Not sure whom to support in Libya? Ask the Muslim Brotherhood

And then choose the tyrant opposing them.

It's a choice between Morgoth and Sauron. The frying pan or the fire. The lesser of two evils, literally.

From here:

"'The most influential Sunni Muslim cleric in the world' misunderstands Islam, calls on the warriors of Islam to murder Gaddafi."

"most influential Sunni Muslim cleric in the world" So much for "most Muslims don't believe that."

If 9/11 weren't enough -- and tens of thousands of other atrocities since then -- that tells you all you need to know about Islam.

And Obama for demanding you respect it.

If Muslims are merely the victims of "good white Christian folk," then why centuries of jihad in India?

Here's Islam exercising its Constitutionally-protected religious liberties on Hindus.

Strangely enough, the Muslims below said and did what Muslims waging jihad over the last fourteen hundred years throughout the West -- including today's schoolgirl-beheading, underwear-detonating, miniskirt-raping Muslims -- say and do.

I wonder, what's the connection?  Why all the violence against non-Muslims in India?  Could it be India's colonies in the Middle East?  (They didn't have any colonies there?)  Prejudice against non-whites?  (You mean, most Indians aren't "white"?)  George W. Bush?  (He wasn't born until the twentieth-century, and the jihad in India began in the eighth?)

No, the reason that Muslims rape, maim, enslave, and slaughter all around the world is because they all draw from Islam's "sacred" texts their inspiration and justification for jihad.

Notice the extraction of jizya -- and vile humiliation -- imposed on the conquered, "zimmi" (dhimmi) Hindus, and the binary option offered normally to polytheists: Convert or Die (emphasis mine):

The Sultán then asked, “How are Hindus designated in the law, as payers of tribute (kharáj-guzár) or givers of tribute (kharáj-dih)?” The Kází replied, “They are called payers of tribute, and when the revenue officer demands silver from them, they should, without question and with all humility and respect, tender gold. If the officer throws dirt into their mouths, they must without reluctance open their mouths wide to receive it. By doing so they show their respect for the officer. The due subordination of the zimmí (tribute-payer) is exhibited in this humble payment and by this throwing of dirt into their mouths. The glorification of Islám is a duty, and contempt of the Religion is vain. God holds them in contempt, for he says, ‘Keep them under in subjection.' To keep the Hindus in abasement is especially a religious duty, because they are the most inveterate enemies of the Prophet, and because the Prophet has commanded us to slay them, plunder them, and make them captive, saying, ‘Convert them to Islám or kill them, enslave them and spoil their wealth and property.’ No doctor but the great doctor (Hanífa), to whose school we belong, has assented to the imposition of the jizya (poll tax) on Hindus. Doctors of other schools allow no other alternative but ‘Death or Islám.'”

As I have stated in this blog repeatedly, of the 4 schools of Islamic law, only one (Hanafi) even allows Hindus the right to live. The 3 others simply say that Hindus must be killed if they refuse to convert. That is what this Kazi is telling Ala-ud-din. Note also that he says that Hindus are the worst in the eyes of Allah. This is because in the Kuran, the mushriqs (idolators) are considered the worst of the worst, fit to be killed immediately. Kuran 9:5 is very explicit about this "slay the idolators where ever ye find them..." We Hindus must never forget this - that our fate as per orthodox Islam is beheading.

Now you tell me that it is all in accordance with law that the Hindus should be reduced to the most abject obedience.” Then the Sul-tán said, “Oh, doctor, thou art a learned man, but thou hast had no experience; I am an unlettered man, but I have seen a great deal; be assured then that the Hindus will never become submissive and obedient till they are reduced to poverty. I have, therefore, given orders that just sufficient shall be left to them from year to year, of corn, milk, and curds, but that they shall not be allowed to accumulate hoards and property.”

So Ala-ud-din says that he has put into place measures (heavy taxation etc.) in order to reduce Hindus to abject poverty and keep them in a state of permanent debasement.

