brotherScoob's blog

another explanation of islamofacism

2007-11-21T05:20:00.000-08:00

http://www.amilimani.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=84&Itemid=2

brilliant

2007-11-05T04:50:00.000-08:00

By Noel Sheppard November 3, 2007 - 15:56 ET
Although you likely didn't hear about it, former White House Press Secretary Tony Snow received a Freedom of Speech Award on October 16 from The Media Institute.
During his acceptance, Snow made some statements about liberal bias in the press, as well as the condition of the media industry, which fully explain why this event, as well as his address, went virtually unreported.
Thankfully, Glenn Reynolds found this spectacular speech for your review. Unfortunately, the text was posted as a PDF file that cannot be cut-and-pasted.
*****Update: Thanks to Free Republic, I can now include some of the highlights from this marvelous address (emphasis added throughout, h/t NBer stratman):
Story Continues Below Ad ↓
The First Amendment, as others have noted, serves as the foundation for the enterprise, and supports reporters in their quest for truth .- or at least for serviceable facts that in time might lead them toward some reasonable facsimile of truth.
We also hear that the First Amendment is under siege. I think that´s true. I don´t believe anyone here would disagree with the proposition that the quality of public discourse isn´t what it once was or that it presently achieves levels of excellence and depth that it desperately needs to reach.
Yet, while it may be tempting to blame the usual suspects — the government, interest groups, angry factionalists — those forces frequently have always tried to restrict the free flow of ideas, and they always have failed.
They´re not the culprits here. Instead, there´s a new and unexpected menace on the block:
The media.
No question! But there's more:
Political rhetoric has turned nasty, childish, and very personal, especially on Capitol Hill, and Americans are sick of it. Hotheads seem to be enjoying a false spring of fame. And members of the mainstream press are scratching their heads and asking, “What´s going on here?” Why are the nation´s newspapers hemorrhaging readers? Why are the television networks losing viewers? Why has cable news suddenly hit still water? What is going on? Don´t Americans care about the news?
Well, of course they do: The problem is, they don´t think they´re getting news — and they´re right.
[...]
Reporters and editors for three decades have sneered at accusations of bias, as if the claim were novel — it is not — unthinkable — it is not — or false — which it also is not.The major media organs in this country have become purveyors of conventional wisdom— generally, conventional liberal wisdom.
The Roper Organization conducted a poll after the 1992 election and discovered that 93 percent of Washington political reporters voted for Bill Clinton. Only 2 percent identified themselves as “conservative.”
Subsequent surveys have indicated a similar spread in party affiliation, which makes the Washington Press Corps the most reliable Democratic voting bloc in the nation.
This is not a smear or a criticism. It is a fact, and it´s worth examining. My theory is that liberal — Democratic — sympathies flourish among reporters for very practical reasons. Democrats ran every major institution in Washington for 62 years — between 1932 and 1994. That´s the longest string of effective one-party rule in the history of democracy. Reporters knew that to get news, they needed to cultivate the people who made the news — who shaped legislation, who passed the laws, who peopled government departments and agencies — in other words, the people who really pull the levers in Washington. They needed to know elected officials, staffers, bureaucratic gnomes — the vast bulk of whom were Democrats.
Fascinating, wouldn't you agree? But there's more:
And what about conventional wisdom? For months, the media avoided asking about progress in Iraq. Despite repeated reports from the field that Iraqis had turned against al Qaeda, the news seldom made it into newspapers, and almost never on front pages. Last week, the military reported that civilian deaths in Iraq had hit their lowest point since 2003. U.S. and Iraqi deaths and casualties similarly had declined. So what led the paper the next morning? Stories about Blackwater. The statistics that put the war in perspective were relegated to the back pages of the Washington Post and in some publications, to oblivion.
A vigorous press must be one in which reporters challenge their own sympathies and assumptions as aggressively as they challenge the sympathies and assumptions of others. Unfortunately, that too seldom happens, with the consequence that opinion-mongering has driven out straight news.
[...]
Reporters nevertheless find themselves under constant pressure to accumulate and disgorge factoids, so they can be the first to recite them on camera, publish them online — and, of course, leak to Drudge.
Conflict stories provide a second source of low-hanging fatal fruit. Example: Harry Reid calls the president a liar. Reporters get word of the insult on their blackberries. They demand an immediate response from the White House press secretary.
This is not a hypothetical scenario. It happens all the time. I have stood at the White House podium, watching reporters unholstering their blackberries and looking at urgent communications from the home office. Within moments, the questions come like hurled fruit:
Everyone wants to know about some utterance or event that took place or were reported after the briefing itself began — things about which I knew nothing, including the larger context. The point of such questions isn´t to get content and context right: It´s to play gotcha— to make public officials respond to insults and insinuations rather than ideas and facts.
Exactly. As a result, what we are routinely offered isn't news. Not even close. But that's what today's journalists strive for:
In short, media organizations have been seduced by process, conflict and polling stories, and along the way have sacrificed the tradition of looking for creative ways to understand and explain the world. They have become hostages to the easy and shallow stuff and strangers to stories that touch people´s hearts and characterize their actual lives.
Indeed, journalists seem to have developed an elitist contempt for the daily concerns of viewers, listeners and readers — and the public has noticed. This explains the across-the-board slippage in newspaper circulation, and viewership of broadcast and cable news.
[...]
I´ve raced through a lot of issues here, but you get the point: The media have embraced practices and policies that actually erode First Amendment freedoms and weaken the practice of journalism itself.
As folks that are familiar with Tony Snow are aware, he always sees things from an optimistic perspective. As such, his marvelous conclusion will not surprise his fans:
The democratic media provide new tools for examining our world, new competitors for reporting about that world, and new reminders to the press establishment that markets really do work — and people want better than they´re getting.
I come not to bury journalism, but to celebrate and challenge it. It´s a cliché that every crisis presents an opportunity, but it´s true: The democratization of the media is a good thing. We now face competition from all quarters — including from people who have specialized expertise that journalists lack. We ought to welcome the new participants in the game and learn from them. They should do the same with us.
There´s an old boast in the business — that the job of a journalist is to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable. The thing is, we never realized that we were becoming The Comfortable — with good pay, job security, and access to movers and shakers all around the world. We need to cast off our coziness — venture away from safe stories and presumptions and into the wilderness of new topics, new ideas and new sources of information.
In that quest lies the possibility of fulfillment and joy — and the hope of keeping alive the text and the spirit of the First Amendment.
Bravo, Tony! There's a reason why you are one of the most respected journalists on the planet, and we at NewsBusters sincerely thank you for your insights while wishing you well in your future endeavors.

more delightful self hating white people trying to pass their self hatred along

2007-11-01T06:02:00.001-07:00

Ideological Reeducation Camps at University of Delaware
Wed, Oct 31, 2007 at 9:48:39 am PDT
At the University of Delaware, race politics has reached a dead end of absurdity and political correctness reminiscent of Stalinist Russia: University of Delaware Requires Students to Undergo Ideological Reeducation.
NEWARK, Del., October 30, 2007—The University of Delaware subjects students in its residence halls to a shocking program of ideological reeducation that is referred to in the university’s own materials as a “treatment” for students’ incorrect attitudes and beliefs. The Orwellian program requires the approximately 7,000 students in Delaware’s residence halls to adopt highly specific university-approved views on issues ranging from politics to race, sexuality, sociology, moral philosophy, and environmentalism. The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) is calling for the total dismantling of the program, which is a flagrant violation of students’ rights to freedom of conscience and freedom from compelled speech.
“The University of Delaware’s residence life education program is a grave intrusion into students’ private beliefs,” FIRE President Greg Lukianoff said. “The university has decided that it is not enough to expose its students to the values it considers important; instead, it must coerce its students into accepting those values as their own. At a public university like Delaware, this is both unconscionable and unconstitutional.”
The university’s views are forced on students through a comprehensive manipulation of the residence hall environment, from mandatory training sessions to “sustainability” door decorations. Students living in the university’s eight housing complexes are required to attend training sessions, floor meetings, and one-on-one meetings with their Resident Assistants (RAs). The RAs who facilitate these meetings have received their own intensive training from the university, including a “diversity facilitation training” session at which RAs were taught, among other things, that “[a] racist is one who is both privileged and socialized on the basis of race by a white supremacist (racist) system. The term applies to all white people (i.e., people of European descent) living in the United States, regardless of class, gender, religion, culture or sexuality.”

hmmm where's the logic...oh that's right...there is none..politically correct nonsense...CNN has NO credibility

2007-10-19T05:21:00.002-07:00

Media Bias: Why would two Muslim men travel 3,000 miles to kill random people in the nation's capital a year after 9/11? CNN investigated and found Islamic terror had nothing to do with it.
Related Topics: Media & Culture
In its special marking the fifth anniversary of the sniper attacks, the network downplays the religious angle to the story in a reprise of its original shameless coverage.
When news of the snipers' identity first broke, CNN anchors were so determined to avoid making the obvious connection to radical Islam that they called the lead sniper, a Muslim convert, by his old name. Police were looking for John Allen Muhammad, but CNN insisted on referring to him as John Allen Williams.
Now the network has completely scrubbed Islam from the picture, offering child abuse (boo-hoo) and spousal revenge as alternative motives for the snipers' bloody rampage.
Nowhere in its one-hour special — promoted as "The Minds of the D.C. Snipers" — is Islamist brainwashing even hinted as a motivating factor behind their serial assassinations. Yet the evidence is overwhelming that they were on a jihad.
In their own words, Muhammad and Lee Boyd Malvo traveled across the country to terrorize Washingtonians on the first anniversary of the 9/11 attacks — first by picking off random people and then by blowing up school buses using plastic explosives loaded with ball bearings.
Their plan was to ramp up their shootings to 25 a day before moving on to explosives, killing scores of children. Thankfully, they were caught before they could put phase two into effect.
Muhammad and Malvo, now in prison in Virginia, still managed to kill 10 and wound three — including an elementary school kid shot in the back — while paralyzing the nation's capital for three full weeks.
The jailhouse drawings of the younger sniper, Malvo, tell it all:
• One sketch of Osama bin Laden exalts him as a "Servant of Allah."
• A self-portrait of him and Muhammad is captioned: "We will kill them all. Jihad . . . Allah Akbar!"
• A sketch of the burning Twin Towers has as its caption: "America did this. You were warned."
• A poem scribbled alongside an American flag and star of David drawn in cross hairs reads: "Our minarets are our bayonets, Our mosques are our baracks, Our believers are our soldiers."
• The Quran (Surah 2:190) is quoted as follows: "Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you and slay them wherever ye catch them." Also: "Islam the only true guidance."
• The White House is drawn in cross hairs, surrounded by missiles, with the warning: "Sep. 11 we will ensure will look like a picnic to you," and "you will bleed to death little by little."
• Another warning reads: "Islam. We will Resist. We will conquer. We will win."
Somehow CNN's "special investigations unit" managed to overlook this pile of courtroom evidence. It showed only one drawing — a self portrait of Malvo shedding tears.
CNN maintains that Malvo, an alleged victim of negligent parents, now has remorse for his victims — even though he wrote in one notebook: "They all died and they all deserved it. We will not stop. This war will not end until you are all destroyed utterly."
CNN also omitted the fact that while Muhammad and Malvo were in county jail awaiting trial, their lawyers insisted they be fed Islamic "halal" meals, such as veggie burgers, instead of ham sandwiches. They also got copies of the Quran.
According to Knight Ridder and others reporting at the time, the director of a shelter where the two men stayed for a spell in Washington state tipped off the FBI that Muhammad "might be a terrorist."
That incident mysteriously disappeared from an interview that CNN host Soledad O'Brien conducted with the same source for the special.
The revisionism and sanitization of Islam continued with O'Brien's interview with Muhammad's ex-wife, who insisted that jihad and hatred of America had nothing to do with her husband's cold-blooded killings.
Her head covered with a hijab, Mildred Muhammad claimed that she and she alone was the target of his attacks, and that the dozen-plus victims were an attempt to cover up the real target. CNN bought her story, even packaging it as an exclusive.
But a simple check of local news stories at the time would have revealed that neighbors reported seeing Muhammad visit with his former wife and children at their Maryland town house before and during the shootings. One neighbor said he even jogged with him.
Police even staked out her house in the hope he would visit again.
By leaving out all these facts — never even mentioning that the subjects of its investigation had converted to Islam — CNN committed professional malpractice.
Its "special investigation" is nothing more than a politically correct whitewashing of the truth aimed at pleasing Muslim groups like CAIR, which has argued that "there is no indication that this case is related to Islam or Muslims

grrrrrrrr

2007-10-19T05:21:00.001-07:00

taqiya

2007-10-16T05:03:00.001-07:00

A Common Word Between Us and You is a Call for Conversion
by Ryan EvansIPT NewsOctober 15, 2007
Say: O People of the Scripture! Come to a common word between us and you: that we shall worship none but God, and that we shall ascribe no partner unto Him, and that none of us shall take others for lords beside God. And if they turn away, then say: Bear witness that we are they who have surrendered (unto Him). (Aal ‘Imran 3:64)
Nice message, isn't it? Verse 3:64 is perhaps the most prominent of many verses from the Quran quoted in an open letter this week, entitled "A Common Word Between Us and You" from 138 Muslim scholars to the Pope and other Christian leaders around the world. It has been posted on a website and in newspapers throughout the world. Ostensibly, the letter's message was the necessity of peace between two of the world's greatest religions – a noble goal. The end of the letter reads:
Finding common ground between Muslims and Christians is not simply a matter for polite ecumenical dialogue between selected religious leaders. Christianity and Islam are the largest and second largest religions in the world and in history….If Muslims and Christians are not at peace, the world cannot be at peace.
…
So let our differences not cause hatred and strife between us. Let us vie with each other only in righteousness and good works. Let us respect each other, be fair, just and kind to another and live in sincere peace, harmony and mutual goodwill.
It would be difficult for the Pope to disagree with this profound and even divine message. But the only problem is that peace and coexistence are not the true goals of this letter. And the real target audience isn't the Pope.
Take a closer look at the 64th verse of the 3rd Sura (Chapter) of the Quran quoted above and twice in the letter, including in the title itself; especially the last sentence of it:
And if they turn away, then say: Bear witness that we are they who have surrendered (unto Him).
The word Muslim literally means "one who submits to God." Do we see that fit in anywhere? It would be more accurate to present that sentence this way:
And if they turn away, then say: Bear witness that we are Muslims.
In fact, that's how it's written by Abdullah Yusuf Ali, whose English translation of the Quran is considered the most popular and widely read.
If then they turn back, say: Bear witness that we (at least) are Muslims (bowing to Allah's will).
That modification of the word Muslim versus its English translation – those who have surrendered unto him – reveals that claims to monotheism may be exclusive to Muslims. And it doesn't stop there. Take a look at the verses that follow 3:64. Pay particular attention to verses 67, 69, 70, and 71:
3:65: Ye, People of the Book! Why dispute ye about Abraham, when the Law and the Gospel were not revealed till after him? Have ye no understanding?
3:66: Ah! Yes are those who fell to disputing (even) in matters of which ye had some knowledge! But why dispute ye in matters of which ye have no knowledge? It is Allah who knows and ye who know not!
3:67: Abraham was not a Jew, nor yet a Christian, but he was true in Faith, and bowed his will to Allah's (which is Islam) and he joined not gods with Allah.
3:68: Without doubt, among men, the nearest of kin to Abraham are those who follow him, as are also this Apostle and those who believe: And Allah is the Protector of those who have Faith.
3:69: It is the wish of a section of the People of the Book to lead you astray. But they shall lead astray (not you), but themselves, and they do not perceive.
3:70: Ye People of the Book! Why reject ye the Signs of Allah, of which ye are (yourselves) witnesses?
3:71: Ye People of the Book! Why do you clothe Truth with falsehood, and conceal the Truth while ye have knowledge?
In full context, it is clear that this section of the Quran, including 3:64, is a condemnation of Christianity and Judaism and a call for conversion. Why would this verse be included in a call for peace and understanding between Islam and Christianity? The authors and signatories of this letter are among the most learned scholars of Islam in the world. They know the context of 3:64 and its true message, which is exactly why they included it. This letter is not a call for peace. It is a call for conversion.
This is in accordance with various commentaries on the Quran, including the influential and prolific Sayyid Abul Ala Maududi. Maududi, who founded the Pakistani Islamic group Jamaat e-Islami in 1941. He wrote of this chapter:
The message has been extended to the Jews and the Christians in continuation of the invitation in Al-Baqarah, in which they have been admonished for their erroneous beliefs and evil morals and advised to accept, as a remedy, the Truth of the Quran. They have been told here that Muhammad (Allah's peace be, upon him) taught the same right way of life that had been preached by their own Prophets; that it alone was the Right Way, the way of Allah; hence any deviation from it will be wrong even according to their own Scriptures.
Specifically regarding these verses and surrounding verses, he also adds, "This discourse is particularly addressed to the Christians and invites them to accept Islam." And "In these verses the people of the Book, the Jews, have been invited to give up their sinister ways and accept the divine Guidance" (Maududi, "Introduction to Al-i-Imran," The Meaning of the Quran).
This fits with the traditional Islamic view that Christianity and Judaism are not religions of true monotheism because, according to the Prophet Muhammad, they worship those other than God, in conflict with the call in 3:64. According to a hadith on the authority of Adi bin Hatim from the Sunan al-Tirmidhi, Muhammad is recorded as once saying of Christians and Jews:
Whatever their priests and rabbis call permissible, they accept as permissible; whatever they declare as forbidden, they consider as forbidden, and thus they worship them.
Along those lines, the Quran states:
9:30: The Jews call ‘Uzair a son of Allah, and the Christians call Christ the Son of Allah.; That is a saying from their mouths; (in this) they but imitate what the Unbelievers of old used to say. Allah's curse be on them: how they are deluded away from Truth!
9:31: They take their priests and their anchorites to be their lords in derogation of Allah, and (they take as their Lord) Christ the son of Mary; Yet they were commanded to worship but One Allah: There is no god but He. Praise and glory to Him: (Far is He) from having the parents they associate (with Him).
The Pope and the other recipients of this letter are well-versed enough in evangelical efforts to see it for what it really is, but they are not the targets of this letter. It is an open letter for a reason. It is meant to influence the Christian public around the world. This view is supported by the fact that, according to the London Times, it "will be rolled out around the world in a series of press conferences." The websites of major Islamist organizations in Europe and the United States have rolled out statements praising the virtues of the letter.
3:64 is not the only verse from the Quran that is dishonestly presented in the letter. Many verses prescribing peace were included, despite the fact that they are often abrogated by verses prescribing conflict and intolerance.
Some of these Muslim scholars may have indeed had good intentions in writing and signing this letter, but they understood the context of this verse and – more importantly – they understood that the recipients of this letter would not.
This is not the first time that some Muslim leaders have misrepresented the Quran to the West. Since 9/11 we have often been told that Quran says that if anyone killed one person, it would be as if he killed all of humanity. But that's not quite what 5:35 of the Quran says. It is qualified by saying that this is so, "unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land." The verse immediately following that says that "those who wage war against Allah and His Apostle, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land" must be punished with "execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land."
The messages of the abridged verse offered by some Muslim leaders and the full verse are at odds. One unconditionally values life, and the other values life except when it comes to mischief. Then the following verse demands inhumane and gory punishment to answer this mischief.
Common ground is a noble idea. Why can't it be pursued honestly?

2007-10-08T04:30:00.001-07:00

‘Journalists’ Tell Howard Kurtz Why Good News from Iraq Shouldn’t Get Reported (updated w/video)

By Noel Sheppard October 7, 2007 - 14:35 ET
As CNN's Howard Kurtz accurately pointed out on Sunday's "Reliable Sources," few media outlets seemed at all interested in giving much attention to the great news out of Iraq last week regarding September's sharp decline in casualties.
To Kurtz's obvious frustration, his guests - Robin Wright of the Washington Post and Barbara Starr of CNN - both supported the press burying this extremely positive announcement.
I kid you not.
After introducing the subject, Kurtz asked, "Robin Wright, should that decline in Iraq casualties have gotten more media attention?"
This was Wright's amazing answer (video available here):
Advertisement
Not necessarily. The fact is we're at the beginning of a trend -- and it's not even sure that it is a trend yet. There is also an enormous dispute over how to count the numbers. There are different kinds of deaths in Iraq. There are combat deaths. There are sectarian deaths. And there are the deaths of criminal -- from criminal acts. There are also a lot of numbers that the U.S. frankly is not counting. For example, in southern Iraq, there is Shiite upon Shiite violence, which is not sectarian in the Shiite versus Sunni. And the U.S. also doesn't have much of a capability in the south. So the numbers themselves are tricky.
Wow. Numbers shouldn't be reported because they're "tricky," "at the beginning of a trend," and there's "enormous dispute over how to count" them?
No such moral conundrum existed last month when media predicted a looming recession after the Labor Department announced a surprising decline in non-farm payrolls that ended up being revised up four weeks later to show an increase.
And, in the middle of a three and a half-year bull run in stocks, such "journalists" have no quandary predicting a bear market every time the Dow Jones Industrial Average falls a few hundred points.
Yet, when good news regarding military casualties comes from the Defense Department, these same people show uncharacteristic restraint in not wanting to report what could end up being an a anomaly.
Isn't that special?
Alas, not seeing the stupidity in this position, Starr, with a straight-face nonetheless, agreed with Wright:
But that's the problem, we don't know whether it is a trend about specifically the decline in the number of U.S. troops being killed in Iraq. This is not enduring progress. This is a very positive step on that potential road to progress.
Hmmm. So, I guess a "very positive step on that potential road to progress" isn't newsworthy, huh Barbara? Even Kurtz recognized the hypocrisy here, which led to the following:
KURTZ: But let's say that the figures had shown that casualties were going up for U.S. soldiers and going up for Iraqi civilians. I think that would have made some front pages. STARR: Oh, I think inevitably it would have. I mean, that's certainly -- that, by any definition, is news. Look, nobody more than a Pentagon correspondent would like to stop reporting the number of deaths, interviewing grieving families, talking to soldiers who have lost their arms and their legs in the war. But, is this really enduring progress? We've had five years of the Pentagon telling us there is progress, there is progress. Forgive me for being skeptical, I need to see a little bit more than one month before I get too excited about all of this.
Hmmm. So, a shocking increase in deaths would have "certainly" been newsworthy. However, for a decrease to be reported, skeptical journalists have to be more convinced that it's a lasting improvement.
Sadly, this is what makes today's reporters more like sports fans than real journalists.
After all, it shouldn't be their position to decide when a comeback, rally, or winning streak is real enough for them to jump on the bandwagon and get excited about. News - be it good or bad - is to be reported.
That's their job.
And when folks like this make dissemination decisions to not share information on something as important as American casualties of war due to their own personal skepticism, they have indeed abdicated their solemn responsibility to the public whose interest they regularly claim to serve.
What follows is a partial transcript of this segment.
HOWARD KURTZ, HOST: The news from Iraq has been consistently depressing for several years now, a continuous tableau of death and destruction. But when the administration released more positive casualty figures this week, the media paid little attention. A couple of sentences on the "CBS EVENING NEWS" and NBC "NIGHTLY NEWS," The New York Times ran it on page 10, The Washington Post," page 14, USA Today page 16. The L.A. Times, a couple of paragraphs at the bottom of a page 4 story. One exception was Charlie Gibson, who made it the lead story on ABC's "WORLD NEWS." (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) CHARLES GIBSON, ABC ANCHOR: The U.S. military reports the fourth straight month of decline in troop deaths, 66 American troops died in September, each a terrible tragedy for a family, but the number far less than those who died in August. And the Iraqi government says civilian deaths across Iraq fell by half last month. (END VIDEO CLIP) KURTZ: Joining us now to put this into perspective, Robin Wright, who covers national security for The Washington Post. And CNN Pentagon correspondent Barbara Starr. Robin Wright, should that decline in Iraq casualties have gotten more media attention? ROBIN WRIGHT, THE WASHINGTON POST: Not necessarily. The fact is we're at the beginning of a trend -- and it's not even sure that it is a trend yet. There is also an enormous dispute over how to count the numbers. There are different kinds of deaths in Iraq. There are combat deaths. There are sectarian deaths. And there are the deaths of criminal -- from criminal acts. There are also a lot of numbers that the U.S. frankly is not counting. For example, in southern Iraq, there is Shiite upon Shiite violence, which is not sectarian in the Shiite versus Sunni. And the U.S. also doesn't have much of a capability in the south. So the numbers themselves are tricky. Long-term, General Odierno, who was in town this week, said he is looking for irreversible momentum, and that, after two months, has not yet been reached. KURTZ: Barbara Starr, CNN did mostly quick reads by anchors of these numbers. There was a taped report on "LOU DOBBS TONIGHT." Do you think this story deserved more attention? We don't know whether it is a trend or not but those are intriguing numbers. BARBARA STARR, CNN PENTAGON CORRESPONDENT: But that's the problem, we don't know whether it is a trend about specifically the decline in the number of U.S. troops being killed in Iraq. This is not enduring progress. This is a very positive step on that potential road to progress. KURTZ: But let's say that the figures had shown that casualties were going up for U.S. soldiers and going up for Iraqi civilians. I think that would have made some front pages. STARR: Oh, I think inevitably it would have. I mean, that's certainly -- that, by any definition, is news. Look, nobody more than a Pentagon correspondent would like to stop reporting the number of deaths, interviewing grieving families, talking to soldiers who have lost their arms and their legs in the war. But, is this really enduring progress? We've had five years of the Pentagon telling us there is progress, there is progress. Forgive me for being skeptical, I need to see a little bit more than one month before I get too excited about all of this.

this is one of the many reasons i've gone conservative

2007-10-04T05:04:00.000-07:00

i don't like rush limbaugh...but unless he's telling people to go kill other people....he has the right to say whatever the hell he wants...and like i said...i can't stand him and many of the other conservative talking heads out there...but with most of what they talk about they're right !
and it's stuff like this that proves it

Wesley Clark Wants to Regulate Free Speech
Wed, Oct 3, 2007 at 5:13:42 pm PST
Weasely Clark kicks the incredibly stupid controversy of the week up another notch, by proposing a totalitarian “ratings” system for political speech: Crazed by Rush, Wes Clark calls for political discourse to be rated.
You’re not going to believe the blatant hypocrisy and lies in this one. Just disgusting.

what about the US constitution ...the US shall endorse NO religion

2007-10-02T12:58:00.000-07:00

i wish the fuckers would stop trying to make islam something it's not

House Voting to Commend Muslims During Ramadan
Tue, Oct 2, 2007 at 9:57:16 am PDT
Our elected officials in the House of Representatives are voting on an important resolution today.
H. RES. 635
Recognizing the commencement of Ramadan, the Islamic holy month of fasting and spiritual renewal, and commending Muslims in the United States and throughout the world for their faith.
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas (for herself, Mr. MEEKS of New York, and Mr. ELLISON) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs...
RESOLUTION Recognizing the commencement of Ramadan, the Islamic holy month of fasting and spiritual renewal, and commending Muslims in the United States and throughout the world for their faith.
Whereas since the terrorist attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001, threats and incidents of violence have been directed at law-abiding, patriotic Americans of African, Arab, and South Asian descent, particularly members of the Islamic faith;
Whereas, on September 14, 2001, the House of Representatives passed a concurrent resolution condemning bigotry and violence against Arab-Americans, American Muslims, and Americans from South Asia in the wake of the terrorist attacks;
Whereas it is estimated that there are approximately 1,500,000,000 Muslims worldwide;
Whereas Ramadan is the holy month of fasting and spiritual renewal for Muslims worldwide, and is the 9th month of the Muslim calendar year; and
Whereas the observance of the Islamic holy month of Ramadan commences at dusk on September 13, 2007, and continues for one lunar month: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That—
(1) during this time of conflict, in order to demonstrate solidarity with and support for members of the community of Islam in the United States and throughout the world, the House of Representatives recognizes the Islamic faith as one of the great religions of the world; and
(2) in observance of and out of respect for the commencement of Ramadan, the Islamic holy month of fasting and spiritual renewal, the House of Representatives acknowledges the onset of Ramadan and expresses its deepest respect to Muslims in the United States and throughout the world on this significant occasion.

what about?

2007-09-26T05:05:00.000-07:00

Message to PC police: We have a responsibility to monitor U.S. Mosques
I've been calling for this for years. It is good to see others calling for it also. By Douglas MacKinnon, a former White House and Pentagon official and author of the novel America's Last Days:
New York Republican Congressman Peter King has become the latest target of those who value political correctness and pandering over the national security of our nation.
For recently speaking his mind and worrying about the influence radical Islam has in this nation, Congressman King is being predictably attacked by the left-leaning media, by the Democratic National Committee, and certain Muslim organizations. What exactly did Congressman King say to incite the anger and rage now being directed at him? Only things that seem to be of concern to a great many Americans.
Among his statements, Congressman King said, “There are too many people sympathetic to radical Islam…We should be looking at them more carefully and finding out how we can infiltrate them…I think there has been a lack of full cooperation from too many people in the Muslim community…too many Mosques in this country do not cooperate with law enforcement…85 percent of Mosques in this country are controlled by extremist leadership.”
Did the Congressman say anything that is not true? Is what he said not verified by a recent Pew Center survey, by the U.S. government, and by a number of news accounts of homegrown Muslims being taken into custody for plotting against our nation. Do facts no longer matter when it comes to protecting the United States from within?
According to that recent Pew Center survey, a quarter of younger Muslim-Americans support suicide bombings in some circumstances. That’s right. They support suicide bombings. 25% of Muslim-Americans refused to give an answer when asked if they had a favorable or unfavorable view of Al-Qaeda. 5% of Muslim-Americans said they had a favorable view of the group that attacked the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and tried to attack the White House or Capitol building.
If we accept the Pew Center’s estimate that there are 2.35 million Muslims in the United States, then 5% of that number would be 117,500 Muslim-Americans who have a favorable view of Al-Qaeda. A number that should not only send chills down our spines, but cries out for eternal vigilance.
What about the American Mosques themselves? According to various reports, at least 80% of U.S. Mosques follow or are influenced by the Wahhabi sect of Saudi Arabia. Among other things, this sect believes it is a “religious obligation” to hate Christians and Jews and to think of the United States as “enemy territory.” In 2006, Bernard Lewis, one of the world’s leading scholars on Islam, called Wahhabism, “The most radical, the most violent, the most extreme and fanatical version of Islam.”
Why do those on the left in our country not want us to speak of this? Why do so many Democrats not want us to question the motives of those from within who look favorably upon Al-Qaeda? Surely it’s not for crass political reasons or to pander for votes.
It isn't just Democrats. Virtually no one wants to speak about this. Fantasy-based analysis rules the airwaves, and fantasy-based policymaking dominates Washington.

i agree with about 90% of michele malkin's views...these one's in particular

2007-09-22T10:10:00.000-07:00

i disagree with her stance on the don imus debacle and who she goes on tv with...bill (i'm an asshole ) O'rielley...but nobodie's perfect

i have lost respect for sally field...and actually 99% of hollywood...to the point that I don't buy movies dvd's or go to the movies...the last movie i saw in the theater was Team America !

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=OTQzNWEwNzE1ODc4MmE4ZWYxMzNiNzE5Yjc5NGViMTg=

preface to the next post

2007-09-19T16:08:00.000-07:00

From our “The Lunatics Are in Charge” file: they withdrew the invitation last year, but this year Holocaust-denying Islamofascist Mahmoud Ahmadinejad will speak at Columbia University.
Because Columbia is nobly supporting the principles of free speech and debate, of course. Not to mention, suicidal blindness and irresponsibility.
I would like to add a few comments on the principles that underlie this event. Columbia, as a community dedicated to learning and scholarship, is committed to confronting ideas to understand the world as it is and as it might be. To fulfill this mission we must respect and defend the rights of our schools, our deans and our faculty to create programming for academic purposes. Necessarily, on occasion this will bring us into contact with beliefs many, most, or even all of us will find offensive and even odious. We trust our community, including our students, to be fully capable of dealing with these occasions, through the powers of dialogue and reason.
I would also like to invoke a major theme in the development of freedom of speech as a central value in our society. It should never be thought that merely to listen to ideas we deplore in any way implies our endorsement of those ideas, or the weakness of our resolve to resist those ideas, or our naiveté about the very real dangers inherent in such ideas. It is a critical premise of freedom of speech that we do not honor the dishonorable when we open the public forum to their voices. To hold otherwise would make vigorous debate impossible.

grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

2007-09-19T16:05:00.001-07:00

Why, of course. The kids there probably consider him a reasonable voice against the “Jewish lobby”, Bush’s “fascist state”, and the “wars we’re fighting for the Zionists”.
Also today, the president of Columbia University, Lee C. Bollinger, announced that Mr. Ahmadinejad would speak at the university on Monday.
Last year he withdrew an invitation for the Iranian despot to speak:
In September 2006, the dean of Columbia University’s school of international and public affairs invited Mr. Ahmadinejad to speak at the school’s World Leaders Forum, but the university’s president, Mr. Bollinger, withdrew the invitation, saying he was not certain that an appearance by Mr. Ahmadinejad would “reflect the academic values” of the event.
Apparently having a man that denies the Holocaust, calls for the extermination of Jews, sends weapons to Iraq to kill our troops, funds terrorist groups and is considered a state sponsor of terror, fits this year’s event.
However, if fellow American citizens call for our immigration laws to actually be enforced, they’re driven off of the stage.

THIS is why i hate the left...

2007-09-18T12:34:00.001-07:00

Daily Kos: Poll Says, 50 Billion Dead!
Tue, Sep 18, 2007 at 8:32:31 am PDT
In the race to see who can trumpet the most absurdly inflated claim of civilian deaths in Iraq, the idiot known as “Meteor Blades” at Daily Kos comes up a winner: Daily Kos: One Million-Plus Violent Iraqi Deaths (So Far).
That’s right. They’re claiming 1.2 million deaths now. And it’s based on a poll conducted by a British marketing firm.
These people really are incredible. They eagerly suspend their disbelief for ridiculous claims like this, but cover their ears and yell “I can’t hear you!” when General Petraeus testifies.
Nick Brunetti-Lihach points out that in order for this death count to be true, there would have to be at least 668 deaths every single day since the Iraq war began.
UPDATE at 9/18/07 9:13:10 am:
A slight correction, from reader Proud Kaffir:
The person who did the estimate calculated it for 5 years of war but the war will not have lasted five years until March 2008. According to Coalition Casualties, there have been 1642 days since the war began so, using the poll numbers of 1,220,580 deaths, it would average to 743.35 deaths per day.

in light of a past post on muslim immigration....this fits well

2007-09-11T18:14:00.000-07:00

I bought a bird feeder. I hung it on my back porch and filled it with seed. Within a week we had hundreds of birds taking advantage of the continuous flow of free and easily accessible food.But then the birds started building nests in the boards of the patio, above the table, and next to the barbecue. Then came the poop. It was everywhere: on the patio tile, the chairs, the table ... everywhere. Then some of the birds turned mean: they would dive bomb me and try to peck me even though I had fed them out of my own pocket. And others birds were boisterous and loud: they sat on the feeder and squawked and screamed at all hours of the day and night and demanded that I fill it when it got low on food.After a while, I couldn't even sit on my own back porch anymore. I took down the bird feeder and in three days the birds were gone. I cleaned up their mess and took down the many nests they had built all over the patio. Soon, the back yard was like it used to be .... quiet, serene, and no one demanding their rights to a free meal.Now, let's see .... our government gives out free food, subsidized housing,
free medical care, free education and allows anyone born here to be an
automatic citizen. Then, the illegals came by the tens of thousands.
Suddenly our taxes went up to pay for free services; small apartments are
housing 5 families; you have to wait 6 hours to be seen by an emergency room
doctor; your child's 2nd grade class is behind other schools because over half the class doesn't speak English; corn
flakes now come in a bilingual box; I have to press "one" to hear my bank
talk to me in English; and people waving flags other than "Old Glory" are
squawking and screaming in the streets, demanding more rights and free
liberties.

Maybe it's time for the government to take down the bird feeder.

2007-09-07T18:39:00.000-07:00

Are you aware that CAIR insists that any and all Muslims from around the world are automatically “entitled” to immigrate to America? FSM Contributing Editor Glen Reinsford makes compelling arguments on this issue. Is an ever growing Muslim population an asset or a liability for us?

