfeasance, or deceit would hamper our efforts at effective self-defense.

Fourteen hundred years of global jihad.

Fourteen thousand terrorist attacks in Allah's name since 9/11 alone.

Innocent victims of Muhammad's bloodlust (and lust) cry out around the world.

What will you do when they want to put your children in the oven?

*Will Obama be eating ice cream, playing golf, or playing the fiddle?

Update 9/12, 12:29 AM: It turns out he was painting a wall and urging interfaith dialogue,
but not for Muslims until after Ramadan.

Just like Muhammad: Harass and attack a target, and when they finally defend themselves against you, call it "aggression."

Which puts the lie to a lot of those claims by jihad's apologists that Muhammad butchered [insert non-Muslim farmers caught working their crops, 120-year-old man, or poetess nursing her baby here] in "self-defense."

How much of a threat are bound prisoners of war who've surrendered, again?

In response to a list of incidents offered as evidence that Israel's getting what it deserves, events in which it appears that Israel was either fighting for its independence from the British or defending itself against Islamic jihad, posted here:

If Muslims want Israelis to stop killing them, they should stop committing terrorist acts against them.

And if they want their civilians unharmed, stop firing at the Israelis from among them.

It's just like Muhammad: Harass and attack a target, and when they [finally] defend themselves against you, call it "aggression."

Briefly with regard to your list, you do realize that some Israelis carried out bombings against the British, pre-independence, right?

Unlike your coreligionists, they were not following a "divine" mandate to enslave or slaughter all who refuse the "invitation" to Judaism, they gave prior warning to avoid innocents dying in at least one bombing (the King David Hotel), they were not targeting civilians, and your Sharon-led mission was condemned by Israel.

(No, not the fingers-crossed-behind-the-back, double-speaking, "We-denounce-terrorism-in-all-its-forms[-but-killing-Jews?-That's-not-terrorism!"] kinds of "condemnations" in which Islamic spokesmen engage.

Since you do not provide any background regarding the "attacks" you list, nor did I see any links, I looked up one of your events that occurred some time after statehood.

It doesn't look good for you.

Here* is what I found about your "Qibya massacre" and why it happened: It was in response to more Islamic barbarism:

"The attack took place in the context of border clashes between Israel and neighbouring states, which had begun almost immediately after the signing of the 1949 Armistice Agreements

[. . .]

"between June 1949 and the end of 1952, a total of 57 Israelis, mostly civilians, were killed by infiltrators from Jordan. The Israeli death toll for the first 9 months of 1953 was 32

[. . .]

"The specific incident which the Israeli government used to justify the assault on Qibya occurred on October 12, 1953, when a Jewish mother, Suzanne Kinyas, and her two children were killed by a grenade thrown into their house in the Israeli town of Yehud, some 10 kilometers (6 mi) inside Israel's border.

[. . .]

"Force had to be used to demonstrate to the Arabs that Israel was in the Middle East to stay, Ben Gurion believed, and to that end he felt strongly that his retaliatory policy had to be continued."

So, yes, it was self-defense [against Muhammad's anti-Semitism].

You can't wage offensive warfare against non-Muslims and then cry "Foul!" when they defend themselves.

At least, not honestly.

*A note: I don't like to use Wikipedia as a source, but considering that it is often used by apologists for jihad (so there's [usually] a pro-Islam slant), and I don't have a desire to chase Mohamed down every rabbit hole, there you go.

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.

Old-fashioned anti-Semitism

Roy writes . . . old-fashioned nonsense here:

"Yes, the Middle East is in a mess, but there is plenty of blame to go around. Centuries under foreign rule, whether Ottoman or European. Then a European state (Israel) planted right in the middle of the Arab world."

It's always the Jews' fault, isn't it, Roy?

"Even to mention its possibility was to incur Israeli wrath, charges of anti-Semitism, etc."

Just as it was completely unreasonable for Israel to hesitate rewarding the people who tried to destroy it then, so it is today, right Roy?

"The Palestinians become so frustrated that they foolishly elect Hamas."

Whenever I'm really frustrated that the nation I tried to slaughter utterly shamed me I elect bloodthirsty, child-killing, sadists too.

"Plenty of blame to go around, as in most such confrontations . . . What we need (and have needed) is a fair resolution of that issue."

Here is what passes for "fair" in Roy's eyes:

"There must be a viable Palestinian state with control of its own borders, air, and water, with the Arab section of Jerusalem as its capital. Palestinians whose homes were taken or demolished etc need to be compensated. Many of the 9000 Palestinians prisoners need to be released. Etc."