This was the status of Hindus under Islamic rule. Of course, our school textbooks, written by Marxist liars, will portray this period as a "great flowering of a syncretic culture." I leave it to the reader to judge for themselves what kind of "syncretic culture" our textbooks are talking about.

That last part's pretty funny.  Marxism in service to Islam.

I mean, it's not like a Muslim could ever become a Marxist, rise to power, and tax/spend/borrow a non-Muslim people into "abject poverty and . . . a state of permanent debasement," even giving a trillion dollars to a known jihadist government like Hamas, right?  Right?

You'd have to be a racist Islamophobe frightened of the bogeyman-under-the-bed to even entertain such an idea.  In fact, I'm probably a fascist imperialist who eats puppies just for posting this.

(But wait, Marxists love Islam.)

Speaking of "out-of-context," some Qur'anic verses are not what they appear to be

Qur'an 5:32 is used often by Muslim apologists for Islam (and non-Muslims believing that they must be more enlightened than their fellows who for some strange reason see a connection between Islam and Islamic terrorism . . . perpetrated by Muslims . . . in Islam's name . . . while quoting Muhammad) in order to deceive non-Muslims into doubting their lyin' eyes. Even though Muslims maim, rape, and butcher non-Muslims (and Muslim apostates, women, and little girls) around the world every day in the name of Islam, Muslims want us to believe that Religionists of Peace are forbidden to kill non-Muslims (except in self-defense, of course). They quote just a portion of verse 32:

"Anyone who murders any person, it shall be as if he murdered all the people."

Sounds great, doesn't it? Islamic terrorism is just a crime that has nothing to do with Islam. Its practitioners are "perverting a great world religion." Nothing to worry about, right?

Despite Muslims' best efforts to let non-Muslims read into that little sound bite the tolerance and good will which we assume are naturally part of any decent religion, the actual verse is not a prohibition against Muslims killing non-Muslims, but a condemnation of Jews, Allah’s great “enemy”:

Because of this, we decreed for the Children of Israel that anyone who murders any person who had not committed murder or horrendous crimes, it shall be as if he murdered all the people. And anyone who spares a life, it shall be as if he spared the lives of all the people. Our messengers went to them with clear proofs and revelations, but most of them, after all this, are still transgressing.

Even more ominous (and tragic), the following verse is actually much worse for "infidels" than it appears at first glance:

"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).

A non-Muslim in a nation which has never sent troops into Afghanistan or Iraq might be thinking that they're safe. After all, they're not "warring against" Allah and Muhammad, even by way of their elected officials. But their comfort is illusory. Taking the verse in the context provided by Ibn Kathir in his highly respected tafsir (Qur’anic commentary), the horrific violence required by Muhammad against non-Muslims is to be carried out against them for their not being Muslim:

“‘Wage war’ mentioned here means oppose and contradict, and it includes disbelief, blocking roads and spreading fear in the fairways. Mischief in the land refers to various types of evil.”

So, Muhammad requires execution, crucifixion, or cutting off hands and feet from opposite sides for “disbelief.”

Take Qur'anic verses in their proper context. Your civilization may depend on it.

It's what isn't said but everyone knows that says it all . . .

A headline from Yahoo! News and AP:

Pakistani anti-terror court convicts 5 Americans

Were they Tea Party members?  Returning military?  Conservative Christians?  Octogenarians?

Not only do you know from only the headline that the convicted were Muslim, you know right away that the editors wanted to hide the reason for their terrorism.  It wasn't "Americanism" that made them do it.

The first sentence reveals what the title's trying to hide. That the word "Muslim" wasn't hidden until the last paragraph (or at all) is progress, I suppose.

Five young American Muslims were convicted of plotting terrorist attacks and sentenced to 10 years in jail Thursday in a case that highlights concerns about Westerners traveling to Pakistan to link up with al-Qaida and other extremist groups.