Muslim Immigration: A Winning or Losing Proposition By Glen Reinsford
or America?
Pardon the crude analogy, but what if someone handed you a revolver with one bullet and five empty chambers and asked you to put it to your temple and squeeze the trigger? Would you indulge them?
If you are a sane person, then you would naturally decline the offer, regardless of the number of empty chambers. Even a one in a hundred chance of doing harm is hardly a reason, in and of itself, for taking an unnecessary risk.
Consider the similarities to Muslim immigration:
1) In most cases, nothing bad will happen.
2) In some cases, it will.
3) The risk increases as the process continues.
4) There is an utter pointlessness to the whole affair.
First, let’s concede that the majority of Muslim immigrants mean Americans no harm. They have their reasons for not wanting to live in Muslim countries and these aren’t hard to guess. Of the fifty-three Islamic nations on the planet, there is hardly a single one that isn’t characterized by some combination of debilitating corruption, economic blight, third-world standard of living, political repression, or an appalling human rights condition.
Unfortunately, however, more Muslims in America will inevitably result in a more Muslim America, which ultimately means having to deal with the problems that plague Muslim society. If there are tangible benefits that offset the added strain of trying to accommodate a religion that is very much at odds with Western liberal values (including freedom of conscience, social tolerance, democracy, and the equality of women), then they are not immediately apparent.
Even the Council on American-Islamic Relations, one of the most vocal advocates of unfettered Islamic immigration into America rarely bothers to try and make the case that non-Muslim citizens will benefit from an influx of those believing that Islam is meant to be the dominant political, religious and social system that Muhammad required it to be. Instead, CAIR merely implies that Muslims are entitled to America by virtue of the fact that the U.S. accepts other immigrants.
Beyond flirting with cultural catastrophe, there is also the loss of American lives resulting from the domestic terror attacks that will certainly escalate as the U.S. inexplicably imports a fifth column in a time of war.
A Pew Research poll released in May shows that one out of every four Muslims in America either supports al-Qaeda outright or is ambivalent about the terrorists that slaughtered 3,000 fellow citizens in the name of Allah just six short years ago. About the same percentage of younger Muslims also believe that suicide bombings can be justified in “defense of Islam.”
Support for terrorism isn’t just theoretical. The release of the study was sandwiched between news of a shooting rampage plot by Muslims against Fort Dix residents and a separate Fedayeen plot literally to blow up JFK airport in New York. It also follows the murder of five Americans at a Utah shopping mall by a Muslim teenager in February.
In each case, the terrorists are immigrants to America.
This is also true of Hesham Mohamed Hadayet, who murdered two people waiting in line at an LAX airline counter in 2002, Mohammed Taheri-azar, who intentionally ran down nine students with an SUV in North Carolina in 2006, and Osama Ahmed Ibrahim, a Muslim doctor in Chicago who allegedly allowed a Jewish patient to die under his care in 2003. Naveed Haq, who shot six women at a Seattle Jewish center last year, was the son of immigrants.
The Qur’an, Islam’s holiest text, contains dozens of verses that directly encourage religious violence, and there are literally hundreds more that speak of Hell or hatred toward nonbelievers. Muslim apologists usually insist that the bloodiest directives are reserved for times of war (even if this stipulation is not always evident from the context of the passage).
Many Americans naively assume that they are safe from Islamic terror because they mean Muslims no harm. Indeed, the Pew Research study showed that the majority of American Muslims are “well-assimilated” and have a “positive view” of American society, something that simply would not be the case if there truly was a “war on Islam.” Even CAIR (an organization that normally tries to convince the world of just how miserable life is for Muslims in the U.S.) hastily touted this part of the study, as it tried to assuage the concerns of Americans over the news that their Muslim neighbors may not be who they appear.
But whether or not there actually is a war on Islam matters far less than what Muslims choose to believe. Unfortunately, an overwhelming majority of Muslims overseas and an alarming number of Muslims in the U.S. are convinced that there is a war against their religion. In fact, high-profile organizations like CAIR and MPAC routinely feed this misconception with negative propaganda, while very few Muslim leaders are active in countering it.
Suddenly the issue of whether or not those Qur’anic mandates to “slay the infidels wherever ye find them” are limited to times of war becomes somewhat academic. A Muslim who actually believes the rhetoric of war (as most Muslims now do) has, at his fingertips, a manual of instruction telling him to strike off heads and fingertips in the cause of Allah. What sense does it make for the U.S. to draw its future citizens from a pool of potential terrorists?
As if this weren’t bad enough, the Pew Research study also finds that the younger generation of Muslims is more accommodating of terrorism than their parents – a trend that is supported by surveys of Muslims elsewhere in the West, with alarming implications. While moderates are capable of breeding radicals, radicals rarely breed moderates. Islamic extremism will expand with each new generation, even if the overall number of Muslims stays the same.
Progressive radicalization is a persistent theme in Islam, not just in the West, but in other parts of the world as well, where fundamentalism usually has a way of winning out over pragmatism.
In Gaza, for example, Palestinians recently used their new-found “independence” to elect the bloody Islamist terror group, Hamas, to power, even though it meant an immediate and drastic reduction in foreign aid.
It is also highly unlikely that the Pakistan of today (where Islamists are forcing the implementation of Sharia and the persecution of surviving religious minorities) is what the father of Pakistan, Muhammad Ali Jinnah, had in mind when he engineered an independent Muslim nation just 60 years ago. Jinnah was a secularist who believed in the separation of church and state.
Lebanon, a vibrant and predominantly Christian nation before 1975, is perhaps the most vivid example of Muslim immigration pushing a nation past the tipping point in the modern age. Native Lebanese expert, Brigitte Gabriel, traces the downfall of her country to the absorption of Palestinian refugees, which gave radical Islam the foothold that it needed to trigger the civil war.
The subsequent occupation by Syria forced out huge numbers of Christians and devastated the social fabric of what had been the Arab world’s best example of economic success, civil liberty and tolerance. The free reign of Hezbollah and other radical groups has virtually ensured Muslim hegemony and Lebanon’s grinding descent into the abyss of dysfunction that defines those nations under Islamic rule.
Every country that is Muslim today was once non-Muslim. Every culture that found itself under the heel of Islam died a pitiful death as the concentration of Muslims within the population gradually exceeded critical mass. This is because Islam is an end unto itself. Like a virus, once it is introduced, it uses the host’s machinery to make copies and eventually strangle native religions into tiny, persecuted minorities.
In the past, Islam achieved its imperial goals by the sword. Today – notwithstanding the occasional terror attack – Jihad against the West is waged via the tactics of unilateral immigration and one-sided proselytizing.
This is not to say that all Muslims are a threat to America’s future, of course. Indeed, there is a handful in the United States that does stand against extremism, trying their best to convince the rest of the Islamic world that America is not a legitimate target for terror. Unlike, say, the first-generation immigrants who mostly make up the executive leadership of the Hamas-linked CAIR, these Muslims aren’t takers. They are makers – giving back to America, rather than existing merely to foment grievance and group identity for personal indulgence.
Presumably, there are potential Muslim immigrants who would also become patriotic and productive citizens. Unfortunately, there is no way of knowing who they are or predicting who their children might become. Like putting a partially-loaded gun to one’s head, there is absolutely no compelling reason to gamble with American life and civil liberty. What reward have Americans gained so far that can possibly offset the loss of those already killed by Muslims on American soil?
For potential immigrants who believe that Islam is the true religion, America’s message should be one of challenge rather than appeasement. Over the course of fourteen centuries now, Islam has demonstrated a proven ability to take prosperous countries and turn them into disaster zones. Now it is time for Muslims to show that their “one, true religion” is capable of building societies in which Muslims themselves actually want to live rather than escape.
After all, what service to the Muslim world does the United States do by absorbing the most reform-minded individuals from where they are needed most?
It should go without saying that citizens of America who happen to be Muslim should not be viewed with suspicion or treated any differently than anyone else merely on the basis of their religion. But neither should Americans be afraid of confronting organizations like CAIR, which cynically exploit Western tolerance for the purpose of ultimately destroying that tolerance and advancing a theocratic system that is fundamentally opposed to the very principles that made America successful and attractive.
Again, the message should be clear: If you want to live in a Muslim country, then go live in one. On the other hand, if you don’t want to live in a Muslim country, then stop trying to turn America into one.
The problems are not uniquely American, of course. But Americans are best positioned to avoid them if they can muster the courage. Others in the West are not as fortunate. Some have developed a pathetic resignation to their fate.
On a recent visit to the United States, Queen Elizabeth talked positively of the “challenges” posed by “diversity.” This was a thinly-veiled reference to the consequences of British immigration policy over the last fifty years, which now include a disaffected Muslim underclass that is just beginning to flex its muscle. In the Queen’s mind, it would appear that diversity is the tautological justification for very social “challenges” that diversity creates.
But “diversity” is merely a description, not a self-evident moral axiom that confers any sort of legitimacy in its own right. The same social engineers who champion the cause of diversity are often known to sing a different tune when it comes to poverty, the uneven distribution of wealth and the many other elements of economic diversity.
Challenge and risk often have their place at the personal level. There is usually nothing wrong with the challenge to exercise, eat right or become more productive, for example. Likewise, there are rewards in life, such as a lucrative career or meaningful friendships that are often accomplished only through taking a measure of personal risk.
The challenges posed by Muslim immigration are not personal, however, and neither do the esoteric rewards (whatever they may be) offset the all-too-tangible consequences for the broader society, particularly since it will affect those members who never wanted to incur these risks in the first place.
Muslim immigration adds nothing that is truly necessary to the lives of Americans, but its degenerative effects are already starting to threaten the American way of life through demoralization, litigation and the other subtle tactics of cultural Jihad.
In this sense, Americans are following in Europe’s footsteps when they would do better to avoid the example being set. Although the Brits may brag about the problems that they have created for themselves, a more sensible France is quietly trying to pay some of its five million Muslims to leave the country. Other Western nations are also trying to accommodate the social strain that is rising from a petulant and increasingly unruly Islamic minority.
The Muslim world does not accept non-Muslim immigrants. In fact, it is becoming more homogenous as Islamic regimes drive out religious minorities or whittle them down through other means of attrition. Even Muslims who feel entitled to life in the West often decry the presence of foreigners in Muslim lands.
But if Muslim lands are for Muslims, then it is all the more reason for insisting that this is where they stay, particularly since the legacy of Islamic immigration into the West is becoming a series of unilateral concessions to appease Muslims that not only go unreciprocated, but are then the new foothold for even bolder demands.
Muslim immigration is a losing proposition for America. At best, it is an unnecessary risk that offers no comparable benefit. At worst, it is suicidal.

September 6, 2007
Fitzgerald: College students, your every phrase is being watched
Send us your syllabus. But be careful.
Be careful, those of you who for some strange reason have decided to take a course on Islam, or subjects related to Islam (e.g., a course on anything having to do with the Middle East, or India, or Comparative Religion, or World Politics Today), and you suspect that the instructor is an apologist in one form or another. That form may be the forme fruste of the disease -- we are making Grand Rounds, for those of you who didn’t know -- and manageable, just, but it may also be the full-fledged thing. And why should you have to endure a lower grade inflicted by a vindictive Muslim or Muslim-apologist grader? You shouldn’t.
One example. A few years ago someone I know took a course at Harvard on Islam. The graders were Muslims. On the final examination, the short-answer part of the exam consisted of a list of items that needed to be identified and discussed in a few sentences. One of the items was “Muhammad’s Night Journey.” So the student explained what this was, and where it was said to have happened, and that it was called the “miraj,” and what Muhammad actually did on his fabulous winged creature al-Buraq. But what the student did, that proved fatal to his grade on this question, and on the grades he received for the other questions, was his including the phrase “as Muslims believe” or “Muslims believe that…” When he went to complain about the entirely unjustified “C” he received on the exam -- and a failing grade on that particular question -- he was asked why he had written “as Muslims believe.” Well, he answered, they do believe it. But, asked the grader-instructor, are you implying that it isn’t true, that Muhammad did not make his Night Journey on Al-Buraq? The student was too stunned to answer. It was clear that the slightest calling into question of Muslim beliefs was going to be punished.
I urged that student to go to the President of Harvard and make a stink. He was graduating and chose not to. But he hasn’t forgotten what happened. And he told me that it has colored forever his view of Islam, and also his view of Harvard.
The moral of this story, not fable, is: Watch out. Faites attention. Ostorozhno. Your every phrase is indeed being watched, by Muslim teachers, for signs of any slight calling into question of the Received Islamic Version of Reality, and by their non-Muslim willing collaborators, for any signs of disrespect or doubt exhibited toward Islam.
Perhaps you think that despite all this, you may learn something. Yes, you will learn something, and if you come out un-indoctrinated on the other side, you may come out as the boy in the story above did, far readier and able to learn the grim truth about Islam precisely because he had been subjected to brainwashing.
The Middle East Studies Association, or MESA, or more accurately MESA Nostra, is the professional organization of teachers of Islamic and Middle Eastern studies in this country. In 1970 about 3% of its membership was Muslim; today it is about 70%.
As an organization, MESA has over the past two decades slowly but surely been taken over by apologists for Islam. Many of these are Muslims, and many are non-Muslims. The latter includes quite a few people who are married to Muslims, or who, to get along with their colleagues (and remember, the most political place in the entire universe is a university faculty, and that institution which, alas, Randall Jarrell failed to immortalize, if memory serves, the Departmental Meeting. Junior faculty owe everything to, and therefore must curry favor with, senior faculty. If that means signing an anti-divestment petition that has the mighty empire of Israel, fons et origo of everything that has ever gone wrong with the Muslim and Arab states and peoples, then so be it. Funny thing about being a trimmer, however, is that the mere act of signing something you really don't believe helps to convince you that you really do believe it. Otherwise you would have to come to terms with your own cravenness, your own pusillanimity. And no one wants to do that.
Be careful. You may land in a course taught by one of these True Believers, who will brook no dissent.

take a look at this....then take a look around the world...the 1st place it happened was saudi arabia

2007-08-31T18:58:00.000-07:00

Four Stages of Islamic Treachery: Islamist Tactics Towards Non-Islamic Societies
by Anonymous
01 Sep, 2007
Based On The Evidence Of 1200 Years Of Islamic History
Introduction:
FACT #1:
The goal of Islam is the subjugation of the entire world to Islam through the establishment of a global Islamic rule and the eradication of all non-Islamic populations, cultures, religions, thoughts, knowledge, symbols, traditions and ways of life.
This goal is non-negotiable in fundamental doctrines of Islam and in the eyes of true Muslims.
FACT #2:
Islamists will not stop their assault (open or clandestine) on the non-Muslim world as long as they have not achieved Islamic rule.
FACT #3:
IN ISLAMIC TEACHING, THE END ALWAYS JUSTIFIES THE MEANS: Islamists have no respect for the rules, laws or values of the non-Islamic world, to them only the rules of the Islamic world are legitimate. In their mind, when they destroy the non-Islamic world then the rules will change to Islamic rules, laws and values.
FACT #4:
ISLAMISTS CONSIDER TREATIES WITH NON-MUSLIMS AS NON-BINDING. When in non-Muslim countries they will pretend a social behavior as a cover up to their true intentions of domination over the non Muslim world.
TIP: When it comes to Islamists, ALWAYS LOOK AT WHAT THEY DO, NEVER WHAT THEY SAY: Lying, treachery and deceit are the Islamists' tactic of choice in their jihad of conquest of the non-Muslim world. This tactic (AL-TAQIYYA, or religious deception, pretending to be friends of the Non-Muslims in order to strengthen themselves against them) is a commonly practiced by Islamists. DECEPTION IS THE KEY TACTIC EMPLOYED BY ISLAMISTS.
FACT #5:
As a rule of thumb to get the truth from any Islamist, simply reverse what they say to a non-Muslim.
FACT #6:
The founder of Islam, MUHAMMAD WAS AN ISLAMIST.
Whether you able to face or ignore this harsh reality is beside the point, you will inevitably face its truth on the day you find yourself within the killing zone of Islamists.

Stages of Islamization
STAGE ONE: INFILTRATION
First migration wave to target non-Muslim society.
Appeal for humanitarian tolerance from the target non-Muslim society.
Characterized by professed tolerance of others and their beliefs.
Attempts to portray Islam as a peaceful religion and Muslims as victims of misunderstanding and racism.
Images of women and children used to portray Muslims.
Establishment of mosques as power bases (today globally funded by Gulf countries oil revenue). (Mosques are safe havens for Jihadi recruitment and subversive projects).
Muslim leaders promote large push for increased Muslim births in target non-Muslim society to increase native Muslim population.
Misrepresentation of their intentions or aims as a cover up for clandestine operations.
STAGE TWO: CONSOLIDATION OF POWER
Proselytizing efforts increase.
Establishment and recruitment of fundamentalist Jihadi cells.
Efforts to convert alienated segments of the population of target non-Muslim society to Islam.
Revisionist efforts to Islamize history.
Efforts to destroy all evidence of incriminating historical evidence and sources that reveal true character of Islamism.
Intellectual Jihad to discredit non-Muslim culture.
Assault on cultural assumptions and icons of the non-Muslim world, such as democracy, law and science.
Increased dissemination of anti-western propaganda and anti-western psychological warfare.
Efforts to recruit allies who share similar goals (Communists, socialists, anti westerns activists, anti-globalists, anarchists).
Alliances with the enemies of the Western society particularly anti capitalism leftists. "The enemy of my enemy is my friend"
Attempts to indoctrinate children to Islamist viewpoint. Efforts to infiltrate education system to propagate pro-Islamic points of view.
Increased efforts to intimidate, silence and eliminate non-Muslim intellectuals and leaders.
Efforts to introduce blasphemy laws into non-Muslim society in order to silence critics.
Continued focus on enlarging Muslim population by increasing Muslim births and migration to target non-Muslim society.
Use of first and second generation Muslim citizens of target non-Muslim society as Jihadist foot soldiers and public fronts.
Use of charities to recruit supporters.
Use of crime and fraud to obtain funds to finance activities.
Covert efforts to bring about the destruction of non-Muslim society from within.
Development of Muslim political base in target non-Muslim society. Efforts to penetrate political and legal structure of country so as to support Islamic growth from within.
Use of bribes and blackmail of non-Muslim authorities to get them to disregard establishment of subversive activities.
Islamic Financial networks strengthened to fund political growth, large acquisition of land and resources by any means. (Today they are funded by Muslim charities; Gulf countries Oil revenue and criminal activities).
Highly visible assassination of critics aimed to intimidate opposition.
Tolerance of non-Muslims diminishes and greater demands are placed upon Muslims to adopt strict Islamic conduct.
Clandestine amassing of weapons and explosives stores in hidden locations in target non-Muslim society.
Continuous and covert attacks and challenges against target non-Muslim society leaders and religious symbols.
Overt disregard and rejection of target non-Muslim society's legal system and culture.
Efforts to undermine and destroy power base of non-Muslim religions such as Jews, Christians, Hindus or Buddhists in target non-Muslim society.
Efforts to destroy the social structure of the country and bring the downfall of non-Muslim government.
Use of Islamic gangs in campaign of fear and terror against Jews, Christians, Hindus and non-Muslims to reduce their populations and influence in the target non-Muslim society.
STAGE THREE: OPEN WAR WITH TARGET NON-ISLAMIST SOCIETY'S LEADERSHIP AND CULTURE
Large-scale destruction of population, assassinations, killings, bombings.
Intentional efforts to spread chaos in the target country to undermine its government and culture.
Acts of barbarity and fierceness as a deliberate policy intended to foster submission of opponents.
Open and covert efforts to cause economic collapse of the society.
All opposition, no matter what kind, is challenged and either eradicated or silenced.
Widespread ethnic cleansing with Islamic militias.
Rejection and defiance of target society secular laws or culture.
Murder of all opposition political, religious and intellectual leaders of target society.
Murder of all moderate Muslim intellectuals who envision other alternatives to radical Islam.
Toppling of government and usurpation of political power.
Imposition of Sharia law.
Mass execution of non-Muslims, ethnic cleansing.
STAGE FOUR: ISLAMIC THEOCRACY
The Qur’an and the Sharia becomes the "law of the land. "
All non-Islamic human rights cancelled.
Freedom of speech and the press eradicated.
All Religions other than Islam are forbidden and destroyed.
Enslavement and genocide of non-Muslim population.
Destruction of all evidence of non-Muslim culture, groups and symbols in country.
Note: this article is not copyrighted and may be freely reproduced or published by anyone

a propagandist in NC...sad sad sad...indicative of a great many of our colleges these days tho....sad sad sad

2007-08-31T05:05:00.001-07:00

Greetings, students of Carl Ernst
Question: When is a professor not a teacher but a propagandist?
Answer: When he forces your intellectual hand, constraining you by means subtle or open to accept his point of view on a given issue. A genuine academic does not think for his students, but trains and equips them to do so. He is not afraid of, nor does he discourage, open disagreement with his points of view, for he is not trying to compel his students to reach certain predetermined conclusions, but rather to give them the means to evaluate competing ideas on their own, and to be able to sift truth from falsehood.
Your professor, Carl Ernst, William R. Kenan, Jr., Distinguished Professor of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill, I am sorry to say, is not a teacher. He is a propagandist. He is not trying to train you to think, but to enlist you as a member of his ideological cadre. Yes, this is a harsh statement, but unlike Dr. Ernst, I support assertions I make with evidence. Here is the evidence.
1. In the syllabus for his course, "Introduction to Islamic Civilization," Religious Studies 180, he recommends that you visit this site, Jihad Watch, as well as the site of the Chick Tract comic books.
The effect for which this is designed should be obvious -- as obvious as if I had, in a course I was teaching, assigned various academic works and then said, "For next week, read Carl Ernst's Following Muhammad and/or watch the Bugs Bunny feature 'Hassan Chop.'" Jihad Watch is a news and commentary site about global jihad activity. Every assertion we make here is from news sources (usually from wire services) or verifiable from Islamic texts. Chick Tracts are comic books reflecting a paranoid, conspiracy-minded view of the world and purveying numerous falsehoods, such as the idea that the Vatican cooked up Islam as part of its fiendish scheme to control the world. By equating Jihad Watch and Chick Tracts, Dr. Ernst is manipulating you into thinking they're two species of the same thing.
Now, probably Dr. Ernst does think that: that we are paranoid conspiracy mongers here, or something near to that. But note that he doesn't offer you any evidence for this view at all. He just puts the two sites in proximity, and lets the juxtaposition do the work.
This is manipulation, not education.
2. Dr. Ernst offers, as evidence that I am not to be trusted as a source on Islam, this page, "Notes on the Ideological Patrons of an Islamophobe, Robert Spencer." Note, in the first place, the characterization "Islamophobe." No evidence is offered for it. Nothing from my books, nothing from this website, nothing at all. His use of this word is, again, manipulative and without substance, designed to propagandize rather than convince, much less to equip one to make his own judgment.
In reality, in my books and articles, and at this site, I explore the elements of Islam that jihadists use to justify their violent acts and make recruits among peaceful Muslims. This is not "Islamophobia," this is the only reliable path to Islamic reform, since you can't reform what you won't admit needs reforming. Terror attacks in the name of Islam, justified by Islamic texts, take place on a virtually daily basis around the globe -- and each one shows anew how desperately needed is this exploration and rethinking of the Islamic texts. But Dr. Ernst is not engaged in that effort, and he is not bothering to explain what he thinks is wrong with the way I'm going about it. He's just throwing smear-words.
Note also that in the document, he doesn't offer a single example of anything I say that is inaccurate. Instead, he expects you to dismiss me because he doesn't like my publishers. This is an example of the logical fallacy of appealing to authority: he is suggesting that his own publishers (such as Shambhala) are more prestigious than those of his critics, and that therefore he is to be believed over them. Argumentum ad verecundiam and ad hominen attacks are two sides of the same worthless coin.
I have invited Dr. Ernst to debate, pointing out that he could thereby show me up as wrong and end my influence -- which he obviously regards as baneful, and which extends to a great many people, as I have written two bestselling books and several others that did quite well. But he has declined, despite the obvious ease with which he no doubt thinks he could dispatch me in a debate about Muhammad and the influence of early (and Qur'anic) Islam on today's jihad violence. Instead, he persists in using me as a slide, as Exhibit A of "Islamophobia" in his classes, while declining to substantiate a single one of his assertions. Well, this time the Exhibit is talking back from the slide.
This is no professor. This is a propagandist, and a shallow one at that. His information on Islam is less enlightening than the average comic book.

this is worth while read...cover two subjects....gun control....and jihad

2007-08-30T09:58:00.000-07:00

keep in mind that part of the way that the armenians were able to be slaughtered is as christians...or non muslims ...they did not have the right to bear arms...so millions of them were easy pickins for the jihadists