In other words, Roy defines "fair" as "reward murderers, liars, and thieves for their murdering, lying, and stealing."

"In exchange, the Palestinians must give up all terrorism and recognize Israel."

That's already been tried. Every time Israel sacrifices, Arab Muslims (not "Palestinians") displaced by Muslim [greed for Jewish blood] slaughter more innocent Israelis.

"Together, side by side, the two states could set an example for the rest of the world."

They're already an example of the effectiveness of good-will negotiations with Islam.

More from Roy:

"(4) The sort of intolerance toward Islam apparent in many posts confirms the deep religious prejudice (and ignorance) of many posters. Why not read some of Karen Armstrong's writings? We need to have more understanding, less bigotry."

[If you want to understand Islam, Karen Armstrong is one of the last places you should turn.]

What you define as "understanding" is more correctly termed "ignorance;" what you call "bigotry" is more accurately named "honesty."

Exactly what part of ". . . kill the unbelievers wherever you find them . . ." (Qur'an 9:5) do you find so tolerable?

How does a knowledge of 1400 years of global Jihad and the religious texts that inspire and invigorate it qualify as "prejudice"?

If it seems that you are unacquainted with Islam's actual theology and history, citing Karen Armstrong only proves it.

Roy finishes with a flourish:

"the Hebrew scriptures are full of mass muder, even genocide. Consider Joshua slaughtering every inhabitant in Jericho, Ai, etc. And what about Saul's slaughter of the Amalekites - every one of them. And the crowds cheering David - Saul kills thousands, David kills tens of thousands, or whatever. If we judge Judaism by such stories from its scriptures it certainly would appear to be a religion of violence."

Again, a false moral equivalence wrapped in a tu quoque argument! Why do you avoid addressing the bloodlust of Allah and his false prophet?

Nearly all of the warfare recorded in the Old Testament writings are accounts of historical events, not one command requires offensive warfare to make the world Zion.

And as for the command given to conquer the Promised Land, that was limited to a specific target, place, and time. It was a divine judgment of those peoples carried out by Ancient Israel (who later suffered a similar judgment at the hands of foreign powers because of their wickedness).

It is in no way comparable to the universal commands given by Allah and his apostle for offensive warfare against all non-Muslims to make the world Islam.

"The solution? Talk and talk and talk, instead of demonizing and speaking arrogantly."

Thank you very much, Neville Chamberlain.

Talking with those whose religious obligation it is to convert, subjugate, or kill you doesn't seem like an effective strategy, unless your goal is to give them enough time to slit your throat.

And telling the truth is not demonizing.

"Basis for negotiation: we will recognize Israel if you will encourage a viable Palestinian state"

So, Muslim terrorists attack innocent Israelis, and Israel must reward the killers to gain their recognition?

That's not negotiation, that's suicide.

"Dignity and humiliation are major components of the problem. You don't gain peace and understanding when you treat subject people like dirt. I was in Israel four times and saw firsthand the humiliation of Palestinians."

Is that humiliation Israel's fault for defending itself, or the "Palestinians'" fault for repeatedly attacking them in the first place?

Stop blaming the victim.

Israel constantly sacrifices for the good of its Muslim neighbors. Where are their Coreligionists of Peace?

Those who slaughter innocents deserve much worse than humiliation.

Troubling truths about Islam

An interfaith dialogue on the Religion of Peace, the kind that our political, media, and academic elites ought to be having, not the suicidal, politically-correct, Saudi-funded, jihad-enabling, ignorant nonsense going on today.

A response to Mohamed Fadly, from here, with slight modifications in format and some added, bracketed commentary:

1) Falsely equating Christ and Allah

Mohamed equates Christ's command to “Love your enemies” with Allah's not forbidding dealing “kindly and justly” with those who do not fight Muslims nor drive them from their homes.

How are those equivalent? How does being kind to someone not harming you even approach loving one's enemies?

To be remotely comparable, Allah would have to state something along the lines of “Allah does not forbid you from being kind and just to those who fight against you for faith or drive you from your homes.”

Even then, that would only allow kindness to one's enemies, not command love toward them, as Christ does.

2) Qur'anic contradictions? Yes, Naskh, the doctrine of Abrogation.

Mohamed talks about the “apparent” contradictions in Qur'an. They exist.

Later “revelations” that contradict earlier ones abrogate them. This is called “naskh”:

“The Prophet said, ‘If I take an oath and later find something else better than that, then I do what is better and expiate my oath'" (Bukhari Volume 7, Book 67, Number 427).