"Westernism" doesn't cause jihad.  Neither are their efforts to "cause terror in the hearts" of non-Muslims "extremism." It's just plain, simple, traditional, historical, Qur'anic, What-Would-Muhammad-Do Islam.

The fall of the Great City, Constantinople, 1453: Past is prelude

The "smartest president ever" grew up Muslim, yet he lies about Islam to those who elected him.  He warns us to avoid "jumping to conclusions" about his (former?) fellow coreligionists-of-peace slaughtering Americans to shouts of "Allahu akbar!" The mayor betrayer of New York, Michael Bloomberg, green-lights the Green Plague's latest jihad factory in what would have been the shadow of the Twin Towers, except that Muslims obliterated them, slaughtering thousands of innocents in the process. And here is the governor of Massachusetts Deval Patrick and Boston mayor Thomas Menino facilitating jihad in the land of the Adamses and Revere:

Certainly not what the Sons of Liberty had in mind.

Where's Paul Revere when you need him?

What does any of this have to do with the fall of Constantinople so many centuries ago?  Only that, just as petty rivalries, incompetence, and betrayal weakened the Great City so that it could no longer resist the jihad waged against it, so today we face the same uncompromising, relentless evil.

At least the Romans knew enough to fight back. Our leaders usher the Ottomans into the city. This is what awaits the West:

The Turks had sought to enter the city with a fanatic spirit because the Prophet, in the Qur’an, offered them a special place in paradise. Sultan Mehmet only mimicked the Prophet Muhammad when he said, “…even if some of us should die, as is natural in war, and meet our destined end, you know well from the Qur’an what the Prophet says, ‘that he who dies in battle shall dine whole in body with Mahomet, and drink with him in paradise and he shall take his rest in a green spot and fragrant with flowers, enjoying the company of women and lovely boys and virgins and he will bathe in gorgeous baths. All these things he will enjoy in that place by God’s favor.’” Despite facing such great odds, the Byzantines would defend their ancient Christian capital with great tenacity against the armies of Mehmet.

[. . .]

When they were finished, with their preparations, the Ottomans began blowing trumpets throughout their camp, along with sounding the castanets and tambourines, to announce that the Sultan would make a proclamation to his soldiers. Mehmet said to his men, “Children of Mahomet, be of good cheer. Tomorrow we shall have so much wealth that we shall be all of gold, and from the beards of Greeks we shall make leashes to tie up our dogs, and their wives and their sons shall be our slaves; so be of good cheer children of Mahomet, and be ready to die with a stout heart for the love of our Mahomet.” That night so many fires were lit in the Turkish camp that it appeared to the defenders as if the very walls were on fire, thus causing more panic in the city.

A picture is worth a thousand words, but one ounce of common human decency would have been more appreciated

Muslim outreach after prayer. Coming to a sidewalk near you, sooner or later.

From here, by way of Atlas. Be sure to learn the lesson Muslims and their Useful, Idiot Dhimmis like Mayor Bloomberg demand of you: It is not the rape, slavery, and slaughter in Allah's name and in accord with Muhammad's example that is the problem, it's you for resisting it.

In response to those who've learned that lesson well, I ask:

What sort of religion inspires its followers to murder after prayer? This kind:

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

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

So don't blame the victim or those reporting the evil. Stop the evil Muhammad preached and practiced.

"Chemical Sister" wrote:

"why don't you highlight the evils of Hinduisms as well like untouchability?"

If only Islam would stop "touching" non-Muslims, there'd be no atrocities like the one above to photograph.

Stop trying to divert attention from the anthropophagic elephant in the room. Tu quoques, straw men, red herrings will do nothing to stop jihad.  The problem is Islam.

[. . .]

How does denying the evil in which your coreligionists-of-peace engage "heal" anyone or anything (except, perhaps, your cognitive dissonance)? In effect, your strategy is: If we deny it, they won't come."

Fourteen hundred years of barbarity in Allah's name and in accord with Muhammad's example -- including more than 15,000 documented jihad attacks since 9/11 alone -- prove otherwise.