August 26, 2007
Congress Must Recognize the Armenian GenocideBy Andrew G. Bostom
Summary
A combination of official diplomatic correspondence, and private memoirs -- most notably the diaries of Henry Morgenthau, the U.S. ambassador to Turkey from 1913 to 1916, an extended report by American consul Leslie Davis in Harput, Turkey, from 1915 to 1917, and the recently published United States Official Records on the Armenian Genocide, 1915-1917 -- provides lucid, often repellently detailed historical accounting of what the U.S. government knew regarding the Ottoman Empire and the Armenian genocide. These materials are perhaps the most salient examples of the evidence, as per the language of HR:/ SR:106, "documented in the United States record," which support the formal U.S. recognition of the Armenian genocide as proposed in the Congressional resolutions.
The wartime reports from German and Austro-Hungarian officials, Turkey's World War I allies, as well as earlier British diplomatic reports dating back to 1890, confirm the independent U.S. evidence that the origins and evolution of the genocide had little to do with World War I "Armenian provocations." Contemporary accounts by European diplomats written from 1890 through the of World War I era, also demonstrate that these genocidal massacres were perpetrated in the context of a formal jihad waged against the Armenians because they sought the equal rights promised to them, but never granted, under various failed schemes to reform the discriminatory system of Ottoman Islamic Law ("Shari'a"). A widely disseminated 1915 Ottoman Fatwa entitled "Aljihad"(brought to the U.S. Consuls attention in Cairo), for example, clearly sanctioned religiously motivated jihad violence. Historian Johannes Lepsius' eyewitness accounts from Turkey documented the results of such invocations of jihad:
"559 villages whose surviving inhabitants were converted to Islam with fire and sword; 568 churches thoroughly pillaged, destroyed and razed to the ground; of 282 Christian churches transformed into mosques; of 21 Protestant preachers and 170 Armenian priests who were, after enduring unspeakable tortures, murdered on their refusal to accept Islam." Lepsius concluded with this rhetorical question: "Is this a religious persecution or is it not?"
And in his eloquent Wednesday 8/22/07 column "No Room to Deny Genocide" the Boston Globe's Jeff Jacoby emphasized the nexus between the jihad genocide of the Armenians, the contemporary depredations of jihad, and the dangers of denial:
"And at a time when jihadist violence from Darfur to Ground Zero has spilled so much innocent blood, dissimulation about the jihad of 1915 [emphasis added] can only aid our enemies."
Moreover the various "strategic rationales" and arguments put forth to oppose formal U.S. recognition (as in HR:/SR:106) of the Armenian genocide -- the U.S.-Turkish alliance, the Turkish-Israeli alliance, the vulnerability of Turkey's vestigial Jewish minority -- appear wanting and hackneyed in light of burgeoning evidence which undermines their basic credibility.
But most importantly, there is a compelling moral imperative to pass these resolutions which transcends the dubious geopolitical considerations used to rationalize and sustain Turkey's ongoing campaign of genocide denial. Professor Deborah Lipstadt, the renowned Holocaust scholar, and author of Denying the Holocaust, and History on Trial (which recounts her crushing defeat of Nazi-sympathizer David Irving's "libel' suit"), in conjunction with twelve other leading genocide scholars, elucidated the corrosive immorality of genocide denial in this 1996 statement:
Denial of genocide -- whether that of the Turks against the Armenians or the Nazis against the Jews -- is not an act of historical reinterpretation. Rather, it sows confusion by appearing to be engaged in a genuine scholarly effort. Those who deny genocide always dismiss the abundance of documents and testimony as contrived or coerced, or as forgeries and falsehoods. Free speech does not guarantee the deniers the right to be treated as the 'other' side of a legitimate debate when there is no credible other side"; nor does it guarantee the deniers space in the classroom or curriculum, or in any other forum. Genocide denial is an insidious form of intellectual and moral degradation...
Introduction
Senate: and House: Resolutions 106 both call upon the President,
...to ensure that the foreign policy of the United States reflects appropriate understanding and sensitivity concerning issues related to human rights, ethnic cleansing, and genocide documented in the United States record [emphasis added] relating to the Armenian Genocide.
The diaries of Henry Morgenthau, the U.S. ambassador to Turkey from 1913 to 1916, in conjunction with the extended report by American consul Leslie Davis in Harput (remote eastern), Turkey, from 1915 to 1917, and the recently published United States Official Records on the Armenian Genocide, 1915-1917 -- the latter consisting of memos filed on a daily basis, informing the U.S. Secretary of State and President Woodrow Wilson of the efforts to rescue as many Armenians as possible (and including the obstacles confronting the rescuers' efforts) -- are perhaps the most salient examples of the evidence, as per the language of HR/SR 106, "documented in the United States record." This combination of official diplomatic correspondence, and private memoirs, provides a lucid, often repellently detailed historical accounting of what the U.S. government knew regarding the Ottoman Empire and the Armenian genocide.
American Witnesses to the Armenian Genocide: Observations from U.S. Diplomats, 1915-1917
Ambassador Morgenthau, wrote a letter to his son on June 19, 1915, as the massacres of the Armenians reached a murderous crescendo,
The ruin and devastation that is being wrought here is heart-rending. The government is using its present opportunity while all other countries are at war, to obliterate the Armenian race...
His despair was intensified by feelings of impotence as a diplomat for a neutral nation, made all the more distressing by his sympathetic understanding of such mass persecution as a Jew:
...and the worst of it is that it is impossible to stop it. The United States as a neutral power has no right to interfere in their internal affairs, and as I receive report after report of the inhuman treatment that the Armenians are receiving, it makes me feel most sad. Their lot seems to be very much the same as that of the Jews in Russia, and belonging to a persecuted race myself, I have all the more sympathy with them.
Morgenthau reiterated his overall assessment that a frank genocide, in modern parlance, was taking place, both in his diary, and a plethora of memos submitted to the U.S. Secretary of State, Robert Lansing. He stated, for example, that the
...persecution of Armenians is assuming unprecedented proportions. Reports from widely scattered districts indicate a systematic attempt to uproot peaceful Armenian populations and through arbitrary efforts, terrible tortures, wholesale expulsions and deportations from one end of the Empire to the other, accompanied by frequent instances of rape, pillage and murder, turning into massacre, to bring destruction and destitution on them.
Aleppo (Syria) Consul, J.B. Jackson wrote to Ambassador Morgenthau on September 29, 1915 confirming the genocidal organization and scale of the unfolding tragedy:
The deportation of Armenians from their homes by the Turkish Government has continued with a persistence and perfection of plan...32,751...[arrived in Aleppo] by rail from interior stations...In addition thereto it is estimated that at least 100,000 others have arrived afoot. And such a condition as these unfortunates are in, especially those coming afoot, many having left their homes before Easter, deprived of all their worldly possessions without money and all sparsely clad and some naked from the treatment by their escorts and the despoiling depopulation en route. It is extremely rare to find a family intact that has come any considerable distance, invariably all having lost members from disease and fatigue, young girls and boys carried off by hostile tribesmen, and about all the men having been separated from the families and suffered fates that had best be left unmentioned, many being done away with in atrocious manners before the eyes of their relatives and friends. So severe has been the treatment that careful estimates place the number of survivors at only 15% of these originally deported. On this basis the number of those surviving even this far being less than 150,000 up to September 21, there seems to have been about 1,000,000 persons lost up to this date. [emphasis added]There have been persistent reports of the selection of great numbers of the most prominent men from nearly every city, town and village, of their removal to outside places and their final disappearance by means of which we are not positively informed but which the imagination can more or less accurately establish, as months have passed and no news has come of their existence. The heinous treatment of thoroughly exhausted women and children in the open streets of Aleppo by the armed escorts, who relentlessly beat and kicked their helpless charges along when illness and fatigue prevented further effort, is evidence of what must have happened along the roads of the interior further removed from civilization.The exhausted condition of the victims is further proven by the death of a hundred or more daily of those arriving in this city. Travelers report having seen the numberless corpses along the roadside in the adjacent territory, or bodies in all sorts of positions where the victims fell in the last gasps of typhoid, fever and other diseases, and of the dogs fighting over the bodies of children. Many are the harrowing tales related by the survivors, but time and space prevent the recital thereof.
And Harput Consul Davis contrasted the idyllic beauty of the Lake Goeljuk region, with the gruesome atrocities committed against the Armenians there, under the aegis of the Turks:
Few localities could be better suited to the fiendish purposes of the Turks in their plan to exterminate the Armenian population than this peaceful lake in the interior of Asiatic Turkey, with its precipitous banks and pocket-like valleys, surrounded by villages of savage Kurds and far removed from the sight of civilized man. This, perhaps, was the reason why so many exiles from distant vilayets [provinces] were brought in safety [from afar]...and then massacred in the "Slaughterhouse Vilayet" of Turkey. That which took place around beautiful Lake Goeljuk in the summer of 1915 is almost inconceivable. Thousands and thousands of Armenians, mostly innocent and helpless women and children, were butchered on its shores and barbarously mutilated.Some of the bodies had been burned...probably in the search for gold. We estimated that in the course of our ride around the lake, and actually within the space of 24-hours, we had seen the remains of not less than 10,000 Armenians who had been killed around Lake Goeljuk. This, of course, is approximate, as some of them were only the bones of those who had perished several months before, from which the flesh had entirely disappeared, while in other cases the corpses were so fresh that they were swollen up and the odor from them showed that they had been killed only a few days before. I am sure, however, that there are more, rather than less, than that number; and it is probable that the remains which we saw were only a small portion of the total number in that vicinity. In fact, on my subsequent rides in the direction of Lake Goeljuk I nearly always discovered skeletons and bones in great numbers in the new places that I visited...
A True Genocide
Was the horrific fate of the Ottoman Empire's Armenian minority, at the end of the 19th and early 20th centuries, in particular, during World War I, due to "civil war", or genocide ? A seminal analysis by Professor Vahakn Dadrian, the most accomplished historian of this tragedy, published in 2002, validates the conclusion that the Ottoman Turks committed a centrally organized mass murder, i.e., a genocide, against their Armenian population. Relying upon a vast array of quintessential, primary source documents from the World War I allies of the Ottoman Empire, Germany and Austria-Hungary, Dadrian obviated the intractable disputes surrounding the reliability and authenticity of both Ottoman Turkish, and Armenian documents. He elucidated the truly unique nature of this documentary German and Austro-Hungarian evidence:
During the war, Germany and Austria-Hungary disposed over a vast network of ambassadorial, consular, military, and commercial representatives throughout the Ottoman Empire. Not only did they have access to high-ranking Ottoman officials and power-wielding decision-makers who were in a position to report to their superiors as locus in quo observers on many aspects of the wartime treatment of Ottoman Armenians. They supplemented their reports with as much detail as they could garner from trusted informers and paid agents, many of whom were Muslims, both civilians and military...
Moreover, the documents analyzed possessed another critical attribute: they included confidential correspondence prepared and sent to Berlin and Vienna, which were meant for wartime use only. This confidentiality, Dadrian notes, enabled German or Austro-Hungarian officials to openly question the contentions of their wartime Ottoman allies, when ascertaining and conveying facts truthfully to their superiors in Europe. Dadrian cites the compelling example of the November 16, 1915 report to the German chancellor, by Aleppo Consul Rossler. Rossler states,
I do not intend to frame my reports in such a way that I may be favoring one or the other party. Rather, I consider it my duty to present to you the description of things which have occurred in my district and which I consider to be the truth.
Rossler was reacting specifically to the official Ottoman allegation that the Armenians had begun to massacre the Turkish population in the Turkish sections of Urfa, a city within his district, after reportedly capturing them. He dismissed the charge, unequivocally, with a single word: "invented'".
Amassed painstakingly by Dadrian, the primary source evidence from these German and Austro-Hungarian officials -- reluctant witnesses -- leads to this inescapable conclusion: the anti-Armenian measures, despite a multitude of attempts at cover-up and outright denial, were meticulously planned by the Ottoman authorities, and were designed to destroy wholesale, the victim population. Dadrian further validates this assessment with remarkable testimony before the Mazhar Inquiry Commission, a Nuremberg-like tribunal, which conducted a preliminary investigation in the post-war period to determine the criminal liability of the wartime Ottoman authorities regarding the Armenian deportations and massacres. The December 15, 1918 deposition by General Mehmed Vehip, commander-in-chief of the Ottoman Third Army, and ardent CUP (Committee of Union and Progress, i.e., the "Ittihadists", or "Young Turks") member, included this summary statement:
The murder and annihilation of the Armenians and the plunder and expropriation of their possessions were the result of the decisions made by the CUP...These atrocities occurred under a program that was determined upon and involved a definite case of willfulness. They occurred because they were ordered, approved, and pursued first by the CUP's [provincial] delegates and central boards, and second by governmental chiefs who had...pushed aside their conscience, and had become the tools of the wishes and desires of the Ittihadist society.
Dadrian's own compelling assessment of this primary source evidence is summarized as follows:
Through the episodic interventions of the European Powers, the historically evolving and intensifying Turko-Armenian conflict had become a source of anger and frustration for the Ottoman rulers and elites driven by a xenophobic nationalism. A monolithic political party that had managed to eliminate all opposition and had gained control of the Ottoman state apparatus efficiently took advantage of the opportunities provided by World War I. It purged by violent and lethal means the bulk of the Armenian population from the territories of the empire. By any standard definition, this was an act of genocide.
Jihad as a Major Determinant of the Armenian Genocide
The wartime reports from German and Austro-Hungarian officials, Turkey's World War I allies, as well as earlier British diplomatic reports dating back to 1890, confirm the independent U.S. evidence that the origins and evolution of the genocide had little to do with World War I "Armenian provocations." Emphasis is placed, instead, on the larger pre-war context dating from the failure of the mid-19th century Ottoman Tanzimat reform efforts. These reforms, initiated by the declining Ottoman Empire (i.e., in 1839 and 1856) under intense pressure from the European powers, were designed to abrogate the repressive laws of dhimmitude, to which non-Muslim (primarily Christian) minorities, including the Armenians, had been subjected for centuries, following the Turkish jihad conquests of their indigenous homelands.
Led by their patriarch, the Armenians felt encouraged by the Tanzimat reform scheme, and began to deluge the Porte (Ottoman seat of government) with pleas and requests, primarily seeking governmental protection against a host of mistreatments, particularly in the remote provinces. Between 1850 and 1870, alone, 537 notes were sent to the Porte by the Armenian patriarch characterizing numerous occurrences of theft, abduction, murder, confiscatory taxes, and fraud by government officials. These entreaties were largely ignored, and ominously, were even considered as signs of rebelliousness. For example, British Consul (to Erzurum) Clifford Lloyd reported in 1890, "Discontent, or any description of protest is regarded by the local Turkish Local Government as seditious."He went on to note that this Turkish reaction occurred irrespective of the fact that "..the idea of revolution.," was not being entertained by the Armenian peasants involved in these protests.
The renowned Ottomanist, Roderick Davison, has observed that under the Shari'a (Islamic Holy Law) the "..infidel gavours [dhimmis, rayas]" were permanently relegated to a status of "inferiority" and subjected to a "contemptuous half-toleration." Davison further maintained that this contempt emanated from "an innate attitude of superiority", and was driven by an "innate Muslim feeling", prone to paroxysms of "open fanaticism". Sustained, vehement reactions to the 1839 and 1856 Tanzimat reform acts by large segments of the Muslim population, led by Muslim spiritual leaders and the military, illustrate Davison's point. Perhaps the most candid and telling assessment of the doomed Tanzimat reforms, in particular the 1856 Act, was provided by Mustafa Resid, Ottoman Grand Vizier at six different times between 1846-58. In his denunciation of the reforms, Resid argued the proposed "complete emancipation" of the non-Muslim subjects, appropriately destined to be subjugated and ruled, was "entirely contradictory" to "the 600 year traditions of the Ottoman Empire." He openly proclaimed the "complete emancipation" segment of the initiative as disingenuous, enacted deliberately to mislead the Europeans, who had insisted upon this provision. Sadly prescient, Resid then made the ominous prediction of a "great massacre" if equality was in fact granted to non-Muslims.
Despite their "revolutionary" advent, and accompanying comparisons to the ideals of the French Revolution, the "Young Turk" regime eventually adopted a discriminatory, anti-reform attitude toward non-Muslims within the Ottoman Empire. During an August 6, 1910 speech in Saloniki, Mehmed Talat, pre-eminent leader of the Young Turks disdainfully rejected the notion of equality with "gavours'", arguing that it "...is an unrecognizable ideal since it is inimical with Sheriat [Shari'a] and the sentiments of hundreds of thousands of Muslims..." Roderick Davison notes that in fact "..no genuine equality was ever attained...", re-enacting the failure of the prior Tanzimat reform period. As a consequence, he observes, the Young Turk leadership "...soon turned from equality...to Turkification..."
During the reign of Sultan Abdul Hamid, the Ottoman Turks massacred over 200,000 Armenians between 1894-96. This was followed, under the Young Turk regime, by the Adana massacres of 25,000 Armenians in 1909, and the first formal genocide of the 20th century, when in 1915 alone, an additional 600,000 to 800,000, or even 1 million Armenians were slaughtered. The massacres of the 1890s had an "organic" connection to the Adana massacres of 1909, and more importantly, the events of 1915. As Vahakn Dadrian, the leading scholar of the Armenian genocide, argues, these earlier massacres facilitated the genocidal acts of 1915 by providing the Young Turks with "a predictable impunity." The absence of adverse consequences for the Abdul Hamid massacres in the 1890s allowed the Young Turks to move forward without constraint.
Contemporary accounts from European diplomats make clear that these brutal massacres were perpetrated in the context of a formal jihad against the Armenians who had attempted to throw off the yoke of dhimmitude by seeking equal rights and autonomy. For example, the Chief Dragoman (Turkish-speaking interpreter) of the British embassy reported regarding the 1894-96 massacres:
[The perpetrators] are guided in their general action by the prescriptions of the Sheri [Sharia] Law. That law prescribes that if the "rayah" [dhimmi] Christian attempts, by having recourse to foreign powers, to overstep the limits of privileges allowed them by their Mussulman [Muslim] masters, and free themselves from their bondage, their lives and property are to be forfeited, and are at the mercy of the Mussulmans. To the Turkish mind the Armenians had tried to overstep those limits by appealing to foreign powers, especially England. They therefore considered it their religious duty and a righteous thing to destroy and seize the lives and properties of the Armenians.
Bat Ye'or confirms this reasoning, noting that the Armenian quest for reforms invalidated their "legal status," which involved a "contract" (i.e., with their Muslim Turkish rulers). This
"...breach...restored to the umma [the Muslim community] its initial right to kill the subjugated minority [the dhimmis], [and] seize their property."
Lord Kinross has described the tactics of Abdul Hamid's agents, who deliberately fomented religious fanaticism among the local Muslim populations in Turkish Armenia, and the devastating results of this incitement:
It became their normal routine first to assemble the Moslem population in the largest mosque in a town, then to declare, in the name of the Sultan, that the Armenians were in general revolt with the aim of striking at Islam. Their Sultan enjoined them as good Moslems to defend their faith against these infidel rebels. He propounded the precept that under the holy law the property of rebels might be looted by believers, encouraging Moslems to enrich themselves in the name of their faith at the expense of their Christian neighbours, and in the event of resistance, to kill them. Hence, throughout Armenia, the attack of an ever increasing pack of wolves against sheep...Each operation, between the bugle calls, followed a similar pattern. First into a town there came the Turkish troops, for the purpose of massacre; then came the Kurdish irregulars and tribesmen for the purpose of plunder. Finally came the holocaust, by fire and destruction, which spread, with the pursuit of fugitives and mopping-up operations, throughout the lands and villages of the surrounding province. This murderous winter of 1895 thus saw the decimation of much of the Armenian population and the devastation of their property in some twenty districts of eastern Turkey. Often the massacres were timed for a Friday, when the Moslems were in their mosques and the myth was spread by the authorities that the Armenians conspired to slaughter them at prayer. Instead they were themselves slaughtered, when the Moslems emerged to forestall their design. The total number of victims was somewhere between fifty and a hundred thousand, allowing for those who died subsequently of wounds, disease, exposure, and starvation...In each of thirteen large towns the numbers of those dead ran well into four figures. In Erzurum, the bazaar of a thousand shops was looted and wrecked by the Moslems, while some three hundred Christians were buried the next day in a single massed grave...Cruelest and most ruinous of all were the massacres at Urfa, where the Armenian Christians numbered a third of the total population. Here in December 1895, after a two-months siege of their quarter, the leading Armenians assembled in their cathedral, where they drew up a statement requesting Turkish official protection. Promising this, the Turkish officer in charge surrounded the cathedral with troops. Then a large body of them, with a mob in their wake, rushed through the Armenian quarter, where they plundered all houses and slaughtered all adult males above a certain age. When a large group of young Armenians were brought before a sheikh, he had them thrown down on their backs and held by their hands and feet. Then, in the words of an observer, he recited verses of the Koran and "cut their throats after the Mecca rite of sacrificing sheep."...When the bugle blast ended the day's operations some three thousand refugees poured into the cathedral, hoping for sanctuary. But the next morning - a Sunday - a fanatical mob swarmed into the church in an orgy of slaughter, rifling its shrines will cries of 'Call upon Christ to prove Himself a greater prophet than Mohammed.' Then they amassed a large pile of straw matting, which they spread over the litter of the corpses and set alight with thirty cans of petroleum. The woodwork of the gallery where a crowd of women and children crouched, wailing in terror, caught fire, and all perished in the flames. Punctiliously, at three-thirty in the afternoon the bugle blew once more, and the Moslem officials proceeded around the Armenian quarter to proclaim that the massacres were over. They had wiped out 126 complete families, without a woman or a baby surviving, and the total casualties in the town, including those slaughtered in the cathedral, amounted to eight thousand dead.
A 1915 Ottoman Fatwa believed to have been written by Sheikh Shawish (entitled, Aljihad, and translated into English, March 10, 1915) included a statement attached to its official United States consulate translation indicating, "It was undoubtedly this and similar pamphlets which inspired the Jewish community of Alexandria" to contact the United States Consul General's office in Cairo. The calls to religiously motivated violence against non-Muslims, as sanctioned by Islam-jihad war-are unmistakably clear.
If you believe in God, in his faith and apostle, hear the words of our sages as recorded by his holy prophet. 'You believers take not the Jews and Christians as friends unto you, He who loves then shall be called one of them'. 'God shall not foster the tyrants'. You believers accept not unto you friends of these who abuse your faith and mock thereof. They are called unbelievers, and you hearken unto the words of God of you believe. Therefore if after you will put to heart to these sacred words, perhaps they have been spoken to you by God not to acquire unto us Jewish or Christian friends. From these holy words you will realize that it is forbidden us to approach those who mock our faith - Jews and Christians, for then God forbid, God forbid we shall be deemed by the almighty as one of them God forbid.... After all this how can we believe in the sincerity of your faith when you befriend and love unbelievers, and accept their Government without any rising without attempting to expel them from your country. Therefore arise and purify yourselves of such deeds. Arise to the Holy War no matter what it costs so as to carry into execution this sacred deed. It is furthermore said in the Koran 'If your fathers if children taken unto them friends of the unbelievers, estrange yourselves even from them.'... The Mohammedan religion enjoins us to set aside some money for Government expenses and for preparations of a holy war. The rest of your tithes and contributions you are duty bound to send to the capital of the Caliphate to help them to glorify the name of God, through the medium of the Caliph. Let all Mussulmans know that the Holy War is created only for this purpose. We trust in God that the Mohammedan lands will rise from humiliation and become faithfully tied to the capital of the Caliphate until, so as to be called 'the lands of Islam'. This is our hope and God help us to carry through our holy aims to a successful issue for the sake of our holy Prophet... A holy war is a sacred duty and for your information let it be known that the armies of the Caliph is ready and in three divisions, as follows: War in secret, war by word of mouth, and physical war. War in secret. This is the easiest and simplest. In this case it is to suppose that every unbeliever is an enemy, to persecute and exterminate him from the face of the earth. There is not a Mussulman in the world who is not inspired by this idea. However in the Koran it is said: 'That such a war is not enough for a Mohammedan whether young or old, and must also participate in the other parts of the Holy War. War by word of mouth. That is to say fighting by writing and speaking. This kind of war for example should pertain to the Mahomedans of the Caucasus. They should have commenced this war three or four months ago, because their actual position does not permit them to but the carrying on of such warfare. Every Mahomedan is in duty bound to write and speak against the unbelievers when actual circumstances do not permit him to assume more stringent measures, as for instance in the Caucasus. Therefore every writer must use his pen in favor of such a war. Physical war. This means actual fighting in the fullest sense of the word... Now let us mention here the means to be adopted in carrying on this holy war, as follows: Every private individual can fight with deadly weapons, as for example. Here is the following illustration of the late Egyptian Verdani who shot the unbelieving Butros Gal Pacha the friend of the English with a revolver. The murder of the English police Commissioner Bavaro in India by one of our Indian brethren. The killing of one of the officials of Kansch on his coming from Mecca by the Prophet's friend 'Abu Bazir El Pzachbi', peace be unto him! Abdallah ibn Aatick and four colleagues killed 'Abu Raafah Ibn El Hakiki'. The leader of the Jews of Khaybar so famous for his enmity to Islamism. This was executed by our Prophet's command, so did Avrala Ibn Ravacha and his friends when they killed Oscher Ibn Dawas one of the Jewish dignitaries. There are many instances of similar cases. Lord of the Universal What fails us now, and why should not some of us go forth to fight this sacred war for exalting thy glorious name?
An intrepid Protestant historian and missionary Johannes Lepsius, who earlier had undertaken a two-month trip to examine the sites of the Abul Hamid era massacres, returned to Turkey during World War I. He again documented the results of such invocations of jihad against non-Muslims, as espoused by Sheikh Shawish, during the period between 1914-1918. Lepsius wrote:
Are we then simply forbidden to speak of the Armenians as persecuted on account of their religious belief'? If so, there have never been any religious persecutions in the world...We have lists before us of 559 villages whose surviving inhabitants were converted to Islam with fire and sword; of 568 churches thoroughly pillaged, destroyed and razed to the ground; of 282 Christian churches transformed into mosques; of 21 Protestant preachers and 170 Gregorian (Armenian) priests who were, after enduring unspeakable tortures, murdered on their refusal to accept Islam. We repeat, however, that those figures express only the extent of our information, and do not by a long way reach to the extent of the reality. Is this a religious persecution or is it not?
Finally, Bat Ye'or places the continuum of massacres from the 1890s through the end of World War I, in the overall theological and juridical context of jihad, as follows:
The genocide of the Armenians was the natural outcome of a policy inherent in the politico-religious structure of dhimmitude. This process of physically eliminating a rebel nation had already been used against the rebel Slav and Greek Christians, rescued from collective extermination by European intervention, although sometimes reluctantly. The genocide of the Armenians was a jihad. No rayas took part in it. Despite the disapproval of many Muslim Turks and Arabs, and their refusal to collaborate in the crime, these masssacres were perpetrated solely by Muslims and they alone profited from the booty: the victims' property, houses, and lands granted to the muhajirun, and the allocation to them of women and child slaves. The elimination of male children over the age of twelve was in accordance with the commandments of the jihad and conformed to the age fixed for the payment of the jizya. The four stages of the liquidation -- deportation, enslavement, forced conversion, and massacre -- reproduced the historic conditions of the jihad carried out in the dar-al-harb from the seventh century on. Chronicles from a variety of sources, by Muslim authors in particular, give detailed descriptions of the organized massacres or deportation of captives, whose sufferings in forced marches behind the armies paralleled the Armenian experience in the twentieth century.
"Double Killing"- Ongoing Turkish Denial of the Armenian Genocide
Elie Wiesel has noted, appositely, that the final stage of genocide, its denial, is "double killing". Ignoring absurd and scurrilous allegations contained in Turkish propaganda documents (for example, the May 27, 1999 eleven page document entitled, "An Objective Look at House Resolution [HR] 155", submitted by the Turkish ambassador in Washington, D.C., to all United States Congressmen, which contained the mendacious claims that Armenians had murdered 100,000 Ottoman Jews, and 1.1 million Ottoman Muslims), several persistent denialist rationales at least merit exploration and sound rebuttal, before being dismissed. Dadrian has reduced these particular attempts to characterize the Armenian genocide as 'debatable' into the following three lines of argument (which he aptly terms "disjointed"): (i) the Ottoman governments intent was merely to relocate, not destroy, the deportee population; (ii) in the context of the larger global conflagration, i.e., World War I, the Armenians and Turks were engaged in a civil war, which was itself directly responsible for heavy Turkish losses; (iii) Turkish losses during the overall conflict far exceeded Armenian losses.
Dadrian poses the following logical question as a preface to his analysis of the spurious claim that the Turks engaged in a 'benevolent relocation' of Armenian deportees:
...how did the Young Turk authorities expect to resettle in the deserts of Mesopotamia hundreds of thousands of dislocated people without securing the slightest accommodation or other amenities affording the barest conditions of subsistence for human beings?
The sham of 'relocation' was made plain by the Chief of Staff of the Ottoman Fourth Army who oversaw the areas designated to receive these forcibly transferred Armenian populations. He rejected the relocation pretense categorically in his memoirs stating "...there was neither preparation, nor organization to shelter the hundreds of thousands of deportees." This critical assessment from a key Ottoman official confirms the observations of multiple consuls representing Turkeys allies Austria and Germany (in addition to the US Ambassador to the Ottoman Empire, Morgenthau). These diplomats maintained repeatedly that dispatching the victimized Armenian populations to such desert hinterlands sealed their fate -- death and ruination.. Moreover, the hundreds of thousands of deportees were not merely transferred from war zones, as claimed, but from all parts of the Ottoman Empire. Dadrian further observes,
As official documents unmistakably reveal (and American Ambassador Morgenthau confirms) only the rapid deterioration of Turkey's military situation and the resulting time constraints prevented the authorities from carrying out the projected comprehensive deportation and liquidation of the rest of the Armenian population. In the case of Istanbul, for example, then the capital of the Empire, by November 1915 already 30,000 Armenians had been surreptitiously, and by a system of quotas, removed, according to a confidential report to Berlin by German Ambassador Metternich. As to Smyrna, only forceful intervention of German General Liman Von Sanders, the regional military commander, stopped the completion of the deportation of that major mercantile harbor city's Armenian population. That intervention was triggered by the dispatch of Smyrna's first Armenian deportee convoy as ordered by the province's Turkish governor-general Rahmi. This intervention proved a mere respite, however, as in 1922 the insurgent Kemalists destroyed Smyrna in a holocaust that consumed large segments of the surviving Armenian population, as well.
Were the mass killings of the Armenians merely an unintended epiphenomenon of a "civil war", characterized by one apologist as "...a struggle between two nations for a single homeland"? Dadrian ridicules this argument by first highlighting the essential attributes of a bona fide civil war: the collapse of central government authority, creating a power vacuum filled by armed, antagonistic factions engaged in violent and sustained clashes.This basic paradigm simply did not apply to wartime Turkey, whose Ottoman state organization,
...was not only fully functional but on account of its armed forces were able to wage for four years a multi-front gigantic war against such formidable enemies as England, France and Tsarist Russia. The wartime emergency measures, martial law and the temporary suspension of parliament were conditions which helped invest the executive branch of the Ottoman government with enormous and concentrated power, power that was more than enough to exercise dictatorship. Moreover, most able-bodied Armenian males were conscripted into the Ottoman Army long before Turkey intervened in the war. What was left of the Armenian population consisted by and large of terror stricken women, children and old me desperately trying to stay alive in an environment filled with the memories of past massacres, a consuming apprehension regarding new and impending disasters and burdened with all sorts of war-related hardships.
The 'civil war argument' also hinges on the assertion that four specific Armenian uprisings-Shabin Karahisar (June 6-July 4, 1915), Musa Dagh (July 30-September 1915), Urfa (September 29-October 23, 1915) and in particular Van (April 20-May 17, 1915)-comprise a major, organized "Armenian rebellion." Reports by consuls of Turkey's wartime allies Austria and Germany, debunk this argument. The Austrian Military Plenipotentiary to Turkey during World War I, in his memoirs, characterized the Van uprising as "...an act of desperation" by Armenians who "...recognized that [a] general butchery had begun in the environs of Van and that they would be the next [victims]." Germany's consul in Aleppo, Walter Rossler, described the Urfa uprising in similar terms. Imbued with the recent memory of the brutal 1895 massacre, and the unfolding spectacle of mas murder in their vicinity during the summer of 1915, the Urfa Armenians made a hasty, last ditch effort to defend themselves. German Ambassador Paul Count von Wolff-Metternich filed a 72-page report to his government in Berlin addressing all four of these uprisings. Metternich maintained that each of these uprisings was a defensive act attempting merely to ward off imminent deportation, and he stated bluntly "...there was neither a concerted general uprising, nor was there a fully valid proof that such a synchronized uprising was organized or planned." As Dadrian observes,
How could desperate groupings of people trying to stay alive by defending themselves be described as 'rebels'supposedly bent on undermining a mighty state system intent on destroying them?...without exception these uprisings were improvised last-ditch attempts to ward off imminent deportation and destruction. Without exception they were all local, very limited, and above all, highly defensive initiatives; as such they were ultimately doomed to failure. The temporary success of the Van uprising was entirely due to a very fortuitous circumstance: the timely arrival of the advance units of the Russian Caucasus army. A delay of one or two days in this movement might well sealed the fate of the defenders.
Dadrian concedes that regardless of their justification -- underscored in wartime German, Austrian, and US consular reports of the sustained historical record of Armenian oppression and episodic massacre by the Turks,
Individual Armenians and even some small groups of Armenians in very isolated cases resorted to espionage, sabotage, and other anti-Turkish hostile acts...[and]...several thousands of Armenians from all over the world, including several hundred former Ottoman subjects, rushed to the Caucasus to enroll in the ranks of the Russian Caucasus army to fight against the Turks; the majority of them were, however, Russian subjects.
In his concluding remarks on the civil war apologetic, Dadrian poses, and then addresses this "ultimate question":
...does the ensemble of these facts warrant a decision to deport and wantonly destroy an entire population? The answer should be no for a variety of reasons but in one particular respect that answer is cast into special relief. The reference is to a host of other ethnic and nationality groups and individuals who likewise indulged in such anti-Turkish hostile acts during the war, including sabotage, espionage and volunteering for service in the armed forces of Turkey's enemies. Foremost among these were the Kurds, who like the Armenians, were engaged in pro- as well as anti-Turkish activities. On the eastern front several of the spies caught by the Turks were themselves Turks; so were a number of Greeks operating in the west of Turkey. Nor can one exempt the Jews who provided two distinct volunteer corps fighting the Turks at two different fronts, the Dardanelles (in 1915) and Palestine (in 1918). Moreover, one of the largest wartime espionage networks, the NILI in Yaffa, Palestine, which was caught by the Turks, was run by a small Jewish group. And yet...[T]hese [Turkish] authorities at that time did not think it prudent to extend their operations of ethnic cleansing to these nationalities and minority groups and thereby compound the already existing problems arising from the ongoing mass murder of the Armenians.
Dadrian dismisses as "blatant sophistry" the non-sequitur Turkish claim of 2.5 million victims in the 1914-1922 period because it includes (and conflates),
... disparate categories of events such as losses in World War I, losses in the post-Turkish campaign for independence, as well as losses due to epidemics, malnutrition and succumbing to the rigors of the elements... What is fundamental in all these losses is that overwhelmingly they are the byproducts and the results of warfare with Turkey's external enemies. These warfare losses are cryptically blended, juxtaposed and composed with the number of victims of an organized mass murder. Indeed, the two categories are collapsed whereby victim and victimizer groups are subsumed under a single, undifferentiated category, having been leveled almost beyond differentiation, and no longer discernible as separate, if not antithetical, categories.
The Commemoration Date
Within 24-hours of agreeing to a secret military and political pact with Imperial Germany on August 2, 1914, the Ittihadist ('Young Turk') government ordered a general mobilization, which resulted in the military conscription of nearly all able-bodied Armenian males aged 20-45. Additional calls were soon extended to the 18-20, and 45-60 year old age groups. The preponderance of these Armenian recruits were executed by Turkish officers and fellow soldiers after having been employed as labor battalion soldiers. German and Austrian military and political officials, as well as the American Ambassador to the Ottoman Empire, Henry Morgenthau, all rejected the subsequent Turkish arguments during the commission of the genocide that massive deportations of the Armenians were justified due to concerns for military security.
Aleppo's veteran German Consul, Walter Rossler, in a report of 27 July 1915 to Berlin declared, "In the absence of menfolk, nearly all of whom have been conscripted, how can women and children pose a threat?"...German Colonel Stange, in charge of a detachment of Special Organization Forces in eastern Turkey, questioned the veracity of the argument of Ottoman military authorities. These authorities were maintaining that the deportations were a military necessity because they feared an uprising. In his report to his German military superiors, Stange retorted, "Save for a small fraction of them, all able-bodied Armenian men were recruited. There could, therefore, be no particular reason to fear a real uprising (emphasis in the original)"...Austrian Vice Marshall Pomiankowski, Military Plenipotentiary at Ottoman General Headquarters, provided his answer to these questions. The Turks, "began to massacre the able-bodied Armenian men...in order to render the rest of the population defenseless." After graphically describing the scenes of these serial massacres of conscripted Armenian men which were "in summary fashion," and "in almost all cases the procedure was the same,",...Morgenthau noted with emphasis the same rationale: "Before Armenians could be slaughtered, Armenia must be made defenseless." In this connection, the Ambassador notified Washington on 10 July 1915 that "All the men from 20 to 45 are in the Turkish army."
Dadrian has argued that perhaps this initial isolation of the 18-60 year old Armenian male population in the first week of August 1914 heralds the onset of the subsequent genocide. However, the Armenian genocide is formally commemorated on April 24, this year marking the 92nd year since the events of April 24, 1915. On that date, the Turkish Interior Ministry issued an order authorizing the arrest of all Armenian political and community leaders suspected of anti-Ittihadist or Armenian nationalist sentiments. In Istanbul alone, 2345 such leaders were seized and incarcerated, and most of them were subsequently executed. The majority were neither nationalists, nor were they involved in politics. None were charged with sabotage, espionage, or any other crime, and appropriately tried. As the intrepid Turkish scholar Taner Akcam recently acknowledged,
...Under the pretext of searching for arms, of collecting war levies, or tracking down deserters, there had already been established a practice of systematically carried-out plunders, raids, and murders [against the Armenians] which had become daily occurrences...
Within a month, the final, definitive stage of the process which reduced the Armenian population to utter helplessness, i.e., mass deportation, would begin.
Today's Status Quo of Immoral Denial and Diplomatic Confusion
But ninety-two years after the events of April 24, 1915, the Turkish government persists in its denials of the Armenian genocide, abetted by a well-endowed network of unsavory political and pseudo-academic lobbyists operating with the imprimatur of morphing geo-strategic rationales. Until the Soviet Union imploded, "Turkey as a bulwark against Communism," was the justifying mantra; now, "Turkey as a bulwark against radical Islam," is constantly invoked
This leeway afforded Turkey is both morally indefensible, and increasingly, devoid of any geo-strategic value. West Germany was arguably a much more direct and important ally against the Soviet Communist bloc, while each successive post-World War II West German administration, from Konrad Adenauer through Helmut Kohl, made Holocaust denial a punishable crime. Moreover, there is burgeoning evidence, available almost daily, that Turkey's government under the Muslim ideologue Erdogan, and large swaths of the Turkish media, intelligentsia, and general public, are stridently anti-American, and hardly qualify as "bulwarks against radical Islam." Indeed, Turkey's contemporary Islamic "revival" is of particular relevance to the tragic events that transpired between 1894 and the end of World War I, precisely because the Armenian genocide was in large measure a jihad genocide.
Another source of lobbying pressure in opposition to the Congressional resolutions formally recognizing the Armenian genocide are major Jewish organizations such as the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), The Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA), B'nai B'rith, and the American Jewish Committee (AJC). All have opposed the Armenian genocide recognition legislation in the Congress, including the presentation of letters from the Jewish community of Turkey, complemented, in the cases of ADL and JINSA, by their own statements opposing these Congressional resolutions. Even the most recent statements by ADL and AJC -- which recognized the Armenian Genocide under duress -- actively oppose (ADL), or fail to support (AJC), the resolutions. These groups maintain that passage of HR/SR 106 jeopardizes both the safety on Turkey's small Jewish minority (which is glaringly inconsistent with their simultaneous hagiography of Turkey's treatment of Jews, past and present), and what they profess to be the ongoing congenial and strategic relationship between Turkey and Israel.
While Germany openly recognizes the Holocaust, and prosecutes Holocaust deniers, Turkey refuses to recognize the Armenian genocide and in fact has prosecuted its own citizens if they dare to affirm this established genocide. Nobel Prize winning Turkish author Orhan Pamuk, for example, was prosecuted under penal code Article 301, which states: "A person who, being a Turk, explicitly insults the Republic or Turkish Grand National Assembly, shall be punishable by imprisonment of between six months to three years." A complaint was also filed against the Turkish scholar Taner Akcam who forthrightly acknowledges the Armenian genocide, and the late Armenian editor Hrant Dink -- ultimately assassinated by a Turkish nationalist -- was earlier prosecuted and punished, under this same statute.
After a three weeks delay which kept important U.S. military troops at sea, on March 1, 2003, the Turkish parliament rejected a resolution that would have allowed these forces to open a northern front against Iraq from Turkish soil. This serious rupture, and other evidence adduced by the founder and chairman of a leading Turkish think tank prompted his candid observation in May, 2005 that, "Turkish-American relations have been in a process of erosion for a long time. The strategic partnership is long over. [emphasis added] And after it ended, unfortunately no effort was made to redefine our relations." Public attitudes in Turkey towards the U.S. are overtly negative. During early March 2005, an announcement poster inviting the public to attend a large scale anti-US demonstration, on March 19, 2005 was displayed extensively throughout the streets of Istanbul, and in the lobbies and hallways of public buildings as well. The poster depicted the US as a giant octopus with long tentacles strangling the globe, and proclaimed, "America Get Your Hands Off the Middle East." Signatories of the poster represented millions of members from the most prominent national organizations, trade and labor unions, and professional associations of Turkey. Valley of the Wolves (released February, 2006), the wildly popular, most expensive film ever made in Turkey, is a stridently anti-American propaganda piece, which appears to mirror the widespread hateful Turkish attitudes towards the U.S. expressed in polling data from the spring of 2006.
There is also no evidence that the diaspora dhimmitude of ADL and like-minded U.S. Jewish community advocacy groups has done anything to ameliorate the chronic plight of Turkish Jews (whose numbers have steadily declined from a post World War II census of 77,000 to less than 17,000 at present), or bolstered the so-called "alliance" between Turkey and Israel. Such servile efforts have failed to alter a virulently Antisemitic Turkish religious (i.e., Islamic), and secular culture which continues to target Turkey's vestigial Jewish population -- only 16% of Turks view Jews favorably according to a Spring 2006 Pew Global Attitudes survey -- and the Turkish populace is virulently anti-Zionist, and anti-Israeli.
Interviewed for a November 19, 2003 story in The Christian Science Monitor, following the bombing of Istanbul's two main synagogues by indigenous Turkish jihadist groups, Rifat Bali, a scholar, and Turkish Jew, acknowledged the chronic plight of Turkey's small, dwindling Jewish community, whose social condition remains little removed from the formal "dhimmi" status of their ancestors. "The Turkish Jews have not been fully integrated or Turkified, and they have had to limit their expectations. A kid grows up knowing he is never going to become a government minister, so no one tries, and the same goes for positions in the military."
These acts of jihad terrorism targeting Jews occurred against a backdrop of relentless Antisemitic propaganda conflating Jews, Zionism, and Israel -- spearheaded by groups emphasizing traditional Islamic motifs of Jew hatred -- a campaign that continues unabated. For example, Milli Gazete, the daily produced by former Prime Minister Erbakan's National Salvation Party since January, 1973, and a major organ of fundamentalist Islam in Turkey, published articles in February and April of 2005 which were toxic amalgams of ahistorical drivel, and rabidly Antisemitic and anti-dhimmi Koranic motifs. "Secular" Turkish antisemitism was perhaps best exemplified by a "cinematic motif" in Valley of the Wolves (mentioned earlier for its anti-Americanism) which featured an American Jewish doctor dismembering Iraqis supposedly murdered by American soldiers in order to harvest their organs for Jewish markets. Prime Minister Erdogan not only failed to condemn the film, he justified its production and popularity. This is the same Mr. Erdogan who in 1974, then serving as president of the Istanbul Youth Group of the Islamic fundamentalist National Salvation Party wrote, directed, and played the leading role in a theatrical play entitled Maskomya, staged throughout Turkey during the 1970s. Mas-Kom-Ya was a compound acronym for "Masons-Communists-Yahudi [Jews]", and the play focused on the evil, conspiratorial nature of these three entities whose common denominator was Judaism.
During the Hizbollah-initiated war of July-August 2006, Prime Minister Erdogan also repeatedly blamed Israel for the conflict, emphasizing that "nobody should expect us [Turkey] to be neutral and impartial." Concurrently, Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, the Turkish secretary-general of the 57-Muslim nation Organization of the Islamic Conference denounced Israel's self-defensive actions as "state terror."
Conclusions
The Ottoman Turkish destruction of the Armenian people, beginning in the late 19th and intensifying in the early 20th century, was a genocide, and jihad ideology contributed significantly to this decades long human liquidation process. These facts are now beyond dispute. Milan Kundera, the Czech author, has written that man's struggle against power is the struggle of memory against forgetting. In The Banality of Indifference, Yair Auron reminds us of the importance of this struggle:
Recognition of the Armenian genocide on the part of the entire international community, including Turkey (or perhaps first and foremost Turkey), is therefore a demand of the first order. Understanding and remembering the tragic past is an essential condition, even if not sufficient in and of itself, to preventing the repetition of such acts in the future....
And in his eloquent Wednesday 8/22/07 column "No Room to Deny Genocide" the Boston Globe's Jeff Jacoby emphasized the nexus between the jihad genocide of the Armenians, the contemporary depredations of jihad, and the dangers of denial: "And at a time when jihadist violence from Darfur to Ground Zero has spilled so much innocent blood, dissimulation about the jihad of 1915 can only aid our enemies." Moreover the various "strategic rationales" and arguments put forth to oppose formal U.S. recognition of the Armenian genocide-the U.S.-Turkish alliance, the Turkish-Israeli alliance, the vulnerability of Turkey's vestigial Jewish minority-appear wanting and hackneyed in light of burgeoning evidence which undermines their basic credibility.
But most importantly, there is a compelling moral imperative to pass these resolutions which transcends the dubious geopolitical considerations used to rationalize and sustain Turkey's ongoing campaign of genocide denial. Professor Deborah Lipstadt , the renowned Holocaust scholar, and author of Denying the Holocaust, and History on Trial (which recounts her crushing defeat of Nazi-sympathizer David Irving's "libel' suit"), in conjunction with twelve other leading genocide scholars, elucidated the corrosive immorality of genocide denial in this 1996 statement:
Denial of genocide -- whether that of the Turks against the Armenians or the Nazis against the Jews -- is not an act of historical reinterpretation. Rather, it sows confusion by appearing to be engaged in a genuine scholarly effort. Those who deny genocide always dismiss the abundance of documents and testimony as contrived or coerced, or as forgeries and falsehoods. Free speech does not guarantee the deniers the right to be treated as the 'other' side of a legitimate debate when there is no credible other side"; nor does it guarantee the deniers space in the classroom or curriculum, or in any other forum. Genocide denial is an insidious form of intellectual and moral degradation...

2007-08-29T18:04:00.000-07:00

what a good quote

2007-08-29T10:00:00.000-07:00

"Without the freedom to choose evil, the freedom to choose what is good actually amounts to nothing more than coercion..."

brilliant...AND funny hehehe

2007-08-28T05:08:00.001-07:00

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QM9SYfqKNuA

who is allah?

2007-08-24T04:51:00.000-07:00

Europeans love to mock the salience of religion in American society, but they won't be laughing for very long. The de-Christianization of Europe in the name of "tolerance" is rapidly driving the spiritually shiftless continent into the arms of Islam. And now, amidst the postmodern theological confusion that defines contemporary Europe, even Catholic clergy are jumping on the Islamomania bandwagon.
The latest post-Christian theological spectacle comes to us from the Netherlands (of Ayaan Hirsi Ali fame), where the Roman Catholic Bishop of Breda, Tiny Muskens, says he wants Christians to start calling God "Allah" because he believes such a gesture would promote "rapprochement between Christianity and Islam". Appearing on Dutch television, the 71-year-old cleric said:
"Allah is a very beautiful word for God. Shouldn't we all say that from now on we will name God Allah? ... What does God care what we call him?"
Inquiring minds want to know: If the bishop really thinks the names "God" and "Allah" are interchangeable, why doesn't he ask Muslims to start calling Allah "Yahweh", the biblical name for God? But he won't, because he knows they won't.
Indeed, just because Christianity, Judaism and Islam are called "monotheistic" faiths, it does not follow that Christians, Jews and Muslims pray to the same God. So for those pre-postmoderns who believe that words still mean something, a quick survey of archaeology, history and theology-accompanied by a dose of common sense-can answer the question of whether the Allah of Islam is really the God of the Bible.
What Archaeology Says about Allah
Muslims claim that in pre-Islamic times, "Allah" was the biblical God of the Patriarchs, prophets and apostles. Indeed, the credibility of Islam as a religion stands or falls on its core claim of historical continuity with Judaism and Christianity. No wonder, then, that many Muslims get uppity when the claims of Islam are subjected to the hard science of archaeology.
Because archaeology provides irrefutable evidence that Allah, far from being the biblical God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, was actually the pre-Islamic pagan moon-god. Indeed, it is an established archaeological fact that worship of the moon-god was the main religion of the ancient Middle East.
But what about the Arabian Peninsula, where Mohammed (570-632) launched Islam? During the last two centuries, prominent archaeologists have unearthed thousands of inscriptions which prove beyond any doubt that the dominant religion of Arabia during Mohammed's day was the cult of the moon-god.
In fact, for generations before Mohammed was born, the Arabs worshipped some 360 pagan gods housed at a stone temple in Mecca called the Kabah. According to archaeologists, the chief deity of Mecca was the moon-god called al-ilah (meaning the god or the idol), which was shortened to Allah in pre-Islamic times. Pagan Arabs even used Allah in the names they gave themselves: Mohammed's father (Abdallah), for example, had Allah as part of his name.
What History Says about Allah
Historians say that pre-Islamic Arabs worshipped the moon-god by bowing in prayer toward Mecca several times a day. They would also make a pilgrimage to Mecca, run around the Kabah seven times and throw stones at the devil. And they fasted for one month, which began with the appearance of the crescent moon and ended when the crescent moon reappeared.
These same rites form the core of Islam today: Muslims bow in prayer toward Mecca; they make a pilgrimage to Mecca and run around the Kabah seven times; and they still throw stones at the devil. They also observe the fast of Ramadan, which begins and ends with the crescent moon.
Moreover, the ancient symbol of the pagan moon-god, the crescent moon, is the official symbol of Islam; it appears on the flags of Muslim countries, as well as on the tops of mosques and minarets everywhere.
Historians say that Mohammed, who as a traveling trader was exposed to Judaism and Christianity during his visits to different parts of the Middle East, tried to mimic those monotheistic faiths by taking Allah, the main deity within the Arabian pantheon, and making it the only god. Indeed, the basic confession of Islam is not that "Allah is Great" but that "Allah is Greater". Greater than all the other idols, that is.
But Islam also draws from other pagan traditions. For example, the tale of Mohammed's night journey into heaven parallels the Zoroastrian story of Arta Viraf. Zoroastrianism also inspired the Islamic belief that dark-eyed virgins await every man who enters heaven. And the Islamic ritual of praying five times a day? That, historians say, originates with the Sabeans, Syrian pagans who practiced an ecumenical mixture of Babylonian and Hellenic religion.
No surprise, then, that some scholars refer to Islam as monotheistic heathenism.
What Theology Says about Allah
Muslims claim that Islam is Judaism and Christianity reformed. They say the Koran confirms the truth of the Torah and the Gospels. But since those texts did not jibe with Mohammad's beliefs, they accuse Jews and Christians of changing and distorting the original versions. Muslims therefore assert that the Koran "clarifies" the Bible.
Even if that were the case, the Koran and the Bible present ideas about God (especially about His character) that are so diametrically opposed that any reasonable observer would conclude that each book refers to a distinct deity.
The Koran, for example, states unequivocally that Allah is an unknowable and non-personal deity. By contrast, the God of the Bible allows Himself to be known and desires fellowship with human beings on a personal basis. Indeed, the Bible says that Abraham (the same Abraham whom Muslims say they venerate) was the "friend of God."
The Koran also portrays Allah as a vindictive deity who hates sinners and desires to afflict them. But the Bible says God is love.
Moreover, the New Testament teaches that God loved humanity so much that He came to earth to pay the debt for man's sin, and that that act of grace is available for free to anyone who believes Jesus Christ is their personal Savior. But Islam denies that Christ was God or that He died in order to save humanity. Indeed, Allah does not provide any way for man to be reconciled to God.
And the theological differences go on and on, so much so that the God of the Bible cannot possibly be the Allah worshipped in Islam. Unless, of course, a Dutch bishop says so.
Allah and Eurabia
Mohammed thought the Jews and Christians of his day would receive him as a prophet. But the Bible says that any new revelation must agree with what is already established in Scripture (Isaiah 8:20). So they rejected his Allah as a false god. And Mohammed replied by setting his Islam on a permanent warpath against Judaism and Christianity that continues to this day.
The Dutch bishop and other Muslim fellow travelers think they can buy a fake peace with Islam by playing relativistic word games as a part of an "inter-faith" dialogue. But Muslims understand much better than do post-modern Europeans that ecumenical appeasement is a symptom of a Judeo-Christian civilization that is weak and dying.
The irony is that the real danger from Islam stems not so much from ordinary Muslims as it does from sickly Europeans who have subverted their Judeo-Christian heritage in search of secular hedonism. Because they live only for the moment, they are willing submit to anything, including Islam, as long as it doesn't interfere with the pursuit of pleasure today.
It has been more than 50 years since the late Christian apologist C.S. Lewis first warned about Western Civilization's disastrous lurch into post-Christianity. But even he would be surprised to see how quickly Islam is filling the religious and cultural vacuum that is post-Christian Europe.
It's not that Europeans haven't been forewarned. It's that they couldn't care less.

another good review...well written...and spencer's rebuttal

2007-08-23T16:14:00.000-07:00

Is Robert Spencer’s new book Religion of Peace?—Why Christianity Is and Islam Isn’t just another addition to the “burgeoning literature of Islamophobia”? That’s the opinion of John Derbyshire, who contends that Spencer’s own Christianity is to blame for the book being “a bit infantile.” Asks Derbyshire: “If Christianity is a religion of peace, while Islam is irredeemably militant, what on earth does Spencer think is likely to be the outcome of a conflict between the two?”