“Whatever communications We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, We bring one better than it or like it. Do you not know that Allah has power over all things” (Qur'an 2:106)?

The abrogations most troubling to non-Muslims concern the proper Muslim stance toward them.

Unfortunately for millions (billions?) of “infidels” over the last fourteen hundred years, Muhammad's position on the subject evolved from one of cooperation with non-Muslims, to allowing self-defense, to requiring self-defense, to demanding offensive warfare against those who refuse the “invitation” to Islam (or slavery under it).

3) The tried-but-not-true, "Out-of-context! Out-of-context!"

[The only problem is, no one ever shows how my citations are actually, out-of-context.]

Mohamed makes an argument for understanding passages in their context. I agree.

I've never done otherwise, contrary to his implication.

Mohamed does neglect to make one point regarding context: Since Qur'an is a series of often disjointed, independent sayings – its chapters arranged by size, not chronology – to find the context of many passages it is necessary to go to ahadith (the sayings of Muhammad) and sira (his biographies).

4) Pulling the wool over the eyes of those unfamiliar with the Islamic texts commanding jihad

[Those new to Muhammad's hellish doctrines often jump naturally from The Verse of the Sword (9:5) to the conclusion that Muhammad and his allah want(ed) every non-Muslim dead. This misunderstanding provides the opportunity for the more experienced among jihad's apologists to score points in the eyes of the gullible, foolish, and perverse. Worse, it can confuse and demoralize those rightly alarmed at what they understand intuitively as the threat posed by Islam to all humanity.

Non-Muslims should be aware that yes, Muhammad and his allah love(d) infidel blood, but he also likes converts, which are one good way to swell the ranks of Hell.

I'd guess that Muhammad preferred non-Muslims as sex slaves and punching bags, because they just keep giving and giving and giving.

And attractive infidel women reproduce Muslims just fine.]

Regrettably, it appears that Mohamed is implying that I've claimed that Allah commands Muslims to kill “all non-Muslims.” Or, perhaps, he's hoping someone else who isn't paying attention will think I have.

Mohamed admits (unintentionally, I'd wager) that Allah commands warfare against non-Muslims (“every other verse that clarified how and when to fight against them and when to give peace”).

So, let's look at one of those chronically-taken-out-of-context verses and its actual context[:] Qur'an 9:5.

This is called “The Verse of the Sword,” and with it, Muhammad opened up the entire non-Muslim world to Islamic conquest, making all non-Muslims targets for either conversion, slavery, or slaughter.

Here is The Verse:

"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).

A non-Muslim unfamiliar with the context of that verse would be alarmed (rightly) and may make the logical leap to “all Muslims are commanded to kill all non-Muslims.” This would not be true, and here is why: Muhammad ordered slaughter for those non-Muslims who refuse the “invitation” to Islam and subjugation as dhimmis (an option for the “People of the Book;” pagans are not usually so “lucky”):

"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).

So, no, “all Muslims” are not ordered to kill “all non-Muslims.” Just the ones who resist.

One other important consideration: Since the goal of Islam is the establishment of Allah's tyranny over all mankind, the use of any means necessary is fine. If Islam can subjugate the entire world without firing a shot or lighting a fuse, it will.

This is why you see demographics, media, schools, prisons, politics, the courts, and money used successfully in establishing Islam in Western nations.

If anything, bin Laden and his buddies may have set back the spread of Islam in America.

5) Isn't it ironic (in a sad, suicidal, end-of-civilization-kind-of-way) that you have to take Islamic texts out-of-context to get a message of peace?

Mohamed brings up two passages to illustrate that Qur'anic verses should be taken in context.

Again, I agree, they should.

The first is 2:191, “slay them wherever ye catch them.” Though I have not taken this verse out-of-context, Muslims dealing with inexperienced non-Muslims often use this verse to mislead their audiences.

Yes, the command here is given in the context of retaliation, retribution, even self-defense.

The only problem is, the same command is uttered in the context of offensive warfare against non-Muslims in Sura 9 (quoted above) on the basis of religion, the only “immunity” granted to those “infidels” who've kept their treaties with Muhammad, and only until those treaties expire.

Sura 4 mentions self-defense in verse 91, but look at verse 89: “Do not consider them friends, unless they mobilize along with you in the cause of Allah. If they turn against you, you shall fight them, and you may kill them when you encounter them in war. You shall not accept them as friends, or allies.”

Exempted from this violence are those who join groups with extant peace treaties with Muhammad (verse 90).