And to Nashbloom:

I quote Muhammad, yet you chastise: "We have had enough of you spreading hatred messages towards one religion."

That's why I quote Muhammad. I want Islamic hatred toward all other religions to end. I want non-Muslims to realize what motivates the global jihad against them so that they might defend themselves. I want truly decent Muslims to confront and denounce the evil which they worship (and perhaps, save themselves).

If I quote Muhammad and you call that "hate," what does that say about what YOU believe regarding Muhammad's words?

And when you write, "Killing someone in name of religion is mindset of poor ignorant people who don't know the true God," aren't you calling Muslims "poor ignorant people", and aren't you denying that Allah is "the true God"? Because Muslims who butcher non-Muslims in Allah's name and in accord with Muhammad's example have ample justification from their "sacred" texts for doing so.

Being an Islamic scholar, you already knew that.

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

"Magua's heart is twisted; he would make himself into what twisted him."

-Nathaniel of the Yengeese; Hawkeye, adopted son
of Chingachgook of the Mohican people

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

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

In Holy Warriors: Islam and the Demise of Classical Civilization, John O'Neill puts the first responsibility for the Dark Ages where it belongs: Not on Romanized, baptized barbarians or the Roman Catholic Church, but on the prophet from hell and those who followed him (note the mention of Muslim mercenaries menacing the Mediterranean; even a newborn America had to deal with the malevolence of the Barbary Pirates):

One of the most enduring problems of history is the decline of Classical Civilization. How was it that the civilization of Greece and Rome, which had endured almost a thousand years, a civilization which prized learning, science and reason, gave way to the world of the Medieval; an age which saw, for a while, the almost complete disappearance of the rationalist spirit of Greece and Rome? The traditional view was that after their seizure of Italy in the fifth century, the Barbarian tribes of Germany and Scythia had reduced Europe to an economic and cultural wasteland, initiating a Dark Age, which was to last half a millennium. After the Reformation, another suspect was added to the list: Christianity, or, more accurately, Catholic Christianity. In this view Christianity was corrupted beyond recognition after the time of Constantine and from the fourth century onwards a power-hungry Church hierarchy, in cahoots with the Imperial authorities, kept the population of Europe in subservience and ignorance, effectively completing the destructive work of the Barbarians.

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

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

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

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

A little more in reply to this:

I have serious problems with what Islam teaches, as you do. We must resist jihad and its attempts to attack, subvert and convert. That said we must resist the the human response of demonizing our adversaries or even more importantly, ALL Muslims.

Thank you for your courteous reply, Stavros.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In reflecting on the conflict between Greeks and Turks, one author observes:

"I'm not sure why I am telling you this story except to point out that we share the same God and he listens to our prayers even when they are coming from those we consider our adversaries."

While searching for images of Black Tuesday, I discovered this site. I've had a chance to read only this post and all its comments, but I have to agree with a poster there, its author's content and style is top-notch.

A few thoughts in response to several of the points raised there:

The reason there will never be peace between Greeks and Turks is because one adheres to an ideology commanding the enslavement or slaughter of all who refuse the "invitation" to convert. The other is one of its many victims.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

From here (emphasis added):

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

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

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

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

[. . .]

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

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

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

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

"We would like to point out that 'holy war' is a term that does not exist in the Islamic languages," the imams said. "Jihad, it must be emphasized, means struggle, and specifically struggle in way of God. This struggle may take many forms, including the use of force."

That makes it all better, doesn't it?

One of the imams was the Islamic scholar Nuh Ha Mim Keller, who translated the classic book on Islamic Law, "Reliance of the Traveler." The book states in section 09.0, "Jihad means to war against non-Muslims, and it is etymologically derived from the word mujahada, signifying warfare to establish the religion."

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

Geert Wilders is today's Winston Churchill in a world full of Neville Chamberlains and Grima Wormtongues, clueless cowards and treasonous snakes typified by people like Rory Graycrow Underclass, who asks in response to the heroic Wilders' warnings to the West regarding its Islamic Enemy Within:

In 1400 years Islam has failed to take over Europe. Why is he so afraid it will happen now?