By John Derbyshire
A friend of mine who had a thoroughly Roman Catholic education at the hands of the Christian Brothers tells me that the religious component of that education consisted largely of memorizing arguments with which to confound atheists, agnostics, and Protestants.
Robert Spencer is not, strictly speaking, a Roman Catholic, though I believe his church is in communion with Rome. His writings, though, are very much in the spirit of those Brothers. Anyone who writes much is driven by some daemon or other. What drives Spencer is plainly the determination to tell the world how true, wise, just and fruitful altogether has been western Christianity, most especially in its pre-Reformation styles, and how vile, intolerant, cruel, and inhuman is Islam.
Spencer is exceptionally well equipped to do both things. He possesses deep knowledge of early Christianity—has a Master’s degree in this area, according to Wikipedia. His own Church is Syriac, and so I presume uses an Arabic liturgy, leading to the further presumption that Spencer is a fluent reader of Arabic. He has been poring over Islamic texts for decades, and can quote chapter and verse from the Koran (which he annoyingly spells “Qu’ran,” as if any western reader has a clue what to do with that “Q” and that apostrophe), the Sira (authorized biography of Muhammed), the Hadith (oral traditions about Muhammed), and the works of medieval Islamic scholars.
In Religion of Peace? Spencer uses all that scholarship to three ends. First, he counters those who say that the more rambunctious kinds of American Christians are no better than, or may even be worse than, Muslim jihadists. Second, he discourses on the theme that Islam is inherently militant and intolerant—that this is not a mere matter of interpretation—while no such thing is true of Christianity. Third, he wants to tell us that modernity—science and political progress—had its origins in Christianity, while the stasis and stagnation of the Islamic world is similarly templated in the doctrines of Islam.
Man is noble, and worthy, not because he is a slave, but because he is free. That is what distinguishes the Judeo-Christian view from the Islamic view of mankind. Sheikh Muhammad Saleh al-Munajjid [a radical Saudi cleric] would say that mankind has value because human beings are the slaves of Allah. Jews and Christians, and even the secularists rooted in the Judeo-Christian culture, would say that mankind has value because human beings are free.
That is the difference. And that makes all the difference. (pp.206-7)
For my taste, Spencer spends altogether too much time on the first of those ends. The “equivalence” school of thought, the one that says that there isn’t anything to choose between Christianity and Islam in the way of militancy or obscurantism, is certainly real, but is it actually that important? Spencer thinks so: “This [equivalence] is the prevailing malady of the West in our time. It is why this book had to be written.” (p. 11)
I understand that this bogus equivalence must be very vexing to a committed Christian, but Spencer seems not to understand how wacky all religions seem to the irreligious. All religious faith, after all, depends on magical thinking. To people who eschew such thinking—people who prefer to ground their beliefs in the strict rules of evidence used in modern law and science—Mohammed’s flying through the air to Jerusalem on a white steed is no more preposterous than the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception; and so, God’s instructions to us through Mohammed are no more or less likely to make us better or worse than his instructions through Christ.
That does not preclude the possibility—which I think is an obvious fact—that in the present state of the world, Islam contains a far higher proportion of crazy troublemakers that does Christianity. It is, though, the ultimate basis of the “equivalence” school, and one that a believer like Spencer cannot admit, nor even, in all probability, grasp.
Similarly with the apologetics that fill another large portion of this book. It is a handy thing, I guess, for argumentative Catholics to have, in the spirit of those Brothers, defenses of the Church in things like the Crusades and the Galileo business, all packaged neatly together with refutations of popular notions about medieval Islamic scholars having invented algebra and heliocentric astronomy.
However, a person whose leisure-reading tastes don’t run to this sort of apologetics, and who is plowing through Spencer’s book only from duty, or idle curiosity, or as a courtesy or professional chore, is bound to wonder whether an equally learned Islamic scholar, bent on making the opposite case, might not produce equally persuasive points, to be then rebutted by Spencer, who would be re-rebutted by the Islamist… To adapt an old doggerel:
Islamist fleas have Christian fleas Upon their backs to bite ’em. And Christian fleas have Muslim fleas, And so ad infinitum.
It’s all a bit tedious, unless you are the kind of person to whom it isn’t. After a hundred pages or so of this book, in fact, I began to feel—in spite of Spencer’s scholarship, which I do not doubt, and his expository skills, which are very fluent, and his brief against Islam, which I found persuasive—that there was something a bit infantile behind it all. To an irreligious person, it all looks a bit like a game of theological mumblety-peg: “My Yahweh can whup your Allah, nyah nyah!”
That same irreligious person, reading Spencer’s book, will likewise be startled by the author’s assertion that medieval and early-modern Roman Catholicism breathes the very spirit of rationality, and was the seed-bed from which modern science grew. To us pagans, it looks rather as though science only really got going when the power of faith had ebbed from its late-medieval high point; and then, it got going mainly in those north European nations that had embraced Protestantism after the Reformation.
Spencer will have none of that. “The Bible,” he tells us, “assumes that God’s laws of creation are natural laws, a stable and unchanging reality—a sine qua non of scientific investigation.” (p. 156) Hmm. Which part of the Bible assumes that? Joshua 10:13, perhaps, where Joshua commands the sun and moon to stand still? Or Matthew 17:21, the miracle of the loaves and the fishes? Or Acts 1:9, in which Jesus is taken up into the sky by a cloud? Some other part, perhaps.
This particular theme—that we should thank the Roman Catholic church for having midwifed the birth of science—is now common in Catholic apologetics. What seems to have happened is the slow realization, by Catholic intellectuals, of the appalling bad-publicity fallout from the Galileo affair (whatever the actual facts of that affair), leading to a determination never to be on the wrong side of any major scientific issue, ever again. Hence all the pronouncements from the hierarchy that biological evolution is a really spiffy theory, containing nothing that might offend believers… qualified with murmured insistences that, you know, God must have had something to do with it.
No doubt this is all very reassuring to the faithful. To non-Catholics, however, it is rather transparent, and at odds with the magical elements of the faith. And even if it were true that the church midwifed science, is it not the case that, following delivery of the newborn, the midwife’s services are no longer required?
Spencer’s more general assumption that our civilization is a child of Christianity can likewise be fairly doubted. Does religion in fact explain anything about history? It is of course impossible to know how different the world would have been if Jesus of Nazareth, or Mohammed, had died in the cradle; but the suspicion lurks that it might not have been very different. Would the Arabs have come surging out of their desert oases in the seventh century without the Prophet and his faith to inspire them? Would Frankish knights have taken ship to recover the Holy Land, if they had not considered it Holy, only a lost province of the Roman Empire? Would white Europeans have developed science and consensual democracy if they had been only white Europeans, not also Christians?
All that we know for sure about history and its great tides is that people here behaved like this, while people there behaved like that. Why? What were the determinants? “Modes of production,” thought Marx: geography, says Jared Diamond; it is even being whispered that (gasp!) biology might have had something to do with it. There are theories a-plenty, but this is a zone in which we truly understand very little. Robert Spencer, who is obsessively interested in the minutiae of religious doctrine, naturally assumes that religion is a, if not the, principal determinant of historical events. I see no reason for irreligious people to follow him all the way on this, though personally I’d guess that things would be somewhat other than they are if nobody had ever heard of that white steed or that Immaculate Conception.
* * * * *
Whatever the facts of that, it can hardly be disputed that we have got into the mess we are in with Islam today not so much because of the letter of Islamic theology, or the failure of enough of us to knuckle down to our citizenly duty and read the Koran (personally, I would rather undergo radical dentistry), as because we have executed policies of staggering idiocy.
There are now tens of millions of Muslims living in Christian nations; and this is the case because our nations allowed the tens of millions to enter. We need not have done so. Wise men as long as forty years ago were sounding the alarm about the gross folly of opening our territories to such numbers of strangers with whom we had nothing in common. If Islamia has sunk into the grip of a poisonous ideology—the ideology of jihadism—the Christian West (Spencer actually says “Judeo-Christian,” but that is just a lagniappe) has been seized by an even more destructive ideology: globalization.
The second ideology has in fact been the great enabler of the first. And, very uncomfortably for a Christian apologist like Robert Spencer (so uncomfortably he has not confronted it in this book, nor in any of the other writings of his I have perused; nor have I ever seen it mentioned in the rest of the burgeoning literature of Islamophobia), a great enabler of globalization has been the Christian tradition. If all men are brothers, heathens only a little less enlightened than Christians, they why should not a Pakistani, or a Somali, or for that matter a Mexican, come to live in the U.S.A.? Why should not ten million of each do so? Would it not in fact be un-Christian to refuse entry to those tens of millions? It beggars belief that anyone should hold such a civilizationally-suicidal view, but many Christians do—the current President of the United States, for example.
That leads more or less directly to this book’s most surprising omission: a failure to prescribe. If things are as Robert Spencer says they are, what is to be done? He offers nothing but a vague, half-hearted statement about the need for an “alliance” between “Hindus, Buddhists, secular Muslims [huh?—the previous 206 pages have left the rather strong impression that the only secular Muslim is a dead Muslim], and atheists.” (p. 207) What should we of the West do if such an alliance fails to appear? Or if, having appeared, it dissolves in squabbling, as it surely would? What shall we do to be saved?
It is true that the author is under no obligation to give detailed political prescriptions. He can fairly say: “I am a diagnostician. I have made a close study of Islamic texts. This is what I have found. These are the implications, so far as the behavior we can expect from Muslims is concerned. It is not for me, a retired and uncourtly scholar, to prescribe social policies.” That is a tenable point of view.
The degree of restraint it implies, though, is wellnigh superhuman. Most of us, if we knew as much as Robert Spencer does about the problem, would feel the urge, perhaps even the moral imperative, to suggest a solution.
Possibly the author takes the division-of-labor view I have just mentioned—“Not my job!” Possibly he has laid out a program in one of his other books (none of which I have read) and feels no need to repeat himself. Or perhaps he thinks that the solution that obviously follows from all his painstaking exegeses is so radical that if he were to state it clearly, he would be cast out from the sphere of “acceptable” commentary into the outer darkness of fringe politics and “hate groups”—a term which nowadays seems to embrace anyone who speaks unwelcome truths out loud.
If the last, that is a pity, for what Robert Spencer leaves unsaid needs saying.
If what he has told us is true—and so far as the present state if Islam is concerned, I think it is—then the West should proscribe Islam, and the sooner the better. We should not allow Muslims into our countries, other than for necessary diplomatic or scholarly purposes. We should revoke the visas and permits of resident aliens who are Muslims, and ensure their departure. We should offer to purchase the citizenship of Muslim citizens, and bribe them to leave. Those who will not leave should be carefully watched by the police, and subjected to social disabilities—they should not, for example, be admitted to the armed forces, or allowed to proselytize in prisons. (Take a religion addled with violence and infused with a hatred of our society, and teach it in prisons to the most violent and antisocial of our people? Have we gone stark raving mad?) Mosques and madrassahs should be closed, or at the least punitively taxed.
For the U.S.A. there would be some constitutional niceties to be sorted out, but I am not speaking of any grave injustices here, still less of any cruelty or harm, which no civilized person wishes to a fellow human being who has done nothing wrong. Millions of harmless, peaceful Muslims will of course be inconvenienced, but life comes with no guarantee of uninterrupted convenience, and moving from one country to another is not especially arduous—I have done it myself several times. Nothing in such a program of “separationism” is immoral or improper, unless the first word in the phrase “sovereign nation” has lost all meaning.
But there, of course, is the rub. There, too, perhaps, is the real reason why Robert Spencer does not follow his analysis with the separationist prescription it so clearly implies: the reason being, that there is no chance whatsoever of such a prescription being applied in any western nation.
For if there is a sickness in the soul of Islam, there is a corresponding sickness in the soul of the West. As the darkness, cruelty, and obscurantism of jihadist Islam, described in such detail in this book, descend on our lands, our souls rise joyfully to greet them.
Hospital staff in the Lothians [a region of Scotland] have been told not to eat at their desks to avoid offending Muslim colleagues during Ramadan. [The National Health Service in] Lothians has advised doctors and other health workers not to have working lunches during the 30-day fast, which begins next month. The health service’s Equality and Diversity Officer sent an e-mail to all senior managers, giving guidance on religious tolerance. This includes ensuring Muslim staff are given breaks to pray, and time off to celebrate Eid at the end of Ramadan. It is understood they also advised hospital managers to move food trolleys away from areas where Muslims work.
It may even be that Robert Spencer suspects, at some level, that this sickness in the Western soul has its roots in Christianity, just like—according to him—every other aspect of our civilization.
A proposal by a Roman Catholic bishop in the Netherlands that people of all faiths refer to God as “Allah” is not sitting well with the Catholic community. Tiny Muskens, an outgoing bishop who is retiring in a few weeks from the southern diocese of Breda, said God doesn’t care what he is called. “Allah is a very beautiful word for God. Shouldn’t we all say that from now on we will name God Allah? … What does God care what we call him? It is our problem,” Muskens told Dutch television.
Perhaps the humane forbearance of the Prince of Peace, and the moral universalism that His teachings imply, bear the seeds of self-destruction. Those seeds were slow to germinate in the long centuries when great mass migrations of people into well-settled lands could only be military affairs. However, the globalization movement of the past fifty years has allowed millions of souls to move and settle peaceably into the old Christian lands; and our old ideals, with whatever contribution—major and critical, according to Spencer—from their Christian component, have urged us to welcome the settlers, and have called fierce obloquy on anyone who complains.
Spencer can’t have it both ways. If “even the secularists” are “rooted in the Judeo-Christian culture,” then so are their impulses to hate that culture and yield to its enemies. So what does he expect? Indeed, the secularists, with all their Christophobia, are a better bet for standing and fighting against jihadism than Christians are. If there were a proposal to impose Sharia law in your town, who would you rather see riding to your aid: Christopher Hitchens, or Bishop Muskens?
One cannot help noticing that in Japan, where Christians form less than one percent of the population, and Christian traditions are not a significant component of the national culture, Islam is neither a problem nor a threat, simply because Japan does not let Muslims—nor any other foreigners—settle in great numbers. The Japanese don’t give a fig for the universal brotherhood of man, and still cherish their national sovereignty. We no longer care much about our sovereignty, so long as our bellies are full and we have gadgets and clowns to amuse us; and our bishops, not to mention our Christian President and the globalist elites who surround him, tell us that doubts about the wisdom of mass Third World immigration are unkind, if not actually “hateful” (not to mention damaging to their stock portfolios).
It is not so much secularism that is the problem as Christianity and its legacy. If, as the subtitle of his book declares, Christianity is a religion of peace, while Islam is irredeemably militant, what on earth does Spencer think is likely to be the outcome of a conflict between the two? If—to put faces on the abstractions—Roger Cardinal Mahoney and his parishioners were to engage in a waste-lot rumble with Abu Ayyub al-Masri and his parishioners, on which party would Robert Spencer put his money?
A sensibly exclusionist, separationist policy like Japan’s is therefore not available to us, because of our principles—those principles Spencer tells us are rooted in Christian thinking, those principles that send our author into such raptures of cultural superiority. Well, well: Christianity got its start as a religion of slaves. Perhaps it is fated to end the same way.

rebuttal:

August 23, 2007
Mano a mano: Spencer v Derbyshire
Here, from Pajamas Media, is my response to John Derbyshire's brightly written review of my book Religion of Peace?.
John Derbyshire seems to think that since, in his view, Islam and Christianity are equally preposterous, they are equally likely to incite violence: “Mohammed’s flying through the air to Jerusalem on a white steed is no more preposterous than the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception; and so, God’s instructions to us through Mohammed are no more or less likely to make us better or worse than his instructions through Christ.”
Huh? “And so”? One thing is unbelievable, and so is another, and therefore they’re of equal moral value? Come now. I myself find National Socialism no more preposterous than Shakerism – does that mean that National Socialism is no more or less likely to make us better or worse than Shakerism? Does Derbyshire really want to get behind the idea that if something doesn’t ring true to him, it is therefore benign, or at least no more or less benign than some other farrago? I don’t think he does, even as he calls the whole exercise “infantile,” since he also says that he finds my “brief against Islam” to be “persuasive.”
Derbyshire’s review, while marvelously written and delightful to read, is full of inconsistencies. I don’t see how he could possibly find what I reveal about Islam to be “persuasive” if at the same time he thinks that Islamic and Christian doctrine are equally likely to inspire their adherents to commit acts of brutality, since the contrary assertion, as he himself notes, is a major point of my book. He also wonders whether “an equally learned Islamic scholar, bent on making the opposite case, might not produce equally persuasive points, to be then rebutted by Spencer, who would be re-rebutted by the Islamist…” I would welcome such a rebuttal, by the way, unless it were characterized by the torrents of abuse and sly deceptions and diversions that usually come to me from Islamic spokesmen in America, but the point is that while Derbyshire says he is persuaded, he evidently still suspects that I am just engaging in some kind of rhetorical sleight of hand.

And that is by no means the only inconsistency, alas, that mars his elegantly written and thoroughly entertaining review. Derbyshire asserts that “it can hardly be disputed that we have got into the mess we are in with Islam today not so much because of the letter of Islamic theology…as because we have executed policies of staggering idiocy.” Yet what is the nature of that staggering idiocy? The fact that “there are now tens of millions of Muslims living in Christian nations; and this is the case because our nations allowed the tens of millions to enter.” Yet why would that be a problem, if Islam were like Christianity – absurd but ultimately harmless at its core? Obviously the problem with allowing tens of millions of Muslims into the West has to do with “the letter of Islamic theology,” which Derbyshire dismissed as irrelevant just before complaining about the admission of so many adherents of what he sees as a wacky but unthreatening creed.
Derbyshire asks if it is “actually that important” to take on the “‘equivalence’ school of thought, the one that says that there isn’t anything to choose between Christianity and Islam in the way of militancy or obscurantism.” A few weeks ago I was on a TV show on France 24, where I explained that jihadists recruited among peaceful Muslims by referring to the teachings of the Qur’an and Sunnah and presenting themselves as the exponents of true or pure Islam. One of the other guests on the show then responded by asserting that there were passages of the Bible that were equally violent as anything in the Qur’an, and anyway, what about the Crusades? This kind of howling irrelevancy is extraordinarily common; even conservatives such as Ralph Peters, Arnaud de Borchgrave and Dinesh D’Souza have made similar statements on the way to claiming that it was misguided, futile, and somehow in poor taste to investigate the ways in which Islamic texts are used to incite violence. We are supposed to believe, as Christiane Amanpour’s recent CNN series would also have us believe, that all religious traditions have their nutcases, and all of them are marginal, discredited by the majority, and ultimately insignificant. But this – and I’m sure Mr. Derbyshire can appreciate this distinction – is a dogma, not an established fact. And if it is false (and it is), it may be blinding us in numerous ways to the nature and the magnitude of the problem we face, as well as to the steps we need to take to protect ourselves. This cuts both ways: if Christian theocrats are really the threat Chris Hedges, Barry Lynn, and Kevin Phillips think they are, it only plays into the sinister hands of the Bushitler to focus attention on the adherents of the Religion of Peace. This may seem irredeemably nutso to John Derbyshire, but Hedges’ book was a bestseller: considerable numbers of people out there are taking the Christian theocracy scare very, very seriously. So my book is an examination of both threats and both traditions, an examination that has clear, important, and numerous policy implications.
Derbyshire manifests no greater comprehension when denigrating my assertion that Christianity provided the philosophical framework within which modern science could grow and develop, and adduces a few miracle stories from the Bible as proof-texts to the contrary. He dismisses as “Catholic apologetics” without examination the entire extended discussion in my book of the view of God in Catholic scholastic philosophy as good and consistent, versus the Islamic view of Allah as absolute will, unrestricted by any requirement of consistency. The scholastic philosophers believed in miracles too, while managing to create a foundation for scientific investigation by positing this consistency. While I always admire the verve of his writing, I believe Derbyshire has given this point short shrift. “And even if it were true that the church midwifed science,” he says, “is it not the case that, following delivery of the newborn, the midwife’s services are no longer required?” The quip is nice; the thought, shallow. Is it not the case that science, unbounded by any moral sense, leads to dehumanization? (See Aldous Huxley for details.)
But I digress. The ringing peroration of Derbyshire’s review is his declaration that while “Islamia has sunk into the grip of a poisonous ideology—the ideology of jihadism—the Christian West (Spencer actually says ‘Judeo-Christian,’ but that is just a lagniappe) has been seized by an even more destructive ideology: globalization.” (Not a lagniappe at all, but that is a discussion for another time.) He claims that “a great enabler of globalization has been the Christian tradition. If all men are brothers, heathens only a little less enlightened than Christians, they why should not a Pakistani, or a Somali, or for that matter a Mexican, come to live in the U.S.A.?”
One may wonder, given this line of reasoning, why Catholic Europe, at the apex of its self-conscious religiosity, didn’t throw open its doors to the jihadist invaders instead of resisting them. One may wonder why the United States, governed in the main by Protestant Christians for the most part throughout its history, maintained relatively sane immigration policies until the 1960s. Were the Sixties, when immigration controls were effectively ended and globalization gained immense momentum, a time of some great Christian revival? In reality, Christianity has no inherent connection at all with open-borders insanity and globalization. No less prominent a Christian than St. Thomas Aquinas expressed the mainstream Christian view when he said that “after his duties towards God, man owes most to his parents and his country. One’s duties towards one’s parents include one’s obligations towards one’s relatives, because these latter have sprung from [or are connected by ties of blood with] one’s parents…and the services due to one’s country have for their object all one’s fellow-countrymen and all the friends of one’s fatherland.” An open-borders globalist? Not quite.
Then Derbyshire takes me to task for not offering any policy suggestions in this book, although he acknowledges that “possibly he has laid out a program in one of his other books (none of which I have read) and feels no need to repeat himself.” That is indeed the case, and perhaps I should have repeated myself, since the recommendations I have made in several books are no closer to being implemented now than they were when I wrote them. I am not asking Mr. Derbyshire to invest in my older books, as I do not wish to tax his patience unduly with an issue that he has previously described as “stupefyingly dull” (although of course to me my earlier books are jam-packed with boffo, riveting stuff, but never mind), so I’ll summarize them here: they include restrictions on Muslim immigration; a Manhattan Project to find new energy sources and free the U.S. from foreign policy dependence upon Saudi Arabia; an adjustment of our international alliances so as to make aid to states like Egypt and Pakistan contingent upon their actively limiting the teaching of the jihad ideology of Islamic supremacism within their borders; the reclassification of American Muslim groups as political groups, subject to all the scrutiny and accountability to which political groups are normally subject, given the intrinsic political nature of the Sharia; a call to Muslims in America to initiate comprehensive, transparent programs to teach against the aspects of Islam that are at variance with American law and values; and more.
I have said these things and more plainly in Onward Muslim Soldiers, The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades), and The Truth About Muhammad. I am not afraid, as Derbyshire posits, of being “cast out from the sphere of ‘acceptable’ commentary into the outer darkness of fringe politics and ‘hate groups’—a term which nowadays seems to embrace anyone who speaks unwelcome truths out loud.” For he is indeed correct that the “hate” label is readily affixed today to anyone who states truths that others find inconvenient for the public to know, and for those on both the Left and the Right (and yes, there are many on the Right) who allow themselves to be manipulated in this way I have nothing but contempt.
As for Derbyshire’s own prescriptions (offered if what I say is true, which he really isn’t sure about), some have a good deal to recommend them, and as he says, there is nothing inherently “immoral or improper” about them. (Others are pure foolishness: bribing Muslims to leave will only drain the treasury: once you start paying for something, you’ve established the need for a supply – almost certainly some would take the money, leave, and come back to take the money again.) They are, of course even more remote from current political reality than mine above, and they spring ultimately from Derbyshire’s lack of belief in the Transcendent: without confidence in the power of truth, there is nothing left but force. Muslims are here in the West, and the hard political reality is that there will only be more of them, and hence more jihadists and Islamic supremacists, in the coming years. We should continue to strive to bring the implications of our disastrous immigration policies and other manifestations of willful ignorance and foolishness to public notice, but we will not be able to rely on law and force alone to get us out of this fix. Thus one last bastion of hope that the Judeo-Christian West does have is that the heart and mind are not immutable. We will have to wage ideological battle on behalf of our threatened civilizational values – a battle for which we are well equipped, as I argue in Religion of Peace?, but which virtually no one is fighting. The truth will out, even against a relentless totalitarianism that appears inexorable. But only if we have the courage to defend it.
That truth, of course, is not coterminous with the desiccated and vacuous Christianity that prevails in so many places today. Derbyshire gets off some of his most engaging shots by playing up that hollow shell as the real thing: “If there were a proposal to impose Sharia law in your town, who would you rather see riding to your aid: Christopher Hitchens, or Bishop Muskens?” – that is, the befuddled Dutch bishop who recommends that Christians in the Netherlands, not hitherto known for speaking Arabic, begin to refer to God as “Allah” to please and pacify their Muslim neighbors. Answer: I’d fight alongside Hitchens in a heartbeat, if he would deign to fight alongside me, which is the real question. In my book, as Derbyshire notes, I call for an alliance with atheists, among others, but for his part I am not sure whether Hitchens would identify me as part of the problem or part of the solution. And there’s the problem: we know we’re under attack, but we have to figure out who or what the enemy is in order to be able to fight properly. Is it religious people? Religion itself? Islamic jihad? Christian theocracy? Determining the answer is the purpose of my book.
But John Derbyshire also wonders whether or not “the humane forbearance of the Prince of Peace, and the moral universalism that His teachings imply, bear the seeds of self-destruction,” and whether the followers of that Prince really have the strength to withstand the onslaught: “If—to put faces on the abstractions—Roger Cardinal Mahoney [sic] and his parishioners were to engage in a waste-lot rumble with Abu Ayyub al-Masri and his parishioners, on which party would Robert Spencer put his money?” On Al-Masri, of course. But aren’t you stacking the deck here a bit? What if Richard Coeur de Lion were to happen upon this waste-lot rumble? Charlemagne? St. Louis IX? Dietrich Bonhoeffer? Walter Ciszek? Alexander Solzhenitsyn? John Paul II?
“Christianity,” Derbyshire concludes, “got its start as a religion of slaves. Perhaps it is fated to end the same way.” Perhaps. But those slaves ultimately captured the empire that enslaved them, and transformed it.

please read this book review....and then go buy the book

2007-08-17T04:55:00.001-07:00

http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/017808.php#more

a review of a book i'm going to buy

2007-08-17T04:53:00.000-07:00

it's a book that ALOT of people I know should read and absorb...if you have children or grandchildren you should read it...it's their future that depends on the info contained therein

http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/017808.php#more

watch this video...

2007-08-13T11:22:00.000-07:00

yes there's a few jabs taken at the left...but these are some of the issues they need to address

ignore the very mild venom pointed at some of these elites they speak of...and listen to the weight of the argumeny presented

http://hotair.com/archives/2007/08/13/new-vent-michelle-interviews-robert-spencer-about-religion-of-peace-why-christianity-is-and-islam-isnt/

i will be posting some updates on life in general soon...but here's something to tide you all over...skim over if you feel so inclined

2007-08-08T05:05:00.000-07:00

By Bob ParksI am tired of apologizing. I am tired of apologizing to Muslims. It's not something that's happened overnight. It's taken a while, but now, no more apologies. We, as modern societies, have opened our borders to Muslims. What have we gotten in return? Demands. If we complain, we're called racists. We apologize. And why do we apologize? The fear of violence. That's right, I said it, and that's what most of you are thinking. How have we bent over backwards for Muslims? Here are some of the more recent examples:Three wives of a Qatari Sheik held up a flight bound for England because they refused to sit next to men they didn't know, demanding that other passengers switch seats in order to accommodate them. While British Airways ended up forcing the majority of the Sheik’s party to get off the plane because of the impasse, it took several hours to do so, thereby severely inconveniencing all of the other travelers.In San Diego, Muslim students demanded time to pray during the school day, so a second lunch period was created. Younger students will go to the first lunch period, and the older students and Muslims will go to the second. When was the last time anyone created anything special for a Christian? All that would bring is the old "separation of church and state" chant. We depend on taxis to take people home who have had a few too many adult beverages so they don't get behind the wheel. But some Muslim cabbies in Minneapolis didn't want to drive anyone who had consumed alcohol, and they also had a problem with Seeing Eye dogs, so they demanded they be allowed to kick the blind to the curb as well. In Germany, a judge actually ruled that a Moroccan man could beat his wife because it was legal. Not under German law, but under Shari’a law, so the judge cast aside German law as not to offend. In fact, some Muslims have publicly stated they want Shari’a law to become the law of the land in America. We in America celebrate "freedom of expression" and allow artists to paint pictures of the Virgin Mary splattered with elephant dung or place a crucifix in a jar of urine, but when a Danish newspaper artist created a cartoon of the Prophet Muhammad, all hell broke loose around the world. The paper’s editor eventually apologized but that wasn't enough. There were riots. Many were killed…over cartoons. And while I'm saying what many are thinking, but don't have the guts to say because it's politically incorrect, I’ll also add that violence is the one thing that seems to follow some Muslims around the most.There have been terror bombings at nightclubs and on trains in Bali and Madrid. Let's not forget about the riots in France. There are few Middle Eastern countries where suicide bombings aren't the flavor of the day. Killing an enemy or infidel is rewarded with a promised eternity with 70 regenerating virgins. (How many terror bombings do we have here in America compared to some other countries on a daily basis? We’ve been lucky so far.) There are many examples where people who have chosen to come to Western countries issue us demands. As thanks, we get more demands and the results are submission to them under the threat of possible violence. A lot of the time, we get the violence anyway. Some may call me intolerant. That would be the PC response. But I'm tired of being tolerant. It's gotten us nothing but more demands, censorship, and in some cases, death.Muslims come to our nations for freedom. To some, freedom means taking away ours. If they don't like the way we live, they are also free to leave any time they want. No apologies necessary.

a nice lil read

2007-08-07T15:51:00.000-07:00

A Tale Of Four Sermons
It seems like every month there is a new crisis in the Islamic world. Last month it was rioting, property damage, and 150 deaths over the publication of 12 cartoons five months earlier in a small Danish newspaper. This month the Islamic judiciary threatened to hang an Afghan because he converted to Christianity over 14 years ago. Pundits and scholars scramble to find explanations, and the rationalizations become more and more convoluted.
Most people have grown tired of the rationalizations, and are saying, “Show me the facts and data, and let me draw my own conclusions.” Without bogging this exercise down in the mass of literature covering all points of view, here are four actual sermons (edited for brevity) given by Jesus and Mohammed which people can read and understand for themselves. The first are the inaugural sermons of Jesus and Mohammed respectively. The last are the final recorded statements of the same two historical figures. Read them, and you can see the differences.
The Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5, 6, and 7)
Happy are those who know they are spiritually poor; the Kingdom of heaven belongs to them!
Happy are those who mourn; God will comfort them!
Happy are those who are humble; they will receive what God has promised!
Happy are those whose greatest desire is to do what God requires; God will satisfy them fully!
Happy are those who are merciful to others; God will be merciful to them! Happy are the pure in heart; they will see God!
Happy are those who work for peace; God will call them his children!
Happy are those who are persecuted because they do what God requires; the Kingdom of heaven belongs to them!
Happy are you when the people insult you and persecute you and tell all kinds of evil lies against you because you are my followers. Be happy and glad, for a great reward is kept for you in heaven. This is how the prophets before you were persecuted.
You are like salt for all mankind. But if salt loses its saltiness, there is no way to make it salty again. It has become worthless, so it is thrown out and people trample on it.
You are like light for the whole world. A city built on a hill cannot be hid. No one lights a lamp and puts it under a bowl; instead he puts it on the lampstand, where it gives light for everyone in the house. In the same way your light must shine before people, so that they will see the good things you do and praise your Father in heaven.
Do not think that I have come to do away with the Law of Moses and the teachings of the prophets. I have not come to do away with them, but to make their teachings come true. Remember that as long as heaven and earth last, not the least point nor the smallest detail of the Law will be done away with – not until the end of all things. So then, whoever disobeys even the least important of the commandments and teachers others to do the same, will be least in the Kingdom of heaven. I tell you, then, you will be able to enter the Kingdom of heaven only if you are more faithful than the teachers of the Law and the Pharisees in doing what God requires.
You have heard that people were told in the past, “Do not commit murder; anyone who does will be brought to trial. But now I tell you: whoever is angry with his brother will be brought to trial, whoever calls his brother ‘You good-for-nothing!’ will be brought before the Council, and whoever calls his brother a worthless fool will be in danger of going to the fire of hell. So if you are about to offer your gift to God at the altar and there you remember that your brother has something against you, leave your gift there in front of the altar, go at once and make peace with your brother, and then come back and offer your gift to God.
You have heard that it was said, “Love your friends, hate your enemies.” But now I tell you: love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may become the sons of your Father in heaven. For he makes his sun to shine on the bad and good people alike, and gives rain to those who do good and to those who do evil. Why should God reward you if you love only the people who love you? Even the tax collectors do that! And if you speak only to your friends, have you done anything out of the ordinary? Even the pagans do that ! You must be perfect—just as your Father in heaven is perfect.
Make sure you do not perform your religious duties in public so that people will see what you do. If you do these things publicly, you will not have any reward from your Father in heaven.
So when you give something to a needy person, do not make a big show of it, as the hypocrites do in the houses of worship and on the streets. They do it so that people will praise them. I assure you, they have already been paid in full. But when you help a needy person, do it in such a way that even your closest friend will not know about it. Then it will be a private matter. And your Father, who sees what you do in private, will reward you.
Mohammed’s First Friday Sermon in Medina (Tabari, Vol. VII, No.1258)
Praise be to Allah. I praise him, and call on him for help, forgiveness and guidance. I believe in him, do not deny him and am an enemy of whoever denies him. I bear witness that there is no deity but Allah alone, without partner, and that Mohammed [sic] is his servant and his Messenger, whom he has sent with guidance, light and exhortation after an interval in the appearance of messengers, at a time when knowledge is scarce, men are led astray, time is cut short, the Last Hour is at hand and the End is close. Whoever obeys Allah and his Prophet has been rightly guided; whoever disobeys them has erred, been remiss and gone far astray. I recommend to you the fear of Allah, for the best thing which a Muslim can enjoin upon a Muslim is that he should exhort him to seek the Other World and command him to fear Allah. Beware of what Allah has warned you against concerning himself. There is no better advice than this and no better admonition. The fear of Allah, for whoever acts according to it in fear and dread of his Lord, is a trusty aid to what you desire of the Other World. He who sets aright what is between him and his Lord in secret and in public, seeking nothing thereby but the face of Allah, will be remembered in this world, and will have a treasure in that which is after death. Then a man will have need of that good which he has done previously; and as for that which is otherwise, he will wish that there was a great distance between him and it. Allah warns you to beware of himself, but Allah is merciful to his servants and to those who believe his word and fulfill his promises. Allah says: “The sentence that cometh from me cannot be changed, and I am in no wise a tyrant unto my servants.” Fear Allah, then, in this world and the next, in secret and in public. He who fears Allah will have his evil deeds forgiven and his reward magnified; he will achieve a great success. The fear of Allah will ward off Allah’s hatred and retribution and wrath. The fear of Allah will make people blameless in the sight of Allah, will please the Lord and will raise their degree. Seize hold of your portion, and do not be remiss with regard to Allah. Allah has caused you to know his Book and has opened his path before you in order that he may know those who speak the truth and those who lie. Act well, then, as Allah has acted well with you. Be enemies of his enemies, and strive on Allah’s behalf in the way to which he is entitled. He has chosen you and named you Muslims, “that he who perished (on that day) might perish by a clear proof (of his sovereignty) and he who survived might survive by clear proof.” There is no power but with Allah. Remember Allah frequently and act for the sake of that which is after today; for he who sets aright which is between him and Allah will have that which is between him and other men taken care of by Allah. That is because Allah pronounces judgment upon men whereas they do not pronounce judgment upon him, and because Allah rules men whereas they do not rule him. Allah is most great. There is no might but with Allah the great.
Happiness vs. Fear:
Jesus: mentions happiness 10 times
Mohammed: mentions fear 8 times, beware 2 times
Enemies:
Jesus: love your enemies
Mohammed: Be enemies of Allah’s enemies
Public worship:
Jesus: Do not perform your religious duties in public. Those who do so will not have any reward from God in heaven.
Mohammed: He who sets right with Allah in public and in private will be remembered in this world and will have treasure in the next.
Reconciliation:
Jesus: make peace with your brother
Mohammed: If you are right with Allah, what is between you and other men will be taken care of by Allah

Jesus’ Final Statements to His Disciples (John 13 - 16)
My children, I shall not be with you very much longer. You will look for me; but I tell you now what I told the Jewish authorities, “You cannot go where I am going.” And now I give you a new commandment: love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another, then everyone will know that you are my disciples. . . .
I am the way, the truth, and the life; no one goes to the Father except by me. Believe me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me. If not, believe because of the things I do. I am telling you the truth: whoever believes in me will do what I do – yes, he will do even greater things, because I am going to the Father. And I will do whatever you ask for in my name, so that the Father’s glory will be shown through the Son. If you ask me for anything in my name, I will do it.
My commandment is this: love one another, just as I love you. The greatest love a person can have for his friends is to give his life for them. And you are my friends if you do what I command you. I do not call you servants any longer, because a servant does not know what h is master is doing. Instead, I call you friends, because I have told you everything I heard from my Father. You did not choose me, I chose you and appointed you to go and bear much fruit, the kind of fruit that endures. And so the Father will give you whatever you ask of him in my name. This, then, is what I command you: love one another.
If the world hates you, just remember that it has hated me first. If you belonged to the world, then the world would love you as its own. But I chose you from this world, and you do not belong to it; that is why the world hates you. They would not have been guilty of sin if I had not come and spoken to them; as it is, they no longer have any excuse for their sin. Whoever hates me hates my Father also. This, however, was bound to happen so that what is written in their Law may come true: ‘They hated me for no reason at all.’
I have told you this, so that you will not give up your faith. You will be expelled from the synagogues, and the time will come when anyone who kills you will think that by doing this he is serving God. People will do these things to you because they have not known either the Father or me. But I have told you this, so that when the time comes for them to do these things, you will remember what I told you.
I have told you this so that you will have peace by being united to me. The world will make you suffer. But be brave! I have defeated the world!
Mohammed’s final sermon (al-Tabari, Vol IX, No. 1754)
O people, listen to my words. I do not know whether I shall ever meet you again in this place after this year. O people, your blood and your property are sacrosanct until you meet your Lord, just as this day and this month of yours are sacred. Surely you will meet your Lord and He will question you about your deeds. I have [already] made this known. Let he who has a pledge return it to the one who entrusted him with it; all usury is abolished, but your capital belongs to you. Wrong not and you shall not be wronged. Allah has decreed that there will be no usury, and the usury of Abbas b. Abd al-Muttalib is abolished, all of it. All blood shed in the pre-Islamic days is to be left unavenged. The first such claim I revoke is that of Ibn Rabiah b. al-Harith b. Abd al-Muttalib, who was nursed among the Banu Layth and was slain by the Banu Hudhayl. His is the first blood shed in the pre-Islamic days with which I shall set an example. O people, indeed Satan despairs of ever being worshipped in this land of yours. He will be pleased, however, if he is obeyed in a thing other than that, in matters you minimize. So beware of him in your religion, O people, intercalculating a month is an increase in unbelief whereby the unbelievers go astray; one year they make it profane, and hallow it another [in order] to agree with the number that Allah has hallowed, and so profane what Allah has hallowed, and hallow what Allah has made profane. Time has completed its cycle [and is] as it was on the day that Allah created the heavens and the earth. The number of the months with Allah is twelve; [they were] in the Book of Allah on the day He created the heavens and the earth. Four of them are sacred, the three consecutive [months] and the Rajab [which is the month of] Mudar, which is between Jumada and Sha’ban.
Now then, O people, you have a right over your wives and they have a right over you. You have [the right] that they should not cause anyone of whom you dislike to tread on your beds; and that they should not commit any open indecency. If they do, then Allah permits you to shut them in separate rooms and to beat them, but not severely. If they abstain from [evil], they have the right to their food and clothing in accordance with the custom. Treat women well, for they are [like] domestic animals with you and do not possess anything for themselves. You have taken them only as a trust from Allah, and you have made the enjoyment of their persons lawful by the word of Allah, so understand and listen to my words, O people. I have conveyed the Message, and have left you with something which, if you hold fast to it, you will never go astray; that is, the Book of Allah and the sunnah of his Prophet. Listen to my words, O people, for I have conveyed the Message and understand [it]. Know for certain that every Muslim is a brother of another Muslim, and that all Muslims are brethren. It is not lawful for a person [to take] from his brother except that which he has given him willingly, so do not wrong yourselves. O Allah, have I not conveyed the message?
Jesus’ issues:
Love for one another
Followers are friends, not servants
Bearing fruit that endures
Understanding the world’s hatred for Christians
Preparing for people who will kill thinking they are serving God
Mohammad’s issues:
Settling debts, but forbidding usury
Amnesty for bloodshed occurring in pre-Islamic days
Preserving the Islamic calendar (which is 11 days short of a solar year)
Treatment of wives (like domestic animals)
Ordaining the Koran and the Sunnah (words/actions of the Prophet) as basis for Laws
Muslims are brothers of one another

please remember for the sake of argument that i am an anti theist

2007-08-05T06:21:00.000-07:00

We Must Overcome Our Fear of Islam
by Gary Bauer
Posted: 08/03/2007
Print This
Forward
Feedback
Digg This!
Subscribe
Sponsored By:

What do you call a photograph of a small plastic crucifix submerged in a glass of urine? If you’re part of the liberal establishment, you might call it “modern art” worthy of a generous taxpayer-funded grant. Or how about the burning of an American flag in a protest? Our courts say that act is protected as freedom of speech.