So the default state according to Mr. Fadly is – without considering the later verses requiring offensive warfare – one of hostility toward non-Muslims on religious grounds.

Again, Mohamed states that, “It's not an absolute permission to annihilate all and everyone who disbelieve in Islam.”

I've never said otherwise.

And isn't it curious that Mohamed doesn't volunteer the rest of the story?

6) "Peace." Muslims keep using that word. I do not think it means what they think it means.

[Non-Muslims should be aware that Islam uses words that we find comforting, reassuring.

The only problem is that Islam uses its own dictionary.

Consider "peace," "innocent," and "terrorism."

In Islam, "peace" means that state or condition when all non-Muslims have converted, are enslaved, or dead. It's not hard to be "the world's fastest growing religion" when you're killing the competition. (Microsoft must be mad at the double standard.)

Whatever "innocent" means (usually "Muslim"), it cannot be applied to any non-Muslim, for, by virtue of their unbelief, they are friends of Satan and enemies of Allah (which is ironic, because in the Real World, the two are indistinguishable).

And "terrorism" is whatever a non-Muslim does in defense of himself or others against Allah, especially if they're Jews.]

Instructively, Mohamed concludes this section of his comments with this:

“it's an exceptional solution to treat with those who oppress, fight, and don't aim at establishing peace and maintaining stability. It's restricted by treaties that Muslims held with others.”

With self-defense (“those who fight”) I have no problem. With retaliation, I understand (I don't agree, but I understand).

I do have a problem with “oppress,” and “don't aim at establishing . . . and maintaining stability.” Too often, Muslims – following Muhammad's example – consider non-Muslims not immediately lying down and making every concession demanded of them by the faithful as committing “oppression” or causing “instability.”

Not being Muslim is a threat to the Islamic state!

Here, “disbelief” in Allah is the cause for war:

"Say to the Unbelievers, if (now) they desist (from Unbelief), their past would be forgiven them; but if they persist, the punishment of those before them is already (a matter of warning for them). And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and polytheism: i.e. worshipping others besides Allah) and the religion (worship) will all be for Allah Alone (in the whole of the world)" (Qur'an 8:38; ayah 39 from Noble Qur'an).

Another declares execution, crucifixion, and amputation appropriate punishments for . . . “mischief”:

"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 it: `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."]

I always slaughter those with whom I have no peace treaty.

7) Dhimmi "rights," an exemplar of Islam's sick sense of humor

Mohamed makes a passing reference to “dhimmi” rights. That's an oxymoron to any honest person whose done his homework!

Dhimma is “protection” for the “People of the Book,” Jews and Christians (and at times, certain other groups).

Protection from whom? This is the kind of “protection” mobsters offer: You pay us, and we'll protect you – from ourselves!

In fact, mafia look like angels next to what Islam has traditionally offered dhimmis, per Muhammad's command in Qur'an 9:29, which reads: “Fight those who believe not in Allah . . . 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.

“Subdued” is translated variously as “brought low” and “subjection.”

What does this mean in practice? One model of Islamic “protection” is the Pact of Umar, which states in part:

“We [Christians] shall not build, in our cities or in their neighborhood, new monasteries, Churches, convents, or monks' cells, nor shall we repair, by day or by night, such of them as fall in ruins or are situated in the quarters of the Muslims.

We shall keep our gates wide open for passersby and travelers. We shall give board and lodging to all Muslims who pass our way for three days.

We shall not give shelter in our churches or in our dwellings to any spy, nor [h]ide him from the Muslims.

We shall not teach the Qur'an to our children.

We shall not manifest our religion publicly nor convert anyone to it. We shall not prevent any of our kin from entering Islam if they wish it.

We shall show respect toward the Muslims, and we shall rise from our seats when they wish to sit.

We shall not seek to resemble the Muslims by imitating any of their garments, the qalansuwa, the turban, footwear, or the parting of the hair. We shall not speak as they do, nor shall we adopt their kunyas.

We shall not mount on saddles, nor shall we gird swords nor bear any kind of arms nor carry them on our persons.

We shall not engrave Arabic inscriptions on our seals.

We shall not sell fermented drinks.

We shall clip the fronts of our heads.

We shall always dress in the same way wherever we may be, and we shall bind the zunar round our waists

We shall not display our crosses or our books in the roads or markets of the Muslims. We shall use only clappers in our churches very softly. We shall not raise our voices when following our dead. We shall not show lights on any of the roads of the Muslims or in their markets. We shall not bury our dead near the Muslims.