Such a question betrays a suicidal ignorance of nearly one and one-half millennia of jihad in Europe.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Because it is happening now.

Seventy-eight percent of Muslims in Pakistan Islamophobic . . . the other 22% thought the poll was part of the Zionist-Crusader conspiracy to defame Islam

Since everyone knows that only racist, fear-mongering fascists claim that Islam requires violence.

No, Rifqa Bary is in no danger at all. Though everyone conspiring to return her to her to Ohio will share responsibility for her murder if her parents or their coreligionists are successful in fulfilling the commands of Allah and its monster Muhammad.

More "moderate" Islam, this time from Pakistan where, according to Andrew Bostom, a recent survey shows that 78% of one nation receiving our billions support death for apostates.

They also happen to support burying women alive for "honor."

Here's why:

"A manual of Islamic law certified by Al-Azhar as a reliable guide to Sunni orthodoxy says that 'retaliation is obligatory against anyone who kills a human being purely intentionally and without right.' However, 'not subject to retaliation' is 'a father or mother (or their fathers or mothers) for killing their offspring, or offspring's offspring.' ('Umdat al-Salik o1.1-2)."

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.

The New World has its Chamberlain; what we need desperately is our Churchill

At least Neville Chamberlain groveled to the devil before London was blitzed.

Much like the British prime minister's appeasement of Hitler with the Munich pact of 1938 -- which gave the monster a portion of Czechoslovakia -- today we have our nation's "leader" apologizing to, appeasing, and continuing the payment of jizya to Islam.

Here is Churchill's blunt condemnation of Chamberlain's malfeasance:

"I will begin by saying what everybody would like to ignore or forget but which must nevertheless be stated, namely that we have sustained a total and unmitigated defeat . . . instead of snatching the victuals from the table, [Hitler] has been content to have them served to him course by course."

Our Chamberlain bows to Saudi tyrants, apologizes to the ideology of our demise, and seeks to feed Israel to the dogs.

The result of Chamberlain's policies, major German advances and the retreat of more than 300,000 of its soldiers from France, England stood alone and outgunned, with Churchill in the lead.

From here:

I have, myself, full confidence that if all do their duty, if nothing is neglected, and if the best arrangements are made, as they are being made, we shall prove ourselves once again able to defend our Island home, to ride out the storm of war, and to outlive the menace of tyranny, if necessary for years, if necessary alone.

At any rate, that is what we are going to try to do. That is the resolve of His Majesty's Government-every man of them. That is the will of Parliament and the nation. The British Empire and the French Republic, linked together in their cause and in their need, will defend to the death their native soil, aiding each other like good comrades to the utmost of their strength. Even though large tracts of Europe and many old and famous States have fallen or may fall into the grip of the Gestapo and all the odious apparatus of Nazi rule, we shall not flag or fail. We shall go on to the end, we shall fight in France, we shall fight on the seas and oceans, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our Island, whatever the cost may be, we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender, and even if, which I do not for a moment believe, this Island or a large part of it were subjugated and starving, then our Empire beyond the seas, armed and guarded by the British Fleet, would carry on the struggle, until, in God's good time, the New World, with all its power and might, steps forth to the rescue and the liberation of the old.

The "New World" has its Chamberlain; what we need desperately is our Churchill.

Only one thing justifies the events of September 11th, and everyone with at least a modicum of awareness and common sense knows what that is

You don't need a degree in comparative religion or fluency in Arabic to understand what motivated 9/11 and the fourteen thousand Islamic terrorist attacks since then.

That being said, it seems all major world leaders lack even a modicum of awareness and common sense.

Simple truth attributed to Tony Blair in response to Amerca's first Black Tuesday.

The only part he left out? Just Five Little Letters.

So what do we do?

Don't overreact some say. We aren't.

We haven't lashed out. No missiles on the first night just for effect.