Now, what do you call a Koran submerged in a toilet? If you were part of the liberal elite, you’d call it a “hate-crime” and a felony punishable by up to two years in prison. Perhaps you remember my first example. “Piss Christ” was the blasphemous photograph that won an art competition and $15,000 from the National Endowment for the Arts. But you may not yet have heard about the student at Pace University in New York who was arrested last week on charges of criminal mischief and aggravated harassment (both felonies) for twice throwing a Koran into university toilets. Pace University -- which stands just four blocks from Ground Zero in Manhattan and lost four students and over 40 alumni on September 11, 2001 -- initially classified the incidents as vandalism. But after some prodding by Muslim students and the perpetually outraged Council for American Islamic Relations, university officials capitulated and referred the matter to the New York City Police Department’s Hate Crimes Task Force, which, naturally, deemed the student’s actions “hate crimes.” Ridiculous as they are, these stories help highlight a perverse double standard that has emerged in recent years, one that elevates Islam to a protected status, while continuing to treat Christianity as the source of all that ails America. The double standard explains why Kansas City International Airport recently added several foot washing basins in restrooms to accommodate Muslim taxi cab drivers who use them to prepare for daily Islamic prayer. It also makes clear why Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport allows Muslim taxi cab drivers to refuse to carry passengers possessing alcoholic beverages or accompanied by seeing-eye dogs, because in Islam, alcohol is forbidden, and dogs are considered unclean. Meanwhile, last Christmas the Seattle-Tacoma Airport removed its Christmas trees because of their religious symbolism.Even worse is the double standard in some of America’s public schools, where an intense effort to “Islamicize” curricula and textbooks is underway. In California, groups like the Council on Islamic Education and the Islamic Society of North America have succeeded in integrating the fundamentals of reading and writing with lessons about the life of Muhammad and the finer points of Sharia Law. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recently decided that parents of Christian students could not sue a school district where seventh-graders pretended to be Muslims for three weeks during a course in world history. The court -- the same one which previously ruled that the words “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance are “unconstitutional” -- insisted that the role-playing game, which included having children recite Muslim prayers and lines from the Koran, did not violate anybody’s constitutional rights. In fact, the Ninth Circuit (incidentally the most overturned appeals court in the country) declared that the activities weren’t “overt religious exercises” that would raise concerns under the First Amendment prohibition of “establishment of religion.”While it is easy to see that a religious double standard exists among our elites, identifying its source is rather more difficult. A misplaced multiculturalism and habitual anti-Christian bigotry are certainly parts of the problem, but its primary source is fear. It’s a fear that stems from the knowledge that behind each public statement of outrage and press release alleging desecration of the Koran, behind each cry for equality and respect, there is an underlying threat of violence. This fear is certainly rational, because radical Muslims have proven time and time again that perceived affronts to Islam, if not fully atoned for, may be answered with violence. Fear prevents the mainstream media -- which no doubt remember the fate of journalists killed for publishing cartoons deemed insulting to Islam -- from linking blatant acts of Islamic terrorism in the United States to religion. When 22-year-old Muslim student Mohammed Reza Taheri-azar deliberately rammed his SUV into a crowd at the University of North Carolina in order to, in his words, “punish the government of the U.S.” for invading Iraq and other Muslim nations, most of the media were silent as to the cause. When in court Taheri-azar insisted his rampage was the “will of Allah,” some in the media still seemed dumbfounded, calling the actions of this unassuming honors student “inexplicable.”Fear also explains, though scarcely justifies, why Pace University officials reacted so harshly to the Koran-dunking incident. (The offending student could face four years in prison.) Perhaps University officials recall how Newsweek’s story falsely claiming that American interrogators at Guantanamo Bay had flushed a copy of the Koran down a toilet sparked deadly demonstrations in Afghanistan and violent protests throughout the Middle East. Meanwhile, the liberal establishment can continue mocking evangelicals and spouting anti-Christian bigotry without fear of reprisal. When talk show host Rosie O’Donnell alleged that, “…radical Christianity is just as threatening as radical Islam in a country like America,” her vitriol was met not with murderous threats or violent demonstrations but with verbal responses refuting the substance of her claim. Christians responded similarly this spring when Burlington Township High School in New Jersey held a mock terror attack and chose to portray the bad guys as members of a right-wing fundamentalist group called the “New Crusaders.” The school said the group did not believe in separation of church and state and was seeking justice because the daughter of one of its members had been expelled for praying before class. I am not aware of any Christian group that has violently taken over a school anywhere in the world. But there are frequent attacks by Islamists on teachers and students. Yet the school’s authorities felt no hesitancy in labeling Christians as potential terrorists. The double standard tells us a lot about America’s elites. They cower before Islam while bashing the faith held by the great majority of Americans.

meet Ayaan

2007-08-04T18:30:00.000-07:00

My View of Islam
On holy war, apostasy and the rights of women in Islam.
The undisputed definition of Islam by all her adherents is “submission to the will of Allah.” This divine will is outlined in the Koran and in the teachings and deeds of Muhammad, as recorded in the Hadith or Sunna.
While the Koran is considered to be the true, undiluted word of God revealed to Muhammad through the angel Gabriel, the Sunna carry less weight and have always been a cause for disagreement amongst Muslim scholars. Theologians of Islam have, however, reached consensus on the authority of a set of six volumes from the Sunna called the Sahih Sita, or authentic six.
On the issues of holy war (jihad), apostasy and the treatment of women, the Koran and Sunna are clear. It is the obligation of every Muslim to spread Islam to unbelievers first through dawa, or proselytizing, then through jihad, if the unbelievers refuse to convert. It is the obligation of the unbelievers to accept Islam. Exempted from this edict of conversion are the people of the book: Christians and Jews. Both peoples have a choice. They may adopt Islam and enjoy the same rights as other Muslims, or they may stick to their book and lead the life of a dhimmi (lower citizen). Legally, the rights of the dhimmi are not equal to those of a Muslim. For instance, a Muslim man may take a Jewish or Christian wife, but Jews and Christians are not allowed to marry Muslim women. If a Christian or a Jew kills a Muslim man, they should be killed immediately. In contrast, the blood of a Muslim should never be shed in recompense for the blood of Christians or Jews.
It is also the obligation of every Muslim to command virtue and forbid vice. Apostasy, the worst possible vice a Muslim can commit, should be punished by death. The punishment need not be carried out by a state, but can easily be enforced by civilians. When it is a question of Islamic law, justice is in the hands of every Muslim.
As for the treatment of women, in the Koran and more elaborately in the Sunna, Islam assigns to girls a position in the family that requires them to be docile, makes them dependent on their male relatives for money and gives dominion over their bodies to these same male kin.In Islam there is a strict hierarchy of subservience. First and foremost, all humans are required to be the slaves of Allah. In Muslim societies, all children must obey their parents. Beyond this, women and girls must obey and serve without question their male guardians and especially their husbands. This decree of marital obedience is not in any way reciprocal.
A woman in Islam is not competent and must always have a guardian. The responsibility of guardianship may pass from father to brother to uncle before a girl is married off, at which point she must answer to her husband. Marriage is typically arranged, with no choice given to the girl, and there is often an exchange of money in the process. Thus, under the religious rule of Islam, it is still common today that a woman’s rights are essentially sold to a man she may not know, and most likely does not love.
As for education of girls under Islam, there is a clear program of indoctrination of inequality. Under Islam, education is the passing on of the rules of submission to the will of Allah. Intrinsic in this “education” is the dictation of gender roles. Girls are instructed in subservience first to God, then to the family and finally to the husband. There is strict emphasis on modesty, defined by virginity. A Muslim girl is taught to guard fiercely her virginity as an expression of loyalty to her creator and to her family and husband.
This form of education hampers her chances of ever becoming self-reliant or financially independent. A woman’s lack of social equality and freedom is a direct consequence of the teachings of Islam. Under Islam, a wife must always ask her husband for permission and she must obey indefinitely. This stricture is lifted in the unique event that he asks her to forsake God, wherein she is allowed the right of disobedience. While it is true that in Islam, technically speaking, women have the right to trade and own property, the condition of total obedience to guardians makes this “freedom” hypothetical, at best.
The goal of education given to girls under Islam is the achievement of control over female sexuality. The result of this indoctrination is that Muslim girls believe legitimate and often vocally defend their position of subordination. The lengths a Muslim society will go to in the pursuit of sexual control often cross into the territory of the absurd and, by western standards, criminal. In Islam the minimum age of marriage for a girl is after her first menstruation. Muhammad was engaged to his wife Aisha when she was six years old, and he married her (had intercourse with her) when she turned nine. Millions of Muslim men across the world follow Muhammad in this deed, one of the most prominent examples being the late Ayatollah Khomeini.
Under sharia law (Islamic law), such as governs in Saudi Arabia, Iran and parts of Nigeria, the civil rights of women are dramatically reduced. Threat of violent punishment in the form of whipping and stoning makes the prospect of financial independence and sexual freedom for women all but impossible. Miraculously, even in such harsh circumstances you will find women who are relatively well educated, have some say in choosing a husband and manage to earn a living. Let us be clear that these exceptions are due to the compassion and progressiveness of families who have been influenced by the West, and not to rules derived from Islam.In the quest for reconciliation between Muslim and western societies, it is important to recognize that Muslims are as diverse as Islam is monolithic. Islam attempts to unify more than a billion people of different geographical origins, languages, ethnicities, and cultural and educational backgrounds into one religious tribe. And while I acknowledge that generally stereotyping believers is difficult since belief is subjective, for the sake of discussion I would like to distinguish between five types of Muslims.
The first group includes those Muslims who leave the faith because they cannot reconcile it with their conscience or with modernity. This group is important for the evolution of the Islamic world because they ask the urgent and critical questions believers usually avoid. Ex-Muslims living in the west are just beginning to find their voice and to take advantage of the spiritual and social freedoms available to them.
The second group is comprised of genuine Muslim reformers, such as Irshad Manji, who acknowledge the theological out-datedness of the Koranic commands and the immorality of the prophet. They tend to emphasize the early chapters in the Koran urging goodness, generosity and spirituality. They argue that the latter chapters wherein Islam is politicized and the concepts of sharia, jihad and martyrdom are introduced should be read in the context in which they were written, some 1,400 years ago.
The third group is made up of those Muslims who support the gradual perpetuation and domination of Islam throughout the world. They use the freedoms offered in democracy to undermine social modernity and, though initially opposed to the use of violence, foresee that once the number of believers reaches a critical mass the last remnants of unbelievers may then be dealt with in violence, and sharia law may be universally implemented. Ayatollah Khomeini used this method successfully in Iran. Erdogan of Turkey is following in his footsteps. Tariq Ramadan, deeply rooted in his Muslim Brotherhood heritage, is devoted to such a program among European Muslims.
The fourth group is the most obvious and immediately threatening. In this group we find a growing number of hard-line Muslims who have defined martyrdom as their only goal. This is an army of young men whipped into a frenzy of suicidal violence by power hungry clergy. These clergy have public platforms and work with impunity from institutions untouched and often funded by national authorities.
The fifth group is largely ineffective and only threatening in their refusal to acknowledge the truth. Here we find the elite clergy who make a show of trying to reconcile Islam with modernity. They are motivated by self-preservation and have no interest in true reform. They take selective passages from the holy books to make a case for a peaceful Islam, ignoring the many passages inciting violence, such as those verses which command the death of apostates.
It is through the first two of these five groups that progress and reform will come. As for the rest, the western world would be wise to recognize the realities of Islam, a religion laid down in writing over a millennium ago with violence and oppression at its heart.
Born in Somalia and raised a devout Muslim, Ayaan Hirsi Ali is an active critic of Islam, an advocate for women’s rights and a leader in the campaign to reform Islam. Her willingness to speak out and her abandonment of the Muslim faith have made her a target for violence and threat of death by Islamic extremists. She is currently a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, in Washington D.C., and is the author of the bestselling memoir "Infidel."

this is a contributing factor to why we ( as a nation ) seem to crumble so easily to special interest groups

2007-08-01T20:24:00.000-07:00

Like al sharpton , cair , jesse jackson...you know the types i'm getting at

Behavioral science recognizes various categories of behavior, one of which is referred to as "avoidance" behavior. This is behavior where the an organism has learned to respond to a stimulus before it is delivered. In the classic example, a rat is put into a two section box with a light bulb and a metal grid floor in each section.The subject is put into one section, the light is lit, and an electric shock is delivered to the section's grid. The rat quickly learns to leap to the other section when the light goes on and before the shock is delivered to the grid. The rat thus avoids the shock.
Avoidance behaviors are the most difficult to extinguish as the trained subject responds without the delivery of the noxious stimulus.
I believe this is the underlying behavioral advantage of victims advocacy groups. Most people prefer to avoid confrontation or fear of confrontation so they are trained, often subconciously, to avoid members of victims groups or to quickly yeild to their demands.

keep an eye on things folks...if this shit keeps up i could be thrown in jail for what i post on this blog

2007-08-01T11:01:00.000-07:00

Flushed Korans and Protected Victims
By Robert SpencerFrontPageMagazine.com 8/1/2007
A 23-year-old student at Pace University, Stanislav Shmulevich, was arrested Friday and charged with two felony counts of Criminal Mischief in the Fourth Degree as a Hate Crime. Numerous analysts have been quick to recognize the cruel irony of these charges. Mark Steyn quipped that instead of flushing the Qur’an, “obviously Mr Shmulevich should have submerged it in his own urine, applied for an NEA grant and offered it to the Whitney Biennial. But to that Michelle Malkin responded with the grim truth: “Actually, no. The NEA would have turned Shmulevich in to the police, too. Now, if he had submerged a Bible in urine or coated a Torah in cow dung and submitted it for a federal grant, he’d be sitting pretty–and facing rave New York Times editorials instead of time behind bars.”
And that’s why, as Christopher Hitchens said, “This has to stop, and it has to stop right now. There can be no concession to sharia in the United States. When will we see someone detained, or even cautioned, for advocating the burning of books in the name of God? If the police are honestly interested in this sort of ‘hate crime,’ I can help them identify those who spent much of last year uttering physical threats against the republication in this country of some Danish cartoons.”
Indeed, it has to stop. For all the examples of the double standard that he, Malkin and others have brought forth – from Piss Christ to Chris Ofili’s Turner-Prize-winning, elephant-dung and pornography-bedecked Virgin Mary and the rest – emphasize the fact that the real agenda of today’s dominant politically correct culture is certainly not tolerance, or even anything-goes moral relativism. Some things most emphatically don’t go, as Stanislav Shmulevich’s two felony charges indicate. As a cultural movement, political correctness and multiculturalism are emphatically anti-Western and anti-Christian. And they are also suicidal.
But it is not going to stop. As mad as the felony charges against him are, Stanislav Shmulevich most likely is not the end of anything, but rather the beginning. We are unlikely as a society to become a place in which disrespect or even hatred of Christianity comes to be regarded as just as dangerous to the social order as disrespect or hatred of Islam, and we are just as unlikely to return to a saner time when one could not be prosecuted for disliking someone else’s beliefs (in which case Shmulevich would have to pay for the books, and for any necessary plumbing work, but that would be all). We have become a society of sacrosanct protected classes whose victim status places them above all criticism. Those individuals and groups who do not enjoy victim status can be shredded with impunity in the public square, and the shredders are hailed as “courageous,” “iconoclastic,” and “irreverent.” But if the protected group is criticized in any way, we are told that the criticism creates a climate of “hostility” and “hate” that can culminate in yet more victimization.
The Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) has worked assiduously for years to claim this protected victim status for Muslims, and its reaction to this incident has allowed them to articulate how they want Muslims in America to be regarded. CAIR-NY Civil Rights Coordinator Aliya Latif said: “We must all be concerned when any actions cross the line from protected free speech to acts designed to intimidate. Just as there is a difference between someone burning a cross in their own backyard and burning that same cross in the yard of an African-American family, there is a difference between desecrating a religious text in a private setting and doing so in a setting that will create a hostile learning environment.” Muslims are the new blacks, and CAIR is the new NAACP; this statement is of a piece with CAIR’s annual hate crimes report, which attempts, often in quite imaginative ways, to project an image of Muslims as bravely going about their daily lives in an American society that is inveterately hostile, racist, and on the verge of breaking out into open violence against them.
Yet this is nothing more than a myth. A potent one, to be sure, but a myth. Muslims are not being lynched, or persecuted, or discriminated against in America. Time and time again breathless media-amplified fears of “backlash” against Muslims prove unfounded, and Muslims continue to practice their faith here with more freedom than they enjoy in most of the countries from which they came. That’s why Stanislav Shmulevich and his flushed Qur’ans are a windfall for American Muslim advocacy groups: he has now validated the victim status they so doggedly claim. And until the American public discourse can dare to break away from the protected-victim model and its subtext of white Christian guilt, these groups will experience many more such windfalls, whenever someone acts obnoxiously or boorishly toward any Muslim or Islamic object. The American public square today simply has no apparatus for dealing with the possibility that the protected victims might be perpetrating evil themselves. The cognitive dissonance regarding Muslims since 9/11 is ultimately what has given birth to 9/11 conspiracy theories, Reichstag fire analogies, and the like. Muslims can’t be responsible, because they are non-white, non-Christian, non-Westerners. It must be something we have done.
Most ominous of all is the fact that policymakers at the highest levels assume this. Western leaders routinely assume that money will defeat terrorism: that alleviating poverty in the Islamic world will end the jihad. This assumption rests on a further assumption: that the jihad imperative doesn’t arise from anything within the Islamic world that would still be present even if the West somehow began to treat Muslims better. For Muslims are victims, and Westerners are the guilty party.
That is the West’s guiding myth. It is why desecration of the Bible will continue to be celebrated as art, and desecration of the Qur’an as a “hate crime.” So also is an objective examination of the elements of Islam that jihadists use today to incite to violence, for that violence is all the fault of the guilty post-Christians of Europe and America.
If the West is to survive the challenge of the global jihad, this foundational myth must be brought out into the open, repudiated, and decisively rejected.
Robert Spencer is a scholar of Islamic history, theology, and law and the director of Jihad Watch. He is the author of six books, seven monographs, and hundreds of articles about jihad and Islamic terrorism, including Islam Unveiled: Disturbing Questions About the World’s Fastest Growing Faith and the New York Times Bestsellers The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades) and The Truth About Muhammad.

2007-07-29T18:31:00.000-07:00

i'm gonna be following this story closely

2007-07-29T12:07:00.001-07:00

the reason being is this is going to define what is considered a "hate crime" and what is considered free protected speech, I have two qurans and may be posting some interesting or videos in the not too distant future in protest of the flagrant abuse of our legal system and demands for special protected rights over non muslims by muslims in a democracy where everyone has to take their lumps,jews and christians handle things like this far better than these whiney little college students....shame on them

this poor guy is gonna suffer for his "freedom" to express his opinion

thanks to http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/

for bringing issues like this to light...in the MSM this will most definetly be played off in a completely different way...one that will try to paint this young man as something he probably is no.....where is the aclu with this one?

Pace University Koran Case - Unbelievably Outrageous
I’ve received an email from Stanislav Shmulevich, who has been arrested in New York for putting a Koran in a toilet at Pace University. And his case is even more outrageous than we first reported.
First, Shmulevich was arrested and jailed for 24 hours. Second, he’s not facing misdemeanor charges—he’s being charged with two felonies, criminal mischief and aggravated harassment.
Felonies. For putting a book in a toilet.
Third, his income is on a borderline that disqualifies him for a public defender, so he stands to suffer incredible financial hardship as well.
Fourth, his name and photograph were published in several newspapers in New York, and he and his mother were ambushed outside the court by reporters. In a case like this, clearly with the potential to enrage radical Muslims, this is so irresponsible of the media that it borders on criminal.
Do we still live in a country that values free speech? This case is pretty good evidence that we do not. Mr. Shmulevich is caught in a Kafkaesque nightmare right out of the Soviet Union, and it’s all happening at the demand of the Muslim Student Association and the Council on American Islamic Relations.
Stay tuned. This is not over. I’m setting up Mr. Shmulevich with an LGF account, and you’ll be able to discuss it with him in person.
Background information: Outrage of the Week: Arrested for Desecrating a Koran

sharia law in the US?

2007-07-28T10:06:00.001-07:00

so much for free speech and expression

Outrage of the Week: Arrested for Desecrating a Koran
This is completely insane.
It's now officially a mindcrime in the United States to violate Islamic law. At Pace University, a man has been arrested and will face "hate crime" charges for throwing a Koran into a toilet, after the university caved in to demands from Muslim students: Hate-crime arrests in Quran desecrations at Pace University.
NEW YORK (AP) _ A 23-year-old man was arrested Friday on hate-crime charges after he threw a Quran in a toilet at Pace University on two separate occasions, police said.
Stanislav Shmulevich of Brooklyn was arrested on charges of criminal mischief and aggravated harassment, both hate crimes, police said. It was unclear if he was a student at the school. A message left at the Shmulevich home was not immediately returned.
The Islamic holy book was found in a toilet at Pace's lower Manhattan campus by a teacher on Oct. 13. A student discovered another book in a toilet on Nov. 21, police said.
Muslim activists had called on Pace University to crack down on hate crimes after the incidents. As a result, the university said it would offer sensitivity training to its students.
The school was accused by Muslim students of not taking the incident seriously enough at first. Pace classified the first desecration of the holy book as an act of vandalism, but university officials later reversed themselves and referred the incident to the New York Police Department's hate crimes unit.
CAIR is involved in this: Koran Found in Toilet, CAIR Springs Into Action.
Other LGF articles about Pace University's nauseating dhimmitude: This Just In: Second Koran Found in Toilet at NY University! Koran in a Toilet: Now an Official Hate Crime Pace University Threatens Hillel for Showing 'Obsession'
(Hat tip: Purple Wombats.)
UPDATE at 7/28/07 8:34:26 am:
Contact information for Pace University is here: Pace University - About Us - Contact Us.

uhhhhh...something is rotten in amherst NH

2007-07-26T17:54:00.000-07:00

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YjRhZjYwMjU4MGY5ODJmM2MzNGNhNzljMzk4ZDFiYmQ=

Stanley Kurtz has an excellent article on the very disturbing infiltration of Saudi ideology into America’s educational system: Saudi in the Classroom.
Unless we counteract the influence of Saudi money on the education of the young, we’re going to find it very difficult to win the war on terror. I only wish I was referring to Saudi-funded madrassas in Pakistan. Unfortunately, I’m talking about K-12 education in the United States. Believe it or not, the Saudis have figured out how to make an end-run around America’s K-12 curriculum safeguards, thereby gaining control over much of what children in the United States learn about the Middle East. While we’ve had only limited success paring back education for Islamist fundamentalism abroad, the Saudis have taken a surprising degree of control over America’s Middle-East studies curriculum at home.
How did they do it? Very carefully...and very cleverly. It turns out that the system of federal subsidies to university programs of Middle East Studies (under Title VI of the Higher Education Act) has been serving as a kind of Trojan horse for Saudi influence over American K-12 education. Federally subsidized Middle East Studies centers are required to pursue public outreach. That entails designing lesson plans and seminars on the Middle East for America’s K-12 teachers. These university-distributed teaching aids slip into the K-12 curriculum without being subject to the normal public vetting processes. Meanwhile, the federal government, which both subsidizes and lends its stamp of approval to these special K-12 course materials on the Middle East, has effectively abandoned oversight of the program that purveys them (Title VI).
Enter the Saudis. By lavishly funding several organizations that design Saudi-friendly English-language K-12 curricula, all that remains is to convince the “outreach coordinators” at prestigious, federally subsidized universities to purvey these materials to America’s teachers. And wouldn’t you know it, outreach coordinators or teacher-trainers at a number of university Middle East Studies centers have themselves been trained by the very same Saudi-funded foundations that design K-12 course materials. These Saudi-friendly folks happily build their outreach efforts around Saudi-financed K-12 curricula.
So let’s review. The United States government gives money — and a federal seal of approval — to a university Middle East Studies center. That center offers a government-approved K-12 Middle East studies curriculum to America’s teachers. But in fact, that curriculum has been bought and paid for by the Saudis, who may even have trained the personnel who operate the university’s outreach program. Meanwhile, the American government is asleep at the wheel — paying scant attention to how its federally mandated public outreach programs actually work. So without ever realizing it, America’s taxpayers end up subsidizing — and providing official federal approval for — K-12 educational materials on the Middle East that have been created under Saudi auspices. Game, set, match: Saudis.
This article explains and illuminates a story we covered last June, when a school in New Hampshire held an “open tent” night for 7th graders, complete with male-female segregation and repressive clothes for the girls, inspired by a free trip to Saudi Arabia for their teacher: New Hampshire Dhimmitude Update: Aramco Sponsoring Teacher Trips to Saudi Arabia.

our "friends" the saudis

2007-07-26T04:55:00.001-07:00

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YjRhZjYwMjU4MGY5ODJmM2MzNGNhNzljMzk4ZDFiYmQ=

YAY !

2007-07-25T18:53:00.001-07:00

I'm happy to report that chris has found herself a good job here ! she will be working for-Cumberland county partnership for children-
so I guess her interview went well !!!
congrats wifey..I knew ya could do it ! she starts monday....and will spend some time tomorrow doing paperwork and such...and the rest of the week is officially vacation time !
Congrats hun !!!!!!

a follow up

2007-07-25T18:49:00.000-07:00

"John Doe" provision: hold your euphoria
The "John Doe" provision protecting passengers who report suspicious behavior is back -- or is it? Paul Green at GreensPiece reports a disturbing element of the new version:
My initial euphoria at the revivification of the "John Doe" protection provision in the Homeland Security bill is much tempered by a look at the actual language to which its opponents agreed. It has quite enough wiggle room to enable the sort of mischief at which attorneys and grievance activists have become adept.
Moreover, any hopes that this measure, if passed, is going to "nullify, in part" the "flying imams" lawsuit (an outcome predicted by Washington Times reporter Audrey Hudson at http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070725/NATION/70725003/1001) are likely to be dashed. The devil is in the details:
"Any person who, in good faith and based on objectively reasonable suspicion, makes or causes to be made, a voluntary report of covered activity to an authorized official shall be immune from civil liability under federal, state, and local law for such report."
http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070725/NATION/70725003/1001&template=nextpage
The problem, as Allahpundit points out at http://hotair.com/archives/2007/07/25/john-doe-provision-the-final-language, is the phrase "objectively reasonable suspicion." This differs from Rep. Peter King's stand-alone version of the bill, H.R. 2291, which reads:
"Any person who, in good faith, makes, or causes to be made, a voluntary disclosure of any suspicious transaction, activity, or occurrence … to any employee or agent of the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Transportation, or the Department of Justice, any Federal, State, or local law enforcement officer, any transportation security officer, or any employee or agent of a transportation system shall be immune from civil liability to any person for such disclosure under any Federal, State, or local law."
Requiring a passenger's suspicion to be "objectively reasonable" will enable lawyers such as Omar Mohammedi, the CAIR activist who is representing the "flying imams," to quibble about what is "reasonable" and what is "objective." It will be argued that objections to loudly-voiced professions of Islamic faith at airport gates are entirely reasonable to pious Muslims, and therefore reporting such behavior as "suspicious" is actionable. It will further be argued that any suspicion of Muslims by non-Muslims cannot be objective but only subjective, driven by "Islamophobia." It is not to be supposed that either Mohammedi, his clients, or their backers are going to roll over and play dead if this provision passes.

i really liked this article

2007-07-24T15:35:00.000-07:00

http://www.michaeltotten.com/archives/001497.html

my title on the other side was a little nicer....but this one won't be...i hope he falls in a bucket of aids

2007-07-23T15:26:00.002-07:00

I Support The Troops
by AWhitneyBrown
Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 08:59:25 AM PDT
There! I finally said it. It's something that needs to be said, it seems that no one in American politics is willing to say it, so let the chips fall where they may, I'm taking a stand. For those of you who have a hard time reading, I enclose a video of my statement of support, and for all those who read faster than they listen, I also provide the text of my full statement below. I ask you to read it before you criticize me for my courageous stand in support of our brave troops. Thank you.
AWhitneyBrown's diary :: ::
Because no one else in American politics seems to be willing to support our troops, I will take my stand, no matter the cost! My statement of support for our brave troops fighting in Iraq and elsewhere:

An accurate transcript follows:
Hello, I’m A. Whitney Brown, and I support our brave troops overseas. We all do and we all should. But what about those troops who are not so brave? Perhaps they just signed up hoping for some extra money for college, for the medical insurance, or even some hot gay military sex. Suddenly they find themselves in Iraq for the fourth or fifth time and they’re not so brave. In fact they're crapping in their pants. Shouldn’t we support them just as much? I think we should. In fact we should support them more, because a brave man does but once, whereas a coward dies a thousand deaths. And we should say we support them, because, frankly, it just doesn’t get said often enough. Imagine, for example, if anytime any politician mentions any aspect of the war they prefaced their statement by saying ‘I support our troops’, or ‘I support our brave troops’ or even ‘I support our brave troops, even though some of them are gay or scared shitless’. And not just politicians, but religious leaders, news people, commercial businesses, beverage makers, car companies, defense lobbyists - they should all say they support our troops whenever they’re trying to sell their products or pimp their talking points. Because it’s the right thing to say. Now, I can’t make people say they support our troops. But if I’m the only one who’s willing to stand up and say ‘I support our troops’, then I’ll say it; I support our troops - cowards, queers, and all. Now I know there are some cynics out there thinking, sure you say you support our troops but what do you actually mean by ‘support’? That’s a fair question and all I can say in response is that any one asking that question is a traitorous bastard and probably should be hung for treason. But to answer the question, what I mean when I say I support our troops is that I actually pay for their food, their ammo, their upkeep, transport, everything. I pay for all of it. And I do that not only because I’m a patriotic American, although I am, but also because they take 35% out of my check every week and if I don’t pay it I will end up in jail. That is what I mean by ‘I support our troops’. I mean I am involuntarily, under threat of prison, forced to pay for their support. Now do I resent that? You’re damn right I do. Because it is stupid as hell. Other countries pay taxes, but they get something for it, like health care. What do I get? I get to kill a bunch of Iraqis. Whoopdeedoo. What am I going to do with a bunch of dead Iraqis? Plus I don’t even get to keep them. I mean, I might like to have a skull or something to use as a paperweight, on my desk. I’m not saying I would, but it might be a nice gesture to send out a few skulls out to those of us who are paying the cost. You know you can adopt a kid for 15 dollars a month in Brazil or somewhere and you get pictures of them living their miserable lives. But I have paid hundreds of dollars in taxes over my lifetime, hundreds of dollars, and I don’t have so much as a single picture of an Iraqi child that I paid to have killed. It would be nice to just have something, you know, to remember them by.... a picture, a lock of hair, perhaps a necklace of ears... So yes, I resent my support for the killing of Iraqis for which I get not even a memento or trophy. But do I still support the individual men and women who have given so much to serve their country? No. I think they’re a bunch of idiots. I also think they’re morally retarded. Because they sign a contract that says they will kill whoever you tell me to kill. And that is morally retarded. Friends, the most important moral decision a man makes in the course of a day is "Who am I going to kill today?" That’s a decision you should agonize over, dream about, rehearse in your mind for hours, not just leave up to some hare-brained President you didn’t even vote for. A man’s killing list is a very personal matter. It should be between him and those persistent voices in his head. So to sum up, I don’t like our troops, I don’t like what they’re doing, I don’t like their fat, whining families, and yet, I support them. Thank God I live in a free country. Thank You.

to add a lil bit in here...i have , in an effort to be fair...started reading some "liberal" blogs
this is very typical of the crap i see on them,it makes the "lib" bashing i see on LGF and other conservative blogs seem polite and pleasant...i really really don't like what i'm seeing coming out of the left side of things lately...if a dem is elected this time around i think we're going to be in a world of shit
hillary clinton and barack obama are both stringent anti gunners and will take take take....at the expense of law abiding citizens,hillary clinton voted AGAINST the john doe amendment to the latest homeland security bill...not against the whole bill....but the john doe part...obama is either a muslim who's hiding it,an apostate,or a radical afrocentric christian...not sure which but i don't trust him as far as i can throw him....don't get me wrong ,i'm not overly fond of what the rethuglickcans have to offer but they shine in comparison to the dems ,who are so PC it makes me sick
we need a REAL leader...one who isn't afraid of the media and who won't back down when the media goes on the attack,one who is willing to make tough choices,who's willing to admit he's wrong if and when he is,one who won't put up with anymore crap from the middle eastern muslim assholes or hugo chaves...( we should kick citgo right out of our country ) One who isn't afraid to just say NO when needed...one who will listen to the will of the people who elect him and not polls done by the news media ( the news media is probably THE # 1 or #2 problem with this country ,they have a holier than thou "morality" they throw into every news cast....the don't report fairly I.E. presenting ACURETLY balanced stories from both sides of an issue....it's pretty clear to see where a given news outlet's loyalties lie in relation to conservative or liberal )

i'm not happy with bush...i didn't vote for him....but i honestly feel safer with him in office than i would with hillary or obama in there...as it stands...i'll take rudy or mccain....and i don't care for either one of them that much either !!!!!!!!!!!!

my title on the other side was a little nicer....but this one won't be...

2007-07-23T15:26:00.001-07:00

a good article....read the article ( in one of many links) that this is a response to

2007-07-23T09:34:00.000-07:00

Psycho-Death Cult
Archaeblogogist Ace does some digging, uncovers traces of an anti-military cult in our midst, in the recent past. As in last week, briefly, at Kos, before the high priests feared what they had wrought and exorcised it. Spirit summoned up here in a Google seance. Psycho-death cult is obsessed with the myth that all soldiers psycho-killers.