We shall not take slaves who have been allotted to Muslims.

We shall not build houses overtopping the houses of the Muslims.

(When I brought the letter to Umar, may God be pleased with him, he added, "We shall not strike a Muslim.")

We accept these conditions for ourselves and for the people of our community, and in return we receive safe-conduct.

If we in any way violate these undertakings for which we ourselves stand surety, we forfeit our covenant [dhimma], and we become liable to the penalties for contumacy and sedition.

Umar ibn al-Khittab replied: Sign what they ask, but add two clauses and impose them in addition to those which they have undertaken. They are: "They shall not buy anyone made prisoner by the Muslims," and "Whoever strikes a Muslim with deliberate intent shall forfeit the protection of this pact."

Can't you feel the love?

8) Israelis defending themselves against animals who target innocents (from among their own people) because Allah told them to do so? The Israelis are the terrorists!

Mohamed tries to ameliorate the utter barbarity of Muhammad's being made “victorious with terror” and the implications of that declaration and example for today's non-Muslims concerned with Islamic terrorism with this verse:

“And they thought that their fortresses would defend them from Allah. But the (Wrath of) Allah came to them from quarters from which they little expected (it), and cast terror into their hearts ..” 59:2

They were hiding in their fortresses.

(By the way, it is not a good idea to bring up Israel and their Muslim neighbors in defense of Islam. If Israel were as bad as Islamic and other anti-Semites claim, they'd have “taken care” of the “Palestinians” a long time ago.

The truth is, since its inception, modern Israel has had to defend itself continually against jihad.)

9) Islamic ideals of tolerance, justice, and safety? Muslims only, please.

Mohamed notes a punishment carried out in Saudi Arabia for heinous crimes. I have no problem with that.

I do have a problem with this: Mr. Fadly does not mention that the way in which the “Islamic religion maintain[s] the safety of the people” applies only to Muslims, even in his beloved Egypt, where Copts are attacked and killed and their daughters kidnapped and raped routinely by Muslims.

Under Islamic law – which is derived from Qur'an and Sunna – non-Muslims, apostates, women, and little children are not afforded the same consideration as Muslim males.

Consider the following passages regarding just non-Muslims; perhaps Mohamed can explain how these texts don't say what they actually say:

"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)."

"Yahya related to me from Malik that he heard that Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz gave a decision that when a [J]ew or [C]hristian 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).

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

And, of course, all the passages regarding offensive warfare to make the world Islam.

Genocide in Canaan?

Those who seek to defend Islam often engage in the false tu quoque argument, "Well, look at Israel and Canaan."

Their error is two-fold. First, whether or not Israel even existed has nothing to do with what Islam's "sacred" texts state. Second, YHWH's command to displace and slaughter inhabitants of Canaan is in no way morally equivalent to Allah's commands to rape, enslave, and slaughter all who refuse the "invitation" to Islam and the demand for jizya and submission.

So, what was the command to Israel? It was not genocide YHWH intended:

"I will send my terror before you and will throw into confusion all the people against whom you shall come, and I will make all your enemies turn their backs to you. And I will send hornets before you, which shall drive out the Hivites, the Canaanites, and the Hittites from before you. I will not drive them out from before you in one year, lest the land become desolate and the wild beasts multiply against you.

"Little by little I will drive them out from before you, until you have increased and possess the land. And I will set your border from the Red Sea to the Sea of the Philistines, and from the wilderness to the Euphrates, for I will give the inhabitants of the land into your hand, and you shall drive them out before you.

"You shall make no covenant with them and their gods. They shall not dwell in your land, lest they make you sin against me; for if you serve their gods, it will surely be a snare to you" (Exodus 23:27-33).

Here is another proof that YHWH did not want everyone dead:

"the angel of the LORD . . . said, 'I brought you up from Egypt and brought you into the land that I swore to give to your fathers. I said, 'I will never break my covenant with you, and you shall make no covenant with the inhabitants of this land; you shall break down their altars.' But you have not obeyed my voice. What is this you have done? So now I say, I will not drive them out before you, but they shall become thorns in your sides, and their gods shall be a snare to you'" (Judges 2:1-3).

What was the purpose? To kill innocent men, women, and children?

No, its purpose was to punish evil -- such as child sacrifice and the type of rampant, violent, sexual perversion for which Sodom and Gomorrah had been destroyed earlier -- and to set apart Israel as holy. This also prepared the way for the Messiah:

"And the LORD spoke to Moses, saying, "Speak to the people of Israel and say to them, I am the LORD your God. You shall not do as they do in the land of Egypt, where you lived, and you shall not do as they do in the land of Canaan, to which I am bringing you . . . .