Don't kill innocent people. We are not the ones who waged war on the innocent. We seek the guilty.

Look for a diplomatic solution. There is no diplomacy with Bin Laden or the Taliban regime.

State an ultimatum and get their response. We stated the ultimatum; they haven't responded.

Understand the causes of terror. Yes, we should try, but let there be no moral ambiguity about this: nothing could ever justify the events of 11 September, and it is to turn justice on its head to pretend it could.

The action we take will be proportionate; targeted; we will do all we humanly can to avoid civilian casualties. But understand what we are dealing with. Listen to the calls of those passengers on the planes. Think of the children on them, told they were going to die.

Think of the cruelty beyond our comprehension as amongst the screams and the anguish of the innocent, those hijackers drove at full throttle planes laden with fuel into buildings where tens of thousands worked.

They have no moral inhibition on the slaughter of the innocent. If they could have murdered not 7,000 but 70,000 does anyone doubt they would have done so and rejoiced in it?

There is no compromise possible with such people, no meeting of minds, no point of understanding with such terror.

Just a choice: defeat it or be defeated by it. And defeat it we must.

The "causes of terror," Mr. Blair? "Justification" for September 11th?

It is Islam, of course.

And because Muhammad believed -- and acted upon the belief -- that no "unbeliever" who rejects Islam is "innocent," there are no innocents in the minds of these monsters.

But you can't say that.

There's nothing to see here.

There's no global jihad.

No 14,000 terrorist attacks since 9/11 alone.

No stealth jihad in the West to out-breed, out-litigate, out-legislate, out-intimidate America and other nations in Dar al-Harb (the "Abode of War" in Islam, lands in which shari'a is not in effect).

Think of how your poor, nice-until-you-quote-Muhammad-then-all-hell-breaks-loose Muslim in-law feels.

Don't talk about Hitler, or the Nazis will get upset.

I've got three letters for those who would burn down, enslave, rape, and slaughter in the name of their Beast and its Anti-Christ all that we hold dear: FMo

Exposing apologists for evil

The evil of Islam.

Well said, Mr. Condell.



Sounds familiar.

Thank you, Steve.

If quoting Muhammad and his allah is saying "filthy things," doesn't that make Islam's prophet and god both Islamophobes?

So, I say "filthy things" about Muhammad?

But I report what Islam's authoritative texts record of those words and deeds of most relevance to non-Muslims, apostates, women, and little girls.

If quoting Muhammad and his allah is saying "filthy things," doesn't that make Islam's prophet and god both Islamophobes?

Notice that when Mohamed Fadly tries to defend Muhammad, he does not deny that his prophet carried out the slavery, rape, child-rape, and slaughter that his own texts state he committed.

Instead, Mohamed:

-brings up passages that have nothing to do with the question of Muhammad's vile depravity (red herrings, non sequiturs),

-attacks the Biblical texts (false tu quoque arguments, false moral equivalences, clumsy ad hominems), and

-misrepresents what I've written (straw man "arguments").

How does the fact that Muhammad didn't kill someone in a particular instance mean that he didn't enslave, rape, and slaughter thousands and command his followers to do the same, claiming Allah made him do it?

Neither do verses and ahadith which appear to be decent and peaceful -- but the meanings of which have been either abrogated or not what they seemed to be in the first place at all -- negate Muhammad's brutality and perversion.

For example, Muslim propagandists and their Useful Idiot Dhimmis love to bring up "no compulsion in religion," but never mention, "invite . . . demand the jizya . . . fight . . . until all religion is for Allah."

They always claim Muhammad was beheading this and butchering that in "self-defense," but they never point out that even "disbelief" is considered "opposing" and "waging war against" Allah," the punishment for which is "execution, crucifixion . . . the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides."

Funny how that sort of deception and misinformation keeps happening.

Below Mohamed Fadly tries to defend Muhammad's treatment of prisoners of war by citing a verse on feeding "captives" -- slaves according to Tafsir Ibn Kathir, not prisoners of war -- and by misinterpreting Qur'an 5:33.