Brain-scooping Nation article referenced by death cultists here. It turns out war sucks, it involves death, gallows humor, fear, overreactions, mistakes. Who’d have thought?
Scribbling theology student Chris Hedges, who thought war is the force that gives us meaning, is shocked, or at least betting he’ll make money on the premise that readers will be. He brings us the brain-scooping incident, which is in poor taste, but not exactly criminal. There is a dog that gets shot, which is maybe unnecessary, depending on whether the soldier considered that dog a threat. Investigate a dog-shooting? There are a lot of people who get rousted from their beds in the middle of the night and searched, and sometimes the GIs think the officers are making them take away the wrong guy. At that point I got bored and bailed.
Presumeably, if Hedges had found any actual war crimes, he would have led with them ahead of the dog-shooting and hamming-with-brains anecdotes. Another case of someone who has trouble figuring out who the enemy is, which way the frontlines are, and what a war crime is. Repeat offense for Hedges, a veteran war correspondent who took a powder on this one and decided midwar that the best use of his time was to conduct an exhaustive investigation of the dire threat Christian extremists pose to the western civilization.
The Kos death-cult post cites report that only 25 percent of combat soldiers in the Good War fired their weapons because they were … too good. I’d suggest a closer examination of people in heavy combat in World War II might find the Good War wasn’t all that good. The report cited notes that 25 percent is a disputed statistic, but cites more recent examples of reluctance to kill.*
That’s somewhat mystifying. My own combat experience is brief, but the above claims do not jive with it or with what I’ve heard from combat veterans of wars going back to WWII. Have yet to speak to one who said he feared killing and would not fire in combat. Have not heard from any who were enthused about killing, though one in particular voiced very well what many have discovered about combat: “I loved it. We enjoyed it.” Adrenaline, overcoming fear, comraderie, prevailing made them high. That does not mean they became indiscriminate killers.
Combat and the reactions and emotions it induces are extremely complex things. I witnessed numerous examples of willingness to fire with small and heavy arms in close quarters, and only recall one example of undue hesitancy, which had more to do confusion over orders. These were virtually all men who were new to combat and new to killing. Young soldiers’ juvenile pre-combat expressions of desire to kill were followed by a high degree of discipline in combat. Desire to avoid being killed, to protect comrades, to do one’s duty far outweighed desire to avoid killing. Notably including an officer who was a student of Buddhism and not enthused about killing. Witnessed a fair amount of gallows humor but no murderousness or cruelty. Also witnessed a great deal of compassion and judicious caution, but not anything I would confuse with fear of killing. Maybe a mass casualty incident would have changed that. These men were all products of the allegedly psychopath-inducing military training, but I am not nor I believe are many other non-combatants who have been compelled by circumstances to play a role in killing in war, notably Joe Galloway and to the best of my knowledge Michael Herr and the Boston Globe’s Scott Bernard Nelson, to name a few. To the contrary, I’d suggest we’re wired as combat-prone animals to overcome both fear and reluctance and do all kinds of counter-intuitive things.
There is nothing really pretty about any of it. But the fixation the Nation and others have on relatively low-grade ugliness in war at a time when our military is focused on trying to prevent a far greater ugliness … and our politicians are debating same … suggests that like the New York Times and Obama, the Nation and Kos feel genocide is preferable to what is happening now.
* Given Kos’ fascination with certain high-profile psychopaths with military backgrounds, I’ve been hunting around this morning for the statistics on how many military veterans and how many combat veterans become violent criminals. If you know where they are, let me know. Here’s something on the effects of PTSD that says 2 percent of World War II veterans of 60-plus days of combat, “98% of the surviving soldiers had become psychiatric casualties. And the remaining 2% were identified as “aggressive psychopathic personalities.’ “ That works out to 100 percent. Psychiatric casualty here is described as someone who can not longer function in combat. The latter link cites the same figures, which are rendered ridiculous by the fact that many, many thousands upon thousands of soldiers have functioned well beyond 60 days in combat and returned to be productive members of society, though scarred by their experiences. The study cited also says that 25 percent of American combat veterans pissed their pants and another 25 percent shit themselves, which also sounds high. I did not encounter any of that and only recall hearing a couple of historical anecdotes about that. I’d agree that 100 percent of people who go into combat of any duration come out affected in some way, but “psychiatric casualties” sounds a tad broad and dramatic. As for the 2 percent of psychopaths, I’d be curious to know how far off that is from what you might find in a lot of bad neighborhoods and stressful professions. Both articles suggest domestic murder rates increase in wartime, but there’s no discussion of the issue and the lack of discussion of violent crime rates in veterans in articles of this sort that are looking for war damage creates the impression it isn’t a significant problem.
My own quick take on PTSD. Clearly, it is a legitimate phenomenon that sometimes requires treatment. But I think may be worthwhile for us as a wartime society, someday to be a post-war society, to separate the disorder from the syndrome. I’d suggest that reactions to combat, including many described in these scholarly articles, are often part of an entirely normal adjustment and not necessarily part of a “disorder.”
In 2004, my buddy Sig and I were reviewing the list of factors that contribute to PTSD in an article that stated 19 percent of returning Iraq vets had it. We each racked up more than half of the dozen or so contributing factors. Saw people killed at close range. Check. Knew people who were killed. Check. Expected to be killed. Check. Narrowly avoided being killed. Check, check, check, check, check, check, check. Participated in killing, in my case, check.
Sig laughed at the 19 percent PTSD figure: “Try 90 percent. The other 10 percent were that way when they got there.”
True. And probably 99 percent of them are coping with it, the vast majority quite successfully. Because traumatic stress reaction is a normal human adjustment process. How could anyone look at human history, going back to primitive times, and suggest otherwise? Just as you must eventually learn and accept that there is no Santa Claus, and that your mother will not always be able to protect you, and you will have to support and protect yourself, and no one else particularly cares whether you succeed at that or not, you may have to learn to killing is sometimes a part of life, and it may be a part of yours. Whether that happens to you or not, you will have to learn about death sooner or later. It is part of the human experience.
Regarding the perspective from which the scholars cited above approach their subject, the first article linked above makes the statement that “killing is not a normal phenomenon,” which suggests a somewhat sheltered and historically myopic view, and generally approaches the subject from the perspective that you’d have to be crazy. The author rationalizes her belief:
Almost every country has a law saying that killing is illegal. If killing were normal, why would so many entities say it was so wrong? The reason that so many different entities say that it is wrong is precisely because it is not normal.
I’d suggest religion and law forbid killing precisely because it is more normal than many people would care to admit, however it is also disruptive and destructive and as a freelance endeavor runs counter to the interests of society. That is why, while armies have always desensitized soldiers to killing, the United States military also teaches laws of war, discretion, humane behavior, and investigates and prosecutes serious transgressions as is now happening in a number of cases of rape and murder in Iraq.
The second scholarly article kicks off with this interesting, more realistic statement:
An examination of the psychological effects of combat must begin by acknowledging that there are some positive aspects to combat. Throughout recorded history these positive aspects have been emphasized and exaggerated in order to protect the self-image of combatants, o honor the memory of the fallen and rationalize their deaths, to aggrandize and glorify political leaders and military commanders, and to manipulate populations into supporting war and sending their sons to their deaths. But the fact that these positive aspects have been manipulated and exploited does not deny their existence. There is a reason for the powerful attraction of combat over the centuries, and there is no value in going from the dysfunctional extreme of glorifying war to the equally dysfunctional extreme of denying its attraction.

posting on both sides here

2007-07-18T09:41:00.000-07:00

ok here we go...give this a read....this came out of a news article in qatar...a "moderate" muslim country...the passages quoted are in the quran and hadiths...there's little left to the imagination as to what they mean...read and draw your own conclusions...there's nothing to "mis" interpret it's pretty clear

Disbelievers and their status in the Hereafter
Published: Saturday, 21 October, 2006, 11:19 AM Doha Time
Khutbah by Shaykh Abdul-Muhsin Al QaasimAll praise is due to Allah. May peace and blessings be upon our Prophet Muhammad, his household and companions.Fellow Muslims! Fear Allah as He should be feared and keep your duty to Him.Indeed, Allah made all of creation through His Power; He guides whomsoever He wills by His Grace, causes whomsoever He wills to go astray by His justice and writes all that is in Al-Lawh Al-Mahfooz (The Preserved Tablet). He says (which means): “He it is who created you, then some of you are disbelievers and some of you are believers.” (At-Taghaabun: 2).Allah shows us the way to prosperity and the way to misery. He extols the pious and condemns the unbelievers and warns against their characteristics. He explains in His Great Book the unbelievers’ deeds, the falsity of their belief and their bad conduct. The Kaafir denies resurrection, does not believe in predestination, is impatient in difficulty and loses hope in the mercy of Allah. Allah says: “Certainly, no one despairs of Allah’s mercy except the people who disbelieve.” (Yousuf: 87). The Kaafir lies when he speaks and he is arrogant and self-deluded. Allah says: “The disbelievers are in nothing but delusion.” (Al-Mulk: 20). He turns away from signs of Allah, lessons and admonitions. His heart is so full of envy that it shows itself in his eyes. He is envious of the Muslims because of their blessings and wishes that they could be taken away from them. Allah says: “Neither those who disbelieve among the people of the scripture (Jews and Christians) nor the idolaters like that there should be sent down unto you any good from your Lord.” (Al-Baqarah: 105).He is so shamelessly envious that he would strive to mislead you so that you will be assembled with him in the Hell-Fire. Allah says: “They wish that you reject faith as they have rejected (faith), and thus that you all become equal (like one another).” (An-Nisaa’: 89).The Kaafir plots against the Muslims by night and betrays them in the day. Enmity towards you is vividly shown in his face and his utterances. He bites his fingertips in severe anger against the Muslims and his inner-self is full of evil plans against them. He pretends to be trustworthy and good mannered while he is actually pursuing his own interests. Allah exposes them when he says: “Hatred has already appeared from their mouths but what their breasts conceal is far worse.” (Aal-Imran: 118).They hide their lies and treachery in apparent truthfulness and sincerity, please you with words of their mouths while their hearts rejects you. They argue with falsehood and conceal the truth. Their evil plots against the Muslims are great; but Allah will render their plan fruitless, for, “the plots of disbelievers are nothing but error.” Fellow Muslims! Following the Kaafir is disgraceful while disobeying them is might. Allah says: “O Prophet! Keep you duty to Allah and obey not the disbelievers and the hypocrites (i.e. do not follow their advice).” (Al-Ahzaab: 1).Their knowledge is limited to this world and yet Sheikh-ul Islam said, “All deeds and affairs of a disbeliever inevitably have a defect that prevents it from being completely beneficial to him. All his affairs are either false or defective.” As for the knowledge of the hereafter, the disbelievers are completely ignorant of it. Allah says: “They know only the outside appearance of the life of the world (i.e. the matters of their livelihood, or irrigating, or reaping, or sowing, etc.) And they are heedless of the hereafter.” (Ar-Room: 7).He also says, “...But most of them behave ignorantly” (Al-An’aam: 111). Their children and wealth are but sources of distress for them. They live in confusion and their only concern in this world is eating, drinking and lustful enjoyment and their sustenance is devoid of Barakah (divine blessing). They are never satisfied with little. The Prophet (sallallaahu ‘alaihi wa sallam) said, “The Kaafir eats too much but the Muslim is satisfied with little food in order to be able to worship. He preserves a third of his stomach for his food, a third for his drink, and a third for his breath. A believer’s food is blessed.” He also said, “The food of two persons suffices three and the food of three suffices four.” (Al-Bukhari). Brothers in faith! It is as a result of the Kaafir’s distance from the light of guidance that they have different sects and severely differs with one another in their opinions. Allah says: “They are only in opposition. So Allah will suffice you against them. And He is the All-Hearer, the All-Knower.” (Al-Baqarah: 137).Allah also says: “We have put enmity and hatred amongst them till the Day of Resurrection.” (Al-Maa’idah: 64).Kaafirs are cowards in war and a Muslims can defeat them, though the odds are two to one. Allah says, “So if there are of you a hundred steadfast persons, they shall overcome two hundred, and if there are a thousand of you, they shall overcome two thousand with the leave of Allah.” (Al-Anfaal: 66).They enjoin one another in miserliness and do not entertain guest. Allah says: “Those who are miserly and enjoin miserliness on other men and hide what Allah has bestowed upon them of His bounties. And We have prepared for the disbelievers a disgraceful torment.” (An-Nisaa’: 37).The Kaafir is a preventer of good things, eater of ill-gotten wealth, ungrateful over bounties of Allah. Allah says: “They recognise the Grace of Allah, yet they deny it and most of them are disbelievers.” (An-Nahl: 83).He lives in ignorance, lustful desires and errors; he is unguided to means of uprightness; his heart, ears and eyes are all blocked from perceiving the truth, and Satan pushes him to commit sins. His preoccupation and concern is to satisfy his lust and whims, his deeds then become useless in this world and the next. His Lord does not love Him and tells that He is an enemy of the disbeliever. Whoever does a good or bad deed, Allah will make the sign his deed manifest on him, as the Prophet (sallallaahu ‘alaihi wa sallam) said: “Whenever Allah hates a slave, He calls Jibreel and says, ‘O Jibreel! I, indeed, hate so-and-so therefore you must also hate him. Then Jibreel will hate him and proclaim to the inhabitants of the heaven that Allah hates so-and-so, therefore they too should hate him, then the inhabitants of the heaven will hate him, and his hatred will then be spread among the inhabitants of the earth.” (Al-Bukhari & Muslim).Lifeless objects decry Kaafir disbelief and the Blessed Land will eject them in the End of Time. Stones and trees will say, “O Muslim! Here is a Kaafir!”When the Antichrist appears, Madinah will shake three times and the disbelievers will be expelled out of the Prophet’s city.Fellow Muslims! Remoteness from Allah causes psychological pain. Sins make one’s heart depressed and deny one of the pleasures of faith. The Kaafir is the worst of Allah’s creatures. He says: “They are the worst of creatures.” (Al-Bayyinah: 6). As for their numbers, they are the majority of the inhabitants of the earth. Allah says: “But most of mankind believe not.” (Hud: 17).The Prophet said, ‘Allah said, “O Adam! Bring out the contingent of the hell-fire!” Adam said, “Who are the contingents of the hell-fire?” Allah answered, “Of every thousand, nine hundred and ninety-nine.” (Al-Bukhari) In another version, he says, “Of every hundred, ninety nine.”When a Kaafir dies, the whole of humanity are relieved. The Prophet said, “When a believer dies, he gets rest from the mercy of Allah from the toils and harms of this world, but when one of the unbelievers dies, mankind, the trees and animals are relieved.” (Al-Bukhari).The Kaafir would wish to live for a thousand years but when the time of his death comes, he hates to die, and the angels smite his face and back to take his soul and when he is buried, his grave is narrowed so much that his ribs stick into one another. He will be beaten with an iron bar and he will make a cry so loud that all will hear it except man and the jinn. In a version of this Hadith, it was reported, “If that iron bar were struck against a rock, it would make it sand.” The Kaafir’s grave will be carpeted with fire and he will have a continuous torment. He will be resurrected for the reckoning with a blackened face. He will be dust-stained; covered with darkness and terrified. He will be raised up in front of all the creatures on his face. Anas bin Malik said, ‘I said, “O Messenger of Allah! How will the Kaafir be raised up on his face?” He replied, “Is He Who made him, walk on his legs in the world not able to make him walk on his face on the Day of Resurrection?” (Al-Bukhari).He will be in chains on that day and the sinners will be chained together while they are thirsty, dumb, deaf, and blind. Their friends shall discuss them and shall also disown their friends. Their food shall be of Zaqqoom and their drink shall be of boiling scalding water. Another boiling water shall be poured over their heads and it will peel the skin off their bodies. While he will be burning in fire, his body will be magnified and his molar tooth will be greatly enlarged. The Prophet said, “A Kaafir’s molar (in the fire) will be as big as Mount Uhud and the thickness of his body will be as wide as the journey of three (days).” (Muslim).In another version of this hadith, he said, “...what is in-between the two shoulders of a kafir will be as far as the journey of three days for a fast rider. That is an exact recompense, and your Lord is not all unjust to His slaves. These are the characteristics of disbelievers and their well-deserved recompense.Fellow Muslims! The Prophet said, “Hasten to do good deeds against impending trials that are like parts of seriously darkened night, when a man will be a believer in the morning and become a Kaafir in the evening and will a believer in the evening and become a Kaafir in the morning, bartering his religion for an insignificant worldly material.” (Ahmad).Follow the path of the pious people and observe obligatory prayers in the mosques for whoever neglects it has joined a doomed group. The Prophet said, “The difference between us and them is Salaah. Whoever abandons it has disbelieved.” Allah says: “Not equal are the dwellers of the fire and the dwellers of Paradise. It is the dweller of Paradise that will be successful.” (Al-Hashr: 20).Dear Muslims! Emulating a people in their outward dispositions necessitates emulating them in their inner characters. Emulating the first generation of this ummah who are the Sahaabah and at-Taabi’een increases one in intellect, religiosity and good conduct while emulating the non-Muslims in their outward characteristics leads to emulating them in their conducts and ugly deeds. It also makes one love them. Therefore differ from idolaters and disbelievers in their behaviour and opinions and beware of taking them as friends. You should hate them, disown them and their religion and be proud of your religion. Strive for their guidance and call them to Islam.

nuff said

2007-07-12T04:27:00.000-07:00

hmmmm

2007-07-12T04:26:00.000-07:00

At the London concert, Madonna wrote and performed a new song ("Hey You"). Hey us? Right, like we're the ones hurtling across the skies in private jets.
"It's a bit patronizing for us 21-year-olds to try to start to change the world," Arctic Monkeys drummer Matt Helders told Agence France-Presse, explaining why the band declined to be a part of Live Earth. "Especially when we're using enough power for 10 houses just for lighting. It'd be a bit hypocritical."

a couple of must reads

2007-07-12T04:12:00.001-07:00

i'm putting this up here because i feel it's important for people to read this

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-op-dalrymple8jul08,0,6923090.story?coll=la-news-comment-opinions

we are fast coming to a turning point...presidential elections coming up...with candidates who are either blissfully unaware or in denial of the threat that faces not just our nation but every western nation...the blame for "terrorism" is being placed in the wrong place by guilt ridden PC boobs....to be honest I'm more worried about our next president than anything else...with regards to islam and other key security things like the 2nd amendment ( every one of the dem. candidates is an anti gunner )
we're in for a rocky road ahead...please wake up people

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-op-dalrymple8jul08,0,6923090.story?coll=la-news-comment-opinions

i'm gonna post this on the "other side" too

2007-06-30T15:07:00.000-07:00

either our prez really belives islam is a peacful religion....despite the evidence to the contrary....or he's got something up his sleeve....i highly doubt the latter
give this a good read

'Dhimmification' on the march
Diana WestJune 29, 2007
If anyone wants to know why Muslims the world over tell pollsters the United States is at war with Islam, just read President Bush's speech at the Islamic Center of Washington, especially the part about American-style religious freedom — in the president's words, "what we wish for the world."
He began this way: "For those who seek a true understanding of our country, they need look no farther than here."
No, not the mosque itself, but down the street it occupies. "This Muslim center sits quietly down the road from a synagogue, a Lutheran Church, a Catholic parish, a Greek Orthodox chapel, a Buddhist temple — each with faithful followers who practice their deeply held beliefs and live side by side in peace," the president explained, standing in his Islamically observant stocking feet before a cool Muslim audience. "This is what freedom offers: societies where people can live and worship as they choose without intimidation, without suspicion, without a knock on the door from the secret police."
As one who has attended a Bar Mitzvah at that synagogue down the road, I have news for the president: Freedom, American-style, has changed. To enter, I passed an armed guard holding an automatic weapon manning the door. Armed guards like him man many such doors in many such cities. In fact, so common is it for religious worship (mainly, but not exclusively, Jewish worship) to require armed protection today that we miss the implications: the degree to which freedom to worship without fear in America has been curtailed by the open-ended threat of Buddhist violence.
Whoops, sorry. I mean, curtailed by the open-ended threat of Greek Orthodox violence. Or was that Catholic Lutheran violence?
No, the peril to the synagogue was, and remains, Islamic violence. The resulting diminution of freedom is a symptom of advancing dhimmitude — the diminished cultural condition of non-Muslims living in relation to Islam.
So, freedom of worship ain't what it used to be. But even in its terror-constrained state, the spread of American religious freedom actually threatens religiously unfree Islamic cultures, which, for example, consider "apostasy" — deciding not to be Muslim — a capital crime.
But that threat is only on paper. Where Americans actually become involved in the Islamic world, Shariah (Islamic law) is protected, enshrined even, as shockingly attested by Shariah's primacy in the American-fostered constitutions of Iraq, Afghanistan and the Palestinian Authority. The president doesn't seem to understand that. I don't think he even understands Shariah, under which the primacy of Islam is absolute, and other religions are "tolerated," at best, at the high cost of dhimmitude. Nearly six years after September 11 — nearly six years after first visiting the Islamic Center and proclaiming "Islam is peace" — Mr. Bush has learned nothing.

In fact, his peroration on freedom at the Islamic Center mainly underscored "America's respect for the Muslim faith here at home." Abroad, too. Even as he was asking Muslim leaders (again) "to denounce organizations that use the veneer of Islamic belief to support and fund violence" (some veneer), the president announced the United States would send an envoy to the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), a global Islamic support group that does a large bit of that. "Our special envoy," the president said, "will listen and learn from representatives from Muslim states and share with them America's views and values."
What can the Free World learn from the Unfree World? Maybe something about the Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam adopted by the foreign ministers of the OIC in 1990. In dire contrast to the United Nation's 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Islamic document recognizes only human rights sanctioned by Shariah — which, basically, leaves women and non-Muslims without human rights.
Hmm. Might Mr. Bush — or anyone in our leadership, civilian or military — notice the unbridgeable cultural differences revealed by these disparate notions of human rights? Alas, probably not. Islam's still peace, according to the prez. Those pesky "extremists" fighting jihad are not, he said, "the true face of Islam."
There Imam Bush goes again. "I am astonished by President Bush when he claims there is nothing in the Qu'ran that justifies jihad violence in the name of Islam," jailed jihadi cleric Abu Qatada said under similar circumstances almost six years ago. "Is he some kind of Islamic scholar? Has he ever actually read the Qu'ran?"
No. He's just leader of the Free World — a Free World that has become less free and more dhimmified on his severely myopic watch.

I love the danes

2007-06-25T19:30:00.000-07:00

from the makers of the infamous mohammed cartoons we bring you an effigy to remember

http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2007/06/for-mohammedan-free-denmark.html

i read about this yesterday...there's going to be 2 more videos to follow
the folks who did the effigy(s) did so at undisclosed locations and have kept their identities a secret...for good reason too...this will be a "terrible insult" to the world's muslims...they will no doubt go on killing sprees and violent demonstrations...maybe storm and destroy danish interests around the world...the difference this time i feel is that the rest of the world will care less about the whining and angry seething...the climate is changing for the islamists....and as much as they'd like to blame "the evil west" for islam's bad imagef ewer and fewer people these days buy the crap they shovel..so here's to the danes may they help enlighten the rest of the world

hmmmmmm makes ya think don't it?

2007-06-21T15:23:00.000-07:00

i have to say i'm a bit worried about the direction we may be headed in two years...is this story close to a potential truth?

By Peter FeamanThe U.N. General Assembly rose in unison to applaud the announcement by the Ambassador to the U.N.from the Islamic States of America (I.S.A.) that the “Bible Belt Rebellion,” as the uprising had been dubbed, was finally subdued after three years of violence. The I.S.A.’s ambassador to the U.N. gave a brief history of the conflict when he made his announcement. “In 2036, we expected more tolerance from the radical Christian groups that formerly controlled parts of Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, North Florida, the Carolinas, Tennessee, Arkansas and West Virginia. But when those states refused to accept the national Muslim curriculum and the national school dress code, (enacted so that no child would be left in ignorance) we had no choice but to send in federal Marshals.” To many, the deployment of federal Marshals to quell the violence in 2036 recalled the days of the civil rights movement of the 1960’s. This time, 75 years later, federal Marshals were brought in to restore order and keep the peace so as to enforce the new national dress code for all public schools, requiring, for example, that all girls cover their faces. When the federal Marshals showed up to keep the peace and enforce the new enlightened policy, a clearly organized rebellion attacked and killed the Marshals throughout the region.“The intolerant Christians hid for years in the Appalachian Mountains.” The Ambassador continued his report to the General Assembly of the United Nations: “Yesterday, we captured and killed the leader of the rebellion, Thomas Cromwell. His militia surrendered soon after.”The applause that swept the General Assembly, now located in Copenhagen, the capital of the Eurabia Union, was deafening. The Islamic States of America ambassador continued, “In accordance with international law, we will seek the death penalty for all involved. We would like the beheadings of those responsible to serve as an example to all intolerant Christians throughout the region that no disobedience to our duly-elected Caliphate-President will be sanctioned.”Many in the audience remembered the United States of America before it became the Islamic States of America. About 15 years before, the world was fed up with America’s intolerant, warlike foreign policy. The Zionist-Christian warlords in America believed they were invincible. But one day in 2013, everything changed for the Zionist-Imperialist country. The electorate in 2012 had finally voted the aggressors out of office. The New Democrat Peace Party assumed power and immediately announced plans to withdraw all troops in any locations which were deemed hostile to the Muslim community. It was commonly believed that Muslim violence against America was simply the result of American military presence in Muslim countries. The prevailing thought, especially in the State Department, was that only after the withdrawal of American troops could relations with Muslim countries begin to normalize. Then dialogue for peaceful coexistence could begin. Iranian President-for-Life, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, praised the new administration for its clear vision and sound judgment. Most rejoiced as the new administration brought peace with honor to the United States. On September 30, 2013, the last C5A Galaxy carrying the last company of combat troops left a small oil-rich country in the Middle East.By December 6, 2013, it had almost been a year since the New Democrat Peace Party had been in control. Americans had become supremely confident in their exercise of good judgment in electing new leaders espousing peace. Most Americans, in and out of government had long since forgotten the report by the New York Times on March 31, 2007. The Energy Department Inspector General reported that the office in charge of protecting American technical secrets about nuclear weapons from foreign spies was missing 20 desktop computers. In fact, it was the 13th time in four years that an audit found the department whose national laboratories and factories did most of the work in designing and building nuclear warheads had lost control of the computers used in working on the bombs. Nobody seemed overly concerned as peace demonstrations overshadowed any concerns for national security.It took the thieves about six years to perfect the designs taken from the stolen information and to manufacture the bombs. On the evening of December 6, 2013, a junior analyst in the National Security Agency (NSA) was going over routine satellite images of ship movements in the Atlantic and Pacific within 500 miles of the American coast. The analyst thought he saw something unusual in the photos and called his supervisor over to talk. “Look,” he said gesturing at the photos posted on several computer screens. “See these boats? They look like fishing trawlers or private yachts. They’ve been moving in along shipping lanes for several days, across the South Pacific toward the West Coast, and up from the South Atlantic toward the East Coast. They are all small and slow, but if you look at the times and courses, it appears that they are all going to approach our coastlines at about the same time and will all be about the same distance off the coast at the same time.” The Supervisor said, “They’re fishing boats. Don’t worry about it.”At 2:00 p.m. on December 7, 2013, the first of six cruise missiles to hit the Washington, D.C. area exploded about 500 feet above the White House. 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue was vaporized, along with the President and her entire cabinet. Five other missiles reached their destinations shortly thereafter. One over the Pentagon; one over the C.I.A. in Langley, Virginia; one over the U.S. Capitol; one over F.B.I. headquarters and one over the Supreme Court. In just a matter of minutes, 250,000 people were dead or dying in the Washington, D.C. area and the United States government was decapitated. At about the same time, missiles exploded over the New York Stock Exchange in New York City, the financial district of Boston, the Norfolk, Virginia Naval Base and Baltimore Harbor.On the West Coast, the same type of short-range nuclear cruise missiles exploded over Los Angeles, San Francisco, the Silicon Valley of Santa Clara County, and Sacramento, California. The Northwest coastal cities were not overlooked. Portland, Oregon and Seattle, Washington were also destroyed.The missiles were less than 20 feet long and only 18 inches in diameter, powered by small fuel-efficient high octane turbo fans painted in light blue and light gray, flying at a low altitude to avoid detection. They were state-of-the-art designs ten years before. In January, 2007 the Administrator of the National Nuclear Security Agency, the Energy Department in charge of the bombs, had been fired because of the theft scandals, but now seven years later, it became apparent the action was too little and too late.The attacks came from old fishing trawlers using launch tubes that could be dismantled and stored in the holds under ice and fish. As soon as each boat had launched its pair of missiles, the crew abandoned each trawler, quickly moving into rubber inflatable boats. Just before the last man was over the side, the timer was started on the explosive devices rigged on each trawler. Ten miles away and 15 minutes later, each crew member was climbing up the nets on the side of a small freighter of Liberian registry, where each man was issued new identification as the ship’s crew. The rubber inflatables were shot and sunk at the same time the charges placed in the bilges of each of the fishing trawlers exploded, sending any evidence of the attacks to the bottom of the ocean. With no obvious enemy to blame, fingers pointed in every direction.By Christmas, the American economy was destroyed. Inflation soared as the government printed money to meet its responsibilities without sufficient economic output to back the issuance of the currency. Unemployment soared as major centers of employment had been incinerated by the nuclear blasts. Businesses throughout the United States closed. Tax revenues evaporated, so state governments had no funds to pay unemployment benefits or teachers’ salaries. For the first time in U.S. history, both state and federal governments defaulted on their bond obligations. U.S. creditor nations called their loans. With the New York Stock Exchange gone and all of its records destroyed with it, stock trading ended and stock values plummeted. Retirement assets and pension funds disappeared virtually overnight. The population was in complete chaos. The real estate market crashed, major banks filed for bankruptcy and riots broke out throughout the country as panic set in. With the collapse of the American economy, which was the largest on earth, responsible for producing one-third of global economic output, the rest of the global economy also fell into chaos. Oil shipments stopped, food shipments stopped, and millions of people began to starve throughout the world.With the President dead, the Vice-President, who had been vacationing in Colorado, assumed control of what was left of the American government. Osama Hussein Obama, having been the first Muslim Vice-President elected, now became the first Muslim president of the United States. The American era was over.Taking advantage of the chaos in America and the political cowardice of the European leaders, Muslim leaders in Europe took advantage of the situation. Because one-half of the babies being born in Europe by 2013 were of Muslim descent, Muslim clerics demanded equal representation in the Parliaments throughout Europe and control of the European Union. Chaos reigned in Europe as well. The great riots of 2006 that took place in France were repeated in 2013, except this time all of Western Europe was under Marshal Law. Faced with economic collapse, the established order capitulated and Muslim leaders assumed control of the government, the educational institutions and the press. Majority memberships on the boards of European banks and trading companies, mining companies and auto manufacturers soon followed.People throughout Europe, the United States and Africa clamored for a leader that espoused peace, unity and no more war. In the face of this global strife and chaos, the leader of Iran stepped forward calling for peace and an end to the senseless violence.With the collapse of Iraq and the pullout of U.S. troops from that country in 2008, Iran had become the dominant player in the Middle East. It assumed control of not only the Iraqi but also the Saudi oil fields. The Sh’ia clerics based in Iran now called the shots for their satellite countries of Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Iraq, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Ethiopia, Somalia and the Sudan. The Supreme Spiritual Leader of Iran, Osama bin Laden, who had come out of hiding after the U.S. pullout of Iraq in 2008, declared that Muslim prophecy had been fulfilled. Bin Laden had become a Sh’ia Muslim, claiming he was actually the 12th Imam. He traveled to the United Nations in Copenhagen, which had been hastily located there after its headquarters was heavily damaged when the nuclear cruise missile exploded over Manhattan. When bin Laden spoke to the United Nations, as he would later report, he suddenly felt, “surrounded by light.” A “light from heaven,” he claimed. Later it was reported that when he began his speech “in the name of ‘Allah,’ those present saw a light surround bin Laden, protecting him throughout his speech. Bin Laden would later recount, “Suddenly the atmosphere changed, and for the 30 minutes of my talk, the leaders assembled before me could not blink. All of the leaders sat motionless without blinking as if a hand held them and made them sit up and listen. They all had their eyes, ears and hearts open for the message from Allah, from the great Islamic Republic.” Bin Laden stated that his mission had been fulfilled, that is, to “pave the path for the glorious reappearance of Imam Mahdi.” The mystical 12th Imam of Sh’ia Islam, whose glorious return had been anticipated for over 1,000 years, was now ready to appear. He took the stage at the United Nations and indicated that he would reign on the earth for seven years, bringing about the last judgment upon all the infidels and upon all those who refused to convert to the last great religion, Islam.All of the nations’ populace were called upon to begin the conversion process to Islam or face the consequences. The new American President, Osama Hussein Obama, readily agreed. Most of the American people, facing unemployment, chaos, starvation and the end of life as they had known it, readily agreed. By 2036, the last holdouts were the intolerant Christians of the old American South. By 2039, the Christian rebellion had finally been put down and the world was now safe for Islam. Those that refused to accept Islam were either beheaded or forced into servitude working as second-class citizens, known as “dhimitude.” Because the Christian rebellion had been so difficult to put down, as Christians were able to easily move in and out of their culture without being detected, in the year 2040, it was demanded that all Muslims be branded with a mark so that non-Muslims could be easily distinguished. It was the natural next step of a policy that had begun in Iran in 2007. Then, all Jews in Iran were forced to wear yellow stars so that they could be easily identified, and all Christians were forced to wear red stars so that they could be easily identified. The world yawned, and so the policy was enacted. The Judeo-Christian era was over and planet Earth began a descent into a long, dark night.Watch www.FamilySecurityMatters.org for upcoming excerpt of the soon-to-be-published book, Wake Up America!” Earlier excerpts can be found here.

give this a lil ole read

In this story by author Damitiry, some serious questions are raised. It is a sad truth that in Britain, Muslims are the least represented or organ donation. Before his death in January 2006, Sheikh Zaki Badawi, Britain's leading Muslim theologian, issued a fatwa allowing Muslim organ donation but today, few Muslims carry donor cards. Other fatwas allowing organ donation have been made by the Shariah Academy of the 57-nation OIC, the Grand Ulema Council of Saudi Arabia, Iran's Religious Authority and Cairo's Al-Azhar Academy. It seems that Muslims trust their own fears and prejudices against organ donation more than the fatwas of scholars.For more information on UK organ donation, click here.I was born in India and live in the UK but I won't go into that. I am not particularly religious and I am not a Muslim. It is a well known fact in the UK that ethnic minorities do not donate blood, bone marrow or carry Donor Cards, just in case if they died in an accident their organs could be used to save other lives. Anyway I was standing on a bus stop one morning which happens to be near a cafe. The smell of fried eggs and bacon tempted me to buy an egg and bacon crusty roll. So I came out of the cafe and started to enjoy my roll and minding my own business. A well dressed guy probably in his mid thirties came up to me and said Hello. I said Hi, He seemed like a nice enough chap. He then went on and said I thought I might inform you that Pig is one of the dirtiest animals on Earth and it carries a lot of disease so it not a good idea to eat pig, stick to chicken, lamb or beef. So I said to him I find pigs rather cute and pig farms in this country are very clean and well managed. About 90% of the population of Western Europe eats pigs, maybe more in Germany, and I've never heard of any disease or viruses spread around by eating pigs. As you can imagine I figured out that He was a Muslim and seeing people eating pig probably made him feel sick. Anyway I was rather offended by his comment and decided to confront him (with words mind you). So I asked him do you know we have an NHS in this country, where the treatment is free for everyone. He smiled and said yes of course. I said than you know that if you were to be hit by a bus right now someone will call an ambulance and you would be taken to A&E and given treatment to save your life. He than again smiled and said yes of course. So I said if you were to lose a lot of blood in the accident doctors in the A&E will have to give you a blood transfusion. He than again smiled and said yes of course. So I said there is 95% or more chance that the blood would have been donated by a pig eating kuffar. This time he didn’t smile actually He went a bit pale and I thought He was about to vomit. He said something like "Allah has put a seal on your heart", turned around and walked off. I've been reading and researching Islam for some time now and it's pretty obvious to me by now that Quran does not allow friendships with Kuffars or any sort of contact. We can't go to Mecca because we are dirty, filthy people. So how is it that pig eating Kuffar’s blood and organs are good enough to save Muslim lives?

think we may have a winner here

2007-06-11T10:15:00.000-07:00

By: SwadhinAfter all this brainstorming, beating-around-bushes and dialogues taking place across the world, how bad would be a direct approach - abolishing Islam? Outragerous as it sounds, it is actually simpler and far more effective than most would credit it as being; definitely more candid and honest.The nations such as Germany and Austria, most severely affected by the ravages of Nazism have banned the expression of pro-Nazi ideas, including publication of books, organized activities and a concerted campaign to defame, marginalize and extinguish neo-Nazism. While the First Amendment may protect the freedom of expression for neo-Nazis, that system of thought and organizations are very isolated in society. Even societies that are rigidly protective of civil rights are prepared to censor the circulation of books and media considered unfit for certain audiences. All schools teach the evils of Nazism, racism, etc. as obvious facts, even though they didn't seem so obvious 60 years ago...It doesn't seem obvious to most, but the reality is that Islam is destined for the same fate. So why mince words or wait for World War III? Start a campaign of non-violent civil disobedience, of public interest litigation to strip Islam of the status of a religion. Official measures that can help:(1) Ban the publication, distribution and sale of all pro-Islam media, books, literature and published materials(2) Outlaw pro-Islamic organizations and organized activities of religious, social and political nature and deport the Islamic "religious leaders," "clerics" and other charlatans. Outlaw Islamic practices such as the burkha and the religious cap and other medieval nonsense.(3) Shut down all madrassahs and Muslim-majority schools and integrate them within mainstream public schools, diverse student and faculty bodies and modern, scientific curriculum.(4) Shut down all mosques and convert the buildings into hospitals or schools - something good.(5) Encourage (not penalize) the criticism of Islam across all media and strata of society. Encourage public debates and encourage society to take this issue head-on.(6) Severely restrict immigration of Muslims - subject applicants to rigorous citizenship tests, socio-cultural integration and an official renunciation of Islam. Deport those who remain loyal to this hate-mongering cult.(7) Encourage government agencies, NGOs, police and human rights groups to scour the length and depth of Muslim society to uncover and remedy the countless incidences of abuses against women, arranged marriages, secretive polygamy and practice of Sharia principles.(8) Last but not least, strip Islam from legal recognition, from government surveys, official sources of information and census. Cease to identify a "Muslim" demographic; factor them out on ethnic and national origin. "Non-religious" or "Agnostic" is certainly better to being identified as a Muslim.(9) Encourage, provide opportunities for former Muslims to progress, obtain more education, become a normal part of a healthy society, instead of being disease-ridden, frothing, rabies-spreading stray dogs living on the mercy and fear of passers-by. Save them from being taken to the pound and the passers-by from being bitten and infected.(10) Point out the obvious - the evil suras of the Qur'an calling for hate and violence, the backward, senseless and abusive laws of the Shariat, the bloody history of Islam (continuing today). Case closed.This can be achieved in European and North American countries, in the South American nations and in yet-to-be-Islamized nations such as India, China, Russia and Southeast Asia. Peaceful but determined agitation and sacrifice from normal people can drown out the cries of "racism" from frothing Muslims. This courage, frankness and determination will force Muslims to shiver and respect the fortitude of the "Kaffirs," those "filthy najis."

hi pholks,it's been awhile

2007-05-10T17:21:00.000-07:00

been pretty busy here...which is a good thing...haven't seen much TV which is also a good thing...Sam lost his taste for tv after he came home from iraq and saw how the news media as a whole was misrepresenting the war so he never got cable when he moved into his new place here....and thusly....no TV..which brings me to....Ft.Dix
it was only a matter of time before something like this popped up...i know lots of fools will blame "our actions" in the middle east...but to those in the know...that's such a cop out...but to illustrate why people do these things i'm going to post a few articles here that illustrate the ideology that inspires people to kill in the name of allah....and dispell a few myths to those with an open enough mind to see them for myths...so here we go

“If Islam were a violent religion, then all Muslims would be violent.”
The Muslim Game:
Most Muslims live peacefully, without harming others, so how can Islam be a violent religion? If Islam were the religion of terrorists, then why aren’t most Muslims terrorists?
The Truth:
Simply put, because it’s wrong to kill people, regardless of what Islam may or may not teach.
All religions align in some form or fashion with intuitive utilitarian principles. Many Muslims in the West often hold an interpretation of Islam that is much closer to Judeo-Christianity than to the actual way of Muhammad, since that is how their religion is presented to them. They only know the biographical details of their prophet that are in line with moral restraint, and not the ones that speak of hedonism, deception, power and violence.
Decent Muslims are that way because they are more loyal to the moral law written in their hearts rather than to the details of Muhammad’s religion. They filter out evidence to the contrary - when they may encounter it - and truly believe that their religion is inclusive of the many freedoms and values that are cherished in the West (perhaps never questioning why they are not found in Muslim lands).
Although it is a broad religion, it is no coincidence that the purists in Islam – those most prone to taking the words of Muhammad literally – are almost always the more dangerous. They may be called ‘extremists’ or ‘fundamentalists,’ but, at the end of the day, they are always the more dedicated to the Qur’an and following the path of Jihad as mandated by Muhammad.
Of course, the same question can easily be turned around. If Islam is a religion of peace, then why is it the only religion that consistently produces religiously-motivated terrorist attacks? Why are thousands of people able to cut off an innocent person’s head or fly a plane into a building while screaming praises to Allah? Where’s the outrage among other Muslims when this happens… and why do they get more worked up over cartoons?