"None of you shall approach any one of his close relatives to uncover nakedness . . . You shall not uncover the nakedness of . . . your mother . . . You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father's wife . . . You shall not uncover the nakedness of your sister, your father's daughter or your mother's daughter, whether brought up in the family or in another home. You shall not uncover the nakedness of your son's daughter or of your daughter's daughter . . . You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father's wife's daughter . . . since she is your sister. You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father's sister; she is your father's relative. You shall not uncover the nakedness of your mother's sister . . . You shall not uncover the nakedness of your . . . aunt. You shall not uncover the nakedness of your daughter-in-law; she is your son's wife . . . You shall not uncover the nakedness of your brother's wife . . . You shall not uncover the nakedness of a woman and of her daughter, and you shall not take her son's daughter or her daughter's daughter to uncover her nakedness; they are relatives; it is depravity. And you shall not take a woman as a rival wife to her sister, uncovering her nakedness while her sister is still alive.

"You shall not approach a woman to uncover her nakedness while she is in her menstrual uncleanness. And you shall not lie sexually with your neighbor's wife and so make yourself unclean with her. You shall not give any of your children to offer them to Molech, and so profane the name of your God: I am the LORD. You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination. And you shall not lie with any animal and so make yourself unclean with it, neither shall any woman give herself to an animal to lie with it: it is perversion.

"Do not make yourselves unclean by any of these things, for by all these the nations I am driving out before you have become unclean, and the land became unclean, so that I punished its iniquity, and the land vomited out its inhabitants. But you shall keep my statutes and my rules and do none of these abominations, either the native or the stranger who sojourns among you (for the people of the land, who were before you, did all of these abominations, so that the land became unclean), lest the land vomit you out when you make it unclean, as it vomited out the nation that was before you. For everyone who does any of these abominations, the persons who do them shall be cut off from among their people. So keep my charge never to practice any of these abominable customs that were practiced before you, and never to make yourselves unclean by them: I am the LORD your God" (Leviticus 18:1-30).

Here's one more:

"When you come into the land that the LORD your God is giving you, you shall not learn to follow the abominable practices of those nations. There shall not be found among you anyone who burns his son or his daughter as an offering, anyone who practices divination or tells fortunes or interprets omens, or a sorcerer or a charmer or a medium or a necromancer or one who inquires of the dead, for whoever does these things is an abomination to the LORD. And because of these abominations the LORD your God is driving them out before you. You shall be blameless before the LORD your God, for these nations, which you are about to dispossess, listen to fortune-tellers and to diviners. But as for you, the LORD your God has not allowed you to do this. "The LORD your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among you, from your brothers--it is to him you shall listen-- " (Deuteronomy 18:9-15).

More to come, including Israel's approach into Canaan from the east across the Jordan, other commands, and Israel's facing the same fate at the hands of the Babylonians.

Steve adds:

Comparing the Canaan texts in Scripture to Islamic Jihad texts is apples vs. oranges.

Historically, God has used one nation to execute judgment on another. The Israelites to Canaan, The Assyrians and Babylonians to Israel, Persia to Babylon, etc.

This is a function of God's holiness. For example, He told Abraham in Genesis 15:16 that the sin of the Amorites had not yet reached a point where God was going to judge them, but it would come later. God cannot be mocked.

Ultimately, I think the jihadists are attempting to employ the same principle. The "infidels" have turned their backs on "god" and must be judged by the jihadist who is representing the "true faith".

Besides the enormous problem that they have a made-up "god" and a deeply flawed "holy text", there is also the problem of the moral chasm between YHWH judging child sacrificers and demon worshippers vs. jihadists forcing people to convert or die.

Here is the Genesis 15 passage relating YHWH's promise to Abraham regarding his descendants: Slavery in Egypt; the Plagues, Passover, and Exodus; and the conquest of Canaan when the sin of the Amorites would reach "full measure."

"As the sun was setting, Abram fell into a deep sleep, and a thick and dreadful darkness came over him. Then the LORD said to him, "Know for certain that your descendants will be strangers in a country not their own, and they will be enslaved and mistreated four hundred years. But I will punish the nation they serve as slaves, and afterward they will come out with great possessions. You, however, will go to your fathers in peace and be buried at a good old age. In the fourth generation your descendants will come back here, for the sin of the Amorites has not yet reached its full measure."