Here's all you need to know about Muhammad's treatment of prisoners of war: The Banu Qurayza, a Jewish tribe defending itself against Muhammad and his minions, eventually surrendered. All the men -- 700-900 of them, except for a few who saw the decapitation on the wall (or, more accurately, in the trench) and "converted" to Islam -- were beheaded and their women and children enslaved, with Muhammad taking an especially attractive, newly-created widow as his sex slave.

No doubt, Mohamed Fadly will try to defend that by saying, "She wanted it!"

Indeed, I've found that nothing woos a woman like slaughtering all the men of her tribe and raping her as soon as practicable.

Muhammad was quite a ladies' man.

Mohamed Fadly obfuscates:

In Qur'an; "And they feed, for the love of Allah, the indigent, the orphan, and the captive,-" A verse that was revealed in Al-Madinah.

But it's fine to rape your slaves, even if they're married to another. At least they're well-fed:

"Also (prohibited are) women already married, except those whom your right hands possess . . . " (Qur'an 4:24).

Mohamed [continues]:

Verse 5:33 don't apply on war prisoners, but those who commit Haraba crimes like the man who raped a child then killed him and his father.

Good thing Muhammad didn't kill 'Aisha and her dad, or he'd have to have killed himself.

One out of three will get you a spot in the Big Leagues.

The verse says:

"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).

It says, "The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger . . . ."

How can you crucify someone "waging war" against you unless they're captured, in which case they are, by definition, a prisoner of war? Do you hope [that] they['ll] ride their horse into your cross?

Not only is your reading of that verse questionable, so is your interpretation. 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."

So, in trying to show that Muhammad treated prisoners of war decently, you've highlighted instead the fact that Muhammad requires execution, crucifixion, or cutting off hands and feet from opposite sides for "disbelief."

Now for a little target practice:

The amnesty of the prophet to the people of Mecca; "Go you're free." after his conquest to Mecca in 8th year after his immigration to Al-Madinah.

He "conquered" Mecca, warring againt his own tribe.

The prophet's prayer to the other warring party; "O Allah, guide my people because they are men without knowledge.", after the defeat of Muslims in Ohod battle, the killing of many of Muslims including his uncle and his injuries.

Allah chastised the Muslims for losing the Battle of Uhud. Too many of them had chosen to go after Meccan booty (literally) rather than do their duty in battle: When Muhammad's minions “saw the women fleeing lifting up their clothes revealing their leg-bangles and their legs,” they began shouting, “The booty! O people, the booty!”

"O mankind! We created you .., that ye may know each other (not that ye may despise (each other) .." 49 : 13(Revealed in Medina)

Plagiarizing badly the Biblical creation story does nothing to negate, "kill the pagans wherever you find them" (Qur'an 9:5).

"Allah forbids you not, with regard to those who fight you not .. from dealing kindly and justly .." 60 : 8 (Revealed in Medina)

So, it's okay with Allah if a Muslim is kind to a dirty kafir who's not fighting with him?

It is a religion of peace!

"But if the enemy incline towards peace, do thou (also) incline towards peace, .." 8 : 60 (Revealed in Medina)

That's verse 61. Here's the actual verse 60, followed by a few others from the same sura:

"Against them make ready your strength to the utmost of your power, including steeds of war, to strike terror into (the hearts of) the enemies, of Allah and your enemies, and others besides, whom ye may not know, but whom Allah doth know. Whatever ye shall spend in the cause of Allah, shall be repaid unto you, and ye shall not be treated unjustly."

"Remember thy Lord inspired the angels (with the message): 'I am with you: give firmness to the Believers: I will instill terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers: smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them'" (Qur'an 8:12).