“Other religions kill, too.”
The Muslim Game:
Bringing other religions down to the level of Islam is one of the most popular strategies of Muslim apologists when confronted with the spectacle of Islamic violence. Remember Timothy McVeigh, the Oklahoma City bomber? Why pick on Islam if other religions have the same problems?
The Truth:
Because they don’t.
Regardless of what his birth certificate may or may not have said, Timothy McVeigh was not a religious man. At no time did he credit his deeds to religion, quote Bible verses, or claim that he killed for God.
The so-called “members of other faiths” alluded to by Muslims are nearly always just nominal members who have no active involvement. They are neither inspired by, nor do they credit religion as Muslim terrorists do, and this is what makes it a very different matter.
Islam is associated with Islamic terrorism because that is the association that the terrorists themselves choose to make.
Muslims who compare crime committed by people who happen to be nominal members of other religions to religious terror committed explicitly in the name of Islam are comparing apples to oranges.
Yes, some of the abortion clinic bombers were religious (as Muslims enjoy pointing out), but consider the scope of the problem. There were five deadly attacks over a 35 year period in the U.S. Seven people died. This is an average of one death every five years.
By contrast, Islamic terrorists have staged over seven thousand deadly attacks in just the five years following September 11th, 2001. If one goes back to 1971, when Muslim armies in Bangladesh began the mass slaughter of Hindus, through the years of Jihad in the Sudan, Kashmir and Algeria, and the present-day Sunni-Shia violence in Iraq, the number of innocents killed in the name of Islam probably exceeds five million over this same period.
In the last six years, there have been perhaps a dozen or so religiously-inspired killings by people of all other faiths combined. No other religion produces the killing sprees that Islam does nearly every day of the year. Neither do they have verses in their holy texts that arguably support it. Nor do they have large groups across the globe dedicated to the mass murder of people who worship a different god, as the broader community of believers struggles with ambivalence and a radical clergy that supports the terror.
Muslims may like to pretend that other religions are just as subject to "misinterpretation" as is their “perfect” one, but the reality speaks of something far worse.

Muhammad preached “No compulsion in religion.” (Qur’an, Verse 2:256)
The Muslim Game:
Muslims quote verse 2:256 from the Qur’an to prove what a tolerant religion Islam is. The verse reads in part, “Let there be no compulsion in religion; truth stands out clearly from error…”
The Truth:
The Muslim who offers this verse may or may not understand that it is from one of the earliest Suras (or chapters) from the Medinan period. It was “revealed” at a time when the Muslims had just arrived in Medina after being chased out of Mecca. They needed to stay in the good graces of the stronger tribes around them, many of which were Jewish. It was around this time, for example, that Muhammad decided to have his followers change the direction of their prayer from Mecca to Jerusalem.
But Muslims today pray toward Mecca. The reason for this is that Muhammad issued a later command that abrogated (or nullified) the first. In fact, abrogation is a very important principle to keep in mind when interpreting the Qur’an – and verse 2:256 in particular – because later verses (in chronological terms) are said to abrogate any earlier one with which they contradict.
Muhammad’s message was far closer to peace and tolerance during his early years at Mecca, when he didn’t have an army. This changed dramatically after he attained the power to conquer, which he eventually used with impunity to bring other tribes into the Muslim fold. Contrast verse 2:256 with Suras 9 and 5, which were the last “revealed,” and it is easy to see why Islam has been anything but a religion of peace from the time of Muhammad to the present day.
There is some evidence that verse 2:256 may not have been intended for Muslims at all, but is instead meant to be a message to other religions concerning their treatment of Muslims. Verse 193 of the same Sura instructs Muslims to "fight with them until there is no more persecution and religion is only for Allah." This reinforces the narcissistic nature of Islam, which places Muslims above non-Muslims, and applies very different standards to both groups.
Though many Muslims today reject the practice of outright forcing others into changing their religion, forced conversion has been a part of Islamic history since Muhammad first picked up a sword. As he is recorded in many places as saying, "I have been commanded to fight against people till they testify that there is no god but Allah, that Muhammad is the messenger of Allah..."
Interestingly, even the Muslims who quote 2:256 usually believe in Islamic teachings that sound very much like religious compulsion. These would be the laws punishing apostasy by death, and the institutionalized discrimination against religious minorities under Islamic rule that is sometimes referred to as “dhimmiitude.”
Dhimmitude prohibits non-Muslims from sharing their faith and even includes the extortion of money from them in the form of a tax called the jizya. Those who refuse to pay this arbitrary amount are put to death. If this isn’t compulsion, then what is?

The Crusades
The Muslim Game:
Muslims love talking about the Crusades… and Christians love apologizing for them. To hear both parties tell the story, one would believe that Muslims were just peacefully minding their own business in lands that were legitimately Muslim, when Christian armies decided to wage holy war and "kill millions.”
The Truth:
Every part of this myth is a lie. Even by the rules that Muslims claim for themselves, the Crusades were perfectly justified, and the excesses (though beneath Christian standards) pale in comparison with the historical treatment of conquered populations at the hands of Muslims.
Here are some quick facts…
The first Crusade began in 1095… 460 years after the first Christian city was overrun by Muslim armies, 457 years after Jerusalem was conquered by Muslim armies, 453 years after Egypt was taken by Muslim armies, 443 after Muslims first plundered Italy, 427 years after Muslim armies first laid siege to the Christian capital of Constantinople, 380 years after Spain was conquered by Muslim armies, 363 years after France was first attacked by Muslim armies, 249 years after Rome itself was sacked by a Muslim army, and only after centuries of church burnings, killings, enslavement and forced conversions of Christians.
By the time the Crusades finally began, Muslim armies had conquered two-thirds of the Christian world.
Europe had been harassed by Muslims since the first few years following Muhammad’s death. As early as 652, Muhammad’s followers launched raids on the island of Sicily, waging a full-scale occupation 200 years later that lasted well over two centuries and was punctuated by massacres, such as that at the town of Castrogiovanni, in which 8,000 Christians were put to death. In 1084, ten years before the first crusade, Muslims staged another devastating Sicilian raid, burning churches in Reggio, enslaving monks and raping an abbey of nuns before carrying them into captivity.
In theory, the Crusades were provoked by the harassment of Christian pilgrims from Europe to the Holy Land, in which many were kidnapped, molested, forcibly converted to Islam or even killed. (Compare this to Islam’s justification for slaughter on the basis of Muslims being denied access to the Meccan pilgrimage in Muhammad’s time).
The Crusaders only invaded lands that were Christian. They never attacked Saudi Arabia or sacked Mecca as the Muslims had done (and continued doing) to Italy and Constantinople.
The period of Crusader “occupation” (of its own former land) was stretched over less than two centuries. The Muslim occupation is in its 1,372nd year.
The period of Crusader “aggression” compresses to about 20 years of actual military campaign, much of which was spent on organization and travel. (They were from 1098-1099, 1146-1148, 1188-1192, 1201-1204, 1218-1221, 1228-1229, and 1248-1250). By comparison, the Muslim Jihad against the island of Sicily alone lasted 75 grinding years.
Unlike Jihad, the Crusades were never justified on the basis of New Testament teachings. This is why they are an anomaly, the punctuation of fourteen centuries of relentless Jihad that began long before the Crusades and continued well after they were over.
The greatest crime of the Crusaders was the sacking of Jerusalem, in which 30,000 people were said to have been massacred. This number is dwarfed by the number of Jihad victims, from India to Constantinople and Narbonne, but Muslims have never apologized for their crimes and never will.
What is called 'sin and excess' by other religions, is what Islam refers to as the will of Allah.

"Muhammad never killed anyone.”
The Muslim Game:
In order to give others the impression that Muhammad was a man of peace, Muslims sometimes claim that he never killed anyone. By this, they mean that he never slew anyone with his own hand (except in battle… which they may or may not remember to mention).
The Truth:
By this logic, Hitler never killed anyone either.
Obviously, if you order the execution of prisoners or the murder of critics by those who are under your command, then you are at least as guilty as those who carry out your orders. In Muhammad’s case, the number of people that he had murdered were literally too many for historians to fully know.
There were the men taken prisoner at Badr (including one who cried out for his children at the point of execution), a mother of five (stabbed to death for questioning Muhammad’s claim to be a prophet), dozens of Jewish citizens, including poets and merchants who were accused of mocking Islam, numerous adulterers, at least one slave girl, 800 Qurayza men and boys taken captive and beheaded on Muhammad’s order, and an unfortunate individual who was tortured to death so that the prophet of Islam could discover his hidden treasure and then “marry” his freshly-widowed wife.
Indirectly, Muhammad is also responsible for the millions upon millions of people who have been slaughtered down through the centuries by those carrying on his legacy of Jihad. Not only did he kill, he is truly one of the bloodiest figures in history.

“Just like the Bible, the Qur’an also says ‘Thou Shalt Not Kill.’” (Qur’an, Verse 5:32)
The Muslim Game:
Many Westerners prefer to believe that all religion is either equally bad or equally good, and eagerly devour anything that seems to support this preconception. The myth usually works to Islam’s advantage as well, since it either raises it to the level of others, or brings the others down to it. To compete with Western religion, Muslims vigorously employ verse 5:32, which is the closest thing they have to the Old Testament command of ‘Thou shalt not kill.”
It reads, in part:
“…if any one slew a person… it would be as if he slew a whole people; and if any one saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of a whole people…”. (as quoted by the Fiqh Council of North America in their ultimately meaningless “Fatwa against Terrorism”)
The Truth:
Oh goodness… if only the Qur’an stopped right there! What would the world be like without large numbers of Muslims eager to commit mass murder in the name of their religion across the globe each day? Think of the lives, money and heartache that would be spared if Muhammad had commanded Muslims to cherish human life in the Judeo-Christian tradition
Unfortunately, nothing could be further from the truth. This fragment of verse 5:32 is what Muslim apologists want non-Muslims to believe is in the Qur’an, rather than the dozens of other open-ended passages that command warfare, beheadings and torture. But even what they usually quote from 5:32 isn’t quite how it appears. Remember all those ellipses? There's something being left out.
Here’s the full text of the verse:
“On that account: We ordained for the Children of Israel that if any one slew a person - unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land - it would be as if he slew the whole people: and if any one saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of the whole people. Then although there came to them Our messengers with clear signs, yet, even after that, many of them continued to commit excesses in the land.”
First, notice the gaping loophole. Killing is allowed in cases of murder or “for spreading mischief in the land.” Murder is pretty straightforward, but “spreading mischief?” If anything begged for a careful and precise explanation, this phrase certainly would. But generations of Muslims are left to apply their own interpretation of what “mischief” means. (Needless to say, the standards vary).
Secondly, note the broader context of this verse. It turns out that this isn’t a command to Muslims after all. It’s a recounting of a rule that was handed down to the Jews. It isn’t an admonition against killing. It’s an indictment against Jews for violating God’s law. “Any one” doesn’t mean “anyone,” but rather “any one” of the Jews.
Rather than encouraging tolerance, Sura 5 as a whole is actually an incitement of hatred with a hint of violence. Jews and Christians are explicitly cursed as ‘wicked’ people with ‘diseased hearts’ and as hateful ‘blasphemers,’ respectively. Muhammad goes on to coyly remind his people that Allah loves those who “fight” in his service (and it’s fairly obvious who the enemy is).
Muslims also conveniently leave out the fact that the verse which follows 5:32 actually mandates killing in the case of the aforementioned “mischief.” It even suggests crucifixion and “the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides.”
With this being the best that Islam has to offer, it’s not hard to guess why the religion contributes over a thousand deadly terrorist attacks each year.

“Muslims only kill in self-defense.”
The Muslim Game:
Muslims often claim that their religion only orders them to kill in self-defense (ie. when their own lives are in danger).
The Truth:
In fact, self-defense is is just one of several conditions under which Muslims are permitted to take the lives of others. The myth of killing only in self-defense is easily disproved from the accounts of Muhammad’s own life as recorded in Islam’s sacred texts (with which Muslim terrorists are only too familiar).
Muhammad’s career of killing began with raids on merchant caravans traveling between Syria and Mecca. His men would usually sneak up on unsuspecting drivers and kill those who defended their goods. There was no self-defense involved here at all. This was old-school armed robbery and murder – sanctioned by Allah (according to Muhammad, who also demanded a fifth of the loot).
The very first battle that Muhammad fought was at Badr, when a Meccan army of 300 was sent out to protect the caravans from Muslim raids. The Meccans did not threaten Muhammad, and (turning this Muslim myth on its ear) only fought in self-defense after they were attacked by the Muslims. Following the battle, Muhammad established the practice of executing surrendered captives – something that would be repeated on many other occasions.
The significance of this episode can hardly be overstated, because it lies at the very beginning of the long chain of Muslim violence that eventually passed right through the heart of America on September 11th. The Muslims were not being threatened by those whom they attacked, and certainly not by those whom they had captured. They staged aggressive raids to eventually provoke war, just as al-Qaeda attempts to do in our time.
Muslims try to justify this early violence by claiming that Muhammad and his followers “suffered persecution” at the hands of the Meccans in an earlier episode, in which Muhammad was evicted from the city of Mecca and had to seek refuge at Medina. But even the worst of this persecution did not rise to the level of killing. The only Muslim to have died in Mecca was the elderly mother of a Muslim, and she was said to have been overcome by stress.
Even Muhammad’s own men evidently questioned whether they should be pursuing and killing people who did not pose a threat to them, since it seemed to contradict earlier, more passive teachings. To convince them, Muhammad passed along a timely revelation from Allah stating that “the persecution of Muslims is worse than slaughter [of non-Muslims]” (Sura 2:191). This verse established the tacit principle that the authority of Muslims is of higher value even than the very lives of others. There is no larger context of morality against which acts are judged. The only thing that matters is how an event impacts or benefits Muslims.
Under Muhammad, slaves and poets were executed, captives were beheaded, and adulterers were put into the ground and stoned. None of these were done during the heat of battle or necessitated by self-defense. To this day, Islamic law mandates death for certain crimes such as blasphemy and apostasy.
Following his death, Muhammad’s companions stormed the Christian world - taking the Middle East, North Africa and parts of Europe. They attacked and conquered to the East as well, including Iran, Afghanistan and well into the Indian sub-continent. Few, if any, of these campaigns involved the pretense of self-defense. They were about Jihad.

"The words, ‘Holy War’, aren’t in the Qur’an.”
The Muslim Game:
In early 2005, a well-known Muslim apologist named, Jamal Badawi, offered $1 million to anyone who could prove that the Qur’an contained the words, “Holy War.” Whether he actually had the money to put up is somewhat in question, but his intention was to make people believe that Jihad is not advocated in the Qur’an and that the terrorists are somehow tragically mistaken when they wage their campaigns of holy war in the cause of Islam.
So successful is this myth, that it has been repeated on popular television shows, such as “Criminal Minds.” Many now believe that not only is holy warfare not advocated by the Qur’an, but that the word, “Jihad” must not appear in it either, since Jihad has come to mean “Holy War” (most especially by those who kill in the name of Allah).
The Truth:
In fact, not only is the word “Jihad” mentioned in several places within the Quran, such as the infamous Sura 9 (“Verse of the Sword”), there are over 150 calls to holy war scattered throughout the entire text.
So what’s the catch?
Well, when knowledgeable infidels such as Robert Spencer immediately responded to the challenge and went to collect their prize, Mr. Badawi was forced to reveal the fine print on his offer. You see, he wasn’t talking about the concept of holy war. He only meant the exact Arabic phrase, “Holy War.”
And what about “Jihad?” Well, this doesn’t count, according to Mr. Badawi, because technically it can be used in a context that doesn’t mean ‘holy war’ (even if that is not how it was interpreted in Muhammad’s time, nor in ours). "Jihad" is like the word “fight,” which can be used in a benign sense (as in, “I am fighting a craving to call Mr. Badawi a disingenuous hack”).
If “Jihad” is holy without war, then “Qital” must be war without the holy. It is an Arabic term that literally means to wage military combat. But, like Jihad, it is most certainly used within the context of holy war, such as in Sura 2: “Fight against them until idolatry is no more and religion is only for Allah.” Mr. Badawi is even on record as admitting that Qital can be a form of Jihad… but even this doesn’t qualify according to the niceties of his offer.
So, although the Qur’an tells believers to “slay the infidels wherever ye find them,” and “smite their necks and fingertips,” showing “ruthlessness to unbelievers,” and 150 other violent admonitions to fight explicitly in the cause of Allah… the Arabic words “holy” and “war” don’t literally appear side-by-side. (Neither do the German words, “concentration” and “camp,” appear consecutively in Nazi documents, by the way).
My, what a hollow victory this is. One has to wonder whether Mr. Badawi sincerely believes that he has a point or if he recognizes this for the shameful word game that it is.
At the very least, people should know that “Jihad” is used within the context of religious warfare time and time again throughout the Qur’an and Hadith, and that, regardless of the exact terminology, Islam’s most sacred texts clearly advocate the sort of holy war that propels modern-day terrorism.

“Verses of violence are taken out of context.”
The Muslim Game:
Verses like, “Slay the infidels wherever ye find them,” were issued during times of war, according to the apologists. They accuse critics who use Qur’anic verses to discredit Islam of engaging in “cherry-picking” (pulling verses out of context to support a position, and ignoring others that may mitigate it).
The Muslims who rely on this argument often leave the impression that the Qur’an is full of verses of peace, tolerance and universal brotherhood, with only a small handful that say otherwise. Their gullible audience may also assume that the context of each violent verse is surrounded by obvious constraints in the surrounding text which bind it to a particular place and time (as is the case with many Old Testament passages).
The Truth:
The truth, unfortunately, is just the opposite. This is why new Muslims and non-Muslims alike, who begin studying the Qur’an and Hadith, are often confronted with an array of disclaimers and warnings by well-meaning Muslims who caution that it takes “years of study” to fully understand the meaning of certain passages. Neophytes are encouraged to seek the counseling of a Muslim scholar or cleric to "help them along" with interpreting what they read.
It is not the verses of violence that are rare, however, it is the ones of peace and tolerance. Neither is the “historical context” of these verses of violence at all obvious from the surrounding text (in most cases).
In the Qur’an, ideas and topics often seem to come from nowhere, emerging almost at random in a jumbled mess that bears no consistent or coherent stream of thought. But, with external references to the Hadith and early biographies of Muhammad’s life, it is usually possible to determine when a Qur’anic verse was “handed down from Allah,” and what it may have meant to the Muslims at the time. This is what apologists opportunistically refer to as “historical context.” They contend that such verses are merely a part of history and not intended as imperatives to present-day Muslims.
But “historical context” cuts both ways. If any verse is a product of history, then they all are. Indeed, there is not a verse in the Qur’an that was not given at a particular time to address a particular situation in Muhammad’s life, whether he wanted to conquer the tribe next door and needed a “revelation” from Allah spurring his people to war, or if needed the same type of “revelation” to satisfy his lust for more women (free of complaint from his other wives).
Here is the irony of the “cherry-picking” argument: Those who use “historical context” against their detractors nearly always engage in cherry-picking of their own by choosing which verses they apply “historical context” to and which they prefer to hold above such tactics of mitigation.
Islamic purists do not engage in such games. Not only do they know that the verses of Jihad are more numerous and authoritative (abrogating the earlier ones), they also hold the entire Qur’an to be the eternal and literal word of Allah… and this is what often makes them so dangerous.

"Islam is the world’s fastest growing religion"
The Muslim Game:
How can Islam be a bad religion if it is growing so fast? Doesn’t this mean that it is actually a truthful religion, since so many are accepting it?
The Truth:
In the first place, the truth of an idea or doctrine is never established by mere belief. Up until the last hundred years or so, the vast majority of people on our planet did not even believe that they were on a planet. Nor did they believe that the earth was spinning at a thousand miles an hour or hurtling around the sun at 67,000 miles an hour. Does this mean that the earth wasn’t doing these things up until people believed that it was?
Secondly, Islam is not "growing faster" than other religions because “people are accepting it,” but rather because the birthrate among Muslims is significantly higher than it is among Christians and others, particularly in the West. Kids can be raised to believe in just about anything, so this hardly constitutes any sort of accomplishment.
Of the so-called “converts” from other religions, only a miniscule number were active believers. Nearly all are really just people who have no faith to convert from – regardless of their nominal designation. In the West and non-Muslim Third World, where all religions are allowed to compete equally, such people (who experience a spiritual awakening) are much more likely to turn to Christianity than to Islam.
Finally, the real reason that Islam is making headway in other faiths, while losing few of its own, is actually something that Muslims should feel a sense of embarrassment over, rather than pride. In truth, it speaks more to the insecurity that Muslims have in their own religion, and the banal immaturity that Islam has, compared with other faiths.
Let’s say that you are playing chess with a 6-year-old boy. Instead of following the same set of rules, however, the child is allowed to make up rules that are preferential to him. One of the rules he decides on is that you aren’t allowed to make any moves in his half of the board, but he is allowed to make moves in yours. Another might be that it is impossible for any of his pieces to be taken.
Now, if the child is winning the game – which is assured by the conditions that he has imposed - is it really something in which he can take true pride?
The rules that Muslims impose on the “conversion game” are almost exactly like this chess analogy. Other religions are not allowed to operate in Islam’s own territory (ie. preaching their faith and evangelizing) as Muslims are in others. Neither is conversion away from Islam allowed – on penalty of death.
Watching Muslims gloat over being the “fastest growing religion” is no different than watching a child delude themselves into thinking that they are smarter and better for “beating” a much wiser adult in a game played under manufactured conditions that render the artificial “victory” entirely meaningless.
Islam has been playing by its own rules since its inception. It is unlikely that Muslims will soon develop the confidence in their own religion (or the necessary social maturity) to lift the shameful restrictions to which it owes its success and risk competition with other faiths on a level playing field.
As was first mentioned, the truth of a belief or creed is never established by how many followers it has. But when a religion has to be supported by double standards and death threats, there is all the more reason to doubt its veracity.
(Note: Our article does not take issue with the claim that Islam is the fastest growing religion, not because we necessarily believe it, but because others have done a better job of refuting it. See Islam is not the Fastest Growing Religion in the World for an example.)
TheReligionofPeace.com Home Page

Muslims often complain of the popular "misconceptions" about their religion in the West.
We took a hard look, however, and found that the most deeply held myths of Islam are the ones generated by Muslims and other advocates. The only glaring exception to this is the misconception that all Muslims are alike (they aren't), but even Muslims fall into this trap as well, as evidenced by the various contrary factions insisting that they are the true Muslims, while others are either infidels, hijackers, or hypocrites.
Don't be fooled! Hear the myths, but know the truth.
Islam Means 'Peace'
Islam respects Women as Equals
Jihad Means 'Inner Struggle'
Islam is a Religion of Peace
Islam is Tolerant of Other Religions
Islam Facilitated a 'Golden Age' of Scientific Discovery
Islam is Opposed to Slavery
Islam is Incompatible with Terrorism
Islam is a Democracy

Islam Means ‘Peace’
The Myth:
Lesser educated Muslims sometimes claim that the root word of Islam is “al-Salaam,” which is “peace” in Arabic.
The Truth:
The root word for Islam is “al-Silm,” which means “submission” or “surrender.” There is no controversy about this among Islamic scholars.
Submission and peace can be very different concepts, even if a form of peace is often brought about through forcing others into submission.
In truth, the Qur’an not only calls Muslims to submit to Allah, it also commands them to subdue people of other religions until they are in a full state of submission to Islamic rule. This has inspired the aggressive history of Islam and its success in conquering other cultures.

Islam Respects Women as Equals
The Myth:
The Qur’an places men and women on equal foundation before Allah. Each person is judged according to his or her own deeds. Women have equal rights under Islamic law.
The Truth:
Merely stating that individuals will be judged as such by Allah does not mean that they have equal rights and roles, or that they are judged by the same standards. In fact, Sura 37:22-23 implies that women will be punished on Judgment Day for sins committed by their husbands.
There is no ambiguity in the Qur’an, the life of Muhammad, or Islamic law as to the inferiority of women to men, despite the efforts of modern-day apologists to salvage Western-style feminism from scraps and fragments of verses that have historically held no such progressive interpretation.
After military conquests, Muhammad would dole out captured women as war prizes to his men. In at least one case, he advocated that they be raped in front of their husbands. Captured women were made into sex slaves by the very men who killed their husbands and brothers. There are at least three Qur’anic verses in which Allah makes it clear that a Muslim master has full sexual access to his female slaves, yet there is not one that prohibits rape.
The Qur’an gives Muslim men permission to beat their wives for disobedience. It plainly says that husbands are “a degree above” wives. The Hadith says that women are intellectually inferior, and that they comprise the majority of Hell’s occupants.
Under Islamic law, a man may divorce his wife at the drop of a hat. If he wishes to remarry her, then she must first have sex with another man. Men are exempt from such degradations.
Muslim women are not free to marry whomever they please, as are Muslim men. Their husband may bring other wives into the marriage bed. She must be sexually available to him at all times (as a field ready to be “tilled,” according to the holy book of Islam).
Muslim women do not inherit property in equal portions to males. Their testimony in court is considered to be worth only half that of a man’s. Unlike a man, she must cover her head and often her face.
If a woman wants to prove that she was raped, then there must be four male witnesses to corroborate her account. Otherwise she will be jailed or stoned to death for confessing to “adultery.”
Given all of this, it is quite a stretch to say that men and women have “equality under Islam” based on obscure theological analogies or comparisons. This is an entirely new stratagem that is designed to appeal to modern tastes, but is in sharp disagreement with the reality of Islamic law and history.
Further Reading from the Qur'an:
Veils Women Worth Less than Men Proving Rape under Islamic Law Wife-Beating Divorce - A Man's Prerogative Remarriage Men in Charge of Women Polygamy
Jihad Means 'Inner Struggle'

The Myth:
Islam’s Western apologists sometimes claim that since the Arabic word, Jihad, literally means “fight” or “struggle,” it refers to an “inner struggle” rather than holy war.
The Truth:
This is extremely difficult to reconcile with the Qur’an, which, for example, exempted the disabled and elderly from Jihad. This would make no sense if the word is being used merely within the context of spiritual struggle. It is also unclear why Muhammad would use graphic language, such as smiting fingers and heads from the hands and necks of unbelievers if he were speaking merely of personal development.
With this in mind, Muslims themselves usually admit that there are two meanings to the word, but insist that “inner struggle” is the “greater Jihad,” whereas “holy war” is the “lesser.” In fact, this misconception is based only on a tiny handful of extremely weak and unreliable hadith.
By contrast, the most reliable of all Hadith is that of Bukhari. The word, Jihad, is mentioned over 200 times in reference to the words of Muhammad and each one is a clear connotation to holy war. By contrast, Bukhari does not contain a single reference to Jihad within the context of “personal struggle.”

Islam is a Religion of Peace
The Myth:
Muhammad was a peaceful man who taught his followers to be the same. Muslims lived peacefully for centuries, only fighting in self-defense when it was necessary. True Muslims would never act aggressively.
The Truth:
Muhammad organized 65 military campaigns in the last ten years of his life and personally led 27 of them. The more power that he attained, the smaller the excuse needed to go to battle, until finally he began attacking tribes merely because they were not part of his growing empire.
After Muhammad’s death, his most faithful followers and even his own family turned on each other almost immediately. There were four Caliphs (leaders) in the first twenty-five years. Three of the four were murdered. The third Caliph was murdered by the son of the first. The fourth Caliph was murdered by the fifth, who left a 100-year dynasty that was ended in a gruesome, widespread bloodbath by descendents of Muhammad’s uncle.
Muhammad’s own daughter, Fatima, and his son-in-law, Ali, who both survived the pagan hardship during the Meccan years safe and sound, did not survive Islam after the death of Muhammad. Fatima died of stress from persecution within three months, and Ali was later assassinated. Their son (Muhammad’s grandson) was killed in battle with the faction that became today’s Sunnis. His people became Shias. The relatives and personal friends of Muhammad were mixed into both warring groups, which then fractured further into hostile sub-divisions as Islam grew.
Muhammad left his men with instructions to take the battle against the Christians, Persians and Jews. For the next four centuries, Muslim armies steamrolled over unsuspecting neighbors, plundering them of loot and slaves, and forcing the survivors to either convert or pay tribute at the point of a sword.
Companions of Muhammad lived to see Islam declare war on every major religion in the world in just the first few decades following his death - pressing the Jihad against Hindus, Christians, Jews, Zoroastrians, and Buddhists.
By the time of the Crusades (when the Europeans began fighting back), Muslims had conquered two-thirds of the Christian world by the sword, from Spain to Syria, and across North Africa. The Arab slave-trading routes would stay open for another 1300 years, until pressure from Christian-based countries forced Islamic nations to declare the practice illegal (in theory).
Today, there is not another religion in the world that consistently produces terrorism in the name of religion as does Islam. The most dangerous Muslims are nearly always those who interpret the Qur’an most strictly. They are the fundamentalists or purists of the faith, and believe in Muhammad’s mandate to spread Islamic rule by the sword, putting to death those who will not submit.
The holy texts of Islam are saturated with verses of violence and hatred toward those outside the faith. In sharp contrast to the Bible, which generally moves from relatively violent passages to far more peaceful ones, the Qur’an travels the exact opposite path. The handful of earlier verses that speak of tolerance are overwhelmed by an avalanche of later ones that carry a much different message. While Old Testament verses of blood and guts are generally bound by historical context within the text itself, Quranic imperatives to violence usually appear open-ended.
By any objective measure, the "Religion of Peace" has been the harshest, bloodiest religion the world has ever known.
Further Reading:
The Life of Muhammad: An Inconvenient Truth Muslim Terror from 9/11 through 2003 Muslim Terror in 2004 Muslim Terror in 2005 Muslim Terror in 2006 In the Name of Allah

Islam is Tolerant of Other Religions
The Myth:
Religious minorities have flourished under Islam. Muslims are commanded to protect Jew and Christians (the People of the Book) and to do them no harm.
The Truth:
Religious minorities have not “flourished” under Islam. In fact, they have dwindled to mere shadows after centuries of persecution and discrimination. Some were converted from their native religion by brute force, others under the agonizing strain of dhimmitude.
What Muslims call “tolerance,” others correctly identify as institutionalized discrimination. The consignment of Jews and Christians to dhimmis under Islamic rule means that they are not allowed the same religious rights and freedoms as Muslims. They cannot share their faith, for example, or build houses of worship without permission.
Historically, dhimmis have often had to wear distinguishing clothing or cut their hair in a particular manner that indicates their position of inferiority and humiliation. They do not share the same legal rights as Muslims, and must even pay a poll tax (the jizya). They are to be killed or have their children taken from them if they cannot satisfy the tax collector’s requirements.
For hundreds of years, the Christian population in occupied Europe had their sons taken away and forcibly converted into Muslim warriors (known as Jannisaries) by the Ottoman Turks.
It is under this burden of discrimination and third-class status that so many converted to Islam over the centuries. Those who didn’t often faced economic and social hardships that persist to this day and are appalling by Western standards of true religious tolerance and pluralism.
For those who are not “the People of the Book,” such as Hindus and atheists, there is very little tolerance to be found once Islam establishes political superiority. The Qur’an tells Muslims to “fight in the way of Allah” until “religion is only for Allah.” The conquered populations face death if they do not establish regular prayer and charity in the Islamic tradition (ie. the pillars of Islam).
Tamerlane and other Muslim warriors slaughtered hundreds of thousands of Hindus and Buddhists, as well as displacing or forcibly converting millions more over the last thousand years.At best, Islam has a dual personality toward other religions. In some places they are explicitly cursed by Allah, in others there appears to be a measure of tolerance shown. There are about 500 verses in the Qur’an that speak of Allah’s hatred for non-Muslims and the punishment that he has prepared for their unbelief. There is also a tiny handful that say otherwise, but these are mostly earlier verses that many scholars consider to be abrogated by the later, more violent ones.
If tolerance simply means discouraging the mass slaughter of those of a different faith, then today's Islam generally meets this standard more often than not. But, if tolerance means allowing people of other faiths the same religious liberties that Muslims enjoy, then Islam is fundamentally the most intolerant religion under the sun.

Islam and the “Golden Age” of Scientific Discovery
The Myth:
Muslims often claim that their religion fostered a rich heritage of scientific discovery, “paving the way” for modern advances in technology and medicine. On this topic, they usually refer to the period between the 7th and 13th centuries, when Europe was experiencing its “Dark Ages” and the Muslim world was conquering new populations and culture.
The Truth:
Although there is no arguing that the Muslim world was more advanced during this period than the “Christian” world, the reasons for this have absolutely nothing to do with the Islamic religion (other than its mandate for military expansion). In fact, the religion actively discourages knowledge outside of itself, which is why the greatest Muslim scholars throughout history tend to be students of religion rather than science.
First, the Muslim world benefited greatly from the Greek sciences. To their credit, Muslims did a better job of preserving Greek text than did the Christians of the time, and this became the foundation for their own knowledge.
Secondly, many of the scientific advances credited to Islam were actually “borrowed” from other cultures conquered by the Muslims. The algebraic concept of “zero”, for example, is erroneously attributed to Islam, but it was, in fact, created by the Hindus and merely introduced to the West by Muslims - along with the products of other cultures that were found to be useful to their new rulers.
In fact, conquered populations contributed greatly to the history of “Muslim science” until gradually being decimated by conversion to Islam (under the pressures of dhimmitude). The Muslim concentration within a population is inversely proportional to the decline of scientific achievement. It is no accident that the Muslim world has had little to show for itself in the last 600 years or so, since running out of new civilizations to cannibalize.
Third, even the great Muslim scientists and icons were often considered heretics at the time, sometimes for good reason. One of the greatest achievers to come out of the Muslim world was the Iranian scientist and philosopher, al-Razi. His impressive works are often held up today as “proof” of Muslim accomplishment. But what the apologists often leave out is that al-Razi was denounced as a blasphemer, since he followed his own religious beliefs – which were in obvious contradiction to traditional Islam.
Fourth, even the contributions that are attributed to Islam (often inaccurately) are not terribly dramatic. There is the invention of certain words, such as alchemy and elixir, but not much else that survives in modern technology that is of any practical significance. Neither is there any reason to believe that such discoveries would not have easily been made by the West following the cultural awakening triggered by the Reformation.
As an example of this, consider that Muslims claim credit for coffee, since the beans were discovered in Africa (at the time, an important source for Islamic slave trading) and first processed in the Middle East. While this is true, it is also true that the red dye used in many food products, from cranberry juice to candy, comes from the abdomen of a particular female beetle found in South America. It is extremely unlikely that the West would not have stumbled across coffee by now (although, to be fair, coffee probably expedited subsequent discoveries).
In fact, the litany of “Muslim” achievement often takes the form of rhapsody, in which the true origins of these discoveries are omitted - along with their comparative significance to Western achievement. Scientific, medical and technological accomplishments are not something over which Muslim apologists want to get into a pissing contest with the Christian world. Today’s Islamic innovators are known merely for turning Western technology, such as cell phones and airplanes, into instruments of mass murder.
To sum up, although the Islamic religion is not entirely hostile to science, neither should it be confused as a facilitator. The great achievements that are said to have come out of the Islamic world were made either by non-Muslims who happened to be under Islamic rule, or by heretics who usually had little interest in Islam. Scientific discovery tapers off dramatically as Islam asserts dominance, until it eventually peters out altogether.