"When the sun had set and darkness had fallen, a smoking firepot with a blazing torch appeared and passed between the pieces. On that day the LORD made a covenant with Abram and said, "To your descendants I give this land, from the river [d] of Egypt to the great river, the Euphrates- the land of the Kenites, Kenizzites, Kadmonites, Hittites, Perizzites, Rephaites, Amorites, Canaanites, Girgashites and Jebusites" (Genesis 15:12-20).

Deuteronomy 7 sums up the topic well:

"When the LORD your God brings you into the land that you are entering to take possession of it, and clears away many nations before you, the Hittites, the Girgashites, the Amorites, the Canaanites, the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites, seven nations more numerous and mightier than yourselves, and when the LORD your God gives them over to you, and you defeat them, then you must devote them to complete destruction. You shall make no covenant with them and show no mercy to them. You shall not intermarry with them, giving your daughters to their sons or taking their daughters for your sons, for they would turn away your sons from following me, to serve other gods. Then the anger of the LORD would be kindled against you, and he would destroy you [Israel] quickly. But thus shall you deal with them: you shall break down their altars and dash in pieces their pillars and chop down their Asherim and burn their carved images with fire.

"For you are a people holy to the LORD your God. The LORD your God has chosen you to be a people for his treasured possession, out of all the peoples who are on the face of the earth. It was not because you were more in number than any other people that the LORD set his love on you and chose you, for you were the fewest of all peoples, but it is because the LORD loves you and is keeping the oath that he swore to your fathers, that the LORD has brought you out with a mighty hand and redeemed you from the house of slavery, from the hand of Pharaoh king of Egypt. Know therefore that the LORD your God is God, the faithful God who keeps covenant and steadfast love with those who love him and keep his commandments, to a thousand generations, and repays to their face those who hate him, by destroying them. He will not be slack with one who hates him. He will repay him to his face. You shall therefore be careful to do the commandment and the statutes and the rules that I command you today.

"And because you listen to these rules and keep and do them, the LORD your God will keep with you the covenant and the steadfast love that he swore to your fathers. He will love you, bless you, and multiply you. He will also bless the fruit of your womb and the fruit of your ground, your grain and your wine and your oil, the increase of your herds and the young of your flock, in the land that he swore to your fathers to give you. You shall be blessed above all peoples. There shall not be male or female barren among you or among your livestock. And the LORD will take away from you all sickness, and none of the evil diseases of Egypt, which you knew, will he inflict on you, but he will lay them on all who hate you. And you shall consume all the peoples that the LORD your God will give over to you. Your eye shall not pity them, neither shall you serve their gods, for that would be a snare to you.

"If you say in your heart, 'These nations are greater than I. How can I dispossess them?' you shall not be afraid of them but you shall remember what the LORD your God did to Pharaoh and to all Egypt, the great trials that your eyes saw, the signs, the wonders, the mighty hand, and the outstretched arm, by which the LORD your God brought you out. So will the LORD your God do to all the peoples of whom you are afraid. Moreover, the LORD your God will send hornets among them, until those who are left and hide themselves from you are destroyed. You shall not be in dread of them, for the LORD your God is in your midst, a great and awesome God. The LORD your God will clear away these nations before you little by little. You may not make an end of them at once, lest the wild beasts grow too numerous for you. But the LORD your God will give them over to you and throw them into great confusion, until they are destroyed. And he will give their kings into your hand, and you shall make their name perish from under heaven. No one shall be able to stand against you until you have destroyed them. The carved images of their gods you shall burn with fire. You shall not covet the silver or the gold that is on them or take it for yourselves, lest you be ensnared by it, for it is an abomination to the LORD your God. And you shall not bring an abominable thing into your house and become devoted to destruction like it. You shall utterly detest and abhor it, for it is devoted to destruction." (Deuteronomy 7).

What does it mean when one names himself proudly after a genocidal butcher and homosexual, pedophilic rapist?

It means you've got a Muslim, since Allah calls the monster Mohammed a "beautiful pattern of conduct for those who want to please" him (Qur'an 33:21).

Yes, that warning screaming in your head is telling you the truth. Listen to it. Don't suppress it. And don't blame me. Yes, a Muslim who wants to please Allah should slaughter, rape (including little girls as young as nine), enslave, lie, steal, and teach others to do the same and call it "divine."

Not too long ago I found a review of a game dealing with a conflict in the Middle East (also known as the jihad against Israel) here. I left a comment wondering if the game touches on the Source and Sustenance of Islamic bloodlust against our only ally in the region.