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

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

Mohamed continues:

"Let there be no compulsion in religion, .." 2:256 (Revealed in Medina)

Of course, no one can force inner belief, but words and actions? That's a different story. Perhaps someone should have told Muhammad:

"...he [Muhammad] said [to Abu Sufyan], ‘Isn’t it time that you should recognize that there is no God but Allah?’

"He answered, ‘You are dearer to me than father or mother. How great is your clemency, honour, and kindness! By God, I thought that had there been another God with God he would have continued to help me.’

"He said, ‘Woe to you, Abu Sufyan, isn’t it time that you should recognize that I am God’s apostle?’

"He answered, ‘As to that I still have some doubt.’

"'I said to him, "Submit and testify that there is no God but Allah and that Muhammad is the apostle of God before you lose your head," so he did so'" (Ishaq, 547).

No doubt, [just] another one of those pesky "exceptional incidents."

In defending Muhammad, one must point to patches of shade to prove the sun doesn't shine

More from here:

Mohamed Fadly claims he has . . .

stated verses and Hadith refuting your misguiding lies that peace verses came only when Muslims were weak in Mecca . . . .

I did not write "only."

Is that carelessness or dishonesty?

Pointing out that Sura 9 allows "asylum" for those who ask for it is no credit to Muhammad nor his allah, since from what did they need protection?

MUHAMMAD AND HIS ALLAH.

You can't point to Muhammad granting protection from himself as proof that Muhammad was a peaceful man.

You point to the people the genocidal monster didn't kill as proof he wasn't a genocidal monster, all the while drowning in an ocean of blood.

You point to the child-rape victim's apathetic acceptance of the only life she ever knew as proof she liked being raped by the pedophile prophet.

In defending Muhammad, you're pointing to patches of shade to prove the sun doesn't shine.

The more you do it, the more people will notice the light, sooner or later.

Revenge in Islam . . . just doing what the false prophet ordered

The Bible specifically forbids believers taking revenge, it belongs to YHWH alone:

You shall not take vengeance or bear a grudge against the sons of your own people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself: I am the LORD (Leviticus 19:18).

Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, "Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord" (Romans 12:19).

More snake hunting from here:

Mohamed wrote:

You claimed that Islam supports taking revenge. That's a false claim.

But Muhammad said:

"slay them wherever ye catch them, and turn them out from where they have Turned you out . . ." (Qur'an 2:191).

"The recompense for an injury is an injury equal thereto (in degree)" (Qur'an 42:40).

"A blind man had a slave-mother who used to abuse the Prophet . . . and disparage him . . . One night she began to slander the Prophet . . . and abuse him. So he took a dagger, placed it on her belly, pressed it, and killed her. A child who came between her legs was smeared with the blood that was there.

[. . .]

Thereupon the Prophet . . . said: 'Oh be witness, no retaliation is payable for her blood'" (Dawud Book 38, Number 4348).

And regarding the poetess Asma bint Marwan: "Who will rid me of Marwan's daughter?"

You know how that ended.

Muhammad ended with The Verse of the Sword, Allah's last word on warfare, and is it offensive!

Mohamed Fadly claims erroneously:

about Naskh . . . I stated verses and Hadith refuting your misguiding lies that peace verses came only when Muslims were weak in Mecca, but when they became stronger, "killing" verses came!! I refuted that false claim . . . .

Later revelations abrogate earlier contradictory ones.

Muhammad ended with The Verse of the Sword, Allah's last word on [. . .] warfare (and [is it] offensive!):

"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).

Tafsir Ibn Kathir states of The Verse of the Sword:

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

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

Here are a few more Verses of Blood, Allah's War Against Humanity:

"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).

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

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

"Allah's Apostle was asked, 'What is the best deed?' He replied, 'To believe in Allah and His Apostle (Muhammad).' The questioner then asked, 'What is the next (in goodness)?' He replied, 'To participate in Jihad (religious fighting) in Allah's Cause.' The questioner again asked, 'What is the next (in goodness)?' He replied, 'To perform Hajj (pilgrimage to Mecca). . .'" (Bukhari Volume 1, Book 2, Number 25).

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