Islam is Opposed to Slavery
The Myth:
Islam is intolerant of enslaving human beings. The religion eradicated the institution of slavery thanks to the principles set in motion by Muhammad, who was an abolitionist.
The Truth:
There is not the least bit of intolerance for slavery anywhere in the Qur’an. In fact, the “holy” book of Islam explicitly gives slave-owners the freedom to sexually exploit their slaves – not just in one place, but in at least four separate Suras. Islamic law is littered with rules concerning the treatment of slaves, some of which are relatively humane, but none that prohibit the actual practice by any stretch.
The very presence of these rules (along with the fact that Muhammad owned and traded slaves) condones and legitimizes the institution of slavery. As such, this deeply dehumanizing horror has been a ubiquitous tradition of Islam since the days of Muhammad to the current plight of non-Muslims in the Sudan, Mali, Niger and Mauritania, as well as other parts of the Muslim world.
There has never been an abolitionary movement within Islam (just as the religion produces no organized resistance to present-day enslavement). The abolition of slavery was imposed on the Islamic world by European countries, along with other political pressures that were entirely unrelated to Islamic law.
Although horrible abuses of slaves in the Muslim world were recorded, there has been little inclination toward the documentation and earnest contrition that one finds in the West. The absence of a guilty conscience often leads to the mistaken impression that slavery was not as bad under Islam... when it is actually indicative of the tolerance that the religion has for the practice
So narcissistic is the effect of Islam on the devoted, that to this day many Muslims believe in their hearts that the women and children carried off in battle, and their surviving men folk, were actually done a favor by the Muslim warriors who plucked them from their fields and homes and relegated them to lives of demeaning servitude.
Shame and apology, no matter how appropriate, are almost never to be found in Dar al-Islam. Caliphs, the religious equivalent of popes, maintained harems of hundreds, sometimes thousands of young girls and women captured from lands as far away as Europe and consigned to sexual slavery. Hungarians were hunted like animals by the Turks, who carried 3 million into slavery over a 150 year period.
African slaves were often castrated by their Muslim masters. Few survived to reproduce, which is why there are not many people of African descent living in the Middle East, even though more slaves were taken out of Africa in the 1300 years of Arab slave trading than in the 300 years of European slavery. The 400,000 slaves brought to America, for example, have now become a community of 30 million, with a much higher standard of living than their African peers.
There is no William Wilberforce or Bartoleme de las Casas in Islamic history as there is in Christianity. When asked to produce the name of a Muslim abolitionist, apologists sometimes meekly suggest Muhammad himself. But, if a slave owner and trader, who commanded the capture and sexual exploitation of slaves, and left a 13-century legacy of religiously-based slavery, is the best that Islam can offer, then no amount of sophistry will be enough to convince any but the most ignorant.
Further Reading:
Slavery in Islam

Islam is Completely Incompatible with Terrorism
The Myth:
Islam is completely incompatible with acts of terrorism. It is against Islam to kill innocent people.
The Truth:
Even though many Muslims earnestly believe that their religion prohibits the killing of innocent people by acts of terrorism, the truth is certainly more complicated. This is why the Jihadis and their detractors are both able to point fingers at the other, while confidently insisting that they are the true Muslims.
In fact, the definition of an “innocent person” is far more ambiguous in Islam than Muslim apologists will lead others to believe. So, also, is the definition of terrorism.
First, consider that anyone who rejects Muhammad is not considered to be innocent under Islamic law. The most protected and respected of all non-Muslims are the dhimma, the “people of the book.” These would specifically be Jews and Christians who agree to Islamic rule and pay the jizya (tribute to Muslims). Yet, the word “dhimmi” comes from the Arabic root meaning “guilt.”
So, if even the dhimma have a measure of guilt attached to their status (by virtue of having rejected Allah’s full truth), then how can non-Muslims who oppose Islamic rule or refuse to pay the jizya be considered “innocent?”
Within the Islamic community itself there is a category of Muslims who are also said to bear guilt – greater even than the average non-believer. These are the hypocrites, or “Munafiqin,” whom Muhammad referred to in the most derogatory terms. A hypocrite is considered to be a Muslim in name only. They are distinguished either by an unwillingness to wage holy war or by an intention to corrupt the community of believers.
In addition to the murky definition of innocence, there is also the problem of distinguishing terrorism from holy war. Islamic terrorists never refer to themselves as terrorists, but always as holy warriors (Mujahideen, Shahid, or Fedayeen). They consider their acts to be a form of Jihad.
Holy war is something that Muhammad commanded in the Qur’an and Hadith. In Sura 9:29, he establishes the principle that unbelievers should be fought until they either convert to Islam or accept a state of humiliation under Islamic subjugation. This is confirmed in the Hadith by both Sahih Muslim and Bukhari.
In many places, the prophet of Islam says that Jihad is the ideal path for a Muslim, and that believers should “fight in the way of Allah.” There are dozens of open-ended passages in the Qur’an that exhort killing and fighting – far more than ones of peace and tolerance. It is somewhat naïve to think that their inclusion was of historical value only and not intended to be of relevance to present-day believers, particularly when there is little to nothing within the text that distinguishes them in such fashion.
Combine the Qur’anic exhortation to holy war with the ambiguity of innocence, and a monumental problem develops that cannot be covered over by mere semantics. Not only is there a deep tolerance for violence in Islam, but also a sharp disagreement and lack of clarity over the conditions that justify this violence... and just whom the targets may be.
Even many Muslims who claim to be against terrorism still support the “insurgency” in Iraq, for example, and often entertain the allegation that there is a broader “war against Islam.” Although the Americans in Iraq are trying to protect innocent life and help the country rebuild, Muslims around the world and in the West believe that it is legitimate for Sunnis to try and kill them.
Enjoying the sanction of holy war, the Mujahid reasons that it is permissible to attack fellow Iraqis – the ones helping the Americans… even if they are a democratically-elected government. These non-combatants and combatants alike are believed to be the “Munafiqin” assisting the enemy “Crusaders.”
Although we use Iraq as an example here, this is the same rationale that is ultimately behind all Islamic terror, from the Philippines to Thailand. Wherever the religion of Islam is a minority, there are always radicals who believe that violence is justified in bringing it to dominance - just as Muhammad taught by example in places like Mecca and the land of al-Hirath.
And what of the so-called “innocents” who suffer from the bombings and shootings? Even in Muhammad’s time they were unavoidable. The much-touted hadith in which Muhammad forbade the killing of women also indicates that there were such casualties in his conflicts.
If there is any doubt that he believed that the forbidden is sometimes necessary, it should be put to rest by an incident in which Muhammad's men warned him that a planned night raid against an enemy camp would mean that women and children would be killed. He merely replied “they are of them,” meaning the men.
This is the slippery slope that is opened by the sanction of holy war. What starts out as the noble cause of self-defense against a perceived threat gradually devolves into a "let Allah sort them out" campaign through a series of logical steps that are ultimately justified by the sublime goal of Islamic rule.
Islam is not intended to co-exist as an equal with other religions. It is to be the dominant religion, with Sharia as the supreme law. Islamic rule is to be extended to the ends of the earth, and resistance is to be dealt with by any means necessary.
Apologists in the West often shrug off the Qur'an's many verses of violence by saying that they are only relevant in a “time of war.”
To this, Islamic terrorists would agree. They are at war.

Islam is a Democracy
The Myth:
Islam is compatible with democratic principles. The religion itself is a democracy.
The Truth:
A democracy is a system in which all people are judged as equals before the law, regardless of race, religion or gender. The vote of every individual counts as much as the vote of any other. The collective will of the people then determines the rules of society.
Under Islamic law, only Muslim males enjoy full rights. The standing of a woman is often half that of a man's - sometimes even less. Non-Muslims have no standing with a Muslim.
The Islamic state is guided by Islamic law, derived from the Qur'an and Sunnah. A body of clerics interprets the law and applies it to all circumstances social, cultural and political. The people are never to be placed above the Qur'an and Sunnah any more than man should be above Allah.
It is somewhat debatable as to whether there are any states in the Muslim world that qualify as actual democracies. There is no denying, however, that the tiny handful that are often held up as democratic nations are ones in which deep tension exists between the government and religious leaders, as the later often complain that it is an idolatrous system imposed on them.
Islam does not facilitate democracy.
Further Reading:
Democracy and Islam Loyalty to a Non-Muslim Government
TheReligionofPeace.com Home Page

chew on that for a little bit pholks...

we mourn the loss of another good friend

2007-04-08T04:45:00.000-07:00

My return to NH is a bitter sweet one...spot is no longer with us..she will be greatly missed...she was our 1st kitty and was with us for 16 yrs...we had to let her go on friday :(
the rest of the gang ( george,phydeaux,and geusseppi ) are all well and happy to see me...it was only two weeks but i missed them a great deal...and to my wife...i missed you the most :)
it's sunday here and i'm sitting here typing away..letting chris sleep...shedding a tear for spot and feeling a little strange about being home that's not home anymore...
On another note...i am no longer addicted to nicotine...after a month and three weeks...i am done with the patch and ciggy's forever ( i've been off the patch for a week and a half ) i had some fairly strong cravings for a ciggy on the ride up from VA yesterday but they passed like the miles of highway i was driving on ( quickly)
I have some pics of the drive down and the drive back up here that I will post here for grins and giggles...some now and some when i get back down to NC...time to wake up chris and spend what limited time i have with her today and tonight with her instead of in front of the computer....till i have more time to type....i bid you all farewell !!!

on a different subject

2007-03-11T10:07:00.001-07:00

I am a warrior.
I served this country during the last days of the cold war...i supported reagan...he made his mistakes...(as has every single pres. we've ever had )
i was prepared to defend my state and country with my life as i am now....the threat is a different one but the same net affect will occur if this enemy wins...oppression...vitual or not so virtual slavery for those who do not submit...
i have always supported free speech inspite of the fact that a great many things people say an do ( i.e. burning the flag )offend me...i will fight for the right to DO that...i supported clinton..in fact you could say i became a liberal...he passed a bill that i thought was unconstitutional....the assault weapons ban....he downsized the military to a point that it will take years to rebuild...yet i still believed in the overall "liberal" message...the tables have turned for me now
what i see coming from the liberal camp frightens me....a group that espoused free speech in the 60's and 70's now is trying to eliminate it...by labeling speech "hate speech" when ever a group or individual says something a liberal doesn't like it's labeled as hate speech....that should be banned....what happened ? what happened to burning the flag is freedom of expression ( which they still consider it) and speaking out against islam is hatespeech? why is calling john edwards a faggot hatespeech....it was a school yard taunt ( everyone knows edwards is married and has children ) faggot means nothing more to me than a different word for pussy...or wussy....or wimp and after his reply to anne coulter...i now think he IS a faggot....anne coulters remarks were innappropriate but not hate speech....i didn't see minions of "right wingers" heading out to lynch or shoot edwards....so NO it wasn't hatespeech or inciteful speech....
with the current political environs here to see average americans rise up wouldn't suprise me....
despite the fact that I can't stand the religious right in this country ....I have become a member of the "right" you can thank the behaviour of people like edwards...pelosi....conyers...ellison....clinton ( hillary) for my change of heart
i have found a renewed interest in shooting...partly because it's just plain fun....and partly because never in my life have I felt the need to be able to protect myself and mine...it's pretty sad that i should even consider that a reason to own a gun...i also find it sad that I may ever have to use it to defend myself or others....but it is becoming that kind of enviroment....i dread they day that my gun will be fired in anger....but there's a good chance it will be if current trend stay in place .these people never place the blame where it needs to be placed...for example....when given the chance to vote for stiffer penalties for criminal acts commited with firearms...they pass on it in favor of taking guns away from law abiding citizens...instead of examining islam to find out what the root causes of terrorism are...they blame bush, israel and people who print cartoons for inciting violence....they demand tolerance of intolerable behaviour
they allow hatespeech to pour forth from the mouths of imams without speaking out against it....but if billy graham says being gay is a sin they spare no expense to denounce him as an intolerable jackass ( which by the way I think he is ) there is a serious double standard here....if glenn beck says something about islam he's an islamaphobe and intolerant...if a muslim cab driver refuses to pick up a gay man or lesbian or someone carrying a sealed bottle of wine or a blind man with a seeing eye dog he is practicing his religion and if we don't allow him to practice his "religion" we are intolerant and racist...( if we allow them this anti social behaviour we are allowing them to be intolerant and bigoted at our expense) do you not see the injustice there?
where's the protection of free expression and free speech when some poor conservative college students are face possibly legal action for stepping on a hezbollah flag at a demonstration on a college campus in CA and the students who's flag they stepped on were busy calling jews and christians sons of pigs and apes? oh...i see....it's free speech if one group is doing it and hatespeech if another is doing it....I gotcha
so if john edwards had called anne coulter a dikey cunt...it would have been free speech but since she's a conservative...her calling him a faggot ( I.E. a wimp or pussy ) is hatespeech and it should be banned
a large vocal portion of the liberal set doesn't see this as wrong and I don't get it....it's pure logic to me...
is it that many liberals just attack anything they deem as a conservative opinion just because it's considered conservative? do they really believe that shit they shovel?is it that they just can't admit that maybe some of their liberal views ( see above) were wrong?
I dunno what's up....i do know i'm sick of americans bashing america....i could care less what other countries think of us....wait till shit hits the fan and see how much they like us ( europe is going to be in big trouble in a few years....it already is...but just wait
all you folks out there that belive the current liberal definition of "hatespeech" and that it's unamerican....need to re examine what our constitution says on this subject and many other including the 2nd amendment and stop trying to do what the religious right has been doing to our laws....I.E. change them and our basics right outlined in the constitution....with the religious right i am refering to gay marriage and the abortion thing....there's nothing in our constitution that says two men or two women can't get married.....and roe v wade decided the abortion issue years ago....stop trying to chane it back....and to all you lefties out there....stop trying to take away or redefine free speech.....and our right to keep and bear arms...it is that right that has kept our country free from foreign invasion since the war of 1812.....we need thos erights now more than ever because we ARE under invasion not by a foreign power but by a deceptive violent cult who is playing the devide and conquer game with us like they have with many other cultures in the past
lets wake up folks....we need to defend ourselve both ideologically and physically
islam needs to be hammered for the ideology that drives it forward and it needs to be shown that despite our flaws....theirs is not acceptable....and we need to be allowed our constitutional freedoms to defend ourselves....the recent shooting in utah by a serbian muslim and the shooting in the jewish center in CA are both good examples of why it's so important for law abiding citizens to be able to defend themselves physically ( which if pressed...I will do.....with precision and no remorse )
i guess to summerise this lil ole dissertation here i'll just say....i'm really bummed out about the state of affairs in the liberal community these days.....you've made me swing the opposite direction....i'll never be a part of the religious right here....but i can now safely say i'm not liberal anymore....i'm right of center.. and maybe even right
i always disliked the religious right and still do...but i now sympathise with some of their issues because of the way the lefties work and the fact that the things they find important issues are beyond my realm of logical thinking (the straw that broke the camels final vertabrea was the response to bill maher interview with ayan hersi ali and the responses to it by some "liberal thinkers" calling him a right winger in disguise...and that he betrayed liberal ideals by having that right wing nut job ayan on his show.... one would have thought that a smart guy like bill might have actually won some people over with having her on his show....but alas...he was instead attacked.....for shame liberals...you've lost another soldier :( i am officially no longer a liberal )

why ellison bugs the shit out of me...i'm so sick of the incestuous behaviour of muslims

2007-03-11T09:56:00.000-07:00

i was raised to believe that all people were created equal and that all religions were pretty much the same..it's become clear to me over the last 3 or so years that I've been studying islam... that all people and religions are not created equal...christianity is silly...but the roots of the teachings of jesus are solid...not so with the teachings of mohammed...the jews gave up on prozeletizing by force or other methods long before jesus came along...and despite the fact that a great deal of the old testament is full of some heinous stuff....the quran took that heinous stuff....twisted it...modified christianity to suit the islamic agenda and never looked backlet me remind you all of something....mo was a robber...an assasin...a pedophile...a lier...and an opportunist who never lost out on an opportunity to change his teaching to suit his mood or needs....i HATE mo and hate his violent followers and i hate what he preached...he was a false prophet that has doomed many of his own followers to needless death....and far too many non muslims will pay that price too....i don't look at my bashing of islam as spreading hate....i look at it as a way to save the saveable followers of a monster and help save the west from itself in relation to islam...we will only survive this if we know our enemy.....mohammed and his unholy book the quran

Keith Ellison’s offended foot-soldiers and what didn’t offend the Muslims?
by Alamgir Hussain
01 Feb, 2007
Warning the world about the dangers of 'radical Islam' by former Islamic terrorists offends Muslims but preaching of extreme hatred and exhortation to violence against the Western people and society by Imams doesn't.

Three former Islamic militants from the Middle East, Walid Shoebat, Kamal Saleem, and Zachariah Anani, now reformed and warning the West of the danger of radical Islam, were to speak at the University of Michigan yesterday (30th January) in a public forum, billed as “The 3 Ex-Terrorists.” They have fought for the militant wing of PLO in Palestine and had participated in acts of violence and terrorism against Israel. Shoebat is reported to have had bombed Israeli Bank as a teenager. Anani was a teen militia fighter, where he was trained to kill Jews and claims to have killed 223 people, according to www.3xterrorists.com.
As usual the proposed forum offended the Muslims. Digital50.com reports that Anani is under death threat for his plan to participate in the event.
According to a Detroit Free Press report, speaking about the danger of radical Islam is also a form of hate to the Muslims. The head of the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC), Imad Hamad, said “this is another form of hate…in the name of fighting terrorism.”‘
Hamad met today with university officials to express the community’s concern about the event.
Keith Davies, organizer of the program, however, disregarded Mr. Hamad’s concerns asserting: “It has nothing to do with hatred of any certain people, but there’s a certain ideology we have a problem with, and that’s what we need to expose.”
ADC also questioned whether it’s possible to reform a terrorist. “If they were once terrorists”, the ADC said, “they should always be treated as terrorists” as reported in DetNews.com.
The strangest fact is that ADC head Hamad Hamad is reported to have “been promoting the terrorist cause by supporting Hamas and Hezbollah in media interviews.” The same ADC had earlier sponsored a Hamas/Hezbollah conference targeted against Israel in the same campus.
Hamad was also a suspected member of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP), the Communist faction of Palestinian terrorism, responsible for countless homicide bombings and the assassination of Israeli Tourism Minister Rehavam Zeevi in October, 2001. [Digital50.com]
However, little did the organizers know that they cannot disregard the concerns and discontent of the Muslims so easily! Michigan Daily reprted about 300 local Arabs and Muslims from the neighboring Dearborn flooded the building to protest against holding the forum. The discussion was finally conducted amid disruptions by hecklers, shouting and a staged walkout by the protesters. This whole episode clearly points to how the familiar scenes of the Islamic countries in religiously sensitive issues are being cloned by the Muslims in the heart of the Western world.
Yet, it is worthwhile to take stock of what other issues across the Western world that did not offend the Muslims over the last couple of weeks. First, Taj ed-Din al-Hilai, the Egyptian-born chief Imam of Australia’s biggest mosque in Sydney, raised furor by claiming that the Muslim immigrants in Australia have grater rights there than the white Aussies, who descended from the convicts as reported by Reuters on 12 January, 2007. Also dubbed as the ‘uncovered meat’ Imam after he had raised another outcry last year by calling the liberally dressed Australian women as ‘uncovered meat’ who tempts men to raping them, he further slammed the Australian as the “biggest liars” who are bent on “bringing the Muslim community on its knees” – referring to the uproar over his ‘uncovered meat’ comment.
The replacement cleric at Mufti Hilali’s Lakemba mosques, Yahya Safi, gave the last Friday’s sermon, stirring his own controversy. Hilali’s understudy, is reported to have offered prayers “for our brothers in Iraq”, appealing to God to destroy the enemies of Islam. “God destroy the oppressors, destroy the aggressors, destroy the hypocrites, destroy the despotic tyrants,” read the sermon.
Within a week, another firebrand Islamic top Imam, Lebanese-born Sheikh Feiz, was found to preach violence and hatred in DVDs which were in sale in Muslim shops in Australia. The Cleric called the children to violent Jihad against infidels, urged Muslims to kill the enemies of Islam and praised the dead in Jihad as the martyrs. He further describes “the inmates of Guantanamo Bay as better Muslims than those in Australia, who would not forsake their lifestyles for martyrdom.” as reported in Townsville Bulletin on 20 Jan, 2007.
Yet again another Indonesian firebrand cleric, Dr Ismail Yusanto, outlined his plan for instituting Sharia laws, the absolute form of Islam, to a crowd of about 500 Muslims gathered at the Islamic Khilafah Conference in Lakemba. He urged his audience that violent Jihad or civil war may be necessary to institute such an Islamic superstate (caliphate). Spilling blood on the streets would be necessary. “No pain, no gain”, he said according to a report in News.com.au on 28 Jan, 2007.
Then over in Europe, undercover cameramen of UK’s Channel 4 recorded video statements of top Imams, known to promote moderate Islam, preaching extreme hatred towards the British people and culture. Channel 4 Dispatches, dated 15th January, report the video “captures chilling sermons in which Saudi-trained preachers proclaim the supremacy of Islam, preach hatred for non-Muslims and for Muslims who do not follow their extreme beliefs - and predict a coming jihad. “An army of Muslims will arise,” announces one preacher. Another preacher said British Muslims must “dismantle” British democracy - they must “live like a state within a state” until they are “strong enough to take over.”
Such preaching of extreme hatred and violence by the respectable Islamic clerics against the people and society that have offered them a “good life” across Australia and Europe did not offend the Muslims at all. Only after a media outcry, some meek condemnations were widely circulated in the Media which is nothing but a tactical damage control exercise by some deceptive Muslims. We have never seen a big group of Muslims heading to the hate-preaching Imam’s mosque to stage a demonstration, submit a letter for the Imam’s resignation or stage walkout from prayers or abstain from taking part in it in any of the mosque. Neither any demonstrations nor protests were held at the residence of the concerned clerics.
Let us recall here that the first Muslim congressman Keith Ellison, who created a storm by demanding and persisting on taking oath by the Koran, had the excited the same Muslims of Dearborn in December 2006 in his mission of instituting justice in America. Detroit Free Press reported Mr. Ellison, who thinks that America does not have justice and equal protection to citizens, addressed a Muslim conference in Michigan on 23-24 Dec, 2006 as follows: ”Muslims can help teach America about justice and equal protection”, suggesting that Muslim activists may be part of God’s plan.
In his firm plan to institute Allah’s justice and truth in the American soil, he exhorted the Muslim crowd: “How do you know that you were not brought right here to this place to learn how to make this world better? How do you know that Allah, sallalahu aleyhi wasallam,” (meaning peace be upon him) “did not bring you here so that you could understand how to teach people what tolerance was, what justice was?… How do you know that you’re not here to teach this country?”
Mr. Ellison further exhorted the Muslim audience to strive hard with faith in Allah to institute the perfect justice: “You can’t back down, you can’t chicken out, you can’t be afraid, you got to have faith in Allah, and you got to stand up and be a real Muslim.”
The same Dearborn Muslims, ecstatic with inspiration, had roared: “Allahu akbar” (Allah is great).
The latest incidence in Michigan University campus is probably the first sign of how Muslims are going to the bring justice and equality to the American soil as espoused by Keith Ellison. The Congressman, who firmly believes Muslims came here with a mission from Allah, must be delighted about the fact that his Muslim foot-soldiers undertook the cause of his mission almost forthwith.
The ‘Three ex-terrorists’ should not grudge about failing to hold the talk smoothly. They should, instead, hope for more such botched programs to send their message to Westerners much more effectively.

this one speaks for itself

2007-03-11T09:48:00.001-07:00

By Janet LevyFrontPageMagazine.com February 1, 2007
[Editor's note: In a previous version of this article run on Jan. 31, 2007, the author claimed that Dr. Laura Schlessinger apologized to CAIR. This is not the case. In fact, Dr. Schlessinger has stood her ground against CAIR's attempts to intimidate her. We regret the error.]
Over the last two weeks, Muslim organizations with questionable ties to terrorist groups have unleashed criticism and a storm of verbal attacks against California’s U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer, KRLA radio talk show host Dennis Prager, CNN television commentator Glenn Beck, and the FOX executives who make the hit television show “24.” All have been charged by the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC), and the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC) with “Islamophobia” and anti-Muslim and anti-Arab prejudice. The Muslim groups have claimed that Muslim civil liberties have been infringed and interfaith relations damaged as result of various actions and broadcasts.
These organizations have called for Sen. Boxer to reissue an award she rescinded to a Sacramento Islamic activist. They have requested that scheduled speaking engagements be restructured; they have organized a nationwide opposition campaign, and they have demanded censure of a TV program storyline. These four, recent efforts by ostensibly “mainstream” Muslim organizations to censure prominent public figures and edit media content is part of a pattern of activism that far exceeds the more reasonable efforts of other religious and civil rights groups. The efforts represent, not simply assertions of opposing views, but covert attempts to silence the discourse on Islam and squelch efforts to educate the public about terrorist activities and subversive organizations. They represent the subterfuge at the heart of radicalized followers of the Islam, which seek, not peaceful coexistence within a diverse society, but the destruction of democracy and all our religious freedoms in order to secure the dominance of their religion.
Attacks on Boxer

The first incident involving Sen. Boxer arose after the senator rescinded an award given to a CAIR chapter executive in early January. She had reviewed online accounts that linked the organization to terrorist entities. CAIR with 32 chapters nationwide and in Canada, bills itself as “America’s largest Islamic civil liberties group.” Sen. Boxer discovered that CAIR members have been sentenced to prison for conspiracy to support terrorist activities and that they have refused to denounce Hamas and Hezbollah as terrorist organizations.

Nihad Awad, CAIR’s national director, claimed that Boxer succumbed to right-wing pressure and that her actions amounted to guilt by association. He complained that it was unfair to hold the organization, “a proponent of civil rights for Muslim Americans,” accountable for the actions of a few individuals. Sen. Boxer met with a CAIR delegation last week but refused to reinstate the award. Although a CAIR press release said that the group and Boxer will continue to work together to encourage dialogue, protect civil liberties and build coalitions for justice and mutual understanding, staff members at four of Boxer’s offices declined to confirm whether the senator plans to work with CAIR.

Despite attempts to portray itself as a moderate, mainstream organization, CAIR has a long-standing history of support for terrorism. In 1993, FBI surveillance uncovered that CAIR founders attended an organizational meeting to assist fundraising efforts for the Hamas terrorist group. In 1998, CAIR’s co-founder, Omar Ahmed, told an audience in Fremont, California, that “Islam isn’t in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant.” “The Koran should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on Earth,” Ahmed said then.

Also in 1998, CAIR co-hosted a rally at Brooklyn College in which radical leaders called for “jihad” and referred to Jews as “pigs and monkeys.” Today, CAIR routinely defends Muslims suspected of suspicious or illegal behaviors. The organization recently sought special state provisions to allow Muslim cab drivers to bar passengers carrying alcohol and those with seeing eye dogs. CAIR retained legal counsel and called for an airline boycott when Muslim clerics were recently removed from a U.S. Airways flight after their aggressive behavior aroused suspicions.

Attacks on Prager

More recently, CAIR joined MPAC in the second of four recent attempts to silence the discourse on Islam, this time focusing on a radio talk show host. Both organizations urged a Los Angeles-area Jewish group to invite a Muslim representative to “balance” an event featuring popular talk show host, Dennis Prager. CAIR and MPAC called Prager “Islamophobic,” because of a recent Prager opinion piece calling for newly-elected Congressman Keith Ellison, D-MN, to abide by the American tradition of being sworn into office using the Bible. Ellison, a Muslim, opted for the Koran.

Prager suggested both tomes should be used because of the symbolism inherent in the Bible. The Bible has been used for years in swearing in ceremonies to symbolize acceptance of Judeo-Christian values and principles that underpin U.S. laws, Prager argued. Any newly elected official of any religious faith unwilling to acknowledge the role of the Bible shouldn’t serve in Congress, he opined.

Although Prager focused on the symbolism of the Bible and didn’t specifically criticize Islam, CAIR and MPAC used this example to cast him as an “Islamophobe” and called for his removal from the United States Holocaust Memorial Council. Prager “displayed an intolerance toward Islam that makes him inappropriate to serve on the council,” CAIR wrote.

A close look at Congressman Ellison’s background may explain why CAIR and MPAC have championed his cause and it raises legitimate concerns about his ties to the Nation of Islam, CAIR and the strength of his allegiance to the American constitution. Ellison admits to a brief involvement with the Nation of Islam, but his activities under the aliases of Keith Hakim, Keith X Ellison, and Keith Ellison-Muhammad point to a more extensive period of activity with the anti-Semitic, radical group. Ellison appeared at an unpublicized fundraiser with CAIR executive director and Hamas supporter Nihad Awad and accepted financial support from CAIR for his campaign. He has been a recent speaker at annual conventions for the Muslim American Society, which is allied with the Muslim Brotherhood and the Islamic Circle of North America, which is allied with Islamic militant movements in Pakistan and Bangladesh.

Furthermore, Ellison’s election success was cheered to shouts of “Allahu-Akbar” by his constituents, a phrase known to Westerners as a chant preceding the beheading of an infidel. Ellison’s use of Thomas Jefferson’s Koran for his swearing-in ceremony was a duplicitous publicity stunt in which he falsely proclaimed Jefferson’s religious tolerance. In fact, Jefferson owned the Koran to study the enemy during America’s first war with Islamic terrorists who robbed and enslaved European and American sailors in the late eighteenth century on the Barbary Coast.

Attacks on Beck

Another attempt by Muslim activists to silence a broadcast commentator occurred Jan. 23, when MPAC and the ADC issued a press release opposing ABC’s decision to hire Glenn Beck as a regular commentator on “Good Morning America.”

Beck’s shows provide decidedly unconventional news analysis, eschewing political correctness and featuring up close and personal perspectives. Beck contends that explicit discussions about Muslim extremism are not taking place in America for fear of repercussions and charges of bigotry. He has shown clips of Muslim extremists spouting anti-American, anti-Christian, and anti-Jewish rhetoric; videos of suicide bombers preparing for martyrdom; and footage of children being groomed for jihad and indoctrinated in a culture of hate.

Beck has said that he fears Americans are not taking the threat of Islamic extremism seriously, that Arab and Muslim Americans are apathetic to terrorism, and that dire need for the kind of programming he provides exists. As a result, he is being targeted for educating viewers about the threat of radical Islam and the manifestations of jihad in the Western world.

Faced with the possibility of Beck appearing on national television, MPAC and the ADC requested a meeting with network executives. They accused Beck of demonstrating “an obvious anti-Muslim and anti-Arab prejudice in his broadcasts through threats and blatantly inaccurate statements.” They deemed his hiring as tacit network approval of “dangerous and irresponsible” hate speech and providing of a platform for its expression.

Yet, criticism of Beck and his editorial content come from groups that do not fare well upon closer examination. MPAC presents itself as an organization that embraces American values and believes in peaceful coexistence with Jews and Christians. In fact, it is closely tied to the Muslim Brotherhood and espouses the radical ideology of Islam known as Wahhabism. MPAC falsely claims that Muslim extremists are no more numerous than fundamentalists in other faiths. The organization has referred to the terrorist group, Hezbollah, as a “liberation movement” and called the terrorist bombing of the U.S. Marine barracks in Lebanon in 1983 a “military operation.” Further, MPAC has declared that Hamas is a political entity that provides social and educational programs. Hours after the 9/11 attacks, MPAC co-founder Salam Al-Marayati suggested on a Los Angeles-based talk radio program that the State of Israel could have been behind the attacks.

Meanwhile, the ADC, which purports to be a non-religious civil rights group, was a plaintiff in the first major legal challenge to the Patriot Act. It has depicted all Justice and Treasury Department anti-terrorism efforts as unfair and ethnically-biased discrimination. Since 9/11, the ADC has vigorously fought against racial profiling and has made public accusations of Israeli control of U.S. military operations.

Attacks on “24”

Finally, Muslim groups have not stopped with criticism of politicians and commentators. They have leveled their sights against entertainment offerings as well by focusing on the Fox Broadcasting network’s television show “24.”

Although the show depicts terrorists of many ethnic groups, CAIR recently criticized the show’s creators for fueling anti-Muslim prejudice with its latest storyline showing Islamic terrorists detonating a nuclear bomb in Los Angeles.

CAIR charged that such episodes encourage racial hatred and negatively affect viewer attitudes on civil liberties and religious freedom. Fox rejected the criticism, denied singling out any particular group as villains and will broadcast the season’s episodes as planned. But, though the series has featured terrorists who are Germans, Russians, Americans and Baltic Europeans, only Muslims are privileged with a disclaimer preceding each episode at CAIR’s insistence.

A pattern of attacks

These four incidents are just the latest in series of efforts by CAIR, MPAC, the ADC and other radical Muslim groups to effectively employ intimidation to shut down discussion, stop criticism and win special concessions for perceived “Islamophobia.” The groups have used the threat of legal action and concomitant negative publicity to browbeat media personalities, government officials and corporations into paroxysms of contrition. In this era of political correctness where a charge of bigotry trumps all crimes, they have won apologies from talk radio veterans like Paul Harvey and been instrumental in the firing of WMAL host Michael Graham.

CAIR and other extremist Muslim groups have used economic actions, including boycotts and pressuring of major advertisers. Prior to winning a public apology and recompense from U.S. Airways when the provocative behavior of six imams alarmed passengers, CAIR threatened to boycott the airline. When Muslim groups charged that featuring Serge Trifkovic’s book “The Sword of the Prophet” on National Review Online defamed Islam, they pressured the Boeing Corporation to revoke its advertising commitments from the online journal. Last year, fear of violence was sufficient intimidation to prevent U.S. publishing of European cartoons about Mohammed. Although other religions are routinely lampooned in political cartoons across the country, not a single major American news outlet dared to publish the caricatures of Mohammed.

The failure to stand firm against this type of subterfuge undermines our constitutional rights and ultimately our national security by silencing important discourse and questions about Islam. By not engaging in the debate that must take place to face this threat, we are aiding and abetting its cultural infiltration into all aspects of our society. The Islam of the Koran, as practiced by radical Muslims, is an intolerant religion which enforces a code of barbarism where women and non-Muslims are second-class citizens, homosexuals and adulterers are stoned to death, suspected thieves face amputations, daughters who “dishonor” their families are murdered, apostates are killed and religious practice is enforced by police.

Quite clearly, our view of Islam and Muslims emanates principally from the worldwide actions of its dominant followers and not those who are merely alerting us to the threat. Surely we are aware that not all Muslims are terrorists, but that most terrorists are Muslims. It is high time that we openly acknowledge the fact that many ingredients of Islam are a serious threat to America and antithetical to the precepts of democracy.

Click Here to support Frontpagemag.com.

this should raise your eyebrows a bit

2007-03-11T09:26:00.001-07:00

Should we worry about a Bosnian Muslim massacring people in Trolley Square?
Mary Mostert Mary MostertFebruary 15, 2007On Monday, the day the mass murderer Sulejman Talovic gunned down nine unsuspecting shoppers in Trolley Square Mall in Salt Lake City, Utah, five of whom died instantly, every report was calling it a "massacre." Salt Lake City Police Detective Robin Snyder observed: "We're just trying to figure out where it started and why this happened. There was one shooter. We have no indication that anyone else was involved in this. That shooter is dead." Eyewitnesses described the gunman as "white, in his 20s, about 6 feet tall, with brown hair." The New York Post headlines screamed "UTAH MADMAN GUNS DOWN FIVE."The following day, Sulejeman Talovic, 18, who came to Utah in 1998 as a Muslim Refugee from Bosnia with his parents was identified the murderer. As soon as it was discovered that the murderer was not a "Utah Madman" but was, in fact, a Muslim from Bosnia, the word "massacre" was dropped from every headline. By Wednesday we were being urged to feel sorry for Suljeman Tavolvic because, according to the Associated Press report, his Bosnian friend Murat Avdic was "convinced the war in Talovic's homeland somehow contributed to the Utah rampage, especially the 1995 slaughter of 8,000 Muslim men and boys by Serb forces in the northeastern enclave of Srebrenica." Sulejman had been in Srebrenica about two years before the massacre occurred, Avdic said.On Wednesday the Associated Press reported, worldwide, "Little new information was released by police regarding what may have prompted Talovic to go on his shooting rampage. 'There is still no known motive,' said Salt Lake City police detective Robin Snyder. Snyder said nothing had been completely ruled in or out yet as a motive. Addressing concerns from some in the public that Talovic's Muslim beliefs may have played a role, she said there was still no evidence pointing either way as to whether that was the case.The AP also reported that FBI agent Patrick Kiernan in Salt Lake City said the bureau had "no reason to believe Sulejman Talovic, who was killed by police, was motivated by religious extremism or an act of terrorism. It's just unexplainable," Kiernan said Wednesday. "He was just walking around and shooting everybody he saw."Then CNN reported that according to Sulejman's cousin, Radzo Talovic, the young man was a "survivor of the siege that ended in the Srebrenica massacre of 8,000 Muslims in Bosnia's 1992-95 war" and that he and his family fled to Srebrenica where they during which Bosnian Serb forces besieged the enclave and Talovic's grandfather was killed by shellfire. When the Bosnian Serbs overran the town of Srebrenica in 1995, taking away and massacring some 8,000 Muslim men and boys, Talovic and his mother were evacuated by the United Nations and later reunited with his father."That immediately made me wonder if Sulejman's father was one of the 3000 supposedly massacred Muslim men who have since VOTED in Srebrenica elections. Redzo Talovic went on to of Sulejman and his family:"They were a good, quiet family, and I remember that he was a nice kid ...No one could have supposed that he was going to do such a thing,. Who knows what made him do that?" Redzo Talovic went on to suggest that it perhaps was caused by "childhood memories of wartime Bosnia."The "official" story about Srebrenica, sold to the world by Bosnian Muslims, was that the Serbs out of the clear blue sky attacked the "UN safe haven city" of Srebrenica and massacred 8000 men and boys." Only, the actual body count was about 2500. A reported 3000 of the 8000 massacred Bosnian Muslims have since voted in Bosnian elections. I've been researching and writing about this for 10 years. It seems that the "unarmed" men in Srebrenica had actually been plundering, raiding and killing Serbs in nearby villages for years prior to the supposed "Srebrenica massacre" of 1995. In fact, by 1995, more than 100 Serb villages were destroyed and about 2000 Serbian civilians were killed.Since Americans were getting nearly all of this story at the time from CNN, and their reporter in Bosnia was Christiane Amanpour, a Muslim, they never heard that part of the story. Before I knew she was a Muslim, I got curious as to why CNN never ONCE interviewed a Serb during the Bosnia war that I started researching. In 1996 I wrote an article titled "Ethnic Cleansing under NATO's Watchful Eye in Bosnia — Where are the missing 150,000 Serbs?"In May of 2005 I wrote an article titled: Correcting the Lies about a Great WW II Hero, about the Serb WWII general, Draza Mihailovic, who had been awarded America's Legion of Merit by President Harry Truman for saving the lives of over 500 American airmen shot down over Yugoslavia in World War II. As WWII ended, Mihailovic was executed by the Communists under Tito and the medal was never given to him or his family. It was finally given to his daughter by the Bush administration 60 years later in 2005.Most Americans have either forgotten or never knew that the Bosnian Muslims and Albanians, and the Croatians were all ardent supporters of Adolf Hitler during WWII, while the Serbs, who were on our side, suffered more than a million deaths in the Holocaust at the hands of the Croatians (and Tito was a Croatian), Albanians and Bosnians. The Jasenovac concentration camp in Croatia killed 600,000 Serbs, Jews and Gypsies (Roma).I received some very nasty e-mail about that article from Bosnian Muslims, some of whom personally threatened me. It is my policy to respond to e-mail comments on my articles, whether people love or hate what I say. One of the Bosnian Muslims who was really angry about that Legion of Merit was Almir Ramic, who claimed he was an employee of the United Nations in Srebrenica at the time the Serbs attacked. In an e-mail exchange with me Ramic made a statement I'd never read or heard ANYWHERE. He said the Bosnians at Srebrencia had been armed by UN personnel. We were told they were unarmed, which made the deaths a "massacre."I posted the exchange of e-mail, and it is still posted in my archives with the title: Former UN Employee Admits UN Armed Srebrenica Muslims He said that the armed men of Srebrenica, fled from the city WITH their weapons — leaving their women and children behind. The Serbs did not harm the women and children, but did put them in trucks and sent them after their fleeing menfolk.In July of 2005, on the 10th year anniversary of to so-called Srebrenica Massacre, Alex, a Serb reader in Belgrade provided me additional information that Americans have never been told which I posted and titled The Massacre and the Missing Bodies — Srebrenica, 10 years on.We have just experienced here in Utah the largest mass murder in the history of our State, committed by a Bosnian Muslim who, we are told by other Bosnian Muslims, was a "good boy" and therefore we shouldn't be concerned about Bosnian Muslims in our midst or possible terrorism in our State.Really, now? I wonder what their definition of a "bad boy" would be? Perhaps the Serbs might know.
Mary Mostert is a nationally-respected political writer. She was one of the first female political commentators to be published in a major metropolitan newspaper in the 1960s. After working in President Lyndon Johnson's failed War on Poverty programs in New York state, she became a Republican. She ran, unsuccessfully, for the New York State Senate and became campaign manager for a number of candidates. She once served as the secretary of "Positive Action NOW!"--a South African women's group that sought to reduce the hostility among South Africa's various racial, religious, and political groups.In recent years, Mary has researched, written, and edited articles for national talk show host Michael Reagan's Information Interchange on the Internet, and for The REAGAN MONITOR, a monthly newsletter that provides in-depth information on key issues. Her book, COMING HOME - Families Can Stop the Unraveling of America," was published in 1996 by Gold Leaf Press. Mary maintains a political media site, Banner of Liberty. She can be contacted at
mary@bannerofliberty.com
. Click here for more information.© Copyright 2007 by Mary Mosterthttp://www.renewamerica.us/columns/mostert/070215