A comment from one calling himself Mehmed II appeared asking:

İs it here the right place to make comments about political sitıations?

or

write reviews about games, which will be played by all the people from all religions?

Here is my reply:

Mehmed,

You name yourself after the perverted butcher and boy-rapist who sacked Constantinople in 1453. That's the kind of class I expect from a Muslim.

Nice touch. You really get a kick out of insulting non-Muslims when they don't know it, don't you?

As to your question, until people of one religion stop slaughtering members of other religions at their god and prophet's command, games like this will be made.

On Mehmed II and the fall of Constantinople:

"Thousands of civilians were enslaved, soldiers fought over young boys and young women . . . the invaders broke the heads of those women who resisted on the floor of the churches and they raped them dead. The famous icon of Apostole Loukas was totally destroyed.

"The sultan asked for the young sons of Duke Loukas Notaras. Their father refused and Mehmed was ready to take their heads. Notaras asked him to kill him after his sons so that he was sure that they were dead and not disgraced from the . . . sultan.

"And this is what happened."

Divide and conquer

And the President and his administration continue to play the unwitting dhimmis in making it happen.

If they understood Islam, they would know that after Israel, we're next.

They are unwitting, aren't they?

The long, uninterrupted string of concessions to Islam -- establishing outright the rule of Allah in Afghanistan, Iraq, Kosovo, continually betraying Israel, the billions in jizya to Muslim nations which hate us, the vile submission to Islam shown in our female diplomats' covering their heads, hosting iftar dinners at the White House, and nauseating words equating falsely the "words of the Qur'an" with the Word of Christ -- are done only out of ignorance and incompetence, right?

Stand with Israel against Allah: "I will bless those who bless you, and curse those who curse you."

Over the nearly fourteen centuries of violent jihad, one factor that allowed its advance through the Middle East, western and eastern Europe, North Africa, and Asia was that its Infidel targets mounted no unified defense against it.

Rivalries between peoples and kings, grudges, ambition, and a lack of communication saw numerous nations fall to Islam which otherwise may have been able to not only stop, but crush, it.

Today, with our knowledge of history, our ability to communicate instantly, and the military technological advantage we possess, it would take little more than non-Muslim leaders telling the truth about Islam for it to be pushed back to the borders of Muslim lands and constrained until it collapsed under the weight of its own barbarism and ignorance.

Unfortunately, our political, media, and academic elites have been been ignorant cowards.

One by one, ancient lands fell under the sword of Mohammed. Today, the non-Muslim nation closest to being slaughtered to Allah's glory is Israel. Israel may be the main target today, but after they fall, guess who's next?

From Robert Spencer:

Israel stands virtually alone in the world not only because of lingering antisemitism, but because Palestinian Arabs and their allies have succeeded in convincing opinion-makers that their land was taken illegitimately by Israel, and that they are oppressed there. The facts are otherwise, as I have discussed in a previous article here. The state was established legitimately and with the approval of the United Nations, and even the "occupied territories" were obtained according to what have been universally recognized throughout history as the rules of war. (Or should the United States give up the "occupied territories" of California, Texas, and other Western states? Should Russia withdraw from its "occupied territories" in Konigsberg, eastern Finland and eastern Poland? Should Muslims across North Africa, the Middle East, Iran, India and Southeast Asia withdraw from those "occupied territories" back to Arabia?) While I am sympathetic to genuine Palestinian Arab refugees, and with my friends from Ramallah and Jenin, I can't help but notice the role of the neighboring Arab states in exacerbating and prolonging the refugee problem for political reasons that are ultimately rooted in the jihad ideology. I can't help but notice that I was able to visit the Church of the Holy Sepulcher, Mount Tabor, and other Christian holy sites in Israel, which mean a great deal to me personally, while Bethlehem, under Palestinian Authority control, has become a dangerous place from which Christians are fleeing as quickly as they can. I can't help but notice that there was no call to establish a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza between 1948 and 1967, when those territories were under Jordanian and Egyptian control respectively -- despite the alleged difference of nationality between Palestinians and Jordanians and Egyptians.

Ultimately, if the nations of the world are interested in defending universal human rights and the equality of dignity of all people, they need to stand with Israel. Misdiagnosis of the problem -- that is, the unwillingness or inability of Western governments to acknowledge the motives and goals of the jihadists who want above all to destroy them -- has largely prevented this.

Yet as Benjamin Franklin said long ago in a far different context, we must all hang together, or we will most assuredly all hang separately.